Conference Coverage

Many of the persistent problems that breast cancer survivors experience after treatment are not part of the conversation with oncologists during treatment, said Patricia A. Ganz, MD, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

Several studies suggest that many breast cancer patients are not well prepared to move forward after a breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatments, continued Dr. Ganz, who works at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.

Meeting the survivorship needs of breast cancer patients requires addressing both their physical and psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz said. She explained how to achieve that, but first pointed to research elaborating on what's missing from some breast cancer survivors' care and barriers to these patients having their variety of health-related needs met.

In a 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Survivorship, Dr. Ganz and colleagues conducted a survey of approximately 200 medical oncologists in the United States. They determined that less than 50% provide survivorship care plans to patients at the end of treatment or communicate with patients’ other physicians about follow-up care.

In a secondary analysis of data from the same survey published in 2022 in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Dr. Ganz and colleagues examined medical oncologists’ perceived barriers to addressing both physical and psychosocial long-term effects in breast cancer survivors. For both, lack of time was the greatest perceived barrier, cited by nearly two-thirds of oncologists. Other barriers to addressing physical effects included lack of evidence-based, effective interventions, lack of clinical algorithms to guide care, and ambiguity regarding professional responsibility at the end of treatment. Other top barriers to addressing psychosocial issues included lack of mental health providers, lack of psychosocial resources, and lack of clinician knowledge and skills.

Data from additional studies suggest that, overall, cancer patients with greater physical burdens, such as more complex and lengthy treatment regimens, also have greater psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz noted. Plus, approximately 15%-20% of cancer survivors have ongoing anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Shift to primary care

As more breast cancer and other cancer patients survive for longer periods, more care will likely occur in general medical settings, Dr. Ganz said. Issues to be addressed will include the potential increased risk of comorbid conditions for these survivors, and whether survivorship interventions earlier in the disease trajectory will impact survivorship. For cancer patients who achieve remission after treatment, the first 5 years after a diagnosis involves treatment and short-term surveillance for late effects. Beyond 5 years, care for cancer survivors mainly involves primary care and management of any comorbid conditions, as well as surveillance for late effects and recurrences, and awareness of new research.

A patient consultation early in the process after diagnosis is the start of a continuum of care, Dr. Ganz said. A patient consultation should address symptoms related to initial treatments, such as neuropathy, pain, fatigue, and insomnia, as well as the psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression. An early consultation also should evaluate adherence to endocrine therapy and management of symptoms, if needed, with the larger goal of preparing patients for recovery and the transition to survivorship, and what to expect for long-term follow-up.
 

Delivering the three P’s

The “Three P’s” of survivor care for breast cancer patients are palliation, prevention, and promotion of health, according to Dr. Ganz .

The first “P,” for palliative, is a key part of survivorship care, said Dr. Ganz. Palliative care is defined as care that focuses on reducing symptom severity and improving quality of life. The biological effects of cancer treatment can be associated with physical effects, such as functional limitations and frailty, and behavioral/cognitive effects such as depression, fatigue, and cognitive deficits, she said. To manage these effects and provide palliative care, consultation is needed with specialists in relevant areas including mental health, pain management, physical medicine/rehabilitation, endocrinology, cardiology, and neurology.

The second “P,” which is for prevention in survivorship care, refers to ongoing follow-up screening to identify any potentially serious late-onset complications such as osteoporosis or cardiac disease so they can be addressed, said Dr. Ganz. Other considerations include chemoprevention if available and genetic counseling for patients with hereditary cancers. Prevention also includes counseling patients about lifestyle modifications to help prevent additional cancer.

The goal of the third “P,” which is for health promotion, is to promote risk reduction for the health problems associated with accelerated aging that may arise in cancer survivors, said Dr. Ganz.

Health promotion strategies include maintaining a healthy weight, increasing physical activity, and avoiding harmful exposures, she said. Healthy lifestyle interventions can also reduce the risk of other chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

To that end, Dr. Ganz outlined several behavioral interventions that may mitigate the effects of cancer treatment on the accelerated aging process, including stress reduction in the form of meditation or yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, improving sleep, increasing physical activity, reducing obesity, and decreasing tobacco and alcohol use. These interventions may help reduce inflammation and promote tissue repair and healing.

For cancer survivors, the life span may be longer than the health span, and these patients may benefit from an integrated model of care, with systematic screening and consolidated appointments, rather than a fragmented model in which departments and referrals are siloed, which may result in conflicting advice or redundancy, said Dr. Ganz.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to explore models of care delivery, as requirements for survivor care will vary among patients and care settings, Dr. Ganz said.

However, regardless of setting, treatment plans and shared decision-making can help reduce potential long-term or late-emerging effects, she said. Developing a survivorship care plan can help patients learn how to enhance their recovery.

During a question and answer session, Dr. Ganz was asked about whether hormone therapy could be used for patients with hormone negative breast cancer. “I think vaginal estrogen can be used if someone is on tamoxifen,” she said. However, “we need to be cautious” in case there are remaining estrogen positive cells, in order to avoid potential metastases, and use of hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors is an individualized decision based in part on quality of life.
 

Engaging a patient’s partner early can be helpful

If possible, engage the patient’s partner in survivorship discussions, said Luzia Travado, PhD, head of psycho-oncology at the Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, who presented on the topic of sexuality and commented on survivorship during the discussion. For those women with partners, engaging the partner early in treatment often means they are more likely to play a larger role in the post treatment and long term by providing stability and emotional support.

“Make sure partners are engaged and understand that they have a role, and that this role is valued,” she said. Unfortunately, there are a lot of divorced women with breast cancer, as the disease can take a toll on relationships. However, remember “sexuality is not just sex; it is caring, loving, and intimacy.”

“To end on a positive note, it is important to empower patients, and to give them self-management skills so they can make things even better in their survivorship,” said Dr. Ganz. In spite of discussing difficulties and challenges, one of the goals of the session was to offer potential solutions and answers.

Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as editor of the cancer survivorship section on Up-to-Date, and serving as a consultant for Blue Note Therapeutics, GRAIL, InformedDNA, and Roche-Genentech. Dr. Travado had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Many of the persistent problems that breast cancer survivors experience after treatment are not part of the conversation with oncologists during treatment, said Patricia A. Ganz, MD, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

Several studies suggest that many breast cancer patients are not well prepared to move forward after a breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatments, continued Dr. Ganz, who works at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.

Meeting the survivorship needs of breast cancer patients requires addressing both their physical and psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz said. She explained how to achieve that, but first pointed to research elaborating on what's missing from some breast cancer survivors' care and barriers to these patients having their variety of health-related needs met.

In a 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Survivorship, Dr. Ganz and colleagues conducted a survey of approximately 200 medical oncologists in the United States. They determined that less than 50% provide survivorship care plans to patients at the end of treatment or communicate with patients’ other physicians about follow-up care.

In a secondary analysis of data from the same survey published in 2022 in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Dr. Ganz and colleagues examined medical oncologists’ perceived barriers to addressing both physical and psychosocial long-term effects in breast cancer survivors. For both, lack of time was the greatest perceived barrier, cited by nearly two-thirds of oncologists. Other barriers to addressing physical effects included lack of evidence-based, effective interventions, lack of clinical algorithms to guide care, and ambiguity regarding professional responsibility at the end of treatment. Other top barriers to addressing psychosocial issues included lack of mental health providers, lack of psychosocial resources, and lack of clinician knowledge and skills.

Data from additional studies suggest that, overall, cancer patients with greater physical burdens, such as more complex and lengthy treatment regimens, also have greater psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz noted. Plus, approximately 15%-20% of cancer survivors have ongoing anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Shift to primary care

As more breast cancer and other cancer patients survive for longer periods, more care will likely occur in general medical settings, Dr. Ganz said. Issues to be addressed will include the potential increased risk of comorbid conditions for these survivors, and whether survivorship interventions earlier in the disease trajectory will impact survivorship. For cancer patients who achieve remission after treatment, the first 5 years after a diagnosis involves treatment and short-term surveillance for late effects. Beyond 5 years, care for cancer survivors mainly involves primary care and management of any comorbid conditions, as well as surveillance for late effects and recurrences, and awareness of new research.

A patient consultation early in the process after diagnosis is the start of a continuum of care, Dr. Ganz said. A patient consultation should address symptoms related to initial treatments, such as neuropathy, pain, fatigue, and insomnia, as well as the psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression. An early consultation also should evaluate adherence to endocrine therapy and management of symptoms, if needed, with the larger goal of preparing patients for recovery and the transition to survivorship, and what to expect for long-term follow-up.
 

Delivering the three P’s

The “Three P’s” of survivor care for breast cancer patients are palliation, prevention, and promotion of health, according to Dr. Ganz .

The first “P,” for palliative, is a key part of survivorship care, said Dr. Ganz. Palliative care is defined as care that focuses on reducing symptom severity and improving quality of life. The biological effects of cancer treatment can be associated with physical effects, such as functional limitations and frailty, and behavioral/cognitive effects such as depression, fatigue, and cognitive deficits, she said. To manage these effects and provide palliative care, consultation is needed with specialists in relevant areas including mental health, pain management, physical medicine/rehabilitation, endocrinology, cardiology, and neurology.

The second “P,” which is for prevention in survivorship care, refers to ongoing follow-up screening to identify any potentially serious late-onset complications such as osteoporosis or cardiac disease so they can be addressed, said Dr. Ganz. Other considerations include chemoprevention if available and genetic counseling for patients with hereditary cancers. Prevention also includes counseling patients about lifestyle modifications to help prevent additional cancer.

The goal of the third “P,” which is for health promotion, is to promote risk reduction for the health problems associated with accelerated aging that may arise in cancer survivors, said Dr. Ganz.

Health promotion strategies include maintaining a healthy weight, increasing physical activity, and avoiding harmful exposures, she said. Healthy lifestyle interventions can also reduce the risk of other chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

To that end, Dr. Ganz outlined several behavioral interventions that may mitigate the effects of cancer treatment on the accelerated aging process, including stress reduction in the form of meditation or yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, improving sleep, increasing physical activity, reducing obesity, and decreasing tobacco and alcohol use. These interventions may help reduce inflammation and promote tissue repair and healing.

For cancer survivors, the life span may be longer than the health span, and these patients may benefit from an integrated model of care, with systematic screening and consolidated appointments, rather than a fragmented model in which departments and referrals are siloed, which may result in conflicting advice or redundancy, said Dr. Ganz.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to explore models of care delivery, as requirements for survivor care will vary among patients and care settings, Dr. Ganz said.

However, regardless of setting, treatment plans and shared decision-making can help reduce potential long-term or late-emerging effects, she said. Developing a survivorship care plan can help patients learn how to enhance their recovery.

During a question and answer session, Dr. Ganz was asked about whether hormone therapy could be used for patients with hormone negative breast cancer. “I think vaginal estrogen can be used if someone is on tamoxifen,” she said. However, “we need to be cautious” in case there are remaining estrogen positive cells, in order to avoid potential metastases, and use of hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors is an individualized decision based in part on quality of life.
 

Engaging a patient’s partner early can be helpful

If possible, engage the patient’s partner in survivorship discussions, said Luzia Travado, PhD, head of psycho-oncology at the Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, who presented on the topic of sexuality and commented on survivorship during the discussion. For those women with partners, engaging the partner early in treatment often means they are more likely to play a larger role in the post treatment and long term by providing stability and emotional support.

“Make sure partners are engaged and understand that they have a role, and that this role is valued,” she said. Unfortunately, there are a lot of divorced women with breast cancer, as the disease can take a toll on relationships. However, remember “sexuality is not just sex; it is caring, loving, and intimacy.”

“To end on a positive note, it is important to empower patients, and to give them self-management skills so they can make things even better in their survivorship,” said Dr. Ganz. In spite of discussing difficulties and challenges, one of the goals of the session was to offer potential solutions and answers.

Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as editor of the cancer survivorship section on Up-to-Date, and serving as a consultant for Blue Note Therapeutics, GRAIL, InformedDNA, and Roche-Genentech. Dr. Travado had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Many of the persistent problems that breast cancer survivors experience after treatment are not part of the conversation with oncologists during treatment, said Patricia A. Ganz, MD, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

Several studies suggest that many breast cancer patients are not well prepared to move forward after a breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatments, continued Dr. Ganz, who works at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.

Meeting the survivorship needs of breast cancer patients requires addressing both their physical and psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz said. She explained how to achieve that, but first pointed to research elaborating on what's missing from some breast cancer survivors' care and barriers to these patients having their variety of health-related needs met.

In a 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Survivorship, Dr. Ganz and colleagues conducted a survey of approximately 200 medical oncologists in the United States. They determined that less than 50% provide survivorship care plans to patients at the end of treatment or communicate with patients’ other physicians about follow-up care.

In a secondary analysis of data from the same survey published in 2022 in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Dr. Ganz and colleagues examined medical oncologists’ perceived barriers to addressing both physical and psychosocial long-term effects in breast cancer survivors. For both, lack of time was the greatest perceived barrier, cited by nearly two-thirds of oncologists. Other barriers to addressing physical effects included lack of evidence-based, effective interventions, lack of clinical algorithms to guide care, and ambiguity regarding professional responsibility at the end of treatment. Other top barriers to addressing psychosocial issues included lack of mental health providers, lack of psychosocial resources, and lack of clinician knowledge and skills.

Data from additional studies suggest that, overall, cancer patients with greater physical burdens, such as more complex and lengthy treatment regimens, also have greater psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz noted. Plus, approximately 15%-20% of cancer survivors have ongoing anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Shift to primary care

As more breast cancer and other cancer patients survive for longer periods, more care will likely occur in general medical settings, Dr. Ganz said. Issues to be addressed will include the potential increased risk of comorbid conditions for these survivors, and whether survivorship interventions earlier in the disease trajectory will impact survivorship. For cancer patients who achieve remission after treatment, the first 5 years after a diagnosis involves treatment and short-term surveillance for late effects. Beyond 5 years, care for cancer survivors mainly involves primary care and management of any comorbid conditions, as well as surveillance for late effects and recurrences, and awareness of new research.

A patient consultation early in the process after diagnosis is the start of a continuum of care, Dr. Ganz said. A patient consultation should address symptoms related to initial treatments, such as neuropathy, pain, fatigue, and insomnia, as well as the psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression. An early consultation also should evaluate adherence to endocrine therapy and management of symptoms, if needed, with the larger goal of preparing patients for recovery and the transition to survivorship, and what to expect for long-term follow-up.
 

Delivering the three P’s

The “Three P’s” of survivor care for breast cancer patients are palliation, prevention, and promotion of health, according to Dr. Ganz .

The first “P,” for palliative, is a key part of survivorship care, said Dr. Ganz. Palliative care is defined as care that focuses on reducing symptom severity and improving quality of life. The biological effects of cancer treatment can be associated with physical effects, such as functional limitations and frailty, and behavioral/cognitive effects such as depression, fatigue, and cognitive deficits, she said. To manage these effects and provide palliative care, consultation is needed with specialists in relevant areas including mental health, pain management, physical medicine/rehabilitation, endocrinology, cardiology, and neurology.

The second “P,” which is for prevention in survivorship care, refers to ongoing follow-up screening to identify any potentially serious late-onset complications such as osteoporosis or cardiac disease so they can be addressed, said Dr. Ganz. Other considerations include chemoprevention if available and genetic counseling for patients with hereditary cancers. Prevention also includes counseling patients about lifestyle modifications to help prevent additional cancer.

The goal of the third “P,” which is for health promotion, is to promote risk reduction for the health problems associated with accelerated aging that may arise in cancer survivors, said Dr. Ganz.

Health promotion strategies include maintaining a healthy weight, increasing physical activity, and avoiding harmful exposures, she said. Healthy lifestyle interventions can also reduce the risk of other chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

To that end, Dr. Ganz outlined several behavioral interventions that may mitigate the effects of cancer treatment on the accelerated aging process, including stress reduction in the form of meditation or yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, improving sleep, increasing physical activity, reducing obesity, and decreasing tobacco and alcohol use. These interventions may help reduce inflammation and promote tissue repair and healing.

For cancer survivors, the life span may be longer than the health span, and these patients may benefit from an integrated model of care, with systematic screening and consolidated appointments, rather than a fragmented model in which departments and referrals are siloed, which may result in conflicting advice or redundancy, said Dr. Ganz.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to explore models of care delivery, as requirements for survivor care will vary among patients and care settings, Dr. Ganz said.

However, regardless of setting, treatment plans and shared decision-making can help reduce potential long-term or late-emerging effects, she said. Developing a survivorship care plan can help patients learn how to enhance their recovery.

During a question and answer session, Dr. Ganz was asked about whether hormone therapy could be used for patients with hormone negative breast cancer. “I think vaginal estrogen can be used if someone is on tamoxifen,” she said. However, “we need to be cautious” in case there are remaining estrogen positive cells, in order to avoid potential metastases, and use of hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors is an individualized decision based in part on quality of life.
 

Engaging a patient’s partner early can be helpful

If possible, engage the patient’s partner in survivorship discussions, said Luzia Travado, PhD, head of psycho-oncology at the Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, who presented on the topic of sexuality and commented on survivorship during the discussion. For those women with partners, engaging the partner early in treatment often means they are more likely to play a larger role in the post treatment and long term by providing stability and emotional support.

“Make sure partners are engaged and understand that they have a role, and that this role is valued,” she said. Unfortunately, there are a lot of divorced women with breast cancer, as the disease can take a toll on relationships. However, remember “sexuality is not just sex; it is caring, loving, and intimacy.”

“To end on a positive note, it is important to empower patients, and to give them self-management skills so they can make things even better in their survivorship,” said Dr. Ganz. In spite of discussing difficulties and challenges, one of the goals of the session was to offer potential solutions and answers.

Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as editor of the cancer survivorship section on Up-to-Date, and serving as a consultant for Blue Note Therapeutics, GRAIL, InformedDNA, and Roche-Genentech. Dr. Travado had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

DUBLIN – Nearly half (45%) of adolescents assigned to semaglutide (Wegovy), a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, managed to lose enough weight to drop below the clinical threshold for obesity, according to a secondary analysis of the STEP TEENS (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity) trial.
 

By comparison, only 12.1% of adolescents with obesity taking placebo in the trial dropped below the obesity threshold.

The study also found that 74% of participants shifted down by at least one body mass index (BMI) category after receiving the GLP-1 agonist, compared with 19% of those taking placebo.

Semaglutide shifts BMI category

In this new secondary analysis of STEP TEENS, the authors examined the effect of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg on moving adolescents from one BMI category to another, including dropping below the obesity threshold into the overweight or normal weight categories.

The study also looked at the effect of semaglutide on glucose metabolism and cardiovascular risk factors, as well as safety and tolerability. However, this particular analysis only examined adolescents with obesity (only one person had overweight, and so they were excluded), who were divided into three further subclasses: obesity class I (BMI ≥ 95th to < 20% above the 95th percentile); obesity class II (BMI ≥ 20% to < 40% above 95th percentile); and obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40% above the 95th percentile).

After a 12-week run-in period of lifestyle intervention only, a total of 200 adolescents (12-18 years) with obesity (in the top 5% of BMI) were randomized (2:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 68 weeks, after a 16-week titration period. All participants continued to receive counseling about healthy nutrition and were set a goal of 60 minutes per day of moderate- to high-intensity physical activity.

Dr. Kelly and colleagues determined levels of improvement in BMI category and attainment of normal weight, or overweight, BMI category by week 68.

At baseline, the percentage of participants in obesity class I, II, or III, in those taking placebo was 39.7%, 41.4%, and 19.0%, or taking semaglutide was 31.4%, 31.4%, and 37.3%, respectively.

“After 68 weeks, not a lot happened [in placebo participants]; however, 12.1% of placebo participants did drop below the obesity threshold into overweight or normal-weight categories,” reported Dr. Kelly.

Referring to participants taking semaglutide, he added that “a total of 45% of patients on semaglutide dropped below the clinical BMI cut point for obesity, such that 19.5% dropped into the overweight category and 25.4% reduced their BMI into the normal-weight category.”

Turning to obesity class, Dr. Kelly reported that of those initially with obesity class III taking placebo, 91% remained in that class and 9.1% dropped to obesity class II at week 68. For those adolescents with obesity class III taking semaglutide, 36.4% dropped to obesity class II, 18.2% dropped to obesity class I, 11% dropped below the obesity threshold, and 34.1% remained in obesity class III, he added.

For obesity class II specifically, 71% of placebo participants stayed in that category, while 12% moved up a category. “On semaglutide, over 50% (51.2%) reduced their BMI below the obesity cut point,” noted Dr. Kelly.

In obesity class I, 26% of patients taking placebo reduced their BMI below the obesity cut point. “On semaglutide, nearly 80% reduced their BMI below the obesity threshold, with 57% dropping their BMI into the normal category,” he said.

“When we looked at baseline factors that might predict the response to semaglutide or placebo, we did not find any factors that were ... significant due to small sample sizes,” he said. However, he pointed out that “females tended to respond better to semaglutide, likewise younger adolescents, and middle body weights tended to respond better to the drug, and there was a similar pattern with obesity classes.”

Commenting on the study, Jesse Bittman, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said: “Good to see more data on different populations that some semaglutide is used in and the variability in response to it. The focus on BMI was interesting because in obesity medicine we spend a lot of time telling our patients not to focus on BMIs and ‘normals’ because there are more important tools, and we see that when these become the focus of research outcomes they can become problematic.”

Asked whether rapid weight loss in adolescents might be problematic in some respects, Dr. Bittman pointed out that “one concern with these medications is whether people are going to have loss of muscle mass or malnutrition, or whether they develop eating disorders and other disturbed eating behaviors.”

Dr. Kelly has reported engaging in unpaid consulting and educational activities for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Vivus, and receiving donated drug/placebo from Novo Nordisk and Vivus for National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trials. Dr. O’Malley has declared having received grants in the past 3 years from the Health Research Board, Department of Health, Ireland, European Association for the Study of Obesity (via a Novo Nordisk educational grant), Healthy Ireland fund, and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Strategic Academic Recruitment (StAR) Programme. Dr. Bittman has reported receiving funding from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Bausch Health.

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

DUBLIN – Nearly half (45%) of adolescents assigned to semaglutide (Wegovy), a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, managed to lose enough weight to drop below the clinical threshold for obesity, according to a secondary analysis of the STEP TEENS (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity) trial.
 

By comparison, only 12.1% of adolescents with obesity taking placebo in the trial dropped below the obesity threshold.

The study also found that 74% of participants shifted down by at least one body mass index (BMI) category after receiving the GLP-1 agonist, compared with 19% of those taking placebo.

Semaglutide shifts BMI category

In this new secondary analysis of STEP TEENS, the authors examined the effect of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg on moving adolescents from one BMI category to another, including dropping below the obesity threshold into the overweight or normal weight categories.

The study also looked at the effect of semaglutide on glucose metabolism and cardiovascular risk factors, as well as safety and tolerability. However, this particular analysis only examined adolescents with obesity (only one person had overweight, and so they were excluded), who were divided into three further subclasses: obesity class I (BMI ≥ 95th to < 20% above the 95th percentile); obesity class II (BMI ≥ 20% to < 40% above 95th percentile); and obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40% above the 95th percentile).

After a 12-week run-in period of lifestyle intervention only, a total of 200 adolescents (12-18 years) with obesity (in the top 5% of BMI) were randomized (2:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 68 weeks, after a 16-week titration period. All participants continued to receive counseling about healthy nutrition and were set a goal of 60 minutes per day of moderate- to high-intensity physical activity.

Dr. Kelly and colleagues determined levels of improvement in BMI category and attainment of normal weight, or overweight, BMI category by week 68.

At baseline, the percentage of participants in obesity class I, II, or III, in those taking placebo was 39.7%, 41.4%, and 19.0%, or taking semaglutide was 31.4%, 31.4%, and 37.3%, respectively.

“After 68 weeks, not a lot happened [in placebo participants]; however, 12.1% of placebo participants did drop below the obesity threshold into overweight or normal-weight categories,” reported Dr. Kelly.

Referring to participants taking semaglutide, he added that “a total of 45% of patients on semaglutide dropped below the clinical BMI cut point for obesity, such that 19.5% dropped into the overweight category and 25.4% reduced their BMI into the normal-weight category.”

Turning to obesity class, Dr. Kelly reported that of those initially with obesity class III taking placebo, 91% remained in that class and 9.1% dropped to obesity class II at week 68. For those adolescents with obesity class III taking semaglutide, 36.4% dropped to obesity class II, 18.2% dropped to obesity class I, 11% dropped below the obesity threshold, and 34.1% remained in obesity class III, he added.

For obesity class II specifically, 71% of placebo participants stayed in that category, while 12% moved up a category. “On semaglutide, over 50% (51.2%) reduced their BMI below the obesity cut point,” noted Dr. Kelly.

In obesity class I, 26% of patients taking placebo reduced their BMI below the obesity cut point. “On semaglutide, nearly 80% reduced their BMI below the obesity threshold, with 57% dropping their BMI into the normal category,” he said.

“When we looked at baseline factors that might predict the response to semaglutide or placebo, we did not find any factors that were ... significant due to small sample sizes,” he said. However, he pointed out that “females tended to respond better to semaglutide, likewise younger adolescents, and middle body weights tended to respond better to the drug, and there was a similar pattern with obesity classes.”

Commenting on the study, Jesse Bittman, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said: “Good to see more data on different populations that some semaglutide is used in and the variability in response to it. The focus on BMI was interesting because in obesity medicine we spend a lot of time telling our patients not to focus on BMIs and ‘normals’ because there are more important tools, and we see that when these become the focus of research outcomes they can become problematic.”

Asked whether rapid weight loss in adolescents might be problematic in some respects, Dr. Bittman pointed out that “one concern with these medications is whether people are going to have loss of muscle mass or malnutrition, or whether they develop eating disorders and other disturbed eating behaviors.”

Dr. Kelly has reported engaging in unpaid consulting and educational activities for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Vivus, and receiving donated drug/placebo from Novo Nordisk and Vivus for National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trials. Dr. O’Malley has declared having received grants in the past 3 years from the Health Research Board, Department of Health, Ireland, European Association for the Study of Obesity (via a Novo Nordisk educational grant), Healthy Ireland fund, and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Strategic Academic Recruitment (StAR) Programme. Dr. Bittman has reported receiving funding from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Bausch Health.

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

DUBLIN – Nearly half (45%) of adolescents assigned to semaglutide (Wegovy), a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, managed to lose enough weight to drop below the clinical threshold for obesity, according to a secondary analysis of the STEP TEENS (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity) trial.
 

By comparison, only 12.1% of adolescents with obesity taking placebo in the trial dropped below the obesity threshold.

The study also found that 74% of participants shifted down by at least one body mass index (BMI) category after receiving the GLP-1 agonist, compared with 19% of those taking placebo.

Semaglutide shifts BMI category

In this new secondary analysis of STEP TEENS, the authors examined the effect of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg on moving adolescents from one BMI category to another, including dropping below the obesity threshold into the overweight or normal weight categories.

The study also looked at the effect of semaglutide on glucose metabolism and cardiovascular risk factors, as well as safety and tolerability. However, this particular analysis only examined adolescents with obesity (only one person had overweight, and so they were excluded), who were divided into three further subclasses: obesity class I (BMI ≥ 95th to < 20% above the 95th percentile); obesity class II (BMI ≥ 20% to < 40% above 95th percentile); and obesity class III (BMI ≥ 40% above the 95th percentile).

After a 12-week run-in period of lifestyle intervention only, a total of 200 adolescents (12-18 years) with obesity (in the top 5% of BMI) were randomized (2:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 68 weeks, after a 16-week titration period. All participants continued to receive counseling about healthy nutrition and were set a goal of 60 minutes per day of moderate- to high-intensity physical activity.

Dr. Kelly and colleagues determined levels of improvement in BMI category and attainment of normal weight, or overweight, BMI category by week 68.

At baseline, the percentage of participants in obesity class I, II, or III, in those taking placebo was 39.7%, 41.4%, and 19.0%, or taking semaglutide was 31.4%, 31.4%, and 37.3%, respectively.

“After 68 weeks, not a lot happened [in placebo participants]; however, 12.1% of placebo participants did drop below the obesity threshold into overweight or normal-weight categories,” reported Dr. Kelly.

Referring to participants taking semaglutide, he added that “a total of 45% of patients on semaglutide dropped below the clinical BMI cut point for obesity, such that 19.5% dropped into the overweight category and 25.4% reduced their BMI into the normal-weight category.”

Turning to obesity class, Dr. Kelly reported that of those initially with obesity class III taking placebo, 91% remained in that class and 9.1% dropped to obesity class II at week 68. For those adolescents with obesity class III taking semaglutide, 36.4% dropped to obesity class II, 18.2% dropped to obesity class I, 11% dropped below the obesity threshold, and 34.1% remained in obesity class III, he added.

For obesity class II specifically, 71% of placebo participants stayed in that category, while 12% moved up a category. “On semaglutide, over 50% (51.2%) reduced their BMI below the obesity cut point,” noted Dr. Kelly.

In obesity class I, 26% of patients taking placebo reduced their BMI below the obesity cut point. “On semaglutide, nearly 80% reduced their BMI below the obesity threshold, with 57% dropping their BMI into the normal category,” he said.

“When we looked at baseline factors that might predict the response to semaglutide or placebo, we did not find any factors that were ... significant due to small sample sizes,” he said. However, he pointed out that “females tended to respond better to semaglutide, likewise younger adolescents, and middle body weights tended to respond better to the drug, and there was a similar pattern with obesity classes.”

Commenting on the study, Jesse Bittman, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said: “Good to see more data on different populations that some semaglutide is used in and the variability in response to it. The focus on BMI was interesting because in obesity medicine we spend a lot of time telling our patients not to focus on BMIs and ‘normals’ because there are more important tools, and we see that when these become the focus of research outcomes they can become problematic.”

Asked whether rapid weight loss in adolescents might be problematic in some respects, Dr. Bittman pointed out that “one concern with these medications is whether people are going to have loss of muscle mass or malnutrition, or whether they develop eating disorders and other disturbed eating behaviors.”

Dr. Kelly has reported engaging in unpaid consulting and educational activities for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Vivus, and receiving donated drug/placebo from Novo Nordisk and Vivus for National Institutes of Health–funded clinical trials. Dr. O’Malley has declared having received grants in the past 3 years from the Health Research Board, Department of Health, Ireland, European Association for the Study of Obesity (via a Novo Nordisk educational grant), Healthy Ireland fund, and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Strategic Academic Recruitment (StAR) Programme. Dr. Bittman has reported receiving funding from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Bausch Health.

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

DUBLIN – A swallowable gastric balloon (Allurion Balloon, formerly known as Elipse) combined with daily subcutaneous injections of the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk), leads to a significant average total body weight loss of 19% (18 kg or 40 lb) after around 4 months in people with obesity.

“The combination therapy [balloon and liraglutide] resulted in an additional weight loss compared to the two single treatments,” said Roberta Ienca, MD, from the Clinica Nuova Villa Claudia, Rome, who presented the findings at this year’s European Congress on Obesity.

“Despite both the balloon and liraglutide working on the early satiety feeling, the introduction of liraglutide around 1 month after [swallowing the balloon] or more frequently after 3-4 months, could sustain these feelings for a longer period of time,” she said in an interview.

Allurion Technologies

“The addition of the GLP-1 agonist therapy (liraglutide) to patients treated with the Allurion program [gastric balloon] is feasible, safe, and effective in those who need additional weight loss,” she emphasized.

The balloon stayed inside participants’ stomachs for an average of 16 weeks and liraglutide was continued for an average of 4 months, resulting in a mean reduction in body mass index (BMI) of 6.4 kg/m².

The Allurion is the world’s first and only swallowable gastric balloon placed without surgery, endoscopy, or anesthesia, and is excreted naturally after around 16 weeks.

The Allurion program delivered “excellent weight loss in individuals with overweight and obesity without going under the knife, and liraglutide has the potential to further safely enhance weight loss in cases of suboptimal adherence with the program,” Dr. Ienca said. “These two treatment approaches appear to have complementary mechanisms of action in a geographically and demographically diverse population.”

Adelardo Caballero, MD, director of the Institute of Obesity, Madrid, said that he had over 6 years of experience with the Allurion balloon in around 2,500 cases. “Over the last 3 years, we have been using Allurion balloons in combination with GLP-1 agonists. In Europe, use of the swallowable gastric balloon is common, the results are good, and it is a safe tool.”

“Using liraglutide daily in subcutaneous form is authorized in Europe and is useful in overweight and mild obesity, while use in the combination [with the balloon] is also very popular,” he explained. “In the future, the combined use of semaglutide once-weekly GLP-1 agonist or the use of dual GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide agonists [such as tirzepatide] with the swallowable intragastric balloon Allurion program or endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty will improve results,” he added.
 

Average 40-lb weight loss with balloon and liraglutide

For the current study, data from three international multidisciplinary obesity centers (in Italy, Spain, and Egypt) were retrospectively analyzed. All 181 patients received the combination of the Allurion balloon and liraglutide, with the latter added 4-16 weeks after swallowing the balloon.

During a 20-minute outpatient visit, participants swallowed the balloon, which was filled with liquid after reaching the stomach, and placement was confirmed by x-ray. The balloon remained inserted for around 15-17 weeks (mean 16 weeks) before natural excretion. All patients received liraglutide once daily for 1-6 months (mean 4 months). After excreting the balloon, patients started the Mediterranean diet for weight maintenance and were followed for at least 6 months.

Patients were monitored for weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and BMI reduction. The timing of combining drug therapy with the Allurion program, metabolic results, and adverse event data were collected. However, Dr. Ienca explained that “the study was preliminary and aimed to evaluate feasibility and results of a combined treatment, so we didn’t collect long-term data.”

Liraglutide was mostly added in cases of unsatisfactory weight loss to boost weight reduction in patients with high BMIs, to sustain weight maintenance, and to aid diabetes control in patients with satisfactory weight loss. There were no criteria for time of onset of drug therapy in terms of a time point or percentage weight loss.

Before treatment, mean weight was 94.8 ± 21 kg and mean BMI was 33.7 ± 6.2 kg/m². After 4 months of balloon treatment, weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and decrease in BMI were 13.1 ± 7 kg, 13.9% ± 7.7%, 74.3% ± 57.1%, and 4.5 ±1.4 kg/m² respectively.

After a mean duration of 4 months of liraglutide treatment (in addition to the gastric balloon), participants lost on average 18.1 ± 12.1 kg overall and 18.7% ± 12% of their initial total body weight. They shed 99.4% ± 84.9% of excess weight and reduced BMI by 6.4 ± 5.9 kg/m².

Dr. Ienca explained that the study did not explore the separate contributions of the balloon or drug therapy to weight loss. “However, existing literature shows that the Allurion program leads to a weight loss of approximately 14% of total body weight after 4 months, while liraglutide studies report 12% of total body weight loss at 1 year,” he noted.

When describing the mechanism of action, Dr. Ienca said the Allurion balloon induces satiety and delays gastric emptying but the feeling of satiety starts to decrease after the first month. “For a few patients, this feeling of satiety decreases more rapidly or they have more difficulty putting in place new alimentary habits. In these patients, the addition of liraglutide gives an additional boost to support this behavioral change.”

Liraglutide-related adverse events included nausea (16.5%), diarrhea (3.3%), constipation (2.2%), and headache (1.7%), as well as drug discontinuation due to tachycardia/chest pain (1.1%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (1.1%).

Balloon removal because of intolerance occurred in 1.1% of patients, gastric dilation in 0.5%, and early balloon deflation in 0.5%. Other expected balloon-related adverse events included nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramps.

The researchers note that the Allurion program offers a more acceptable option to balloon placement by endoscopy.

“The ease of use, low rate of adverse events, and potentially lower cost of the Allurion Program could enable much wider application of this critical intervention, and ultimately, help the millions who struggle with obesity and its associated health complications.”

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

DUBLIN – A swallowable gastric balloon (Allurion Balloon, formerly known as Elipse) combined with daily subcutaneous injections of the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk), leads to a significant average total body weight loss of 19% (18 kg or 40 lb) after around 4 months in people with obesity.

“The combination therapy [balloon and liraglutide] resulted in an additional weight loss compared to the two single treatments,” said Roberta Ienca, MD, from the Clinica Nuova Villa Claudia, Rome, who presented the findings at this year’s European Congress on Obesity.

“Despite both the balloon and liraglutide working on the early satiety feeling, the introduction of liraglutide around 1 month after [swallowing the balloon] or more frequently after 3-4 months, could sustain these feelings for a longer period of time,” she said in an interview.

Allurion Technologies

“The addition of the GLP-1 agonist therapy (liraglutide) to patients treated with the Allurion program [gastric balloon] is feasible, safe, and effective in those who need additional weight loss,” she emphasized.

The balloon stayed inside participants’ stomachs for an average of 16 weeks and liraglutide was continued for an average of 4 months, resulting in a mean reduction in body mass index (BMI) of 6.4 kg/m².

The Allurion is the world’s first and only swallowable gastric balloon placed without surgery, endoscopy, or anesthesia, and is excreted naturally after around 16 weeks.

The Allurion program delivered “excellent weight loss in individuals with overweight and obesity without going under the knife, and liraglutide has the potential to further safely enhance weight loss in cases of suboptimal adherence with the program,” Dr. Ienca said. “These two treatment approaches appear to have complementary mechanisms of action in a geographically and demographically diverse population.”

Adelardo Caballero, MD, director of the Institute of Obesity, Madrid, said that he had over 6 years of experience with the Allurion balloon in around 2,500 cases. “Over the last 3 years, we have been using Allurion balloons in combination with GLP-1 agonists. In Europe, use of the swallowable gastric balloon is common, the results are good, and it is a safe tool.”

“Using liraglutide daily in subcutaneous form is authorized in Europe and is useful in overweight and mild obesity, while use in the combination [with the balloon] is also very popular,” he explained. “In the future, the combined use of semaglutide once-weekly GLP-1 agonist or the use of dual GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide agonists [such as tirzepatide] with the swallowable intragastric balloon Allurion program or endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty will improve results,” he added.
 

Average 40-lb weight loss with balloon and liraglutide

For the current study, data from three international multidisciplinary obesity centers (in Italy, Spain, and Egypt) were retrospectively analyzed. All 181 patients received the combination of the Allurion balloon and liraglutide, with the latter added 4-16 weeks after swallowing the balloon.

During a 20-minute outpatient visit, participants swallowed the balloon, which was filled with liquid after reaching the stomach, and placement was confirmed by x-ray. The balloon remained inserted for around 15-17 weeks (mean 16 weeks) before natural excretion. All patients received liraglutide once daily for 1-6 months (mean 4 months). After excreting the balloon, patients started the Mediterranean diet for weight maintenance and were followed for at least 6 months.

Patients were monitored for weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and BMI reduction. The timing of combining drug therapy with the Allurion program, metabolic results, and adverse event data were collected. However, Dr. Ienca explained that “the study was preliminary and aimed to evaluate feasibility and results of a combined treatment, so we didn’t collect long-term data.”

Liraglutide was mostly added in cases of unsatisfactory weight loss to boost weight reduction in patients with high BMIs, to sustain weight maintenance, and to aid diabetes control in patients with satisfactory weight loss. There were no criteria for time of onset of drug therapy in terms of a time point or percentage weight loss.

Before treatment, mean weight was 94.8 ± 21 kg and mean BMI was 33.7 ± 6.2 kg/m². After 4 months of balloon treatment, weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and decrease in BMI were 13.1 ± 7 kg, 13.9% ± 7.7%, 74.3% ± 57.1%, and 4.5 ±1.4 kg/m² respectively.

After a mean duration of 4 months of liraglutide treatment (in addition to the gastric balloon), participants lost on average 18.1 ± 12.1 kg overall and 18.7% ± 12% of their initial total body weight. They shed 99.4% ± 84.9% of excess weight and reduced BMI by 6.4 ± 5.9 kg/m².

Dr. Ienca explained that the study did not explore the separate contributions of the balloon or drug therapy to weight loss. “However, existing literature shows that the Allurion program leads to a weight loss of approximately 14% of total body weight after 4 months, while liraglutide studies report 12% of total body weight loss at 1 year,” he noted.

When describing the mechanism of action, Dr. Ienca said the Allurion balloon induces satiety and delays gastric emptying but the feeling of satiety starts to decrease after the first month. “For a few patients, this feeling of satiety decreases more rapidly or they have more difficulty putting in place new alimentary habits. In these patients, the addition of liraglutide gives an additional boost to support this behavioral change.”

Liraglutide-related adverse events included nausea (16.5%), diarrhea (3.3%), constipation (2.2%), and headache (1.7%), as well as drug discontinuation due to tachycardia/chest pain (1.1%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (1.1%).

Balloon removal because of intolerance occurred in 1.1% of patients, gastric dilation in 0.5%, and early balloon deflation in 0.5%. Other expected balloon-related adverse events included nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramps.

The researchers note that the Allurion program offers a more acceptable option to balloon placement by endoscopy.

“The ease of use, low rate of adverse events, and potentially lower cost of the Allurion Program could enable much wider application of this critical intervention, and ultimately, help the millions who struggle with obesity and its associated health complications.”

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

DUBLIN – A swallowable gastric balloon (Allurion Balloon, formerly known as Elipse) combined with daily subcutaneous injections of the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist liraglutide (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk), leads to a significant average total body weight loss of 19% (18 kg or 40 lb) after around 4 months in people with obesity.

“The combination therapy [balloon and liraglutide] resulted in an additional weight loss compared to the two single treatments,” said Roberta Ienca, MD, from the Clinica Nuova Villa Claudia, Rome, who presented the findings at this year’s European Congress on Obesity.

“Despite both the balloon and liraglutide working on the early satiety feeling, the introduction of liraglutide around 1 month after [swallowing the balloon] or more frequently after 3-4 months, could sustain these feelings for a longer period of time,” she said in an interview.

Allurion Technologies

“The addition of the GLP-1 agonist therapy (liraglutide) to patients treated with the Allurion program [gastric balloon] is feasible, safe, and effective in those who need additional weight loss,” she emphasized.

The balloon stayed inside participants’ stomachs for an average of 16 weeks and liraglutide was continued for an average of 4 months, resulting in a mean reduction in body mass index (BMI) of 6.4 kg/m².

The Allurion is the world’s first and only swallowable gastric balloon placed without surgery, endoscopy, or anesthesia, and is excreted naturally after around 16 weeks.

The Allurion program delivered “excellent weight loss in individuals with overweight and obesity without going under the knife, and liraglutide has the potential to further safely enhance weight loss in cases of suboptimal adherence with the program,” Dr. Ienca said. “These two treatment approaches appear to have complementary mechanisms of action in a geographically and demographically diverse population.”

Adelardo Caballero, MD, director of the Institute of Obesity, Madrid, said that he had over 6 years of experience with the Allurion balloon in around 2,500 cases. “Over the last 3 years, we have been using Allurion balloons in combination with GLP-1 agonists. In Europe, use of the swallowable gastric balloon is common, the results are good, and it is a safe tool.”

“Using liraglutide daily in subcutaneous form is authorized in Europe and is useful in overweight and mild obesity, while use in the combination [with the balloon] is also very popular,” he explained. “In the future, the combined use of semaglutide once-weekly GLP-1 agonist or the use of dual GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide agonists [such as tirzepatide] with the swallowable intragastric balloon Allurion program or endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty will improve results,” he added.
 

Average 40-lb weight loss with balloon and liraglutide

For the current study, data from three international multidisciplinary obesity centers (in Italy, Spain, and Egypt) were retrospectively analyzed. All 181 patients received the combination of the Allurion balloon and liraglutide, with the latter added 4-16 weeks after swallowing the balloon.

During a 20-minute outpatient visit, participants swallowed the balloon, which was filled with liquid after reaching the stomach, and placement was confirmed by x-ray. The balloon remained inserted for around 15-17 weeks (mean 16 weeks) before natural excretion. All patients received liraglutide once daily for 1-6 months (mean 4 months). After excreting the balloon, patients started the Mediterranean diet for weight maintenance and were followed for at least 6 months.

Patients were monitored for weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and BMI reduction. The timing of combining drug therapy with the Allurion program, metabolic results, and adverse event data were collected. However, Dr. Ienca explained that “the study was preliminary and aimed to evaluate feasibility and results of a combined treatment, so we didn’t collect long-term data.”

Liraglutide was mostly added in cases of unsatisfactory weight loss to boost weight reduction in patients with high BMIs, to sustain weight maintenance, and to aid diabetes control in patients with satisfactory weight loss. There were no criteria for time of onset of drug therapy in terms of a time point or percentage weight loss.

Before treatment, mean weight was 94.8 ± 21 kg and mean BMI was 33.7 ± 6.2 kg/m². After 4 months of balloon treatment, weight loss, percentage total body weight loss, percentage excess weight loss, and decrease in BMI were 13.1 ± 7 kg, 13.9% ± 7.7%, 74.3% ± 57.1%, and 4.5 ±1.4 kg/m² respectively.

After a mean duration of 4 months of liraglutide treatment (in addition to the gastric balloon), participants lost on average 18.1 ± 12.1 kg overall and 18.7% ± 12% of their initial total body weight. They shed 99.4% ± 84.9% of excess weight and reduced BMI by 6.4 ± 5.9 kg/m².

Dr. Ienca explained that the study did not explore the separate contributions of the balloon or drug therapy to weight loss. “However, existing literature shows that the Allurion program leads to a weight loss of approximately 14% of total body weight after 4 months, while liraglutide studies report 12% of total body weight loss at 1 year,” he noted.

When describing the mechanism of action, Dr. Ienca said the Allurion balloon induces satiety and delays gastric emptying but the feeling of satiety starts to decrease after the first month. “For a few patients, this feeling of satiety decreases more rapidly or they have more difficulty putting in place new alimentary habits. In these patients, the addition of liraglutide gives an additional boost to support this behavioral change.”

Liraglutide-related adverse events included nausea (16.5%), diarrhea (3.3%), constipation (2.2%), and headache (1.7%), as well as drug discontinuation due to tachycardia/chest pain (1.1%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (1.1%).

Balloon removal because of intolerance occurred in 1.1% of patients, gastric dilation in 0.5%, and early balloon deflation in 0.5%. Other expected balloon-related adverse events included nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramps.

The researchers note that the Allurion program offers a more acceptable option to balloon placement by endoscopy.

“The ease of use, low rate of adverse events, and potentially lower cost of the Allurion Program could enable much wider application of this critical intervention, and ultimately, help the millions who struggle with obesity and its associated health complications.”

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

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), adverse outcomes are more common in those who are in cardiogenic shock than those who are not, but the greater risks appear to be completely concentrated in the early period of recovery, suggests a propensity-matched study.

“The landmark analysis we conducted at 4 weeks suggest patients do remarkably well – as good as patients without cardiogenic shock – if they survive through the initial recovery period,” reported Abhijeet Dhoble, MD, associate professor and an interventional cardiologist at McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Their results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

The study, which drew data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement (STS/ACC TVR) Registry, looked only at patients who underwent TAVR with the Sapien3 or Sapience3 Ultra device. Patients with CS were propensity matched to Sapien device-treated patients in the registry without CS.

Taken from a pool of 9,348 patients with CS and 299,600 patients without, the matching included a large array of clinically relevant covariates, including age, gender, prior cardiovascular events, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class.

After matching, there were 4,952 patients in each arm. The baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score was approximately 10.0 in both arms. About half had atrial fibrillation and 90% were in NYHA class III or IV. The median LVEF in both groups was 39.9%.
 

Mortality more than twofold higher in CS patients

At 30 days, outcomes were worse in patients with CS, including the proportion who died (12.9% vs. 4.9%; P < .0001) and the proportion with stroke (3.3% vs. 1.9%; P < .0001).

The only major study endpoint not significantly different, although higher in the CS group, was the rate of readmission (12.0% vs. 11.0%; P = .25).

At 1 year, the differences in the rates of mortality (29.7% vs. 22.6%; P < .0001) and stroke (4.3% vs. 3.1%; P = .0004) had narrowed modestly but remained highly significant. A closer analysis indicated that almost all of the difference in the rate of events occurred prior to hospital discharge.

In fact, mortality (9.9% vs. 2.7%; P < .0001), stroke (2.9% vs. 1.5%; P < .0001), major vascular complications (2.3% vs. 1.9%; P = .0002), life-threatening bleeding (2.5% vs. 0.7%; P < .0001), new dialysis (3.5% vs. 1.1%; P < .0001) and new onset atrial fibrillation (3.8% vs. 1.6%; P < .0001) were all significantly higher in the CS group in this very early time period. By hazard ratio (HR), the risk of a major event prior to leaving the hospital was nearly threefold higher (HR 2.3; P < .0001) in the CS group.

Yet, there was no significant difference in the accumulation of adverse events after discharge. When compared for major events in the landmark analysis, the event curves were essentially superimposable from 30 days to 1 year. During this period, event rates were 19.3% versus 18.5% for CS and non-CS patients (HR 1.07; P = .2640).

The higher rate of events was unrelated to procedural complications, which were very low in both groups and did not differ significantly. Transition to open surgery, annular disruption, aortic dissection, coronary occlusion, and device embolization occurred in < 1% of patients in both groups.
 

Predictors of a poor outcome identified

On multivariate analysis, the predictors of events in the CS patients were comorbidities. Despite propensity matching, being on dialysis, having a permanent pacemaker, or having a mechanical assist device were all independent predictors of mortality risk specific to the CS group.

Age and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score were not predictors.

These risk factors deserve consideration when evaluating CS candidates for TAVR, but Dr. Dhoble said that none are absolute contraindications. Rather, he advised that they should be considered in the context of the entire clinical picture, including the expected benefit from TAVR. Indeed, the benefit-to-risk ratio generally favors TAVR in CS patients, particularly those with obstructive CS caused by aortic stenosis, according to Dr. Dhoble.

“Efforts should be made not only to avoid delaying TAVR in such patients but also to prevent CS by early definitive treatment of patients with aortic stenosis,” he said.

These data are useful and important, said Jonathan Schwartz, MD, medical director, interventional cardiology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C.

CS candidates for TAVR “are some of the sickest patients we treat. It is nice to finally have some data for this group,” he said. He agreed that CS patients can derive major benefit from TAVR if appropriately selected.

While many CS patients are already considered for TAVR, one source of hesitation has been the exclusion of CS patients from major TAVR trials, said Dr. Dhoble. He hopes these data will provide a framework for clinical decisions.

Ironically, the first TAVR patient and half of the initial series of 38 TAVR patients had CS, noted Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. As the primary investigator of that initial TAVR study, conducted more than 20 years ago, he said he was not surprised by the favorable results of the propensity analysis.

“There is an almost miraculous clinical improvement to be achieved when you succeed with the procedure,” said Dr. Cribier, recounting his own experience. Improvements in LVEF of up to 30% can be achieved “within a day or two or even the first day,” he said.

Dr. Dhoble reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schwartz reports that he has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences.

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), adverse outcomes are more common in those who are in cardiogenic shock than those who are not, but the greater risks appear to be completely concentrated in the early period of recovery, suggests a propensity-matched study.

“The landmark analysis we conducted at 4 weeks suggest patients do remarkably well – as good as patients without cardiogenic shock – if they survive through the initial recovery period,” reported Abhijeet Dhoble, MD, associate professor and an interventional cardiologist at McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Their results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

The study, which drew data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement (STS/ACC TVR) Registry, looked only at patients who underwent TAVR with the Sapien3 or Sapience3 Ultra device. Patients with CS were propensity matched to Sapien device-treated patients in the registry without CS.

Taken from a pool of 9,348 patients with CS and 299,600 patients without, the matching included a large array of clinically relevant covariates, including age, gender, prior cardiovascular events, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class.

After matching, there were 4,952 patients in each arm. The baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score was approximately 10.0 in both arms. About half had atrial fibrillation and 90% were in NYHA class III or IV. The median LVEF in both groups was 39.9%.
 

Mortality more than twofold higher in CS patients

At 30 days, outcomes were worse in patients with CS, including the proportion who died (12.9% vs. 4.9%; P < .0001) and the proportion with stroke (3.3% vs. 1.9%; P < .0001).

The only major study endpoint not significantly different, although higher in the CS group, was the rate of readmission (12.0% vs. 11.0%; P = .25).

At 1 year, the differences in the rates of mortality (29.7% vs. 22.6%; P < .0001) and stroke (4.3% vs. 3.1%; P = .0004) had narrowed modestly but remained highly significant. A closer analysis indicated that almost all of the difference in the rate of events occurred prior to hospital discharge.

In fact, mortality (9.9% vs. 2.7%; P < .0001), stroke (2.9% vs. 1.5%; P < .0001), major vascular complications (2.3% vs. 1.9%; P = .0002), life-threatening bleeding (2.5% vs. 0.7%; P < .0001), new dialysis (3.5% vs. 1.1%; P < .0001) and new onset atrial fibrillation (3.8% vs. 1.6%; P < .0001) were all significantly higher in the CS group in this very early time period. By hazard ratio (HR), the risk of a major event prior to leaving the hospital was nearly threefold higher (HR 2.3; P < .0001) in the CS group.

Yet, there was no significant difference in the accumulation of adverse events after discharge. When compared for major events in the landmark analysis, the event curves were essentially superimposable from 30 days to 1 year. During this period, event rates were 19.3% versus 18.5% for CS and non-CS patients (HR 1.07; P = .2640).

The higher rate of events was unrelated to procedural complications, which were very low in both groups and did not differ significantly. Transition to open surgery, annular disruption, aortic dissection, coronary occlusion, and device embolization occurred in < 1% of patients in both groups.
 

Predictors of a poor outcome identified

On multivariate analysis, the predictors of events in the CS patients were comorbidities. Despite propensity matching, being on dialysis, having a permanent pacemaker, or having a mechanical assist device were all independent predictors of mortality risk specific to the CS group.

Age and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score were not predictors.

These risk factors deserve consideration when evaluating CS candidates for TAVR, but Dr. Dhoble said that none are absolute contraindications. Rather, he advised that they should be considered in the context of the entire clinical picture, including the expected benefit from TAVR. Indeed, the benefit-to-risk ratio generally favors TAVR in CS patients, particularly those with obstructive CS caused by aortic stenosis, according to Dr. Dhoble.

“Efforts should be made not only to avoid delaying TAVR in such patients but also to prevent CS by early definitive treatment of patients with aortic stenosis,” he said.

These data are useful and important, said Jonathan Schwartz, MD, medical director, interventional cardiology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C.

CS candidates for TAVR “are some of the sickest patients we treat. It is nice to finally have some data for this group,” he said. He agreed that CS patients can derive major benefit from TAVR if appropriately selected.

While many CS patients are already considered for TAVR, one source of hesitation has been the exclusion of CS patients from major TAVR trials, said Dr. Dhoble. He hopes these data will provide a framework for clinical decisions.

Ironically, the first TAVR patient and half of the initial series of 38 TAVR patients had CS, noted Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. As the primary investigator of that initial TAVR study, conducted more than 20 years ago, he said he was not surprised by the favorable results of the propensity analysis.

“There is an almost miraculous clinical improvement to be achieved when you succeed with the procedure,” said Dr. Cribier, recounting his own experience. Improvements in LVEF of up to 30% can be achieved “within a day or two or even the first day,” he said.

Dr. Dhoble reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schwartz reports that he has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences.

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), adverse outcomes are more common in those who are in cardiogenic shock than those who are not, but the greater risks appear to be completely concentrated in the early period of recovery, suggests a propensity-matched study.

“The landmark analysis we conducted at 4 weeks suggest patients do remarkably well – as good as patients without cardiogenic shock – if they survive through the initial recovery period,” reported Abhijeet Dhoble, MD, associate professor and an interventional cardiologist at McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Their results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

The study, which drew data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement (STS/ACC TVR) Registry, looked only at patients who underwent TAVR with the Sapien3 or Sapience3 Ultra device. Patients with CS were propensity matched to Sapien device-treated patients in the registry without CS.

Taken from a pool of 9,348 patients with CS and 299,600 patients without, the matching included a large array of clinically relevant covariates, including age, gender, prior cardiovascular events, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class.

After matching, there were 4,952 patients in each arm. The baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score was approximately 10.0 in both arms. About half had atrial fibrillation and 90% were in NYHA class III or IV. The median LVEF in both groups was 39.9%.
 

Mortality more than twofold higher in CS patients

At 30 days, outcomes were worse in patients with CS, including the proportion who died (12.9% vs. 4.9%; P < .0001) and the proportion with stroke (3.3% vs. 1.9%; P < .0001).

The only major study endpoint not significantly different, although higher in the CS group, was the rate of readmission (12.0% vs. 11.0%; P = .25).

At 1 year, the differences in the rates of mortality (29.7% vs. 22.6%; P < .0001) and stroke (4.3% vs. 3.1%; P = .0004) had narrowed modestly but remained highly significant. A closer analysis indicated that almost all of the difference in the rate of events occurred prior to hospital discharge.

In fact, mortality (9.9% vs. 2.7%; P < .0001), stroke (2.9% vs. 1.5%; P < .0001), major vascular complications (2.3% vs. 1.9%; P = .0002), life-threatening bleeding (2.5% vs. 0.7%; P < .0001), new dialysis (3.5% vs. 1.1%; P < .0001) and new onset atrial fibrillation (3.8% vs. 1.6%; P < .0001) were all significantly higher in the CS group in this very early time period. By hazard ratio (HR), the risk of a major event prior to leaving the hospital was nearly threefold higher (HR 2.3; P < .0001) in the CS group.

Yet, there was no significant difference in the accumulation of adverse events after discharge. When compared for major events in the landmark analysis, the event curves were essentially superimposable from 30 days to 1 year. During this period, event rates were 19.3% versus 18.5% for CS and non-CS patients (HR 1.07; P = .2640).

The higher rate of events was unrelated to procedural complications, which were very low in both groups and did not differ significantly. Transition to open surgery, annular disruption, aortic dissection, coronary occlusion, and device embolization occurred in < 1% of patients in both groups.
 

Predictors of a poor outcome identified

On multivariate analysis, the predictors of events in the CS patients were comorbidities. Despite propensity matching, being on dialysis, having a permanent pacemaker, or having a mechanical assist device were all independent predictors of mortality risk specific to the CS group.

Age and baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score were not predictors.

These risk factors deserve consideration when evaluating CS candidates for TAVR, but Dr. Dhoble said that none are absolute contraindications. Rather, he advised that they should be considered in the context of the entire clinical picture, including the expected benefit from TAVR. Indeed, the benefit-to-risk ratio generally favors TAVR in CS patients, particularly those with obstructive CS caused by aortic stenosis, according to Dr. Dhoble.

“Efforts should be made not only to avoid delaying TAVR in such patients but also to prevent CS by early definitive treatment of patients with aortic stenosis,” he said.

These data are useful and important, said Jonathan Schwartz, MD, medical director, interventional cardiology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C.

CS candidates for TAVR “are some of the sickest patients we treat. It is nice to finally have some data for this group,” he said. He agreed that CS patients can derive major benefit from TAVR if appropriately selected.

While many CS patients are already considered for TAVR, one source of hesitation has been the exclusion of CS patients from major TAVR trials, said Dr. Dhoble. He hopes these data will provide a framework for clinical decisions.

Ironically, the first TAVR patient and half of the initial series of 38 TAVR patients had CS, noted Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. As the primary investigator of that initial TAVR study, conducted more than 20 years ago, he said he was not surprised by the favorable results of the propensity analysis.

“There is an almost miraculous clinical improvement to be achieved when you succeed with the procedure,” said Dr. Cribier, recounting his own experience. Improvements in LVEF of up to 30% can be achieved “within a day or two or even the first day,” he said.

Dr. Dhoble reports financial relationships with Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schwartz reports that he has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences.

While poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors clearly show benefit in certain kinds of breast cancer, questions persist about ideal drug targets and the value of combining them with other medications, oncologists explained at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

For now, the drugs are only approved in high-risk germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmut) early breast cancer, oncologist Kevin Punie, MD, of Saint Augustine Hospital in Wilrijk, Belgium, said during a session at the meeting. Combining the drugs with chemotherapy “has not yet demonstrated significant benefits, and this is irrespective whether platinum was part of the chemotherapy backbone.”

PARP is a kind of enzyme that repairs damaged DNA in cells, especially cancerous ones. PARP inhibitors block the enzyme, potentially leading more cancer cells to die, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute states.

In a separate presentation during the same session, oncologist Andrew Tutt, MBChB, PhD, noted that a study he led – a phase 3, double-blinded, randomized 2021 trial – found that patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer who took the PARP inhibitor olarapib (Lynparza) versus placebo had improved outcomes on several measures, including 3-year invasive disease-free survival (85.9% vs. 77.1%, P < .001). However, the study noted that “olaparib had limited effects on global patient-reported quality of life.”

Dr. Tutt, of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and Kings College London, said 57% of patients who took olarapib suffered nausea versus 24% of those who took placebo, and fatigue and anemia were also more common in the olarapib group. Anemia can be severe and lead to transfusions in some cases.

As Dr. Punie explained, there are many reasons to consider combining PARP inhibitors with other treatments such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy. The combinations may have synergetic effects, and they could have potential in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.

The combination of the PARP inhibitor olaparib and endocrine therapy is now approved by the European Medicines Agency for the adjuvant treatment of certain patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations who have HER2-negative, high-risk early breast cancer, Dr. Punie noted.

The 2021 study led by Dr. Tutt reported that treatment or safety differences were found in those who received both olaparib and endocrine therapy versus those who only received olarapib.

So far, Dr. Punie said, “we not yet have enough clinical evidence to say that there’s really synergy between PNP inhibitors and other anticancer therapies.” According to the National Institutes of Health, medical synergy “describes the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”

In regard to chemotherapy, it makes sense that PARP inhibitors would be helpful in combination, Dr. Punie said. DNA damage to cancer cells accumulates during chemotherapy, he said, and they’re more depending on PARP for repair.

Study results so far have been mixed. A 2022 study, for example, found that adding the experimental PARP inhibitor veliparib to the chemotherapy regimen carboplatin-paclitaxel didn’t improve outcomes, he said. A similar study examining the addition of olaparib to carboplatin-paclitaxel is ongoing.

As for combining radiotherapy and PARP inhibitors, Dr. Punie said that preclinical findings are promising, and research is underway. There’s also ongoing research into combining PARP inhibitors with immunotherapy.

Off-label use of olaparib with immunotherapy or sequential treatment may be appropriate in the setting of adjuvant gBRCAmut triple-negative breast cancer with residual disease, he said.

During his presentation, Dr. Tutt called for researchers to investigate the use of PARP inhibitors in the de-escalation of treatment in lower-risk gBRCAmut disease.

“Clearly, some patients require chemotherapy, and we know patients respond very well to neoadjuvant chemotherapy if they have a BRCA mutation, but we don’t yet know who we can de-escalate in,” he said.

He also highlighted the need to reduce anemia in patients on PARP inhibitors, “particularly if we’re moving into lower-risk populations or possibly considering prevention trials.

“The study of PARP inhibitor resistance ... is now urgent, so that we can address it,” he said.

Dr. Punie disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Focus Patient, Medscape, MSD, Mundi Pharma, Need, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and PharmaMar. Dr. Tutt disclosed financial relationships with Artios, Gilead, MD Anderson, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Vertex, AstraZeneca, EM Partners, Medscape Education, CRUK, Inbiomotion, Myriad Genetics, and Breast Cancer Now.

While poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors clearly show benefit in certain kinds of breast cancer, questions persist about ideal drug targets and the value of combining them with other medications, oncologists explained at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

For now, the drugs are only approved in high-risk germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmut) early breast cancer, oncologist Kevin Punie, MD, of Saint Augustine Hospital in Wilrijk, Belgium, said during a session at the meeting. Combining the drugs with chemotherapy “has not yet demonstrated significant benefits, and this is irrespective whether platinum was part of the chemotherapy backbone.”

PARP is a kind of enzyme that repairs damaged DNA in cells, especially cancerous ones. PARP inhibitors block the enzyme, potentially leading more cancer cells to die, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute states.

In a separate presentation during the same session, oncologist Andrew Tutt, MBChB, PhD, noted that a study he led – a phase 3, double-blinded, randomized 2021 trial – found that patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer who took the PARP inhibitor olarapib (Lynparza) versus placebo had improved outcomes on several measures, including 3-year invasive disease-free survival (85.9% vs. 77.1%, P < .001). However, the study noted that “olaparib had limited effects on global patient-reported quality of life.”

Dr. Tutt, of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and Kings College London, said 57% of patients who took olarapib suffered nausea versus 24% of those who took placebo, and fatigue and anemia were also more common in the olarapib group. Anemia can be severe and lead to transfusions in some cases.

As Dr. Punie explained, there are many reasons to consider combining PARP inhibitors with other treatments such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy. The combinations may have synergetic effects, and they could have potential in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.

The combination of the PARP inhibitor olaparib and endocrine therapy is now approved by the European Medicines Agency for the adjuvant treatment of certain patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations who have HER2-negative, high-risk early breast cancer, Dr. Punie noted.

The 2021 study led by Dr. Tutt reported that treatment or safety differences were found in those who received both olaparib and endocrine therapy versus those who only received olarapib.

So far, Dr. Punie said, “we not yet have enough clinical evidence to say that there’s really synergy between PNP inhibitors and other anticancer therapies.” According to the National Institutes of Health, medical synergy “describes the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”

In regard to chemotherapy, it makes sense that PARP inhibitors would be helpful in combination, Dr. Punie said. DNA damage to cancer cells accumulates during chemotherapy, he said, and they’re more depending on PARP for repair.

Study results so far have been mixed. A 2022 study, for example, found that adding the experimental PARP inhibitor veliparib to the chemotherapy regimen carboplatin-paclitaxel didn’t improve outcomes, he said. A similar study examining the addition of olaparib to carboplatin-paclitaxel is ongoing.

As for combining radiotherapy and PARP inhibitors, Dr. Punie said that preclinical findings are promising, and research is underway. There’s also ongoing research into combining PARP inhibitors with immunotherapy.

Off-label use of olaparib with immunotherapy or sequential treatment may be appropriate in the setting of adjuvant gBRCAmut triple-negative breast cancer with residual disease, he said.

During his presentation, Dr. Tutt called for researchers to investigate the use of PARP inhibitors in the de-escalation of treatment in lower-risk gBRCAmut disease.

“Clearly, some patients require chemotherapy, and we know patients respond very well to neoadjuvant chemotherapy if they have a BRCA mutation, but we don’t yet know who we can de-escalate in,” he said.

He also highlighted the need to reduce anemia in patients on PARP inhibitors, “particularly if we’re moving into lower-risk populations or possibly considering prevention trials.

“The study of PARP inhibitor resistance ... is now urgent, so that we can address it,” he said.

Dr. Punie disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Focus Patient, Medscape, MSD, Mundi Pharma, Need, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and PharmaMar. Dr. Tutt disclosed financial relationships with Artios, Gilead, MD Anderson, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Vertex, AstraZeneca, EM Partners, Medscape Education, CRUK, Inbiomotion, Myriad Genetics, and Breast Cancer Now.

While poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors clearly show benefit in certain kinds of breast cancer, questions persist about ideal drug targets and the value of combining them with other medications, oncologists explained at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

For now, the drugs are only approved in high-risk germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmut) early breast cancer, oncologist Kevin Punie, MD, of Saint Augustine Hospital in Wilrijk, Belgium, said during a session at the meeting. Combining the drugs with chemotherapy “has not yet demonstrated significant benefits, and this is irrespective whether platinum was part of the chemotherapy backbone.”

PARP is a kind of enzyme that repairs damaged DNA in cells, especially cancerous ones. PARP inhibitors block the enzyme, potentially leading more cancer cells to die, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute states.

In a separate presentation during the same session, oncologist Andrew Tutt, MBChB, PhD, noted that a study he led – a phase 3, double-blinded, randomized 2021 trial – found that patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer who took the PARP inhibitor olarapib (Lynparza) versus placebo had improved outcomes on several measures, including 3-year invasive disease-free survival (85.9% vs. 77.1%, P < .001). However, the study noted that “olaparib had limited effects on global patient-reported quality of life.”

Dr. Tutt, of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and Kings College London, said 57% of patients who took olarapib suffered nausea versus 24% of those who took placebo, and fatigue and anemia were also more common in the olarapib group. Anemia can be severe and lead to transfusions in some cases.

As Dr. Punie explained, there are many reasons to consider combining PARP inhibitors with other treatments such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy. The combinations may have synergetic effects, and they could have potential in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.

The combination of the PARP inhibitor olaparib and endocrine therapy is now approved by the European Medicines Agency for the adjuvant treatment of certain patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations who have HER2-negative, high-risk early breast cancer, Dr. Punie noted.

The 2021 study led by Dr. Tutt reported that treatment or safety differences were found in those who received both olaparib and endocrine therapy versus those who only received olarapib.

So far, Dr. Punie said, “we not yet have enough clinical evidence to say that there’s really synergy between PNP inhibitors and other anticancer therapies.” According to the National Institutes of Health, medical synergy “describes the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”

In regard to chemotherapy, it makes sense that PARP inhibitors would be helpful in combination, Dr. Punie said. DNA damage to cancer cells accumulates during chemotherapy, he said, and they’re more depending on PARP for repair.

Study results so far have been mixed. A 2022 study, for example, found that adding the experimental PARP inhibitor veliparib to the chemotherapy regimen carboplatin-paclitaxel didn’t improve outcomes, he said. A similar study examining the addition of olaparib to carboplatin-paclitaxel is ongoing.

As for combining radiotherapy and PARP inhibitors, Dr. Punie said that preclinical findings are promising, and research is underway. There’s also ongoing research into combining PARP inhibitors with immunotherapy.

Off-label use of olaparib with immunotherapy or sequential treatment may be appropriate in the setting of adjuvant gBRCAmut triple-negative breast cancer with residual disease, he said.

During his presentation, Dr. Tutt called for researchers to investigate the use of PARP inhibitors in the de-escalation of treatment in lower-risk gBRCAmut disease.

“Clearly, some patients require chemotherapy, and we know patients respond very well to neoadjuvant chemotherapy if they have a BRCA mutation, but we don’t yet know who we can de-escalate in,” he said.

He also highlighted the need to reduce anemia in patients on PARP inhibitors, “particularly if we’re moving into lower-risk populations or possibly considering prevention trials.

“The study of PARP inhibitor resistance ... is now urgent, so that we can address it,” he said.

Dr. Punie disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Focus Patient, Medscape, MSD, Mundi Pharma, Need, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and PharmaMar. Dr. Tutt disclosed financial relationships with Artios, Gilead, MD Anderson, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Vertex, AstraZeneca, EM Partners, Medscape Education, CRUK, Inbiomotion, Myriad Genetics, and Breast Cancer Now.

CHICAGO – An analysis of posts on TikTok about cirrhosis finds that approximately 40% of these posts include misinformation, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

TikTok’s short video format is increasingly becoming a major source for news and information, especially for adolescents and young adults. In 2022 the technology news website The Verge reported that about 10% of all U.S. adults regularly get news from TikTok, including an estimated 26% of adults under 30.

“Our study highlights the alarming prevalence of misinformation related to liver disease and cirrhosis on the TikTok platform. This misinformation can potentially lead to harm and poor health outcomes for individuals seeking accurate information about their conditions,” wrote the study authors in their abstract.

The study, which was led by Macklin Loveland, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Arizona, Tucson, found that, among 2,223 TikTok posts related to liver disease or cirrhosis as of November 2022, 60.3% were found to have accurate medical information, but the remaining 39.7% contained misinformation.

Some of the misinformation offered highly dubious and potentially dangerous advice, such as “Reishi mushrooms can reverse liver damage,” when in fact there is evidence to suggest that reishi mushrooms, especially in powder form, may be toxic to the liver and may even cause fatal fulminant hepatitis.

In an interview, Dr. Loveland said that much of the good information about liver disease on TikTok seems to come from patients with cirrhosis or other liver diseases who post videos chronicling their experiences, whereas bad information seems to come from people who are trying to pitch a product such as “natural” or “alternative” medicine.

“People who have real-life, firsthand experiences with cirrhosis have a really nice platform to talk about their disease process and share information with other people with similar disease processes, and the majority of them are accurate,” he said. “Where the inaccuracies come in are when people are trying to profit off a product or sell a dietary supplement, and then things go by the wayside.”

It’s important for TikTok users to understand the intentions of other users, he said, and expressed the hope that content mediators within TikTok would help to keep misinformation at bay.

Skyler B. Johnson, MD, assistant professor of radiation oncology at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, has studied misinformation about cancer on social media, and as he and colleagues reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, of 200 articles on cancer posted on social media sites, 32.5% contained misinformation and 30.5% contained harmful information.

In an interview, Dr. Johnson, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Loveland and colleagues, offered advice for colleagues about countering misinformation.

“What we’re trying to do, as part of our research group, is encourage physicians to take an active role in addressing misinformation with their patients and also in their social networking interactions,” he said. “When I see a new patient with a new diagnosis of cancer, I warn them that they’re going to encounter things online that may or may not be true.”

He noted that, often when physicians instruct patients not to go online to research their disease, the first thing the vast majority of patients do after leaving the office is to jump online.

Instead, Dr. Johnson recommended inoculating patients against misinformation – not to discourage them from going online, but to inform them about the myriad good and bad information sources, and steer them toward trustworthy sites such as government agencies (the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc), academic medical center sites, or select nonprofit organizations, foundations, and medical associations.

“But at the end of the day, even those you have to be somewhat vigilant about, because there are some unscrupulous providers who exploit even those sites,” he added.
 

Study details

Dr. Loveland and colleagues used the TikTok search engine to look for posts containing the terms “cirrhosis” and “liver disease,” and watched all such videos that turned up in the search from beginning to end. They classified each post as either educational in intent or whether it depicted a firsthand experience with liver disease.

They determined whether each post was accurate or erroneous according to guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, American College of Gastroenterology, and American Gastroenterological Association. They also recorded the number of likes, comments, and the number of times that each video was shared.

Accurate posts were viewed and liked significantly more often than inaccurate ones, and accurate posts had significantly more comments that faulty posts.

However, both accurate and inaccurate posts were shared a similar number of times, suggesting that bad-quality information can metastasize just as easily as good information can be disseminated.

Dr. Loveland and colleagues echoed the recommendations of Dr. Johnson, stating that “health care provides should be aware of the potential for misinformation on social media and should strive to provide their patients with accurate and evidence-based information to inform their health care decisions.”

The study was internally funded. Dr. Loveland and Dr. Johnson reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the AGA, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – An analysis of posts on TikTok about cirrhosis finds that approximately 40% of these posts include misinformation, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

TikTok’s short video format is increasingly becoming a major source for news and information, especially for adolescents and young adults. In 2022 the technology news website The Verge reported that about 10% of all U.S. adults regularly get news from TikTok, including an estimated 26% of adults under 30.

“Our study highlights the alarming prevalence of misinformation related to liver disease and cirrhosis on the TikTok platform. This misinformation can potentially lead to harm and poor health outcomes for individuals seeking accurate information about their conditions,” wrote the study authors in their abstract.

The study, which was led by Macklin Loveland, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Arizona, Tucson, found that, among 2,223 TikTok posts related to liver disease or cirrhosis as of November 2022, 60.3% were found to have accurate medical information, but the remaining 39.7% contained misinformation.

Some of the misinformation offered highly dubious and potentially dangerous advice, such as “Reishi mushrooms can reverse liver damage,” when in fact there is evidence to suggest that reishi mushrooms, especially in powder form, may be toxic to the liver and may even cause fatal fulminant hepatitis.

In an interview, Dr. Loveland said that much of the good information about liver disease on TikTok seems to come from patients with cirrhosis or other liver diseases who post videos chronicling their experiences, whereas bad information seems to come from people who are trying to pitch a product such as “natural” or “alternative” medicine.

“People who have real-life, firsthand experiences with cirrhosis have a really nice platform to talk about their disease process and share information with other people with similar disease processes, and the majority of them are accurate,” he said. “Where the inaccuracies come in are when people are trying to profit off a product or sell a dietary supplement, and then things go by the wayside.”

It’s important for TikTok users to understand the intentions of other users, he said, and expressed the hope that content mediators within TikTok would help to keep misinformation at bay.

Skyler B. Johnson, MD, assistant professor of radiation oncology at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, has studied misinformation about cancer on social media, and as he and colleagues reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, of 200 articles on cancer posted on social media sites, 32.5% contained misinformation and 30.5% contained harmful information.

In an interview, Dr. Johnson, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Loveland and colleagues, offered advice for colleagues about countering misinformation.

“What we’re trying to do, as part of our research group, is encourage physicians to take an active role in addressing misinformation with their patients and also in their social networking interactions,” he said. “When I see a new patient with a new diagnosis of cancer, I warn them that they’re going to encounter things online that may or may not be true.”

He noted that, often when physicians instruct patients not to go online to research their disease, the first thing the vast majority of patients do after leaving the office is to jump online.

Instead, Dr. Johnson recommended inoculating patients against misinformation – not to discourage them from going online, but to inform them about the myriad good and bad information sources, and steer them toward trustworthy sites such as government agencies (the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc), academic medical center sites, or select nonprofit organizations, foundations, and medical associations.

“But at the end of the day, even those you have to be somewhat vigilant about, because there are some unscrupulous providers who exploit even those sites,” he added.
 

Study details

Dr. Loveland and colleagues used the TikTok search engine to look for posts containing the terms “cirrhosis” and “liver disease,” and watched all such videos that turned up in the search from beginning to end. They classified each post as either educational in intent or whether it depicted a firsthand experience with liver disease.

They determined whether each post was accurate or erroneous according to guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, American College of Gastroenterology, and American Gastroenterological Association. They also recorded the number of likes, comments, and the number of times that each video was shared.

Accurate posts were viewed and liked significantly more often than inaccurate ones, and accurate posts had significantly more comments that faulty posts.

However, both accurate and inaccurate posts were shared a similar number of times, suggesting that bad-quality information can metastasize just as easily as good information can be disseminated.

Dr. Loveland and colleagues echoed the recommendations of Dr. Johnson, stating that “health care provides should be aware of the potential for misinformation on social media and should strive to provide their patients with accurate and evidence-based information to inform their health care decisions.”

The study was internally funded. Dr. Loveland and Dr. Johnson reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the AGA, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – An analysis of posts on TikTok about cirrhosis finds that approximately 40% of these posts include misinformation, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

TikTok’s short video format is increasingly becoming a major source for news and information, especially for adolescents and young adults. In 2022 the technology news website The Verge reported that about 10% of all U.S. adults regularly get news from TikTok, including an estimated 26% of adults under 30.

“Our study highlights the alarming prevalence of misinformation related to liver disease and cirrhosis on the TikTok platform. This misinformation can potentially lead to harm and poor health outcomes for individuals seeking accurate information about their conditions,” wrote the study authors in their abstract.

The study, which was led by Macklin Loveland, MD, an internal medicine resident at the University of Arizona, Tucson, found that, among 2,223 TikTok posts related to liver disease or cirrhosis as of November 2022, 60.3% were found to have accurate medical information, but the remaining 39.7% contained misinformation.

Some of the misinformation offered highly dubious and potentially dangerous advice, such as “Reishi mushrooms can reverse liver damage,” when in fact there is evidence to suggest that reishi mushrooms, especially in powder form, may be toxic to the liver and may even cause fatal fulminant hepatitis.

In an interview, Dr. Loveland said that much of the good information about liver disease on TikTok seems to come from patients with cirrhosis or other liver diseases who post videos chronicling their experiences, whereas bad information seems to come from people who are trying to pitch a product such as “natural” or “alternative” medicine.

“People who have real-life, firsthand experiences with cirrhosis have a really nice platform to talk about their disease process and share information with other people with similar disease processes, and the majority of them are accurate,” he said. “Where the inaccuracies come in are when people are trying to profit off a product or sell a dietary supplement, and then things go by the wayside.”

It’s important for TikTok users to understand the intentions of other users, he said, and expressed the hope that content mediators within TikTok would help to keep misinformation at bay.

Skyler B. Johnson, MD, assistant professor of radiation oncology at the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, has studied misinformation about cancer on social media, and as he and colleagues reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, of 200 articles on cancer posted on social media sites, 32.5% contained misinformation and 30.5% contained harmful information.

In an interview, Dr. Johnson, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Loveland and colleagues, offered advice for colleagues about countering misinformation.

“What we’re trying to do, as part of our research group, is encourage physicians to take an active role in addressing misinformation with their patients and also in their social networking interactions,” he said. “When I see a new patient with a new diagnosis of cancer, I warn them that they’re going to encounter things online that may or may not be true.”

He noted that, often when physicians instruct patients not to go online to research their disease, the first thing the vast majority of patients do after leaving the office is to jump online.

Instead, Dr. Johnson recommended inoculating patients against misinformation – not to discourage them from going online, but to inform them about the myriad good and bad information sources, and steer them toward trustworthy sites such as government agencies (the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc), academic medical center sites, or select nonprofit organizations, foundations, and medical associations.

“But at the end of the day, even those you have to be somewhat vigilant about, because there are some unscrupulous providers who exploit even those sites,” he added.
 

Study details

Dr. Loveland and colleagues used the TikTok search engine to look for posts containing the terms “cirrhosis” and “liver disease,” and watched all such videos that turned up in the search from beginning to end. They classified each post as either educational in intent or whether it depicted a firsthand experience with liver disease.

They determined whether each post was accurate or erroneous according to guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, American College of Gastroenterology, and American Gastroenterological Association. They also recorded the number of likes, comments, and the number of times that each video was shared.

Accurate posts were viewed and liked significantly more often than inaccurate ones, and accurate posts had significantly more comments that faulty posts.

However, both accurate and inaccurate posts were shared a similar number of times, suggesting that bad-quality information can metastasize just as easily as good information can be disseminated.

Dr. Loveland and colleagues echoed the recommendations of Dr. Johnson, stating that “health care provides should be aware of the potential for misinformation on social media and should strive to provide their patients with accurate and evidence-based information to inform their health care decisions.”

The study was internally funded. Dr. Loveland and Dr. Johnson reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the AGA, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – Preoperative clinical diagnoses of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) are frequently found to be in error when patients go to surgery as recommended under international guidelines, data from a retrospective study show.

An analysis of all pancreatic resections performed for presumed PCN at the Verona Pancreas Institute, Italy, from 2011 through 2020 showed a high degree of discrepancy between the preoperative clinical diagnosis and the final postoperative pathology, with some lesions being misdiagnosed in nearly two-thirds of cases, reported Anna Burelli, MD, of the department of general and pancreatic surgery at the University of Verona.

“Diagnostic errors are still common for resected PCNs. Morphological and clinical information alone still poorly frame actual targets for surgery, and hopefully the development of new reliable biomarkers will represent the next evolution in pancreatic cystic neoplasm management,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

Diagnostic errors are significant issues in care of patients with PCN, because clinicians must balance the need for prompt, definitive treatment when necessary with the need for avoiding the significant morbidity of pancreatic resection for patients with lesions that turn out to be nonmalignant.

The investigators define “misdiagnosis” as a discrepancy between the preoperative clinical diagnosis and the postoperative pathology, and “mismatch” as a discrepancy between the preoperative suspicion of malignant or benign disease and the final pathology.
 

Checkered history

In previous cases series from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (2010) and the Verona Pancreas Institute (2012) – both experienced, high-volume centers – PCN misdiagnosis rates were 30% and 21%, respectively, and results from the current study show that things haven’t changed much since then, Dr. Burelli said.

PCNs are divided into neoplastic and nonneoplastic categories, with mucin-producing subtypes considered to be precancerous lesions that require accurate diagnosis and close monitoring.

Examples of neoplastic PCNs are intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) of the main pancreatic duct or side branch and mucinous cystadenomas. In contrast, serous cystadenomas, considered nonneoplastic, are mostly benign lesions discovered incidentally during abdominal imaging for another indication. It is very difficult, however, to distinguish between the two PCN subtypes clinically.

For example, Dr. Burelli showed images from a patient who received a preoperative diagnosis of mixed IPMN that was in fact found to be chronic pancreatitis on postoperative pathology.

Dr. Burelli noted that AGA and joint European guidelines for management of PCNs have been updated over the past decade, with the latest AGA iteration in 2015.

A 2017 study evaluating the 2015 AGA guidelines for management of asymptomatic PCNs found that following the guidelines in a large multicenter cohort “would have resulted in 60 % fewer patients being referred for surgical resection, and accurately recommended surveillance in 95% of patients with asymptomatic PCNs.”

Misdiagnosis and mismatch common

In the current study, Dr. Burelli and colleagues reviewed all pancreatic resections performed for PCNs at their center from 2011 through 2020.

Of 601 patients included in the retrospective study, 301 underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

The investigators identified misdiagnosis in 19% of cases and mismatch in 34%, and there was no significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy among the 50% of patients who underwent EUS.

The most frequently misdiagnosed lesions were cystic neuroendocrine tumors, in 61% of cases. The least misdiagnosed lesions were pseudopapillary tumors, in 6% of cases.

Many of the diagnostic errors were clinically important. For example, seven cases presumed to be serous cystic neoplasms (an almost always benign lesion) were found on final pathology to have a different, malignant histology.

Mismatch examples included 50 IPMNs with high-risk stigmata that were presumed to be malignant before surgery but were nonmalignant on final pathology, and 38 IPMNs without high-risk stigmata which were thought on clinical examination to be benign but turned out to be malignant on final pathology.

“Our results are in line with the current literature,” Dr. Burelli said, citing a recent meta-analysis showing that among 3,292 patients who underwent resection for mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs), the pooled rate of malignancy was 16.1%, yet the 2012 International Association of Pancreatology guidelines recommend surgery for all fit patients with MCNs, and joint European evidence-based guidelines from 2018 recommend surgery for MCNs 40 mm or larger, those with mural nodules, and for patients who are symptomatic.

The 16.1% pooled malignancy rate suggests “that there is space for surveillance in most cases of MCNs,” she said.

In addition, morphologic and clinical evaluation for IPMN with high-risk stigmata have been shown to have low specificity and low sensitivity, “so should guideline recommendations be revised?” Dr. Burelli said.

She pointed to a recent multi-institutional study in Gastroenterology showing that real-time next-generation sequencing of pancreatic cyst fluid “is sensitive and specific for various pancreatic cyst types and advanced neoplasia arising from mucinous cysts, but also reveals the diversity of genomic alterations seen in pancreatic cysts and their clinical significance.”

“This is not the future; this is the present,” she concluded.

Invited discussant R. Matthew Walsh, MD, a surgeon specializing in pancreatic and cancer surgery at the Cleveland Clinic, complimented the contributions of her group.

“The patient that you showed with chronic pancreatitis could have very well benefited from the operation regardless of the diagnosis if they were symptomatic,” he said, addressing Dr. Burelli. “So what is the group that is the regrettable surgical patients, and where are you aiming your studies? Is it really the 24% with high-risk features in IPMN that have low-grade dysplasia, or is it the 58% who we’re not sure why they were operated on because they didn’t have high-grade features who had low-grade dysplasia?”

She replied that “the goal here is to avoid surgery for benign entities, and we know that the only true benign entities are serous cystic neoplasms, and all the others have a malignant potential, but we think at Verona Pancreas Institute there is no reason to operate on low-grade dysplasia free patients. This is what we really would like to avoid.”

Dr. Walsh also asked, given their finding that EUS did not appear to offer a benefit to patients or change decision making, which patients should still get EUS.

“I think that only patients in which the diagnosis is uncertain or in which there are some worrisome features or high-risk stigmata should undergo EUS before surgery, and also to continue follow-up,” Dr. Burelli said. “I don’t think that the conclusion is that EUS is not useful, but it’s not useful in all.”

For example, large, microcystic lesions can be readily identified radiographically, but other, more complex cases may still require EUS to help nail down or refine a diagnosis, she said.

The study was internally funded. Dr. Burelli and Dr. Walsh reported having no conflicts of interest.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – Preoperative clinical diagnoses of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) are frequently found to be in error when patients go to surgery as recommended under international guidelines, data from a retrospective study show.

An analysis of all pancreatic resections performed for presumed PCN at the Verona Pancreas Institute, Italy, from 2011 through 2020 showed a high degree of discrepancy between the preoperative clinical diagnosis and the final postoperative pathology, with some lesions being misdiagnosed in nearly two-thirds of cases, reported Anna Burelli, MD, of the department of general and pancreatic surgery at the University of Verona.

“Diagnostic errors are still common for resected PCNs. Morphological and clinical information alone still poorly frame actual targets for surgery, and hopefully the development of new reliable biomarkers will represent the next evolution in pancreatic cystic neoplasm management,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

Diagnostic errors are significant issues in care of patients with PCN, because clinicians must balance the need for prompt, definitive treatment when necessary with the need for avoiding the significant morbidity of pancreatic resection for patients with lesions that turn out to be nonmalignant.

The investigators define “misdiagnosis” as a discrepancy between the preoperative clinical diagnosis and the postoperative pathology, and “mismatch” as a discrepancy between the preoperative suspicion of malignant or benign disease and the final pathology.
 

Checkered history

In previous cases series from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (2010) and the Verona Pancreas Institute (2012) – both experienced, high-volume centers – PCN misdiagnosis rates were 30% and 21%, respectively, and results from the current study show that things haven’t changed much since then, Dr. Burelli said.

PCNs are divided into neoplastic and nonneoplastic categories, with mucin-producing subtypes considered to be precancerous lesions that require accurate diagnosis and close monitoring.

Examples of neoplastic PCNs are intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) of the main pancreatic duct or side branch and mucinous cystadenomas. In contrast, serous cystadenomas, considered nonneoplastic, are mostly benign lesions discovered incidentally during abdominal imaging for another indication. It is very difficult, however, to distinguish between the two PCN subtypes clinically.

For example, Dr. Burelli showed images from a patient who received a preoperative diagnosis of mixed IPMN that was in fact found to be chronic pancreatitis on postoperative pathology.

Dr. Burelli noted that AGA and joint European guidelines for management of PCNs have been updated over the past decade, with the latest AGA iteration in 2015.

A 2017 study evaluating the 2015 AGA guidelines for management of asymptomatic PCNs found that following the guidelines in a large multicenter cohort “would have resulted in 60 % fewer patients being referred for surgical resection, and accurately recommended surveillance in 95% of patients with asymptomatic PCNs.”

Misdiagnosis and mismatch common

In the current study, Dr. Burelli and colleagues reviewed all pancreatic resections performed for PCNs at their center from 2011 through 2020.

Of 601 patients included in the retrospective study, 301 underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

The investigators identified misdiagnosis in 19% of cases and mismatch in 34%, and there was no significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy among the 50% of patients who underwent EUS.

The most frequently misdiagnosed lesions were cystic neuroendocrine tumors, in 61% of cases. The least misdiagnosed lesions were pseudopapillary tumors, in 6% of cases.

Many of the diagnostic errors were clinically important. For example, seven cases presumed to be serous cystic neoplasms (an almost always benign lesion) were found on final pathology to have a different, malignant histology.

Mismatch examples included 50 IPMNs with high-risk stigmata that were presumed to be malignant before surgery but were nonmalignant on final pathology, and 38 IPMNs without high-risk stigmata which were thought on clinical examination to be benign but turned out to be malignant on final pathology.

“Our results are in line with the current literature,” Dr. Burelli said, citing a recent meta-analysis showing that among 3,292 patients who underwent resection for mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs), the pooled rate of malignancy was 16.1%, yet the 2012 International Association of Pancreatology guidelines recommend surgery for all fit patients with MCNs, and joint European evidence-based guidelines from 2018 recommend surgery for MCNs 40 mm or larger, those with mural nodules, and for patients who are symptomatic.

The 16.1% pooled malignancy rate suggests “that there is space for surveillance in most cases of MCNs,” she said.

In addition, morphologic and clinical evaluation for IPMN with high-risk stigmata have been shown to have low specificity and low sensitivity, “so should guideline recommendations be revised?” Dr. Burelli said.

She pointed to a recent multi-institutional study in Gastroenterology showing that real-time next-generation sequencing of pancreatic cyst fluid “is sensitive and specific for various pancreatic cyst types and advanced neoplasia arising from mucinous cysts, but also reveals the diversity of genomic alterations seen in pancreatic cysts and their clinical significance.”

“This is not the future; this is the present,” she concluded.

Invited discussant R. Matthew Walsh, MD, a surgeon specializing in pancreatic and cancer surgery at the Cleveland Clinic, complimented the contributions of her group.

“The patient that you showed with chronic pancreatitis could have very well benefited from the operation regardless of the diagnosis if they were symptomatic,” he said, addressing Dr. Burelli. “So what is the group that is the regrettable surgical patients, and where are you aiming your studies? Is it really the 24% with high-risk features in IPMN that have low-grade dysplasia, or is it the 58% who we’re not sure why they were operated on because they didn’t have high-grade features who had low-grade dysplasia?”

She replied that “the goal here is to avoid surgery for benign entities, and we know that the only true benign entities are serous cystic neoplasms, and all the others have a malignant potential, but we think at Verona Pancreas Institute there is no reason to operate on low-grade dysplasia free patients. This is what we really would like to avoid.”

Dr. Walsh also asked, given their finding that EUS did not appear to offer a benefit to patients or change decision making, which patients should still get EUS.

“I think that only patients in which the diagnosis is uncertain or in which there are some worrisome features or high-risk stigmata should undergo EUS before surgery, and also to continue follow-up,” Dr. Burelli said. “I don’t think that the conclusion is that EUS is not useful, but it’s not useful in all.”

For example, large, microcystic lesions can be readily identified radiographically, but other, more complex cases may still require EUS to help nail down or refine a diagnosis, she said.

The study was internally funded. Dr. Burelli and Dr. Walsh reported having no conflicts of interest.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – Preoperative clinical diagnoses of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) are frequently found to be in error when patients go to surgery as recommended under international guidelines, data from a retrospective study show.

An analysis of all pancreatic resections performed for presumed PCN at the Verona Pancreas Institute, Italy, from 2011 through 2020 showed a high degree of discrepancy between the preoperative clinical diagnosis and the final postoperative pathology, with some lesions being misdiagnosed in nearly two-thirds of cases, reported Anna Burelli, MD, of the department of general and pancreatic surgery at the University of Verona.

“Diagnostic errors are still common for resected PCNs. Morphological and clinical information alone still poorly frame actual targets for surgery, and hopefully the development of new reliable biomarkers will represent the next evolution in pancreatic cystic neoplasm management,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

Diagnostic errors are significant issues in care of patients with PCN, because clinicians must balance the need for prompt, definitive treatment when necessary with the need for avoiding the significant morbidity of pancreatic resection for patients with lesions that turn out to be nonmalignant.

The investigators define “misdiagnosis” as a discrepancy between the preoperative clinical diagnosis and the postoperative pathology, and “mismatch” as a discrepancy between the preoperative suspicion of malignant or benign disease and the final pathology.
 

Checkered history

In previous cases series from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (2010) and the Verona Pancreas Institute (2012) – both experienced, high-volume centers – PCN misdiagnosis rates were 30% and 21%, respectively, and results from the current study show that things haven’t changed much since then, Dr. Burelli said.

PCNs are divided into neoplastic and nonneoplastic categories, with mucin-producing subtypes considered to be precancerous lesions that require accurate diagnosis and close monitoring.

Examples of neoplastic PCNs are intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) of the main pancreatic duct or side branch and mucinous cystadenomas. In contrast, serous cystadenomas, considered nonneoplastic, are mostly benign lesions discovered incidentally during abdominal imaging for another indication. It is very difficult, however, to distinguish between the two PCN subtypes clinically.

For example, Dr. Burelli showed images from a patient who received a preoperative diagnosis of mixed IPMN that was in fact found to be chronic pancreatitis on postoperative pathology.

Dr. Burelli noted that AGA and joint European guidelines for management of PCNs have been updated over the past decade, with the latest AGA iteration in 2015.

A 2017 study evaluating the 2015 AGA guidelines for management of asymptomatic PCNs found that following the guidelines in a large multicenter cohort “would have resulted in 60 % fewer patients being referred for surgical resection, and accurately recommended surveillance in 95% of patients with asymptomatic PCNs.”

Misdiagnosis and mismatch common

In the current study, Dr. Burelli and colleagues reviewed all pancreatic resections performed for PCNs at their center from 2011 through 2020.

Of 601 patients included in the retrospective study, 301 underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

The investigators identified misdiagnosis in 19% of cases and mismatch in 34%, and there was no significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy among the 50% of patients who underwent EUS.

The most frequently misdiagnosed lesions were cystic neuroendocrine tumors, in 61% of cases. The least misdiagnosed lesions were pseudopapillary tumors, in 6% of cases.

Many of the diagnostic errors were clinically important. For example, seven cases presumed to be serous cystic neoplasms (an almost always benign lesion) were found on final pathology to have a different, malignant histology.

Mismatch examples included 50 IPMNs with high-risk stigmata that were presumed to be malignant before surgery but were nonmalignant on final pathology, and 38 IPMNs without high-risk stigmata which were thought on clinical examination to be benign but turned out to be malignant on final pathology.

“Our results are in line with the current literature,” Dr. Burelli said, citing a recent meta-analysis showing that among 3,292 patients who underwent resection for mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs), the pooled rate of malignancy was 16.1%, yet the 2012 International Association of Pancreatology guidelines recommend surgery for all fit patients with MCNs, and joint European evidence-based guidelines from 2018 recommend surgery for MCNs 40 mm or larger, those with mural nodules, and for patients who are symptomatic.

The 16.1% pooled malignancy rate suggests “that there is space for surveillance in most cases of MCNs,” she said.

In addition, morphologic and clinical evaluation for IPMN with high-risk stigmata have been shown to have low specificity and low sensitivity, “so should guideline recommendations be revised?” Dr. Burelli said.

She pointed to a recent multi-institutional study in Gastroenterology showing that real-time next-generation sequencing of pancreatic cyst fluid “is sensitive and specific for various pancreatic cyst types and advanced neoplasia arising from mucinous cysts, but also reveals the diversity of genomic alterations seen in pancreatic cysts and their clinical significance.”

“This is not the future; this is the present,” she concluded.

Invited discussant R. Matthew Walsh, MD, a surgeon specializing in pancreatic and cancer surgery at the Cleveland Clinic, complimented the contributions of her group.

“The patient that you showed with chronic pancreatitis could have very well benefited from the operation regardless of the diagnosis if they were symptomatic,” he said, addressing Dr. Burelli. “So what is the group that is the regrettable surgical patients, and where are you aiming your studies? Is it really the 24% with high-risk features in IPMN that have low-grade dysplasia, or is it the 58% who we’re not sure why they were operated on because they didn’t have high-grade features who had low-grade dysplasia?”

She replied that “the goal here is to avoid surgery for benign entities, and we know that the only true benign entities are serous cystic neoplasms, and all the others have a malignant potential, but we think at Verona Pancreas Institute there is no reason to operate on low-grade dysplasia free patients. This is what we really would like to avoid.”

Dr. Walsh also asked, given their finding that EUS did not appear to offer a benefit to patients or change decision making, which patients should still get EUS.

“I think that only patients in which the diagnosis is uncertain or in which there are some worrisome features or high-risk stigmata should undergo EUS before surgery, and also to continue follow-up,” Dr. Burelli said. “I don’t think that the conclusion is that EUS is not useful, but it’s not useful in all.”

For example, large, microcystic lesions can be readily identified radiographically, but other, more complex cases may still require EUS to help nail down or refine a diagnosis, she said.

The study was internally funded. Dr. Burelli and Dr. Walsh reported having no conflicts of interest.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – New data from an ongoing study shows that regular meat consumption is associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flares, specifically for patients with ulcerative colitis.

The data, which was presented on May 7 in Chicago at the annual Digestive Disease Week® meeting, is based on an analysis of data from the PREdiCCt study (Prognostic Effect of Environmental Factors in Crohn’s and Colitis) in which diets of patients with IBD were tracked over 2-3 months with 2-year follow-ups. While the study itself includes nearly 3,000 patients from the United Kingdom who are in clinical remission, this analysis included 497 patients with Crohn’s disease and 520 with ulcerative colitis.

The highest level of patient-reported meat consumption was associated with doubled risk for hard flares – defined as an increase in symptoms plus elevation in c-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotection (FCAL) plus a change in IBD therapy – in patients with ulcerative colitis, said study author Charlie W Lees, PhD, FRCP(Ed), Western General Hospital and University of Edinburgh.

Investigators also evaluated the occurrence of soft flares, which was defined as a negative response to the question, “Do you think your disease has been well controlled in the past month or since you last logged on to the portal?”

After a median follow-up of 1,481.5 days, hard flares occurred at a rate of 5.6% per year, but it did not differ by IBD subtype. However, soft flares accumulated rapidly. Hard flares with baseline FCAL levels in the 50-250 mcg/g range, as well as FCAL levels above 250 mcg, were associated with flares.

The mean baseline total protein intake was 91.9 g per day of which 35.8 g came from animal sources. The hazard ratio for the highest vs. lowest quartile of meat intake in the ulcerative colitis group was 2.08. They found no associations between hard flares with intake of total dietary fiber, N-6 polyunsaturated acids, or ultraprocessed foods, which Dr. Lees found surprising.

“Perhaps most intriguingly, when we look at ultraprocessed food intake, no difference in Crohn’s disease, and no difference in ulcerative colitis,” Dr. Lees said.

The finding is in contradiction to a study reported at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress this year that found additives in ultraprocessed foods appear to have deleterious effects on intestinal microbiota, while others may exert their influence through mechanisms, such as endoplasmic stress.

However, the new data are consistent with a previously reported association between meat consumption and ulcerative colitis development, and suggests that reducing meat consumption could help to reduce the risk of flare in patients with ulcerative colitis.

PREdiCCt is designed to examine dietary, environmental, genetic, and microbiotic factors that are associated with disease flares in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Investigators are evaluating potential contributions to disease flares from total animal protein intake, dietary fiber, N-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, dietary emulsifiers, and ultraprocessed foods, and total bacterial gene count in stool samples. They aim to examine data from 2,500 microbiome samples currently being sequenced at the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England, to determine whether the association between meat and ulcerative colitis flares could be related, as they hypothesize, to diet-induced alterations in the gut microbiome.

The research is preliminary with many unanswered questions, said Russell D. Cohen, MD, director of the inflammatory bowel disease center at the University of Chicago.

“I think he still has to evaluate a lot of the data that he has already collected because, are you talking about meat? Are you talking about poultry? Are you talking about fish? It is interesting, but it still needs to be evaluated further before we make any conclusive decisions,” he said. Dr. Cohen was not involved in the research.

He said the presumed effect of meat consumption on disease exacerbation appeared to take years, “which is a little surprising. If you really thought that IBD was due to something in diet, you would see the response right away, so it doesn’t follow timewise. Why does it takes 5 years? It should be within 5 weeks or 5 days.”

Dr. Lees disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Takeda, Pfizer, Galapagos, and BDD Pharma, among others.

DDW is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – New data from an ongoing study shows that regular meat consumption is associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flares, specifically for patients with ulcerative colitis.

The data, which was presented on May 7 in Chicago at the annual Digestive Disease Week® meeting, is based on an analysis of data from the PREdiCCt study (Prognostic Effect of Environmental Factors in Crohn’s and Colitis) in which diets of patients with IBD were tracked over 2-3 months with 2-year follow-ups. While the study itself includes nearly 3,000 patients from the United Kingdom who are in clinical remission, this analysis included 497 patients with Crohn’s disease and 520 with ulcerative colitis.

The highest level of patient-reported meat consumption was associated with doubled risk for hard flares – defined as an increase in symptoms plus elevation in c-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotection (FCAL) plus a change in IBD therapy – in patients with ulcerative colitis, said study author Charlie W Lees, PhD, FRCP(Ed), Western General Hospital and University of Edinburgh.

Investigators also evaluated the occurrence of soft flares, which was defined as a negative response to the question, “Do you think your disease has been well controlled in the past month or since you last logged on to the portal?”

After a median follow-up of 1,481.5 days, hard flares occurred at a rate of 5.6% per year, but it did not differ by IBD subtype. However, soft flares accumulated rapidly. Hard flares with baseline FCAL levels in the 50-250 mcg/g range, as well as FCAL levels above 250 mcg, were associated with flares.

The mean baseline total protein intake was 91.9 g per day of which 35.8 g came from animal sources. The hazard ratio for the highest vs. lowest quartile of meat intake in the ulcerative colitis group was 2.08. They found no associations between hard flares with intake of total dietary fiber, N-6 polyunsaturated acids, or ultraprocessed foods, which Dr. Lees found surprising.

“Perhaps most intriguingly, when we look at ultraprocessed food intake, no difference in Crohn’s disease, and no difference in ulcerative colitis,” Dr. Lees said.

The finding is in contradiction to a study reported at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress this year that found additives in ultraprocessed foods appear to have deleterious effects on intestinal microbiota, while others may exert their influence through mechanisms, such as endoplasmic stress.

However, the new data are consistent with a previously reported association between meat consumption and ulcerative colitis development, and suggests that reducing meat consumption could help to reduce the risk of flare in patients with ulcerative colitis.

PREdiCCt is designed to examine dietary, environmental, genetic, and microbiotic factors that are associated with disease flares in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Investigators are evaluating potential contributions to disease flares from total animal protein intake, dietary fiber, N-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, dietary emulsifiers, and ultraprocessed foods, and total bacterial gene count in stool samples. They aim to examine data from 2,500 microbiome samples currently being sequenced at the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England, to determine whether the association between meat and ulcerative colitis flares could be related, as they hypothesize, to diet-induced alterations in the gut microbiome.

The research is preliminary with many unanswered questions, said Russell D. Cohen, MD, director of the inflammatory bowel disease center at the University of Chicago.

“I think he still has to evaluate a lot of the data that he has already collected because, are you talking about meat? Are you talking about poultry? Are you talking about fish? It is interesting, but it still needs to be evaluated further before we make any conclusive decisions,” he said. Dr. Cohen was not involved in the research.

He said the presumed effect of meat consumption on disease exacerbation appeared to take years, “which is a little surprising. If you really thought that IBD was due to something in diet, you would see the response right away, so it doesn’t follow timewise. Why does it takes 5 years? It should be within 5 weeks or 5 days.”

Dr. Lees disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Takeda, Pfizer, Galapagos, and BDD Pharma, among others.

DDW is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – New data from an ongoing study shows that regular meat consumption is associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flares, specifically for patients with ulcerative colitis.

The data, which was presented on May 7 in Chicago at the annual Digestive Disease Week® meeting, is based on an analysis of data from the PREdiCCt study (Prognostic Effect of Environmental Factors in Crohn’s and Colitis) in which diets of patients with IBD were tracked over 2-3 months with 2-year follow-ups. While the study itself includes nearly 3,000 patients from the United Kingdom who are in clinical remission, this analysis included 497 patients with Crohn’s disease and 520 with ulcerative colitis.

The highest level of patient-reported meat consumption was associated with doubled risk for hard flares – defined as an increase in symptoms plus elevation in c-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotection (FCAL) plus a change in IBD therapy – in patients with ulcerative colitis, said study author Charlie W Lees, PhD, FRCP(Ed), Western General Hospital and University of Edinburgh.

Investigators also evaluated the occurrence of soft flares, which was defined as a negative response to the question, “Do you think your disease has been well controlled in the past month or since you last logged on to the portal?”

After a median follow-up of 1,481.5 days, hard flares occurred at a rate of 5.6% per year, but it did not differ by IBD subtype. However, soft flares accumulated rapidly. Hard flares with baseline FCAL levels in the 50-250 mcg/g range, as well as FCAL levels above 250 mcg, were associated with flares.

The mean baseline total protein intake was 91.9 g per day of which 35.8 g came from animal sources. The hazard ratio for the highest vs. lowest quartile of meat intake in the ulcerative colitis group was 2.08. They found no associations between hard flares with intake of total dietary fiber, N-6 polyunsaturated acids, or ultraprocessed foods, which Dr. Lees found surprising.

“Perhaps most intriguingly, when we look at ultraprocessed food intake, no difference in Crohn’s disease, and no difference in ulcerative colitis,” Dr. Lees said.

The finding is in contradiction to a study reported at the Crohn’s & Colitis Congress this year that found additives in ultraprocessed foods appear to have deleterious effects on intestinal microbiota, while others may exert their influence through mechanisms, such as endoplasmic stress.

However, the new data are consistent with a previously reported association between meat consumption and ulcerative colitis development, and suggests that reducing meat consumption could help to reduce the risk of flare in patients with ulcerative colitis.

PREdiCCt is designed to examine dietary, environmental, genetic, and microbiotic factors that are associated with disease flares in patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Investigators are evaluating potential contributions to disease flares from total animal protein intake, dietary fiber, N-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, dietary emulsifiers, and ultraprocessed foods, and total bacterial gene count in stool samples. They aim to examine data from 2,500 microbiome samples currently being sequenced at the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Hinxton, England, to determine whether the association between meat and ulcerative colitis flares could be related, as they hypothesize, to diet-induced alterations in the gut microbiome.

The research is preliminary with many unanswered questions, said Russell D. Cohen, MD, director of the inflammatory bowel disease center at the University of Chicago.

“I think he still has to evaluate a lot of the data that he has already collected because, are you talking about meat? Are you talking about poultry? Are you talking about fish? It is interesting, but it still needs to be evaluated further before we make any conclusive decisions,” he said. Dr. Cohen was not involved in the research.

He said the presumed effect of meat consumption on disease exacerbation appeared to take years, “which is a little surprising. If you really thought that IBD was due to something in diet, you would see the response right away, so it doesn’t follow timewise. Why does it takes 5 years? It should be within 5 weeks or 5 days.”

Dr. Lees disclosed relationships with Abbvie, Takeda, Pfizer, Galapagos, and BDD Pharma, among others.

DDW is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

SEATTLE – Palopegteriparatide (TransCon PTH, Ascendis Pharma) is a potential long-term therapy for adults with hypoparathyroidism, new findings suggest.

Findings from 110-week phase 2 data for the once-daily investigational parathyroid hormone (PTH) replacement drug were recently presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.

Overall, the drug was associated with independence from conventional calcium and active vitamin D therapy in most patients at 110 weeks, with no discontinuations due to adverse effects.  

“Patients with hypoparathyroidism have low serum calcium levels and struggle with quality of life and biochemical abnormalities. The data from the TransCon PTH studies seem to show that a lot of these abnormalities can be reversed,” presenter Mishaela R. Rubin, MD, said in an interview.  

Other PTH replacement therapies such as Nupara (now discontinued) and teriparatide (off-label) have been used in some patients with hypoparathyroidism.

However, “[TransCon PTH] is delivered in such a way as to have a prolonged half-life, so that’s kind of a special benefit that it has,” added Dr. Rubin of the division of endocrinology and metabolic bone disease, department of medicine, Columbia University, New York.

Asked to comment, session moderator Thanh Hoang, DO, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Silver Spring, Md., said: “I think it’s a very promising medication because right now we don’t have a lot of options ... I think it would help a lot of patients.”
 

Approval denied, company addressing concerns

On May 1, the Food and Drug Administration issued a complete response letter, signaling denial of approval for the TransCon PTH, citing concerns related to manufacturing control of the product’s drug/device combination product, but not about the product’s safety and efficacy, according to an Ascendis statement.

The company is now working with the FDA to address these issues and is awaiting a European Union decision later this year.

The FDA did not request that the company conduct further clinical trials of TransCon PTH, which now include published 26-week phase 2 and phase 3 data along with the current longer-term phase 2 data presented at AACE.

“The company has said that they’re hopeful the issues will be addressable and that the FDA did not have any concerns about safety,” Dr. Rubin said in an interview.
 

Calcium normalized, bone turnover improved

Dr. Rubin presented long-term efficacy and safety data from the Phase 2 PaTH Forward trial, which involved 57 of the initial 59 participants who completed week 110 of an open-label extension of the trial.

During the first 4 weeks, patients had been randomized to TransCon PTH at fixed doses of 15 µg/day, 18 µg/day, 21 µg/day, or placebo. After week 4, all patients switched to TransCon PTH titrated to doses of 6-60 µg/day along with conventional therapy, with the goal of maintaining normocalcemia.

Participants were a mean age of 50 years, 81% were women, and 92% were White. Causes of hypoparathyroidism were neck surgery in 80%, autoimmune disease in 2%, and idiopathic disease in 19%. Disease duration was 12 years (range 1-39), and all were taking conventional therapy including calcium and active vitamin D (calcitriol or alfacaldiol).

At 110 weeks, all 57 patients were able to stop taking active vitamin D, and 53 of the 57 (93%) patients achieved independence from conventional therapy, defined as taking 0 µg/day of active vitamin D and no more than 600 mg/day of calcium (the dietary supplement dose). A total of 44 (77%) patients were not taking any calcium or active vitamin D.

“This really establishes the durability up to 2 years of keeping people off conventional therapy,” Dr. Rubin said during her presentation.

There was an initial uptick to 9.4 mg/dL in mean serum calcium, as some participants were still taking active vitamin D, but that dropped to 8.9 mg/dL by week 26. Mean 24-hour urine calcium dropped from 428 mg/day at baseline to 173 mg/day by week 26. Both serum calcium and urine calcium remained in the normal range through week 110 in all patients, at 8.6 mg/dL and 167 mg/day, respectively.

“This is a really important outcome because we know that high urine calcium in these patients sets them at risk for going on to develop nephrocalcinosis, nephrolithiasis, and ultimately, chronic kidney disease,” Dr. Rubin said.

Serum levels of two bone formation markers peaked at 12 weeks after initiation of TransCon PTH. Both trended downward thereafter through week 110 to levels approximating those of age- and sex-matched controls.  

“Both markers started off low, consistent with hypoparathyroidism, but with initiation of TransCon PTH we see a robust increase in bone turnover markers, almost as if the bone is ‘waking up,’ if you will. And this is consistent with calcium being mobilized from the skeleton and going into the circulation,” Dr. Rubin explained.

Bone mineral density assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry normalized, primarily in the first 26 weeks. For lumbar spine L1-L4, mean Z-scores dropped from 1.6 to 1.0 at 26 weeks and down to 0.7 by week 100. For total hip, those values were 1.0, 0.6, and 0.4, respectively. The values approached age- and sex-matched norms, Dr. Rubin noted, to “perhaps where their skeleton would be if they hadn’t had hypoparathyroidism.”

Overall 56 of the 57 (94.9%) patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events, of which 25 (42.4%) were treatment related and none were deemed serious. There were no treatment-emergent adverse events related to hypercalcemia or hypocalcemia leading to health care visits or hospitalization, none leading to discontinuation of study drug, and none to death.

“So overall, a reassuring safety profile,” Dr. Rubin said. “We look forward to presenting the next 2 years’ worth of data to the end of the open-label extension study.”

Dr. Rubin is a paid researcher for Ascendis, which funded the study. Dr. Hoang has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

SEATTLE – Palopegteriparatide (TransCon PTH, Ascendis Pharma) is a potential long-term therapy for adults with hypoparathyroidism, new findings suggest.

Findings from 110-week phase 2 data for the once-daily investigational parathyroid hormone (PTH) replacement drug were recently presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.

Overall, the drug was associated with independence from conventional calcium and active vitamin D therapy in most patients at 110 weeks, with no discontinuations due to adverse effects.  

“Patients with hypoparathyroidism have low serum calcium levels and struggle with quality of life and biochemical abnormalities. The data from the TransCon PTH studies seem to show that a lot of these abnormalities can be reversed,” presenter Mishaela R. Rubin, MD, said in an interview.  

Other PTH replacement therapies such as Nupara (now discontinued) and teriparatide (off-label) have been used in some patients with hypoparathyroidism.

However, “[TransCon PTH] is delivered in such a way as to have a prolonged half-life, so that’s kind of a special benefit that it has,” added Dr. Rubin of the division of endocrinology and metabolic bone disease, department of medicine, Columbia University, New York.

Asked to comment, session moderator Thanh Hoang, DO, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Silver Spring, Md., said: “I think it’s a very promising medication because right now we don’t have a lot of options ... I think it would help a lot of patients.”
 

Approval denied, company addressing concerns

On May 1, the Food and Drug Administration issued a complete response letter, signaling denial of approval for the TransCon PTH, citing concerns related to manufacturing control of the product’s drug/device combination product, but not about the product’s safety and efficacy, according to an Ascendis statement.

The company is now working with the FDA to address these issues and is awaiting a European Union decision later this year.

The FDA did not request that the company conduct further clinical trials of TransCon PTH, which now include published 26-week phase 2 and phase 3 data along with the current longer-term phase 2 data presented at AACE.

“The company has said that they’re hopeful the issues will be addressable and that the FDA did not have any concerns about safety,” Dr. Rubin said in an interview.
 

Calcium normalized, bone turnover improved

Dr. Rubin presented long-term efficacy and safety data from the Phase 2 PaTH Forward trial, which involved 57 of the initial 59 participants who completed week 110 of an open-label extension of the trial.

During the first 4 weeks, patients had been randomized to TransCon PTH at fixed doses of 15 µg/day, 18 µg/day, 21 µg/day, or placebo. After week 4, all patients switched to TransCon PTH titrated to doses of 6-60 µg/day along with conventional therapy, with the goal of maintaining normocalcemia.

Participants were a mean age of 50 years, 81% were women, and 92% were White. Causes of hypoparathyroidism were neck surgery in 80%, autoimmune disease in 2%, and idiopathic disease in 19%. Disease duration was 12 years (range 1-39), and all were taking conventional therapy including calcium and active vitamin D (calcitriol or alfacaldiol).

At 110 weeks, all 57 patients were able to stop taking active vitamin D, and 53 of the 57 (93%) patients achieved independence from conventional therapy, defined as taking 0 µg/day of active vitamin D and no more than 600 mg/day of calcium (the dietary supplement dose). A total of 44 (77%) patients were not taking any calcium or active vitamin D.

“This really establishes the durability up to 2 years of keeping people off conventional therapy,” Dr. Rubin said during her presentation.

There was an initial uptick to 9.4 mg/dL in mean serum calcium, as some participants were still taking active vitamin D, but that dropped to 8.9 mg/dL by week 26. Mean 24-hour urine calcium dropped from 428 mg/day at baseline to 173 mg/day by week 26. Both serum calcium and urine calcium remained in the normal range through week 110 in all patients, at 8.6 mg/dL and 167 mg/day, respectively.

“This is a really important outcome because we know that high urine calcium in these patients sets them at risk for going on to develop nephrocalcinosis, nephrolithiasis, and ultimately, chronic kidney disease,” Dr. Rubin said.

Serum levels of two bone formation markers peaked at 12 weeks after initiation of TransCon PTH. Both trended downward thereafter through week 110 to levels approximating those of age- and sex-matched controls.  

“Both markers started off low, consistent with hypoparathyroidism, but with initiation of TransCon PTH we see a robust increase in bone turnover markers, almost as if the bone is ‘waking up,’ if you will. And this is consistent with calcium being mobilized from the skeleton and going into the circulation,” Dr. Rubin explained.

Bone mineral density assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry normalized, primarily in the first 26 weeks. For lumbar spine L1-L4, mean Z-scores dropped from 1.6 to 1.0 at 26 weeks and down to 0.7 by week 100. For total hip, those values were 1.0, 0.6, and 0.4, respectively. The values approached age- and sex-matched norms, Dr. Rubin noted, to “perhaps where their skeleton would be if they hadn’t had hypoparathyroidism.”

Overall 56 of the 57 (94.9%) patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events, of which 25 (42.4%) were treatment related and none were deemed serious. There were no treatment-emergent adverse events related to hypercalcemia or hypocalcemia leading to health care visits or hospitalization, none leading to discontinuation of study drug, and none to death.

“So overall, a reassuring safety profile,” Dr. Rubin said. “We look forward to presenting the next 2 years’ worth of data to the end of the open-label extension study.”

Dr. Rubin is a paid researcher for Ascendis, which funded the study. Dr. Hoang has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

SEATTLE – Palopegteriparatide (TransCon PTH, Ascendis Pharma) is a potential long-term therapy for adults with hypoparathyroidism, new findings suggest.

Findings from 110-week phase 2 data for the once-daily investigational parathyroid hormone (PTH) replacement drug were recently presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.

Overall, the drug was associated with independence from conventional calcium and active vitamin D therapy in most patients at 110 weeks, with no discontinuations due to adverse effects.  

“Patients with hypoparathyroidism have low serum calcium levels and struggle with quality of life and biochemical abnormalities. The data from the TransCon PTH studies seem to show that a lot of these abnormalities can be reversed,” presenter Mishaela R. Rubin, MD, said in an interview.  

Other PTH replacement therapies such as Nupara (now discontinued) and teriparatide (off-label) have been used in some patients with hypoparathyroidism.

However, “[TransCon PTH] is delivered in such a way as to have a prolonged half-life, so that’s kind of a special benefit that it has,” added Dr. Rubin of the division of endocrinology and metabolic bone disease, department of medicine, Columbia University, New York.

Asked to comment, session moderator Thanh Hoang, DO, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Silver Spring, Md., said: “I think it’s a very promising medication because right now we don’t have a lot of options ... I think it would help a lot of patients.”
 

Approval denied, company addressing concerns

On May 1, the Food and Drug Administration issued a complete response letter, signaling denial of approval for the TransCon PTH, citing concerns related to manufacturing control of the product’s drug/device combination product, but not about the product’s safety and efficacy, according to an Ascendis statement.

The company is now working with the FDA to address these issues and is awaiting a European Union decision later this year.

The FDA did not request that the company conduct further clinical trials of TransCon PTH, which now include published 26-week phase 2 and phase 3 data along with the current longer-term phase 2 data presented at AACE.

“The company has said that they’re hopeful the issues will be addressable and that the FDA did not have any concerns about safety,” Dr. Rubin said in an interview.
 

Calcium normalized, bone turnover improved

Dr. Rubin presented long-term efficacy and safety data from the Phase 2 PaTH Forward trial, which involved 57 of the initial 59 participants who completed week 110 of an open-label extension of the trial.

During the first 4 weeks, patients had been randomized to TransCon PTH at fixed doses of 15 µg/day, 18 µg/day, 21 µg/day, or placebo. After week 4, all patients switched to TransCon PTH titrated to doses of 6-60 µg/day along with conventional therapy, with the goal of maintaining normocalcemia.

Participants were a mean age of 50 years, 81% were women, and 92% were White. Causes of hypoparathyroidism were neck surgery in 80%, autoimmune disease in 2%, and idiopathic disease in 19%. Disease duration was 12 years (range 1-39), and all were taking conventional therapy including calcium and active vitamin D (calcitriol or alfacaldiol).

At 110 weeks, all 57 patients were able to stop taking active vitamin D, and 53 of the 57 (93%) patients achieved independence from conventional therapy, defined as taking 0 µg/day of active vitamin D and no more than 600 mg/day of calcium (the dietary supplement dose). A total of 44 (77%) patients were not taking any calcium or active vitamin D.

“This really establishes the durability up to 2 years of keeping people off conventional therapy,” Dr. Rubin said during her presentation.

There was an initial uptick to 9.4 mg/dL in mean serum calcium, as some participants were still taking active vitamin D, but that dropped to 8.9 mg/dL by week 26. Mean 24-hour urine calcium dropped from 428 mg/day at baseline to 173 mg/day by week 26. Both serum calcium and urine calcium remained in the normal range through week 110 in all patients, at 8.6 mg/dL and 167 mg/day, respectively.

“This is a really important outcome because we know that high urine calcium in these patients sets them at risk for going on to develop nephrocalcinosis, nephrolithiasis, and ultimately, chronic kidney disease,” Dr. Rubin said.

Serum levels of two bone formation markers peaked at 12 weeks after initiation of TransCon PTH. Both trended downward thereafter through week 110 to levels approximating those of age- and sex-matched controls.  

“Both markers started off low, consistent with hypoparathyroidism, but with initiation of TransCon PTH we see a robust increase in bone turnover markers, almost as if the bone is ‘waking up,’ if you will. And this is consistent with calcium being mobilized from the skeleton and going into the circulation,” Dr. Rubin explained.

Bone mineral density assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry normalized, primarily in the first 26 weeks. For lumbar spine L1-L4, mean Z-scores dropped from 1.6 to 1.0 at 26 weeks and down to 0.7 by week 100. For total hip, those values were 1.0, 0.6, and 0.4, respectively. The values approached age- and sex-matched norms, Dr. Rubin noted, to “perhaps where their skeleton would be if they hadn’t had hypoparathyroidism.”

Overall 56 of the 57 (94.9%) patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events, of which 25 (42.4%) were treatment related and none were deemed serious. There were no treatment-emergent adverse events related to hypercalcemia or hypocalcemia leading to health care visits or hospitalization, none leading to discontinuation of study drug, and none to death.

“So overall, a reassuring safety profile,” Dr. Rubin said. “We look forward to presenting the next 2 years’ worth of data to the end of the open-label extension study.”

Dr. Rubin is a paid researcher for Ascendis, which funded the study. Dr. Hoang has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Even after 3 years of follow-up, redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performs about as well as the first procedure, whether compared for hard endpoints, such as death and stroke, or for softer endpoints, such as function and quality of life, new registry data suggest.

The findings generally support redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable devices as “a reasonable treatment option for failed transcatheter heart valves,” reported Rajendra Makkar, MD, associate director, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Data for this analysis were drawn from 348,338 TAVR procedures with the Edwards balloon-expandable valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement Registry.

Of these, 1,216 were redo procedures. In 475 of the cases, the redo was performed in a patient whose first procedure was with an Edwards device. In the remaining 741 cases, the Edwards device replaced a different prosthetic heart valve. The median time to the redo from the first procedure was 26 months.

For the analysis, the redo-TAVRs were compared with native TAVR patients through 1:1 propensity matching employing 35 covariates, such as age, body mass index (BMI), baseline comorbidities, prior cardiovascular procedures, valve size, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score.
 

Low death and stroke rates following TAVR redos

The rates of all-cause death or stroke within hospital (4.7% vs. 3.9%; P = .32) and at 30 days (6.1% vs. 5.9%; P = .77) were numerically but not statistically higher in the redo group.

At 1 year, the rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.7%; P = .961) and stroke (3.3% vs. 3.5%; P = .982) were numerically but not significantly lower among those who underwent a redo procedure.

The secondary endpoints told the same story. The one exception was the higher aortic valve reintervention rate (0.61% vs. 0.09%; P = .03) at 30 days in the redo group. This did reach statistical significance, but Dr. Makkar pointed out rates were very low regardless. The rates climbed in both groups by 1 year (1.09% vs. 0.21%; P = .01).

No other secondary endpoints differed significantly at 30 days or at 1 year. Even though some were numerically higher after redo at 1 year, such as major vascular complications (1.25 vs. 1.60; P = .51), others were lower, such as new-start dialysis (1.62 vs. 0.98; P = .26). All-cause readmission rates at 1 year were nearly identical (32.56% vs. 32.23%; P = .82).

Consistent with the comparable outcomes on the hard endpoints, major and similar improvements were seen in both the redo and the propensity-matched native TAVR patients on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary. The slight advantage for the redo group was not significant at 30 days, but the degree of improvement was greater after the redo than after native TAVR at 1 year (15% vs. 10%; P = .03).

“You bring good news,” said Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. Widely regarded as the father of TAVR for his first-in-human series in 2002, Dr. Cribier said that there are several reassuring take-home messages from this study.

“First, these data tell us that the redo rate is extremely low,” he said, noting that the registry data suggests a risk well below 1%. “Second, we are seeing from this data that there are no more complications [than TAVR in a native valve] if you need to do this.”
 

Redo patients are generally sicker

The propensity matching was designed to eliminate baseline differences for the outcome comparisons, but Dr. Makkar did point out that redo-TAVR patients were sicker than the native TAVR patients. For example, when compared prior to propensity matching, the STS score was higher (8.3 vs. 5.2; P < .01), more patients had atrial fibrillation (47.9% vs. 36.2%; P < .01), and more patients had a prior stroke (15.0% vs. 10.7%; P < .01).

The registry only has follow-up out to 1 year, but participating patients were matched to a claims database to capture outcomes out to 3 years. Mortality rates at long-term follow-up were not significantly different for redo vs. native TAVR (42.2% vs. 40.3% respectively; P = .98); for the entire dataset or when compared in subgroups defined by Edwards valve redo of an Edwards valve (P = .909) or an Edwards valve redo of a non-Edwards device (P = .871).

Whether an early redo, defined as 12 months after the index TAVR procedure, or a late redo, the rate of mortality ranged from approximately 16% to 18% with no significant difference between redo and native TAVR.

A moderator for the late-breaking trials session where these data were presented, Darren Mylotte, MD, a consultant in cardiology for the Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, challenged Dr. Makkar about the potential for selection bias. He said redo patients might be the ones that interventionalists feel confident about helping, making this comparison unrepresentative.

“I think that the selection bias is likely to cut both ways,” Dr. Makkar replied. For many patients with a failed TAVR, he explained that clinicians might think, “There is nothing to be done for this patient except to try a redo.”

Dr. Makkar reports financial relationships with Abbott, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Mylotte reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Even after 3 years of follow-up, redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performs about as well as the first procedure, whether compared for hard endpoints, such as death and stroke, or for softer endpoints, such as function and quality of life, new registry data suggest.

The findings generally support redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable devices as “a reasonable treatment option for failed transcatheter heart valves,” reported Rajendra Makkar, MD, associate director, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Data for this analysis were drawn from 348,338 TAVR procedures with the Edwards balloon-expandable valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement Registry.

Of these, 1,216 were redo procedures. In 475 of the cases, the redo was performed in a patient whose first procedure was with an Edwards device. In the remaining 741 cases, the Edwards device replaced a different prosthetic heart valve. The median time to the redo from the first procedure was 26 months.

For the analysis, the redo-TAVRs were compared with native TAVR patients through 1:1 propensity matching employing 35 covariates, such as age, body mass index (BMI), baseline comorbidities, prior cardiovascular procedures, valve size, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score.
 

Low death and stroke rates following TAVR redos

The rates of all-cause death or stroke within hospital (4.7% vs. 3.9%; P = .32) and at 30 days (6.1% vs. 5.9%; P = .77) were numerically but not statistically higher in the redo group.

At 1 year, the rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.7%; P = .961) and stroke (3.3% vs. 3.5%; P = .982) were numerically but not significantly lower among those who underwent a redo procedure.

The secondary endpoints told the same story. The one exception was the higher aortic valve reintervention rate (0.61% vs. 0.09%; P = .03) at 30 days in the redo group. This did reach statistical significance, but Dr. Makkar pointed out rates were very low regardless. The rates climbed in both groups by 1 year (1.09% vs. 0.21%; P = .01).

No other secondary endpoints differed significantly at 30 days or at 1 year. Even though some were numerically higher after redo at 1 year, such as major vascular complications (1.25 vs. 1.60; P = .51), others were lower, such as new-start dialysis (1.62 vs. 0.98; P = .26). All-cause readmission rates at 1 year were nearly identical (32.56% vs. 32.23%; P = .82).

Consistent with the comparable outcomes on the hard endpoints, major and similar improvements were seen in both the redo and the propensity-matched native TAVR patients on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary. The slight advantage for the redo group was not significant at 30 days, but the degree of improvement was greater after the redo than after native TAVR at 1 year (15% vs. 10%; P = .03).

“You bring good news,” said Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. Widely regarded as the father of TAVR for his first-in-human series in 2002, Dr. Cribier said that there are several reassuring take-home messages from this study.

“First, these data tell us that the redo rate is extremely low,” he said, noting that the registry data suggests a risk well below 1%. “Second, we are seeing from this data that there are no more complications [than TAVR in a native valve] if you need to do this.”
 

Redo patients are generally sicker

The propensity matching was designed to eliminate baseline differences for the outcome comparisons, but Dr. Makkar did point out that redo-TAVR patients were sicker than the native TAVR patients. For example, when compared prior to propensity matching, the STS score was higher (8.3 vs. 5.2; P < .01), more patients had atrial fibrillation (47.9% vs. 36.2%; P < .01), and more patients had a prior stroke (15.0% vs. 10.7%; P < .01).

The registry only has follow-up out to 1 year, but participating patients were matched to a claims database to capture outcomes out to 3 years. Mortality rates at long-term follow-up were not significantly different for redo vs. native TAVR (42.2% vs. 40.3% respectively; P = .98); for the entire dataset or when compared in subgroups defined by Edwards valve redo of an Edwards valve (P = .909) or an Edwards valve redo of a non-Edwards device (P = .871).

Whether an early redo, defined as 12 months after the index TAVR procedure, or a late redo, the rate of mortality ranged from approximately 16% to 18% with no significant difference between redo and native TAVR.

A moderator for the late-breaking trials session where these data were presented, Darren Mylotte, MD, a consultant in cardiology for the Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, challenged Dr. Makkar about the potential for selection bias. He said redo patients might be the ones that interventionalists feel confident about helping, making this comparison unrepresentative.

“I think that the selection bias is likely to cut both ways,” Dr. Makkar replied. For many patients with a failed TAVR, he explained that clinicians might think, “There is nothing to be done for this patient except to try a redo.”

Dr. Makkar reports financial relationships with Abbott, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Mylotte reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Even after 3 years of follow-up, redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performs about as well as the first procedure, whether compared for hard endpoints, such as death and stroke, or for softer endpoints, such as function and quality of life, new registry data suggest.

The findings generally support redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable devices as “a reasonable treatment option for failed transcatheter heart valves,” reported Rajendra Makkar, MD, associate director, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Data for this analysis were drawn from 348,338 TAVR procedures with the Edwards balloon-expandable valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Replacement Registry.

Of these, 1,216 were redo procedures. In 475 of the cases, the redo was performed in a patient whose first procedure was with an Edwards device. In the remaining 741 cases, the Edwards device replaced a different prosthetic heart valve. The median time to the redo from the first procedure was 26 months.

For the analysis, the redo-TAVRs were compared with native TAVR patients through 1:1 propensity matching employing 35 covariates, such as age, body mass index (BMI), baseline comorbidities, prior cardiovascular procedures, valve size, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score.
 

Low death and stroke rates following TAVR redos

The rates of all-cause death or stroke within hospital (4.7% vs. 3.9%; P = .32) and at 30 days (6.1% vs. 5.9%; P = .77) were numerically but not statistically higher in the redo group.

At 1 year, the rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.7%; P = .961) and stroke (3.3% vs. 3.5%; P = .982) were numerically but not significantly lower among those who underwent a redo procedure.

The secondary endpoints told the same story. The one exception was the higher aortic valve reintervention rate (0.61% vs. 0.09%; P = .03) at 30 days in the redo group. This did reach statistical significance, but Dr. Makkar pointed out rates were very low regardless. The rates climbed in both groups by 1 year (1.09% vs. 0.21%; P = .01).

No other secondary endpoints differed significantly at 30 days or at 1 year. Even though some were numerically higher after redo at 1 year, such as major vascular complications (1.25 vs. 1.60; P = .51), others were lower, such as new-start dialysis (1.62 vs. 0.98; P = .26). All-cause readmission rates at 1 year were nearly identical (32.56% vs. 32.23%; P = .82).

Consistent with the comparable outcomes on the hard endpoints, major and similar improvements were seen in both the redo and the propensity-matched native TAVR patients on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary. The slight advantage for the redo group was not significant at 30 days, but the degree of improvement was greater after the redo than after native TAVR at 1 year (15% vs. 10%; P = .03).

“You bring good news,” said Alain G. Cribier, MD, director of cardiology, Charles Nicolle Hospital, University of Rouen, France. Widely regarded as the father of TAVR for his first-in-human series in 2002, Dr. Cribier said that there are several reassuring take-home messages from this study.

“First, these data tell us that the redo rate is extremely low,” he said, noting that the registry data suggests a risk well below 1%. “Second, we are seeing from this data that there are no more complications [than TAVR in a native valve] if you need to do this.”
 

Redo patients are generally sicker

The propensity matching was designed to eliminate baseline differences for the outcome comparisons, but Dr. Makkar did point out that redo-TAVR patients were sicker than the native TAVR patients. For example, when compared prior to propensity matching, the STS score was higher (8.3 vs. 5.2; P < .01), more patients had atrial fibrillation (47.9% vs. 36.2%; P < .01), and more patients had a prior stroke (15.0% vs. 10.7%; P < .01).

The registry only has follow-up out to 1 year, but participating patients were matched to a claims database to capture outcomes out to 3 years. Mortality rates at long-term follow-up were not significantly different for redo vs. native TAVR (42.2% vs. 40.3% respectively; P = .98); for the entire dataset or when compared in subgroups defined by Edwards valve redo of an Edwards valve (P = .909) or an Edwards valve redo of a non-Edwards device (P = .871).

Whether an early redo, defined as 12 months after the index TAVR procedure, or a late redo, the rate of mortality ranged from approximately 16% to 18% with no significant difference between redo and native TAVR.

A moderator for the late-breaking trials session where these data were presented, Darren Mylotte, MD, a consultant in cardiology for the Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, challenged Dr. Makkar about the potential for selection bias. He said redo patients might be the ones that interventionalists feel confident about helping, making this comparison unrepresentative.

“I think that the selection bias is likely to cut both ways,” Dr. Makkar replied. For many patients with a failed TAVR, he explained that clinicians might think, “There is nothing to be done for this patient except to try a redo.”

Dr. Makkar reports financial relationships with Abbott, Cordis, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Cribier reports a financial relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Mylotte reports no potential conflicts of interest.