Conference Coverage

New phase 3 data support the use of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device in nulliparous women with obesity and heavy menstrual bleeding. The findings, presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, showed a 97% reduction in blood loss 6 months after placement of the device, which is sold as the contraceptive Liletta by Medicines360 and AbbVie.

Experts say the results fill a gap in research because prior clinical trials of the IUD and a competitor, Mirena (Bayer), excluded significantly obese as well as nulliparous populations.

William Schlaff, MD, professor and chairman of the department of obstetrics & gynecology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said the absence of confirmatory evidence in these women has meant that, although use of the IUD has been “pretty widespread,” clinicians have been uncertain about the efficacy of the approach.

“Now we have objective data from a well-designed study that supports a practice that many of us have felt is probably a good one,” Dr. Schlaff, who was not involved in the new study, said in an interview.

Lead researcher Mitchell Creinin, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, and colleagues at several centers across the country provided treatment with Liletta to 105 individuals with proven heavy menstrual bleeding. The patients’ median blood loss during two menses prior to placement of the device was 165 mL (range, 73-520 mL).

Participant demographics were: 65% White, 24% Black, 10% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 7% who identified with other racial groups. Mean body mass index was 30.9 kg/m², and 45% of individuals met the criteria for obesity (BMI > 30), including 13% who had a BMI of at least 40. Nearly 30% of participants in the study had never given birth and none had known medical, anatomic, infectious, or neoplastic causes of bleeding.

According to Dr. Creinin, 86 women were assessed 3 months after device placement, and their median blood loss at the time was 9.5 mL (interquartile range, 2.5-22.9 mL), representing a median 93% decrease from baseline. Median blood loss 6 months after placement of the IUD was 3.8 mL (IQR, 0-10.1 mL), a 97% reduction from baseline.

Regardless of parity or BMI, blood loss at 6 months was 97%-97.5% lower than baseline, Dr. Creinin reported.

Among the 23% of participants who did not complete the study, 4% experienced expulsions of the device, which Dr. Creinin said is a rate twice as high as that seen in women using hormone-releasing IUDs for contraception. However, he said it “is consistent with other studies among patients with quantitatively proven heavy menstrual bleeding.”

Another 6% of women who did not complete the study removed the device owing to bleeding and cramping complaints, 9% were lost to follow-up or withdrew consent, and 5% discontinued treatment for unspecified reasons, Dr. Creinin said.

“Etiologies for heavy menstrual bleeding may be different in the individuals we studied, so our findings provide assurance that these populations with heavy menstrual bleeding are equally well treated” with the IUD, Dr. Creinin said.

Dr. Creinin reported study funding from Medicines360. Dr. Schlaff reported no financial conflicts of interest.

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

New phase 3 data support the use of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device in nulliparous women with obesity and heavy menstrual bleeding. The findings, presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, showed a 97% reduction in blood loss 6 months after placement of the device, which is sold as the contraceptive Liletta by Medicines360 and AbbVie.

Experts say the results fill a gap in research because prior clinical trials of the IUD and a competitor, Mirena (Bayer), excluded significantly obese as well as nulliparous populations.

William Schlaff, MD, professor and chairman of the department of obstetrics & gynecology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said the absence of confirmatory evidence in these women has meant that, although use of the IUD has been “pretty widespread,” clinicians have been uncertain about the efficacy of the approach.

“Now we have objective data from a well-designed study that supports a practice that many of us have felt is probably a good one,” Dr. Schlaff, who was not involved in the new study, said in an interview.

Lead researcher Mitchell Creinin, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, and colleagues at several centers across the country provided treatment with Liletta to 105 individuals with proven heavy menstrual bleeding. The patients’ median blood loss during two menses prior to placement of the device was 165 mL (range, 73-520 mL).

Participant demographics were: 65% White, 24% Black, 10% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 7% who identified with other racial groups. Mean body mass index was 30.9 kg/m², and 45% of individuals met the criteria for obesity (BMI > 30), including 13% who had a BMI of at least 40. Nearly 30% of participants in the study had never given birth and none had known medical, anatomic, infectious, or neoplastic causes of bleeding.

According to Dr. Creinin, 86 women were assessed 3 months after device placement, and their median blood loss at the time was 9.5 mL (interquartile range, 2.5-22.9 mL), representing a median 93% decrease from baseline. Median blood loss 6 months after placement of the IUD was 3.8 mL (IQR, 0-10.1 mL), a 97% reduction from baseline.

Regardless of parity or BMI, blood loss at 6 months was 97%-97.5% lower than baseline, Dr. Creinin reported.

Among the 23% of participants who did not complete the study, 4% experienced expulsions of the device, which Dr. Creinin said is a rate twice as high as that seen in women using hormone-releasing IUDs for contraception. However, he said it “is consistent with other studies among patients with quantitatively proven heavy menstrual bleeding.”

Another 6% of women who did not complete the study removed the device owing to bleeding and cramping complaints, 9% were lost to follow-up or withdrew consent, and 5% discontinued treatment for unspecified reasons, Dr. Creinin said.

“Etiologies for heavy menstrual bleeding may be different in the individuals we studied, so our findings provide assurance that these populations with heavy menstrual bleeding are equally well treated” with the IUD, Dr. Creinin said.

Dr. Creinin reported study funding from Medicines360. Dr. Schlaff reported no financial conflicts of interest.

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

New phase 3 data support the use of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine device in nulliparous women with obesity and heavy menstrual bleeding. The findings, presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, showed a 97% reduction in blood loss 6 months after placement of the device, which is sold as the contraceptive Liletta by Medicines360 and AbbVie.

Experts say the results fill a gap in research because prior clinical trials of the IUD and a competitor, Mirena (Bayer), excluded significantly obese as well as nulliparous populations.

William Schlaff, MD, professor and chairman of the department of obstetrics & gynecology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said the absence of confirmatory evidence in these women has meant that, although use of the IUD has been “pretty widespread,” clinicians have been uncertain about the efficacy of the approach.

“Now we have objective data from a well-designed study that supports a practice that many of us have felt is probably a good one,” Dr. Schlaff, who was not involved in the new study, said in an interview.

Lead researcher Mitchell Creinin, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, and colleagues at several centers across the country provided treatment with Liletta to 105 individuals with proven heavy menstrual bleeding. The patients’ median blood loss during two menses prior to placement of the device was 165 mL (range, 73-520 mL).

Participant demographics were: 65% White, 24% Black, 10% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 7% who identified with other racial groups. Mean body mass index was 30.9 kg/m², and 45% of individuals met the criteria for obesity (BMI > 30), including 13% who had a BMI of at least 40. Nearly 30% of participants in the study had never given birth and none had known medical, anatomic, infectious, or neoplastic causes of bleeding.

According to Dr. Creinin, 86 women were assessed 3 months after device placement, and their median blood loss at the time was 9.5 mL (interquartile range, 2.5-22.9 mL), representing a median 93% decrease from baseline. Median blood loss 6 months after placement of the IUD was 3.8 mL (IQR, 0-10.1 mL), a 97% reduction from baseline.

Regardless of parity or BMI, blood loss at 6 months was 97%-97.5% lower than baseline, Dr. Creinin reported.

Among the 23% of participants who did not complete the study, 4% experienced expulsions of the device, which Dr. Creinin said is a rate twice as high as that seen in women using hormone-releasing IUDs for contraception. However, he said it “is consistent with other studies among patients with quantitatively proven heavy menstrual bleeding.”

Another 6% of women who did not complete the study removed the device owing to bleeding and cramping complaints, 9% were lost to follow-up or withdrew consent, and 5% discontinued treatment for unspecified reasons, Dr. Creinin said.

“Etiologies for heavy menstrual bleeding may be different in the individuals we studied, so our findings provide assurance that these populations with heavy menstrual bleeding are equally well treated” with the IUD, Dr. Creinin said.

Dr. Creinin reported study funding from Medicines360. Dr. Schlaff reported no financial conflicts of interest.

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

Treatment with the diabetes drug exenatide was associated with a significant decrease in hyperglycemia in acute stroke patients, a new study shows.

The research could offer clinicians an alternative to insulin therapy to treat hyperglycemia and reduce glucose levels, which are elevated in up to 60% of stroke patients and associated with worse outcomes after stroke.

“Use of these diabetes drugs to control glucose in acute stroke has enormous potential,” said lead researcher Christopher Bladin, PhD, professor of neurology at Monash University and Eastern Health Clinical School, Australia.

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2022 annual meeting in Lyon, France.
 

A better fix than insulin?

Hyperglycemia is common in stroke patients, including those who have no prior history of diabetes. Among stroke patients with normal blood glucose upon admission, about 30% will develop hyperglycemia within 48 hours of stroke onset.

Previous research suggests that hyperglycemia is a poor prognostic factor in patients with stroke and may reduce the efficacy of reperfusion therapies such as thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy.

“We’ve been looking for different ways of treating hyperglycemia for quite some time, and one of the obvious ways is to use insulin therapy,” Dr. Bladin said. “But as we’ve seen from multiple studies, insulin therapy is difficult.”

Insulin treatment is resource-heavy, significantly increases the risk for hypoglycemia, and some studies suggest the therapy isn’t associated with better outcomes.

An advantage to a GLP-1 agonist-like exenatide, Dr. Bladin added, is that it’s glucose-dependent. As the glucose level falls, the drug’s efficacy diminishes. It is delivered via an autoinjector and easy to administer.

A case for more study

To study exenatide’s efficacy in reducing hyperglycemia and improving neurologic outcomes, researchers developed the phase 2, international, multicenter, randomized controlled TEXAIS trial.

The study enrolled 350 patients following an ischemic stroke. Within 9 hours of stroke onset, patients received either standard care or a subcutaneous injection of 5 mg of exenatide twice daily for 5 days.

On admission, 42% of patients had hyperglycemia, defined as blood glucose > 7.0 mmol/L.

The study’s primary outcome was at least an 8-point improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score by 7 days after treatment with exenatide. Although there was a trend toward better scores with exenatide, the score was not significantly different between groups (56.7% with standard care versus 61.2% with exenatide; adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; P = .38).

However, when the researchers examined hyperglycemia frequency, they found significantly lower incidence in patients treated with exenatide (P = .002).

There were no cases of hypoglycemia in either group, and only 4% of the study group reported nausea or vomiting.

“Clearly exenatide is having some benefit in terms of keeping glucose under control, reducing hyperglycemia,” Dr. Bladin said. “It certainly lends itself to a larger phase 3 study which can look at this more completely.”
 

Value to clinicians

Commenting on the findings, Yvonne Chun, PhD, honorary senior clinical lecturer at University of Edinburgh, noted that, even though the study didn’t find a significant association with improved neurological outcomes, the reduced risk for hypoglycemia makes exenatide an attractive alternative to insulin therapy in stroke patients.

“The results are of value to clinicians, as exenatide could potentially be a safer medication to administer than an insulin infusion in acute stroke patients with hyperglycemia,” Dr. Chun said. “There is less risk of hypoglycemia with exenatide compared to standard care.”

However, Dr. Chun noted that more study is needed before exenatide can replace standard care. Dr. Bladin agrees and would like to pursue a phase 3 trial with a modified design to answer questions raised by Dr. Chun and others.

“The next phase could consider changing the primary outcome to an ordinal shift analysis on modified Rankin Scale – a very commonly used primary outcome in stroke clinical trials to assess improvement in disability,” Dr. Chun said. “The primary outcome used in the presented trial – an 8-point improvement on NIHSS – seemed too ambitious and does not inform disability of the patient post stroke.”

Dr. Bladin said he would also like to see the next phase enroll more patients, examine a higher dose of exenatide, and include better stratification of patients with a history of diabetes. Such a trial could yield findings demonstrating the drug’s effectiveness at reducing hyperglycemia and improving outcomes after stroke, he said.

“I can see the day patients will come in with acute stroke, and as they’re coming into the emergency department, they’ll simply get their shot of exenatide because we know it’s safe to use, and it doesn’t cause hypoglycemia,” Dr. Bladin said. “And from the moment that patient arrives the glucose control is underway.”

Dr. Bladin and Dr. Chun reported no relevant financial relationships. Study funding was not disclosed.

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

Treatment with the diabetes drug exenatide was associated with a significant decrease in hyperglycemia in acute stroke patients, a new study shows.

The research could offer clinicians an alternative to insulin therapy to treat hyperglycemia and reduce glucose levels, which are elevated in up to 60% of stroke patients and associated with worse outcomes after stroke.

“Use of these diabetes drugs to control glucose in acute stroke has enormous potential,” said lead researcher Christopher Bladin, PhD, professor of neurology at Monash University and Eastern Health Clinical School, Australia.

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2022 annual meeting in Lyon, France.
 

A better fix than insulin?

Hyperglycemia is common in stroke patients, including those who have no prior history of diabetes. Among stroke patients with normal blood glucose upon admission, about 30% will develop hyperglycemia within 48 hours of stroke onset.

Previous research suggests that hyperglycemia is a poor prognostic factor in patients with stroke and may reduce the efficacy of reperfusion therapies such as thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy.

“We’ve been looking for different ways of treating hyperglycemia for quite some time, and one of the obvious ways is to use insulin therapy,” Dr. Bladin said. “But as we’ve seen from multiple studies, insulin therapy is difficult.”

Insulin treatment is resource-heavy, significantly increases the risk for hypoglycemia, and some studies suggest the therapy isn’t associated with better outcomes.

An advantage to a GLP-1 agonist-like exenatide, Dr. Bladin added, is that it’s glucose-dependent. As the glucose level falls, the drug’s efficacy diminishes. It is delivered via an autoinjector and easy to administer.

A case for more study

To study exenatide’s efficacy in reducing hyperglycemia and improving neurologic outcomes, researchers developed the phase 2, international, multicenter, randomized controlled TEXAIS trial.

The study enrolled 350 patients following an ischemic stroke. Within 9 hours of stroke onset, patients received either standard care or a subcutaneous injection of 5 mg of exenatide twice daily for 5 days.

On admission, 42% of patients had hyperglycemia, defined as blood glucose > 7.0 mmol/L.

The study’s primary outcome was at least an 8-point improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score by 7 days after treatment with exenatide. Although there was a trend toward better scores with exenatide, the score was not significantly different between groups (56.7% with standard care versus 61.2% with exenatide; adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; P = .38).

However, when the researchers examined hyperglycemia frequency, they found significantly lower incidence in patients treated with exenatide (P = .002).

There were no cases of hypoglycemia in either group, and only 4% of the study group reported nausea or vomiting.

“Clearly exenatide is having some benefit in terms of keeping glucose under control, reducing hyperglycemia,” Dr. Bladin said. “It certainly lends itself to a larger phase 3 study which can look at this more completely.”
 

Value to clinicians

Commenting on the findings, Yvonne Chun, PhD, honorary senior clinical lecturer at University of Edinburgh, noted that, even though the study didn’t find a significant association with improved neurological outcomes, the reduced risk for hypoglycemia makes exenatide an attractive alternative to insulin therapy in stroke patients.

“The results are of value to clinicians, as exenatide could potentially be a safer medication to administer than an insulin infusion in acute stroke patients with hyperglycemia,” Dr. Chun said. “There is less risk of hypoglycemia with exenatide compared to standard care.”

However, Dr. Chun noted that more study is needed before exenatide can replace standard care. Dr. Bladin agrees and would like to pursue a phase 3 trial with a modified design to answer questions raised by Dr. Chun and others.

“The next phase could consider changing the primary outcome to an ordinal shift analysis on modified Rankin Scale – a very commonly used primary outcome in stroke clinical trials to assess improvement in disability,” Dr. Chun said. “The primary outcome used in the presented trial – an 8-point improvement on NIHSS – seemed too ambitious and does not inform disability of the patient post stroke.”

Dr. Bladin said he would also like to see the next phase enroll more patients, examine a higher dose of exenatide, and include better stratification of patients with a history of diabetes. Such a trial could yield findings demonstrating the drug’s effectiveness at reducing hyperglycemia and improving outcomes after stroke, he said.

“I can see the day patients will come in with acute stroke, and as they’re coming into the emergency department, they’ll simply get their shot of exenatide because we know it’s safe to use, and it doesn’t cause hypoglycemia,” Dr. Bladin said. “And from the moment that patient arrives the glucose control is underway.”

Dr. Bladin and Dr. Chun reported no relevant financial relationships. Study funding was not disclosed.

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

Treatment with the diabetes drug exenatide was associated with a significant decrease in hyperglycemia in acute stroke patients, a new study shows.

The research could offer clinicians an alternative to insulin therapy to treat hyperglycemia and reduce glucose levels, which are elevated in up to 60% of stroke patients and associated with worse outcomes after stroke.

“Use of these diabetes drugs to control glucose in acute stroke has enormous potential,” said lead researcher Christopher Bladin, PhD, professor of neurology at Monash University and Eastern Health Clinical School, Australia.

The findings were presented at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2022 annual meeting in Lyon, France.
 

A better fix than insulin?

Hyperglycemia is common in stroke patients, including those who have no prior history of diabetes. Among stroke patients with normal blood glucose upon admission, about 30% will develop hyperglycemia within 48 hours of stroke onset.

Previous research suggests that hyperglycemia is a poor prognostic factor in patients with stroke and may reduce the efficacy of reperfusion therapies such as thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy.

“We’ve been looking for different ways of treating hyperglycemia for quite some time, and one of the obvious ways is to use insulin therapy,” Dr. Bladin said. “But as we’ve seen from multiple studies, insulin therapy is difficult.”

Insulin treatment is resource-heavy, significantly increases the risk for hypoglycemia, and some studies suggest the therapy isn’t associated with better outcomes.

An advantage to a GLP-1 agonist-like exenatide, Dr. Bladin added, is that it’s glucose-dependent. As the glucose level falls, the drug’s efficacy diminishes. It is delivered via an autoinjector and easy to administer.

A case for more study

To study exenatide’s efficacy in reducing hyperglycemia and improving neurologic outcomes, researchers developed the phase 2, international, multicenter, randomized controlled TEXAIS trial.

The study enrolled 350 patients following an ischemic stroke. Within 9 hours of stroke onset, patients received either standard care or a subcutaneous injection of 5 mg of exenatide twice daily for 5 days.

On admission, 42% of patients had hyperglycemia, defined as blood glucose > 7.0 mmol/L.

The study’s primary outcome was at least an 8-point improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score by 7 days after treatment with exenatide. Although there was a trend toward better scores with exenatide, the score was not significantly different between groups (56.7% with standard care versus 61.2% with exenatide; adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; P = .38).

However, when the researchers examined hyperglycemia frequency, they found significantly lower incidence in patients treated with exenatide (P = .002).

There were no cases of hypoglycemia in either group, and only 4% of the study group reported nausea or vomiting.

“Clearly exenatide is having some benefit in terms of keeping glucose under control, reducing hyperglycemia,” Dr. Bladin said. “It certainly lends itself to a larger phase 3 study which can look at this more completely.”
 

Value to clinicians

Commenting on the findings, Yvonne Chun, PhD, honorary senior clinical lecturer at University of Edinburgh, noted that, even though the study didn’t find a significant association with improved neurological outcomes, the reduced risk for hypoglycemia makes exenatide an attractive alternative to insulin therapy in stroke patients.

“The results are of value to clinicians, as exenatide could potentially be a safer medication to administer than an insulin infusion in acute stroke patients with hyperglycemia,” Dr. Chun said. “There is less risk of hypoglycemia with exenatide compared to standard care.”

However, Dr. Chun noted that more study is needed before exenatide can replace standard care. Dr. Bladin agrees and would like to pursue a phase 3 trial with a modified design to answer questions raised by Dr. Chun and others.

“The next phase could consider changing the primary outcome to an ordinal shift analysis on modified Rankin Scale – a very commonly used primary outcome in stroke clinical trials to assess improvement in disability,” Dr. Chun said. “The primary outcome used in the presented trial – an 8-point improvement on NIHSS – seemed too ambitious and does not inform disability of the patient post stroke.”

Dr. Bladin said he would also like to see the next phase enroll more patients, examine a higher dose of exenatide, and include better stratification of patients with a history of diabetes. Such a trial could yield findings demonstrating the drug’s effectiveness at reducing hyperglycemia and improving outcomes after stroke, he said.

“I can see the day patients will come in with acute stroke, and as they’re coming into the emergency department, they’ll simply get their shot of exenatide because we know it’s safe to use, and it doesn’t cause hypoglycemia,” Dr. Bladin said. “And from the moment that patient arrives the glucose control is underway.”

Dr. Bladin and Dr. Chun reported no relevant financial relationships. Study funding was not disclosed.

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

After hospitalization, COVID-19 patients 9 hours per day of sedentary time at 3-6 months after discharge, according to data from 37 individuals.

COVID-19 patients experience a wide range of clinical manifestations, and roughly half of those who were hospitalized for COVID-19 report persisting symptoms both physical and mental up to a year after discharge, Bram van Bakel, MD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

However, data on physical activity patterns and the impact on recovery after postinfection hospital discharge are limited, he said. Dr. van Bakel and colleagues aimed to assess physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep duration in COVID-19 patients at 3-6 months after hospital discharge to explore the association with patient characteristics, disease severity and cardiac dysfunction.

“We hypothesized that COVID-19 survivors will demonstrate low volumes of physical activity and a high sedentary time, especially those with a more severe disease course,” such as longer hospital duration and admission to intensive care, cardiac dysfunction, and persistent symptoms at 3-6 months post discharge, he said.

Dr. van Bakel and colleagues enrolled 37 adult patients in a cross-sectional cohort study. They objectively assessed physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep duration for 24 hrs/day during 8 subsequent days in COVID-19 survivors at 3-6 months post hospitalization. The average age of the patients was 60 years, 78% were male, and the average assessment time was 125 days after hospital discharge.

The researchers compared activity patterns based on patient and disease characteristics, cardiac biomarker release during hospitalization, abnormal transthoracic echocardiogram regarding left and right ventricular function and volumes at 3-6 months of follow-up, and the persistence of symptoms after discharge.

Overall, patients spent a median of 4.2 hours per day in light-intensity physical activity, and 1 hour per day in moderate to vigorous physical activity. The overall median time spent sitting was 9.8 hours per day; this was accumulated in approximately 6 prolonged sitting periods of 30 minutes or more and 41.1 short sitting periods of less than 30 minutes.

The median sleep duration was 9.8 hours per day; sleep duration was significantly higher in women, compared with men (9.2 vs. 8.5 hours/day; P = .03), and in patients with persistent symptoms, compared with those without persistent symptoms (9.1 hrs/day vs. 8.3 hrs/day; P = .02). No other differences in activity or sitting patterns appeared among subgroups. Sedentary time of 10 hours or more per day overall puts individuals at increased risk for detrimental health effects, Dr. van Bakel said.

The study findings were limited by the small sample and cross-sectional design, he noted.

However, the results suggest that COVID-19 patients spent most of their time sedentary within the first 3-6 months after hospital discharge. The similar activity patterns across subgroups support a uniform approach to rehabilitation for these patients to target persisting symptoms and prevent long-term health consequences, said Dr. van Bakel. Further studies are warranted in a larger cohort with a prospective design and longitudinal follow-up.

The current study “highlights the need for ongoing rehabilitation in severe COVID-19 survivors after hospitalization to restore premorbid function and endurance,” Alba Miranda Azola, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“The findings regarding inactivity are not surprising,” said Dr. Azola. “Immobility during hospitalization results in muscle atrophy and marked decreased endurance. The need for prolonged use of sedation and paralytics during intensive care stays of severe COVID-19 patients is associated with critical illness myopathy. Also, many patients continue to experience hypoxia and dyspnea on exertion for several months after leaving the hospital. The functional impairments and limited activity tolerance often preclude patients from engaging on outpatient rehabilitation programs.

“I do think it surprising that the level of inactivity observed was independent of disease severity and patient factors, but it definitely speaks to the importance of establishing post hospitalization follow-up care that focuses on restoring function and mobility,” Dr. Azola noted.

The study findings may have long-term clinical implications, as COVID-19 survivors who experience functional decline that limits activity and who continue to lead a sedentary lifestyle may be at increased risk for health issues such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Azola said. 

Rigorous research is needed to study the functional and health impact of rehabilitation interventions during and after hospitalization, she emphasized. “Additionally, studies are needed on innovative rehabilitation interventions that improve accessibility to services to patients.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Azola had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Azola had no financial conflicts to disclose.

After hospitalization, COVID-19 patients 9 hours per day of sedentary time at 3-6 months after discharge, according to data from 37 individuals.

COVID-19 patients experience a wide range of clinical manifestations, and roughly half of those who were hospitalized for COVID-19 report persisting symptoms both physical and mental up to a year after discharge, Bram van Bakel, MD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

However, data on physical activity patterns and the impact on recovery after postinfection hospital discharge are limited, he said. Dr. van Bakel and colleagues aimed to assess physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep duration in COVID-19 patients at 3-6 months after hospital discharge to explore the association with patient characteristics, disease severity and cardiac dysfunction.

“We hypothesized that COVID-19 survivors will demonstrate low volumes of physical activity and a high sedentary time, especially those with a more severe disease course,” such as longer hospital duration and admission to intensive care, cardiac dysfunction, and persistent symptoms at 3-6 months post discharge, he said.

Dr. van Bakel and colleagues enrolled 37 adult patients in a cross-sectional cohort study. They objectively assessed physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep duration for 24 hrs/day during 8 subsequent days in COVID-19 survivors at 3-6 months post hospitalization. The average age of the patients was 60 years, 78% were male, and the average assessment time was 125 days after hospital discharge.

The researchers compared activity patterns based on patient and disease characteristics, cardiac biomarker release during hospitalization, abnormal transthoracic echocardiogram regarding left and right ventricular function and volumes at 3-6 months of follow-up, and the persistence of symptoms after discharge.

Overall, patients spent a median of 4.2 hours per day in light-intensity physical activity, and 1 hour per day in moderate to vigorous physical activity. The overall median time spent sitting was 9.8 hours per day; this was accumulated in approximately 6 prolonged sitting periods of 30 minutes or more and 41.1 short sitting periods of less than 30 minutes.

The median sleep duration was 9.8 hours per day; sleep duration was significantly higher in women, compared with men (9.2 vs. 8.5 hours/day; P = .03), and in patients with persistent symptoms, compared with those without persistent symptoms (9.1 hrs/day vs. 8.3 hrs/day; P = .02). No other differences in activity or sitting patterns appeared among subgroups. Sedentary time of 10 hours or more per day overall puts individuals at increased risk for detrimental health effects, Dr. van Bakel said.

The study findings were limited by the small sample and cross-sectional design, he noted.

However, the results suggest that COVID-19 patients spent most of their time sedentary within the first 3-6 months after hospital discharge. The similar activity patterns across subgroups support a uniform approach to rehabilitation for these patients to target persisting symptoms and prevent long-term health consequences, said Dr. van Bakel. Further studies are warranted in a larger cohort with a prospective design and longitudinal follow-up.

The current study “highlights the need for ongoing rehabilitation in severe COVID-19 survivors after hospitalization to restore premorbid function and endurance,” Alba Miranda Azola, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“The findings regarding inactivity are not surprising,” said Dr. Azola. “Immobility during hospitalization results in muscle atrophy and marked decreased endurance. The need for prolonged use of sedation and paralytics during intensive care stays of severe COVID-19 patients is associated with critical illness myopathy. Also, many patients continue to experience hypoxia and dyspnea on exertion for several months after leaving the hospital. The functional impairments and limited activity tolerance often preclude patients from engaging on outpatient rehabilitation programs.

“I do think it surprising that the level of inactivity observed was independent of disease severity and patient factors, but it definitely speaks to the importance of establishing post hospitalization follow-up care that focuses on restoring function and mobility,” Dr. Azola noted.

The study findings may have long-term clinical implications, as COVID-19 survivors who experience functional decline that limits activity and who continue to lead a sedentary lifestyle may be at increased risk for health issues such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Azola said. 

Rigorous research is needed to study the functional and health impact of rehabilitation interventions during and after hospitalization, she emphasized. “Additionally, studies are needed on innovative rehabilitation interventions that improve accessibility to services to patients.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Azola had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Azola had no financial conflicts to disclose.

After hospitalization, COVID-19 patients 9 hours per day of sedentary time at 3-6 months after discharge, according to data from 37 individuals.

COVID-19 patients experience a wide range of clinical manifestations, and roughly half of those who were hospitalized for COVID-19 report persisting symptoms both physical and mental up to a year after discharge, Bram van Bakel, MD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in a presentation at the presentation at the annual congress of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

However, data on physical activity patterns and the impact on recovery after postinfection hospital discharge are limited, he said. Dr. van Bakel and colleagues aimed to assess physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep duration in COVID-19 patients at 3-6 months after hospital discharge to explore the association with patient characteristics, disease severity and cardiac dysfunction.

“We hypothesized that COVID-19 survivors will demonstrate low volumes of physical activity and a high sedentary time, especially those with a more severe disease course,” such as longer hospital duration and admission to intensive care, cardiac dysfunction, and persistent symptoms at 3-6 months post discharge, he said.

Dr. van Bakel and colleagues enrolled 37 adult patients in a cross-sectional cohort study. They objectively assessed physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep duration for 24 hrs/day during 8 subsequent days in COVID-19 survivors at 3-6 months post hospitalization. The average age of the patients was 60 years, 78% were male, and the average assessment time was 125 days after hospital discharge.

The researchers compared activity patterns based on patient and disease characteristics, cardiac biomarker release during hospitalization, abnormal transthoracic echocardiogram regarding left and right ventricular function and volumes at 3-6 months of follow-up, and the persistence of symptoms after discharge.

Overall, patients spent a median of 4.2 hours per day in light-intensity physical activity, and 1 hour per day in moderate to vigorous physical activity. The overall median time spent sitting was 9.8 hours per day; this was accumulated in approximately 6 prolonged sitting periods of 30 minutes or more and 41.1 short sitting periods of less than 30 minutes.

The median sleep duration was 9.8 hours per day; sleep duration was significantly higher in women, compared with men (9.2 vs. 8.5 hours/day; P = .03), and in patients with persistent symptoms, compared with those without persistent symptoms (9.1 hrs/day vs. 8.3 hrs/day; P = .02). No other differences in activity or sitting patterns appeared among subgroups. Sedentary time of 10 hours or more per day overall puts individuals at increased risk for detrimental health effects, Dr. van Bakel said.

The study findings were limited by the small sample and cross-sectional design, he noted.

However, the results suggest that COVID-19 patients spent most of their time sedentary within the first 3-6 months after hospital discharge. The similar activity patterns across subgroups support a uniform approach to rehabilitation for these patients to target persisting symptoms and prevent long-term health consequences, said Dr. van Bakel. Further studies are warranted in a larger cohort with a prospective design and longitudinal follow-up.

The current study “highlights the need for ongoing rehabilitation in severe COVID-19 survivors after hospitalization to restore premorbid function and endurance,” Alba Miranda Azola, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“The findings regarding inactivity are not surprising,” said Dr. Azola. “Immobility during hospitalization results in muscle atrophy and marked decreased endurance. The need for prolonged use of sedation and paralytics during intensive care stays of severe COVID-19 patients is associated with critical illness myopathy. Also, many patients continue to experience hypoxia and dyspnea on exertion for several months after leaving the hospital. The functional impairments and limited activity tolerance often preclude patients from engaging on outpatient rehabilitation programs.

“I do think it surprising that the level of inactivity observed was independent of disease severity and patient factors, but it definitely speaks to the importance of establishing post hospitalization follow-up care that focuses on restoring function and mobility,” Dr. Azola noted.

The study findings may have long-term clinical implications, as COVID-19 survivors who experience functional decline that limits activity and who continue to lead a sedentary lifestyle may be at increased risk for health issues such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Azola said. 

Rigorous research is needed to study the functional and health impact of rehabilitation interventions during and after hospitalization, she emphasized. “Additionally, studies are needed on innovative rehabilitation interventions that improve accessibility to services to patients.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Azola had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Azola had no financial conflicts to disclose.

For the past 2 decades, catheter ablation stole most of the excitement in electrophysiology. Cardiac pacing was seen as necessary but boring. His-bundle pacing earned only modest attention. 

But at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, cardiac pacing consolidated its comeback and entered the super-cool category.

Not one but three late-breaking clinical trials considered the role of pacing the heart’s conduction system for both preventive and therapeutic purposes. Conduction system pacing, or CSP as we call it, includes pacing the His bundle or the left bundle branch. Left bundle–branch pacing has now largely replaced His-bundle pacing.

Before I tell you about the studies, let’s review why CSP disrupts the status quo.

The core idea goes back to basic physiology: After the impulse leaves the atrioventricular node, the heart’s specialized conduction system allows rapid and synchronous conduction to both the right and left ventricles.

Standard cardiac pacing means fixing a pacing lead into the muscle of the right ventricle. From that spot, conduction spreads via slower muscle-to-muscle conduction, which leads to a wide QRS complex and the right ventricle contracts before the left ventricle.

While such dyssynchronous contraction is better than no contraction, this approach leads to a pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in a substantial number of cases. (The incidence reported in many studies varies widely.)

The most disruptive effect of conduction system pacing is that it is a form of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). And that is nifty because, until recently, resynchronizing the ventricles required placing two ventricular leads: one in the right ventricle and the other in the coronary sinus to pace the left ventricle.
 

Left bundle-branch pacing vs. biventricular pacing

The first of the three HRS studies is the LBBP-RESYNC randomized controlled trial led by Jiangang Zou, MD, PhD, and performed in multiple centers in China. It compared the efficacy of left bundle–branch pacing (LBBP) with that of conventional biventricular pacing in 40 patients with heart failure who were eligible for CRT. The primary endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 6-month follow-up.

The results favored LBBP. Although both pacing techniques improved LVEF from baseline, the between-group difference in LVEF was greater in the LBBP arm than the biventricular pacing arm by a statistically significant 5.6% (95% confidence interval, 0.3%-10.9%). Secondary endpoints, such as reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, and QRS duration, also favored LBBP.
 

Conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing

A second late-breaking study, from the Geisinger group, led by Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman, MD, was simultaneously published in Heart Rhythm.

This nonrandomized observational study compared nearly 500 patients eligible for CRT treated at two health systems. One group favors conduction system pacing and the other does traditional biventricular pacing, which set up a two-armed comparison.

CSP was accomplished by LBBP (65%) and His-bundle pacing (35%).

The primary endpoint of death or first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 28.3% of patients in the CSP arm versus 38.4% of the biventricular arm (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.08-2.09). QRS duration and LVEF also improved from baseline in both groups.
 

LBB area pacing as a bailout for failed CRT

The Geisinger group also presented and published an international multicenter study that assessed the feasibility of LBBP as a bailout when standard biventricular pacing did not work – because of inadequate coronary sinus anatomy or CRT nonresponse, defined as lack of clinical or echocardiographic improvement.

This series included 212 patients in whom CRT failed and who underwent attempted LBBP pacing. The bailout was successful in 200 patients (91%). The primary endpoint was defined as an increase in LVEF above 5% on echocardiography.

During 12-month follow-up, 61% of patients had an improvement in LVEF above 5% and nearly 30% had a “super-response,” defined as a 20% or greater increase or normalization of LVEF. Similar to the previous studies, LBBP resulted in shorter QRS duration and improved echocardiography parameters.
 

Am I persuaded?

I was an early adopter of His-bundle pacing. When successful, it delivered both aesthetically pleasing QRS complexes and clinical efficacy. But there were many challenges: it is technically difficult, and capture thresholds are often high at implant and get higher over time, which leads to shorter battery life.

Pacing the left bundle branch mitigates these challenges. Here, the operator approaches from the right side and screws the lead a few millimeters into the septum, so the tip of the lead can capture the left bundle or one of its branches. This allows activation of the heart’s specialized conduction system and thus synchronizes right and left ventricle contraction.

Although there is a learning curve, LBBP is technically easier than His-bundle pacing and ultimately results in far better pacing and sensing parameters. What’s more, the preferred lead for LBBP has a stellar efficacy record – over years.

Chormail/Dreamstime.com

The barriers to getting more CSP trials

The challenge going forward will be funding new trials. CSP stands to prevent pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and offer less costly alternatives to standard biventricular pacing for CRT. This is great for patients, but it would mean that fewer higher-cost CRT devices will be sold.

Heart rhythm research is largely industry-funded because in most cases better therapies for patients mean more profits for industry. In the case of CSP, there is no such confluence of interests.

Conduction system pacing has come about because of the efforts of a few tireless champions who not only published extensively but were also skilled at using social media to spread the excitement. Trials have been small and often self-funded.

The data presented at HRS provides enough equipoise to support a large outcomes-based randomized controlled trial. Imagine if our CSP champions were able to find public-funding sources for such future trials.

Now that would be super cool.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky., and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the past 2 decades, catheter ablation stole most of the excitement in electrophysiology. Cardiac pacing was seen as necessary but boring. His-bundle pacing earned only modest attention. 

But at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, cardiac pacing consolidated its comeback and entered the super-cool category.

Not one but three late-breaking clinical trials considered the role of pacing the heart’s conduction system for both preventive and therapeutic purposes. Conduction system pacing, or CSP as we call it, includes pacing the His bundle or the left bundle branch. Left bundle–branch pacing has now largely replaced His-bundle pacing.

Before I tell you about the studies, let’s review why CSP disrupts the status quo.

The core idea goes back to basic physiology: After the impulse leaves the atrioventricular node, the heart’s specialized conduction system allows rapid and synchronous conduction to both the right and left ventricles.

Standard cardiac pacing means fixing a pacing lead into the muscle of the right ventricle. From that spot, conduction spreads via slower muscle-to-muscle conduction, which leads to a wide QRS complex and the right ventricle contracts before the left ventricle.

While such dyssynchronous contraction is better than no contraction, this approach leads to a pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in a substantial number of cases. (The incidence reported in many studies varies widely.)

The most disruptive effect of conduction system pacing is that it is a form of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). And that is nifty because, until recently, resynchronizing the ventricles required placing two ventricular leads: one in the right ventricle and the other in the coronary sinus to pace the left ventricle.
 

Left bundle-branch pacing vs. biventricular pacing

The first of the three HRS studies is the LBBP-RESYNC randomized controlled trial led by Jiangang Zou, MD, PhD, and performed in multiple centers in China. It compared the efficacy of left bundle–branch pacing (LBBP) with that of conventional biventricular pacing in 40 patients with heart failure who were eligible for CRT. The primary endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 6-month follow-up.

The results favored LBBP. Although both pacing techniques improved LVEF from baseline, the between-group difference in LVEF was greater in the LBBP arm than the biventricular pacing arm by a statistically significant 5.6% (95% confidence interval, 0.3%-10.9%). Secondary endpoints, such as reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, and QRS duration, also favored LBBP.
 

Conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing

A second late-breaking study, from the Geisinger group, led by Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman, MD, was simultaneously published in Heart Rhythm.

This nonrandomized observational study compared nearly 500 patients eligible for CRT treated at two health systems. One group favors conduction system pacing and the other does traditional biventricular pacing, which set up a two-armed comparison.

CSP was accomplished by LBBP (65%) and His-bundle pacing (35%).

The primary endpoint of death or first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 28.3% of patients in the CSP arm versus 38.4% of the biventricular arm (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.08-2.09). QRS duration and LVEF also improved from baseline in both groups.
 

LBB area pacing as a bailout for failed CRT

The Geisinger group also presented and published an international multicenter study that assessed the feasibility of LBBP as a bailout when standard biventricular pacing did not work – because of inadequate coronary sinus anatomy or CRT nonresponse, defined as lack of clinical or echocardiographic improvement.

This series included 212 patients in whom CRT failed and who underwent attempted LBBP pacing. The bailout was successful in 200 patients (91%). The primary endpoint was defined as an increase in LVEF above 5% on echocardiography.

During 12-month follow-up, 61% of patients had an improvement in LVEF above 5% and nearly 30% had a “super-response,” defined as a 20% or greater increase or normalization of LVEF. Similar to the previous studies, LBBP resulted in shorter QRS duration and improved echocardiography parameters.
 

Am I persuaded?

I was an early adopter of His-bundle pacing. When successful, it delivered both aesthetically pleasing QRS complexes and clinical efficacy. But there were many challenges: it is technically difficult, and capture thresholds are often high at implant and get higher over time, which leads to shorter battery life.

Pacing the left bundle branch mitigates these challenges. Here, the operator approaches from the right side and screws the lead a few millimeters into the septum, so the tip of the lead can capture the left bundle or one of its branches. This allows activation of the heart’s specialized conduction system and thus synchronizes right and left ventricle contraction.

Although there is a learning curve, LBBP is technically easier than His-bundle pacing and ultimately results in far better pacing and sensing parameters. What’s more, the preferred lead for LBBP has a stellar efficacy record – over years.

Chormail/Dreamstime.com

The barriers to getting more CSP trials

The challenge going forward will be funding new trials. CSP stands to prevent pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and offer less costly alternatives to standard biventricular pacing for CRT. This is great for patients, but it would mean that fewer higher-cost CRT devices will be sold.

Heart rhythm research is largely industry-funded because in most cases better therapies for patients mean more profits for industry. In the case of CSP, there is no such confluence of interests.

Conduction system pacing has come about because of the efforts of a few tireless champions who not only published extensively but were also skilled at using social media to spread the excitement. Trials have been small and often self-funded.

The data presented at HRS provides enough equipoise to support a large outcomes-based randomized controlled trial. Imagine if our CSP champions were able to find public-funding sources for such future trials.

Now that would be super cool.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky., and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For the past 2 decades, catheter ablation stole most of the excitement in electrophysiology. Cardiac pacing was seen as necessary but boring. His-bundle pacing earned only modest attention. 

But at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, cardiac pacing consolidated its comeback and entered the super-cool category.

Not one but three late-breaking clinical trials considered the role of pacing the heart’s conduction system for both preventive and therapeutic purposes. Conduction system pacing, or CSP as we call it, includes pacing the His bundle or the left bundle branch. Left bundle–branch pacing has now largely replaced His-bundle pacing.

Before I tell you about the studies, let’s review why CSP disrupts the status quo.

The core idea goes back to basic physiology: After the impulse leaves the atrioventricular node, the heart’s specialized conduction system allows rapid and synchronous conduction to both the right and left ventricles.

Standard cardiac pacing means fixing a pacing lead into the muscle of the right ventricle. From that spot, conduction spreads via slower muscle-to-muscle conduction, which leads to a wide QRS complex and the right ventricle contracts before the left ventricle.

While such dyssynchronous contraction is better than no contraction, this approach leads to a pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in a substantial number of cases. (The incidence reported in many studies varies widely.)

The most disruptive effect of conduction system pacing is that it is a form of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). And that is nifty because, until recently, resynchronizing the ventricles required placing two ventricular leads: one in the right ventricle and the other in the coronary sinus to pace the left ventricle.
 

Left bundle-branch pacing vs. biventricular pacing

The first of the three HRS studies is the LBBP-RESYNC randomized controlled trial led by Jiangang Zou, MD, PhD, and performed in multiple centers in China. It compared the efficacy of left bundle–branch pacing (LBBP) with that of conventional biventricular pacing in 40 patients with heart failure who were eligible for CRT. The primary endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 6-month follow-up.

The results favored LBBP. Although both pacing techniques improved LVEF from baseline, the between-group difference in LVEF was greater in the LBBP arm than the biventricular pacing arm by a statistically significant 5.6% (95% confidence interval, 0.3%-10.9%). Secondary endpoints, such as reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, and QRS duration, also favored LBBP.
 

Conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing

A second late-breaking study, from the Geisinger group, led by Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman, MD, was simultaneously published in Heart Rhythm.

This nonrandomized observational study compared nearly 500 patients eligible for CRT treated at two health systems. One group favors conduction system pacing and the other does traditional biventricular pacing, which set up a two-armed comparison.

CSP was accomplished by LBBP (65%) and His-bundle pacing (35%).

The primary endpoint of death or first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 28.3% of patients in the CSP arm versus 38.4% of the biventricular arm (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.08-2.09). QRS duration and LVEF also improved from baseline in both groups.
 

LBB area pacing as a bailout for failed CRT

The Geisinger group also presented and published an international multicenter study that assessed the feasibility of LBBP as a bailout when standard biventricular pacing did not work – because of inadequate coronary sinus anatomy or CRT nonresponse, defined as lack of clinical or echocardiographic improvement.

This series included 212 patients in whom CRT failed and who underwent attempted LBBP pacing. The bailout was successful in 200 patients (91%). The primary endpoint was defined as an increase in LVEF above 5% on echocardiography.

During 12-month follow-up, 61% of patients had an improvement in LVEF above 5% and nearly 30% had a “super-response,” defined as a 20% or greater increase or normalization of LVEF. Similar to the previous studies, LBBP resulted in shorter QRS duration and improved echocardiography parameters.
 

Am I persuaded?

I was an early adopter of His-bundle pacing. When successful, it delivered both aesthetically pleasing QRS complexes and clinical efficacy. But there were many challenges: it is technically difficult, and capture thresholds are often high at implant and get higher over time, which leads to shorter battery life.

Pacing the left bundle branch mitigates these challenges. Here, the operator approaches from the right side and screws the lead a few millimeters into the septum, so the tip of the lead can capture the left bundle or one of its branches. This allows activation of the heart’s specialized conduction system and thus synchronizes right and left ventricle contraction.

Although there is a learning curve, LBBP is technically easier than His-bundle pacing and ultimately results in far better pacing and sensing parameters. What’s more, the preferred lead for LBBP has a stellar efficacy record – over years.

Chormail/Dreamstime.com

The barriers to getting more CSP trials

The challenge going forward will be funding new trials. CSP stands to prevent pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and offer less costly alternatives to standard biventricular pacing for CRT. This is great for patients, but it would mean that fewer higher-cost CRT devices will be sold.

Heart rhythm research is largely industry-funded because in most cases better therapies for patients mean more profits for industry. In the case of CSP, there is no such confluence of interests.

Conduction system pacing has come about because of the efforts of a few tireless champions who not only published extensively but were also skilled at using social media to spread the excitement. Trials have been small and often self-funded.

The data presented at HRS provides enough equipoise to support a large outcomes-based randomized controlled trial. Imagine if our CSP champions were able to find public-funding sources for such future trials.

Now that would be super cool.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky., and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) who need a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor after failing conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment often experience insurance delays before beginning the new drug because of prior authorization denials, according to research presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA). The findings were also published  as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

“Prompt escalation to TNF inhibitors is recommended for children with JIA refractory to DMARDs,” author Jordan Roberts, MD, a clinical fellow of the Harvard Medical School Rheumatology Program, Boston, told CARRA attendees. TNF inhibitors are increasingly used as first-line treatment in JIA since growing evidence suggests better outcomes from early treatment with biologics. “Prior authorization requirements that delay TNF inhibitor initiation among children with JIA are common in clinical practice,” Dr. Roberts said, but little evidence exists to understand the extent of this problem and its causes.

The researchers therefore conducted a retrospective cohort study using a search of electronic health records from January 2018 to December 2019 to find all children at a single center with a new diagnosis of nonsystemic JIA. Then the authors pulled the timing of prior authorization requests, approvals, denials, and first TNF inhibitor dose from the medical notes. They also sought out any children who had been recommended a TNF inhibitor but never started one.

The total population included 54 children with an average age of 10 years, about two-thirds of whom had private insurance (63%). The group was predominantly White (63%), although 13% declined to provide race, and 7% were Hispanic. Most subtypes of disease were represented: oligoarticular persistent (28%), oligoarticular extended (2%), polyarticular rheumatoid factor-negative (15%), polyarticular rheumatoid factor-positive (15%), psoriatic arthritis (26%), enthesitis-related arthritis (12%), and undifferentiated arthritis (2%).

The 44 participants with private insurance had an average of two joints with active disease, while the 10 patients with public insurance had an average of four involved joints. Nearly all the patients (91%) had previously taken or were currently taking DMARDs when the prior authorization was submitted, and 61% had received NSAIDs.

All but one of the patients’ insurance plans required a prior authorization. The first prior authorization was denied for about one-third of the public insurance patients (30%) and a quarter of the private insurance patients. About 1 in 5 patients overall (22%) required a written appeal to override the denial, and 4% required peer-to-peer review. Meanwhile, 7% of patients began another medication because of the denial.

It took a median of 3 days for prior authorizations to be approved and a median of 24 days from the time the TNF inhibitor was recommended to the patient receiving the first dose. However, 22% of patients waited at least 2 weeks before the prior authorization was approved, and more than a quarter of the requests took over 30 days before the patient could begin the medication. In the public insurance group in particular, a quarter of children waited at least 19 days for approval and at least 44 days before starting the medication.

In fact, when the researchers looked at the difference in approval time between those who did and did not receive an initial denial, the difference was stark. Median approval time was 16 days when the prior authorization was denied, compared with a median of 5 days when the first prior authorization was approved. Similarly, time to initiation of the drug after recommendation was a median of 35 days for those whose prior authorization was first denied and 17 days for those with an initial approval.

The most common reason for an initial denial was the insurance company requiring a different TNF inhibitor than the one the rheumatologist wanted to prescribe. “These were all children whose rheumatologist has recommended either infliximab or etanercept that were required to use adalimumab instead,” Dr. Roberts said.

The other reasons for initial denial were similarly familiar ones:

• Required submission to another insurer
• Additional documentation required
• Lack of medical necessity
• Prescription was for an indication not approved by the Food and Drug Administration
• Age of patient
• Nonbiologic DMARD required
• NSAID required for step therapy

Only three children who were advised to begin a TNF inhibitor did not do so, including one who was lost to follow-up, one who had injection-related anxiety, and one who had safety concerns about the medication.

“Several children were required to use alternative TNF inhibitors than the one that was recommended due to restricted formularies, which may reduce shared decisionmaking between physicians and families and may not be the optimal clinical choice for an individual child,” Dr. Roberts said in her conclusion. Most children, however, were able to get approval for the TNF inhibitor originally requested, “suggesting that utilization management strategies present barriers to timely care despite appropriate specialty medication requests,” she said. “Therefore, it’s important for us to advocate for access to medications for children with JIA.”

Findings are not surprising

“I have these same experiences at my institution – often insurance will dictate clinical practice, and step therapy is the only option, causing a delay to initiation of TNFi even if we think, as the pediatric rheumatologist, that a child needs this medicine to be initiated on presentation to our clinic,” Nayimisha Balmuri, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Dr. Balmuri, who was not involved in the study, noted that in her clinic at Johns Hopkins, it is hit or miss if an appeal to insurance companies or to the state (if it is Medicaid coverage) will be successful. “Unfortunately, [we are] mostly unsuccessful, and we have to try another DMARD for 8 to 12 weeks first before trying to get TNFi,” she said.

Dr. Balmuri called for bringing these issues to the attention of state and federal legislators. “It’s so important for us to continue to advocate for our patients at the state and national level! We are the advocates for our patients, and we are uniquely trained to know the best medications to initiate to help patients maximize their chance to reach remission of arthritis. Insurance companies need to hear our voices!”

Dr. Roberts reported grants from CARRA, the Lupus Foundation of America, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the conduct of the study.

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

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) who need a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor after failing conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment often experience insurance delays before beginning the new drug because of prior authorization denials, according to research presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA). The findings were also published  as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

“Prompt escalation to TNF inhibitors is recommended for children with JIA refractory to DMARDs,” author Jordan Roberts, MD, a clinical fellow of the Harvard Medical School Rheumatology Program, Boston, told CARRA attendees. TNF inhibitors are increasingly used as first-line treatment in JIA since growing evidence suggests better outcomes from early treatment with biologics. “Prior authorization requirements that delay TNF inhibitor initiation among children with JIA are common in clinical practice,” Dr. Roberts said, but little evidence exists to understand the extent of this problem and its causes.

The researchers therefore conducted a retrospective cohort study using a search of electronic health records from January 2018 to December 2019 to find all children at a single center with a new diagnosis of nonsystemic JIA. Then the authors pulled the timing of prior authorization requests, approvals, denials, and first TNF inhibitor dose from the medical notes. They also sought out any children who had been recommended a TNF inhibitor but never started one.

The total population included 54 children with an average age of 10 years, about two-thirds of whom had private insurance (63%). The group was predominantly White (63%), although 13% declined to provide race, and 7% were Hispanic. Most subtypes of disease were represented: oligoarticular persistent (28%), oligoarticular extended (2%), polyarticular rheumatoid factor-negative (15%), polyarticular rheumatoid factor-positive (15%), psoriatic arthritis (26%), enthesitis-related arthritis (12%), and undifferentiated arthritis (2%).

The 44 participants with private insurance had an average of two joints with active disease, while the 10 patients with public insurance had an average of four involved joints. Nearly all the patients (91%) had previously taken or were currently taking DMARDs when the prior authorization was submitted, and 61% had received NSAIDs.

All but one of the patients’ insurance plans required a prior authorization. The first prior authorization was denied for about one-third of the public insurance patients (30%) and a quarter of the private insurance patients. About 1 in 5 patients overall (22%) required a written appeal to override the denial, and 4% required peer-to-peer review. Meanwhile, 7% of patients began another medication because of the denial.

It took a median of 3 days for prior authorizations to be approved and a median of 24 days from the time the TNF inhibitor was recommended to the patient receiving the first dose. However, 22% of patients waited at least 2 weeks before the prior authorization was approved, and more than a quarter of the requests took over 30 days before the patient could begin the medication. In the public insurance group in particular, a quarter of children waited at least 19 days for approval and at least 44 days before starting the medication.

In fact, when the researchers looked at the difference in approval time between those who did and did not receive an initial denial, the difference was stark. Median approval time was 16 days when the prior authorization was denied, compared with a median of 5 days when the first prior authorization was approved. Similarly, time to initiation of the drug after recommendation was a median of 35 days for those whose prior authorization was first denied and 17 days for those with an initial approval.

The most common reason for an initial denial was the insurance company requiring a different TNF inhibitor than the one the rheumatologist wanted to prescribe. “These were all children whose rheumatologist has recommended either infliximab or etanercept that were required to use adalimumab instead,” Dr. Roberts said.

The other reasons for initial denial were similarly familiar ones:

• Required submission to another insurer
• Additional documentation required
• Lack of medical necessity
• Prescription was for an indication not approved by the Food and Drug Administration
• Age of patient
• Nonbiologic DMARD required
• NSAID required for step therapy

Only three children who were advised to begin a TNF inhibitor did not do so, including one who was lost to follow-up, one who had injection-related anxiety, and one who had safety concerns about the medication.

“Several children were required to use alternative TNF inhibitors than the one that was recommended due to restricted formularies, which may reduce shared decisionmaking between physicians and families and may not be the optimal clinical choice for an individual child,” Dr. Roberts said in her conclusion. Most children, however, were able to get approval for the TNF inhibitor originally requested, “suggesting that utilization management strategies present barriers to timely care despite appropriate specialty medication requests,” she said. “Therefore, it’s important for us to advocate for access to medications for children with JIA.”

Findings are not surprising

“I have these same experiences at my institution – often insurance will dictate clinical practice, and step therapy is the only option, causing a delay to initiation of TNFi even if we think, as the pediatric rheumatologist, that a child needs this medicine to be initiated on presentation to our clinic,” Nayimisha Balmuri, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Dr. Balmuri, who was not involved in the study, noted that in her clinic at Johns Hopkins, it is hit or miss if an appeal to insurance companies or to the state (if it is Medicaid coverage) will be successful. “Unfortunately, [we are] mostly unsuccessful, and we have to try another DMARD for 8 to 12 weeks first before trying to get TNFi,” she said.

Dr. Balmuri called for bringing these issues to the attention of state and federal legislators. “It’s so important for us to continue to advocate for our patients at the state and national level! We are the advocates for our patients, and we are uniquely trained to know the best medications to initiate to help patients maximize their chance to reach remission of arthritis. Insurance companies need to hear our voices!”

Dr. Roberts reported grants from CARRA, the Lupus Foundation of America, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the conduct of the study.

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

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) who need a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor after failing conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment often experience insurance delays before beginning the new drug because of prior authorization denials, according to research presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA). The findings were also published  as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

“Prompt escalation to TNF inhibitors is recommended for children with JIA refractory to DMARDs,” author Jordan Roberts, MD, a clinical fellow of the Harvard Medical School Rheumatology Program, Boston, told CARRA attendees. TNF inhibitors are increasingly used as first-line treatment in JIA since growing evidence suggests better outcomes from early treatment with biologics. “Prior authorization requirements that delay TNF inhibitor initiation among children with JIA are common in clinical practice,” Dr. Roberts said, but little evidence exists to understand the extent of this problem and its causes.

The researchers therefore conducted a retrospective cohort study using a search of electronic health records from January 2018 to December 2019 to find all children at a single center with a new diagnosis of nonsystemic JIA. Then the authors pulled the timing of prior authorization requests, approvals, denials, and first TNF inhibitor dose from the medical notes. They also sought out any children who had been recommended a TNF inhibitor but never started one.

The total population included 54 children with an average age of 10 years, about two-thirds of whom had private insurance (63%). The group was predominantly White (63%), although 13% declined to provide race, and 7% were Hispanic. Most subtypes of disease were represented: oligoarticular persistent (28%), oligoarticular extended (2%), polyarticular rheumatoid factor-negative (15%), polyarticular rheumatoid factor-positive (15%), psoriatic arthritis (26%), enthesitis-related arthritis (12%), and undifferentiated arthritis (2%).

The 44 participants with private insurance had an average of two joints with active disease, while the 10 patients with public insurance had an average of four involved joints. Nearly all the patients (91%) had previously taken or were currently taking DMARDs when the prior authorization was submitted, and 61% had received NSAIDs.

All but one of the patients’ insurance plans required a prior authorization. The first prior authorization was denied for about one-third of the public insurance patients (30%) and a quarter of the private insurance patients. About 1 in 5 patients overall (22%) required a written appeal to override the denial, and 4% required peer-to-peer review. Meanwhile, 7% of patients began another medication because of the denial.

It took a median of 3 days for prior authorizations to be approved and a median of 24 days from the time the TNF inhibitor was recommended to the patient receiving the first dose. However, 22% of patients waited at least 2 weeks before the prior authorization was approved, and more than a quarter of the requests took over 30 days before the patient could begin the medication. In the public insurance group in particular, a quarter of children waited at least 19 days for approval and at least 44 days before starting the medication.

In fact, when the researchers looked at the difference in approval time between those who did and did not receive an initial denial, the difference was stark. Median approval time was 16 days when the prior authorization was denied, compared with a median of 5 days when the first prior authorization was approved. Similarly, time to initiation of the drug after recommendation was a median of 35 days for those whose prior authorization was first denied and 17 days for those with an initial approval.

The most common reason for an initial denial was the insurance company requiring a different TNF inhibitor than the one the rheumatologist wanted to prescribe. “These were all children whose rheumatologist has recommended either infliximab or etanercept that were required to use adalimumab instead,” Dr. Roberts said.

The other reasons for initial denial were similarly familiar ones:

• Required submission to another insurer
• Additional documentation required
• Lack of medical necessity
• Prescription was for an indication not approved by the Food and Drug Administration
• Age of patient
• Nonbiologic DMARD required
• NSAID required for step therapy

Only three children who were advised to begin a TNF inhibitor did not do so, including one who was lost to follow-up, one who had injection-related anxiety, and one who had safety concerns about the medication.

“Several children were required to use alternative TNF inhibitors than the one that was recommended due to restricted formularies, which may reduce shared decisionmaking between physicians and families and may not be the optimal clinical choice for an individual child,” Dr. Roberts said in her conclusion. Most children, however, were able to get approval for the TNF inhibitor originally requested, “suggesting that utilization management strategies present barriers to timely care despite appropriate specialty medication requests,” she said. “Therefore, it’s important for us to advocate for access to medications for children with JIA.”

Findings are not surprising

“I have these same experiences at my institution – often insurance will dictate clinical practice, and step therapy is the only option, causing a delay to initiation of TNFi even if we think, as the pediatric rheumatologist, that a child needs this medicine to be initiated on presentation to our clinic,” Nayimisha Balmuri, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Dr. Balmuri, who was not involved in the study, noted that in her clinic at Johns Hopkins, it is hit or miss if an appeal to insurance companies or to the state (if it is Medicaid coverage) will be successful. “Unfortunately, [we are] mostly unsuccessful, and we have to try another DMARD for 8 to 12 weeks first before trying to get TNFi,” she said.

Dr. Balmuri called for bringing these issues to the attention of state and federal legislators. “It’s so important for us to continue to advocate for our patients at the state and national level! We are the advocates for our patients, and we are uniquely trained to know the best medications to initiate to help patients maximize their chance to reach remission of arthritis. Insurance companies need to hear our voices!”

Dr. Roberts reported grants from CARRA, the Lupus Foundation of America, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during the conduct of the study.

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

SAN DIEGO – If a medical professional is trying to figure out the best medical treatment for a pregnant woman with headache, it may be helpful to review data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Well, make that data from the RCT. There’s just been one, Northwestern Medicine obstetrician-gynecologist Catherine Stika, MD, told colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Only a single efficacy RCT has examined headache in pregnancy, said Dr. Stika. “Overall, we have very limited data in pregnancy to tell us exactly what to do,” she added.

But ob.gyns. aren’t entirely in the dark, according to medical specialists who spoke at the session. Expert opinion and fetal safety data offer insight into the best treatments, as does a new ACOG clinical practice guideline on headaches during pregnancy and post partum that was coauthored by the speakers.

And there’s some good news: Pregnancy itself is often a good treatment for headaches.

Pregnant women often find relief from one kind of headache – migraine – as their estradiol levels rise, said Laura Mercer, MD, an ob.gyn. at the University of Arizona, Phoenix. “About half of patients will report that migraines are getting better as early as the first trimester, and upwards of 83% will say that their migraines are better by the time they’re in their third trimester,” she said. “What this means for us as obstetricians is that oftentimes we can actually discontinue preventative therapies for patients during pregnancy.”

But simply discontinuing every headache treatment during pregnancy may not be the right approach, Dr. Mercer said. Instead, she said, consider the benefits and risks.

Divalproex sodium (Depakote) and topiramate (Topamax) must be avoided because of fetal risk, she said. “In fact, we will prefer that people stop these medications before they discontinue their contraception if they’re planning on getting pregnant,” she said.

Other medications, such as ACE inhibitors and the herbal remedy feverfew, should not be used at any time during pregnancy, she said.

On the other hand, calcium channel blockers and antihistamines are alright to use in pregnancy, she said. “These two should be considered first-line because there’s no known risks for them.”

Beta-blockers also may be used “with some consideration to the known risks that we’re familiar with when we use them for other indications,” she said.

There are questions about the safety of oral magnesium in pregnancy, although it’s generally considered safe, she added, and “nerve blocks and nerve stimulators seem very promising and have little known risks.”

Dr. Mercer recommended gradually tapering most medications prior to conception. But it’s crucial to stop higher-risk drugs immediately once pregnancy is confirmed, she said.

In regard to acute headache, Dr. Stika urged caution if a patient reports taking a headache medication more than twice a week. “All the medications we use for the treatment of migraine, both in and outside of pregnancy, carry the risk of what’s called medication overuse” that can lead to rebound headaches, she said.

Excedrin Tension Headache may be used for headaches in pregnancy, she said, but not Excedrin Migraine since it includes aspirin. Triptans are not recommended as first-line therapy, she added, and they “should absolutely not be used in any pregnant patient with a history of known cardiac disease or hypertension.”

Dr. Stika added that ACOG advises against the use of drugs that contain butalbital, a barbiturate that’s combined with other agents to treat headache. “Butalbital is the drug that’s most closely associated with getting people into this medication overuse headache,” she said. “It’s even worse than opioids.”

Unlike multiple other countries and the entire European Union, the United States has not banned compounds that contain butalbital, she said.

In some cases, she said, patients may present to triage with vomiting, an inability to keep food down, and persistent headache despite treatment. “This is a really classic presentation.”

The ACOG clinical practice guideline offers a flow chart about what to do, she said. Hydration is key, she said, and various treatment options can help. A referral to neurology may be needed in extreme cases, she said. But “most of the time, you’re able to get rid of her headache.”

Dr. Mercer and Dr. Stika report no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – If a medical professional is trying to figure out the best medical treatment for a pregnant woman with headache, it may be helpful to review data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Well, make that data from the RCT. There’s just been one, Northwestern Medicine obstetrician-gynecologist Catherine Stika, MD, told colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Only a single efficacy RCT has examined headache in pregnancy, said Dr. Stika. “Overall, we have very limited data in pregnancy to tell us exactly what to do,” she added.

But ob.gyns. aren’t entirely in the dark, according to medical specialists who spoke at the session. Expert opinion and fetal safety data offer insight into the best treatments, as does a new ACOG clinical practice guideline on headaches during pregnancy and post partum that was coauthored by the speakers.

And there’s some good news: Pregnancy itself is often a good treatment for headaches.

Pregnant women often find relief from one kind of headache – migraine – as their estradiol levels rise, said Laura Mercer, MD, an ob.gyn. at the University of Arizona, Phoenix. “About half of patients will report that migraines are getting better as early as the first trimester, and upwards of 83% will say that their migraines are better by the time they’re in their third trimester,” she said. “What this means for us as obstetricians is that oftentimes we can actually discontinue preventative therapies for patients during pregnancy.”

But simply discontinuing every headache treatment during pregnancy may not be the right approach, Dr. Mercer said. Instead, she said, consider the benefits and risks.

Divalproex sodium (Depakote) and topiramate (Topamax) must be avoided because of fetal risk, she said. “In fact, we will prefer that people stop these medications before they discontinue their contraception if they’re planning on getting pregnant,” she said.

Other medications, such as ACE inhibitors and the herbal remedy feverfew, should not be used at any time during pregnancy, she said.

On the other hand, calcium channel blockers and antihistamines are alright to use in pregnancy, she said. “These two should be considered first-line because there’s no known risks for them.”

Beta-blockers also may be used “with some consideration to the known risks that we’re familiar with when we use them for other indications,” she said.

There are questions about the safety of oral magnesium in pregnancy, although it’s generally considered safe, she added, and “nerve blocks and nerve stimulators seem very promising and have little known risks.”

Dr. Mercer recommended gradually tapering most medications prior to conception. But it’s crucial to stop higher-risk drugs immediately once pregnancy is confirmed, she said.

In regard to acute headache, Dr. Stika urged caution if a patient reports taking a headache medication more than twice a week. “All the medications we use for the treatment of migraine, both in and outside of pregnancy, carry the risk of what’s called medication overuse” that can lead to rebound headaches, she said.

Excedrin Tension Headache may be used for headaches in pregnancy, she said, but not Excedrin Migraine since it includes aspirin. Triptans are not recommended as first-line therapy, she added, and they “should absolutely not be used in any pregnant patient with a history of known cardiac disease or hypertension.”

Dr. Stika added that ACOG advises against the use of drugs that contain butalbital, a barbiturate that’s combined with other agents to treat headache. “Butalbital is the drug that’s most closely associated with getting people into this medication overuse headache,” she said. “It’s even worse than opioids.”

Unlike multiple other countries and the entire European Union, the United States has not banned compounds that contain butalbital, she said.

In some cases, she said, patients may present to triage with vomiting, an inability to keep food down, and persistent headache despite treatment. “This is a really classic presentation.”

The ACOG clinical practice guideline offers a flow chart about what to do, she said. Hydration is key, she said, and various treatment options can help. A referral to neurology may be needed in extreme cases, she said. But “most of the time, you’re able to get rid of her headache.”

Dr. Mercer and Dr. Stika report no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – If a medical professional is trying to figure out the best medical treatment for a pregnant woman with headache, it may be helpful to review data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Well, make that data from the RCT. There’s just been one, Northwestern Medicine obstetrician-gynecologist Catherine Stika, MD, told colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Only a single efficacy RCT has examined headache in pregnancy, said Dr. Stika. “Overall, we have very limited data in pregnancy to tell us exactly what to do,” she added.

But ob.gyns. aren’t entirely in the dark, according to medical specialists who spoke at the session. Expert opinion and fetal safety data offer insight into the best treatments, as does a new ACOG clinical practice guideline on headaches during pregnancy and post partum that was coauthored by the speakers.

And there’s some good news: Pregnancy itself is often a good treatment for headaches.

Pregnant women often find relief from one kind of headache – migraine – as their estradiol levels rise, said Laura Mercer, MD, an ob.gyn. at the University of Arizona, Phoenix. “About half of patients will report that migraines are getting better as early as the first trimester, and upwards of 83% will say that their migraines are better by the time they’re in their third trimester,” she said. “What this means for us as obstetricians is that oftentimes we can actually discontinue preventative therapies for patients during pregnancy.”

But simply discontinuing every headache treatment during pregnancy may not be the right approach, Dr. Mercer said. Instead, she said, consider the benefits and risks.

Divalproex sodium (Depakote) and topiramate (Topamax) must be avoided because of fetal risk, she said. “In fact, we will prefer that people stop these medications before they discontinue their contraception if they’re planning on getting pregnant,” she said.

Other medications, such as ACE inhibitors and the herbal remedy feverfew, should not be used at any time during pregnancy, she said.

On the other hand, calcium channel blockers and antihistamines are alright to use in pregnancy, she said. “These two should be considered first-line because there’s no known risks for them.”

Beta-blockers also may be used “with some consideration to the known risks that we’re familiar with when we use them for other indications,” she said.

There are questions about the safety of oral magnesium in pregnancy, although it’s generally considered safe, she added, and “nerve blocks and nerve stimulators seem very promising and have little known risks.”

Dr. Mercer recommended gradually tapering most medications prior to conception. But it’s crucial to stop higher-risk drugs immediately once pregnancy is confirmed, she said.

In regard to acute headache, Dr. Stika urged caution if a patient reports taking a headache medication more than twice a week. “All the medications we use for the treatment of migraine, both in and outside of pregnancy, carry the risk of what’s called medication overuse” that can lead to rebound headaches, she said.

Excedrin Tension Headache may be used for headaches in pregnancy, she said, but not Excedrin Migraine since it includes aspirin. Triptans are not recommended as first-line therapy, she added, and they “should absolutely not be used in any pregnant patient with a history of known cardiac disease or hypertension.”

Dr. Stika added that ACOG advises against the use of drugs that contain butalbital, a barbiturate that’s combined with other agents to treat headache. “Butalbital is the drug that’s most closely associated with getting people into this medication overuse headache,” she said. “It’s even worse than opioids.”

Unlike multiple other countries and the entire European Union, the United States has not banned compounds that contain butalbital, she said.

In some cases, she said, patients may present to triage with vomiting, an inability to keep food down, and persistent headache despite treatment. “This is a really classic presentation.”

The ACOG clinical practice guideline offers a flow chart about what to do, she said. Hydration is key, she said, and various treatment options can help. A referral to neurology may be needed in extreme cases, she said. But “most of the time, you’re able to get rid of her headache.”

Dr. Mercer and Dr. Stika report no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – The end of the legal standards set by Roe v. Wade will likely lead to bans in as many as 26 states and send a flood of abortion seekers to the remaining states that still allow the procedure, an obstetrician-gynecologist warned colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The blue states neighboring those states will likely see an outpouring of patients among those who can travel,” Kristyn Brandi, MD, of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in a presentation about legal threats to abortion rights. “These will likely flood the health care systems and delay care for everyone. Make no mistake: Virtually all ob.gyns. across the country have the potential to be impacted.”

Indeed, research suggests that thousands more Texans than usual are heading out of state for abortions each month in the wake of a new, strict antiabortion law there.

Only three sessions at the 3-day ACOG meeting directly addressed abortion. But the topic was clearly on the minds of attendees in the wake of the release of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling that would eliminate federal protection for abortion rights.

The 57,000-member ACOG organization firmly supports abortion rights and declares on its website that “Abortion Is Healthcare.”

In a workshop on challenges to abortion, ACOG chief of staff Dorothea Calvano Lindquist said “we remain your steadfast partner in advocacy and guidance on all levels.”

Ivana S. Thompson, MD, an ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., explained in a presentation that Roe v. Wade established a framework for regulations around abortion; they may not be regulated during the first trimester, but states may impose rules in the second semester that are related to health. “And then in the third trimester, once the fetus reaches viability, the state may regulate abortions or even prohibit them entirely, so long as there are exceptions for medical emergencies,” she said.

The Supreme Court ruling in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey did away with the trimester framework, Dr. Thompson said, and declared that abortion regulations could not place an “undue burden” on women.

This change allowed laws that “are purposely designed to trap providers and clinics and to restrict their ability to provide abortions, not due to health concerns but really just to prevent pregnant people from accessing care,” she said.

In 2018, Mississippi passed a law – which never went into effect and is now challenged before the Supreme Court – that makes most abortions illegal after 15 weeks. And in September 2021, a Texas law went into effect that outlaws abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

What happens if Roe is overturned and laws that ban or severely limit abortion go into effect in states across the country? In Nashville, Dr. Thompson said, patients will have to travel to Illinois – more than 300 miles away – to reach the nearest abortion clinic.

“When I think about my own clinical practice over the last year, [if the law were in place] I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a developmentally delayed, nonverbal patient who was raped by her brother,” she said. “I would not have been able to offer an abortion to the service person who was sexually assaulted by a coworker in the field. I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a person with a pregnancy complicated by a hypoplastic left heart, congenital diaphragmatic hernias with the stomach in the thorax, an unformed lumbar spine, and other anomalies.”

Bhavik Kumar, MD, a family medicine physician and medical director for primary and trans care at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, said the effects of the new law in Texas are already apparent. As he told ABC News last fall, he used to perform 20-30 abortions per day, but the number dwindled immediately the day the law went into effect.

At the ACOG presentation, Dr. Kumar highlighted a March 2022 research brief that reported that abortions in Texas fell by half in the month after the law was implemented compared with the previous year. And the average number of abortions performed on Texans who left the state grew by more than 10-fold from the period of September-December 2019 (514) to September-December 2021 (5,574).

Once the law went into effect, Dr. Kumar said, “we began to see longer waiting times at clinics in nearby states, wait times that started out as short as a day go to an average of 2-3 weeks to get an initial appointment. And some of these states also have mandatory delays of up to 72 hours.”

Dr. Kumar added that he’s “heard from emergency-room physicians and nurses who call and ask me what they can and cannot say when providing care for pregnant people in Texas and how they should be counseling their patients who may need emergency or urgent care after returning to Texas.”

Dr. Brandi cautioned colleagues that even ob.gyns. who don’t perform abortions will still be affected by the overturning of Roe. In some states, they’ll have to understand the rules about treating women with early ruptured membranes when cardiac motion is detected or with atopic pregnancies with cardiac activity at risk of potential tubal rupture.

The speakers urged colleagues to take action at the ballot box and their own clinics to protect patients. “While the recent leak is a truly scary moment for our country and for our practices, I’m hopeful that it will help galvanize our communities,” Dr. Brandi said. Regardless of where you live, regardless of where you practice, this ruling impacts all ob.gyns., everyone in this room. Each of us needs to go home after this conference and figure out what you are going to do to make sure that our patients can still get the care that they need.”

SAN DIEGO – The end of the legal standards set by Roe v. Wade will likely lead to bans in as many as 26 states and send a flood of abortion seekers to the remaining states that still allow the procedure, an obstetrician-gynecologist warned colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The blue states neighboring those states will likely see an outpouring of patients among those who can travel,” Kristyn Brandi, MD, of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in a presentation about legal threats to abortion rights. “These will likely flood the health care systems and delay care for everyone. Make no mistake: Virtually all ob.gyns. across the country have the potential to be impacted.”

Indeed, research suggests that thousands more Texans than usual are heading out of state for abortions each month in the wake of a new, strict antiabortion law there.

Only three sessions at the 3-day ACOG meeting directly addressed abortion. But the topic was clearly on the minds of attendees in the wake of the release of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling that would eliminate federal protection for abortion rights.

The 57,000-member ACOG organization firmly supports abortion rights and declares on its website that “Abortion Is Healthcare.”

In a workshop on challenges to abortion, ACOG chief of staff Dorothea Calvano Lindquist said “we remain your steadfast partner in advocacy and guidance on all levels.”

Ivana S. Thompson, MD, an ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., explained in a presentation that Roe v. Wade established a framework for regulations around abortion; they may not be regulated during the first trimester, but states may impose rules in the second semester that are related to health. “And then in the third trimester, once the fetus reaches viability, the state may regulate abortions or even prohibit them entirely, so long as there are exceptions for medical emergencies,” she said.

The Supreme Court ruling in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey did away with the trimester framework, Dr. Thompson said, and declared that abortion regulations could not place an “undue burden” on women.

This change allowed laws that “are purposely designed to trap providers and clinics and to restrict their ability to provide abortions, not due to health concerns but really just to prevent pregnant people from accessing care,” she said.

In 2018, Mississippi passed a law – which never went into effect and is now challenged before the Supreme Court – that makes most abortions illegal after 15 weeks. And in September 2021, a Texas law went into effect that outlaws abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

What happens if Roe is overturned and laws that ban or severely limit abortion go into effect in states across the country? In Nashville, Dr. Thompson said, patients will have to travel to Illinois – more than 300 miles away – to reach the nearest abortion clinic.

“When I think about my own clinical practice over the last year, [if the law were in place] I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a developmentally delayed, nonverbal patient who was raped by her brother,” she said. “I would not have been able to offer an abortion to the service person who was sexually assaulted by a coworker in the field. I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a person with a pregnancy complicated by a hypoplastic left heart, congenital diaphragmatic hernias with the stomach in the thorax, an unformed lumbar spine, and other anomalies.”

Bhavik Kumar, MD, a family medicine physician and medical director for primary and trans care at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, said the effects of the new law in Texas are already apparent. As he told ABC News last fall, he used to perform 20-30 abortions per day, but the number dwindled immediately the day the law went into effect.

At the ACOG presentation, Dr. Kumar highlighted a March 2022 research brief that reported that abortions in Texas fell by half in the month after the law was implemented compared with the previous year. And the average number of abortions performed on Texans who left the state grew by more than 10-fold from the period of September-December 2019 (514) to September-December 2021 (5,574).

Once the law went into effect, Dr. Kumar said, “we began to see longer waiting times at clinics in nearby states, wait times that started out as short as a day go to an average of 2-3 weeks to get an initial appointment. And some of these states also have mandatory delays of up to 72 hours.”

Dr. Kumar added that he’s “heard from emergency-room physicians and nurses who call and ask me what they can and cannot say when providing care for pregnant people in Texas and how they should be counseling their patients who may need emergency or urgent care after returning to Texas.”

Dr. Brandi cautioned colleagues that even ob.gyns. who don’t perform abortions will still be affected by the overturning of Roe. In some states, they’ll have to understand the rules about treating women with early ruptured membranes when cardiac motion is detected or with atopic pregnancies with cardiac activity at risk of potential tubal rupture.

The speakers urged colleagues to take action at the ballot box and their own clinics to protect patients. “While the recent leak is a truly scary moment for our country and for our practices, I’m hopeful that it will help galvanize our communities,” Dr. Brandi said. Regardless of where you live, regardless of where you practice, this ruling impacts all ob.gyns., everyone in this room. Each of us needs to go home after this conference and figure out what you are going to do to make sure that our patients can still get the care that they need.”

SAN DIEGO – The end of the legal standards set by Roe v. Wade will likely lead to bans in as many as 26 states and send a flood of abortion seekers to the remaining states that still allow the procedure, an obstetrician-gynecologist warned colleagues at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“The blue states neighboring those states will likely see an outpouring of patients among those who can travel,” Kristyn Brandi, MD, of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in a presentation about legal threats to abortion rights. “These will likely flood the health care systems and delay care for everyone. Make no mistake: Virtually all ob.gyns. across the country have the potential to be impacted.”

Indeed, research suggests that thousands more Texans than usual are heading out of state for abortions each month in the wake of a new, strict antiabortion law there.

Only three sessions at the 3-day ACOG meeting directly addressed abortion. But the topic was clearly on the minds of attendees in the wake of the release of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling that would eliminate federal protection for abortion rights.

The 57,000-member ACOG organization firmly supports abortion rights and declares on its website that “Abortion Is Healthcare.”

In a workshop on challenges to abortion, ACOG chief of staff Dorothea Calvano Lindquist said “we remain your steadfast partner in advocacy and guidance on all levels.”

Ivana S. Thompson, MD, an ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., explained in a presentation that Roe v. Wade established a framework for regulations around abortion; they may not be regulated during the first trimester, but states may impose rules in the second semester that are related to health. “And then in the third trimester, once the fetus reaches viability, the state may regulate abortions or even prohibit them entirely, so long as there are exceptions for medical emergencies,” she said.

The Supreme Court ruling in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey did away with the trimester framework, Dr. Thompson said, and declared that abortion regulations could not place an “undue burden” on women.

This change allowed laws that “are purposely designed to trap providers and clinics and to restrict their ability to provide abortions, not due to health concerns but really just to prevent pregnant people from accessing care,” she said.

In 2018, Mississippi passed a law – which never went into effect and is now challenged before the Supreme Court – that makes most abortions illegal after 15 weeks. And in September 2021, a Texas law went into effect that outlaws abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

What happens if Roe is overturned and laws that ban or severely limit abortion go into effect in states across the country? In Nashville, Dr. Thompson said, patients will have to travel to Illinois – more than 300 miles away – to reach the nearest abortion clinic.

“When I think about my own clinical practice over the last year, [if the law were in place] I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a developmentally delayed, nonverbal patient who was raped by her brother,” she said. “I would not have been able to offer an abortion to the service person who was sexually assaulted by a coworker in the field. I would not have been able to offer an abortion to a person with a pregnancy complicated by a hypoplastic left heart, congenital diaphragmatic hernias with the stomach in the thorax, an unformed lumbar spine, and other anomalies.”

Bhavik Kumar, MD, a family medicine physician and medical director for primary and trans care at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston, said the effects of the new law in Texas are already apparent. As he told ABC News last fall, he used to perform 20-30 abortions per day, but the number dwindled immediately the day the law went into effect.

At the ACOG presentation, Dr. Kumar highlighted a March 2022 research brief that reported that abortions in Texas fell by half in the month after the law was implemented compared with the previous year. And the average number of abortions performed on Texans who left the state grew by more than 10-fold from the period of September-December 2019 (514) to September-December 2021 (5,574).

Once the law went into effect, Dr. Kumar said, “we began to see longer waiting times at clinics in nearby states, wait times that started out as short as a day go to an average of 2-3 weeks to get an initial appointment. And some of these states also have mandatory delays of up to 72 hours.”

Dr. Kumar added that he’s “heard from emergency-room physicians and nurses who call and ask me what they can and cannot say when providing care for pregnant people in Texas and how they should be counseling their patients who may need emergency or urgent care after returning to Texas.”

Dr. Brandi cautioned colleagues that even ob.gyns. who don’t perform abortions will still be affected by the overturning of Roe. In some states, they’ll have to understand the rules about treating women with early ruptured membranes when cardiac motion is detected or with atopic pregnancies with cardiac activity at risk of potential tubal rupture.

The speakers urged colleagues to take action at the ballot box and their own clinics to protect patients. “While the recent leak is a truly scary moment for our country and for our practices, I’m hopeful that it will help galvanize our communities,” Dr. Brandi said. Regardless of where you live, regardless of where you practice, this ruling impacts all ob.gyns., everyone in this room. Each of us needs to go home after this conference and figure out what you are going to do to make sure that our patients can still get the care that they need.”

A study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022 documents a “significant long-term benefit” among women with breast cancer who were treated with tamoxifen.

The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.

“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.

The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.

It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.

To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes. 

In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said. 

“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.

A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022 documents a “significant long-term benefit” among women with breast cancer who were treated with tamoxifen.

The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.

“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.

The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.

It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.

To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes. 

In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said. 

“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.

A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022 documents a “significant long-term benefit” among women with breast cancer who were treated with tamoxifen.

The study was a secondary analysis of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive HER2-negative breast cancer who were treated between 1976 and 1996 in Sweden.

“Our findings suggest a significant long-term tamoxifen treatment benefit among patients with larger tumors, lymph node-negative tumors, PR-positive tumors, and Ki-67 low tumors,” according to Huma Dar, a doctoral candidate at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, who authored the study.

The analysis found that patients with tumor size T1c, grade 2, lymph node-negative, PR-positive, and Ki-67-low tumors significantly benefited from treatment with tamoxifen for 20 years. And, for patients with tumor size T2-3, benefited significantly after 10 years of treatment with tamoxifen.

It is known that breast cancer patients with ER-positive tumors have a greater risk of distant recurrence – cancer spreading to tissues and organs far from the original tumor site. The selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen, when used as an adjuvant therapy, has been shown to reduce the risk of tumor recurrence and increase survival in patients with ER-positive breast cancer, but not all patients benefit from this therapy.

To examine the long-term benefit of tamoxifen, Ms. Dar and colleagues analyzed data from randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen that took place in Stockholm between 1976 and 1997. The study included 1,242 patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and included a 20-year follow-up. Researchers looked at the relationship between tumor characteristics – including size, grade, lymph node status, the presence of progesterone receptor (PR), and levels of Ki-67, a protein linked with cell proliferation – and patient outcomes. 

In a related study published last year in JAMA Network Open, Ms. Dar and colleagues examined the long-term effects of tamoxifen in patients with low risk, postmenopausal, and lymph-node negative cancer. They found that patients with larger tumors, lower tumor grade and PR-positive tumors appeared to significantly benefit from tamoxifen treatment for up to 25 years. The team has since extended that work by looking at pre- and postmenopausal as well as low- and high-risk patients, Ms. Dar said. 

“We believe that our findings together with other study findings are important to understand the lifetime risk for patients diagnosed with breast cancer,” Ms. Dar said. “One potential clinical implication is related to tamoxifen benefit, which in our study we don’t see for patients with the smallest tumors.” She said that more studies are needed to confirm this result.

A limitation of this study is that clinical recommendations for disease management and treatment have changed since the initiation of the clinical trials. “The STO-trials were performed before aromatase inhibitors or ovarian function suppression became one of the recommended treatment options for ER-positive breast cancer, and when the duration of tamoxifen therapy was shorter than current recommendations,” Ms. Dar said.

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working life and Welfare, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, and Swedish Cancer Society. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) breast cancer are generally uninformed about their diagnosis and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.

Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.

Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.

“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.

Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.

The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).

A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.

Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) breast cancer are generally uninformed about their diagnosis and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.

Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.

Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.

“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.

Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.

The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).

A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.

Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) breast cancer are generally uninformed about their diagnosis and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.

Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.

Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.

“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.

Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.

The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).

A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.

Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.

Reducing the frequency of routine blood monitoring for methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with no adverse outcomes for patients, British researchers have found.

Similar laboratory results were recorded in patients who were switched from testing once per month to once every 3 or 5 months, Natasha Wood, a general practice trainee at North Devon District Hospital in Barnstaple, England, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

sshepard/iStock

“Less frequent monitoring did not result in patient harm,” she said.

“There’s an increasing evidence base; we wonder whether now’s the time to reconsider our DMARD-monitoring strategy,” Ms. Wood said.
 

Changes in monitoring because of pandemic

Methotrexate monitoring is important to minimize the risk of harm to patients, and it is recommended that standard laboratory tests, such as a complete blood count, creatinine, and liver enzymes are measured regularly. Indeed, both the BSR and the American College of Rheumatology have specific recommendations on the monitoring of methotrexate and other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS).

“The BSR used to advise for monthly blood tests in patients taking methotrexate,” Ms. Wood said, but the BSR moved to recommend testing patients on a stable dose every 3 months in 2017.

“Things of course changed again rapidly with COVID, with the BSR quickly updating their guidelines advising for less frequent monitoring in this patient group,” Ms. Wood said.

As a result, the North Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, which covers the hospital where Ms. Wood works, agreed to allow testing every 6 months for patients on a stable methotrexate dose. “This was across specialties, so not just rheumatology, but dermatology and gastroenterology as well,” she said.

“This provided us with a really exciting and unique opportunity to look at this patient group and see what happened,” Ms. Wood explained.

Effect of less frequent monitoring

At the meeting, Ms. Wood presented the results of an audit of 854 patients found via a search of hospital pathology records who were stable on methotrexate monotherapy for at least 12 months.

Two subanalyses were performed: One looked at patients who had changed from blood testing once every month to once every 3 months (n = 229) and the other looking at a group of 120 patients who had gone from testing once every 3 months to approximately every 5 months.

The mean age of patients was 67 for monthly testing, 69 for testing every 3 months, and 66 for testing about every 5 months, with around two-thirds of patients being of female sex.

A comparison of the number of blood tests performed to the end of April 2020 with the number performed to the end of April 2021 showed that there had mainly been a shift from testing once per month to once every 3 months, with some patients being tested in line with the revised BSR guidelines at around 5 months.

“Interestingly, a third of this group had no changed monitoring frequency despite the change in guidelines,” Ms. Wood said.

“Prepandemic, most patients [were] having monthly bloods despite BSR advice from 2017, and despite the pandemic with the updated shared care guidelines,” patients were still having blood drawn every 3 months, Ms. Wood noted. This perhaps needs further investigation and consideration to understand why recommended changes to the frequency of testing are not being adhered to.

The overall distribution of laboratory findings was similar among those who went from testing once per month to once every 3 months and from every 3 months to every 5 months. This included the distribution of neutrophils, whole blood counts, and alanine aminotransferase. There were some changes for platelets, mean cell volume, and the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but these were not clinically significant.

“Abnormal blood results aren’t common in stable methotrexate monotherapy patients,” Ms. Wood reported. “Where abnormalities did occur, it was in the context of patients being concurrently unwell and symptomatic.”
 

Time for patient-initiated testing?

There are several advantages of less frequent methotrexate monitoring, Ms. Wood said. One is the practicalities of getting to and from appointments, particularly in remote locations, such as where she works.

In addition to reducing workloads and pressure on already busy hospitals and primary care, this could have a huge environmental impact, she suggested.

Moreover, “moderate-quality evidence” supports the current monitoring frequency recommendation.

“We know that our numbers are small – we’re a small center – but our findings are consistent with much larger studies across the U.K.,” Ms. Wood said.

“We wonder whether there’s the possibility of moving towards annual monitoring with good safety netting and patient education for additional blood tests if they are unwell,” she said, adding that “now may be the time for patient-initiated methotrexate monitoring.”

Ms. Wood disclosed Janssen sponsorship for attending the BSR 2022 annual meeting.

Reducing the frequency of routine blood monitoring for methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with no adverse outcomes for patients, British researchers have found.

Similar laboratory results were recorded in patients who were switched from testing once per month to once every 3 or 5 months, Natasha Wood, a general practice trainee at North Devon District Hospital in Barnstaple, England, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

sshepard/iStock

“Less frequent monitoring did not result in patient harm,” she said.

“There’s an increasing evidence base; we wonder whether now’s the time to reconsider our DMARD-monitoring strategy,” Ms. Wood said.
 

Changes in monitoring because of pandemic

Methotrexate monitoring is important to minimize the risk of harm to patients, and it is recommended that standard laboratory tests, such as a complete blood count, creatinine, and liver enzymes are measured regularly. Indeed, both the BSR and the American College of Rheumatology have specific recommendations on the monitoring of methotrexate and other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS).

“The BSR used to advise for monthly blood tests in patients taking methotrexate,” Ms. Wood said, but the BSR moved to recommend testing patients on a stable dose every 3 months in 2017.

“Things of course changed again rapidly with COVID, with the BSR quickly updating their guidelines advising for less frequent monitoring in this patient group,” Ms. Wood said.

As a result, the North Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, which covers the hospital where Ms. Wood works, agreed to allow testing every 6 months for patients on a stable methotrexate dose. “This was across specialties, so not just rheumatology, but dermatology and gastroenterology as well,” she said.

“This provided us with a really exciting and unique opportunity to look at this patient group and see what happened,” Ms. Wood explained.

Effect of less frequent monitoring

At the meeting, Ms. Wood presented the results of an audit of 854 patients found via a search of hospital pathology records who were stable on methotrexate monotherapy for at least 12 months.

Two subanalyses were performed: One looked at patients who had changed from blood testing once every month to once every 3 months (n = 229) and the other looking at a group of 120 patients who had gone from testing once every 3 months to approximately every 5 months.

The mean age of patients was 67 for monthly testing, 69 for testing every 3 months, and 66 for testing about every 5 months, with around two-thirds of patients being of female sex.

A comparison of the number of blood tests performed to the end of April 2020 with the number performed to the end of April 2021 showed that there had mainly been a shift from testing once per month to once every 3 months, with some patients being tested in line with the revised BSR guidelines at around 5 months.

“Interestingly, a third of this group had no changed monitoring frequency despite the change in guidelines,” Ms. Wood said.

“Prepandemic, most patients [were] having monthly bloods despite BSR advice from 2017, and despite the pandemic with the updated shared care guidelines,” patients were still having blood drawn every 3 months, Ms. Wood noted. This perhaps needs further investigation and consideration to understand why recommended changes to the frequency of testing are not being adhered to.

The overall distribution of laboratory findings was similar among those who went from testing once per month to once every 3 months and from every 3 months to every 5 months. This included the distribution of neutrophils, whole blood counts, and alanine aminotransferase. There were some changes for platelets, mean cell volume, and the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but these were not clinically significant.

“Abnormal blood results aren’t common in stable methotrexate monotherapy patients,” Ms. Wood reported. “Where abnormalities did occur, it was in the context of patients being concurrently unwell and symptomatic.”
 

Time for patient-initiated testing?

There are several advantages of less frequent methotrexate monitoring, Ms. Wood said. One is the practicalities of getting to and from appointments, particularly in remote locations, such as where she works.

In addition to reducing workloads and pressure on already busy hospitals and primary care, this could have a huge environmental impact, she suggested.

Moreover, “moderate-quality evidence” supports the current monitoring frequency recommendation.

“We know that our numbers are small – we’re a small center – but our findings are consistent with much larger studies across the U.K.,” Ms. Wood said.

“We wonder whether there’s the possibility of moving towards annual monitoring with good safety netting and patient education for additional blood tests if they are unwell,” she said, adding that “now may be the time for patient-initiated methotrexate monitoring.”

Ms. Wood disclosed Janssen sponsorship for attending the BSR 2022 annual meeting.

Reducing the frequency of routine blood monitoring for methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with no adverse outcomes for patients, British researchers have found.

Similar laboratory results were recorded in patients who were switched from testing once per month to once every 3 or 5 months, Natasha Wood, a general practice trainee at North Devon District Hospital in Barnstaple, England, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

sshepard/iStock

“Less frequent monitoring did not result in patient harm,” she said.

“There’s an increasing evidence base; we wonder whether now’s the time to reconsider our DMARD-monitoring strategy,” Ms. Wood said.
 

Changes in monitoring because of pandemic

Methotrexate monitoring is important to minimize the risk of harm to patients, and it is recommended that standard laboratory tests, such as a complete blood count, creatinine, and liver enzymes are measured regularly. Indeed, both the BSR and the American College of Rheumatology have specific recommendations on the monitoring of methotrexate and other conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDS).

“The BSR used to advise for monthly blood tests in patients taking methotrexate,” Ms. Wood said, but the BSR moved to recommend testing patients on a stable dose every 3 months in 2017.

“Things of course changed again rapidly with COVID, with the BSR quickly updating their guidelines advising for less frequent monitoring in this patient group,” Ms. Wood said.

As a result, the North Devon Clinical Commissioning Group, which covers the hospital where Ms. Wood works, agreed to allow testing every 6 months for patients on a stable methotrexate dose. “This was across specialties, so not just rheumatology, but dermatology and gastroenterology as well,” she said.

“This provided us with a really exciting and unique opportunity to look at this patient group and see what happened,” Ms. Wood explained.

Effect of less frequent monitoring

At the meeting, Ms. Wood presented the results of an audit of 854 patients found via a search of hospital pathology records who were stable on methotrexate monotherapy for at least 12 months.

Two subanalyses were performed: One looked at patients who had changed from blood testing once every month to once every 3 months (n = 229) and the other looking at a group of 120 patients who had gone from testing once every 3 months to approximately every 5 months.

The mean age of patients was 67 for monthly testing, 69 for testing every 3 months, and 66 for testing about every 5 months, with around two-thirds of patients being of female sex.

A comparison of the number of blood tests performed to the end of April 2020 with the number performed to the end of April 2021 showed that there had mainly been a shift from testing once per month to once every 3 months, with some patients being tested in line with the revised BSR guidelines at around 5 months.

“Interestingly, a third of this group had no changed monitoring frequency despite the change in guidelines,” Ms. Wood said.

“Prepandemic, most patients [were] having monthly bloods despite BSR advice from 2017, and despite the pandemic with the updated shared care guidelines,” patients were still having blood drawn every 3 months, Ms. Wood noted. This perhaps needs further investigation and consideration to understand why recommended changes to the frequency of testing are not being adhered to.

The overall distribution of laboratory findings was similar among those who went from testing once per month to once every 3 months and from every 3 months to every 5 months. This included the distribution of neutrophils, whole blood counts, and alanine aminotransferase. There were some changes for platelets, mean cell volume, and the estimated glomerular filtration rate, but these were not clinically significant.

“Abnormal blood results aren’t common in stable methotrexate monotherapy patients,” Ms. Wood reported. “Where abnormalities did occur, it was in the context of patients being concurrently unwell and symptomatic.”
 

Time for patient-initiated testing?

There are several advantages of less frequent methotrexate monitoring, Ms. Wood said. One is the practicalities of getting to and from appointments, particularly in remote locations, such as where she works.

In addition to reducing workloads and pressure on already busy hospitals and primary care, this could have a huge environmental impact, she suggested.

Moreover, “moderate-quality evidence” supports the current monitoring frequency recommendation.

“We know that our numbers are small – we’re a small center – but our findings are consistent with much larger studies across the U.K.,” Ms. Wood said.

“We wonder whether there’s the possibility of moving towards annual monitoring with good safety netting and patient education for additional blood tests if they are unwell,” she said, adding that “now may be the time for patient-initiated methotrexate monitoring.”

Ms. Wood disclosed Janssen sponsorship for attending the BSR 2022 annual meeting.