Conference Coverage

When Marisha Burden, MD, division head of hospital medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, would go to medical conferences, it seemed as if very few women were giving talks. She wondered if she could be wrong.

“I started doing my own assessments at every conference I would go to, just to make sure I wasn’t biased in my own belief system,” she said in a session at SHM Converge 2021, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

She wasn’t wrong.

In 2015, only 35% of all speakers at the SHM annual conference were women, and only 23% of the plenary speakers were women. In the years after that, when the society put out open calls for speakers, the numbers of women who spoke increased substantially, to 47% overall and 45% of plenary speakers.

The results – part of the SPEAK UP study Dr. Burden led in 2020 – show how gender disparity can be improved with a systematic process that is designed to improve it. The results of the study also showed that as the percentages of female speakers increased, the attendee ratings of the sessions did, too.

“You can do these things, and the quality of your conference doesn’t get negatively impacted – and in this case, actually improved,” Dr. Burden said.

That study marked progress toward leveling a traditionally uneven playing field when it comes to men and women in medicine, and the panelists in the session called on the field to use a variety of tools and strategies to continue toward something closer to equality.

Sara Spilseth, MD, MBA, chief of staff at Regions Hospital, in St. Paul, Minn., said it’s well established that although almost 50% of medical school students are women, the percentage shrinks each step from faculty to full professor to dean – of which only 16% are women. She referred to what’s known as the “leaky pipe.”

In what Dr. Spilseth said was one of her favorite studies, researchers in 2015 found that only 13% of clinical department leaders at the top 50 U.S. medical schools were women – they were outnumbered by the percentage of department leaders with mustaches, at 19%, even though mustaches are dwindling in popularity.

“Why does this exist? Why did we end up like this?” Part of the problem is a “respect gap,” she said, pointing to a study on the tendency of women to use the formal title of “doctor” when introducing male colleagues, whereas men who introduce women use that title less than half the time.

The COVID-19 pandemic has only made these disparities worse. Women are responsible for childcare much more frequently than men, Dr. Burden said, although the pandemic has brought caregiving duties to the forefront.

Dr. Spilseth said mentoring can help women navigate the workplace so as to help overcome these disparities. At Regions, the mentoring program is robust.

“Even before a new hire steps foot in the hospital, we have established them with a mentor,” she said. Sponsoring – the “ability of someone with political capital to use it to help colleagues” – can also help boost women’s careers, she said.

Her hospital also has a Women in Medicine Cooperative, which provides a way for women to talk about common struggles and to network.

Flexible work opportunities – working in transitional care units, being a physician advisor, and doing research – can all help boost a career as well, Dr. Spilseth said.

She said that at the University of Colorado, leaders set out to reach salary equity in a year and a half – and “it was a painful, painful process.” They found that different people held different beliefs about how people were paid, which led to a lot of unnecessary stress as they tried to construct a fairer system.

“On the back end of having done that, while it was a rough year and half, it has saved so much time – and I think built a culture of trust and transparency,” she said.

Recruiting in a more thoughtful way can also have a big impact, Dr. Spilseth said. The manner in which people are told about opportunities could exclude people without intending to.

“Are you casting a wide net?” she asked.

Adia Ross, MD, MHA, chief medical officer at Duke Regional Hospital, Durham, N.C., said that even in the face of obvious disparities, women can take steps on their own to boost their careers. She encouraged taking on “stretch assignments,” a project or task that is a bit beyond one’s current comfort level or level of experience or knowledge. “It can be a little scary, and sometimes there are bumps along the way,” she said.

All of these measures, though incremental, are the way to make bigger change, she said. “We want to take small steps but big strides forward.”

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

When Marisha Burden, MD, division head of hospital medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, would go to medical conferences, it seemed as if very few women were giving talks. She wondered if she could be wrong.

“I started doing my own assessments at every conference I would go to, just to make sure I wasn’t biased in my own belief system,” she said in a session at SHM Converge 2021, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

She wasn’t wrong.

In 2015, only 35% of all speakers at the SHM annual conference were women, and only 23% of the plenary speakers were women. In the years after that, when the society put out open calls for speakers, the numbers of women who spoke increased substantially, to 47% overall and 45% of plenary speakers.

The results – part of the SPEAK UP study Dr. Burden led in 2020 – show how gender disparity can be improved with a systematic process that is designed to improve it. The results of the study also showed that as the percentages of female speakers increased, the attendee ratings of the sessions did, too.

“You can do these things, and the quality of your conference doesn’t get negatively impacted – and in this case, actually improved,” Dr. Burden said.

That study marked progress toward leveling a traditionally uneven playing field when it comes to men and women in medicine, and the panelists in the session called on the field to use a variety of tools and strategies to continue toward something closer to equality.

Sara Spilseth, MD, MBA, chief of staff at Regions Hospital, in St. Paul, Minn., said it’s well established that although almost 50% of medical school students are women, the percentage shrinks each step from faculty to full professor to dean – of which only 16% are women. She referred to what’s known as the “leaky pipe.”

In what Dr. Spilseth said was one of her favorite studies, researchers in 2015 found that only 13% of clinical department leaders at the top 50 U.S. medical schools were women – they were outnumbered by the percentage of department leaders with mustaches, at 19%, even though mustaches are dwindling in popularity.

“Why does this exist? Why did we end up like this?” Part of the problem is a “respect gap,” she said, pointing to a study on the tendency of women to use the formal title of “doctor” when introducing male colleagues, whereas men who introduce women use that title less than half the time.

The COVID-19 pandemic has only made these disparities worse. Women are responsible for childcare much more frequently than men, Dr. Burden said, although the pandemic has brought caregiving duties to the forefront.

Dr. Spilseth said mentoring can help women navigate the workplace so as to help overcome these disparities. At Regions, the mentoring program is robust.

“Even before a new hire steps foot in the hospital, we have established them with a mentor,” she said. Sponsoring – the “ability of someone with political capital to use it to help colleagues” – can also help boost women’s careers, she said.

Her hospital also has a Women in Medicine Cooperative, which provides a way for women to talk about common struggles and to network.

Flexible work opportunities – working in transitional care units, being a physician advisor, and doing research – can all help boost a career as well, Dr. Spilseth said.

She said that at the University of Colorado, leaders set out to reach salary equity in a year and a half – and “it was a painful, painful process.” They found that different people held different beliefs about how people were paid, which led to a lot of unnecessary stress as they tried to construct a fairer system.

“On the back end of having done that, while it was a rough year and half, it has saved so much time – and I think built a culture of trust and transparency,” she said.

Recruiting in a more thoughtful way can also have a big impact, Dr. Spilseth said. The manner in which people are told about opportunities could exclude people without intending to.

“Are you casting a wide net?” she asked.

Adia Ross, MD, MHA, chief medical officer at Duke Regional Hospital, Durham, N.C., said that even in the face of obvious disparities, women can take steps on their own to boost their careers. She encouraged taking on “stretch assignments,” a project or task that is a bit beyond one’s current comfort level or level of experience or knowledge. “It can be a little scary, and sometimes there are bumps along the way,” she said.

All of these measures, though incremental, are the way to make bigger change, she said. “We want to take small steps but big strides forward.”

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

When Marisha Burden, MD, division head of hospital medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, would go to medical conferences, it seemed as if very few women were giving talks. She wondered if she could be wrong.

“I started doing my own assessments at every conference I would go to, just to make sure I wasn’t biased in my own belief system,” she said in a session at SHM Converge 2021, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

She wasn’t wrong.

In 2015, only 35% of all speakers at the SHM annual conference were women, and only 23% of the plenary speakers were women. In the years after that, when the society put out open calls for speakers, the numbers of women who spoke increased substantially, to 47% overall and 45% of plenary speakers.

The results – part of the SPEAK UP study Dr. Burden led in 2020 – show how gender disparity can be improved with a systematic process that is designed to improve it. The results of the study also showed that as the percentages of female speakers increased, the attendee ratings of the sessions did, too.

“You can do these things, and the quality of your conference doesn’t get negatively impacted – and in this case, actually improved,” Dr. Burden said.

That study marked progress toward leveling a traditionally uneven playing field when it comes to men and women in medicine, and the panelists in the session called on the field to use a variety of tools and strategies to continue toward something closer to equality.

Sara Spilseth, MD, MBA, chief of staff at Regions Hospital, in St. Paul, Minn., said it’s well established that although almost 50% of medical school students are women, the percentage shrinks each step from faculty to full professor to dean – of which only 16% are women. She referred to what’s known as the “leaky pipe.”

In what Dr. Spilseth said was one of her favorite studies, researchers in 2015 found that only 13% of clinical department leaders at the top 50 U.S. medical schools were women – they were outnumbered by the percentage of department leaders with mustaches, at 19%, even though mustaches are dwindling in popularity.

“Why does this exist? Why did we end up like this?” Part of the problem is a “respect gap,” she said, pointing to a study on the tendency of women to use the formal title of “doctor” when introducing male colleagues, whereas men who introduce women use that title less than half the time.

The COVID-19 pandemic has only made these disparities worse. Women are responsible for childcare much more frequently than men, Dr. Burden said, although the pandemic has brought caregiving duties to the forefront.

Dr. Spilseth said mentoring can help women navigate the workplace so as to help overcome these disparities. At Regions, the mentoring program is robust.

“Even before a new hire steps foot in the hospital, we have established them with a mentor,” she said. Sponsoring – the “ability of someone with political capital to use it to help colleagues” – can also help boost women’s careers, she said.

Her hospital also has a Women in Medicine Cooperative, which provides a way for women to talk about common struggles and to network.

Flexible work opportunities – working in transitional care units, being a physician advisor, and doing research – can all help boost a career as well, Dr. Spilseth said.

She said that at the University of Colorado, leaders set out to reach salary equity in a year and a half – and “it was a painful, painful process.” They found that different people held different beliefs about how people were paid, which led to a lot of unnecessary stress as they tried to construct a fairer system.

“On the back end of having done that, while it was a rough year and half, it has saved so much time – and I think built a culture of trust and transparency,” she said.

Recruiting in a more thoughtful way can also have a big impact, Dr. Spilseth said. The manner in which people are told about opportunities could exclude people without intending to.

“Are you casting a wide net?” she asked.

Adia Ross, MD, MHA, chief medical officer at Duke Regional Hospital, Durham, N.C., said that even in the face of obvious disparities, women can take steps on their own to boost their careers. She encouraged taking on “stretch assignments,” a project or task that is a bit beyond one’s current comfort level or level of experience or knowledge. “It can be a little scary, and sometimes there are bumps along the way,” she said.

All of these measures, though incremental, are the way to make bigger change, she said. “We want to take small steps but big strides forward.”

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

Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences for future medical care, according to Meredith A. MacMartin, MD, director of inpatient palliative care at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

ACP “is really about planning for care in advance,” and in many ways, the inpatient setting is uniquely suited to this process, Dr. MacMartin said in a presentation at SHM Converge 2021, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “The key part is the advance part. You want conversations to happen before the care is actually needed,” she said.

Dr. MacMartin emphasized the importance of distinguishing between ACP and advance directives (ADs). ACP is a process, whereas ADs are documentation, “ideally of the content of advance care planning discussions,” she explained. ACP involves discussion about what is important to the patients, their goals, what information is helpful for them, and whether their current care is aligned with their goals, Dr. MacMartin said. ADs might involve a designated power of attorney for health care, a living will, and, in some states, specific clinician-signed orders regarding resuscitation or transport to hospital.

ACP is “more than whether a patient wants CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation] or not,” said Dr. MacMartin. ACP matters because it helps ensure that the care a patient receives aligns with the patient’s wishes and values, she said. ACP increases the likelihood that patients will die in their preferred locations, it allows them to discuss their wishes and prepare for decline, and it relieves family members of the burden of decision making, she said. From a hospital perspective, data show that use of an ACP can decrease intensive care unit (ICU) utilization and overall health care costs. “Often, when people are given the opportunity to express their wishes, they get less unnecessary care,” Dr. MacMartin noted.

Although ACP often takes place in an outpatient setting, hospitalists are in a unique position to conduct some ACP conversations with their patients, Dr. MacMartin said. “Hospitalists are available” and are physically present at least once a day, so there is a pragmatic advantage. Also, some data suggest that patients may feel more comfortable having ACP conversations with a hospitalist than with a primary care provider with whom they have a long-standing relationship, Dr. MacMartin added.

Another important advantage of ACP in the hospital setting is that, “as hospitalists, you are the expert on inpatient illness; you know what sick looks like, and you have a unique perspective on prognostication that may be harder to recreate in the outpatient setting,” Dr. MacMartin said.
 

Barriers to ACP include patient identification, logistics, attitudes

Settings in which ACP is appropriate include those in which a patient is undergoing “sentinel hospitalization,” meaning that the patient is at a transition point in the disease course. Examples are a patient newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer, a patient with progressive chronic kidney disease who is considering hemodialysis, or a patient who receives treatment in the ICU for longer than 7 days, Dr. MacMartin said.

Guidelines for identifying patients who might benefit from ACP include the use of the “surprise question” (“would you be surprised if this patient dies in the next year?”) as well as functional status assessments using tools such as the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status or the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, said Dr. MacMartin. Some studies suggest that any hospitalized patient older than 65 years should have an ACP discussion, she added.

Time pressure remains a significant barrier to ACP conversations. Some strategies to overcome this problem include enlisting help from other specialists, particularly social workers, Dr. MacMartin said. Social workers report a higher comfort level for talking to patients about death than any other medical specialty; “this is something they want to be doing,” she said. Also, the possibility of reimbursement may act as a buffer to create more time to have ACP conversations with patients, she noted.

Addressing clinicians’ discomfort with ACP conversations can be “a tougher nut to crack,” Dr. MacMartin acknowledged. Clinicians report that they don’t want to cause their patients distress, and some report that having conversations about end-of-life care is distressing for them as well. Some of these barriers can be overcome with skills training, including use of a prepared guideline or framework to help increase the comfort level for both clinicians and patients, said Dr. MacMartin.
 

A look ahead: Training strategies and COVID-19 impact

“For hospitalists interested in developing their ACP skills, I highly recommend two resources,” Dr. MacMartin said in an interview. “The Serious Illness Conversation Guide, from Ariadne Labs, is an excellent tool for any clinician to guide discussion about a patient’s goals and values,” she said.

“For clinicians wanting to build or improve their communication, including advance care planning discussions but also topics like responding to patient’s emotions, VitalTalk training offers a deeper dive into core communications skills,” she added.

“If your hospital has a palliative care team, they may also have more local resources available to you. To learn more about billing for ACP discussions, I recommend starting with your institutional billing and coding group, as these practices vary some between practices, and they will be able to provide the best guidance for clinicians. These are new codes that aren’t yet being very widely used so it’s a chance to innovate,” Dr. MacMartin noted.

“The hospital setting is an opportunity for patients to reflect on their health, both present and in the future, with a physician who has expertise in acute illness and prognostication and who is available for discussion on a daily basis during the hospitalization,” Dr. MacMartin emphasized.

As for whether the COVID-19 pandemic has affected ACP in the inpatient setting, the data are limited, but more information is forthcoming, Dr. MacMartin said. “In my personal experience and in talking to colleagues elsewhere, the pandemic has highlighted the need for ACP in some ways, as we have tried to ensure that people who wouldn’t want things like intensive care are identified early,” she said. “I hope that some of the workflows developed to identify patients who should get ACP in the hospital stay in practice and are strengthened over time,” she added.

Dr. MacMartin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences for future medical care, according to Meredith A. MacMartin, MD, director of inpatient palliative care at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

ACP “is really about planning for care in advance,” and in many ways, the inpatient setting is uniquely suited to this process, Dr. MacMartin said in a presentation at SHM Converge 2021, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “The key part is the advance part. You want conversations to happen before the care is actually needed,” she said.

Dr. MacMartin emphasized the importance of distinguishing between ACP and advance directives (ADs). ACP is a process, whereas ADs are documentation, “ideally of the content of advance care planning discussions,” she explained. ACP involves discussion about what is important to the patients, their goals, what information is helpful for them, and whether their current care is aligned with their goals, Dr. MacMartin said. ADs might involve a designated power of attorney for health care, a living will, and, in some states, specific clinician-signed orders regarding resuscitation or transport to hospital.

ACP is “more than whether a patient wants CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation] or not,” said Dr. MacMartin. ACP matters because it helps ensure that the care a patient receives aligns with the patient’s wishes and values, she said. ACP increases the likelihood that patients will die in their preferred locations, it allows them to discuss their wishes and prepare for decline, and it relieves family members of the burden of decision making, she said. From a hospital perspective, data show that use of an ACP can decrease intensive care unit (ICU) utilization and overall health care costs. “Often, when people are given the opportunity to express their wishes, they get less unnecessary care,” Dr. MacMartin noted.

Although ACP often takes place in an outpatient setting, hospitalists are in a unique position to conduct some ACP conversations with their patients, Dr. MacMartin said. “Hospitalists are available” and are physically present at least once a day, so there is a pragmatic advantage. Also, some data suggest that patients may feel more comfortable having ACP conversations with a hospitalist than with a primary care provider with whom they have a long-standing relationship, Dr. MacMartin added.

Another important advantage of ACP in the hospital setting is that, “as hospitalists, you are the expert on inpatient illness; you know what sick looks like, and you have a unique perspective on prognostication that may be harder to recreate in the outpatient setting,” Dr. MacMartin said.
 

Barriers to ACP include patient identification, logistics, attitudes

Settings in which ACP is appropriate include those in which a patient is undergoing “sentinel hospitalization,” meaning that the patient is at a transition point in the disease course. Examples are a patient newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer, a patient with progressive chronic kidney disease who is considering hemodialysis, or a patient who receives treatment in the ICU for longer than 7 days, Dr. MacMartin said.

Guidelines for identifying patients who might benefit from ACP include the use of the “surprise question” (“would you be surprised if this patient dies in the next year?”) as well as functional status assessments using tools such as the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status or the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, said Dr. MacMartin. Some studies suggest that any hospitalized patient older than 65 years should have an ACP discussion, she added.

Time pressure remains a significant barrier to ACP conversations. Some strategies to overcome this problem include enlisting help from other specialists, particularly social workers, Dr. MacMartin said. Social workers report a higher comfort level for talking to patients about death than any other medical specialty; “this is something they want to be doing,” she said. Also, the possibility of reimbursement may act as a buffer to create more time to have ACP conversations with patients, she noted.

Addressing clinicians’ discomfort with ACP conversations can be “a tougher nut to crack,” Dr. MacMartin acknowledged. Clinicians report that they don’t want to cause their patients distress, and some report that having conversations about end-of-life care is distressing for them as well. Some of these barriers can be overcome with skills training, including use of a prepared guideline or framework to help increase the comfort level for both clinicians and patients, said Dr. MacMartin.
 

A look ahead: Training strategies and COVID-19 impact

“For hospitalists interested in developing their ACP skills, I highly recommend two resources,” Dr. MacMartin said in an interview. “The Serious Illness Conversation Guide, from Ariadne Labs, is an excellent tool for any clinician to guide discussion about a patient’s goals and values,” she said.

“For clinicians wanting to build or improve their communication, including advance care planning discussions but also topics like responding to patient’s emotions, VitalTalk training offers a deeper dive into core communications skills,” she added.

“If your hospital has a palliative care team, they may also have more local resources available to you. To learn more about billing for ACP discussions, I recommend starting with your institutional billing and coding group, as these practices vary some between practices, and they will be able to provide the best guidance for clinicians. These are new codes that aren’t yet being very widely used so it’s a chance to innovate,” Dr. MacMartin noted.

“The hospital setting is an opportunity for patients to reflect on their health, both present and in the future, with a physician who has expertise in acute illness and prognostication and who is available for discussion on a daily basis during the hospitalization,” Dr. MacMartin emphasized.

As for whether the COVID-19 pandemic has affected ACP in the inpatient setting, the data are limited, but more information is forthcoming, Dr. MacMartin said. “In my personal experience and in talking to colleagues elsewhere, the pandemic has highlighted the need for ACP in some ways, as we have tried to ensure that people who wouldn’t want things like intensive care are identified early,” she said. “I hope that some of the workflows developed to identify patients who should get ACP in the hospital stay in practice and are strengthened over time,” she added.

Dr. MacMartin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences for future medical care, according to Meredith A. MacMartin, MD, director of inpatient palliative care at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.

ACP “is really about planning for care in advance,” and in many ways, the inpatient setting is uniquely suited to this process, Dr. MacMartin said in a presentation at SHM Converge 2021, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “The key part is the advance part. You want conversations to happen before the care is actually needed,” she said.

Dr. MacMartin emphasized the importance of distinguishing between ACP and advance directives (ADs). ACP is a process, whereas ADs are documentation, “ideally of the content of advance care planning discussions,” she explained. ACP involves discussion about what is important to the patients, their goals, what information is helpful for them, and whether their current care is aligned with their goals, Dr. MacMartin said. ADs might involve a designated power of attorney for health care, a living will, and, in some states, specific clinician-signed orders regarding resuscitation or transport to hospital.

ACP is “more than whether a patient wants CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation] or not,” said Dr. MacMartin. ACP matters because it helps ensure that the care a patient receives aligns with the patient’s wishes and values, she said. ACP increases the likelihood that patients will die in their preferred locations, it allows them to discuss their wishes and prepare for decline, and it relieves family members of the burden of decision making, she said. From a hospital perspective, data show that use of an ACP can decrease intensive care unit (ICU) utilization and overall health care costs. “Often, when people are given the opportunity to express their wishes, they get less unnecessary care,” Dr. MacMartin noted.

Although ACP often takes place in an outpatient setting, hospitalists are in a unique position to conduct some ACP conversations with their patients, Dr. MacMartin said. “Hospitalists are available” and are physically present at least once a day, so there is a pragmatic advantage. Also, some data suggest that patients may feel more comfortable having ACP conversations with a hospitalist than with a primary care provider with whom they have a long-standing relationship, Dr. MacMartin added.

Another important advantage of ACP in the hospital setting is that, “as hospitalists, you are the expert on inpatient illness; you know what sick looks like, and you have a unique perspective on prognostication that may be harder to recreate in the outpatient setting,” Dr. MacMartin said.
 

Barriers to ACP include patient identification, logistics, attitudes

Settings in which ACP is appropriate include those in which a patient is undergoing “sentinel hospitalization,” meaning that the patient is at a transition point in the disease course. Examples are a patient newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer, a patient with progressive chronic kidney disease who is considering hemodialysis, or a patient who receives treatment in the ICU for longer than 7 days, Dr. MacMartin said.

Guidelines for identifying patients who might benefit from ACP include the use of the “surprise question” (“would you be surprised if this patient dies in the next year?”) as well as functional status assessments using tools such as the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status or the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, said Dr. MacMartin. Some studies suggest that any hospitalized patient older than 65 years should have an ACP discussion, she added.

Time pressure remains a significant barrier to ACP conversations. Some strategies to overcome this problem include enlisting help from other specialists, particularly social workers, Dr. MacMartin said. Social workers report a higher comfort level for talking to patients about death than any other medical specialty; “this is something they want to be doing,” she said. Also, the possibility of reimbursement may act as a buffer to create more time to have ACP conversations with patients, she noted.

Addressing clinicians’ discomfort with ACP conversations can be “a tougher nut to crack,” Dr. MacMartin acknowledged. Clinicians report that they don’t want to cause their patients distress, and some report that having conversations about end-of-life care is distressing for them as well. Some of these barriers can be overcome with skills training, including use of a prepared guideline or framework to help increase the comfort level for both clinicians and patients, said Dr. MacMartin.
 

A look ahead: Training strategies and COVID-19 impact

“For hospitalists interested in developing their ACP skills, I highly recommend two resources,” Dr. MacMartin said in an interview. “The Serious Illness Conversation Guide, from Ariadne Labs, is an excellent tool for any clinician to guide discussion about a patient’s goals and values,” she said.

“For clinicians wanting to build or improve their communication, including advance care planning discussions but also topics like responding to patient’s emotions, VitalTalk training offers a deeper dive into core communications skills,” she added.

“If your hospital has a palliative care team, they may also have more local resources available to you. To learn more about billing for ACP discussions, I recommend starting with your institutional billing and coding group, as these practices vary some between practices, and they will be able to provide the best guidance for clinicians. These are new codes that aren’t yet being very widely used so it’s a chance to innovate,” Dr. MacMartin noted.

“The hospital setting is an opportunity for patients to reflect on their health, both present and in the future, with a physician who has expertise in acute illness and prognostication and who is available for discussion on a daily basis during the hospitalization,” Dr. MacMartin emphasized.

As for whether the COVID-19 pandemic has affected ACP in the inpatient setting, the data are limited, but more information is forthcoming, Dr. MacMartin said. “In my personal experience and in talking to colleagues elsewhere, the pandemic has highlighted the need for ACP in some ways, as we have tried to ensure that people who wouldn’t want things like intensive care are identified early,” she said. “I hope that some of the workflows developed to identify patients who should get ACP in the hospital stay in practice and are strengthened over time,” she added.

Dr. MacMartin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

People with prediabetes, defined by having a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, had a significantly increased rate of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events and incident chronic kidney disease in a study of nearly 337,000 people included in the UK Biobank database.

The findings suggest that people with prediabetes have “heightened risk even without progression to type 2 diabetes,” Michael C. Honigberg, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Hemoglobin A1c may be better considered as a continuous measure of risk rather than dichotomized” as either less than 6.5%, or 6.5% or higher, the usual threshold defining people with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Honigberg, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
 

‘Prediabetes is not a benign entity’

“Our findings reinforce the notion that A1c represents a continuum of risk, with elevated risks observed, especially for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], at levels where some clinicians wouldn’t think twice about them. Prediabetes is not a benign entity in the middle-aged population we studied,” Dr. Honigberg said in an interview. “Risks are higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” he stressed, “however, prediabetes is so much more common that it appears to confer similar cardio, renal, and metabolic risks at a population level.”

Results from prior observational studies also showed elevated incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events in people with prediabetes, including a 2010 report based on data from about 11,000 U.S. residents, and in a more recent meta-analysis of 129 studies involving more than 10 million people. The new report by Dr. Honigberg “is the first to comprehensively evaluate diverse cardio-renal-metabolic outcomes across a range of A1c levels using a very large, contemporary database,” he noted. In addition, most prior reports did not include chronic kidney disease as an examined outcome.

The primary endpoint examined in the new analysis was the combined incidence during a median follow-up of just over 11 years of ASCVD events (coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease), CKD, or heart failure among 336,709 adults in the UK Biobank who at baseline had none of these conditions nor type 1 diabetes.

The vast majority, 82%, were normoglycemic at baseline, based on having an A1c of less than 5.7%; 14% had prediabetes, with an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%; and 4% had type 2 diabetes based on an A1c of at least 6.5% or on insulin treatment. Patients averaged about 57 years of age, slightly more than half were women, and average body mass index was in the overweight category except for those with type 2 diabetes.

The primary endpoint, the combined incidence of ASCVD, CKD, and heart failure, was 24% among those with type 2 diabetes, 14% in those with prediabetes, and 8% in those who were normoglycemic at entry. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online. Most of these events involved ASCVD, which occurred in 11% of those in the prediabetes subgroup (roughly four-fifths of the events in this subgroup), and in 17% of those with type 2 diabetes (nearly three-quarters of the events in this subgroup).

In an analysis that adjusted for more than a dozen demographic and clinical factors, the presence of prediabetes linked with significant increases in the incidence rate of all three outcomes compared with people who were normoglycemic at baseline. The analysis also identified an A1c level of 5.0% as linked with the lowest incidence of each of the three adverse outcomes. And a very granular analysis suggested that a significantly elevated risk for ASCVD first appeared when A1c levels were in the range of 5.4%-5.7%; a significantly increased incidence of CKD became apparent once A1c was in the range of 6.2%-6.5%; and a significantly increased incidence of heart failure began to manifest once A1c levels reached at least 7.0%.

Need for comprehensive cardiometabolic risk management

The findings “highlight the importance of identifying and comprehensively managing cardiometabolic risk in people with prediabetes, including dietary modification, exercise, weight loss and obesity management, smoking cessation, and attention to hypertension and hypercholesterolemia,” Dr. Honigberg said. While these data cannot address the appropriateness of using novel drug interventions in people with prediabetes, they suggest that people with prediabetes should be the focus of future prevention trials testing agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“These data help us discuss risk with patients [with prediabetes], and reemphasize the importance of guideline-directed preventive care,” said Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, a preventive cardiologist and lipid specialist at Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, who was not involved with the study.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Honigberg examined the risk among people with prediabetes who also were current or former smokers and in the top tertile of the prediabetes study population for systolic blood pressure, high non-HDL cholesterol, and C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation). This very high-risk subgroup of people with prediabetes had incidence rates for ASCVD events and for heart failure that tracked identically to those with type 2 diabetes. However. the incidence rate for CKD in these high-risk people with prediabetes remained below that of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Honigberg had no disclosures. Dr. Nambi has received research funding from Amgen, Merck, and Roche.

mzoler@mdedge.com

People with prediabetes, defined by having a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, had a significantly increased rate of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events and incident chronic kidney disease in a study of nearly 337,000 people included in the UK Biobank database.

The findings suggest that people with prediabetes have “heightened risk even without progression to type 2 diabetes,” Michael C. Honigberg, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Hemoglobin A1c may be better considered as a continuous measure of risk rather than dichotomized” as either less than 6.5%, or 6.5% or higher, the usual threshold defining people with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Honigberg, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
 

‘Prediabetes is not a benign entity’

“Our findings reinforce the notion that A1c represents a continuum of risk, with elevated risks observed, especially for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], at levels where some clinicians wouldn’t think twice about them. Prediabetes is not a benign entity in the middle-aged population we studied,” Dr. Honigberg said in an interview. “Risks are higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” he stressed, “however, prediabetes is so much more common that it appears to confer similar cardio, renal, and metabolic risks at a population level.”

Results from prior observational studies also showed elevated incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events in people with prediabetes, including a 2010 report based on data from about 11,000 U.S. residents, and in a more recent meta-analysis of 129 studies involving more than 10 million people. The new report by Dr. Honigberg “is the first to comprehensively evaluate diverse cardio-renal-metabolic outcomes across a range of A1c levels using a very large, contemporary database,” he noted. In addition, most prior reports did not include chronic kidney disease as an examined outcome.

The primary endpoint examined in the new analysis was the combined incidence during a median follow-up of just over 11 years of ASCVD events (coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease), CKD, or heart failure among 336,709 adults in the UK Biobank who at baseline had none of these conditions nor type 1 diabetes.

The vast majority, 82%, were normoglycemic at baseline, based on having an A1c of less than 5.7%; 14% had prediabetes, with an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%; and 4% had type 2 diabetes based on an A1c of at least 6.5% or on insulin treatment. Patients averaged about 57 years of age, slightly more than half were women, and average body mass index was in the overweight category except for those with type 2 diabetes.

The primary endpoint, the combined incidence of ASCVD, CKD, and heart failure, was 24% among those with type 2 diabetes, 14% in those with prediabetes, and 8% in those who were normoglycemic at entry. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online. Most of these events involved ASCVD, which occurred in 11% of those in the prediabetes subgroup (roughly four-fifths of the events in this subgroup), and in 17% of those with type 2 diabetes (nearly three-quarters of the events in this subgroup).

In an analysis that adjusted for more than a dozen demographic and clinical factors, the presence of prediabetes linked with significant increases in the incidence rate of all three outcomes compared with people who were normoglycemic at baseline. The analysis also identified an A1c level of 5.0% as linked with the lowest incidence of each of the three adverse outcomes. And a very granular analysis suggested that a significantly elevated risk for ASCVD first appeared when A1c levels were in the range of 5.4%-5.7%; a significantly increased incidence of CKD became apparent once A1c was in the range of 6.2%-6.5%; and a significantly increased incidence of heart failure began to manifest once A1c levels reached at least 7.0%.

Need for comprehensive cardiometabolic risk management

The findings “highlight the importance of identifying and comprehensively managing cardiometabolic risk in people with prediabetes, including dietary modification, exercise, weight loss and obesity management, smoking cessation, and attention to hypertension and hypercholesterolemia,” Dr. Honigberg said. While these data cannot address the appropriateness of using novel drug interventions in people with prediabetes, they suggest that people with prediabetes should be the focus of future prevention trials testing agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“These data help us discuss risk with patients [with prediabetes], and reemphasize the importance of guideline-directed preventive care,” said Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, a preventive cardiologist and lipid specialist at Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, who was not involved with the study.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Honigberg examined the risk among people with prediabetes who also were current or former smokers and in the top tertile of the prediabetes study population for systolic blood pressure, high non-HDL cholesterol, and C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation). This very high-risk subgroup of people with prediabetes had incidence rates for ASCVD events and for heart failure that tracked identically to those with type 2 diabetes. However. the incidence rate for CKD in these high-risk people with prediabetes remained below that of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Honigberg had no disclosures. Dr. Nambi has received research funding from Amgen, Merck, and Roche.

mzoler@mdedge.com

People with prediabetes, defined by having a hemoglobin A1c of 5.7%-6.4%, had a significantly increased rate of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events and incident chronic kidney disease in a study of nearly 337,000 people included in the UK Biobank database.

The findings suggest that people with prediabetes have “heightened risk even without progression to type 2 diabetes,” Michael C. Honigberg, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Hemoglobin A1c may be better considered as a continuous measure of risk rather than dichotomized” as either less than 6.5%, or 6.5% or higher, the usual threshold defining people with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Honigberg, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
 

‘Prediabetes is not a benign entity’

“Our findings reinforce the notion that A1c represents a continuum of risk, with elevated risks observed, especially for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], at levels where some clinicians wouldn’t think twice about them. Prediabetes is not a benign entity in the middle-aged population we studied,” Dr. Honigberg said in an interview. “Risks are higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes,” he stressed, “however, prediabetes is so much more common that it appears to confer similar cardio, renal, and metabolic risks at a population level.”

Results from prior observational studies also showed elevated incidence rate of cardiovascular disease events in people with prediabetes, including a 2010 report based on data from about 11,000 U.S. residents, and in a more recent meta-analysis of 129 studies involving more than 10 million people. The new report by Dr. Honigberg “is the first to comprehensively evaluate diverse cardio-renal-metabolic outcomes across a range of A1c levels using a very large, contemporary database,” he noted. In addition, most prior reports did not include chronic kidney disease as an examined outcome.

The primary endpoint examined in the new analysis was the combined incidence during a median follow-up of just over 11 years of ASCVD events (coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease), CKD, or heart failure among 336,709 adults in the UK Biobank who at baseline had none of these conditions nor type 1 diabetes.

The vast majority, 82%, were normoglycemic at baseline, based on having an A1c of less than 5.7%; 14% had prediabetes, with an A1c of 5.7%-6.4%; and 4% had type 2 diabetes based on an A1c of at least 6.5% or on insulin treatment. Patients averaged about 57 years of age, slightly more than half were women, and average body mass index was in the overweight category except for those with type 2 diabetes.

The primary endpoint, the combined incidence of ASCVD, CKD, and heart failure, was 24% among those with type 2 diabetes, 14% in those with prediabetes, and 8% in those who were normoglycemic at entry. Concurrently with the report, the results appeared online. Most of these events involved ASCVD, which occurred in 11% of those in the prediabetes subgroup (roughly four-fifths of the events in this subgroup), and in 17% of those with type 2 diabetes (nearly three-quarters of the events in this subgroup).

In an analysis that adjusted for more than a dozen demographic and clinical factors, the presence of prediabetes linked with significant increases in the incidence rate of all three outcomes compared with people who were normoglycemic at baseline. The analysis also identified an A1c level of 5.0% as linked with the lowest incidence of each of the three adverse outcomes. And a very granular analysis suggested that a significantly elevated risk for ASCVD first appeared when A1c levels were in the range of 5.4%-5.7%; a significantly increased incidence of CKD became apparent once A1c was in the range of 6.2%-6.5%; and a significantly increased incidence of heart failure began to manifest once A1c levels reached at least 7.0%.

Need for comprehensive cardiometabolic risk management

The findings “highlight the importance of identifying and comprehensively managing cardiometabolic risk in people with prediabetes, including dietary modification, exercise, weight loss and obesity management, smoking cessation, and attention to hypertension and hypercholesterolemia,” Dr. Honigberg said. While these data cannot address the appropriateness of using novel drug interventions in people with prediabetes, they suggest that people with prediabetes should be the focus of future prevention trials testing agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

“These data help us discuss risk with patients [with prediabetes], and reemphasize the importance of guideline-directed preventive care,” said Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, a preventive cardiologist and lipid specialist at Baylor College of Medicine and the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, who was not involved with the study.

An additional analysis reported by Dr. Honigberg examined the risk among people with prediabetes who also were current or former smokers and in the top tertile of the prediabetes study population for systolic blood pressure, high non-HDL cholesterol, and C-reactive protein (a marker of inflammation). This very high-risk subgroup of people with prediabetes had incidence rates for ASCVD events and for heart failure that tracked identically to those with type 2 diabetes. However. the incidence rate for CKD in these high-risk people with prediabetes remained below that of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Honigberg had no disclosures. Dr. Nambi has received research funding from Amgen, Merck, and Roche.

mzoler@mdedge.com

There were no local recurrences when Mohs surgery was used to treat early stage Merkel cell carcinomas in 53 patients at the Zitelli and Brodland Skin Cancer Center, Pittsburgh.

The results compare favorably with the standard treatment approach, wide local excision with or without radiation, which has a local recurrence rate of 4.2%-31.7% because of incomplete excision or false negative margins, said Vitaly Terushkin, MD, a Mohs surgeon who presented the findings of the study, a retrospective chart review, at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Mohs surgery as monotherapy offered “survival at least as good as historical controls treated with wide local excision plus radiation therapy, and because of the superior local control, Mohs surgery may obviate the need for adjuvant radiation and decrease the chance for additional surgery for the treatment of local recurrence,” said Dr. Terushkin, now in practice in the New York City area.

“We hope this data fuel additional studies with larger cohorts to continue to explore the value of Mohs for Merkel cell carcinoma,” he said.

The findings add to a growing body of literature supporting Mohs for many types of rare tumors. “Micrographic surgery or complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin analysis has been shown to be superior to wide local excision in a variety of tumors and clinical scenarios,” said Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington.

“When the entire margin is able to be evaluated over random bread-loafed sections, there is growing evidence that this leads to superior outcomes and disease specific mortality,” he said when asked for comment on the study results.

In all, 56 primary Merkel cell carcinomas were treated in the 53 patients from 2001 to 2019; about two-thirds of the patients had stage 1 tumors and the rest stage 2a.

They were treated with Mohs alone, without radiation. Average follow up was 4.6 years, with about a third of patients followed for 5 or more years.

The average age of the patients was 78 years, and just over half were men. In more than half the cases, tumors were located on the head and neck (62.5%), and the mean tumor size was 1.7 cm. Patients were negative for lymphadenopathy and declined lymph node biopsy.

Although there was no local recurrence, defined as tumor reemerging within or adjacent to the surgery site, 7 patients (12.7%) developed in-transit metastases, 13 (23.6%) developed nodal metastases, and 3 developed distant metastases.

The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for stage 1 and 68.6% for stage 2a patients, which compared favorably with historical controls treated with wide local excision with or without radiation, with reported 5-year disease-specific survival rates of 81%-87% for stage 1 disease and 63%-67% for stage 2. Although radiation wasn’t used in the study, Dr. Patel noted that more investigation is needed about the role of adjuvant radiation therapy after Mohs surgery “given recent publications showing improved outcomes in patients with narrow margin excision and postoperative radiation therapy.”

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Terushkin had no disclosures. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.

aotto@mdedge.com

There were no local recurrences when Mohs surgery was used to treat early stage Merkel cell carcinomas in 53 patients at the Zitelli and Brodland Skin Cancer Center, Pittsburgh.

The results compare favorably with the standard treatment approach, wide local excision with or without radiation, which has a local recurrence rate of 4.2%-31.7% because of incomplete excision or false negative margins, said Vitaly Terushkin, MD, a Mohs surgeon who presented the findings of the study, a retrospective chart review, at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Mohs surgery as monotherapy offered “survival at least as good as historical controls treated with wide local excision plus radiation therapy, and because of the superior local control, Mohs surgery may obviate the need for adjuvant radiation and decrease the chance for additional surgery for the treatment of local recurrence,” said Dr. Terushkin, now in practice in the New York City area.

“We hope this data fuel additional studies with larger cohorts to continue to explore the value of Mohs for Merkel cell carcinoma,” he said.

The findings add to a growing body of literature supporting Mohs for many types of rare tumors. “Micrographic surgery or complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin analysis has been shown to be superior to wide local excision in a variety of tumors and clinical scenarios,” said Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington.

“When the entire margin is able to be evaluated over random bread-loafed sections, there is growing evidence that this leads to superior outcomes and disease specific mortality,” he said when asked for comment on the study results.

In all, 56 primary Merkel cell carcinomas were treated in the 53 patients from 2001 to 2019; about two-thirds of the patients had stage 1 tumors and the rest stage 2a.

They were treated with Mohs alone, without radiation. Average follow up was 4.6 years, with about a third of patients followed for 5 or more years.

The average age of the patients was 78 years, and just over half were men. In more than half the cases, tumors were located on the head and neck (62.5%), and the mean tumor size was 1.7 cm. Patients were negative for lymphadenopathy and declined lymph node biopsy.

Although there was no local recurrence, defined as tumor reemerging within or adjacent to the surgery site, 7 patients (12.7%) developed in-transit metastases, 13 (23.6%) developed nodal metastases, and 3 developed distant metastases.

The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for stage 1 and 68.6% for stage 2a patients, which compared favorably with historical controls treated with wide local excision with or without radiation, with reported 5-year disease-specific survival rates of 81%-87% for stage 1 disease and 63%-67% for stage 2. Although radiation wasn’t used in the study, Dr. Patel noted that more investigation is needed about the role of adjuvant radiation therapy after Mohs surgery “given recent publications showing improved outcomes in patients with narrow margin excision and postoperative radiation therapy.”

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Terushkin had no disclosures. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.

aotto@mdedge.com

There were no local recurrences when Mohs surgery was used to treat early stage Merkel cell carcinomas in 53 patients at the Zitelli and Brodland Skin Cancer Center, Pittsburgh.

The results compare favorably with the standard treatment approach, wide local excision with or without radiation, which has a local recurrence rate of 4.2%-31.7% because of incomplete excision or false negative margins, said Vitaly Terushkin, MD, a Mohs surgeon who presented the findings of the study, a retrospective chart review, at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.

Mohs surgery as monotherapy offered “survival at least as good as historical controls treated with wide local excision plus radiation therapy, and because of the superior local control, Mohs surgery may obviate the need for adjuvant radiation and decrease the chance for additional surgery for the treatment of local recurrence,” said Dr. Terushkin, now in practice in the New York City area.

“We hope this data fuel additional studies with larger cohorts to continue to explore the value of Mohs for Merkel cell carcinoma,” he said.

The findings add to a growing body of literature supporting Mohs for many types of rare tumors. “Micrographic surgery or complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin analysis has been shown to be superior to wide local excision in a variety of tumors and clinical scenarios,” said Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington.

“When the entire margin is able to be evaluated over random bread-loafed sections, there is growing evidence that this leads to superior outcomes and disease specific mortality,” he said when asked for comment on the study results.

In all, 56 primary Merkel cell carcinomas were treated in the 53 patients from 2001 to 2019; about two-thirds of the patients had stage 1 tumors and the rest stage 2a.

They were treated with Mohs alone, without radiation. Average follow up was 4.6 years, with about a third of patients followed for 5 or more years.

The average age of the patients was 78 years, and just over half were men. In more than half the cases, tumors were located on the head and neck (62.5%), and the mean tumor size was 1.7 cm. Patients were negative for lymphadenopathy and declined lymph node biopsy.

Although there was no local recurrence, defined as tumor reemerging within or adjacent to the surgery site, 7 patients (12.7%) developed in-transit metastases, 13 (23.6%) developed nodal metastases, and 3 developed distant metastases.

The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for stage 1 and 68.6% for stage 2a patients, which compared favorably with historical controls treated with wide local excision with or without radiation, with reported 5-year disease-specific survival rates of 81%-87% for stage 1 disease and 63%-67% for stage 2. Although radiation wasn’t used in the study, Dr. Patel noted that more investigation is needed about the role of adjuvant radiation therapy after Mohs surgery “given recent publications showing improved outcomes in patients with narrow margin excision and postoperative radiation therapy.”

No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Terushkin had no disclosures. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.

aotto@mdedge.com

Although rates are generally low, interstitial lung disease (ILD) can occur at any point in the first year of treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

That’s according to a pooled analysis of three early clinical trials with the drug that was reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO): Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Over a 5-year analysis period, the rate of any grade of ILD was 15.5%. The majority (79%) of those events were grade 1 or 2, observed pulmonologist Charles A. Powell, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who presented the findings.

Of the 245 patients who were included in the analysis, 38 had an ILD event deemed related to treatment. A respective 9 (3.7%) and 21 (8.6%) had events graded as 1 or 2, 1 patient each (0.4%) had a grade 3 or 4 event, and 6 (2.4%) patients had a grade 5 event.

The timing of the first identified ILD event varied from 1.1 months to 20.8 months, given a median of 5.6 months overall. “This highlights an opportunity for more timely detection of ILD,” Dr. Powell suggested. He added that in almost all (97%) cases, ILD occurred before 12 months and the risk may even decrease over time “suggesting that the risk is not cumulative.”

He cautioned, however: “It is important to note that this analysis is exploratory and hypothesis generating in nature.”
 

ILD occurs with other cancer drugs

ILD is not just associated with T-DXd treatment, said the invited discussant for the trial, Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“It’s important for clinicians to remember that ILD/pneumonitis is an uncommon, but potentially very serious side effect that affects many breast cancer treatments,” he said.

That not only includes T-DXd, but other newer drugs such the cyclin dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as other older more established drugs including taxanes, cyclophosphamide and even the mTOR inhibitor everolimus.

“Both clinicians and patients need to be aware of this risk. It’s part of the differential diagnosis for any patient who develops either ground glass changes or other infiltrates on a CT scan, or who has symptoms,” Dr. Burstein added.
 

Investigating ILD in T-DXd trials

T-DXd (Enhertu) is an anti-HER2-antibody drug conjugate that contains a humanized anti-HER2 IgG1 monoclonal antibody akin to trastuzumab that is linked to DXd, a topoisomerase I inhibitor that is a derivative of exatecan.

It has been approved for use in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer after two other HER2 treatments fail in the United States and Europe, and after chemotherapy in Japan, noted Dr. Powell. This is largely due to the results from the phase 2, open-label DESTINY-Breast01 trial.

“In breast cancer, T-DXd continues to demonstrate clinically meaningful efficacy with a median duration of response of more than 20 months in a heavily pretreated population,” he said. Objective response rates seen in the DESTINY-Breast01 trial were around 60%, and the median progression-free survival was a little over 19 months.

To look at the issue of drug-related ILD events in patients treated with T-DXd for HER2-positive MBC, an independent adjudication committee was formed to look at all the imaging and clinical data from the DESTINY-Breast01 trial and two single-arm phase 1 trials (NCT02564900 and NCT03383692).

In all, data on 245 patients who had been treated with T-DXd at the approved dose of 5.4 mg/kg in those trials between August 2015 and June 2020 were analyzed.
 

Dealing with lung toxicity

“We are getting new drugs to improve the treatment of cancer, but they always come with a price in terms of toxicity,” observed David Cameron, MD, professor of medical oncology at Edinburgh University in Scotland. Dr. Cameron chaired the session.

“Several measures were taken to identify and mitigate ILD,” across all the T-DXd studies, Dr. Powell explained. As well as the independent adjudication committee, available guidelines were followed and updated on how to diagnose and treat drug-induced lung injuries, and a “safe use” campaign was run in 2019.

Many patients in the early MBC studies were recruited before these measures were in place, such as the use of systemic steroids to manage low-grade events.

The bottom line, however, is that if a patient develops ILD then treatment should be stopped, Dr. Powell said. “Patients with grade 1 events may restart once the ILD has resolved, but those with grade 2 to 4 events must discontinue treatment.”

Dr. Powell concluded: “The overall clinical data support the positive risk-benefit profile of T-DXd. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials in breast cancer are ongoing.”
 

ILD also seen in monarchE trial with abemaciclib

Data on ILD events seen in the phase 3 monarchE trial were also reported separately at the ESMO Breast Cancer virtual meeting. The analysis population included 2,971 patients who had been treated with the CDK 4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) together with endocrine therapy and 2,800 who had received endocrine therapy alone in the early-stage, adjuvant advanced breast cancer setting.

Most ILD (97%) events that occurred were single occurrences, with any grade of ILD occurring in a higher percentage of patients treated with abemaciclib with endocrine therapy than endocrine therapy alone (2.9% vs. 1.2%). Grade 3 events occurred in a respective 0.4% and 0.0% of patients.
 

So who’s at risk?

The risk factors for ILD and pneumonitis are not well characterized with either of the two drugs discussed, Dr. Burstein observed.

“In the abemaciclib experience, it looked like obesity might be a predisposing factor, with trastuzumab deruxtecan, it looked like patients of Asian ancestry were greater risk, but we need more data to really understand who’s at jeopardy.”

Dr. Burstein observed: “This is something patients need to be aware of as they’re contemplating this treatment.”

While data to prove the benefit of the drug need to mature, Dr. Burstein “would likely discontinue therapy” if a patient were to develop ILD or pneumonitis and treat accordingly.

As for T-DXd, he said: “It’s important that patients know that lung disease is a potentially severe side effect of treatment and that any respiratory symptoms need to be jumped on quickly.”

While prospective studies are now needed, and the phase 3 data should help to better understand the risk of ILD with T-DXd, Dr. Burstein believes it will be important to develop algorithms to ensure the safe administration of the drug.

These algorithms should include “appropriate surveillance and monitoring, especially as we think about trying to move this drug forward into the early stage setting where we’re using it in women who have favorable prognosis, and potentially curative situations for breast cancer.”

The trastuzumab deruxtecan trials were cosponsored by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca. The monarchE trial was supported by Eli Lilly.

Dr. Powell acknowledged receiving personal fees for acting as an advisory or consultant to both companies as well as to Voluntis. Dr. Burstein had nothing to disclose, and Dr. Cameron had no relevant financial interests in the data being presented.

Although rates are generally low, interstitial lung disease (ILD) can occur at any point in the first year of treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

That’s according to a pooled analysis of three early clinical trials with the drug that was reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO): Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Over a 5-year analysis period, the rate of any grade of ILD was 15.5%. The majority (79%) of those events were grade 1 or 2, observed pulmonologist Charles A. Powell, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who presented the findings.

Of the 245 patients who were included in the analysis, 38 had an ILD event deemed related to treatment. A respective 9 (3.7%) and 21 (8.6%) had events graded as 1 or 2, 1 patient each (0.4%) had a grade 3 or 4 event, and 6 (2.4%) patients had a grade 5 event.

The timing of the first identified ILD event varied from 1.1 months to 20.8 months, given a median of 5.6 months overall. “This highlights an opportunity for more timely detection of ILD,” Dr. Powell suggested. He added that in almost all (97%) cases, ILD occurred before 12 months and the risk may even decrease over time “suggesting that the risk is not cumulative.”

He cautioned, however: “It is important to note that this analysis is exploratory and hypothesis generating in nature.”
 

ILD occurs with other cancer drugs

ILD is not just associated with T-DXd treatment, said the invited discussant for the trial, Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“It’s important for clinicians to remember that ILD/pneumonitis is an uncommon, but potentially very serious side effect that affects many breast cancer treatments,” he said.

That not only includes T-DXd, but other newer drugs such the cyclin dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as other older more established drugs including taxanes, cyclophosphamide and even the mTOR inhibitor everolimus.

“Both clinicians and patients need to be aware of this risk. It’s part of the differential diagnosis for any patient who develops either ground glass changes or other infiltrates on a CT scan, or who has symptoms,” Dr. Burstein added.
 

Investigating ILD in T-DXd trials

T-DXd (Enhertu) is an anti-HER2-antibody drug conjugate that contains a humanized anti-HER2 IgG1 monoclonal antibody akin to trastuzumab that is linked to DXd, a topoisomerase I inhibitor that is a derivative of exatecan.

It has been approved for use in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer after two other HER2 treatments fail in the United States and Europe, and after chemotherapy in Japan, noted Dr. Powell. This is largely due to the results from the phase 2, open-label DESTINY-Breast01 trial.

“In breast cancer, T-DXd continues to demonstrate clinically meaningful efficacy with a median duration of response of more than 20 months in a heavily pretreated population,” he said. Objective response rates seen in the DESTINY-Breast01 trial were around 60%, and the median progression-free survival was a little over 19 months.

To look at the issue of drug-related ILD events in patients treated with T-DXd for HER2-positive MBC, an independent adjudication committee was formed to look at all the imaging and clinical data from the DESTINY-Breast01 trial and two single-arm phase 1 trials (NCT02564900 and NCT03383692).

In all, data on 245 patients who had been treated with T-DXd at the approved dose of 5.4 mg/kg in those trials between August 2015 and June 2020 were analyzed.
 

Dealing with lung toxicity

“We are getting new drugs to improve the treatment of cancer, but they always come with a price in terms of toxicity,” observed David Cameron, MD, professor of medical oncology at Edinburgh University in Scotland. Dr. Cameron chaired the session.

“Several measures were taken to identify and mitigate ILD,” across all the T-DXd studies, Dr. Powell explained. As well as the independent adjudication committee, available guidelines were followed and updated on how to diagnose and treat drug-induced lung injuries, and a “safe use” campaign was run in 2019.

Many patients in the early MBC studies were recruited before these measures were in place, such as the use of systemic steroids to manage low-grade events.

The bottom line, however, is that if a patient develops ILD then treatment should be stopped, Dr. Powell said. “Patients with grade 1 events may restart once the ILD has resolved, but those with grade 2 to 4 events must discontinue treatment.”

Dr. Powell concluded: “The overall clinical data support the positive risk-benefit profile of T-DXd. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials in breast cancer are ongoing.”
 

ILD also seen in monarchE trial with abemaciclib

Data on ILD events seen in the phase 3 monarchE trial were also reported separately at the ESMO Breast Cancer virtual meeting. The analysis population included 2,971 patients who had been treated with the CDK 4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) together with endocrine therapy and 2,800 who had received endocrine therapy alone in the early-stage, adjuvant advanced breast cancer setting.

Most ILD (97%) events that occurred were single occurrences, with any grade of ILD occurring in a higher percentage of patients treated with abemaciclib with endocrine therapy than endocrine therapy alone (2.9% vs. 1.2%). Grade 3 events occurred in a respective 0.4% and 0.0% of patients.
 

So who’s at risk?

The risk factors for ILD and pneumonitis are not well characterized with either of the two drugs discussed, Dr. Burstein observed.

“In the abemaciclib experience, it looked like obesity might be a predisposing factor, with trastuzumab deruxtecan, it looked like patients of Asian ancestry were greater risk, but we need more data to really understand who’s at jeopardy.”

Dr. Burstein observed: “This is something patients need to be aware of as they’re contemplating this treatment.”

While data to prove the benefit of the drug need to mature, Dr. Burstein “would likely discontinue therapy” if a patient were to develop ILD or pneumonitis and treat accordingly.

As for T-DXd, he said: “It’s important that patients know that lung disease is a potentially severe side effect of treatment and that any respiratory symptoms need to be jumped on quickly.”

While prospective studies are now needed, and the phase 3 data should help to better understand the risk of ILD with T-DXd, Dr. Burstein believes it will be important to develop algorithms to ensure the safe administration of the drug.

These algorithms should include “appropriate surveillance and monitoring, especially as we think about trying to move this drug forward into the early stage setting where we’re using it in women who have favorable prognosis, and potentially curative situations for breast cancer.”

The trastuzumab deruxtecan trials were cosponsored by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca. The monarchE trial was supported by Eli Lilly.

Dr. Powell acknowledged receiving personal fees for acting as an advisory or consultant to both companies as well as to Voluntis. Dr. Burstein had nothing to disclose, and Dr. Cameron had no relevant financial interests in the data being presented.

Although rates are generally low, interstitial lung disease (ILD) can occur at any point in the first year of treatment with trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

That’s according to a pooled analysis of three early clinical trials with the drug that was reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO): Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Over a 5-year analysis period, the rate of any grade of ILD was 15.5%. The majority (79%) of those events were grade 1 or 2, observed pulmonologist Charles A. Powell, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who presented the findings.

Of the 245 patients who were included in the analysis, 38 had an ILD event deemed related to treatment. A respective 9 (3.7%) and 21 (8.6%) had events graded as 1 or 2, 1 patient each (0.4%) had a grade 3 or 4 event, and 6 (2.4%) patients had a grade 5 event.

The timing of the first identified ILD event varied from 1.1 months to 20.8 months, given a median of 5.6 months overall. “This highlights an opportunity for more timely detection of ILD,” Dr. Powell suggested. He added that in almost all (97%) cases, ILD occurred before 12 months and the risk may even decrease over time “suggesting that the risk is not cumulative.”

He cautioned, however: “It is important to note that this analysis is exploratory and hypothesis generating in nature.”
 

ILD occurs with other cancer drugs

ILD is not just associated with T-DXd treatment, said the invited discussant for the trial, Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

“It’s important for clinicians to remember that ILD/pneumonitis is an uncommon, but potentially very serious side effect that affects many breast cancer treatments,” he said.

That not only includes T-DXd, but other newer drugs such the cyclin dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, as well as other older more established drugs including taxanes, cyclophosphamide and even the mTOR inhibitor everolimus.

“Both clinicians and patients need to be aware of this risk. It’s part of the differential diagnosis for any patient who develops either ground glass changes or other infiltrates on a CT scan, or who has symptoms,” Dr. Burstein added.
 

Investigating ILD in T-DXd trials

T-DXd (Enhertu) is an anti-HER2-antibody drug conjugate that contains a humanized anti-HER2 IgG1 monoclonal antibody akin to trastuzumab that is linked to DXd, a topoisomerase I inhibitor that is a derivative of exatecan.

It has been approved for use in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer after two other HER2 treatments fail in the United States and Europe, and after chemotherapy in Japan, noted Dr. Powell. This is largely due to the results from the phase 2, open-label DESTINY-Breast01 trial.

“In breast cancer, T-DXd continues to demonstrate clinically meaningful efficacy with a median duration of response of more than 20 months in a heavily pretreated population,” he said. Objective response rates seen in the DESTINY-Breast01 trial were around 60%, and the median progression-free survival was a little over 19 months.

To look at the issue of drug-related ILD events in patients treated with T-DXd for HER2-positive MBC, an independent adjudication committee was formed to look at all the imaging and clinical data from the DESTINY-Breast01 trial and two single-arm phase 1 trials (NCT02564900 and NCT03383692).

In all, data on 245 patients who had been treated with T-DXd at the approved dose of 5.4 mg/kg in those trials between August 2015 and June 2020 were analyzed.
 

Dealing with lung toxicity

“We are getting new drugs to improve the treatment of cancer, but they always come with a price in terms of toxicity,” observed David Cameron, MD, professor of medical oncology at Edinburgh University in Scotland. Dr. Cameron chaired the session.

“Several measures were taken to identify and mitigate ILD,” across all the T-DXd studies, Dr. Powell explained. As well as the independent adjudication committee, available guidelines were followed and updated on how to diagnose and treat drug-induced lung injuries, and a “safe use” campaign was run in 2019.

Many patients in the early MBC studies were recruited before these measures were in place, such as the use of systemic steroids to manage low-grade events.

The bottom line, however, is that if a patient develops ILD then treatment should be stopped, Dr. Powell said. “Patients with grade 1 events may restart once the ILD has resolved, but those with grade 2 to 4 events must discontinue treatment.”

Dr. Powell concluded: “The overall clinical data support the positive risk-benefit profile of T-DXd. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials in breast cancer are ongoing.”
 

ILD also seen in monarchE trial with abemaciclib

Data on ILD events seen in the phase 3 monarchE trial were also reported separately at the ESMO Breast Cancer virtual meeting. The analysis population included 2,971 patients who had been treated with the CDK 4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib (Verzenio) together with endocrine therapy and 2,800 who had received endocrine therapy alone in the early-stage, adjuvant advanced breast cancer setting.

Most ILD (97%) events that occurred were single occurrences, with any grade of ILD occurring in a higher percentage of patients treated with abemaciclib with endocrine therapy than endocrine therapy alone (2.9% vs. 1.2%). Grade 3 events occurred in a respective 0.4% and 0.0% of patients.
 

So who’s at risk?

The risk factors for ILD and pneumonitis are not well characterized with either of the two drugs discussed, Dr. Burstein observed.

“In the abemaciclib experience, it looked like obesity might be a predisposing factor, with trastuzumab deruxtecan, it looked like patients of Asian ancestry were greater risk, but we need more data to really understand who’s at jeopardy.”

Dr. Burstein observed: “This is something patients need to be aware of as they’re contemplating this treatment.”

While data to prove the benefit of the drug need to mature, Dr. Burstein “would likely discontinue therapy” if a patient were to develop ILD or pneumonitis and treat accordingly.

As for T-DXd, he said: “It’s important that patients know that lung disease is a potentially severe side effect of treatment and that any respiratory symptoms need to be jumped on quickly.”

While prospective studies are now needed, and the phase 3 data should help to better understand the risk of ILD with T-DXd, Dr. Burstein believes it will be important to develop algorithms to ensure the safe administration of the drug.

These algorithms should include “appropriate surveillance and monitoring, especially as we think about trying to move this drug forward into the early stage setting where we’re using it in women who have favorable prognosis, and potentially curative situations for breast cancer.”

The trastuzumab deruxtecan trials were cosponsored by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca. The monarchE trial was supported by Eli Lilly.

Dr. Powell acknowledged receiving personal fees for acting as an advisory or consultant to both companies as well as to Voluntis. Dr. Burstein had nothing to disclose, and Dr. Cameron had no relevant financial interests in the data being presented.

A “smart toilet” in development uses artificial intelligence (AI) to scan stool for consistency and presence of blood – and early evidence suggests it is more accurate than patient self-reporting, a study reveals.

The remote, automated, real-time analysis and reporting increase the likelihood of physicians detecting gastrointestinal issues earlier, investigators reported.

In a proof-of-concept study, the smart toilet was 85% accurate in categorizing stool consistency as loose, normal, or constipated. The findings were presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“This study highlights a very innovative and practical tool that could have major implications for patients and clinicians alike,” Andrea Shin, MD, who was not affiliated with the research, said in an interview.

“Stool form or consistency and signs of bleeding are some of the most important pieces of clinical history when it comes to GI or bowel symptoms,” added Dr. Shin, assistant professor of medicine in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
 

Image analysis

The researchers tested their AI algorithm on 3,328 images. They assessed photos from the Internet and some submitted anonymously by participants in the study.

Two gastroenterologists also rated a subset of 552 images. The physicians showed “satisfactory agreement” on interrater reliability (the extent to which two or more “raters” [for example, observers, examiners] agree), the investigators noted.

The smart toilet also was 76% accurate for gross blood detection.

“It’s objective and more accurate,” study author Sonia Grego, PhD, said in an interview. In contrast to asking patients to keep a bowel movement diary or recall the frequency and consistency of their stool over time, “the system does it for you,” she added.

“Our technology – by automating the image acquisition – removes the burden of having to track your pattern for weeks or months,” added Dr. Grego, founding director of the Duke Smart Toilet Lab at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Information provided by patients “can have a big impact on decision-making,” Dr. Shin said. “For example, if I am talking to an individual who suffers from irritable bowel syndrome [IBS], I commonly ask them about how loose or watery and hard or formed their stool is, because this information gives me clues as to the underlying problems that may be driving their symptoms.”

Dr. Shin agreed it can be challenging for people to know what is important to report to their doctor. “This tool has the potential to relieve patient burden and facilitate communication between a patient and their clinician. It’s a great example of how technology can be leveraged to enhance care.”
 

Working behind the scenes

Together with gastroenterologist Deborah Anne Fisher, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Duke, Dr. Grego and colleagues devised a prototype that positions the image analyzer in the pipes behind the toilet. So the analysis is done post flush.

“We are experts of toilets and toilet technology,” Dr. Grego said. “We have learned that people really don’t like to see anything weird around the toilet bowl.”

The smart toilet system is designed for multiple users in a residential or commercial setting. The technology could be used in hospitals or long-term care facilities, for example. A fingerprint scanner on the flush mechanism tracks each individual user.
 

Mixed reactions

Dr. Grego gets a range of reactions when she tells people she is developing smart toilet technology.

“Friends and family laugh about the concept of the smart toilet,” she said, “so all the possible jokes that have been done on poops, we know.”

In fact, the researchers also are collecting the jokes they hear. “We’re being very systematic.”

In contrast, gastroenterologists who learn of the technology in development are more enthusiastic, Dr. Grego said. “There is such a need for removing the uncertainty of the patient recall about bowel movement frequency and appearance.

“We are seeking to expand through collaboration with additional GI doctors. We want to develop a more advanced prototype and do further validation studies,” Dr. Grego said.
 

Digital health tool

There is an aversion among patients to handling stool “or even talking about it,” Dr. Grego said. Colleagues tell her that people are more willing to provide a blood sample, which requires a needle, than a stool sample.

“But a lot of health data is there [in the stool],” she added. “We think this will empower a lot of research as well as consumer data gathering.”

For example, Dr. Grego envisions pharmaceutical companies using the technology to detect or monitor any changes in stool or gut health based on a treatment in development during clinical trials.

Furthermore, the technology might empower health-conscious consumers who want to track their own gut health. “This technology will be a whole new entry in the digital health toolkit,” Dr. Grego said.

Although not included in the research presented at this year’s DDW, the developers plan to add a sampling capability. Biochemic analysis of stool samples could provide “metabolically relevant information,” including stool biomarkers and microbiome composition.

“We have demonstrated it in the laboratory. It will be part of the technology when developed into a product,” Dr. Grego said.

This proof-of-concept study “is the first step in a path we are aggressively pursuing,” Dr. Grego said. She estimated it will take about 12-18 months to develop a prototype for use with patients. “We hope to move to a product soon after that.”

“I’m looking forward to seeing future iterations of this tool,” Dr. Shin said. “It could have a role in monitoring important GI diseases and disorders, including IBS and inflammatory bowel disease, or even for the detection of ‘alarm symptoms’ that shouldn’t be ignored.

“I could even see it having a role in preventative health in the future,” Dr. Shin added. 

The technology has been licensed to the spin-off company Coprata to develop the product further.

“We hope to have an impact on people’s health very soon,” Dr. Grego said.  

Duke University funded the study. Dr. Grego holds a management position at Coprata. Dr. Shin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A “smart toilet” in development uses artificial intelligence (AI) to scan stool for consistency and presence of blood – and early evidence suggests it is more accurate than patient self-reporting, a study reveals.

The remote, automated, real-time analysis and reporting increase the likelihood of physicians detecting gastrointestinal issues earlier, investigators reported.

In a proof-of-concept study, the smart toilet was 85% accurate in categorizing stool consistency as loose, normal, or constipated. The findings were presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“This study highlights a very innovative and practical tool that could have major implications for patients and clinicians alike,” Andrea Shin, MD, who was not affiliated with the research, said in an interview.

“Stool form or consistency and signs of bleeding are some of the most important pieces of clinical history when it comes to GI or bowel symptoms,” added Dr. Shin, assistant professor of medicine in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
 

Image analysis

The researchers tested their AI algorithm on 3,328 images. They assessed photos from the Internet and some submitted anonymously by participants in the study.

Two gastroenterologists also rated a subset of 552 images. The physicians showed “satisfactory agreement” on interrater reliability (the extent to which two or more “raters” [for example, observers, examiners] agree), the investigators noted.

The smart toilet also was 76% accurate for gross blood detection.

“It’s objective and more accurate,” study author Sonia Grego, PhD, said in an interview. In contrast to asking patients to keep a bowel movement diary or recall the frequency and consistency of their stool over time, “the system does it for you,” she added.

“Our technology – by automating the image acquisition – removes the burden of having to track your pattern for weeks or months,” added Dr. Grego, founding director of the Duke Smart Toilet Lab at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Information provided by patients “can have a big impact on decision-making,” Dr. Shin said. “For example, if I am talking to an individual who suffers from irritable bowel syndrome [IBS], I commonly ask them about how loose or watery and hard or formed their stool is, because this information gives me clues as to the underlying problems that may be driving their symptoms.”

Dr. Shin agreed it can be challenging for people to know what is important to report to their doctor. “This tool has the potential to relieve patient burden and facilitate communication between a patient and their clinician. It’s a great example of how technology can be leveraged to enhance care.”
 

Working behind the scenes

Together with gastroenterologist Deborah Anne Fisher, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Duke, Dr. Grego and colleagues devised a prototype that positions the image analyzer in the pipes behind the toilet. So the analysis is done post flush.

“We are experts of toilets and toilet technology,” Dr. Grego said. “We have learned that people really don’t like to see anything weird around the toilet bowl.”

The smart toilet system is designed for multiple users in a residential or commercial setting. The technology could be used in hospitals or long-term care facilities, for example. A fingerprint scanner on the flush mechanism tracks each individual user.
 

Mixed reactions

Dr. Grego gets a range of reactions when she tells people she is developing smart toilet technology.

“Friends and family laugh about the concept of the smart toilet,” she said, “so all the possible jokes that have been done on poops, we know.”

In fact, the researchers also are collecting the jokes they hear. “We’re being very systematic.”

In contrast, gastroenterologists who learn of the technology in development are more enthusiastic, Dr. Grego said. “There is such a need for removing the uncertainty of the patient recall about bowel movement frequency and appearance.

“We are seeking to expand through collaboration with additional GI doctors. We want to develop a more advanced prototype and do further validation studies,” Dr. Grego said.
 

Digital health tool

There is an aversion among patients to handling stool “or even talking about it,” Dr. Grego said. Colleagues tell her that people are more willing to provide a blood sample, which requires a needle, than a stool sample.

“But a lot of health data is there [in the stool],” she added. “We think this will empower a lot of research as well as consumer data gathering.”

For example, Dr. Grego envisions pharmaceutical companies using the technology to detect or monitor any changes in stool or gut health based on a treatment in development during clinical trials.

Furthermore, the technology might empower health-conscious consumers who want to track their own gut health. “This technology will be a whole new entry in the digital health toolkit,” Dr. Grego said.

Although not included in the research presented at this year’s DDW, the developers plan to add a sampling capability. Biochemic analysis of stool samples could provide “metabolically relevant information,” including stool biomarkers and microbiome composition.

“We have demonstrated it in the laboratory. It will be part of the technology when developed into a product,” Dr. Grego said.

This proof-of-concept study “is the first step in a path we are aggressively pursuing,” Dr. Grego said. She estimated it will take about 12-18 months to develop a prototype for use with patients. “We hope to move to a product soon after that.”

“I’m looking forward to seeing future iterations of this tool,” Dr. Shin said. “It could have a role in monitoring important GI diseases and disorders, including IBS and inflammatory bowel disease, or even for the detection of ‘alarm symptoms’ that shouldn’t be ignored.

“I could even see it having a role in preventative health in the future,” Dr. Shin added. 

The technology has been licensed to the spin-off company Coprata to develop the product further.

“We hope to have an impact on people’s health very soon,” Dr. Grego said.  

Duke University funded the study. Dr. Grego holds a management position at Coprata. Dr. Shin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A “smart toilet” in development uses artificial intelligence (AI) to scan stool for consistency and presence of blood – and early evidence suggests it is more accurate than patient self-reporting, a study reveals.

The remote, automated, real-time analysis and reporting increase the likelihood of physicians detecting gastrointestinal issues earlier, investigators reported.

In a proof-of-concept study, the smart toilet was 85% accurate in categorizing stool consistency as loose, normal, or constipated. The findings were presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

“This study highlights a very innovative and practical tool that could have major implications for patients and clinicians alike,” Andrea Shin, MD, who was not affiliated with the research, said in an interview.

“Stool form or consistency and signs of bleeding are some of the most important pieces of clinical history when it comes to GI or bowel symptoms,” added Dr. Shin, assistant professor of medicine in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
 

Image analysis

The researchers tested their AI algorithm on 3,328 images. They assessed photos from the Internet and some submitted anonymously by participants in the study.

Two gastroenterologists also rated a subset of 552 images. The physicians showed “satisfactory agreement” on interrater reliability (the extent to which two or more “raters” [for example, observers, examiners] agree), the investigators noted.

The smart toilet also was 76% accurate for gross blood detection.

“It’s objective and more accurate,” study author Sonia Grego, PhD, said in an interview. In contrast to asking patients to keep a bowel movement diary or recall the frequency and consistency of their stool over time, “the system does it for you,” she added.

“Our technology – by automating the image acquisition – removes the burden of having to track your pattern for weeks or months,” added Dr. Grego, founding director of the Duke Smart Toilet Lab at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Information provided by patients “can have a big impact on decision-making,” Dr. Shin said. “For example, if I am talking to an individual who suffers from irritable bowel syndrome [IBS], I commonly ask them about how loose or watery and hard or formed their stool is, because this information gives me clues as to the underlying problems that may be driving their symptoms.”

Dr. Shin agreed it can be challenging for people to know what is important to report to their doctor. “This tool has the potential to relieve patient burden and facilitate communication between a patient and their clinician. It’s a great example of how technology can be leveraged to enhance care.”
 

Working behind the scenes

Together with gastroenterologist Deborah Anne Fisher, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Duke, Dr. Grego and colleagues devised a prototype that positions the image analyzer in the pipes behind the toilet. So the analysis is done post flush.

“We are experts of toilets and toilet technology,” Dr. Grego said. “We have learned that people really don’t like to see anything weird around the toilet bowl.”

The smart toilet system is designed for multiple users in a residential or commercial setting. The technology could be used in hospitals or long-term care facilities, for example. A fingerprint scanner on the flush mechanism tracks each individual user.
 

Mixed reactions

Dr. Grego gets a range of reactions when she tells people she is developing smart toilet technology.

“Friends and family laugh about the concept of the smart toilet,” she said, “so all the possible jokes that have been done on poops, we know.”

In fact, the researchers also are collecting the jokes they hear. “We’re being very systematic.”

In contrast, gastroenterologists who learn of the technology in development are more enthusiastic, Dr. Grego said. “There is such a need for removing the uncertainty of the patient recall about bowel movement frequency and appearance.

“We are seeking to expand through collaboration with additional GI doctors. We want to develop a more advanced prototype and do further validation studies,” Dr. Grego said.
 

Digital health tool

There is an aversion among patients to handling stool “or even talking about it,” Dr. Grego said. Colleagues tell her that people are more willing to provide a blood sample, which requires a needle, than a stool sample.

“But a lot of health data is there [in the stool],” she added. “We think this will empower a lot of research as well as consumer data gathering.”

For example, Dr. Grego envisions pharmaceutical companies using the technology to detect or monitor any changes in stool or gut health based on a treatment in development during clinical trials.

Furthermore, the technology might empower health-conscious consumers who want to track their own gut health. “This technology will be a whole new entry in the digital health toolkit,” Dr. Grego said.

Although not included in the research presented at this year’s DDW, the developers plan to add a sampling capability. Biochemic analysis of stool samples could provide “metabolically relevant information,” including stool biomarkers and microbiome composition.

“We have demonstrated it in the laboratory. It will be part of the technology when developed into a product,” Dr. Grego said.

This proof-of-concept study “is the first step in a path we are aggressively pursuing,” Dr. Grego said. She estimated it will take about 12-18 months to develop a prototype for use with patients. “We hope to move to a product soon after that.”

“I’m looking forward to seeing future iterations of this tool,” Dr. Shin said. “It could have a role in monitoring important GI diseases and disorders, including IBS and inflammatory bowel disease, or even for the detection of ‘alarm symptoms’ that shouldn’t be ignored.

“I could even see it having a role in preventative health in the future,” Dr. Shin added. 

The technology has been licensed to the spin-off company Coprata to develop the product further.

“We hope to have an impact on people’s health very soon,” Dr. Grego said.  

Duke University funded the study. Dr. Grego holds a management position at Coprata. Dr. Shin disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The respiratory therapists at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, know when Lina Miyakawa, MD, starts a week in the ICU, because she turns down the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) levels if patients tolerate it.

“Hyperoxia in mechanical ventilation is a topic that’s near and dear to my heart,” Dr. Miyakawa, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, said during SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “You can always find ‘wean down FiO₂’ in my consult notes.”

While it is believed that humans have built up evolutionary defenses against hypoxia but not against hyperoxia, medical literature on the topic of hyperoxia with supplemental oxygen is fairly young. “In medical school we were taught to give oxygen for anybody with chest pain and concern about acute coronary syndrome,” she said. “This was until recent data suggested harm from liberal oxygen use.”

In a single-center trial of 434 critical care patients with an ICU length of stay of 72 hours or longer, Italian researchers examined the effects of a conservative protocol for oxygen therapy versus conventional therapy on ICU mortality (JAMA. 2016;316[15]:1583-9). The trial was stopped because the patients who were assigned to receive conservative therapy had a significantly lower mortality than the ones who received usual care (P = .01). “The study was not perfect, and the premature stoppage likely exaggerated the effect size,” said Dr. Miyakawa, who was not affiliated with the trial. “However, subsequent retrospective studies continue to support a benefit with conservative oxygen use, especially in different groups of patients. One of note is hyperoxia following cardiac arrest. There’s something called a two-hit model that speaks to worsening ischemia with reperfusion injury after the initial hypoxic event from the cardiac arrest itself” (See Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:534-6).

In a multicenter cohort study that drew from the Project IMPACT critical care database of ICUs at 120 U.S. hospitals between 2001 and 2005, researchers led by J. Hope Kilgannon, MD, tested the hypothesis that post-resuscitation hyperoxia is associated with increased in-hospital mortality (JAMA. 2010;303[21]:2165-71). The study population consisted of 6,326 patients who were divided into three groups: the hypoxic group (a PaO₂ of less than 60 mm Hg); the normoxic group (a PaO₂ of 60-299 mm Hg), and the hyperoxic group (a PaO₂ of over 300 mm Hg). The mortality for the hyperoxic group was 63%, the hypoxic group at 57%, and the normoxic group at 45%.

More recently, the ICU-ROX Investigators and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group evaluated conservative versus liberal approaches in providing oxygen to 965 patients who were mechanically ventilated between 2015 and 2018 at 21 ICUs (N Eng J Med. 2020;382:989-98). Of the 965 patients, 484 were randomly assigned to the conservative oxygen group (defined as an SpO₂ of 97% or lower) and 481 were assigned to the usual oxygen group (defined as having no specific measures limiting FiO₂ or the SpO₂). The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days from randomization until day 28, while the secondary outcome was mortality at 180 days. The researchers also performed a subgroup analysis of patients at risk for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.

No significant differences were observed in the number of ventilator days between the two group (a median of 21 days in the conservative oxygen group versus 22 days in the usual oxygen group, respectively; P = .80) nor in mortality at 180 days (35.7% vs. 34.5%). However, in the subgroup analysis, patients with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy were noted to have more ventilator-free days (21 vs. 0 days), improved 180-day mortality (43% vs. 59%), and less functional impairment (55% vs. 68%) in the conservative-oxygen group.

“The results of this study suggest that conservative oxygen therapy has no additional advantage over standard oxygen therapy, but there may be benefits in those vulnerable to hyperoxia, which warrants further investigation,” Dr. Miyakawa said. “There are a few points to note on this topic. First, many of the previous studies had more liberal oxygen strategies than the ones used in this study, which could be the reason why we are seeing these results. In addition, O₂ titration relies on imperfect approximations. PaO₂ cannot be measured continuously; we really depend on the SpO₂ on a minute-by-minute basis. Critically ill patients can also undergo episodes of hypoperfusion and shock state minute-by-minute. That’s when they’re at risk for hypoxemia. This would not be captured continuously with just O₂ saturations.”

Dr. Miyakawa also highlighted the Liberal Oxygenation versus Conservative Oxygenation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome trial (LOCO₂) a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial involving patients with ARDS. It was carried out at 13 ICUs in France between June 2016 and September 2018 in an effort determine whether conservative oxygenation would reduce mortality at 28 days compared with the usual liberal-oxygen strategy (N Eng J Med. 2020;382:999-1008). The researchers detected a signal of increased mortality in the conservative oxygen group (34% vs. 27%), which led to a premature stoppage of the trial. “I’d like to postulate that the higher incidence of proning in the liberal oxygenation group compared to the conservative oxygen group (51% to 34%) may be the reason for the difference in mortality,” said Dr. Miyakawa, who was not affiliated with LOCO₂. “This is supported from the 2013 PROSEVA Study Group, which reported that prone positioning in ARDS significantly decreases 28- and 90-day mortality” (see N Engl J Med. 2013; 368:2159-68).

She said that future trials on this topic “will have to address how a particular [oxygenation] target is both set and achieved in each group of patients, particularly those with specific organ injuries. In the meantime, in my opinion, avoiding excess oxygen seems sensible.”

Dr. Miyakawa reported having no financial disclosures.

The respiratory therapists at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, know when Lina Miyakawa, MD, starts a week in the ICU, because she turns down the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) levels if patients tolerate it.

“Hyperoxia in mechanical ventilation is a topic that’s near and dear to my heart,” Dr. Miyakawa, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, said during SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “You can always find ‘wean down FiO₂’ in my consult notes.”

While it is believed that humans have built up evolutionary defenses against hypoxia but not against hyperoxia, medical literature on the topic of hyperoxia with supplemental oxygen is fairly young. “In medical school we were taught to give oxygen for anybody with chest pain and concern about acute coronary syndrome,” she said. “This was until recent data suggested harm from liberal oxygen use.”

In a single-center trial of 434 critical care patients with an ICU length of stay of 72 hours or longer, Italian researchers examined the effects of a conservative protocol for oxygen therapy versus conventional therapy on ICU mortality (JAMA. 2016;316[15]:1583-9). The trial was stopped because the patients who were assigned to receive conservative therapy had a significantly lower mortality than the ones who received usual care (P = .01). “The study was not perfect, and the premature stoppage likely exaggerated the effect size,” said Dr. Miyakawa, who was not affiliated with the trial. “However, subsequent retrospective studies continue to support a benefit with conservative oxygen use, especially in different groups of patients. One of note is hyperoxia following cardiac arrest. There’s something called a two-hit model that speaks to worsening ischemia with reperfusion injury after the initial hypoxic event from the cardiac arrest itself” (See Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:534-6).

In a multicenter cohort study that drew from the Project IMPACT critical care database of ICUs at 120 U.S. hospitals between 2001 and 2005, researchers led by J. Hope Kilgannon, MD, tested the hypothesis that post-resuscitation hyperoxia is associated with increased in-hospital mortality (JAMA. 2010;303[21]:2165-71). The study population consisted of 6,326 patients who were divided into three groups: the hypoxic group (a PaO₂ of less than 60 mm Hg); the normoxic group (a PaO₂ of 60-299 mm Hg), and the hyperoxic group (a PaO₂ of over 300 mm Hg). The mortality for the hyperoxic group was 63%, the hypoxic group at 57%, and the normoxic group at 45%.

More recently, the ICU-ROX Investigators and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group evaluated conservative versus liberal approaches in providing oxygen to 965 patients who were mechanically ventilated between 2015 and 2018 at 21 ICUs (N Eng J Med. 2020;382:989-98). Of the 965 patients, 484 were randomly assigned to the conservative oxygen group (defined as an SpO₂ of 97% or lower) and 481 were assigned to the usual oxygen group (defined as having no specific measures limiting FiO₂ or the SpO₂). The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days from randomization until day 28, while the secondary outcome was mortality at 180 days. The researchers also performed a subgroup analysis of patients at risk for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.

No significant differences were observed in the number of ventilator days between the two group (a median of 21 days in the conservative oxygen group versus 22 days in the usual oxygen group, respectively; P = .80) nor in mortality at 180 days (35.7% vs. 34.5%). However, in the subgroup analysis, patients with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy were noted to have more ventilator-free days (21 vs. 0 days), improved 180-day mortality (43% vs. 59%), and less functional impairment (55% vs. 68%) in the conservative-oxygen group.

“The results of this study suggest that conservative oxygen therapy has no additional advantage over standard oxygen therapy, but there may be benefits in those vulnerable to hyperoxia, which warrants further investigation,” Dr. Miyakawa said. “There are a few points to note on this topic. First, many of the previous studies had more liberal oxygen strategies than the ones used in this study, which could be the reason why we are seeing these results. In addition, O₂ titration relies on imperfect approximations. PaO₂ cannot be measured continuously; we really depend on the SpO₂ on a minute-by-minute basis. Critically ill patients can also undergo episodes of hypoperfusion and shock state minute-by-minute. That’s when they’re at risk for hypoxemia. This would not be captured continuously with just O₂ saturations.”

Dr. Miyakawa also highlighted the Liberal Oxygenation versus Conservative Oxygenation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome trial (LOCO₂) a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial involving patients with ARDS. It was carried out at 13 ICUs in France between June 2016 and September 2018 in an effort determine whether conservative oxygenation would reduce mortality at 28 days compared with the usual liberal-oxygen strategy (N Eng J Med. 2020;382:999-1008). The researchers detected a signal of increased mortality in the conservative oxygen group (34% vs. 27%), which led to a premature stoppage of the trial. “I’d like to postulate that the higher incidence of proning in the liberal oxygenation group compared to the conservative oxygen group (51% to 34%) may be the reason for the difference in mortality,” said Dr. Miyakawa, who was not affiliated with LOCO₂. “This is supported from the 2013 PROSEVA Study Group, which reported that prone positioning in ARDS significantly decreases 28- and 90-day mortality” (see N Engl J Med. 2013; 368:2159-68).

She said that future trials on this topic “will have to address how a particular [oxygenation] target is both set and achieved in each group of patients, particularly those with specific organ injuries. In the meantime, in my opinion, avoiding excess oxygen seems sensible.”

Dr. Miyakawa reported having no financial disclosures.

The respiratory therapists at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, know when Lina Miyakawa, MD, starts a week in the ICU, because she turns down the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) levels if patients tolerate it.

“Hyperoxia in mechanical ventilation is a topic that’s near and dear to my heart,” Dr. Miyakawa, a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, said during SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “You can always find ‘wean down FiO₂’ in my consult notes.”

While it is believed that humans have built up evolutionary defenses against hypoxia but not against hyperoxia, medical literature on the topic of hyperoxia with supplemental oxygen is fairly young. “In medical school we were taught to give oxygen for anybody with chest pain and concern about acute coronary syndrome,” she said. “This was until recent data suggested harm from liberal oxygen use.”

In a single-center trial of 434 critical care patients with an ICU length of stay of 72 hours or longer, Italian researchers examined the effects of a conservative protocol for oxygen therapy versus conventional therapy on ICU mortality (JAMA. 2016;316[15]:1583-9). The trial was stopped because the patients who were assigned to receive conservative therapy had a significantly lower mortality than the ones who received usual care (P = .01). “The study was not perfect, and the premature stoppage likely exaggerated the effect size,” said Dr. Miyakawa, who was not affiliated with the trial. “However, subsequent retrospective studies continue to support a benefit with conservative oxygen use, especially in different groups of patients. One of note is hyperoxia following cardiac arrest. There’s something called a two-hit model that speaks to worsening ischemia with reperfusion injury after the initial hypoxic event from the cardiac arrest itself” (See Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:534-6).

In a multicenter cohort study that drew from the Project IMPACT critical care database of ICUs at 120 U.S. hospitals between 2001 and 2005, researchers led by J. Hope Kilgannon, MD, tested the hypothesis that post-resuscitation hyperoxia is associated with increased in-hospital mortality (JAMA. 2010;303[21]:2165-71). The study population consisted of 6,326 patients who were divided into three groups: the hypoxic group (a PaO₂ of less than 60 mm Hg); the normoxic group (a PaO₂ of 60-299 mm Hg), and the hyperoxic group (a PaO₂ of over 300 mm Hg). The mortality for the hyperoxic group was 63%, the hypoxic group at 57%, and the normoxic group at 45%.

More recently, the ICU-ROX Investigators and the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group evaluated conservative versus liberal approaches in providing oxygen to 965 patients who were mechanically ventilated between 2015 and 2018 at 21 ICUs (N Eng J Med. 2020;382:989-98). Of the 965 patients, 484 were randomly assigned to the conservative oxygen group (defined as an SpO₂ of 97% or lower) and 481 were assigned to the usual oxygen group (defined as having no specific measures limiting FiO₂ or the SpO₂). The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days from randomization until day 28, while the secondary outcome was mortality at 180 days. The researchers also performed a subgroup analysis of patients at risk for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.

No significant differences were observed in the number of ventilator days between the two group (a median of 21 days in the conservative oxygen group versus 22 days in the usual oxygen group, respectively; P = .80) nor in mortality at 180 days (35.7% vs. 34.5%). However, in the subgroup analysis, patients with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy were noted to have more ventilator-free days (21 vs. 0 days), improved 180-day mortality (43% vs. 59%), and less functional impairment (55% vs. 68%) in the conservative-oxygen group.

“The results of this study suggest that conservative oxygen therapy has no additional advantage over standard oxygen therapy, but there may be benefits in those vulnerable to hyperoxia, which warrants further investigation,” Dr. Miyakawa said. “There are a few points to note on this topic. First, many of the previous studies had more liberal oxygen strategies than the ones used in this study, which could be the reason why we are seeing these results. In addition, O₂ titration relies on imperfect approximations. PaO₂ cannot be measured continuously; we really depend on the SpO₂ on a minute-by-minute basis. Critically ill patients can also undergo episodes of hypoperfusion and shock state minute-by-minute. That’s when they’re at risk for hypoxemia. This would not be captured continuously with just O₂ saturations.”

Dr. Miyakawa also highlighted the Liberal Oxygenation versus Conservative Oxygenation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome trial (LOCO₂) a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial involving patients with ARDS. It was carried out at 13 ICUs in France between June 2016 and September 2018 in an effort determine whether conservative oxygenation would reduce mortality at 28 days compared with the usual liberal-oxygen strategy (N Eng J Med. 2020;382:999-1008). The researchers detected a signal of increased mortality in the conservative oxygen group (34% vs. 27%), which led to a premature stoppage of the trial. “I’d like to postulate that the higher incidence of proning in the liberal oxygenation group compared to the conservative oxygen group (51% to 34%) may be the reason for the difference in mortality,” said Dr. Miyakawa, who was not affiliated with LOCO₂. “This is supported from the 2013 PROSEVA Study Group, which reported that prone positioning in ARDS significantly decreases 28- and 90-day mortality” (see N Engl J Med. 2013; 368:2159-68).

She said that future trials on this topic “will have to address how a particular [oxygenation] target is both set and achieved in each group of patients, particularly those with specific organ injuries. In the meantime, in my opinion, avoiding excess oxygen seems sensible.”

Dr. Miyakawa reported having no financial disclosures.

Transcatheter mitral valve repair with the PASCAL device showed high rates of survival and freedom from heart failure rehospitalization at 2 years in the single-arm, safety and efficacy CLASP study.

The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano

The early reductions in mitral regurgitation (MR) were sustained with 97% of patients having MR grades of 2+ or less and 78% having MR grades of 1+ or less at 2 years.

There was also evidence of left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling and significant improvements in functional status, Molly Szerlip, MD, Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Texas, reported as lead author. The results were published online May 18 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“The PASCAL transcatheter valve repair system is a favorable option for treating patients with MR,” she said in a simultaneous virtual presentation at the 2021 Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021).

The PASCAL system is not approved in the United States, but Dr. Szerlip observed that the investigators are eagerly awaiting results from the ongoing, pivotal CLASP IID/IIF trial comparing the edge-to-edge repair system with another such device, MitraClip, in 1,275 patients with functional or degenerative MR. The primary completion date is set for December 2023.

Abbott’s MitraClip has been available in the United States since 2013 and in Europe since 2008; Edwards Lifesciences received a CE mark for the PASCAL system in 2019.

“The results of the CLASP study are remarkable and indicate an additional differentiated tool ready for clinical routine,” Georg Goliasch, MD, PhD, and Philipp Bartko, MD, both from the Medical University of Vienna, write in an accompanying editorial.

As both systems target similar lesions, there might be “significant overlap in this particular patient population,” Dr. Goliasch told this news organization. From a technical perspective, the separate leaflet grasping was initially one of the advantages of the PASCAL, but this has also been recently introduced for the MitraClip.

That said, the “PASCAL device may offer a leaflet repair with decreased mechanical leaflet traction – specifically appealing to treat ventricular secondary MR – because mechanical forces applied to leaflets remain low, and the [central] spacer augments the leaflet surface in a way that reduces restrictive diastolic opening,” he added. “However, this remains highly speculative.”

The CLASP study enrolled 124 patients (56% male) with symptomatic MR grade of at least 3+ who were receiving optimal medical therapy at 14 sites in five countries. Their mean age was 75 years, 69% had functional MR (FMR), 31% had degenerative MR (DMR), and 60% were NYHA functional class III to IVa.

The primary endpoints of procedural and clinical success and adverse events at 30 days and 1-year outcomes were published last year. Echocardiographic data were available for 36 patients at 2 years with follow-up ongoing.

Composite major adverse event rates were 8.1% at 30 days, 18.5% at 1 year, and 16.9% at 2 years, driven mostly by severe bleeding at 7.3%, 11.3%, and 7.3%, respectively, Dr. Szerlip said.

Kaplan-Meier estimates showed 80.3% survival at 2 years (72.3% FMR, 94.3% DMR) and 84.3% freedom from heart failure rehospitalization (77.5% FMR, 97.3% DMR). The annualized HF rehospitalization rate fell to 85% at 2 years.

These results, the authors noted, hinged on minimizing residual MR. In the FMR group, 100% and 95% of patients achieved MR of 2+ or less at 1 year and 2 years, respectively, compared with 95% and 99% treated with the MitraClip in the COAPT study.

In the DMR group, 100% of patients achieved MR of 2+ or less at both 1 and 2 years, which “compares favorably to 94% from the EXPAND study at 1 year” with the MitraClip NTR and XTR systems, they write.

In CLASP, the LV end-diastolic volume decreased by 11 mL at 30 days and continued to decrease at 1 year (25 mL) and 2 years (33 mL; P < .001).

LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) fell by 2.7 mm at 30 days, 3.9 mm at 1 year, and by 2.7 mm at 2 years (P = .002). At 2 years, 93% of patients were in NYHA class I or II (P < .001).

“The authors of the trial observed significant LV reverse remodeling with a decrease in LVEDD. These findings are indeed of particular interest and warrant further investigation by future studies as this has not been shown to such an extent in previous E2E [edge-to-edge] repair studies,” Dr. Goliasch said in an interview.

He raised an eyebrow, however, at the cross-trial comparisons, adding, “We should be very careful to draw any hasty conclusions considering the high proportion of missing echocardiographic data. Nevertheless, all these aspects might make the design of future studies for direct comparisons between E2E devices in the various structural aspects of mitral valve disease attractive to tailor treatment and optimize patient care.”

Dr. Szerlip and colleagues cited several study limitations including the absence of a control arm that may have contributed to a Hawthorne effect; not all patients had reached 2-year follow-up at the time of the analysis; and adjudication of events and assessment of the 6-minute walk test and quality-of-life measures were limited to 1 year based on the protocol.

The study was sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Szerlip reported serving as a proctor/speaker for Edwards; a national principal investigator for EFS; a speaker for Boston Scientific, and serving on steering committees for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr. Goliasch and Dr. Bartko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transcatheter mitral valve repair with the PASCAL device showed high rates of survival and freedom from heart failure rehospitalization at 2 years in the single-arm, safety and efficacy CLASP study.

The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano

The early reductions in mitral regurgitation (MR) were sustained with 97% of patients having MR grades of 2+ or less and 78% having MR grades of 1+ or less at 2 years.

There was also evidence of left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling and significant improvements in functional status, Molly Szerlip, MD, Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Texas, reported as lead author. The results were published online May 18 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“The PASCAL transcatheter valve repair system is a favorable option for treating patients with MR,” she said in a simultaneous virtual presentation at the 2021 Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021).

The PASCAL system is not approved in the United States, but Dr. Szerlip observed that the investigators are eagerly awaiting results from the ongoing, pivotal CLASP IID/IIF trial comparing the edge-to-edge repair system with another such device, MitraClip, in 1,275 patients with functional or degenerative MR. The primary completion date is set for December 2023.

Abbott’s MitraClip has been available in the United States since 2013 and in Europe since 2008; Edwards Lifesciences received a CE mark for the PASCAL system in 2019.

“The results of the CLASP study are remarkable and indicate an additional differentiated tool ready for clinical routine,” Georg Goliasch, MD, PhD, and Philipp Bartko, MD, both from the Medical University of Vienna, write in an accompanying editorial.

As both systems target similar lesions, there might be “significant overlap in this particular patient population,” Dr. Goliasch told this news organization. From a technical perspective, the separate leaflet grasping was initially one of the advantages of the PASCAL, but this has also been recently introduced for the MitraClip.

That said, the “PASCAL device may offer a leaflet repair with decreased mechanical leaflet traction – specifically appealing to treat ventricular secondary MR – because mechanical forces applied to leaflets remain low, and the [central] spacer augments the leaflet surface in a way that reduces restrictive diastolic opening,” he added. “However, this remains highly speculative.”

The CLASP study enrolled 124 patients (56% male) with symptomatic MR grade of at least 3+ who were receiving optimal medical therapy at 14 sites in five countries. Their mean age was 75 years, 69% had functional MR (FMR), 31% had degenerative MR (DMR), and 60% were NYHA functional class III to IVa.

The primary endpoints of procedural and clinical success and adverse events at 30 days and 1-year outcomes were published last year. Echocardiographic data were available for 36 patients at 2 years with follow-up ongoing.

Composite major adverse event rates were 8.1% at 30 days, 18.5% at 1 year, and 16.9% at 2 years, driven mostly by severe bleeding at 7.3%, 11.3%, and 7.3%, respectively, Dr. Szerlip said.

Kaplan-Meier estimates showed 80.3% survival at 2 years (72.3% FMR, 94.3% DMR) and 84.3% freedom from heart failure rehospitalization (77.5% FMR, 97.3% DMR). The annualized HF rehospitalization rate fell to 85% at 2 years.

These results, the authors noted, hinged on minimizing residual MR. In the FMR group, 100% and 95% of patients achieved MR of 2+ or less at 1 year and 2 years, respectively, compared with 95% and 99% treated with the MitraClip in the COAPT study.

In the DMR group, 100% of patients achieved MR of 2+ or less at both 1 and 2 years, which “compares favorably to 94% from the EXPAND study at 1 year” with the MitraClip NTR and XTR systems, they write.

In CLASP, the LV end-diastolic volume decreased by 11 mL at 30 days and continued to decrease at 1 year (25 mL) and 2 years (33 mL; P < .001).

LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) fell by 2.7 mm at 30 days, 3.9 mm at 1 year, and by 2.7 mm at 2 years (P = .002). At 2 years, 93% of patients were in NYHA class I or II (P < .001).

“The authors of the trial observed significant LV reverse remodeling with a decrease in LVEDD. These findings are indeed of particular interest and warrant further investigation by future studies as this has not been shown to such an extent in previous E2E [edge-to-edge] repair studies,” Dr. Goliasch said in an interview.

He raised an eyebrow, however, at the cross-trial comparisons, adding, “We should be very careful to draw any hasty conclusions considering the high proportion of missing echocardiographic data. Nevertheless, all these aspects might make the design of future studies for direct comparisons between E2E devices in the various structural aspects of mitral valve disease attractive to tailor treatment and optimize patient care.”

Dr. Szerlip and colleagues cited several study limitations including the absence of a control arm that may have contributed to a Hawthorne effect; not all patients had reached 2-year follow-up at the time of the analysis; and adjudication of events and assessment of the 6-minute walk test and quality-of-life measures were limited to 1 year based on the protocol.

The study was sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Szerlip reported serving as a proctor/speaker for Edwards; a national principal investigator for EFS; a speaker for Boston Scientific, and serving on steering committees for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr. Goliasch and Dr. Bartko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transcatheter mitral valve repair with the PASCAL device showed high rates of survival and freedom from heart failure rehospitalization at 2 years in the single-arm, safety and efficacy CLASP study.

The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano

The early reductions in mitral regurgitation (MR) were sustained with 97% of patients having MR grades of 2+ or less and 78% having MR grades of 1+ or less at 2 years.

There was also evidence of left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling and significant improvements in functional status, Molly Szerlip, MD, Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Texas, reported as lead author. The results were published online May 18 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“The PASCAL transcatheter valve repair system is a favorable option for treating patients with MR,” she said in a simultaneous virtual presentation at the 2021 Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021).

The PASCAL system is not approved in the United States, but Dr. Szerlip observed that the investigators are eagerly awaiting results from the ongoing, pivotal CLASP IID/IIF trial comparing the edge-to-edge repair system with another such device, MitraClip, in 1,275 patients with functional or degenerative MR. The primary completion date is set for December 2023.

Abbott’s MitraClip has been available in the United States since 2013 and in Europe since 2008; Edwards Lifesciences received a CE mark for the PASCAL system in 2019.

“The results of the CLASP study are remarkable and indicate an additional differentiated tool ready for clinical routine,” Georg Goliasch, MD, PhD, and Philipp Bartko, MD, both from the Medical University of Vienna, write in an accompanying editorial.

As both systems target similar lesions, there might be “significant overlap in this particular patient population,” Dr. Goliasch told this news organization. From a technical perspective, the separate leaflet grasping was initially one of the advantages of the PASCAL, but this has also been recently introduced for the MitraClip.

That said, the “PASCAL device may offer a leaflet repair with decreased mechanical leaflet traction – specifically appealing to treat ventricular secondary MR – because mechanical forces applied to leaflets remain low, and the [central] spacer augments the leaflet surface in a way that reduces restrictive diastolic opening,” he added. “However, this remains highly speculative.”

The CLASP study enrolled 124 patients (56% male) with symptomatic MR grade of at least 3+ who were receiving optimal medical therapy at 14 sites in five countries. Their mean age was 75 years, 69% had functional MR (FMR), 31% had degenerative MR (DMR), and 60% were NYHA functional class III to IVa.

The primary endpoints of procedural and clinical success and adverse events at 30 days and 1-year outcomes were published last year. Echocardiographic data were available for 36 patients at 2 years with follow-up ongoing.

Composite major adverse event rates were 8.1% at 30 days, 18.5% at 1 year, and 16.9% at 2 years, driven mostly by severe bleeding at 7.3%, 11.3%, and 7.3%, respectively, Dr. Szerlip said.

Kaplan-Meier estimates showed 80.3% survival at 2 years (72.3% FMR, 94.3% DMR) and 84.3% freedom from heart failure rehospitalization (77.5% FMR, 97.3% DMR). The annualized HF rehospitalization rate fell to 85% at 2 years.

These results, the authors noted, hinged on minimizing residual MR. In the FMR group, 100% and 95% of patients achieved MR of 2+ or less at 1 year and 2 years, respectively, compared with 95% and 99% treated with the MitraClip in the COAPT study.

In the DMR group, 100% of patients achieved MR of 2+ or less at both 1 and 2 years, which “compares favorably to 94% from the EXPAND study at 1 year” with the MitraClip NTR and XTR systems, they write.

In CLASP, the LV end-diastolic volume decreased by 11 mL at 30 days and continued to decrease at 1 year (25 mL) and 2 years (33 mL; P < .001).

LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) fell by 2.7 mm at 30 days, 3.9 mm at 1 year, and by 2.7 mm at 2 years (P = .002). At 2 years, 93% of patients were in NYHA class I or II (P < .001).

“The authors of the trial observed significant LV reverse remodeling with a decrease in LVEDD. These findings are indeed of particular interest and warrant further investigation by future studies as this has not been shown to such an extent in previous E2E [edge-to-edge] repair studies,” Dr. Goliasch said in an interview.

He raised an eyebrow, however, at the cross-trial comparisons, adding, “We should be very careful to draw any hasty conclusions considering the high proportion of missing echocardiographic data. Nevertheless, all these aspects might make the design of future studies for direct comparisons between E2E devices in the various structural aspects of mitral valve disease attractive to tailor treatment and optimize patient care.”

Dr. Szerlip and colleagues cited several study limitations including the absence of a control arm that may have contributed to a Hawthorne effect; not all patients had reached 2-year follow-up at the time of the analysis; and adjudication of events and assessment of the 6-minute walk test and quality-of-life measures were limited to 1 year based on the protocol.

The study was sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Szerlip reported serving as a proctor/speaker for Edwards; a national principal investigator for EFS; a speaker for Boston Scientific, and serving on steering committees for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr. Goliasch and Dr. Bartko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) has issued its first-ever official guidelines addressing the use of advanced technologies in the management of people with diabetes.

They were presented on May 28 at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.

Previous AACE guidance on the clinical use of insulin pumps and CGM over the past decade has been published in the form of consensus or position statements rather than official evidence-based guidelines, task force cochair George Grunberger, MD, of the Grunberger Diabetes Institute, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., explained.

“There’s never really been, until now, hardcore evidence, [with] peer-reviewed, quality trials published in the literature to go after the evidence that is required for guidelines. ... This is not an opinion piece or position statement.”

The problem with that strict approach to “guidelines” is how quickly the diabetes technology field is evolving, he acknowledged. “It’s frustrating because we know what’s [coming up], but we can’t put it in a guideline because it hasn’t been published yet.”

In an AACE podcast, Dr. Grunberger said the guidelines will likely become a “living” document, along the lines of the American Diabetes Association’s annual Standards of Care, as “any cutoff date is arbitrary. More and more papers will be published on these technologies. ... This is certainly not a static field.”

In the meantime, task force cochair and author Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, a pediatric endocrinologist, said she hopes the guidelines will help to reduce insurance company barriers to use of the currently available technologies.

“I am very hopeful that these guidelines will also encourage payers to change their stance. And I think that we as a community can continue to advocate and inform them of these guidelines so they can appropriately change their coverage practices,” added Dr. Sherr, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Recommendations address CGM, pumps, and connected systems

In the guidelines, CGM is “strongly recommended for all persons with diabetes treated with intensive insulin therapy, defined as three or more injections of insulin per day or the use of an insulin pump.” For those with diabetes who use CGM, “priority metrics” include a “time in range” of greater than 70% from 14 days of active use. Targets for mean glucose should be individualized, with glycemic variability 36% or lower.

Further specific CGM target metrics are given for people with type 1 diabetes, older/high risk individuals, and for pregnant women. The recommendations align with those issued in a 2019 joint consensus statement on CGM time-in-range endorsed by several organizations, including AACE.    

In response to an audience question about whether AACE is advising that time-in-range replace A1c for glycemia assessment, Dr. Sherr responded: “I think currently we’re not in a position where we can completely replace A1c with time in range. However, I’m hopeful that in future years we’ll see further data gathered ... to allow for that recommendation to occur.”

For now, she said, “What we really want to hone in on in the guidelines is that time-in-range and use of CGM truly allow clinicians to better understand how to optimize care for their persons with diabetes. It gives us a better picture. It’s not just a number of whether we’re hitting target. It tells us whether we need to attack time above range or time below range. So we really think it’s critical for clinical care.”

The document also provides specifics about real-time versus intermittently scanned CGM and use of diagnostic/professional CGM.

The “insulin delivery technologies” section covers use of connected pens, insulin pumps without CGM, insulin pumps with separate CGM, and the more advanced combined insulin pump-CGM systems including those with low-glucose suspend, predictive low-glucose suspend, and hybrid closed-loops (sometimes called the artificial pancreas).

In general, these automated insulin delivery systems (artificial pancreas), “are strongly recommended for all persons with [type 1 diabetes], since their use has been shown to increase time in range, especially in the overnight period, without causing an increased risk of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Sherr observed.
 

Other tech topics: Apps, telemedicine, and safety

The new guidelines say that “clinically validated” smartphone apps should be recommended to help teach or reinforce diabetes self-management skills and provide support and encouragement for healthy behaviors around food and exercise.

Dr. Grunberger pointed out: “As we know, there are tons of apps out there, and patients are using them. The problem is that very few of them have actually been validated in clinical trials in published peer-reviewed [journals].”

He recommended a joint statement on diabetes apps from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes that was initially discussed at the 2019 EASD meeting, as reported by this news organization, and subsequently published in January 2020 in Diabetes Care and Diabetologia.

“Telemedicine, including periodic phone calls, smartphone-web interactions ... by health care professionals ... is strongly recommended to treat persons with diabetes, provide diabetes education, remotely monitor glucose and/or insulin data to indicate the need for therapy adjustments, and improve diabetes-related outcomes/control with better engagement,” the document says.

Safety concerns addressed include the issue of certain medications interfering with CGM [readings] ... including acetaminophen, high-dose vitamin C, and hydroxyurea, as well as cautions about what to do in the event of device malfunction and assessing that the patient is sufficiently trained in proper device use. Criteria for insulin pump discontinuation are also given.
 

Implementation: Who will be prescribing? ‘This is not for amateurs’

A final section on implementation recommends that “initiation and use of diabetes technology should be implemented by health care professionals who are trained, committed, and experienced to prescribe and direct the use of these tools. Clinicians should have the infrastructure to support the needs of persons with diabetes using the technology.”

Dr. Grunberger commented: “I think the key is going to be who should be doing this? What is the role of a clinical endocrinologist in the future? What is our responsibility, [since] we don’t have the manpower and womanpower to take care of all these people as these technologies advance? It’s our responsibility to provide these hopefully valued recommendations as a resource for those who want to know more about it.”

However, he noted, “This is not for amateurs. If you want to actually use this in your practice, you need the infrastructure, the expertise, the training, the dedication, and the energy to be there for the patients all the time ... This clinical practice guideline is a foundation.”

Dr. Sherr added: “To me, it’s really thinking about ... changing our mindset from who is an appropriate candidate to who can benefit and how vast a group that entails ... I’m hopeful that we will see more technology use through continued conversations with our patients with diabetes, and hopefully through more clinicians being excited to be part of this revolution.”

Dr. Grunberger has reported being on speakers bureaus for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott. Dr. Sherr has reported being a consultant and speaker for Lilly and Medtronic Diabetes, a consultant for Insulet and Sanofi, and on advisory boards for Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Insulet, JDRF T1D fund, and Medtronic.

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

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) has issued its first-ever official guidelines addressing the use of advanced technologies in the management of people with diabetes.

They were presented on May 28 at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.

Previous AACE guidance on the clinical use of insulin pumps and CGM over the past decade has been published in the form of consensus or position statements rather than official evidence-based guidelines, task force cochair George Grunberger, MD, of the Grunberger Diabetes Institute, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., explained.

“There’s never really been, until now, hardcore evidence, [with] peer-reviewed, quality trials published in the literature to go after the evidence that is required for guidelines. ... This is not an opinion piece or position statement.”

The problem with that strict approach to “guidelines” is how quickly the diabetes technology field is evolving, he acknowledged. “It’s frustrating because we know what’s [coming up], but we can’t put it in a guideline because it hasn’t been published yet.”

In an AACE podcast, Dr. Grunberger said the guidelines will likely become a “living” document, along the lines of the American Diabetes Association’s annual Standards of Care, as “any cutoff date is arbitrary. More and more papers will be published on these technologies. ... This is certainly not a static field.”

In the meantime, task force cochair and author Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, a pediatric endocrinologist, said she hopes the guidelines will help to reduce insurance company barriers to use of the currently available technologies.

“I am very hopeful that these guidelines will also encourage payers to change their stance. And I think that we as a community can continue to advocate and inform them of these guidelines so they can appropriately change their coverage practices,” added Dr. Sherr, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Recommendations address CGM, pumps, and connected systems

In the guidelines, CGM is “strongly recommended for all persons with diabetes treated with intensive insulin therapy, defined as three or more injections of insulin per day or the use of an insulin pump.” For those with diabetes who use CGM, “priority metrics” include a “time in range” of greater than 70% from 14 days of active use. Targets for mean glucose should be individualized, with glycemic variability 36% or lower.

Further specific CGM target metrics are given for people with type 1 diabetes, older/high risk individuals, and for pregnant women. The recommendations align with those issued in a 2019 joint consensus statement on CGM time-in-range endorsed by several organizations, including AACE.    

In response to an audience question about whether AACE is advising that time-in-range replace A1c for glycemia assessment, Dr. Sherr responded: “I think currently we’re not in a position where we can completely replace A1c with time in range. However, I’m hopeful that in future years we’ll see further data gathered ... to allow for that recommendation to occur.”

For now, she said, “What we really want to hone in on in the guidelines is that time-in-range and use of CGM truly allow clinicians to better understand how to optimize care for their persons with diabetes. It gives us a better picture. It’s not just a number of whether we’re hitting target. It tells us whether we need to attack time above range or time below range. So we really think it’s critical for clinical care.”

The document also provides specifics about real-time versus intermittently scanned CGM and use of diagnostic/professional CGM.

The “insulin delivery technologies” section covers use of connected pens, insulin pumps without CGM, insulin pumps with separate CGM, and the more advanced combined insulin pump-CGM systems including those with low-glucose suspend, predictive low-glucose suspend, and hybrid closed-loops (sometimes called the artificial pancreas).

In general, these automated insulin delivery systems (artificial pancreas), “are strongly recommended for all persons with [type 1 diabetes], since their use has been shown to increase time in range, especially in the overnight period, without causing an increased risk of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Sherr observed.
 

Other tech topics: Apps, telemedicine, and safety

The new guidelines say that “clinically validated” smartphone apps should be recommended to help teach or reinforce diabetes self-management skills and provide support and encouragement for healthy behaviors around food and exercise.

Dr. Grunberger pointed out: “As we know, there are tons of apps out there, and patients are using them. The problem is that very few of them have actually been validated in clinical trials in published peer-reviewed [journals].”

He recommended a joint statement on diabetes apps from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes that was initially discussed at the 2019 EASD meeting, as reported by this news organization, and subsequently published in January 2020 in Diabetes Care and Diabetologia.

“Telemedicine, including periodic phone calls, smartphone-web interactions ... by health care professionals ... is strongly recommended to treat persons with diabetes, provide diabetes education, remotely monitor glucose and/or insulin data to indicate the need for therapy adjustments, and improve diabetes-related outcomes/control with better engagement,” the document says.

Safety concerns addressed include the issue of certain medications interfering with CGM [readings] ... including acetaminophen, high-dose vitamin C, and hydroxyurea, as well as cautions about what to do in the event of device malfunction and assessing that the patient is sufficiently trained in proper device use. Criteria for insulin pump discontinuation are also given.
 

Implementation: Who will be prescribing? ‘This is not for amateurs’

A final section on implementation recommends that “initiation and use of diabetes technology should be implemented by health care professionals who are trained, committed, and experienced to prescribe and direct the use of these tools. Clinicians should have the infrastructure to support the needs of persons with diabetes using the technology.”

Dr. Grunberger commented: “I think the key is going to be who should be doing this? What is the role of a clinical endocrinologist in the future? What is our responsibility, [since] we don’t have the manpower and womanpower to take care of all these people as these technologies advance? It’s our responsibility to provide these hopefully valued recommendations as a resource for those who want to know more about it.”

However, he noted, “This is not for amateurs. If you want to actually use this in your practice, you need the infrastructure, the expertise, the training, the dedication, and the energy to be there for the patients all the time ... This clinical practice guideline is a foundation.”

Dr. Sherr added: “To me, it’s really thinking about ... changing our mindset from who is an appropriate candidate to who can benefit and how vast a group that entails ... I’m hopeful that we will see more technology use through continued conversations with our patients with diabetes, and hopefully through more clinicians being excited to be part of this revolution.”

Dr. Grunberger has reported being on speakers bureaus for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott. Dr. Sherr has reported being a consultant and speaker for Lilly and Medtronic Diabetes, a consultant for Insulet and Sanofi, and on advisory boards for Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Insulet, JDRF T1D fund, and Medtronic.

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

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) has issued its first-ever official guidelines addressing the use of advanced technologies in the management of people with diabetes.

They were presented on May 28 at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.

Previous AACE guidance on the clinical use of insulin pumps and CGM over the past decade has been published in the form of consensus or position statements rather than official evidence-based guidelines, task force cochair George Grunberger, MD, of the Grunberger Diabetes Institute, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., explained.

“There’s never really been, until now, hardcore evidence, [with] peer-reviewed, quality trials published in the literature to go after the evidence that is required for guidelines. ... This is not an opinion piece or position statement.”

The problem with that strict approach to “guidelines” is how quickly the diabetes technology field is evolving, he acknowledged. “It’s frustrating because we know what’s [coming up], but we can’t put it in a guideline because it hasn’t been published yet.”

In an AACE podcast, Dr. Grunberger said the guidelines will likely become a “living” document, along the lines of the American Diabetes Association’s annual Standards of Care, as “any cutoff date is arbitrary. More and more papers will be published on these technologies. ... This is certainly not a static field.”

In the meantime, task force cochair and author Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, a pediatric endocrinologist, said she hopes the guidelines will help to reduce insurance company barriers to use of the currently available technologies.

“I am very hopeful that these guidelines will also encourage payers to change their stance. And I think that we as a community can continue to advocate and inform them of these guidelines so they can appropriately change their coverage practices,” added Dr. Sherr, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Recommendations address CGM, pumps, and connected systems

In the guidelines, CGM is “strongly recommended for all persons with diabetes treated with intensive insulin therapy, defined as three or more injections of insulin per day or the use of an insulin pump.” For those with diabetes who use CGM, “priority metrics” include a “time in range” of greater than 70% from 14 days of active use. Targets for mean glucose should be individualized, with glycemic variability 36% or lower.

Further specific CGM target metrics are given for people with type 1 diabetes, older/high risk individuals, and for pregnant women. The recommendations align with those issued in a 2019 joint consensus statement on CGM time-in-range endorsed by several organizations, including AACE.    

In response to an audience question about whether AACE is advising that time-in-range replace A1c for glycemia assessment, Dr. Sherr responded: “I think currently we’re not in a position where we can completely replace A1c with time in range. However, I’m hopeful that in future years we’ll see further data gathered ... to allow for that recommendation to occur.”

For now, she said, “What we really want to hone in on in the guidelines is that time-in-range and use of CGM truly allow clinicians to better understand how to optimize care for their persons with diabetes. It gives us a better picture. It’s not just a number of whether we’re hitting target. It tells us whether we need to attack time above range or time below range. So we really think it’s critical for clinical care.”

The document also provides specifics about real-time versus intermittently scanned CGM and use of diagnostic/professional CGM.

The “insulin delivery technologies” section covers use of connected pens, insulin pumps without CGM, insulin pumps with separate CGM, and the more advanced combined insulin pump-CGM systems including those with low-glucose suspend, predictive low-glucose suspend, and hybrid closed-loops (sometimes called the artificial pancreas).

In general, these automated insulin delivery systems (artificial pancreas), “are strongly recommended for all persons with [type 1 diabetes], since their use has been shown to increase time in range, especially in the overnight period, without causing an increased risk of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Sherr observed.
 

Other tech topics: Apps, telemedicine, and safety

The new guidelines say that “clinically validated” smartphone apps should be recommended to help teach or reinforce diabetes self-management skills and provide support and encouragement for healthy behaviors around food and exercise.

Dr. Grunberger pointed out: “As we know, there are tons of apps out there, and patients are using them. The problem is that very few of them have actually been validated in clinical trials in published peer-reviewed [journals].”

He recommended a joint statement on diabetes apps from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes that was initially discussed at the 2019 EASD meeting, as reported by this news organization, and subsequently published in January 2020 in Diabetes Care and Diabetologia.

“Telemedicine, including periodic phone calls, smartphone-web interactions ... by health care professionals ... is strongly recommended to treat persons with diabetes, provide diabetes education, remotely monitor glucose and/or insulin data to indicate the need for therapy adjustments, and improve diabetes-related outcomes/control with better engagement,” the document says.

Safety concerns addressed include the issue of certain medications interfering with CGM [readings] ... including acetaminophen, high-dose vitamin C, and hydroxyurea, as well as cautions about what to do in the event of device malfunction and assessing that the patient is sufficiently trained in proper device use. Criteria for insulin pump discontinuation are also given.
 

Implementation: Who will be prescribing? ‘This is not for amateurs’

A final section on implementation recommends that “initiation and use of diabetes technology should be implemented by health care professionals who are trained, committed, and experienced to prescribe and direct the use of these tools. Clinicians should have the infrastructure to support the needs of persons with diabetes using the technology.”

Dr. Grunberger commented: “I think the key is going to be who should be doing this? What is the role of a clinical endocrinologist in the future? What is our responsibility, [since] we don’t have the manpower and womanpower to take care of all these people as these technologies advance? It’s our responsibility to provide these hopefully valued recommendations as a resource for those who want to know more about it.”

However, he noted, “This is not for amateurs. If you want to actually use this in your practice, you need the infrastructure, the expertise, the training, the dedication, and the energy to be there for the patients all the time ... This clinical practice guideline is a foundation.”

Dr. Sherr added: “To me, it’s really thinking about ... changing our mindset from who is an appropriate candidate to who can benefit and how vast a group that entails ... I’m hopeful that we will see more technology use through continued conversations with our patients with diabetes, and hopefully through more clinicians being excited to be part of this revolution.”

Dr. Grunberger has reported being on speakers bureaus for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott. Dr. Sherr has reported being a consultant and speaker for Lilly and Medtronic Diabetes, a consultant for Insulet and Sanofi, and on advisory boards for Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Insulet, JDRF T1D fund, and Medtronic.

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

A subcutaneous dose of the second-generation glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor RUC-4 achieved rapid dose-dependent platelet inhibition in patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) undergoing stenting in the CEL-02 study.

Platelet inhibition occurred within 15 minutes among the 27 patients, and wore off rapidly, with almost 50% of platelet function recovered within 122 minutes.

The drug was well tolerated, with no thrombocytopenia in the first 72 hours after administration, one injection-site reaction, and two major bleeds likely caused by catheter-based trauma to the proximal radial artery, reported Jurrien ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.

The results were reported during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021) and published simultaneously in EuroIntervention.

Dr. ten Berg noted that there is a need for drugs like RUC-4 in the early treatment of STEMI because oral P2Y12 inhibitors have a “seriously delayed” onset by about 2-4 hours. Prehospital use of the glycoprotein inhibitor (GPI) tirofiban was shown to improve reperfusion and late outcomes in the ON-TIME 2 trial, but GPIs require continuous intravenous administration and are associated with thrombocytopenia.

“Since RUC-4 is unique among small-molecule GPI in not inducing the receptor to undergo a major conformational change that has been implicated in the development of thrombocytopenia, it is possible that RUC-4 may be associated with fewer episodes of thrombocytopenia than current GPI,” the authors wrote.

RUC-4, also called zalunfiban, can be delivered with a single subcutaneous dose and, in a phase 1 study, demonstrated platelet inhibition within 15 minutes and was well tolerated up to a dose of 0.075 mg/kg among healthy volunteers and patients with stable coronary artery disease on aspirin.

In the CEL-02 study, 27 STEMI patients received a weight-adjusted subcutaneous injection of RUC-4 before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in escalating doses of 0.075 mg/kg, 0.090 mg/kg, and 0.110 mg/kg. Patients were given standard treatment in the ambulance, which included aspirin (93%), ticagrelor (93%), and unfractionated heparin (96%). The activated clotting time was less than 200 seconds in 92% of patients who received additional heparin during cardiac catheterization.

The patients’ mean age was 62 years, 26% were women, and 96% were White. Pharmacodynamic data were available for 24 patients.

The average platelet inhibition 15 minutes after the injection was 77.5%, 87.5%, and 91.7%, respectively, for the three escalating doses (P = .002 for trend).

The primary endpoint of at least 77% inhibition of the iso-TRAP channel – which corresponds to 80% inhibition of light transmission aggregometry stimulated by 20 mcM adenosine diphosphate within 15 minutes – was achieved in three of eight patients at the lowest dose and in seven of eight patients at the middle and highest doses.

“Single-dose subcutaneous RUC-4 induces a fast, potent dose-dependent response of platelet inhibition in patients with STEMI presenting for primary PCI,” Dr. ten Berg concluded. “It is therefore promising for prehospital platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, and the results support further research on clinical benefit.”

The double-blind, randomized phase 2b CELEBRATE trial is underway, evaluating 1,668 STEMI patients treated with a 0.110 mg/kg or 0.130 mg/kg dose of RUC-4 or placebo in the ambulance. The coprimary outcomes are restoration of coronary artery blood flow and resolution of ST-segment deviation post-PCI/angiography. Primary completion is set for March 2023.

MDedge News

Marco Valgimigli, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that RUC-4 has “some theoretical advantages, compared with conventional IIb/IIIa inhibitors, namely the absence of thrombocytopenia which is, however, relatively rare, especially with tirofiban or eptifibatide.”

The subcutaneous approach may also offer an advantage. Yet, if the administration of RUC-4 is “to happen in the ambulance – a setting where an IV line is usually established – whether the subcutaneous versus IV administration of the treatment proves to be advantageous remains to be seen,” said Dr. Valgimigli, from Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.

“We would need to see the results of large randomized trials embracing this treatment option before a clinical decision can be made, especially considering that IIb/IIa inhibitors in the ambulance have been tested in the past but ultimately abandoned,” he said.

Limitations of the study are its open-label design, the fact that iso-TRAP channel assay data were not reported by the VeryifyNow instrument and had to be calculated from the raw data, and the fact that the timing of the RUC-4 injection immediately before PCI does not fully resemble the expected use of RUC-4 in clinical practice, where RUC-4 would be administered at the same time as the aspirin, ticagrelor, and heparin, and about an hour before PCI, ten Berg and colleagues wrote.

CeleCor Therapeutics sponsored the study and provided study materials. Dr. ten Berg reported receiving lecture or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, The Medicines Company, AccuMetrics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer, Ferrer, and Idorsia, and institutional research grants from ZonMw and AstraZeneca. Coauthor Barry S. Coller is an inventor of RUC-4 and a founder, equity holder, and consultant to CeleCor. He also receives royalties from Centocor/Janssen and the VerifyNow assays. Dr. Valgimigli has received grants from Abbott, Terumo, Medicure, and AstraZeneca, and personal fees from Abbott, Chiesi, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Terumo, Alvimedica, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and Idorsia.

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

A subcutaneous dose of the second-generation glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor RUC-4 achieved rapid dose-dependent platelet inhibition in patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) undergoing stenting in the CEL-02 study.

Platelet inhibition occurred within 15 minutes among the 27 patients, and wore off rapidly, with almost 50% of platelet function recovered within 122 minutes.

The drug was well tolerated, with no thrombocytopenia in the first 72 hours after administration, one injection-site reaction, and two major bleeds likely caused by catheter-based trauma to the proximal radial artery, reported Jurrien ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.

The results were reported during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021) and published simultaneously in EuroIntervention.

Dr. ten Berg noted that there is a need for drugs like RUC-4 in the early treatment of STEMI because oral P2Y12 inhibitors have a “seriously delayed” onset by about 2-4 hours. Prehospital use of the glycoprotein inhibitor (GPI) tirofiban was shown to improve reperfusion and late outcomes in the ON-TIME 2 trial, but GPIs require continuous intravenous administration and are associated with thrombocytopenia.

“Since RUC-4 is unique among small-molecule GPI in not inducing the receptor to undergo a major conformational change that has been implicated in the development of thrombocytopenia, it is possible that RUC-4 may be associated with fewer episodes of thrombocytopenia than current GPI,” the authors wrote.

RUC-4, also called zalunfiban, can be delivered with a single subcutaneous dose and, in a phase 1 study, demonstrated platelet inhibition within 15 minutes and was well tolerated up to a dose of 0.075 mg/kg among healthy volunteers and patients with stable coronary artery disease on aspirin.

In the CEL-02 study, 27 STEMI patients received a weight-adjusted subcutaneous injection of RUC-4 before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in escalating doses of 0.075 mg/kg, 0.090 mg/kg, and 0.110 mg/kg. Patients were given standard treatment in the ambulance, which included aspirin (93%), ticagrelor (93%), and unfractionated heparin (96%). The activated clotting time was less than 200 seconds in 92% of patients who received additional heparin during cardiac catheterization.

The patients’ mean age was 62 years, 26% were women, and 96% were White. Pharmacodynamic data were available for 24 patients.

The average platelet inhibition 15 minutes after the injection was 77.5%, 87.5%, and 91.7%, respectively, for the three escalating doses (P = .002 for trend).

The primary endpoint of at least 77% inhibition of the iso-TRAP channel – which corresponds to 80% inhibition of light transmission aggregometry stimulated by 20 mcM adenosine diphosphate within 15 minutes – was achieved in three of eight patients at the lowest dose and in seven of eight patients at the middle and highest doses.

“Single-dose subcutaneous RUC-4 induces a fast, potent dose-dependent response of platelet inhibition in patients with STEMI presenting for primary PCI,” Dr. ten Berg concluded. “It is therefore promising for prehospital platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, and the results support further research on clinical benefit.”

The double-blind, randomized phase 2b CELEBRATE trial is underway, evaluating 1,668 STEMI patients treated with a 0.110 mg/kg or 0.130 mg/kg dose of RUC-4 or placebo in the ambulance. The coprimary outcomes are restoration of coronary artery blood flow and resolution of ST-segment deviation post-PCI/angiography. Primary completion is set for March 2023.

MDedge News

Marco Valgimigli, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that RUC-4 has “some theoretical advantages, compared with conventional IIb/IIIa inhibitors, namely the absence of thrombocytopenia which is, however, relatively rare, especially with tirofiban or eptifibatide.”

The subcutaneous approach may also offer an advantage. Yet, if the administration of RUC-4 is “to happen in the ambulance – a setting where an IV line is usually established – whether the subcutaneous versus IV administration of the treatment proves to be advantageous remains to be seen,” said Dr. Valgimigli, from Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.

“We would need to see the results of large randomized trials embracing this treatment option before a clinical decision can be made, especially considering that IIb/IIa inhibitors in the ambulance have been tested in the past but ultimately abandoned,” he said.

Limitations of the study are its open-label design, the fact that iso-TRAP channel assay data were not reported by the VeryifyNow instrument and had to be calculated from the raw data, and the fact that the timing of the RUC-4 injection immediately before PCI does not fully resemble the expected use of RUC-4 in clinical practice, where RUC-4 would be administered at the same time as the aspirin, ticagrelor, and heparin, and about an hour before PCI, ten Berg and colleagues wrote.

CeleCor Therapeutics sponsored the study and provided study materials. Dr. ten Berg reported receiving lecture or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, The Medicines Company, AccuMetrics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer, Ferrer, and Idorsia, and institutional research grants from ZonMw and AstraZeneca. Coauthor Barry S. Coller is an inventor of RUC-4 and a founder, equity holder, and consultant to CeleCor. He also receives royalties from Centocor/Janssen and the VerifyNow assays. Dr. Valgimigli has received grants from Abbott, Terumo, Medicure, and AstraZeneca, and personal fees from Abbott, Chiesi, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Terumo, Alvimedica, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and Idorsia.

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

A subcutaneous dose of the second-generation glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor RUC-4 achieved rapid dose-dependent platelet inhibition in patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) undergoing stenting in the CEL-02 study.

Platelet inhibition occurred within 15 minutes among the 27 patients, and wore off rapidly, with almost 50% of platelet function recovered within 122 minutes.

The drug was well tolerated, with no thrombocytopenia in the first 72 hours after administration, one injection-site reaction, and two major bleeds likely caused by catheter-based trauma to the proximal radial artery, reported Jurrien ten Berg, MD, PhD, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.

The results were reported during the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR 2021) and published simultaneously in EuroIntervention.

Dr. ten Berg noted that there is a need for drugs like RUC-4 in the early treatment of STEMI because oral P2Y12 inhibitors have a “seriously delayed” onset by about 2-4 hours. Prehospital use of the glycoprotein inhibitor (GPI) tirofiban was shown to improve reperfusion and late outcomes in the ON-TIME 2 trial, but GPIs require continuous intravenous administration and are associated with thrombocytopenia.

“Since RUC-4 is unique among small-molecule GPI in not inducing the receptor to undergo a major conformational change that has been implicated in the development of thrombocytopenia, it is possible that RUC-4 may be associated with fewer episodes of thrombocytopenia than current GPI,” the authors wrote.

RUC-4, also called zalunfiban, can be delivered with a single subcutaneous dose and, in a phase 1 study, demonstrated platelet inhibition within 15 minutes and was well tolerated up to a dose of 0.075 mg/kg among healthy volunteers and patients with stable coronary artery disease on aspirin.

In the CEL-02 study, 27 STEMI patients received a weight-adjusted subcutaneous injection of RUC-4 before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in escalating doses of 0.075 mg/kg, 0.090 mg/kg, and 0.110 mg/kg. Patients were given standard treatment in the ambulance, which included aspirin (93%), ticagrelor (93%), and unfractionated heparin (96%). The activated clotting time was less than 200 seconds in 92% of patients who received additional heparin during cardiac catheterization.

The patients’ mean age was 62 years, 26% were women, and 96% were White. Pharmacodynamic data were available for 24 patients.

The average platelet inhibition 15 minutes after the injection was 77.5%, 87.5%, and 91.7%, respectively, for the three escalating doses (P = .002 for trend).

The primary endpoint of at least 77% inhibition of the iso-TRAP channel – which corresponds to 80% inhibition of light transmission aggregometry stimulated by 20 mcM adenosine diphosphate within 15 minutes – was achieved in three of eight patients at the lowest dose and in seven of eight patients at the middle and highest doses.

“Single-dose subcutaneous RUC-4 induces a fast, potent dose-dependent response of platelet inhibition in patients with STEMI presenting for primary PCI,” Dr. ten Berg concluded. “It is therefore promising for prehospital platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, and the results support further research on clinical benefit.”

The double-blind, randomized phase 2b CELEBRATE trial is underway, evaluating 1,668 STEMI patients treated with a 0.110 mg/kg or 0.130 mg/kg dose of RUC-4 or placebo in the ambulance. The coprimary outcomes are restoration of coronary artery blood flow and resolution of ST-segment deviation post-PCI/angiography. Primary completion is set for March 2023.

MDedge News

Marco Valgimigli, MD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that RUC-4 has “some theoretical advantages, compared with conventional IIb/IIIa inhibitors, namely the absence of thrombocytopenia which is, however, relatively rare, especially with tirofiban or eptifibatide.”

The subcutaneous approach may also offer an advantage. Yet, if the administration of RUC-4 is “to happen in the ambulance – a setting where an IV line is usually established – whether the subcutaneous versus IV administration of the treatment proves to be advantageous remains to be seen,” said Dr. Valgimigli, from Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, Lugano, Switzerland.

“We would need to see the results of large randomized trials embracing this treatment option before a clinical decision can be made, especially considering that IIb/IIa inhibitors in the ambulance have been tested in the past but ultimately abandoned,” he said.

Limitations of the study are its open-label design, the fact that iso-TRAP channel assay data were not reported by the VeryifyNow instrument and had to be calculated from the raw data, and the fact that the timing of the RUC-4 injection immediately before PCI does not fully resemble the expected use of RUC-4 in clinical practice, where RUC-4 would be administered at the same time as the aspirin, ticagrelor, and heparin, and about an hour before PCI, ten Berg and colleagues wrote.

CeleCor Therapeutics sponsored the study and provided study materials. Dr. ten Berg reported receiving lecture or consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, The Medicines Company, AccuMetrics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer, Ferrer, and Idorsia, and institutional research grants from ZonMw and AstraZeneca. Coauthor Barry S. Coller is an inventor of RUC-4 and a founder, equity holder, and consultant to CeleCor. He also receives royalties from Centocor/Janssen and the VerifyNow assays. Dr. Valgimigli has received grants from Abbott, Terumo, Medicure, and AstraZeneca, and personal fees from Abbott, Chiesi, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Terumo, Alvimedica, AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and Idorsia.

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