Conference Coverage

Within a multidrug therapeutic regimen to control acne in patients with relatively dark skin, chemical peels should be considered to reduce the time to an acceptable cosmetic result, according to an expert, who cited both published data and empirical experience at the virtual Skin of Color Update 2020.

Because of the risk of exacerbating hyperpigmentation, superficial peels must be used judiciously, but “peels do add some benefit in terms of resolving the hyperpigmentation more rapidly,” Andrew Alexis, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at Mount Sinai Morningside and Mount Sinai West, New York, said at the meeting.

Addressing hyperpigmentation in skin of color is a critical goal. For many patients, the postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) that accompanies acne in Fitzpatrick skin types IV or higher imposes a greater burden than the acne itself.

“PIH is one of the driving forces among patients with darker skin coming to a dermatologist,” said Dr. Alexis, who is also professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Patients often describe these hyperpigmented macules as scars, and they are concerned that they are not reversible.”

In darker skin, the combination of treatments used for acne should address the pathogenic factors that contribute to acne and PIH at the same time, according to Dr. Alexis. He advised describing the goals and the timeline of acne and PIH resolution at the very first visit.

Of these two goals, resolution of PIH is often the more challenging. First-line topical retinoids have anti-inflammatory effects, but Dr. Alexis suggested that additional agents, such as topical antibiotics, topical dapsone, and benzoyl peroxide, are commonly needed to fully control inflammation.

“Topical retinoids serve as the foundation of acne treatment, especially in skin of color due to their dual action on acne and PIH,” he said. However, he added that this needs support with a “well-rounded combination therapy to address as many pathogenic factors as possible.”

One of these factors is subclinical inflammation. Citing studies first initiated at Howard University, Washington, Dr. Alexis said there are now compelling data showing T lymphocyte infiltration and increased expression of proinflammatory cytokines even in clinically uninvolved skin in acne patients with darker skin.

In patients with significant PIH, he considers oral antibiotics for their systemic anti-inflammatory effects, singling out sarecycline as a narrow-spectrum agent with a potent effect on Cutibacterium acnes. This tetracycline, a relatively recent addition to acne treatment options, has specifically been shown to be “superior to placebo across a diverse patient population” that includes those with darker skin tones.

“Another addition that can be leveraged for anti-inflammatory effects is topical minocycline foam. This has also been studied in diverse patient populations and shown to be superior to vehicle,” Dr. Alexis said.

For acne, the response to most of these therapies is relatively rapid, but control of PIH takes longer. After resolution of acne, he considers superficial chemical peels to speed the healing of PIH.

In a small randomized trial he cited, superficial glycolic acid peel added to a modified Kligman formula (hydroquinone 2%, tretinoin 0.05%, and hydrocortisone 1%) provided significantly lower scores in the mean Hyperpigmentation Area and Severity Index at 12 weeks (P = .004) and 21 weeks (P < .001 relative to the Kligman formula alone). Dr. Alexis said he has had the same clinical experience with chemical peels

For many acne patients with darker skin, good results are achieved after four weeks on a multidrug combination with a topical retinoid backbone. One week after stopping the combination, the superficial chemical peel can be started at a very low dose on an every-other-night schedule. If tolerated, the dose can be slowly increased.

Slow up-titration of all topical agents in skin of color, not just superficial chemical peels, is prudent, according to Dr. Alexis. For patients new to retinoids, he also recommended every-other-night dosing to avoid the irritation that might exacerbate PIH. He said the risks of adverse reactions come early. “We need to hold the hands of our patients through the first 2 weeks. Warn of dryness and pealing. Recommend moisturizers and keep the doses low.”

The benefits and risks of acne treatment are different in dark relative to light skin, Dr. Alexis emphasized. He added that a measured approach that includes specific strategies for PIH delivers results.

Providing treatment with a strategy that addresses both acne and PIH, he said, “we can have excellent outcomes time and time again for acne in patients with darker skin types.”

There is an evidence basis for making effective treatment of PIH a specific goal in the treatment of acne. In a study that evaluated the psychosocial impact of PIH in 50 patients with acne, 54% responded that PIH was a source of embarrassment. The study was one of the first to evaluate the impact of PIH as a separate source of impaired quality of life in acne patients.

“To improve the patient’s quality of life, the dermatologist should treat acne and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation at the same time,” said Katlein Franca, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology, University of Miami.

In particular, Dr. Franca, who led the PIH study, suggested that PIH, like acne, is a source of low self-esteem. In regard to PIH, “most patients feel embarrassed about the spots,” she said in an interview.

“Strategies to hide the hyperpigmented spots include the use of makeup and even different hairstyles to cover the affected areas,” she added, indicating that treatments provided to clear PIH as well as acne can remove a source of stress and threat to a sense of well-being.

Dr. Alexis reports financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including those that make acne drugs.

Within a multidrug therapeutic regimen to control acne in patients with relatively dark skin, chemical peels should be considered to reduce the time to an acceptable cosmetic result, according to an expert, who cited both published data and empirical experience at the virtual Skin of Color Update 2020.

Because of the risk of exacerbating hyperpigmentation, superficial peels must be used judiciously, but “peels do add some benefit in terms of resolving the hyperpigmentation more rapidly,” Andrew Alexis, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at Mount Sinai Morningside and Mount Sinai West, New York, said at the meeting.

Addressing hyperpigmentation in skin of color is a critical goal. For many patients, the postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) that accompanies acne in Fitzpatrick skin types IV or higher imposes a greater burden than the acne itself.

“PIH is one of the driving forces among patients with darker skin coming to a dermatologist,” said Dr. Alexis, who is also professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Patients often describe these hyperpigmented macules as scars, and they are concerned that they are not reversible.”

In darker skin, the combination of treatments used for acne should address the pathogenic factors that contribute to acne and PIH at the same time, according to Dr. Alexis. He advised describing the goals and the timeline of acne and PIH resolution at the very first visit.

Of these two goals, resolution of PIH is often the more challenging. First-line topical retinoids have anti-inflammatory effects, but Dr. Alexis suggested that additional agents, such as topical antibiotics, topical dapsone, and benzoyl peroxide, are commonly needed to fully control inflammation.

“Topical retinoids serve as the foundation of acne treatment, especially in skin of color due to their dual action on acne and PIH,” he said. However, he added that this needs support with a “well-rounded combination therapy to address as many pathogenic factors as possible.”

One of these factors is subclinical inflammation. Citing studies first initiated at Howard University, Washington, Dr. Alexis said there are now compelling data showing T lymphocyte infiltration and increased expression of proinflammatory cytokines even in clinically uninvolved skin in acne patients with darker skin.

In patients with significant PIH, he considers oral antibiotics for their systemic anti-inflammatory effects, singling out sarecycline as a narrow-spectrum agent with a potent effect on Cutibacterium acnes. This tetracycline, a relatively recent addition to acne treatment options, has specifically been shown to be “superior to placebo across a diverse patient population” that includes those with darker skin tones.

“Another addition that can be leveraged for anti-inflammatory effects is topical minocycline foam. This has also been studied in diverse patient populations and shown to be superior to vehicle,” Dr. Alexis said.

For acne, the response to most of these therapies is relatively rapid, but control of PIH takes longer. After resolution of acne, he considers superficial chemical peels to speed the healing of PIH.

In a small randomized trial he cited, superficial glycolic acid peel added to a modified Kligman formula (hydroquinone 2%, tretinoin 0.05%, and hydrocortisone 1%) provided significantly lower scores in the mean Hyperpigmentation Area and Severity Index at 12 weeks (P = .004) and 21 weeks (P < .001 relative to the Kligman formula alone). Dr. Alexis said he has had the same clinical experience with chemical peels

For many acne patients with darker skin, good results are achieved after four weeks on a multidrug combination with a topical retinoid backbone. One week after stopping the combination, the superficial chemical peel can be started at a very low dose on an every-other-night schedule. If tolerated, the dose can be slowly increased.

Slow up-titration of all topical agents in skin of color, not just superficial chemical peels, is prudent, according to Dr. Alexis. For patients new to retinoids, he also recommended every-other-night dosing to avoid the irritation that might exacerbate PIH. He said the risks of adverse reactions come early. “We need to hold the hands of our patients through the first 2 weeks. Warn of dryness and pealing. Recommend moisturizers and keep the doses low.”

The benefits and risks of acne treatment are different in dark relative to light skin, Dr. Alexis emphasized. He added that a measured approach that includes specific strategies for PIH delivers results.

Providing treatment with a strategy that addresses both acne and PIH, he said, “we can have excellent outcomes time and time again for acne in patients with darker skin types.”

There is an evidence basis for making effective treatment of PIH a specific goal in the treatment of acne. In a study that evaluated the psychosocial impact of PIH in 50 patients with acne, 54% responded that PIH was a source of embarrassment. The study was one of the first to evaluate the impact of PIH as a separate source of impaired quality of life in acne patients.

“To improve the patient’s quality of life, the dermatologist should treat acne and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation at the same time,” said Katlein Franca, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology, University of Miami.

In particular, Dr. Franca, who led the PIH study, suggested that PIH, like acne, is a source of low self-esteem. In regard to PIH, “most patients feel embarrassed about the spots,” she said in an interview.

“Strategies to hide the hyperpigmented spots include the use of makeup and even different hairstyles to cover the affected areas,” she added, indicating that treatments provided to clear PIH as well as acne can remove a source of stress and threat to a sense of well-being.

Dr. Alexis reports financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including those that make acne drugs.

Within a multidrug therapeutic regimen to control acne in patients with relatively dark skin, chemical peels should be considered to reduce the time to an acceptable cosmetic result, according to an expert, who cited both published data and empirical experience at the virtual Skin of Color Update 2020.

Because of the risk of exacerbating hyperpigmentation, superficial peels must be used judiciously, but “peels do add some benefit in terms of resolving the hyperpigmentation more rapidly,” Andrew Alexis, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at Mount Sinai Morningside and Mount Sinai West, New York, said at the meeting.

Addressing hyperpigmentation in skin of color is a critical goal. For many patients, the postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) that accompanies acne in Fitzpatrick skin types IV or higher imposes a greater burden than the acne itself.

“PIH is one of the driving forces among patients with darker skin coming to a dermatologist,” said Dr. Alexis, who is also professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Patients often describe these hyperpigmented macules as scars, and they are concerned that they are not reversible.”

In darker skin, the combination of treatments used for acne should address the pathogenic factors that contribute to acne and PIH at the same time, according to Dr. Alexis. He advised describing the goals and the timeline of acne and PIH resolution at the very first visit.

Of these two goals, resolution of PIH is often the more challenging. First-line topical retinoids have anti-inflammatory effects, but Dr. Alexis suggested that additional agents, such as topical antibiotics, topical dapsone, and benzoyl peroxide, are commonly needed to fully control inflammation.

“Topical retinoids serve as the foundation of acne treatment, especially in skin of color due to their dual action on acne and PIH,” he said. However, he added that this needs support with a “well-rounded combination therapy to address as many pathogenic factors as possible.”

One of these factors is subclinical inflammation. Citing studies first initiated at Howard University, Washington, Dr. Alexis said there are now compelling data showing T lymphocyte infiltration and increased expression of proinflammatory cytokines even in clinically uninvolved skin in acne patients with darker skin.

In patients with significant PIH, he considers oral antibiotics for their systemic anti-inflammatory effects, singling out sarecycline as a narrow-spectrum agent with a potent effect on Cutibacterium acnes. This tetracycline, a relatively recent addition to acne treatment options, has specifically been shown to be “superior to placebo across a diverse patient population” that includes those with darker skin tones.

“Another addition that can be leveraged for anti-inflammatory effects is topical minocycline foam. This has also been studied in diverse patient populations and shown to be superior to vehicle,” Dr. Alexis said.

For acne, the response to most of these therapies is relatively rapid, but control of PIH takes longer. After resolution of acne, he considers superficial chemical peels to speed the healing of PIH.

In a small randomized trial he cited, superficial glycolic acid peel added to a modified Kligman formula (hydroquinone 2%, tretinoin 0.05%, and hydrocortisone 1%) provided significantly lower scores in the mean Hyperpigmentation Area and Severity Index at 12 weeks (P = .004) and 21 weeks (P < .001 relative to the Kligman formula alone). Dr. Alexis said he has had the same clinical experience with chemical peels

For many acne patients with darker skin, good results are achieved after four weeks on a multidrug combination with a topical retinoid backbone. One week after stopping the combination, the superficial chemical peel can be started at a very low dose on an every-other-night schedule. If tolerated, the dose can be slowly increased.

Slow up-titration of all topical agents in skin of color, not just superficial chemical peels, is prudent, according to Dr. Alexis. For patients new to retinoids, he also recommended every-other-night dosing to avoid the irritation that might exacerbate PIH. He said the risks of adverse reactions come early. “We need to hold the hands of our patients through the first 2 weeks. Warn of dryness and pealing. Recommend moisturizers and keep the doses low.”

The benefits and risks of acne treatment are different in dark relative to light skin, Dr. Alexis emphasized. He added that a measured approach that includes specific strategies for PIH delivers results.

Providing treatment with a strategy that addresses both acne and PIH, he said, “we can have excellent outcomes time and time again for acne in patients with darker skin types.”

There is an evidence basis for making effective treatment of PIH a specific goal in the treatment of acne. In a study that evaluated the psychosocial impact of PIH in 50 patients with acne, 54% responded that PIH was a source of embarrassment. The study was one of the first to evaluate the impact of PIH as a separate source of impaired quality of life in acne patients.

“To improve the patient’s quality of life, the dermatologist should treat acne and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation at the same time,” said Katlein Franca, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology, University of Miami.

In particular, Dr. Franca, who led the PIH study, suggested that PIH, like acne, is a source of low self-esteem. In regard to PIH, “most patients feel embarrassed about the spots,” she said in an interview.

“Strategies to hide the hyperpigmented spots include the use of makeup and even different hairstyles to cover the affected areas,” she added, indicating that treatments provided to clear PIH as well as acne can remove a source of stress and threat to a sense of well-being.

Dr. Alexis reports financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including those that make acne drugs.

If you’re looking for ways to boost revenue and patient compliance to recommended treatment intervals for aesthetic procedures, consider offering subscription-based services.

According to W. Grant Stevens, MD, an estimated 73% of aesthetic patients fall short when it comes to compliance with recommended treatment intervals for toxins, fillers, and other procedures.

“When we talk about how often the average patient should be treated with Botox, for instance, we say every 3-4 months,” Dr. Stevens, founder and CEO of Marina Plastic Surgery in Marina Del Rey, Calif., said during the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. But in reality, he added, “it’s more like every 7 months.” A 2015 survey of 23 Bay Area aesthetic practices conducted by HintMD found that 73% of patients were noncompliant and that they came in fewer than 3-4 times per year for treatments. “Not only did they come in infrequently, but they oftentimes were undercorrected and the revenue was being left on the table because of discounting and undercorrection,” said Dr. Stevens, who is also a professor of surgery in the division of plastic surgery at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

On average, each patient from the 23 practices surveyed spent $601.88 on treatments 1.44 times per year, yet the industry standard for neuromodulators is 3-4 times per year and every 2 months for HydraFacials and med spa facials. “What’s the problem?” he asked “Why are we falling off? For our practices, noncompliance leads to unhappy, undertreated patients, so they may write negative reviews. In addition to that, we lose revenue.” He cited results from a 2016 focus group of aesthetic patients who were asked about the perceived barriers to treatment compliance. More than two-thirds (68%) said cost was the issue, followed by the number of treatments required (43%) and effectiveness (16%).

Three years ago, Dr. Stevens used the HintMD platform to implement a treatment plan subscription service to 472 active members of his practice. Prior to implementation, patients were coming in for treatment with toxins an average of 1.8 times per year. After implementation, that rose to an average of 3.1 times per year. “That was almost an $800 incremental average increase spent on toxins alone,” Dr. Stevens said. “More importantly, the patients were therapeutic all year long.” With toxin and filler services combined, the average increased income grew to more than $1,100 per patient, which translated into increased annual revenue of $519,200.

Dr. Stevens said that many of his patients favor subscription services because most use them in other aspects of their lives, such as with Amazon Prime, Blue Apron, and Netflix. “They like it because it is personalized and customized,” he said. “If we want to adjust the amount of toxin or filler, we can do it that very day, and it’s customized for them. It’s not a one-size-fits-all program. It also allows them to have convenient, smaller monthly payments. That’s the key. That way, they budget. So, if they’re spending $200 a month or $500 a month or $1,000 a month, it’s a convenient monthly payment.”

Dr. Stevens disclosed that he is an adviser to Viveve, Venus, Aesthetics Biomedical, Alastin, Cypris Medical, Allergan, CoolSculpting, HydraFacial, Revance, Ampersand, and HintMD.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

If you’re looking for ways to boost revenue and patient compliance to recommended treatment intervals for aesthetic procedures, consider offering subscription-based services.

According to W. Grant Stevens, MD, an estimated 73% of aesthetic patients fall short when it comes to compliance with recommended treatment intervals for toxins, fillers, and other procedures.

“When we talk about how often the average patient should be treated with Botox, for instance, we say every 3-4 months,” Dr. Stevens, founder and CEO of Marina Plastic Surgery in Marina Del Rey, Calif., said during the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. But in reality, he added, “it’s more like every 7 months.” A 2015 survey of 23 Bay Area aesthetic practices conducted by HintMD found that 73% of patients were noncompliant and that they came in fewer than 3-4 times per year for treatments. “Not only did they come in infrequently, but they oftentimes were undercorrected and the revenue was being left on the table because of discounting and undercorrection,” said Dr. Stevens, who is also a professor of surgery in the division of plastic surgery at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

On average, each patient from the 23 practices surveyed spent $601.88 on treatments 1.44 times per year, yet the industry standard for neuromodulators is 3-4 times per year and every 2 months for HydraFacials and med spa facials. “What’s the problem?” he asked “Why are we falling off? For our practices, noncompliance leads to unhappy, undertreated patients, so they may write negative reviews. In addition to that, we lose revenue.” He cited results from a 2016 focus group of aesthetic patients who were asked about the perceived barriers to treatment compliance. More than two-thirds (68%) said cost was the issue, followed by the number of treatments required (43%) and effectiveness (16%).

Three years ago, Dr. Stevens used the HintMD platform to implement a treatment plan subscription service to 472 active members of his practice. Prior to implementation, patients were coming in for treatment with toxins an average of 1.8 times per year. After implementation, that rose to an average of 3.1 times per year. “That was almost an $800 incremental average increase spent on toxins alone,” Dr. Stevens said. “More importantly, the patients were therapeutic all year long.” With toxin and filler services combined, the average increased income grew to more than $1,100 per patient, which translated into increased annual revenue of $519,200.

Dr. Stevens said that many of his patients favor subscription services because most use them in other aspects of their lives, such as with Amazon Prime, Blue Apron, and Netflix. “They like it because it is personalized and customized,” he said. “If we want to adjust the amount of toxin or filler, we can do it that very day, and it’s customized for them. It’s not a one-size-fits-all program. It also allows them to have convenient, smaller monthly payments. That’s the key. That way, they budget. So, if they’re spending $200 a month or $500 a month or $1,000 a month, it’s a convenient monthly payment.”

Dr. Stevens disclosed that he is an adviser to Viveve, Venus, Aesthetics Biomedical, Alastin, Cypris Medical, Allergan, CoolSculpting, HydraFacial, Revance, Ampersand, and HintMD.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

If you’re looking for ways to boost revenue and patient compliance to recommended treatment intervals for aesthetic procedures, consider offering subscription-based services.

According to W. Grant Stevens, MD, an estimated 73% of aesthetic patients fall short when it comes to compliance with recommended treatment intervals for toxins, fillers, and other procedures.

“When we talk about how often the average patient should be treated with Botox, for instance, we say every 3-4 months,” Dr. Stevens, founder and CEO of Marina Plastic Surgery in Marina Del Rey, Calif., said during the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium. But in reality, he added, “it’s more like every 7 months.” A 2015 survey of 23 Bay Area aesthetic practices conducted by HintMD found that 73% of patients were noncompliant and that they came in fewer than 3-4 times per year for treatments. “Not only did they come in infrequently, but they oftentimes were undercorrected and the revenue was being left on the table because of discounting and undercorrection,” said Dr. Stevens, who is also a professor of surgery in the division of plastic surgery at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

On average, each patient from the 23 practices surveyed spent $601.88 on treatments 1.44 times per year, yet the industry standard for neuromodulators is 3-4 times per year and every 2 months for HydraFacials and med spa facials. “What’s the problem?” he asked “Why are we falling off? For our practices, noncompliance leads to unhappy, undertreated patients, so they may write negative reviews. In addition to that, we lose revenue.” He cited results from a 2016 focus group of aesthetic patients who were asked about the perceived barriers to treatment compliance. More than two-thirds (68%) said cost was the issue, followed by the number of treatments required (43%) and effectiveness (16%).

Three years ago, Dr. Stevens used the HintMD platform to implement a treatment plan subscription service to 472 active members of his practice. Prior to implementation, patients were coming in for treatment with toxins an average of 1.8 times per year. After implementation, that rose to an average of 3.1 times per year. “That was almost an $800 incremental average increase spent on toxins alone,” Dr. Stevens said. “More importantly, the patients were therapeutic all year long.” With toxin and filler services combined, the average increased income grew to more than $1,100 per patient, which translated into increased annual revenue of $519,200.

Dr. Stevens said that many of his patients favor subscription services because most use them in other aspects of their lives, such as with Amazon Prime, Blue Apron, and Netflix. “They like it because it is personalized and customized,” he said. “If we want to adjust the amount of toxin or filler, we can do it that very day, and it’s customized for them. It’s not a one-size-fits-all program. It also allows them to have convenient, smaller monthly payments. That’s the key. That way, they budget. So, if they’re spending $200 a month or $500 a month or $1,000 a month, it’s a convenient monthly payment.”

Dr. Stevens disclosed that he is an adviser to Viveve, Venus, Aesthetics Biomedical, Alastin, Cypris Medical, Allergan, CoolSculpting, HydraFacial, Revance, Ampersand, and HintMD.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Compelling advances in the ability to detect signs of consciousness in unconscious patients who have experienced traumatic brain injury (TBI) are leading to unprecedented changes in the field. There is now hope of improving outcomes and even sparing lives of patients who may otherwise have been mistakenly assessed as having no chance of recovery.

A recent key study represents a tipping point in the mounting evidence of the ability to detect “covert consciousness” in patients with TBI who are in an unconscious state. That research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in June 2019, linked the promising signals of consciousness in comatose patients, detected only on imaging, with remarkable outcomes a year later.

“This was a landmark study,” said Brian L. Edlow, MD, in a presentation on the issue of covert consciousness at the virtual annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

“Importantly, it is the first compelling evidence that early detection of covert consciousness also predicts 1-year outcomes in the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE), showing that covert consciousness in the ICU appears to be relevant for predicting long-term outcomes,” said Dr. Edlow, who is associate director of the Center for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery, Massachusetts General Hospital, in Boston.

The researchers showed that 15% of unconscious patients with acute brain injury in the study exhibited significant brain activity on EEG in response to stimuli that included verbal commands such as envisioning that they are playing tennis.

Although other studies have shown similar effects with task-based stimuli, the New England Journal of Medicine study further showed that a year later, the patients who had shown signs of covert consciousness, also called “cognitive motor dissociation” (CMD), were significantly more likely to have a good functional outcome, said the study’s senior author, Jan Claassen, MD, director of critical care neurology at Columbia University, New York, who also presented at the ANA session.

“Importantly, a year later after injury, we found that 44% of patients with CMD and only 14% of non-CMD patients had a good functional outcome, defined as a GOSE score indicating a state where they can at least take care of themselves for 8 hours in a day,” he said.

“[Whether] these patients in a CMD state represent a parallel state or a transitory state on the road to recovery remains to be shown,” he said.

Jennifer Frontera, MD, a professor in the department of neurology at NYU Langone Health in New York and comoderator of the session, agreed that the research is “remarkable.”

“Also,” she said, “it is practical, since many could potentially apply and validate his algorithms, since EEG technology is portable and widely available.”
 

Research has ushered in a ‘sea change’ in neurocritical care

The research has helped push forward recommendations on the treatment of unconscious patients, Dr. Edlow said. “This has led to a sea change in our field just over the last 2 years, with multiple guidelines published suggesting that it may be time for us to consider incorporating task-based fMRI and EEG techniques into our clinical assessment of patients with disorders of consciousness,” Dr. Edlow said.

Among those updating their recommendations was the American Academy of Neurology, which revised guidelines on practice parameters for patients in a persistent vegetative state. Those guidelines had not been updated since 1995.

Although concluding that “no diagnostic assessment procedure had moderate or strong evidence for use,” the guidelines acknowledge that “it is possible that a positive electromyographic (EMG) response to command, EEG reactivity to sensory stimuli, laser-evoked potentials, and the Perturbational Complexity Index can distinguish a minimally conscious state from vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS).”

Earlier this year, the European Academy of Neurology followed suit with updated guidelines of its own. In the EAN guideline, the academy’s Panel on Coma, Disorders of Consciousness recommends that task-based fMRI, EEG, and other advanced assessments be performed as part of a composite assessment of consciousness and that a patient’s best performance or highest level of consciousness on any of those tests should be a reflection of their diagnosis, Dr. Edlow explained.

“What this means is that our field is moving toward a multimodal assessment of consciousness in the ICU as well as beyond, in the subacute to chronic setting, whereby the behavioral exam, advanced DG, and advanced MRI methods all also contribute to the diagnosis of consciousness,” he said.

The standard for assessment of disorders of consciousness is the Coma Recovery Scale–Revised, with a 25-item scale for diagnosis, prediction of outcome, and assessment of potential treatment efficacy.

But much uncertainty can remain despite the assessment, Dr. Claassen said. “Behavioral assessments of patients with acute brain injury are challenging because examinations fluctuate, and there’s variability between assessors,” he said. “Nevertheless, patients and their families demand guidance from us.”

Dr. Edlow pointed out that the largest study to date of the causes of death among patients with TBI in the ICU underscores the need for better assessments.

The study of more than 600 patients at six level l trauma centers in Canada showed that 70% of patients who died in the ICU from TBI did so as the result of the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. However, only about a half (57%) had an unreactive pupil, and only about a quarter (23.7%) had evidence of herniation on CT, findings that are commonly associated with a poor prognosis.

“What emerges from this is that the manner in which the clinicians communicated the prognosis to families was a primary determinant of decisions to withdraw life-sustaining therapy,” Dr. Edlow said.
 

Negative response not necessarily conclusive

Dr. Edlow added a word of caution that the science is still far from perfect. He noted that, for 25% of healthy patients who are given a motor imagery task, neuroimaging might not show a response, implying that the lack of a signal may not be conclusive.

He described the case of a patient who was comatose at the time she was scanned on day 3 after injury and who showed no responses to language, music, or motor imagery during the MRI, yet a year later, she was functionally independent, back in the workforce, and had very few residual symptoms from her trauma.

“So if a patient does not show a response, that does not prove the patient is not conscious, and it does not prove that the patient is likely to have a poor outcome,” Dr. Edlow said. Such cases underscore the need for more advances in understanding the inner workings of brain injury.

Dr. Edlow and his colleagues are embarking on a trial of the effects of intravenous methylphenidate in targeting the stimulation of dopaminergic circuits within the subcortical ascending arousal network in patients with severe brain injuries.

“The scientific premise of the trial is that personalized brain network mapping in the ICU can identify patients whose connectomes are amenable to neuromodulation,” Dr. Edlow and his colleague report in an article in Neurocritical Care.

The trial, called STIMPACT (Stimulant Therapy Targeted to Individualized Connectivity Maps to Promote ReACTivation of Consciousness), is part of the newly launched Connectome-based Clinical Trial Platform, which the authors describe as “a new paradigm for developing and testing targeted therapies that promote early recovery of consciousness in the ICU.”

Such efforts are essential, given the high stakes of TBI outcomes, Dr. Edlow said.

“Let’s be clear about the stakes of an incorrect prognosis,” he said. “If we’re overly pessimistic, then a patient who could have potential for meaningful recovery will likely die in our ICU. On the other hand, if we are overly optimistic, then a patient could end up in a vegetative or minimally conscious state that he or she may never have found to be acceptable,” he said.
 

Access to technologies a ‘civil right?’

Some ethicists in the field are recommending that patients be given access to the advanced techniques as a civil right, similar to the rights described in the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, which was adopted by the United Nations in 2008, Dr. Edlow noted.

“So the question that we as clinicians are going to face moving forward from an ethical standpoint is, if we have access to these techniques, is it an ethical obligation to offer them now?” he said.

Dr. Edlow underscored the need to consider the reality that “there are profound issues relating to resource allocation and access to these advanced techniques, but we’re going to have to consider this together as we move forward.”

Dr. Edlow has received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Claassen is a minority shareholder with ICE Neurosystems. Dr. Frontera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Compelling advances in the ability to detect signs of consciousness in unconscious patients who have experienced traumatic brain injury (TBI) are leading to unprecedented changes in the field. There is now hope of improving outcomes and even sparing lives of patients who may otherwise have been mistakenly assessed as having no chance of recovery.

A recent key study represents a tipping point in the mounting evidence of the ability to detect “covert consciousness” in patients with TBI who are in an unconscious state. That research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in June 2019, linked the promising signals of consciousness in comatose patients, detected only on imaging, with remarkable outcomes a year later.

“This was a landmark study,” said Brian L. Edlow, MD, in a presentation on the issue of covert consciousness at the virtual annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

“Importantly, it is the first compelling evidence that early detection of covert consciousness also predicts 1-year outcomes in the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE), showing that covert consciousness in the ICU appears to be relevant for predicting long-term outcomes,” said Dr. Edlow, who is associate director of the Center for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery, Massachusetts General Hospital, in Boston.

The researchers showed that 15% of unconscious patients with acute brain injury in the study exhibited significant brain activity on EEG in response to stimuli that included verbal commands such as envisioning that they are playing tennis.

Although other studies have shown similar effects with task-based stimuli, the New England Journal of Medicine study further showed that a year later, the patients who had shown signs of covert consciousness, also called “cognitive motor dissociation” (CMD), were significantly more likely to have a good functional outcome, said the study’s senior author, Jan Claassen, MD, director of critical care neurology at Columbia University, New York, who also presented at the ANA session.

“Importantly, a year later after injury, we found that 44% of patients with CMD and only 14% of non-CMD patients had a good functional outcome, defined as a GOSE score indicating a state where they can at least take care of themselves for 8 hours in a day,” he said.

“[Whether] these patients in a CMD state represent a parallel state or a transitory state on the road to recovery remains to be shown,” he said.

Jennifer Frontera, MD, a professor in the department of neurology at NYU Langone Health in New York and comoderator of the session, agreed that the research is “remarkable.”

“Also,” she said, “it is practical, since many could potentially apply and validate his algorithms, since EEG technology is portable and widely available.”
 

Research has ushered in a ‘sea change’ in neurocritical care

The research has helped push forward recommendations on the treatment of unconscious patients, Dr. Edlow said. “This has led to a sea change in our field just over the last 2 years, with multiple guidelines published suggesting that it may be time for us to consider incorporating task-based fMRI and EEG techniques into our clinical assessment of patients with disorders of consciousness,” Dr. Edlow said.

Among those updating their recommendations was the American Academy of Neurology, which revised guidelines on practice parameters for patients in a persistent vegetative state. Those guidelines had not been updated since 1995.

Although concluding that “no diagnostic assessment procedure had moderate or strong evidence for use,” the guidelines acknowledge that “it is possible that a positive electromyographic (EMG) response to command, EEG reactivity to sensory stimuli, laser-evoked potentials, and the Perturbational Complexity Index can distinguish a minimally conscious state from vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS).”

Earlier this year, the European Academy of Neurology followed suit with updated guidelines of its own. In the EAN guideline, the academy’s Panel on Coma, Disorders of Consciousness recommends that task-based fMRI, EEG, and other advanced assessments be performed as part of a composite assessment of consciousness and that a patient’s best performance or highest level of consciousness on any of those tests should be a reflection of their diagnosis, Dr. Edlow explained.

“What this means is that our field is moving toward a multimodal assessment of consciousness in the ICU as well as beyond, in the subacute to chronic setting, whereby the behavioral exam, advanced DG, and advanced MRI methods all also contribute to the diagnosis of consciousness,” he said.

The standard for assessment of disorders of consciousness is the Coma Recovery Scale–Revised, with a 25-item scale for diagnosis, prediction of outcome, and assessment of potential treatment efficacy.

But much uncertainty can remain despite the assessment, Dr. Claassen said. “Behavioral assessments of patients with acute brain injury are challenging because examinations fluctuate, and there’s variability between assessors,” he said. “Nevertheless, patients and their families demand guidance from us.”

Dr. Edlow pointed out that the largest study to date of the causes of death among patients with TBI in the ICU underscores the need for better assessments.

The study of more than 600 patients at six level l trauma centers in Canada showed that 70% of patients who died in the ICU from TBI did so as the result of the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. However, only about a half (57%) had an unreactive pupil, and only about a quarter (23.7%) had evidence of herniation on CT, findings that are commonly associated with a poor prognosis.

“What emerges from this is that the manner in which the clinicians communicated the prognosis to families was a primary determinant of decisions to withdraw life-sustaining therapy,” Dr. Edlow said.
 

Negative response not necessarily conclusive

Dr. Edlow added a word of caution that the science is still far from perfect. He noted that, for 25% of healthy patients who are given a motor imagery task, neuroimaging might not show a response, implying that the lack of a signal may not be conclusive.

He described the case of a patient who was comatose at the time she was scanned on day 3 after injury and who showed no responses to language, music, or motor imagery during the MRI, yet a year later, she was functionally independent, back in the workforce, and had very few residual symptoms from her trauma.

“So if a patient does not show a response, that does not prove the patient is not conscious, and it does not prove that the patient is likely to have a poor outcome,” Dr. Edlow said. Such cases underscore the need for more advances in understanding the inner workings of brain injury.

Dr. Edlow and his colleagues are embarking on a trial of the effects of intravenous methylphenidate in targeting the stimulation of dopaminergic circuits within the subcortical ascending arousal network in patients with severe brain injuries.

“The scientific premise of the trial is that personalized brain network mapping in the ICU can identify patients whose connectomes are amenable to neuromodulation,” Dr. Edlow and his colleague report in an article in Neurocritical Care.

The trial, called STIMPACT (Stimulant Therapy Targeted to Individualized Connectivity Maps to Promote ReACTivation of Consciousness), is part of the newly launched Connectome-based Clinical Trial Platform, which the authors describe as “a new paradigm for developing and testing targeted therapies that promote early recovery of consciousness in the ICU.”

Such efforts are essential, given the high stakes of TBI outcomes, Dr. Edlow said.

“Let’s be clear about the stakes of an incorrect prognosis,” he said. “If we’re overly pessimistic, then a patient who could have potential for meaningful recovery will likely die in our ICU. On the other hand, if we are overly optimistic, then a patient could end up in a vegetative or minimally conscious state that he or she may never have found to be acceptable,” he said.
 

Access to technologies a ‘civil right?’

Some ethicists in the field are recommending that patients be given access to the advanced techniques as a civil right, similar to the rights described in the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, which was adopted by the United Nations in 2008, Dr. Edlow noted.

“So the question that we as clinicians are going to face moving forward from an ethical standpoint is, if we have access to these techniques, is it an ethical obligation to offer them now?” he said.

Dr. Edlow underscored the need to consider the reality that “there are profound issues relating to resource allocation and access to these advanced techniques, but we’re going to have to consider this together as we move forward.”

Dr. Edlow has received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Claassen is a minority shareholder with ICE Neurosystems. Dr. Frontera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Compelling advances in the ability to detect signs of consciousness in unconscious patients who have experienced traumatic brain injury (TBI) are leading to unprecedented changes in the field. There is now hope of improving outcomes and even sparing lives of patients who may otherwise have been mistakenly assessed as having no chance of recovery.

A recent key study represents a tipping point in the mounting evidence of the ability to detect “covert consciousness” in patients with TBI who are in an unconscious state. That research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in June 2019, linked the promising signals of consciousness in comatose patients, detected only on imaging, with remarkable outcomes a year later.

“This was a landmark study,” said Brian L. Edlow, MD, in a presentation on the issue of covert consciousness at the virtual annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

“Importantly, it is the first compelling evidence that early detection of covert consciousness also predicts 1-year outcomes in the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE), showing that covert consciousness in the ICU appears to be relevant for predicting long-term outcomes,” said Dr. Edlow, who is associate director of the Center for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery, Massachusetts General Hospital, in Boston.

The researchers showed that 15% of unconscious patients with acute brain injury in the study exhibited significant brain activity on EEG in response to stimuli that included verbal commands such as envisioning that they are playing tennis.

Although other studies have shown similar effects with task-based stimuli, the New England Journal of Medicine study further showed that a year later, the patients who had shown signs of covert consciousness, also called “cognitive motor dissociation” (CMD), were significantly more likely to have a good functional outcome, said the study’s senior author, Jan Claassen, MD, director of critical care neurology at Columbia University, New York, who also presented at the ANA session.

“Importantly, a year later after injury, we found that 44% of patients with CMD and only 14% of non-CMD patients had a good functional outcome, defined as a GOSE score indicating a state where they can at least take care of themselves for 8 hours in a day,” he said.

“[Whether] these patients in a CMD state represent a parallel state or a transitory state on the road to recovery remains to be shown,” he said.

Jennifer Frontera, MD, a professor in the department of neurology at NYU Langone Health in New York and comoderator of the session, agreed that the research is “remarkable.”

“Also,” she said, “it is practical, since many could potentially apply and validate his algorithms, since EEG technology is portable and widely available.”
 

Research has ushered in a ‘sea change’ in neurocritical care

The research has helped push forward recommendations on the treatment of unconscious patients, Dr. Edlow said. “This has led to a sea change in our field just over the last 2 years, with multiple guidelines published suggesting that it may be time for us to consider incorporating task-based fMRI and EEG techniques into our clinical assessment of patients with disorders of consciousness,” Dr. Edlow said.

Among those updating their recommendations was the American Academy of Neurology, which revised guidelines on practice parameters for patients in a persistent vegetative state. Those guidelines had not been updated since 1995.

Although concluding that “no diagnostic assessment procedure had moderate or strong evidence for use,” the guidelines acknowledge that “it is possible that a positive electromyographic (EMG) response to command, EEG reactivity to sensory stimuli, laser-evoked potentials, and the Perturbational Complexity Index can distinguish a minimally conscious state from vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS).”

Earlier this year, the European Academy of Neurology followed suit with updated guidelines of its own. In the EAN guideline, the academy’s Panel on Coma, Disorders of Consciousness recommends that task-based fMRI, EEG, and other advanced assessments be performed as part of a composite assessment of consciousness and that a patient’s best performance or highest level of consciousness on any of those tests should be a reflection of their diagnosis, Dr. Edlow explained.

“What this means is that our field is moving toward a multimodal assessment of consciousness in the ICU as well as beyond, in the subacute to chronic setting, whereby the behavioral exam, advanced DG, and advanced MRI methods all also contribute to the diagnosis of consciousness,” he said.

The standard for assessment of disorders of consciousness is the Coma Recovery Scale–Revised, with a 25-item scale for diagnosis, prediction of outcome, and assessment of potential treatment efficacy.

But much uncertainty can remain despite the assessment, Dr. Claassen said. “Behavioral assessments of patients with acute brain injury are challenging because examinations fluctuate, and there’s variability between assessors,” he said. “Nevertheless, patients and their families demand guidance from us.”

Dr. Edlow pointed out that the largest study to date of the causes of death among patients with TBI in the ICU underscores the need for better assessments.

The study of more than 600 patients at six level l trauma centers in Canada showed that 70% of patients who died in the ICU from TBI did so as the result of the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. However, only about a half (57%) had an unreactive pupil, and only about a quarter (23.7%) had evidence of herniation on CT, findings that are commonly associated with a poor prognosis.

“What emerges from this is that the manner in which the clinicians communicated the prognosis to families was a primary determinant of decisions to withdraw life-sustaining therapy,” Dr. Edlow said.
 

Negative response not necessarily conclusive

Dr. Edlow added a word of caution that the science is still far from perfect. He noted that, for 25% of healthy patients who are given a motor imagery task, neuroimaging might not show a response, implying that the lack of a signal may not be conclusive.

He described the case of a patient who was comatose at the time she was scanned on day 3 after injury and who showed no responses to language, music, or motor imagery during the MRI, yet a year later, she was functionally independent, back in the workforce, and had very few residual symptoms from her trauma.

“So if a patient does not show a response, that does not prove the patient is not conscious, and it does not prove that the patient is likely to have a poor outcome,” Dr. Edlow said. Such cases underscore the need for more advances in understanding the inner workings of brain injury.

Dr. Edlow and his colleagues are embarking on a trial of the effects of intravenous methylphenidate in targeting the stimulation of dopaminergic circuits within the subcortical ascending arousal network in patients with severe brain injuries.

“The scientific premise of the trial is that personalized brain network mapping in the ICU can identify patients whose connectomes are amenable to neuromodulation,” Dr. Edlow and his colleague report in an article in Neurocritical Care.

The trial, called STIMPACT (Stimulant Therapy Targeted to Individualized Connectivity Maps to Promote ReACTivation of Consciousness), is part of the newly launched Connectome-based Clinical Trial Platform, which the authors describe as “a new paradigm for developing and testing targeted therapies that promote early recovery of consciousness in the ICU.”

Such efforts are essential, given the high stakes of TBI outcomes, Dr. Edlow said.

“Let’s be clear about the stakes of an incorrect prognosis,” he said. “If we’re overly pessimistic, then a patient who could have potential for meaningful recovery will likely die in our ICU. On the other hand, if we are overly optimistic, then a patient could end up in a vegetative or minimally conscious state that he or she may never have found to be acceptable,” he said.
 

Access to technologies a ‘civil right?’

Some ethicists in the field are recommending that patients be given access to the advanced techniques as a civil right, similar to the rights described in the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, which was adopted by the United Nations in 2008, Dr. Edlow noted.

“So the question that we as clinicians are going to face moving forward from an ethical standpoint is, if we have access to these techniques, is it an ethical obligation to offer them now?” he said.

Dr. Edlow underscored the need to consider the reality that “there are profound issues relating to resource allocation and access to these advanced techniques, but we’re going to have to consider this together as we move forward.”

Dr. Edlow has received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Claassen is a minority shareholder with ICE Neurosystems. Dr. Frontera has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A novel five-strain probiotic blend could provide relief for patients with functional GI disorders, a new study shows.

The combination “improved patient’s functional GI symptoms and displayed a favorable safety profile,” said lead study investigator Lucinda A. Harris, MD, MS, from the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“Results of this study are promising, and additional studies would support the novel probiotic blend’s efficacy, safety, and durability of effect,” said Dr. Harris during her presentation at the virtual American College of Gastroenterology 2020 Annual Scientific Meeting.

Treatment with probiotics, such as Bifidobacterium lactis strains Bl-04, Bi-07, and HN019 and Lactobacillus strains L. acidophilus NCFM and L. paracasei Lpc-37 – administered alone or in multistrain blends – has been shown to improve diarrhea, abdominal pain, bloating, and constipation symptoms in patients with GI disturbances, she reported.

“Multiple pathophysiologic processes may cause functional GI symptoms, including altered gut microbiota,” she said. “The administration of probiotics can impact intestinal microbial balance, thereby contributing to improvement in functional GI symptoms.”

In their study, Dr. Harris and her colleagues evaluated the safety and efficacy of a five-strain probiotic blend – composed of Bl-04, Bi-07, HN019, NCFM, and Lpc-37 – in people with functional GI disturbances.

In the open-label, multicenter study, all 188 adult participants (mean age, 44.1 years; 72.3% female) demonstrated symptoms of functional GI disturbances. Each received an oral capsule of the probiotic blend once daily for 30 days.

Patients were assessed at multiple time points: screening (days –15 to –1), baseline (day 1), day 14, day 30, and a follow-up visit (day 42). The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was patient-reported improvement in overall GI well-being at day 30. Secondary outcomes included changes in GI symptoms, assessed with the 11-point GI Health Symptom Questionnaire. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was assessed during all patient visits.

By day 30, 85.1% of patients had achieved the primary endpoint and indicated a positive response when asked about their overall GI well-being. All of the improvements reported at day 30 were generally observed at day 14 as well.

Placebo effect?

“We know that the biome has a role in modulating a number of physiologic processes, so looking at biomic influence for functional disease makes sense,” said David A. Johnson, MD, from the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, who was not involved in the study.

However, one of the limitations of this study is the potential for a marked placebo effect, he said in an interview. “When you do an open-label trial in functional diseases, there’s a high placebo rate response. This effect is less pronounced in longer trials, but shorter trials like this one definitely carry the risk of increased placebo responses.”

“Although promising, a randomized control trial evaluating the microbiome as a response to the treatment intervention would be extremely helpful in defining the true role of effect,” he added.

This study was funded by Bausch Health Americas, Inc. Harris reports financial relationships with Allergan, Ironwood, and Takeda. Johnson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships; he writes the Johnson on Gastroenterology blog on Medscape.
 

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

A novel five-strain probiotic blend could provide relief for patients with functional GI disorders, a new study shows.

The combination “improved patient’s functional GI symptoms and displayed a favorable safety profile,” said lead study investigator Lucinda A. Harris, MD, MS, from the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“Results of this study are promising, and additional studies would support the novel probiotic blend’s efficacy, safety, and durability of effect,” said Dr. Harris during her presentation at the virtual American College of Gastroenterology 2020 Annual Scientific Meeting.

Treatment with probiotics, such as Bifidobacterium lactis strains Bl-04, Bi-07, and HN019 and Lactobacillus strains L. acidophilus NCFM and L. paracasei Lpc-37 – administered alone or in multistrain blends – has been shown to improve diarrhea, abdominal pain, bloating, and constipation symptoms in patients with GI disturbances, she reported.

“Multiple pathophysiologic processes may cause functional GI symptoms, including altered gut microbiota,” she said. “The administration of probiotics can impact intestinal microbial balance, thereby contributing to improvement in functional GI symptoms.”

In their study, Dr. Harris and her colleagues evaluated the safety and efficacy of a five-strain probiotic blend – composed of Bl-04, Bi-07, HN019, NCFM, and Lpc-37 – in people with functional GI disturbances.

In the open-label, multicenter study, all 188 adult participants (mean age, 44.1 years; 72.3% female) demonstrated symptoms of functional GI disturbances. Each received an oral capsule of the probiotic blend once daily for 30 days.

Patients were assessed at multiple time points: screening (days –15 to –1), baseline (day 1), day 14, day 30, and a follow-up visit (day 42). The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was patient-reported improvement in overall GI well-being at day 30. Secondary outcomes included changes in GI symptoms, assessed with the 11-point GI Health Symptom Questionnaire. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was assessed during all patient visits.

By day 30, 85.1% of patients had achieved the primary endpoint and indicated a positive response when asked about their overall GI well-being. All of the improvements reported at day 30 were generally observed at day 14 as well.

Placebo effect?

“We know that the biome has a role in modulating a number of physiologic processes, so looking at biomic influence for functional disease makes sense,” said David A. Johnson, MD, from the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, who was not involved in the study.

However, one of the limitations of this study is the potential for a marked placebo effect, he said in an interview. “When you do an open-label trial in functional diseases, there’s a high placebo rate response. This effect is less pronounced in longer trials, but shorter trials like this one definitely carry the risk of increased placebo responses.”

“Although promising, a randomized control trial evaluating the microbiome as a response to the treatment intervention would be extremely helpful in defining the true role of effect,” he added.

This study was funded by Bausch Health Americas, Inc. Harris reports financial relationships with Allergan, Ironwood, and Takeda. Johnson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships; he writes the Johnson on Gastroenterology blog on Medscape.
 

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

A novel five-strain probiotic blend could provide relief for patients with functional GI disorders, a new study shows.

The combination “improved patient’s functional GI symptoms and displayed a favorable safety profile,” said lead study investigator Lucinda A. Harris, MD, MS, from the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“Results of this study are promising, and additional studies would support the novel probiotic blend’s efficacy, safety, and durability of effect,” said Dr. Harris during her presentation at the virtual American College of Gastroenterology 2020 Annual Scientific Meeting.

Treatment with probiotics, such as Bifidobacterium lactis strains Bl-04, Bi-07, and HN019 and Lactobacillus strains L. acidophilus NCFM and L. paracasei Lpc-37 – administered alone or in multistrain blends – has been shown to improve diarrhea, abdominal pain, bloating, and constipation symptoms in patients with GI disturbances, she reported.

“Multiple pathophysiologic processes may cause functional GI symptoms, including altered gut microbiota,” she said. “The administration of probiotics can impact intestinal microbial balance, thereby contributing to improvement in functional GI symptoms.”

In their study, Dr. Harris and her colleagues evaluated the safety and efficacy of a five-strain probiotic blend – composed of Bl-04, Bi-07, HN019, NCFM, and Lpc-37 – in people with functional GI disturbances.

In the open-label, multicenter study, all 188 adult participants (mean age, 44.1 years; 72.3% female) demonstrated symptoms of functional GI disturbances. Each received an oral capsule of the probiotic blend once daily for 30 days.

Patients were assessed at multiple time points: screening (days –15 to –1), baseline (day 1), day 14, day 30, and a follow-up visit (day 42). The study’s primary efficacy endpoint was patient-reported improvement in overall GI well-being at day 30. Secondary outcomes included changes in GI symptoms, assessed with the 11-point GI Health Symptom Questionnaire. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was assessed during all patient visits.

By day 30, 85.1% of patients had achieved the primary endpoint and indicated a positive response when asked about their overall GI well-being. All of the improvements reported at day 30 were generally observed at day 14 as well.

Placebo effect?

“We know that the biome has a role in modulating a number of physiologic processes, so looking at biomic influence for functional disease makes sense,” said David A. Johnson, MD, from the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, who was not involved in the study.

However, one of the limitations of this study is the potential for a marked placebo effect, he said in an interview. “When you do an open-label trial in functional diseases, there’s a high placebo rate response. This effect is less pronounced in longer trials, but shorter trials like this one definitely carry the risk of increased placebo responses.”

“Although promising, a randomized control trial evaluating the microbiome as a response to the treatment intervention would be extremely helpful in defining the true role of effect,” he added.

This study was funded by Bausch Health Americas, Inc. Harris reports financial relationships with Allergan, Ironwood, and Takeda. Johnson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships; he writes the Johnson on Gastroenterology blog on Medscape.
 

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

Integrating PET imaging into postprostatectomy radiation therapy (RT) decisions and planning can improve prostate cancer outcomes, first results of the EMPIRE-1 trial suggest.

The findings were reported in a plenary session at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Quite frankly, this is an area where we are shooting in the dark with conventional imaging, and that’s where we think molecular imaging has a potential role,” noted coprincipal investigator Ashesh B. Jani, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We hypothesized that radiotherapy outcomes can be improved upon by PET by excluding patients with extrapelvic disease and also by improving treatment field decisions and target definition,” Dr. Jani added.

Patients with prostate cancer were eligible for EMPIRE-1 if they had undergone prostatectomy and had a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level but negative findings on conventional imaging (a bone scan plus abdominopelvic CT and/or MRI).

A total of 165 patients were randomized to RT guided by the conventional imaging alone or combined with PET imaging using the radiotracer fluciclovine (18F). Treatment decisions in the latter group were strictly based on where uptake was seen.
 

Study results

The trial’s primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as a PSA level exceeding 0.2 ng/mL from nadir followed by another rise, a continued PSA rise despite RT, progression on imaging or digital rectal exam, or initiation of systemic therapy.

“Most imaging studies tend to focus on diagnostic accuracy, pathologic correlation, and decision changes. It’s a very high bar for an imaging study to influence failure rates,” Dr. Jani pointed out.

Adding 18F-PET to conventional imaging altered the treatment decision for 35.4% of patients in that group (P < .001). It also significantly altered a range of volumetric and dosimetric parameters.

At a median follow-up of 2.48 years, the 3-year rate of failure-free survival was 63.0% with conventional imaging alone and 75.5% with the addition of 18F-PET (P = .003). The corresponding 4-year rate was 51.2% and 75.5%, respectively (P < .001).

In multivariate analysis, the conventional imaging group had double the risk of failure events relative to the PET group (hazard ratio, 2.04; P = .033).

Provider-reported data showed no significant difference between imaging groups in maximum acute or late genitourinary toxicity and gastrointestinal toxicity. An analysis of patient-reported toxicity data is pending.

“Randomized trials of imaging tests with a primary cancer control endpoint are important but uncommonly done,” Dr. Jani commented. “This is the first such trial of PET over conventional imaging in the postprostatectomy radiotherapy setting.”

“Inclusion of fluciclovine resulted in a significant improvement in failure rate at 3 years. This warrants further investigation,” he maintained.

To that end, the investigators have launched the EMPIRE-2 trial, which is comparing RT guided by 18F-PET with PET using another radiotracer that is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration, gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen.
 

Findings in context

“There are several remarkable aspects of the EMPIRE-1 trial worth noting,” said invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She commended the trial’s randomization, given a bias that more imaging is better, and the diversity of its participants that better reflects the general population of prostate cancer patients.

“The study procedures appear to be well tolerated despite a net overall increase in the radiation volume treated in the patients who underwent PET, although we do still await patient-reported toxicity,” Dr. Vapiwala noted. “Finally, a high bar was set, with a clinically meaningful primary endpoint for an imaging study.

“This study ultimately demonstrated that, in the PET arm, better selection with PET was able to result in better patient outcomes,” she maintained.

At the same time, Dr. Vapiwala recommended caution when reducing or withholding definitive local therapy based on PET results, as occurred in 14 patients.

“We must always be able to see the forest from the trees, and when evaluating our patients with PET scans, what we see and what we don’t see is just one piece of the puzzle. Existing level 1 evidence and oncologic principles must still apply,” she said. “While PET can help paint a more complete picture, it should not define the picture itself.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jani disclosed advisory board service for Blue Earth Diagnostics. Dr. Vapiwala disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jani A et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract LBA1.

Integrating PET imaging into postprostatectomy radiation therapy (RT) decisions and planning can improve prostate cancer outcomes, first results of the EMPIRE-1 trial suggest.

The findings were reported in a plenary session at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Quite frankly, this is an area where we are shooting in the dark with conventional imaging, and that’s where we think molecular imaging has a potential role,” noted coprincipal investigator Ashesh B. Jani, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We hypothesized that radiotherapy outcomes can be improved upon by PET by excluding patients with extrapelvic disease and also by improving treatment field decisions and target definition,” Dr. Jani added.

Patients with prostate cancer were eligible for EMPIRE-1 if they had undergone prostatectomy and had a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level but negative findings on conventional imaging (a bone scan plus abdominopelvic CT and/or MRI).

A total of 165 patients were randomized to RT guided by the conventional imaging alone or combined with PET imaging using the radiotracer fluciclovine (18F). Treatment decisions in the latter group were strictly based on where uptake was seen.
 

Study results

The trial’s primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as a PSA level exceeding 0.2 ng/mL from nadir followed by another rise, a continued PSA rise despite RT, progression on imaging or digital rectal exam, or initiation of systemic therapy.

“Most imaging studies tend to focus on diagnostic accuracy, pathologic correlation, and decision changes. It’s a very high bar for an imaging study to influence failure rates,” Dr. Jani pointed out.

Adding 18F-PET to conventional imaging altered the treatment decision for 35.4% of patients in that group (P < .001). It also significantly altered a range of volumetric and dosimetric parameters.

At a median follow-up of 2.48 years, the 3-year rate of failure-free survival was 63.0% with conventional imaging alone and 75.5% with the addition of 18F-PET (P = .003). The corresponding 4-year rate was 51.2% and 75.5%, respectively (P < .001).

In multivariate analysis, the conventional imaging group had double the risk of failure events relative to the PET group (hazard ratio, 2.04; P = .033).

Provider-reported data showed no significant difference between imaging groups in maximum acute or late genitourinary toxicity and gastrointestinal toxicity. An analysis of patient-reported toxicity data is pending.

“Randomized trials of imaging tests with a primary cancer control endpoint are important but uncommonly done,” Dr. Jani commented. “This is the first such trial of PET over conventional imaging in the postprostatectomy radiotherapy setting.”

“Inclusion of fluciclovine resulted in a significant improvement in failure rate at 3 years. This warrants further investigation,” he maintained.

To that end, the investigators have launched the EMPIRE-2 trial, which is comparing RT guided by 18F-PET with PET using another radiotracer that is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration, gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen.
 

Findings in context

“There are several remarkable aspects of the EMPIRE-1 trial worth noting,” said invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She commended the trial’s randomization, given a bias that more imaging is better, and the diversity of its participants that better reflects the general population of prostate cancer patients.

“The study procedures appear to be well tolerated despite a net overall increase in the radiation volume treated in the patients who underwent PET, although we do still await patient-reported toxicity,” Dr. Vapiwala noted. “Finally, a high bar was set, with a clinically meaningful primary endpoint for an imaging study.

“This study ultimately demonstrated that, in the PET arm, better selection with PET was able to result in better patient outcomes,” she maintained.

At the same time, Dr. Vapiwala recommended caution when reducing or withholding definitive local therapy based on PET results, as occurred in 14 patients.

“We must always be able to see the forest from the trees, and when evaluating our patients with PET scans, what we see and what we don’t see is just one piece of the puzzle. Existing level 1 evidence and oncologic principles must still apply,” she said. “While PET can help paint a more complete picture, it should not define the picture itself.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jani disclosed advisory board service for Blue Earth Diagnostics. Dr. Vapiwala disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jani A et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract LBA1.

Integrating PET imaging into postprostatectomy radiation therapy (RT) decisions and planning can improve prostate cancer outcomes, first results of the EMPIRE-1 trial suggest.

The findings were reported in a plenary session at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

“Quite frankly, this is an area where we are shooting in the dark with conventional imaging, and that’s where we think molecular imaging has a potential role,” noted coprincipal investigator Ashesh B. Jani, MD, of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta.

“We hypothesized that radiotherapy outcomes can be improved upon by PET by excluding patients with extrapelvic disease and also by improving treatment field decisions and target definition,” Dr. Jani added.

Patients with prostate cancer were eligible for EMPIRE-1 if they had undergone prostatectomy and had a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level but negative findings on conventional imaging (a bone scan plus abdominopelvic CT and/or MRI).

A total of 165 patients were randomized to RT guided by the conventional imaging alone or combined with PET imaging using the radiotracer fluciclovine (18F). Treatment decisions in the latter group were strictly based on where uptake was seen.
 

Study results

The trial’s primary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as a PSA level exceeding 0.2 ng/mL from nadir followed by another rise, a continued PSA rise despite RT, progression on imaging or digital rectal exam, or initiation of systemic therapy.

“Most imaging studies tend to focus on diagnostic accuracy, pathologic correlation, and decision changes. It’s a very high bar for an imaging study to influence failure rates,” Dr. Jani pointed out.

Adding 18F-PET to conventional imaging altered the treatment decision for 35.4% of patients in that group (P < .001). It also significantly altered a range of volumetric and dosimetric parameters.

At a median follow-up of 2.48 years, the 3-year rate of failure-free survival was 63.0% with conventional imaging alone and 75.5% with the addition of 18F-PET (P = .003). The corresponding 4-year rate was 51.2% and 75.5%, respectively (P < .001).

In multivariate analysis, the conventional imaging group had double the risk of failure events relative to the PET group (hazard ratio, 2.04; P = .033).

Provider-reported data showed no significant difference between imaging groups in maximum acute or late genitourinary toxicity and gastrointestinal toxicity. An analysis of patient-reported toxicity data is pending.

“Randomized trials of imaging tests with a primary cancer control endpoint are important but uncommonly done,” Dr. Jani commented. “This is the first such trial of PET over conventional imaging in the postprostatectomy radiotherapy setting.”

“Inclusion of fluciclovine resulted in a significant improvement in failure rate at 3 years. This warrants further investigation,” he maintained.

To that end, the investigators have launched the EMPIRE-2 trial, which is comparing RT guided by 18F-PET with PET using another radiotracer that is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration, gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen.
 

Findings in context

“There are several remarkable aspects of the EMPIRE-1 trial worth noting,” said invited discussant Neha Vapiwala, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She commended the trial’s randomization, given a bias that more imaging is better, and the diversity of its participants that better reflects the general population of prostate cancer patients.

“The study procedures appear to be well tolerated despite a net overall increase in the radiation volume treated in the patients who underwent PET, although we do still await patient-reported toxicity,” Dr. Vapiwala noted. “Finally, a high bar was set, with a clinically meaningful primary endpoint for an imaging study.

“This study ultimately demonstrated that, in the PET arm, better selection with PET was able to result in better patient outcomes,” she maintained.

At the same time, Dr. Vapiwala recommended caution when reducing or withholding definitive local therapy based on PET results, as occurred in 14 patients.

“We must always be able to see the forest from the trees, and when evaluating our patients with PET scans, what we see and what we don’t see is just one piece of the puzzle. Existing level 1 evidence and oncologic principles must still apply,” she said. “While PET can help paint a more complete picture, it should not define the picture itself.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Jani disclosed advisory board service for Blue Earth Diagnostics. Dr. Vapiwala disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jani A et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract LBA1.

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) offers an alternative triage tool for acute GI bleeding that may reduce personnel exposure to SARS-CoV-2, based on a cohort study with historical controls.

Yuuji/iStock/Getty Images

VCE should be considered even when rapid coronavirus testing is available, as active bleeding is more likely to be detected when evaluated sooner, potentially sparing patients from invasive procedures, reported lead author Shahrad Hakimian, MD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worchester, and colleagues.

“Endoscopists and staff are at high risk of exposure to coronavirus through aerosols, as well as unintended, unrecognized splashes that are well known to occur frequently during routine endoscopy,” Dr. Hakimian said during a virtual presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Although pretesting and delaying procedures as needed may mitigate risks of viral exposure, “many urgent procedures, such as endoscopic evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding, can’t really wait,” Dr. Hakimian said.

Current guidelines recommend early upper endoscopy and/or colonoscopy for evaluation of GI bleeding, but Dr. Hakimian noted that two out of three initial tests are nondiagnostic, so multiple procedures are often needed to find an answer.

In 2018, a randomized, controlled trial coauthored by Dr. Hakimian’s colleagues demonstrated how VCE may be a better approach, as it more frequently detected active bleeding than standard of care (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.64).

The present study built on these findings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Hakimian and colleagues analyzed data from 50 consecutive, hemodynamically stable patients with severe anemia or suspected GI bleeding who underwent VCE as a first-line diagnostic modality from mid-March to mid-May 2020 (COVID arm). These patients were compared with 57 consecutive patients who were evaluated for acute GI bleeding or severe anemia with standard of care prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (pre-COVID arm).

Characteristics of the two cohorts were generally similar, although the COVID arm included a slightly older population, with a median age of 68 years, compared with a median age of 61.8 years for the pre-COVID arm (P = .03). Among presenting symptoms, hematochezia was less common in the COVID group (4% vs. 18%; P = .03). Comorbidities were not significantly different between cohorts.

Per the study design, 100% of patients in the COVID arm underwent VCE as their first diagnostic modality. In the pre-COVID arm, 82% of patients first underwent upper endoscopy, followed by colonoscopy (12%) and VCE (5%).

The main outcome, bleeding localization, did not differ between groups, whether this was confined to the first test, or in terms of final localization. But VCE was significantly better at detecting active bleeding or stigmata of bleeding, at a rate of 66%, compared with 28% in the pre-COVID group (P < .001). Patients in the COVID arm were also significantly less likely to need any invasive procedures (44% vs. 96%; P < .001).

No intergroup differences were observed in rates of blood transfusion, in-hospital or GI-bleed mortality, rebleeding, or readmission for bleeding.

“VCE appears to be a safe alternative to traditional diagnostic evaluation of GI bleeding in the era of COVID,” Dr. Hakimian concluded, noting that “the VCE-first strategy reduces the risk of staff exposure to endoscopic aerosols, conserves personal protective equipment, and reduces staff utilization.”

According to Neil Sengupta, MD, of the University of Chicago, “a VCE-first strategy in GI bleeding may be a useful triage tool in the COVID-19 era to determine which patients truly benefit from invasive endoscopy,” although he also noted that “further data are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of this approach.”

Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., had a similar opinion.

“VCE appears to be a reasonable alternative in this patient group, at least as a first step,” Dr. Hookey said. “However, whether it truly makes a difference in the decision making process would have to be assessed prospectively via a randomized controlled trial or a decision analysis done in real time at various steps of the patient’s care path.”

Erik A. Holzwanger, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, suggested that these findings may “serve as a foundation” for similar studies, “as it appears COVID-19 will be an ongoing obstacle in endoscopy for the foreseeable future.”

“It would be interesting to have further discussion of timing of VCE, any COVID-19 transmission to staff during the VCE placement, and discussion of what constituted proceeding with endoscopic intervention [high-risk lesion, active bleeding] in both groups,” he added.

David Cave, MD, PhD, coauthor of the present study and the 2015 ACG clinical guideline for small bowel bleeding, said that VCE is gaining ground as the diagnostic of choice for GI bleeding, and patients prefer it, since it does not require anesthesia.

“This abstract is another clear pointer to the way in which, we should in the future, investigate gastrointestinal bleeding, both acute and chronic,” Dr. Cave said. “We are at an inflection point of transition to a new technology.”

Dr. Cave disclosed relationships with Medtronic and Olympus. The other investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) offers an alternative triage tool for acute GI bleeding that may reduce personnel exposure to SARS-CoV-2, based on a cohort study with historical controls.

Yuuji/iStock/Getty Images

VCE should be considered even when rapid coronavirus testing is available, as active bleeding is more likely to be detected when evaluated sooner, potentially sparing patients from invasive procedures, reported lead author Shahrad Hakimian, MD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worchester, and colleagues.

“Endoscopists and staff are at high risk of exposure to coronavirus through aerosols, as well as unintended, unrecognized splashes that are well known to occur frequently during routine endoscopy,” Dr. Hakimian said during a virtual presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Although pretesting and delaying procedures as needed may mitigate risks of viral exposure, “many urgent procedures, such as endoscopic evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding, can’t really wait,” Dr. Hakimian said.

Current guidelines recommend early upper endoscopy and/or colonoscopy for evaluation of GI bleeding, but Dr. Hakimian noted that two out of three initial tests are nondiagnostic, so multiple procedures are often needed to find an answer.

In 2018, a randomized, controlled trial coauthored by Dr. Hakimian’s colleagues demonstrated how VCE may be a better approach, as it more frequently detected active bleeding than standard of care (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.64).

The present study built on these findings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Hakimian and colleagues analyzed data from 50 consecutive, hemodynamically stable patients with severe anemia or suspected GI bleeding who underwent VCE as a first-line diagnostic modality from mid-March to mid-May 2020 (COVID arm). These patients were compared with 57 consecutive patients who were evaluated for acute GI bleeding or severe anemia with standard of care prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (pre-COVID arm).

Characteristics of the two cohorts were generally similar, although the COVID arm included a slightly older population, with a median age of 68 years, compared with a median age of 61.8 years for the pre-COVID arm (P = .03). Among presenting symptoms, hematochezia was less common in the COVID group (4% vs. 18%; P = .03). Comorbidities were not significantly different between cohorts.

Per the study design, 100% of patients in the COVID arm underwent VCE as their first diagnostic modality. In the pre-COVID arm, 82% of patients first underwent upper endoscopy, followed by colonoscopy (12%) and VCE (5%).

The main outcome, bleeding localization, did not differ between groups, whether this was confined to the first test, or in terms of final localization. But VCE was significantly better at detecting active bleeding or stigmata of bleeding, at a rate of 66%, compared with 28% in the pre-COVID group (P < .001). Patients in the COVID arm were also significantly less likely to need any invasive procedures (44% vs. 96%; P < .001).

No intergroup differences were observed in rates of blood transfusion, in-hospital or GI-bleed mortality, rebleeding, or readmission for bleeding.

“VCE appears to be a safe alternative to traditional diagnostic evaluation of GI bleeding in the era of COVID,” Dr. Hakimian concluded, noting that “the VCE-first strategy reduces the risk of staff exposure to endoscopic aerosols, conserves personal protective equipment, and reduces staff utilization.”

According to Neil Sengupta, MD, of the University of Chicago, “a VCE-first strategy in GI bleeding may be a useful triage tool in the COVID-19 era to determine which patients truly benefit from invasive endoscopy,” although he also noted that “further data are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of this approach.”

Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., had a similar opinion.

“VCE appears to be a reasonable alternative in this patient group, at least as a first step,” Dr. Hookey said. “However, whether it truly makes a difference in the decision making process would have to be assessed prospectively via a randomized controlled trial or a decision analysis done in real time at various steps of the patient’s care path.”

Erik A. Holzwanger, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, suggested that these findings may “serve as a foundation” for similar studies, “as it appears COVID-19 will be an ongoing obstacle in endoscopy for the foreseeable future.”

“It would be interesting to have further discussion of timing of VCE, any COVID-19 transmission to staff during the VCE placement, and discussion of what constituted proceeding with endoscopic intervention [high-risk lesion, active bleeding] in both groups,” he added.

David Cave, MD, PhD, coauthor of the present study and the 2015 ACG clinical guideline for small bowel bleeding, said that VCE is gaining ground as the diagnostic of choice for GI bleeding, and patients prefer it, since it does not require anesthesia.

“This abstract is another clear pointer to the way in which, we should in the future, investigate gastrointestinal bleeding, both acute and chronic,” Dr. Cave said. “We are at an inflection point of transition to a new technology.”

Dr. Cave disclosed relationships with Medtronic and Olympus. The other investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) offers an alternative triage tool for acute GI bleeding that may reduce personnel exposure to SARS-CoV-2, based on a cohort study with historical controls.

Yuuji/iStock/Getty Images

VCE should be considered even when rapid coronavirus testing is available, as active bleeding is more likely to be detected when evaluated sooner, potentially sparing patients from invasive procedures, reported lead author Shahrad Hakimian, MD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worchester, and colleagues.

“Endoscopists and staff are at high risk of exposure to coronavirus through aerosols, as well as unintended, unrecognized splashes that are well known to occur frequently during routine endoscopy,” Dr. Hakimian said during a virtual presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Although pretesting and delaying procedures as needed may mitigate risks of viral exposure, “many urgent procedures, such as endoscopic evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding, can’t really wait,” Dr. Hakimian said.

Current guidelines recommend early upper endoscopy and/or colonoscopy for evaluation of GI bleeding, but Dr. Hakimian noted that two out of three initial tests are nondiagnostic, so multiple procedures are often needed to find an answer.

In 2018, a randomized, controlled trial coauthored by Dr. Hakimian’s colleagues demonstrated how VCE may be a better approach, as it more frequently detected active bleeding than standard of care (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.64).

The present study built on these findings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Hakimian and colleagues analyzed data from 50 consecutive, hemodynamically stable patients with severe anemia or suspected GI bleeding who underwent VCE as a first-line diagnostic modality from mid-March to mid-May 2020 (COVID arm). These patients were compared with 57 consecutive patients who were evaluated for acute GI bleeding or severe anemia with standard of care prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (pre-COVID arm).

Characteristics of the two cohorts were generally similar, although the COVID arm included a slightly older population, with a median age of 68 years, compared with a median age of 61.8 years for the pre-COVID arm (P = .03). Among presenting symptoms, hematochezia was less common in the COVID group (4% vs. 18%; P = .03). Comorbidities were not significantly different between cohorts.

Per the study design, 100% of patients in the COVID arm underwent VCE as their first diagnostic modality. In the pre-COVID arm, 82% of patients first underwent upper endoscopy, followed by colonoscopy (12%) and VCE (5%).

The main outcome, bleeding localization, did not differ between groups, whether this was confined to the first test, or in terms of final localization. But VCE was significantly better at detecting active bleeding or stigmata of bleeding, at a rate of 66%, compared with 28% in the pre-COVID group (P < .001). Patients in the COVID arm were also significantly less likely to need any invasive procedures (44% vs. 96%; P < .001).

No intergroup differences were observed in rates of blood transfusion, in-hospital or GI-bleed mortality, rebleeding, or readmission for bleeding.

“VCE appears to be a safe alternative to traditional diagnostic evaluation of GI bleeding in the era of COVID,” Dr. Hakimian concluded, noting that “the VCE-first strategy reduces the risk of staff exposure to endoscopic aerosols, conserves personal protective equipment, and reduces staff utilization.”

According to Neil Sengupta, MD, of the University of Chicago, “a VCE-first strategy in GI bleeding may be a useful triage tool in the COVID-19 era to determine which patients truly benefit from invasive endoscopy,” although he also noted that “further data are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of this approach.”

Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., had a similar opinion.

“VCE appears to be a reasonable alternative in this patient group, at least as a first step,” Dr. Hookey said. “However, whether it truly makes a difference in the decision making process would have to be assessed prospectively via a randomized controlled trial or a decision analysis done in real time at various steps of the patient’s care path.”

Erik A. Holzwanger, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, suggested that these findings may “serve as a foundation” for similar studies, “as it appears COVID-19 will be an ongoing obstacle in endoscopy for the foreseeable future.”

“It would be interesting to have further discussion of timing of VCE, any COVID-19 transmission to staff during the VCE placement, and discussion of what constituted proceeding with endoscopic intervention [high-risk lesion, active bleeding] in both groups,” he added.

David Cave, MD, PhD, coauthor of the present study and the 2015 ACG clinical guideline for small bowel bleeding, said that VCE is gaining ground as the diagnostic of choice for GI bleeding, and patients prefer it, since it does not require anesthesia.

“This abstract is another clear pointer to the way in which, we should in the future, investigate gastrointestinal bleeding, both acute and chronic,” Dr. Cave said. “We are at an inflection point of transition to a new technology.”

Dr. Cave disclosed relationships with Medtronic and Olympus. The other investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) should replace whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) as the new standard of care for patients with four or more brain metastases, say researchers who report results from a randomized trial conducted in patients with four to 15 brain metastases

“SRS was associated with reduced risk of neurocognitive deterioration compared to WBRT, as demonstrated by a constellation of neurocognitive tests, individually or by composite scores,” said lead author Jing Li, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology and codirector of the Brain Metastasis Clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

She was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2020 Annual Meeting, which was held online this year because of the COVID pandemic.

“The results from this phase 3 randomized trial strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival,” said Li.

SRS is already the standard of care for patients with one to three brain metastases. Two previous phase 3 randomized trials showed that SRS was better at preserving cognitive function without compromising overall survival in comparison to WBRT.

However, there has been some controversy over the use of SRS for patients with multiple brain metastases, commented study discussant Sue S. Yom, MD, PhD, a professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.

This study has shown, “in a practice-changing manner, that giving SRS can improve the quality of life of patients with metastatic disease,” she said.

Up to 30% of cancer patients develop brain metastases. Historically, these have been associated with poor overall survival, in the range of 1 to 4 months.
 

Reduces cognitive decline

The new trial involved 72 patients with four to 15 untreated, nonmelanoma brain metastases (up to 20 lesions were allowed at the time of treatment); the median number of brain metastases was eight. Most (83%) of the trial participants were White, nearly half were aged 60 years or older, and 58% were women.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SRS (15–24 Gy per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 9005) or WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). On the basis of previous research, 62% of patients in the WBRT arm were also given memantine, a dementia drug that can help preserve cognitive function.

All participants completed neurocognitive testing, including testing of learning, memory, attention span, executive function, verbal fluency, processing speed, and motor dexterity, at enrollment and longitudinally.

The primary endpoints were Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised Total Recall (HVLT-R TR) score and local control at 4 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, distant brain failure, toxicity, and time to initiation of systemic therapy.

In the primary endpoint analysis, at 4 months, the HVLT-R TR standardized z-score increased by +0.21 (standard error [SE], 0.27) for patients who received SRS, but it declined by –0.74 (SE, 0.36) for WBRT-treated patients (P = .041). On the basis of Clinical Trial Battery Composite score, neurocognitive function of patients in the SRS arm improved on average +0.23 (SE, 0.14) but declined an average –0.73 (SE, 0.35) in the WBRT arm (P = .008).

Li pointed out that there was also a “clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit” with SRS at 1 month (P = .033) and 6 months (P = .012).

A total of 69 patients (35 for SRS and 34 for WBRT) were evaluable for overall survival, which was similar between the groups (SRS median, 7.8 months; WBRT median, 8.9 months; P = .59). Treatment with SRS resulted in better local control rates (95% at 4 months with SRS and 86.7% with WBRT; P = .09), but the median time to distant brain failure was shorter (10.5 months for WBRT and 6.3 months for SRS; P = .37).

In her discussion of the study, Yom noted that overall survival time was similar in the two arms and that, numerically, it may have even been a little longer in the SRS group. “While it is true that they had more relapses in untreated portions of the brain, they lived as long or longer than those who received WBRT and had better cognitive function,” she noted

Yom also noted that of particular importance was the finding that SRS was associated with shorter interruptions of systemic therapy (time to systemic therapy: SRS, 1.7 weeks; WBRT, 4.1 weeks; P = .001). Patients with metastatic disease usually have cancer in locations other than the brain. They may be receiving some type of systemic therapy, which is interrupted with WBRT, Li commented.

Toxicities of grade 3 or higher were observed in four patients in the WBRT arm and two in the SRS arm. Radiographic evidence of radiation necrosis, a side effect associated with SRS, was observed in 17% patients in the SRS arm of the trial (4% of all treated lesions).

The trial was halted early owing to the publication of another phase 3 trial (NRG Oncology CC 001), which provided level 1 evidence for replacing standard WBRT with hippocampal-avoidance WBRT. Despite the early trial termination, Li concluded that these results “strongly support the use of SRS in patients with four to 15 brain metastases to better preserve cognitive function and to minimize interruption of systemic therapy, without compromising overall survival.”

Li has received research funding from BMS and Medtronic and honorarium from Novocure and Monteris.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sexual dysfunction is a common treatment-related problem observed across numerous cancer diagnoses, and a new survey finds that 87% of cancer survivors have had such problems.

However, most of them also reported that their oncologist had not formally discussed the topic, and female patients were particularly unlikely to be asked about sexual dysfunction.

“The main takeaway from our study is that sexual side effects following treatment are very common,” said lead author James Taylor, MD, MPH, chief resident in radiation oncology at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“Nearly 9 in 10 patients reported some change after cancer treatment that negatively affected their sexual health,” he said.

Taylor was speaking at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, held virtually this year because of the pandemic.

“Negative effects on sexual health after cancer treatment are unfortunately very common,” he said. “This is not just patients treated with radiation but this includes chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and other treatment modalities.”

Potential issues include physical complications such as erectile dysfunction with prostate cancer treatment or vaginal dryness with gynecological cancer treatment. One recent study found that one-third of men who had undergone treatment for prostate cancer reported that a subsequent lack of sexual function has had the greatest impact on their quality of life. Another study reported that nearly all patients with breast cancer taking endocrine therapy experience a high degree of sexual dysfunction, including vulvovaginal dryness and severe dyspareunia.
 

Not discussed, not warned

Taylor and colleagues developed a questionnaire with input from radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and surgeons, which consisted of more than 25 questions and was specifically targeted at cancer survivors.

A total of 405 adults completed the electronic survey about their experiences with sexual side effects after cancer treatment (391 responses were eligible for analysis). Most of the respondents were women (81%), and the most common cancer types were breast (67%), prostate (16%), and endometrial (6%). Treatments included chemotherapy (78%), radiation therapy (54%), and hormone therapy (47%).

“The questionnaires were distributed at Thomas Jefferson and throughout social media,” said Taylor. “The responses from social media are important because it shows a broad representation of patients who are treated in multiple clinics across the United States.”

Most of the survivors who responded (n = 337, 87%) stated cancer treatment had impacted sexual function or desire, with 53.8% reporting body image distortion, 73.4% with dyspareunia, and 42.3% unable to achieve orgasm.

Only about one-quarter (27.9%) said they had been formally asked about their sexual health by their clinician.

“Only about 40% said that they have been preemptively warned that their sexual health may be affected by treatment,” said Taylor.

Women were far less likely to be asked about their sexual health by their provider. The survey showed that male respondents were twice as likely to say they had been asked about sexual health and counseled about the potential toxicity (53% vs 22%; P < .001), and a substantially higher percentage of men reported receiving a formal assessment tool such as a survey (32% vs 5%; P = .001) compared with female respondents.

Taylor noted that the survey demonstrated several things. “One is that sexual toxicity is exceedingly common, and number two, it identified a gender disparity,” he said. “But number 3, and I think that this is an important aspect of our study, is that the majority of respondents felt that they would like a standard questionnaire to initiate and guide a discussion on sexual health with their provider.”

The reason that aspect is very important, he emphasized, is that “we know metrics and questionnaires already exist, so this gives us an actionable intervention that we can distribute and help mitigate some of these disparities.”
 

Importance of being holistic

The results of the survey “highlight the importance of being holistic in our approach to patient survivorship,” commented Karen Winkfield, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and executive director of the Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Nashville, Tennessee.

“We need to ask patients about all parts of their well-being, including sexual health,” Winkfield said. “Body dysmorphism can impact anyone, but especially patients who have had surgery or radiation,” she said, while chemotherapy can impact energy and libido and have other toxicities that impact sexual health.

“I encourage all oncologists to ask patients about their sexual health, and a standardized form that can be used across all sites will make this much easier,” Winkfield commented. “We owe it to our patients to treat them holistically.”

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two experts at IDWeek 2020 debated the best treatment for patients with the most severe type of Clostridioides difficile infection – fulminant C. diff. The discussion pitted fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) from the stool of healthy donors against traditional antibiotics.

Fulminant C. diff infection (CDI) represents about 8% of all CDI cases and is often fatal. Patients frequently don’t respond to maximum antibiotic therapy.

Should these patients be treated with FMT before surgery is considered?

“Unequivocally, yes,” said Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, associate director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

Patients face full colectomy

Fulminant infection, she says, typically requires a total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy.

“Patients have a quite high perioperative and intraoperative mortality because this is typically an older population with significant comorbidities,” she said.

Often the patients are poor candidates for surgery, she added.

She pointed to the efficacy of FMT in studies such as one published in Gut Microbes in 2017. The study, by Monika Fischer, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues showed a 91% cure rate at 1 month in severe patients with an average of 1.5 fecal transplants, noting that was “quite remarkable” in this very sick population.

Though FMT is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for fulminant CDI, Dr. Allegretti said, the FDA does allow treatment under “enforcement discretion,” which means no investigational new drug license is needed specifically if treating CDI patients who haven’t responded to standard therapy, as long as proper consent has been obtained.

“This is a patient population that is likely going to die,” she said. “If you were the one in the ICU with fulminant C. diff and you’ve been on maximum therapy for 3-5 days and you’re not getting better, wouldn’t you want somebody to offer you a fecal transplant and give you the chance to recover and leave the hospital with your colon intact? The data suggest that is possible, with a high likelihood and a good safety profile.”

She said the most recent guidelines have supported FMT, and emerging guidelines coming within months “will support this as well.”
 

Unknowns with FMT

Taking the other side of the debate, Kevin Garey, PharmD, chair of the department of pharmacy practice and translational research at University of Houston College of Pharmacy, warned against trading traditional antibiotics, such as vancomycin and fidaxomicin, for the novelty of FMT.

“With the science of the microbiome and the novelty of fecal microbiota transplantation in expanding use, I think people have somewhat forgotten pharmacotherapy,” he said.

He pointed out safety concerns with FMT reported in June 2019, after which the FDA issued an alert. Two immunocompromised patients who received FMT, both from the same donor, developed invasive infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli. One died.

The FDA explained that the donated FMT samples the patients received were not tested for ESBL-producing gram-negative organisms before use.

Dr. Allegretti agreed antibiotics play a role in treatment with FMT, but she argued that the safety profile of FMT remains strong and that the safety issues came from isolated incidents at a single center.

Dr. Garey countered that there are just too many unknowns with FMT.

“We will never know what the next superbug that’s going to land in an FMT is until we’ve identified that superbug in somebody – the next Candida auris, the next CRE [carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae], the next thing that’s going to show up in FMT – until we get rid of the ‘F,’ “ Dr. Garey said.

“[Until] we get microbial therapy that’s generated without the need for healthy donors, I think we’re always going to be in this problem.”

He said although FMT “has an amazing ability to alter a microbiome” it “pales in comparison” to vancomycin’s ability to do so.

Disruption of the microbiome is, without a doubt, a hallmark of C. diff, but we don’t have to run to FMT,” Dr. Garey said. “We can think about prophylaxis strategies, we can think about new drug development that spares the microbiota. The need for FMT might be a consequence of poor pharmacotherapy management, not a part of pharmacotherapy management.”

Moderator Sam Aitken, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacy specialist in infectious disease at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in an interview the speakers found some common ground.

“I think there was a general consensus between both Dr. Allegretti and Dr. Garey that both traditional therapeutics and fecal microbiota transplantation have a role to play in these patients, although there is still quite a bit of discussion around where those might be best positioned,” Dr. Aitken said.

He added, “There’s also a general consensus that there is not likely to be one right answer for all patients with multiple recurrent CDI.”

Dr. Allegretti, Dr. Garey, and Dr. Aitken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Two experts at IDWeek 2020 debated the best treatment for patients with the most severe type of Clostridioides difficile infection – fulminant C. diff. The discussion pitted fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) from the stool of healthy donors against traditional antibiotics.

Fulminant C. diff infection (CDI) represents about 8% of all CDI cases and is often fatal. Patients frequently don’t respond to maximum antibiotic therapy.

Should these patients be treated with FMT before surgery is considered?

“Unequivocally, yes,” said Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, associate director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

Patients face full colectomy

Fulminant infection, she says, typically requires a total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy.

“Patients have a quite high perioperative and intraoperative mortality because this is typically an older population with significant comorbidities,” she said.

Often the patients are poor candidates for surgery, she added.

She pointed to the efficacy of FMT in studies such as one published in Gut Microbes in 2017. The study, by Monika Fischer, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues showed a 91% cure rate at 1 month in severe patients with an average of 1.5 fecal transplants, noting that was “quite remarkable” in this very sick population.

Though FMT is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for fulminant CDI, Dr. Allegretti said, the FDA does allow treatment under “enforcement discretion,” which means no investigational new drug license is needed specifically if treating CDI patients who haven’t responded to standard therapy, as long as proper consent has been obtained.

“This is a patient population that is likely going to die,” she said. “If you were the one in the ICU with fulminant C. diff and you’ve been on maximum therapy for 3-5 days and you’re not getting better, wouldn’t you want somebody to offer you a fecal transplant and give you the chance to recover and leave the hospital with your colon intact? The data suggest that is possible, with a high likelihood and a good safety profile.”

She said the most recent guidelines have supported FMT, and emerging guidelines coming within months “will support this as well.”
 

Unknowns with FMT

Taking the other side of the debate, Kevin Garey, PharmD, chair of the department of pharmacy practice and translational research at University of Houston College of Pharmacy, warned against trading traditional antibiotics, such as vancomycin and fidaxomicin, for the novelty of FMT.

“With the science of the microbiome and the novelty of fecal microbiota transplantation in expanding use, I think people have somewhat forgotten pharmacotherapy,” he said.

He pointed out safety concerns with FMT reported in June 2019, after which the FDA issued an alert. Two immunocompromised patients who received FMT, both from the same donor, developed invasive infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli. One died.

The FDA explained that the donated FMT samples the patients received were not tested for ESBL-producing gram-negative organisms before use.

Dr. Allegretti agreed antibiotics play a role in treatment with FMT, but she argued that the safety profile of FMT remains strong and that the safety issues came from isolated incidents at a single center.

Dr. Garey countered that there are just too many unknowns with FMT.

“We will never know what the next superbug that’s going to land in an FMT is until we’ve identified that superbug in somebody – the next Candida auris, the next CRE [carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae], the next thing that’s going to show up in FMT – until we get rid of the ‘F,’ “ Dr. Garey said.

“[Until] we get microbial therapy that’s generated without the need for healthy donors, I think we’re always going to be in this problem.”

He said although FMT “has an amazing ability to alter a microbiome” it “pales in comparison” to vancomycin’s ability to do so.

Disruption of the microbiome is, without a doubt, a hallmark of C. diff, but we don’t have to run to FMT,” Dr. Garey said. “We can think about prophylaxis strategies, we can think about new drug development that spares the microbiota. The need for FMT might be a consequence of poor pharmacotherapy management, not a part of pharmacotherapy management.”

Moderator Sam Aitken, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacy specialist in infectious disease at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in an interview the speakers found some common ground.

“I think there was a general consensus between both Dr. Allegretti and Dr. Garey that both traditional therapeutics and fecal microbiota transplantation have a role to play in these patients, although there is still quite a bit of discussion around where those might be best positioned,” Dr. Aitken said.

He added, “There’s also a general consensus that there is not likely to be one right answer for all patients with multiple recurrent CDI.”

Dr. Allegretti, Dr. Garey, and Dr. Aitken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Two experts at IDWeek 2020 debated the best treatment for patients with the most severe type of Clostridioides difficile infection – fulminant C. diff. The discussion pitted fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) from the stool of healthy donors against traditional antibiotics.

Fulminant C. diff infection (CDI) represents about 8% of all CDI cases and is often fatal. Patients frequently don’t respond to maximum antibiotic therapy.

Should these patients be treated with FMT before surgery is considered?

“Unequivocally, yes,” said Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, associate director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

Patients face full colectomy

Fulminant infection, she says, typically requires a total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy.

“Patients have a quite high perioperative and intraoperative mortality because this is typically an older population with significant comorbidities,” she said.

Often the patients are poor candidates for surgery, she added.

She pointed to the efficacy of FMT in studies such as one published in Gut Microbes in 2017. The study, by Monika Fischer, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues showed a 91% cure rate at 1 month in severe patients with an average of 1.5 fecal transplants, noting that was “quite remarkable” in this very sick population.

Though FMT is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for fulminant CDI, Dr. Allegretti said, the FDA does allow treatment under “enforcement discretion,” which means no investigational new drug license is needed specifically if treating CDI patients who haven’t responded to standard therapy, as long as proper consent has been obtained.

“This is a patient population that is likely going to die,” she said. “If you were the one in the ICU with fulminant C. diff and you’ve been on maximum therapy for 3-5 days and you’re not getting better, wouldn’t you want somebody to offer you a fecal transplant and give you the chance to recover and leave the hospital with your colon intact? The data suggest that is possible, with a high likelihood and a good safety profile.”

She said the most recent guidelines have supported FMT, and emerging guidelines coming within months “will support this as well.”
 

Unknowns with FMT

Taking the other side of the debate, Kevin Garey, PharmD, chair of the department of pharmacy practice and translational research at University of Houston College of Pharmacy, warned against trading traditional antibiotics, such as vancomycin and fidaxomicin, for the novelty of FMT.

“With the science of the microbiome and the novelty of fecal microbiota transplantation in expanding use, I think people have somewhat forgotten pharmacotherapy,” he said.

He pointed out safety concerns with FMT reported in June 2019, after which the FDA issued an alert. Two immunocompromised patients who received FMT, both from the same donor, developed invasive infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli. One died.

The FDA explained that the donated FMT samples the patients received were not tested for ESBL-producing gram-negative organisms before use.

Dr. Allegretti agreed antibiotics play a role in treatment with FMT, but she argued that the safety profile of FMT remains strong and that the safety issues came from isolated incidents at a single center.

Dr. Garey countered that there are just too many unknowns with FMT.

“We will never know what the next superbug that’s going to land in an FMT is until we’ve identified that superbug in somebody – the next Candida auris, the next CRE [carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae], the next thing that’s going to show up in FMT – until we get rid of the ‘F,’ “ Dr. Garey said.

“[Until] we get microbial therapy that’s generated without the need for healthy donors, I think we’re always going to be in this problem.”

He said although FMT “has an amazing ability to alter a microbiome” it “pales in comparison” to vancomycin’s ability to do so.

Disruption of the microbiome is, without a doubt, a hallmark of C. diff, but we don’t have to run to FMT,” Dr. Garey said. “We can think about prophylaxis strategies, we can think about new drug development that spares the microbiota. The need for FMT might be a consequence of poor pharmacotherapy management, not a part of pharmacotherapy management.”

Moderator Sam Aitken, PharmD, MPH, a clinical pharmacy specialist in infectious disease at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in an interview the speakers found some common ground.

“I think there was a general consensus between both Dr. Allegretti and Dr. Garey that both traditional therapeutics and fecal microbiota transplantation have a role to play in these patients, although there is still quite a bit of discussion around where those might be best positioned,” Dr. Aitken said.

He added, “There’s also a general consensus that there is not likely to be one right answer for all patients with multiple recurrent CDI.”

Dr. Allegretti, Dr. Garey, and Dr. Aitken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with diabetic kidney disease, finerenone, an agent from a new class of selective, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, led to significant reductions in combined adverse renal outcomes and in combined adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the pivotal FIDELIO-DKD trial.

And the safety results showed a good level of tolerability. The rate of hyperkalemia was higher with finerenone than with placebo, but the rate of drug discontinuations for elevated potassium was lower than that seen with spironolactone, a steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA).

“An ideal drug would cause no hyperkalemia, but the absolute risk we saw is a fraction of what we see with spironolactone in this vulnerable patient population,” said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, from Indiana in Indianapolis, during a press briefing.

After a median follow-up of 2.6 years, finerenone was associated with a 3.4% absolute reduction in the rate of combined adverse renal events, the study’s primary end point, which comprised kidney failure, renal death, and a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 40% from baseline. This produced a significant relative risk reduction of 18%, with a number needed to treat of 32 to prevent one of these events, Dr. Agarwal reported at Kidney Week 2020. Findings from the FIDELIO-DKD trial were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Finerenone was also associated with an absolute 2.4% reduction in the rate of combined adverse cardiovascular events, the study’s “key secondary end point,” which included cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. This translated into a significant relative risk reduction of 14% and a number needed to treat of 42 to prevent one of these events.

FIDELIO-DKD assessed 5,734 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease from more than 1,000 sites in 48 countries, including the United States, from 2015 to 2018. In the study cohort, average age was slightly more than 65 years, average baseline systolic blood pressure was 138 mm Hg, average duration of diabetes was nearly 17 years, average baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1c) was 7.7%, and fewer than 5% of patients were Black, 25% were Asian, and about 63% were White.
 

A suggestion of less severe hyperkalemia

Finerenone was well tolerated by the participants, and the findings suggest that it caused less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia than spironolactone, the most established and widely used MRA.

Like all MRA drugs, finerenone led to an increase in serum potassium in all patient subgroups – in this case 0.2 mmol/L – unlike placebo, said Dr. Agarwal.

The overall incidence of hyperkalemia was 16% in the 2,827 evaluable patients in the finerenone group and 8% in the 2,831 evaluable patients in the placebo group. Fewer than 10% of patients in the trial received a potassium-binding agent.

The rate of hyperkalemia leading to treatment discontinuation was higher in the finerenone group than in the placebo group (2.3% vs. 0.9%).

That 2.3% rate is 10 times lower than the 23.0% rate of hyperkalemia-related treatment discontinuation in patients who received spironolactone and no potassium-binding agent, said Dr. Agarwal, citing a previous study he was involved with.

He hypothesized that finerenone might cause less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia because it creates no active metabolites that linger in the body, whereas spironolactone produces active metabolites with a half life of about 1 week.

“The risk for hyperkalemia is clearly increased with finerenone compared with placebo, and in the absence of head-to-head studies, it’s hard to know how it compares with spironolactone or eplerenone [Inspra],” the other agents in the MRA class, said Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, from the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

“The rates of hyperkalemia observed in FIDELIO-DKD were overall comparable to what we would expect from eplerenone. But the rate of serious hyperkalemia was quite low with finerenone, which is reassuring,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

And the adverse-effect profile showed that finerenone “is as safe as you could expect from an MRA,” said Janani Rangaswami, MD, from the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

The rate of hyperkalemia should be interpreted in the context of the high risk the enrolled patients faced, given that they all had moderate to severe diabetic kidney disease with albuminuria and, in some cases, eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m², she explained. In addition, all patients were on maximally tolerated treatment with either an angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker to inhibit the renin angiotensin system (RAS).

“Considering this background, it’s a very acceptable adverse-event profile,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.
 

Renal drugs that could work together

More than 99% of patients in FIDELIO-DKD were on an RAS inhibitor, but fewer than 5% were on a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor at baseline, and fewer than 10% started on this drug class during the course of the study.

Despite that, both Dr. Kosiborod and Dr. Rangaswami are enthusiastic about the prospect of using the three drugs in combination to maximize renal and cardiovascular benefits in FIDELIO-DKD–type patients. Recent results from the CREDENCE study of canagliflozin (Invokana) and from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagluflozin (Farxiga) have established SGLT2 inhibitors – at least those two – as key agents for patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dual treatment with an RAS inhibitor and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “clearly established” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, said Dr. Agarwal.

“After CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and now FIDELIO-DKD, we need to seriously consider triple therapy as the future of treatment for diabetic kidney disease to prevent both cardiovascular and kidney complications,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The approach will mimic the multidrug therapy that’s now standard for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But he cautioned that this triple combination needs further testing.

“Triple therapy will be the standard of care” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, Dr. Rangaswami agreed, but she cautioned that she would not currently expand the target population for finerenone to patients without type 2 diabetes or to patients without the level of albuminuria required for entry into FIDELIO-DKD: at least 30 mg/g of creatinine per day. And patients with HFrEF were excluded from FIDELIO-DKD, so that limitation on finerenone use should remain for the time being, she added.

Dr. Rangaswami said she is optimistic about the potential efficacy of finerenone added to an SGLT2 inhibitor because of the likelihood that the two drug classes work in different but complementary ways. SGLT2 inhibitors seem to exert their renal protective effects largely through hemodynamic effects, whereas it is likely that finerenone exerts its effects largely as an anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic agent, she speculated. The FIDELIO-DKD results appear to rule out any major effect of finerenone on blood pressure lowering because average systolic pressure fell by only about 2 mm Hg in the treatment group.

“The benefits of finerenone for cardiorenal outcomes are substantial and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “We cannot assume that other MRAs, such as spironolactone, provide similar benefits,” he cautioned, but the results are “very good news for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. We now have another effective intervention with a different mechanism of action.”

FIDELIO-DKD was sponsored by Bayer, the company developing finerenone (BAY 94-8862). Dr. Agarwal has been a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer and from several other companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to Bayer and to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansse, Merck, and Vifor and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with diabetic kidney disease, finerenone, an agent from a new class of selective, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, led to significant reductions in combined adverse renal outcomes and in combined adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the pivotal FIDELIO-DKD trial.

And the safety results showed a good level of tolerability. The rate of hyperkalemia was higher with finerenone than with placebo, but the rate of drug discontinuations for elevated potassium was lower than that seen with spironolactone, a steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA).

“An ideal drug would cause no hyperkalemia, but the absolute risk we saw is a fraction of what we see with spironolactone in this vulnerable patient population,” said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, from Indiana in Indianapolis, during a press briefing.

After a median follow-up of 2.6 years, finerenone was associated with a 3.4% absolute reduction in the rate of combined adverse renal events, the study’s primary end point, which comprised kidney failure, renal death, and a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 40% from baseline. This produced a significant relative risk reduction of 18%, with a number needed to treat of 32 to prevent one of these events, Dr. Agarwal reported at Kidney Week 2020. Findings from the FIDELIO-DKD trial were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Finerenone was also associated with an absolute 2.4% reduction in the rate of combined adverse cardiovascular events, the study’s “key secondary end point,” which included cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. This translated into a significant relative risk reduction of 14% and a number needed to treat of 42 to prevent one of these events.

FIDELIO-DKD assessed 5,734 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease from more than 1,000 sites in 48 countries, including the United States, from 2015 to 2018. In the study cohort, average age was slightly more than 65 years, average baseline systolic blood pressure was 138 mm Hg, average duration of diabetes was nearly 17 years, average baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1c) was 7.7%, and fewer than 5% of patients were Black, 25% were Asian, and about 63% were White.
 

A suggestion of less severe hyperkalemia

Finerenone was well tolerated by the participants, and the findings suggest that it caused less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia than spironolactone, the most established and widely used MRA.

Like all MRA drugs, finerenone led to an increase in serum potassium in all patient subgroups – in this case 0.2 mmol/L – unlike placebo, said Dr. Agarwal.

The overall incidence of hyperkalemia was 16% in the 2,827 evaluable patients in the finerenone group and 8% in the 2,831 evaluable patients in the placebo group. Fewer than 10% of patients in the trial received a potassium-binding agent.

The rate of hyperkalemia leading to treatment discontinuation was higher in the finerenone group than in the placebo group (2.3% vs. 0.9%).

That 2.3% rate is 10 times lower than the 23.0% rate of hyperkalemia-related treatment discontinuation in patients who received spironolactone and no potassium-binding agent, said Dr. Agarwal, citing a previous study he was involved with.

He hypothesized that finerenone might cause less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia because it creates no active metabolites that linger in the body, whereas spironolactone produces active metabolites with a half life of about 1 week.

“The risk for hyperkalemia is clearly increased with finerenone compared with placebo, and in the absence of head-to-head studies, it’s hard to know how it compares with spironolactone or eplerenone [Inspra],” the other agents in the MRA class, said Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, from the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

“The rates of hyperkalemia observed in FIDELIO-DKD were overall comparable to what we would expect from eplerenone. But the rate of serious hyperkalemia was quite low with finerenone, which is reassuring,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

And the adverse-effect profile showed that finerenone “is as safe as you could expect from an MRA,” said Janani Rangaswami, MD, from the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

The rate of hyperkalemia should be interpreted in the context of the high risk the enrolled patients faced, given that they all had moderate to severe diabetic kidney disease with albuminuria and, in some cases, eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m², she explained. In addition, all patients were on maximally tolerated treatment with either an angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker to inhibit the renin angiotensin system (RAS).

“Considering this background, it’s a very acceptable adverse-event profile,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.
 

Renal drugs that could work together

More than 99% of patients in FIDELIO-DKD were on an RAS inhibitor, but fewer than 5% were on a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor at baseline, and fewer than 10% started on this drug class during the course of the study.

Despite that, both Dr. Kosiborod and Dr. Rangaswami are enthusiastic about the prospect of using the three drugs in combination to maximize renal and cardiovascular benefits in FIDELIO-DKD–type patients. Recent results from the CREDENCE study of canagliflozin (Invokana) and from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagluflozin (Farxiga) have established SGLT2 inhibitors – at least those two – as key agents for patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dual treatment with an RAS inhibitor and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “clearly established” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, said Dr. Agarwal.

“After CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and now FIDELIO-DKD, we need to seriously consider triple therapy as the future of treatment for diabetic kidney disease to prevent both cardiovascular and kidney complications,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The approach will mimic the multidrug therapy that’s now standard for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But he cautioned that this triple combination needs further testing.

“Triple therapy will be the standard of care” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, Dr. Rangaswami agreed, but she cautioned that she would not currently expand the target population for finerenone to patients without type 2 diabetes or to patients without the level of albuminuria required for entry into FIDELIO-DKD: at least 30 mg/g of creatinine per day. And patients with HFrEF were excluded from FIDELIO-DKD, so that limitation on finerenone use should remain for the time being, she added.

Dr. Rangaswami said she is optimistic about the potential efficacy of finerenone added to an SGLT2 inhibitor because of the likelihood that the two drug classes work in different but complementary ways. SGLT2 inhibitors seem to exert their renal protective effects largely through hemodynamic effects, whereas it is likely that finerenone exerts its effects largely as an anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic agent, she speculated. The FIDELIO-DKD results appear to rule out any major effect of finerenone on blood pressure lowering because average systolic pressure fell by only about 2 mm Hg in the treatment group.

“The benefits of finerenone for cardiorenal outcomes are substantial and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “We cannot assume that other MRAs, such as spironolactone, provide similar benefits,” he cautioned, but the results are “very good news for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. We now have another effective intervention with a different mechanism of action.”

FIDELIO-DKD was sponsored by Bayer, the company developing finerenone (BAY 94-8862). Dr. Agarwal has been a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer and from several other companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to Bayer and to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansse, Merck, and Vifor and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with diabetic kidney disease, finerenone, an agent from a new class of selective, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, led to significant reductions in combined adverse renal outcomes and in combined adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the pivotal FIDELIO-DKD trial.

And the safety results showed a good level of tolerability. The rate of hyperkalemia was higher with finerenone than with placebo, but the rate of drug discontinuations for elevated potassium was lower than that seen with spironolactone, a steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA).

“An ideal drug would cause no hyperkalemia, but the absolute risk we saw is a fraction of what we see with spironolactone in this vulnerable patient population,” said Rajiv Agarwal, MD, from Indiana in Indianapolis, during a press briefing.

After a median follow-up of 2.6 years, finerenone was associated with a 3.4% absolute reduction in the rate of combined adverse renal events, the study’s primary end point, which comprised kidney failure, renal death, and a drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 40% from baseline. This produced a significant relative risk reduction of 18%, with a number needed to treat of 32 to prevent one of these events, Dr. Agarwal reported at Kidney Week 2020. Findings from the FIDELIO-DKD trial were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Finerenone was also associated with an absolute 2.4% reduction in the rate of combined adverse cardiovascular events, the study’s “key secondary end point,” which included cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. This translated into a significant relative risk reduction of 14% and a number needed to treat of 42 to prevent one of these events.

FIDELIO-DKD assessed 5,734 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease from more than 1,000 sites in 48 countries, including the United States, from 2015 to 2018. In the study cohort, average age was slightly more than 65 years, average baseline systolic blood pressure was 138 mm Hg, average duration of diabetes was nearly 17 years, average baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1c) was 7.7%, and fewer than 5% of patients were Black, 25% were Asian, and about 63% were White.
 

A suggestion of less severe hyperkalemia

Finerenone was well tolerated by the participants, and the findings suggest that it caused less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia than spironolactone, the most established and widely used MRA.

Like all MRA drugs, finerenone led to an increase in serum potassium in all patient subgroups – in this case 0.2 mmol/L – unlike placebo, said Dr. Agarwal.

The overall incidence of hyperkalemia was 16% in the 2,827 evaluable patients in the finerenone group and 8% in the 2,831 evaluable patients in the placebo group. Fewer than 10% of patients in the trial received a potassium-binding agent.

The rate of hyperkalemia leading to treatment discontinuation was higher in the finerenone group than in the placebo group (2.3% vs. 0.9%).

That 2.3% rate is 10 times lower than the 23.0% rate of hyperkalemia-related treatment discontinuation in patients who received spironolactone and no potassium-binding agent, said Dr. Agarwal, citing a previous study he was involved with.

He hypothesized that finerenone might cause less clinically meaningful hyperkalemia because it creates no active metabolites that linger in the body, whereas spironolactone produces active metabolites with a half life of about 1 week.

“The risk for hyperkalemia is clearly increased with finerenone compared with placebo, and in the absence of head-to-head studies, it’s hard to know how it compares with spironolactone or eplerenone [Inspra],” the other agents in the MRA class, said Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, from the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

“The rates of hyperkalemia observed in FIDELIO-DKD were overall comparable to what we would expect from eplerenone. But the rate of serious hyperkalemia was quite low with finerenone, which is reassuring,” Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

And the adverse-effect profile showed that finerenone “is as safe as you could expect from an MRA,” said Janani Rangaswami, MD, from the Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

The rate of hyperkalemia should be interpreted in the context of the high risk the enrolled patients faced, given that they all had moderate to severe diabetic kidney disease with albuminuria and, in some cases, eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m², she explained. In addition, all patients were on maximally tolerated treatment with either an angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker to inhibit the renin angiotensin system (RAS).

“Considering this background, it’s a very acceptable adverse-event profile,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.
 

Renal drugs that could work together

More than 99% of patients in FIDELIO-DKD were on an RAS inhibitor, but fewer than 5% were on a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor at baseline, and fewer than 10% started on this drug class during the course of the study.

Despite that, both Dr. Kosiborod and Dr. Rangaswami are enthusiastic about the prospect of using the three drugs in combination to maximize renal and cardiovascular benefits in FIDELIO-DKD–type patients. Recent results from the CREDENCE study of canagliflozin (Invokana) and from the DAPA-CKD study of dapagluflozin (Farxiga) have established SGLT2 inhibitors – at least those two – as key agents for patients with chronic kidney disease.

Dual treatment with an RAS inhibitor and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “clearly established” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, said Dr. Agarwal.

“After CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD, and now FIDELIO-DKD, we need to seriously consider triple therapy as the future of treatment for diabetic kidney disease to prevent both cardiovascular and kidney complications,” said Dr. Kosiborod. The approach will mimic the multidrug therapy that’s now standard for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). But he cautioned that this triple combination needs further testing.

“Triple therapy will be the standard of care” for patients with diabetic kidney disease, Dr. Rangaswami agreed, but she cautioned that she would not currently expand the target population for finerenone to patients without type 2 diabetes or to patients without the level of albuminuria required for entry into FIDELIO-DKD: at least 30 mg/g of creatinine per day. And patients with HFrEF were excluded from FIDELIO-DKD, so that limitation on finerenone use should remain for the time being, she added.

Dr. Rangaswami said she is optimistic about the potential efficacy of finerenone added to an SGLT2 inhibitor because of the likelihood that the two drug classes work in different but complementary ways. SGLT2 inhibitors seem to exert their renal protective effects largely through hemodynamic effects, whereas it is likely that finerenone exerts its effects largely as an anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic agent, she speculated. The FIDELIO-DKD results appear to rule out any major effect of finerenone on blood pressure lowering because average systolic pressure fell by only about 2 mm Hg in the treatment group.

“The benefits of finerenone for cardiorenal outcomes are substantial and clinically meaningful,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “We cannot assume that other MRAs, such as spironolactone, provide similar benefits,” he cautioned, but the results are “very good news for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. We now have another effective intervention with a different mechanism of action.”

FIDELIO-DKD was sponsored by Bayer, the company developing finerenone (BAY 94-8862). Dr. Agarwal has been a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer and from several other companies. Dr. Kosiborod has been a consultant to Bayer and to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansse, Merck, and Vifor and has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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