Audio

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is an effective way to prevent HPV infection and cancers typically caused by HPV, including cervical cancer and head and neck cancers, new research showed.

The analysis, featured at a press briefing ahead of the presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2024 annual meeting, notably found that men who received the HPV vaccine had a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers.

“We’ve known for a long time that having the HPV vaccine can prevent the development of HPV infection, yes, but importantly, cancer,” primarily cervical cancer, said briefing moderator and ASCO president Lynn Schuchter, MD, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is a really important study that extends the information about the impact.”

Using the US TriNetX database, lead investigator Jefferson DeKloe, BS, a research fellow with Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and colleagues created a matched cohort of 760,540 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated men and 945,999 HPV-vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

HPV-vaccinated men had a 54% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; P < .001) and a 56% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.44; P < .001) than unvaccinated men. There were not enough cases of anal and penile cancers for analysis.

HPV-vaccinated women had a 27% lower risk for all HPV-related cancers (OR, 0.73; P < .05), a 54% lower risk for cervical cancer (OR, 0.46; P < .05), and a 33% lower risk for head and neck cancers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08) than HPV-unvaccinated women, but this finding was not significant. There were not enough cases of anal cancers for analysis, and the odds of developing vulvar or vaginal cancer was not significantly different in HPV-vaccinated vs unvaccinated women.

Vaccinated women, however, were less likely than unvaccinated women to develop high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (OR, 0.44), cervical carcinoma in situ (OR, 0.42), or abnormal Pap findings (OR, 0.87), and were less likely to undergo cone biopsy and loop electrosurgical excision (OR, 0.45).

“This study really highlights the importance of getting the HPV vaccine,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing.

“HPV vaccination is cancer prevention,” Glenn Hanna, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an ASCO statement.

Still, HPV vaccination rates in the United States remain relatively low. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 2022, only about 58% of adolescents aged 13-15 years had received two or three doses of HPV vaccine as recommended.

“The goal,” Dr. Schuchter said at the briefing, “is that younger girls and young boys get vaccinated to prevent development of HPV infection, and that should decrease the risk of cancer, which is what we’ve seen.”

Mr. DeKloe agreed and highlighted the importance of improving vaccination rates. “Identifying effective interventions that increase HPV vaccination rates is critical in reducing undue cancer burden in the United States,” Mr. DeKloe said in a statement.

The study had no funding source. Mr. DeKloe had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hanna has disclosed relationships with Bicara Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coherus BioSciences, and others. Dr. Schuchter had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

For preventing rejection of cardiac transplants in children, the combination of everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus should now be considered an alternative to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus standard-dose tacrolimus, according to the first phase 3 trial to compare antirejection strategies in the pediatric setting.

Even though MMF and tacrolimus have never been evaluated for pediatric cardiac transplant in a controlled trial, this combination is widely considered a standard based on adult data, said Christopher Almond, MD, a professor of pediatric cardiology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.

Everolimus has not been widely used in an antirejection regimen in children following heart transplant in part because of a boxed warning. The warning was added to labeling when this agent was associated with increased infection and increased mortality in adults if given within 3 months of transplant.

In this non-inferiority trial, called TEAMMATE, patients were randomized to the MMF-based or everolimus-based regimen 6 months after transplant.
 

Everolimus- vs. MMF-based antirejection

The study enrolled 210 children and adolescents 21 years of age or younger. The control arm treatment consisted of MMF (660 mg/m² every 12 hours) plus standard dose of tacrolimus (initially 7-10 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 5-8 ng/mL).

In the experimental arm, patients received everolimus (3-8 ng/mL) plus a low dose of tacrolimus (initially 3-5 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 2.5-4.5 ng/mL).

The primary endpoint was score on the major adverse transplant event (MATE-6) tool. Based on gradations of severity, this assigns values for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).

Thirty months after randomization, the MATE-6 scores were 1.96 in the everolimus group and 2.18 in the MMF group, which conferred the everolimus-based regimen with a numerical but not a significant advantage over the MMF-based regimen. For the goal of noninferiority, the everolimus regimen “met the prespecified safety criterion for success,” Dr. Almond said.
 

Numerical advantage for everolimus on efficacy

The primary efficacy endpoint was the MATE-3 score, which is limited to CAV, CKD, and ACR. Again, the mean score on this metric (0.93 vs. 1.25) was lower on the everolimus-based regimen but not significantly different.

Looking at specific events in the MATE-6 score, the everolimus-based regimen was associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD, but a higher rate of PTLD, Dr. Almond reported.

On the MATE-3 efficacy analysis, the everolimus-based regimen was again associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD but higher rates of ACR.

In terms of adverse events, including those involving the gastrointestinal tract, blood cells, proteinuria, and interstitial lung disease, most did not differ markedly even if many were numerically more common in the MMF-based arm. The exception was aphthous stomatitis, which was more common on everolimus (32% vs. 7%; P < .001). There were more discontinuations for an adverse event in the MMF arm (21% vs. 12%; P < .001).

Other differences included a lower proportion of patients in the everolimus arm with anti-HLA antibodies (17% vs. 30%; P < .05). Total cholesterol levels at the end of the study were lower but not significantly different in the MMF group, while the higher median glomerular filtration rate was higher on everolimus, and this did reach statistical significance (P < .05).

Infection rates overall were similar, but cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was more common on the MMF-based regimen. The 30% lower rate of CMV infection in the everolimus proved to be potentially clinically meaningful when it was considered in the context of MATE-3. When these two endpoints were combined (MATE-3 and CMV infection as a prespecified secondary endpoint, the difference was statistically significant (P = .03) in favor of the everolimus-based regimen,
 

Study supports safety of everolimus regimen

The take-home message is that the everolimus-based regimen, which “is safe in children and young adults when initiated at 6 months after transplant,” can be considered as an alternative to MFF, Dr. Almond concluded.

However, one of the coauthors of the study, Joseph Rossano, MD, chief of the division of cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, suggested a stronger message.

“These data provide compelling reasons to consider initiation of the combination of everolimus and tacrolimus at 6 months post transplant in pediatric heart transplant recipients,” Dr. Rossano said.

Even though the everolimus-based regimen met the terms of noninferiority overall, patients who received this combination rather than the MMF-based regimen “were less likely to have the combined endpoints of vasculopathy, CKD, rejection and CMV infection. Additionally, they were less likely to make donor specific antibodies,” he said.

He also said that this study challenges the current boxed warning for everolimus. He pointed out that the warning, based on early use of everolimus in adults, does not appear to be an issue for children treated at 6 months.

Early mortality based on infection “was not observed in our study,” he said.

The AHA-invited discussant, Antonio G. Cabrera, MD, division chief of pediatric cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, drew the same conclusions. Based on the study, the everolimus-based regimen can only be described as noninferior to the MMF-based regimen, but Dr. Cabrera listed the same relative advantages as Dr. Rossano, including better kidney function.

Overall, either regimen might be more appealing based on several variables, but Dr. Cabrera said these data suggest everolimus-based treatment “should be considered” as one of two evidence-based options,

Dr. Almond reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rossano reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Myokardia. Dr. Cabrera reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

For preventing rejection of cardiac transplants in children, the combination of everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus should now be considered an alternative to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus standard-dose tacrolimus, according to the first phase 3 trial to compare antirejection strategies in the pediatric setting.

Even though MMF and tacrolimus have never been evaluated for pediatric cardiac transplant in a controlled trial, this combination is widely considered a standard based on adult data, said Christopher Almond, MD, a professor of pediatric cardiology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.

Everolimus has not been widely used in an antirejection regimen in children following heart transplant in part because of a boxed warning. The warning was added to labeling when this agent was associated with increased infection and increased mortality in adults if given within 3 months of transplant.

In this non-inferiority trial, called TEAMMATE, patients were randomized to the MMF-based or everolimus-based regimen 6 months after transplant.
 

Everolimus- vs. MMF-based antirejection

The study enrolled 210 children and adolescents 21 years of age or younger. The control arm treatment consisted of MMF (660 mg/m² every 12 hours) plus standard dose of tacrolimus (initially 7-10 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 5-8 ng/mL).

In the experimental arm, patients received everolimus (3-8 ng/mL) plus a low dose of tacrolimus (initially 3-5 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 2.5-4.5 ng/mL).

The primary endpoint was score on the major adverse transplant event (MATE-6) tool. Based on gradations of severity, this assigns values for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).

Thirty months after randomization, the MATE-6 scores were 1.96 in the everolimus group and 2.18 in the MMF group, which conferred the everolimus-based regimen with a numerical but not a significant advantage over the MMF-based regimen. For the goal of noninferiority, the everolimus regimen “met the prespecified safety criterion for success,” Dr. Almond said.
 

Numerical advantage for everolimus on efficacy

The primary efficacy endpoint was the MATE-3 score, which is limited to CAV, CKD, and ACR. Again, the mean score on this metric (0.93 vs. 1.25) was lower on the everolimus-based regimen but not significantly different.

Looking at specific events in the MATE-6 score, the everolimus-based regimen was associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD, but a higher rate of PTLD, Dr. Almond reported.

On the MATE-3 efficacy analysis, the everolimus-based regimen was again associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD but higher rates of ACR.

In terms of adverse events, including those involving the gastrointestinal tract, blood cells, proteinuria, and interstitial lung disease, most did not differ markedly even if many were numerically more common in the MMF-based arm. The exception was aphthous stomatitis, which was more common on everolimus (32% vs. 7%; P < .001). There were more discontinuations for an adverse event in the MMF arm (21% vs. 12%; P < .001).

Other differences included a lower proportion of patients in the everolimus arm with anti-HLA antibodies (17% vs. 30%; P < .05). Total cholesterol levels at the end of the study were lower but not significantly different in the MMF group, while the higher median glomerular filtration rate was higher on everolimus, and this did reach statistical significance (P < .05).

Infection rates overall were similar, but cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was more common on the MMF-based regimen. The 30% lower rate of CMV infection in the everolimus proved to be potentially clinically meaningful when it was considered in the context of MATE-3. When these two endpoints were combined (MATE-3 and CMV infection as a prespecified secondary endpoint, the difference was statistically significant (P = .03) in favor of the everolimus-based regimen,
 

Study supports safety of everolimus regimen

The take-home message is that the everolimus-based regimen, which “is safe in children and young adults when initiated at 6 months after transplant,” can be considered as an alternative to MFF, Dr. Almond concluded.

However, one of the coauthors of the study, Joseph Rossano, MD, chief of the division of cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, suggested a stronger message.

“These data provide compelling reasons to consider initiation of the combination of everolimus and tacrolimus at 6 months post transplant in pediatric heart transplant recipients,” Dr. Rossano said.

Even though the everolimus-based regimen met the terms of noninferiority overall, patients who received this combination rather than the MMF-based regimen “were less likely to have the combined endpoints of vasculopathy, CKD, rejection and CMV infection. Additionally, they were less likely to make donor specific antibodies,” he said.

He also said that this study challenges the current boxed warning for everolimus. He pointed out that the warning, based on early use of everolimus in adults, does not appear to be an issue for children treated at 6 months.

Early mortality based on infection “was not observed in our study,” he said.

The AHA-invited discussant, Antonio G. Cabrera, MD, division chief of pediatric cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, drew the same conclusions. Based on the study, the everolimus-based regimen can only be described as noninferior to the MMF-based regimen, but Dr. Cabrera listed the same relative advantages as Dr. Rossano, including better kidney function.

Overall, either regimen might be more appealing based on several variables, but Dr. Cabrera said these data suggest everolimus-based treatment “should be considered” as one of two evidence-based options,

Dr. Almond reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rossano reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Myokardia. Dr. Cabrera reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

For preventing rejection of cardiac transplants in children, the combination of everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus should now be considered an alternative to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus standard-dose tacrolimus, according to the first phase 3 trial to compare antirejection strategies in the pediatric setting.

Even though MMF and tacrolimus have never been evaluated for pediatric cardiac transplant in a controlled trial, this combination is widely considered a standard based on adult data, said Christopher Almond, MD, a professor of pediatric cardiology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.

Everolimus has not been widely used in an antirejection regimen in children following heart transplant in part because of a boxed warning. The warning was added to labeling when this agent was associated with increased infection and increased mortality in adults if given within 3 months of transplant.

In this non-inferiority trial, called TEAMMATE, patients were randomized to the MMF-based or everolimus-based regimen 6 months after transplant.
 

Everolimus- vs. MMF-based antirejection

The study enrolled 210 children and adolescents 21 years of age or younger. The control arm treatment consisted of MMF (660 mg/m² every 12 hours) plus standard dose of tacrolimus (initially 7-10 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 5-8 ng/mL).

In the experimental arm, patients received everolimus (3-8 ng/mL) plus a low dose of tacrolimus (initially 3-5 ng/mL followed at 6 months by 2.5-4.5 ng/mL).

The primary endpoint was score on the major adverse transplant event (MATE-6) tool. Based on gradations of severity, this assigns values for cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD).

Thirty months after randomization, the MATE-6 scores were 1.96 in the everolimus group and 2.18 in the MMF group, which conferred the everolimus-based regimen with a numerical but not a significant advantage over the MMF-based regimen. For the goal of noninferiority, the everolimus regimen “met the prespecified safety criterion for success,” Dr. Almond said.
 

Numerical advantage for everolimus on efficacy

The primary efficacy endpoint was the MATE-3 score, which is limited to CAV, CKD, and ACR. Again, the mean score on this metric (0.93 vs. 1.25) was lower on the everolimus-based regimen but not significantly different.

Looking at specific events in the MATE-6 score, the everolimus-based regimen was associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD, but a higher rate of PTLD, Dr. Almond reported.

On the MATE-3 efficacy analysis, the everolimus-based regimen was again associated with lower numerical rates of CAV and CKD but higher rates of ACR.

In terms of adverse events, including those involving the gastrointestinal tract, blood cells, proteinuria, and interstitial lung disease, most did not differ markedly even if many were numerically more common in the MMF-based arm. The exception was aphthous stomatitis, which was more common on everolimus (32% vs. 7%; P < .001). There were more discontinuations for an adverse event in the MMF arm (21% vs. 12%; P < .001).

Other differences included a lower proportion of patients in the everolimus arm with anti-HLA antibodies (17% vs. 30%; P < .05). Total cholesterol levels at the end of the study were lower but not significantly different in the MMF group, while the higher median glomerular filtration rate was higher on everolimus, and this did reach statistical significance (P < .05).

Infection rates overall were similar, but cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was more common on the MMF-based regimen. The 30% lower rate of CMV infection in the everolimus proved to be potentially clinically meaningful when it was considered in the context of MATE-3. When these two endpoints were combined (MATE-3 and CMV infection as a prespecified secondary endpoint, the difference was statistically significant (P = .03) in favor of the everolimus-based regimen,
 

Study supports safety of everolimus regimen

The take-home message is that the everolimus-based regimen, which “is safe in children and young adults when initiated at 6 months after transplant,” can be considered as an alternative to MFF, Dr. Almond concluded.

However, one of the coauthors of the study, Joseph Rossano, MD, chief of the division of cardiology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, suggested a stronger message.

“These data provide compelling reasons to consider initiation of the combination of everolimus and tacrolimus at 6 months post transplant in pediatric heart transplant recipients,” Dr. Rossano said.

Even though the everolimus-based regimen met the terms of noninferiority overall, patients who received this combination rather than the MMF-based regimen “were less likely to have the combined endpoints of vasculopathy, CKD, rejection and CMV infection. Additionally, they were less likely to make donor specific antibodies,” he said.

He also said that this study challenges the current boxed warning for everolimus. He pointed out that the warning, based on early use of everolimus in adults, does not appear to be an issue for children treated at 6 months.

Early mortality based on infection “was not observed in our study,” he said.

The AHA-invited discussant, Antonio G. Cabrera, MD, division chief of pediatric cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, drew the same conclusions. Based on the study, the everolimus-based regimen can only be described as noninferior to the MMF-based regimen, but Dr. Cabrera listed the same relative advantages as Dr. Rossano, including better kidney function.

Overall, either regimen might be more appealing based on several variables, but Dr. Cabrera said these data suggest everolimus-based treatment “should be considered” as one of two evidence-based options,

Dr. Almond reported no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rossano reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Myokardia. Dr. Cabrera reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

DALLAS – Researchers identified behavioral, psychological, and environmental predictors of continued weight loss maintenance vs. weight regain in a large cohort of members of WeightWatchers who had successful long-term weight loss.

On average, the participants had lost 25.5 kg (56 lb) and kept it off for 3.5 years, when they entered the 1-year study.

At study entry and 1 year later, the participants replied to several questionnaires that asked about predictors of weight loss maintenance.

Compared with people who gained weight over the 1-year study, those who maintained their weight within 2.3 kg (5 lb) reported more consistent monitoring of their diet and weight and greater acceptance of uncomfortable food cravings.

They also had reduced disinhibition (tendency to overeat) when faced with food cues, as well as less pain and a more positive body image “at any weight, shape, or size,” Suzanne Phelan, MD, PhD, reported.

Dr. Phelan, from the department of kinesiology and public health, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, presented the study in an Obesity symposium at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society, and it was simultaneously published in the journal. The study was selected as one of five top papers submitted to the journal to coincide with the meeting.

Future interventions to prevent weight regain should target overeating in response to internal and external food cues and declines in self-monitoring and body image, Dr. Phelan said.

The study aimed to identify behaviors that might predict who might “beat the odds” and sustain long-term weight loss, she said in an interview.

The findings suggest that the people who maintained their weight loss had developed skills to help them cope with cravings and not respond by eating, she said. Continued self-monitoring and body acceptance and appreciation (all body sizes are beautiful) were key elements of successful weight-loss maintenance.
 

No antiobesity drugs or surgery; don’t forget behavioral stuff

Importantly, although 43% of the study participants regained more than five pounds during this 1-year study, they still remained at 18% below their starting weight, “indicating that they were largely successful at weight loss,” Dr. Phelan said.

Michael D. Jensen, MD, editor-in-chief of Obesity, echoed this.

The researchers “did find some weak predictors of success,” said Dr. Jensen, from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “But perhaps as important,” he said, “was that at the end of the trial, even those who had regained some slight weight still had 18% weight loss – which is not trivial – after, on average, 4.5 years with a standard commercial weight management program.

“At every talk I go to here,” the message is, “Let’s stampede towards use of the drugs and skip diet and exercise and behavioral stuff,” he observed. “I would argue,” he said, “that when it works, it works really well, and it’s free. So this idea that we shouldn’t even try it, because we know it’s going to fail, is wrong.

“If you have the right group, they have a decent chance of having a sufficiently good response that you don’t have to give the medications and you don’t have to send them for bariatric surgery.

“Once you learn from these programs what to do, you’re not paying $1,000 a month for a drug and you haven’t had bariatric surgery,” Dr. Jensen noted. “Their 3 years of follow-up of WeightWatchers cost less than 1 month worth of one of these [antiobesity medications].”

The predictive findings were like ‘”icing on the cake,” he said. Anybody can find five people who’ve done well with therapy, but this study was in more than 2,800 people who did well with a commercial program that is not expensive.
 

Study design and findings

Between 2019 and 2020, WeightWatchers invited adult members who had maintained weight loss of at least 9.1 kg (20 lb) for at least 1 year to participate in this study.

Of 7,025 participants who entered the study, 4,004 individuals (57%) who did not complete the 1-year questionnaires and others with implausible weight were excluded, leaving a final sample of 2,843 participants.

Most participants were women (92%), non-Hispanic White (95%), married (92%), and college educated. They had a mean age of 56 years.

On average, the participants had a body mass index (BMI) of 35.9 kg/m² (grade 2 obesity) at the start of the WeightWatchers program and a BMI of 26.7 when they entered the current study.

At the 1-year follow-up, 57% of the participants had maintained the same weight (within 2.3 kg) as when they enrolled in the study, and 43% had gained ≥ 2.3 kg.

On average, the weight-loss maintainers had gained 0.4 kg (0.88 lb). The weight gainers had gained 7.2 kg (15.9 lb) but were still 19.1 kg (42.1 lb) below the weight they had when they started the WeightWatchers program.

At baseline, compared with the weight gainers, the weight-loss maintainers were on average older (58 vs. 52 years), had a lower initial BMI (26 vs. 28), and had longer duration of weight loss maintenance (4 vs. 3 years).

At 1 year, those who had maintained their weight loss had greater self-monitoring, psychological coping, physical activity strategies, dietary choice strategies, and eating and physical activity habits, and they had less eating initiation in the absence of hunger.

They also had less disinhibition, more willingness to ignore cravings and accept food urges, more future orientation, more mindfulness, more positive body image and body satisfaction, better general health and mental health, and less bodily pain.

This research was supported by a grant to Dr. Phelan from WeightWatchers (WW) International, and three study authors are employees and shareholders of the company. Dr. Jensen discloses consulting for Biohaven Pharmaceuticals and for Seattle Gummy Co.

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

DALLAS – Researchers identified behavioral, psychological, and environmental predictors of continued weight loss maintenance vs. weight regain in a large cohort of members of WeightWatchers who had successful long-term weight loss.

On average, the participants had lost 25.5 kg (56 lb) and kept it off for 3.5 years, when they entered the 1-year study.

At study entry and 1 year later, the participants replied to several questionnaires that asked about predictors of weight loss maintenance.

Compared with people who gained weight over the 1-year study, those who maintained their weight within 2.3 kg (5 lb) reported more consistent monitoring of their diet and weight and greater acceptance of uncomfortable food cravings.

They also had reduced disinhibition (tendency to overeat) when faced with food cues, as well as less pain and a more positive body image “at any weight, shape, or size,” Suzanne Phelan, MD, PhD, reported.

Dr. Phelan, from the department of kinesiology and public health, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, presented the study in an Obesity symposium at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society, and it was simultaneously published in the journal. The study was selected as one of five top papers submitted to the journal to coincide with the meeting.

Future interventions to prevent weight regain should target overeating in response to internal and external food cues and declines in self-monitoring and body image, Dr. Phelan said.

The study aimed to identify behaviors that might predict who might “beat the odds” and sustain long-term weight loss, she said in an interview.

The findings suggest that the people who maintained their weight loss had developed skills to help them cope with cravings and not respond by eating, she said. Continued self-monitoring and body acceptance and appreciation (all body sizes are beautiful) were key elements of successful weight-loss maintenance.
 

No antiobesity drugs or surgery; don’t forget behavioral stuff

Importantly, although 43% of the study participants regained more than five pounds during this 1-year study, they still remained at 18% below their starting weight, “indicating that they were largely successful at weight loss,” Dr. Phelan said.

Michael D. Jensen, MD, editor-in-chief of Obesity, echoed this.

The researchers “did find some weak predictors of success,” said Dr. Jensen, from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “But perhaps as important,” he said, “was that at the end of the trial, even those who had regained some slight weight still had 18% weight loss – which is not trivial – after, on average, 4.5 years with a standard commercial weight management program.

“At every talk I go to here,” the message is, “Let’s stampede towards use of the drugs and skip diet and exercise and behavioral stuff,” he observed. “I would argue,” he said, “that when it works, it works really well, and it’s free. So this idea that we shouldn’t even try it, because we know it’s going to fail, is wrong.

“If you have the right group, they have a decent chance of having a sufficiently good response that you don’t have to give the medications and you don’t have to send them for bariatric surgery.

“Once you learn from these programs what to do, you’re not paying $1,000 a month for a drug and you haven’t had bariatric surgery,” Dr. Jensen noted. “Their 3 years of follow-up of WeightWatchers cost less than 1 month worth of one of these [antiobesity medications].”

The predictive findings were like ‘”icing on the cake,” he said. Anybody can find five people who’ve done well with therapy, but this study was in more than 2,800 people who did well with a commercial program that is not expensive.
 

Study design and findings

Between 2019 and 2020, WeightWatchers invited adult members who had maintained weight loss of at least 9.1 kg (20 lb) for at least 1 year to participate in this study.

Of 7,025 participants who entered the study, 4,004 individuals (57%) who did not complete the 1-year questionnaires and others with implausible weight were excluded, leaving a final sample of 2,843 participants.

Most participants were women (92%), non-Hispanic White (95%), married (92%), and college educated. They had a mean age of 56 years.

On average, the participants had a body mass index (BMI) of 35.9 kg/m² (grade 2 obesity) at the start of the WeightWatchers program and a BMI of 26.7 when they entered the current study.

At the 1-year follow-up, 57% of the participants had maintained the same weight (within 2.3 kg) as when they enrolled in the study, and 43% had gained ≥ 2.3 kg.

On average, the weight-loss maintainers had gained 0.4 kg (0.88 lb). The weight gainers had gained 7.2 kg (15.9 lb) but were still 19.1 kg (42.1 lb) below the weight they had when they started the WeightWatchers program.

At baseline, compared with the weight gainers, the weight-loss maintainers were on average older (58 vs. 52 years), had a lower initial BMI (26 vs. 28), and had longer duration of weight loss maintenance (4 vs. 3 years).

At 1 year, those who had maintained their weight loss had greater self-monitoring, psychological coping, physical activity strategies, dietary choice strategies, and eating and physical activity habits, and they had less eating initiation in the absence of hunger.

They also had less disinhibition, more willingness to ignore cravings and accept food urges, more future orientation, more mindfulness, more positive body image and body satisfaction, better general health and mental health, and less bodily pain.

This research was supported by a grant to Dr. Phelan from WeightWatchers (WW) International, and three study authors are employees and shareholders of the company. Dr. Jensen discloses consulting for Biohaven Pharmaceuticals and for Seattle Gummy Co.

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

DALLAS – Researchers identified behavioral, psychological, and environmental predictors of continued weight loss maintenance vs. weight regain in a large cohort of members of WeightWatchers who had successful long-term weight loss.

On average, the participants had lost 25.5 kg (56 lb) and kept it off for 3.5 years, when they entered the 1-year study.

At study entry and 1 year later, the participants replied to several questionnaires that asked about predictors of weight loss maintenance.

Compared with people who gained weight over the 1-year study, those who maintained their weight within 2.3 kg (5 lb) reported more consistent monitoring of their diet and weight and greater acceptance of uncomfortable food cravings.

They also had reduced disinhibition (tendency to overeat) when faced with food cues, as well as less pain and a more positive body image “at any weight, shape, or size,” Suzanne Phelan, MD, PhD, reported.

Dr. Phelan, from the department of kinesiology and public health, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, presented the study in an Obesity symposium at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society, and it was simultaneously published in the journal. The study was selected as one of five top papers submitted to the journal to coincide with the meeting.

Future interventions to prevent weight regain should target overeating in response to internal and external food cues and declines in self-monitoring and body image, Dr. Phelan said.

The study aimed to identify behaviors that might predict who might “beat the odds” and sustain long-term weight loss, she said in an interview.

The findings suggest that the people who maintained their weight loss had developed skills to help them cope with cravings and not respond by eating, she said. Continued self-monitoring and body acceptance and appreciation (all body sizes are beautiful) were key elements of successful weight-loss maintenance.
 

No antiobesity drugs or surgery; don’t forget behavioral stuff

Importantly, although 43% of the study participants regained more than five pounds during this 1-year study, they still remained at 18% below their starting weight, “indicating that they were largely successful at weight loss,” Dr. Phelan said.

Michael D. Jensen, MD, editor-in-chief of Obesity, echoed this.

The researchers “did find some weak predictors of success,” said Dr. Jensen, from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “But perhaps as important,” he said, “was that at the end of the trial, even those who had regained some slight weight still had 18% weight loss – which is not trivial – after, on average, 4.5 years with a standard commercial weight management program.

“At every talk I go to here,” the message is, “Let’s stampede towards use of the drugs and skip diet and exercise and behavioral stuff,” he observed. “I would argue,” he said, “that when it works, it works really well, and it’s free. So this idea that we shouldn’t even try it, because we know it’s going to fail, is wrong.

“If you have the right group, they have a decent chance of having a sufficiently good response that you don’t have to give the medications and you don’t have to send them for bariatric surgery.

“Once you learn from these programs what to do, you’re not paying $1,000 a month for a drug and you haven’t had bariatric surgery,” Dr. Jensen noted. “Their 3 years of follow-up of WeightWatchers cost less than 1 month worth of one of these [antiobesity medications].”

The predictive findings were like ‘”icing on the cake,” he said. Anybody can find five people who’ve done well with therapy, but this study was in more than 2,800 people who did well with a commercial program that is not expensive.
 

Study design and findings

Between 2019 and 2020, WeightWatchers invited adult members who had maintained weight loss of at least 9.1 kg (20 lb) for at least 1 year to participate in this study.

Of 7,025 participants who entered the study, 4,004 individuals (57%) who did not complete the 1-year questionnaires and others with implausible weight were excluded, leaving a final sample of 2,843 participants.

Most participants were women (92%), non-Hispanic White (95%), married (92%), and college educated. They had a mean age of 56 years.

On average, the participants had a body mass index (BMI) of 35.9 kg/m² (grade 2 obesity) at the start of the WeightWatchers program and a BMI of 26.7 when they entered the current study.

At the 1-year follow-up, 57% of the participants had maintained the same weight (within 2.3 kg) as when they enrolled in the study, and 43% had gained ≥ 2.3 kg.

On average, the weight-loss maintainers had gained 0.4 kg (0.88 lb). The weight gainers had gained 7.2 kg (15.9 lb) but were still 19.1 kg (42.1 lb) below the weight they had when they started the WeightWatchers program.

At baseline, compared with the weight gainers, the weight-loss maintainers were on average older (58 vs. 52 years), had a lower initial BMI (26 vs. 28), and had longer duration of weight loss maintenance (4 vs. 3 years).

At 1 year, those who had maintained their weight loss had greater self-monitoring, psychological coping, physical activity strategies, dietary choice strategies, and eating and physical activity habits, and they had less eating initiation in the absence of hunger.

They also had less disinhibition, more willingness to ignore cravings and accept food urges, more future orientation, more mindfulness, more positive body image and body satisfaction, better general health and mental health, and less bodily pain.

This research was supported by a grant to Dr. Phelan from WeightWatchers (WW) International, and three study authors are employees and shareholders of the company. Dr. Jensen discloses consulting for Biohaven Pharmaceuticals and for Seattle Gummy Co.

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

Whether you’ve decided to retire, relocate, or work for your local hospital, unwinding your practice will take time. Physicians can avoid mistakes by planning ahead and making a checklist for what to do and when to do it.

“Doctors shouldn’t assume everything takes care of itself. Many don’t think about compliance issues, patient abandonment, or accounts receivable that they need to keep open to collect from billing, which can occur months after the dates of service,” said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare management consultants in Pennsylvania.

Debra Phairas, president of Practice and Liability Consultants, LLC, in California, suggests doctors start planning for the closing of their practice at least 90-120 days from their closing date.

“Many people and entities need to be notified,” said Ms. Phairas. The list includes patients, payers, vendors, employees, licensing boards, and federal and state agencies.

Medical societies may have specific bylaws that apply; malpractice carriers have rules about how long you should retain medical records; and some state laws require that you communicate that you’re closing in a newspaper, Mr. Zetter added.

Ms. Phairas recommends that physicians decide first whether they will sell their practice or if they’ll just shut it down. If they sell and the buyer is a doctor, they may want to provide transition assistance such as introducing patients and staff, she said. Otherwise, doctors may need to terminate their staff.

After doctors make that decision, Mr. Zetter and Ms. Phairas recommend taking these 12 steps to ensure that the process goes smoothly.
 

What to do 60-90 days out

1. Check your insurance contracts. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires physicians to notify them 90 days after deciding to retire or withdraw from Medicare or Medicaid. Other payers may also require 90 days’ notice to terminate their contracts.

You’ll also need to provide payers with a forwarding address for sending payments after the office closes, and notify your malpractice insurance carrier and any other contracted insurance carriers such as workers’ compensation or employee benefit plans.

2. Buy “tail” coverage. Doctors can be sued for malpractice years after they close their practice so this provides coverage against claims reported after the liability policy expires.

3. Check your hospital contracts. Most hospitals where you have privileges require 90 days’ notice that you are closing the practice.

4. Arrange for safe storage of medical records. If you are selling your practice to another physician, that doctor can take charge of them, as long as you obtain a patient’s consent to transfer the medical records, said Ms. Phairas. Otherwise, the practice is required to make someone the guardian of the records after the practice closes, said Mr. Zetter. This allows patients at a later date to obtain copies of their records at a cost.

“This usually means printing all the records to PDF to be retained; otherwise, doctors have to continue to pay the license fee for the EMR software to access the records, and no practice is going to continue to pay this indefinitely,” said Mr. Zetter.

Check with your malpractice insurance carrier for how long they require medical records to be retained, which may vary for adult and pediatric records.

Ms. Phairas also advises doctors to keep their original records. “The biggest mistake doctors can make is to give patients all their records. Your chart is your best defense weapon in a liability claim.”
 

What to do 30-60 days out

5. Tell your staff. They should not hear that you’re retiring or leaving the practice from other people, said Ms. Phairas. But timing is important. “If you notify them too soon, they may look for another job. I recommend telling them about 45 days out and just before you notify patients, although you may want to tell the office manager sooner.”

Doctors may need help closing the practice and should consider offering the employees a severance bonus to stay until the end, said Ms. Phairas. If they do leave sooner, then you can hire temporary staff.

6. Notify patients to avoid any claims of abandonment. You should notify all active patients, which, depending on your state, can be any patient the physician has treated sometime in the past 12-36 months.

Some state laws require the notice to be published as an advertisement in the local newspaper and will say how far in advance it needs to be published and how long the ad needs to run. Notification also should be posted throughout the practice, and patients who call or visit should be given oral reminders.

“Your biggest expense will be mailing a letter to all patients,” said Mr. Zetter. The letter should include:

• The date of closing.
• The name(s) of the physicians taking over the practice (if applicable).
• Local physicians who would be willing to accept new patients.
• Instructions for how patients can obtain or transfer medical records (with a deadline for submitting record requests).
• How to contact the practice if patients and families have any concerns about the closing.

7. Notify your professional associations. These include your state medical board, credentialing organizations, and professional memberships. It’s critical to renew your license even if you plan to practice in other states. He recalled that one doctor let his license lapse and the medical board notified Medicaid that he was no longer licensed. “CMS went after him because he didn’t notify them that he was no longer operating in Washington. CMS shut him down in every state/territory. This interventional radiologist spent 3 years with two attorneys to get it resolved,” said Mr. Zetter.

8. Terminate any leases with landlords or try to negotiate renting the office space on a month-to-month basis until you close or sell, suggests Ms. Phairas. If the practice owns the space, the partners will need to decide if the space will be sold or leased to a new business.
 

What to do 30 days out

9. Notify referring physicians of when you plan to close your practice so they don’t send new patients after that date.

10. Send a letter to the Drug Enforcement Agency to deactivate your license if you plan not to write another prescription and after you have safely disposed of prescription drugs following the federal guidelines. Destroy all prescription pads and contact drug representatives to determine what to do with unused samples, if needed.

11. Notify all vendors. Inform medical suppliers, office suppliers, collection agencies, laundry services, housekeeping services, hazardous waste disposal services, and any other vendors. Make sure to request a final statement from them so you can close out your accounts.

12. Process your accounts receivable to collect money owed to you. Consider employing a collection agency or staff member to reconcile accounts after the practice has closed.

Mr. Zetter also suggested retaining a certified accountant to handle the expenses for shutting down the business and to handle your future tax returns. “If you shut down the practice in 2023, you will still have to file a tax return for that year in 2024,” he said.

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

Whether you’ve decided to retire, relocate, or work for your local hospital, unwinding your practice will take time. Physicians can avoid mistakes by planning ahead and making a checklist for what to do and when to do it.

“Doctors shouldn’t assume everything takes care of itself. Many don’t think about compliance issues, patient abandonment, or accounts receivable that they need to keep open to collect from billing, which can occur months after the dates of service,” said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare management consultants in Pennsylvania.

Debra Phairas, president of Practice and Liability Consultants, LLC, in California, suggests doctors start planning for the closing of their practice at least 90-120 days from their closing date.

“Many people and entities need to be notified,” said Ms. Phairas. The list includes patients, payers, vendors, employees, licensing boards, and federal and state agencies.

Medical societies may have specific bylaws that apply; malpractice carriers have rules about how long you should retain medical records; and some state laws require that you communicate that you’re closing in a newspaper, Mr. Zetter added.

Ms. Phairas recommends that physicians decide first whether they will sell their practice or if they’ll just shut it down. If they sell and the buyer is a doctor, they may want to provide transition assistance such as introducing patients and staff, she said. Otherwise, doctors may need to terminate their staff.

After doctors make that decision, Mr. Zetter and Ms. Phairas recommend taking these 12 steps to ensure that the process goes smoothly.
 

What to do 60-90 days out

1. Check your insurance contracts. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires physicians to notify them 90 days after deciding to retire or withdraw from Medicare or Medicaid. Other payers may also require 90 days’ notice to terminate their contracts.

You’ll also need to provide payers with a forwarding address for sending payments after the office closes, and notify your malpractice insurance carrier and any other contracted insurance carriers such as workers’ compensation or employee benefit plans.

2. Buy “tail” coverage. Doctors can be sued for malpractice years after they close their practice so this provides coverage against claims reported after the liability policy expires.

3. Check your hospital contracts. Most hospitals where you have privileges require 90 days’ notice that you are closing the practice.

4. Arrange for safe storage of medical records. If you are selling your practice to another physician, that doctor can take charge of them, as long as you obtain a patient’s consent to transfer the medical records, said Ms. Phairas. Otherwise, the practice is required to make someone the guardian of the records after the practice closes, said Mr. Zetter. This allows patients at a later date to obtain copies of their records at a cost.

“This usually means printing all the records to PDF to be retained; otherwise, doctors have to continue to pay the license fee for the EMR software to access the records, and no practice is going to continue to pay this indefinitely,” said Mr. Zetter.

Check with your malpractice insurance carrier for how long they require medical records to be retained, which may vary for adult and pediatric records.

Ms. Phairas also advises doctors to keep their original records. “The biggest mistake doctors can make is to give patients all their records. Your chart is your best defense weapon in a liability claim.”
 

What to do 30-60 days out

5. Tell your staff. They should not hear that you’re retiring or leaving the practice from other people, said Ms. Phairas. But timing is important. “If you notify them too soon, they may look for another job. I recommend telling them about 45 days out and just before you notify patients, although you may want to tell the office manager sooner.”

Doctors may need help closing the practice and should consider offering the employees a severance bonus to stay until the end, said Ms. Phairas. If they do leave sooner, then you can hire temporary staff.

6. Notify patients to avoid any claims of abandonment. You should notify all active patients, which, depending on your state, can be any patient the physician has treated sometime in the past 12-36 months.

Some state laws require the notice to be published as an advertisement in the local newspaper and will say how far in advance it needs to be published and how long the ad needs to run. Notification also should be posted throughout the practice, and patients who call or visit should be given oral reminders.

“Your biggest expense will be mailing a letter to all patients,” said Mr. Zetter. The letter should include:

• The date of closing.
• The name(s) of the physicians taking over the practice (if applicable).
• Local physicians who would be willing to accept new patients.
• Instructions for how patients can obtain or transfer medical records (with a deadline for submitting record requests).
• How to contact the practice if patients and families have any concerns about the closing.

7. Notify your professional associations. These include your state medical board, credentialing organizations, and professional memberships. It’s critical to renew your license even if you plan to practice in other states. He recalled that one doctor let his license lapse and the medical board notified Medicaid that he was no longer licensed. “CMS went after him because he didn’t notify them that he was no longer operating in Washington. CMS shut him down in every state/territory. This interventional radiologist spent 3 years with two attorneys to get it resolved,” said Mr. Zetter.

8. Terminate any leases with landlords or try to negotiate renting the office space on a month-to-month basis until you close or sell, suggests Ms. Phairas. If the practice owns the space, the partners will need to decide if the space will be sold or leased to a new business.
 

What to do 30 days out

9. Notify referring physicians of when you plan to close your practice so they don’t send new patients after that date.

10. Send a letter to the Drug Enforcement Agency to deactivate your license if you plan not to write another prescription and after you have safely disposed of prescription drugs following the federal guidelines. Destroy all prescription pads and contact drug representatives to determine what to do with unused samples, if needed.

11. Notify all vendors. Inform medical suppliers, office suppliers, collection agencies, laundry services, housekeeping services, hazardous waste disposal services, and any other vendors. Make sure to request a final statement from them so you can close out your accounts.

12. Process your accounts receivable to collect money owed to you. Consider employing a collection agency or staff member to reconcile accounts after the practice has closed.

Mr. Zetter also suggested retaining a certified accountant to handle the expenses for shutting down the business and to handle your future tax returns. “If you shut down the practice in 2023, you will still have to file a tax return for that year in 2024,” he said.

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

Whether you’ve decided to retire, relocate, or work for your local hospital, unwinding your practice will take time. Physicians can avoid mistakes by planning ahead and making a checklist for what to do and when to do it.

“Doctors shouldn’t assume everything takes care of itself. Many don’t think about compliance issues, patient abandonment, or accounts receivable that they need to keep open to collect from billing, which can occur months after the dates of service,” said David Zetter, president of Zetter HealthCare management consultants in Pennsylvania.

Debra Phairas, president of Practice and Liability Consultants, LLC, in California, suggests doctors start planning for the closing of their practice at least 90-120 days from their closing date.

“Many people and entities need to be notified,” said Ms. Phairas. The list includes patients, payers, vendors, employees, licensing boards, and federal and state agencies.

Medical societies may have specific bylaws that apply; malpractice carriers have rules about how long you should retain medical records; and some state laws require that you communicate that you’re closing in a newspaper, Mr. Zetter added.

Ms. Phairas recommends that physicians decide first whether they will sell their practice or if they’ll just shut it down. If they sell and the buyer is a doctor, they may want to provide transition assistance such as introducing patients and staff, she said. Otherwise, doctors may need to terminate their staff.

After doctors make that decision, Mr. Zetter and Ms. Phairas recommend taking these 12 steps to ensure that the process goes smoothly.
 

What to do 60-90 days out

1. Check your insurance contracts. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires physicians to notify them 90 days after deciding to retire or withdraw from Medicare or Medicaid. Other payers may also require 90 days’ notice to terminate their contracts.

You’ll also need to provide payers with a forwarding address for sending payments after the office closes, and notify your malpractice insurance carrier and any other contracted insurance carriers such as workers’ compensation or employee benefit plans.

2. Buy “tail” coverage. Doctors can be sued for malpractice years after they close their practice so this provides coverage against claims reported after the liability policy expires.

3. Check your hospital contracts. Most hospitals where you have privileges require 90 days’ notice that you are closing the practice.

4. Arrange for safe storage of medical records. If you are selling your practice to another physician, that doctor can take charge of them, as long as you obtain a patient’s consent to transfer the medical records, said Ms. Phairas. Otherwise, the practice is required to make someone the guardian of the records after the practice closes, said Mr. Zetter. This allows patients at a later date to obtain copies of their records at a cost.

“This usually means printing all the records to PDF to be retained; otherwise, doctors have to continue to pay the license fee for the EMR software to access the records, and no practice is going to continue to pay this indefinitely,” said Mr. Zetter.

Check with your malpractice insurance carrier for how long they require medical records to be retained, which may vary for adult and pediatric records.

Ms. Phairas also advises doctors to keep their original records. “The biggest mistake doctors can make is to give patients all their records. Your chart is your best defense weapon in a liability claim.”
 

What to do 30-60 days out

5. Tell your staff. They should not hear that you’re retiring or leaving the practice from other people, said Ms. Phairas. But timing is important. “If you notify them too soon, they may look for another job. I recommend telling them about 45 days out and just before you notify patients, although you may want to tell the office manager sooner.”

Doctors may need help closing the practice and should consider offering the employees a severance bonus to stay until the end, said Ms. Phairas. If they do leave sooner, then you can hire temporary staff.

6. Notify patients to avoid any claims of abandonment. You should notify all active patients, which, depending on your state, can be any patient the physician has treated sometime in the past 12-36 months.

Some state laws require the notice to be published as an advertisement in the local newspaper and will say how far in advance it needs to be published and how long the ad needs to run. Notification also should be posted throughout the practice, and patients who call or visit should be given oral reminders.

“Your biggest expense will be mailing a letter to all patients,” said Mr. Zetter. The letter should include:

• The date of closing.
• The name(s) of the physicians taking over the practice (if applicable).
• Local physicians who would be willing to accept new patients.
• Instructions for how patients can obtain or transfer medical records (with a deadline for submitting record requests).
• How to contact the practice if patients and families have any concerns about the closing.

7. Notify your professional associations. These include your state medical board, credentialing organizations, and professional memberships. It’s critical to renew your license even if you plan to practice in other states. He recalled that one doctor let his license lapse and the medical board notified Medicaid that he was no longer licensed. “CMS went after him because he didn’t notify them that he was no longer operating in Washington. CMS shut him down in every state/territory. This interventional radiologist spent 3 years with two attorneys to get it resolved,” said Mr. Zetter.

8. Terminate any leases with landlords or try to negotiate renting the office space on a month-to-month basis until you close or sell, suggests Ms. Phairas. If the practice owns the space, the partners will need to decide if the space will be sold or leased to a new business.
 

What to do 30 days out

9. Notify referring physicians of when you plan to close your practice so they don’t send new patients after that date.

10. Send a letter to the Drug Enforcement Agency to deactivate your license if you plan not to write another prescription and after you have safely disposed of prescription drugs following the federal guidelines. Destroy all prescription pads and contact drug representatives to determine what to do with unused samples, if needed.

11. Notify all vendors. Inform medical suppliers, office suppliers, collection agencies, laundry services, housekeeping services, hazardous waste disposal services, and any other vendors. Make sure to request a final statement from them so you can close out your accounts.

12. Process your accounts receivable to collect money owed to you. Consider employing a collection agency or staff member to reconcile accounts after the practice has closed.

Mr. Zetter also suggested retaining a certified accountant to handle the expenses for shutting down the business and to handle your future tax returns. “If you shut down the practice in 2023, you will still have to file a tax return for that year in 2024,” he said.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with early-stage breast cancer who do not adhere to adjuvant endocrine therapy as prescribed or stop early may face as much as a twofold higher risk of relapse or death, a new systematic review found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators conducted a systematic literature search of five databases, looking for studies involving patients with nonmetastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer that were published between 2010 and 2020.
• Adequate adherence was defined as a medical possession ratio – the percentage of days the prescribed treatment dose of adjuvant endocrine therapy was available to the patient – of at least 80%.
• Medication nonpersistence was defined as a period in which no new adjuvant endocrine therapy prescriptions were filled before the scheduled end of treatment of 90-180 days, depending on the study.
• The impact of both parameters on event-free survival, which included breast cancer recurrence, disease-free survival, breast cancer–specific survival, and overall survival cancer was calculated.
• Of 2,026 articles retrieved, 14 studies, with sample sizes ranging from 857 to 30,573 patients, met the eligibility and quality criteria; 11 examined patient adherence, and 6 examined patient persistence.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 10 studies that assessed event-free survival, 7 showed significantly worse survival for nonadherent or nonpersistent patients, at hazard ratios of 1.39-2.44.
• Of nine studies that examined overall survival, seven demonstrated a significantly higher risk for mortality in the groups with nonadherence and nonpersistence, at HRs of 1.26-2.18.
• The largest study, which included data on more than 30,000 patients in Taiwan, found that nonadherence and nonpersistence were associated with a significantly increased risk for mortality, at HRs of 1.98 and 2.18, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“The available data highlight the dangers of nonadherence and nonpersistence, showing an up to twofold higher risk of relapse or death for patients who do not use endocrine treatment as prescribed,” the researchers said. “Importantly, improving adherence and persistence represents a low-hanging fruit for increasing survival in luminal breast cancer.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Finn Magnus Eliassen, MD, department of surgery, Stavanger (Norway) University Hospital, was published online on July 4 in BMC Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

• The review is limited by the relatively small number of studies that met the eligibility criteria and by their heterogeneity, which ruled out a meta-analysis.
• There are no gold-standard definitions of adherence and persistence.

DISCLOSURES:

• No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
• A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with early-stage breast cancer who do not adhere to adjuvant endocrine therapy as prescribed or stop early may face as much as a twofold higher risk of relapse or death, a new systematic review found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators conducted a systematic literature search of five databases, looking for studies involving patients with nonmetastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer that were published between 2010 and 2020.
• Adequate adherence was defined as a medical possession ratio – the percentage of days the prescribed treatment dose of adjuvant endocrine therapy was available to the patient – of at least 80%.
• Medication nonpersistence was defined as a period in which no new adjuvant endocrine therapy prescriptions were filled before the scheduled end of treatment of 90-180 days, depending on the study.
• The impact of both parameters on event-free survival, which included breast cancer recurrence, disease-free survival, breast cancer–specific survival, and overall survival cancer was calculated.
• Of 2,026 articles retrieved, 14 studies, with sample sizes ranging from 857 to 30,573 patients, met the eligibility and quality criteria; 11 examined patient adherence, and 6 examined patient persistence.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 10 studies that assessed event-free survival, 7 showed significantly worse survival for nonadherent or nonpersistent patients, at hazard ratios of 1.39-2.44.
• Of nine studies that examined overall survival, seven demonstrated a significantly higher risk for mortality in the groups with nonadherence and nonpersistence, at HRs of 1.26-2.18.
• The largest study, which included data on more than 30,000 patients in Taiwan, found that nonadherence and nonpersistence were associated with a significantly increased risk for mortality, at HRs of 1.98 and 2.18, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“The available data highlight the dangers of nonadherence and nonpersistence, showing an up to twofold higher risk of relapse or death for patients who do not use endocrine treatment as prescribed,” the researchers said. “Importantly, improving adherence and persistence represents a low-hanging fruit for increasing survival in luminal breast cancer.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Finn Magnus Eliassen, MD, department of surgery, Stavanger (Norway) University Hospital, was published online on July 4 in BMC Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

• The review is limited by the relatively small number of studies that met the eligibility criteria and by their heterogeneity, which ruled out a meta-analysis.
• There are no gold-standard definitions of adherence and persistence.

DISCLOSURES:

• No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
• A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with early-stage breast cancer who do not adhere to adjuvant endocrine therapy as prescribed or stop early may face as much as a twofold higher risk of relapse or death, a new systematic review found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The investigators conducted a systematic literature search of five databases, looking for studies involving patients with nonmetastatic hormone receptor–positive breast cancer that were published between 2010 and 2020.
• Adequate adherence was defined as a medical possession ratio – the percentage of days the prescribed treatment dose of adjuvant endocrine therapy was available to the patient – of at least 80%.
• Medication nonpersistence was defined as a period in which no new adjuvant endocrine therapy prescriptions were filled before the scheduled end of treatment of 90-180 days, depending on the study.
• The impact of both parameters on event-free survival, which included breast cancer recurrence, disease-free survival, breast cancer–specific survival, and overall survival cancer was calculated.
• Of 2,026 articles retrieved, 14 studies, with sample sizes ranging from 857 to 30,573 patients, met the eligibility and quality criteria; 11 examined patient adherence, and 6 examined patient persistence.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 10 studies that assessed event-free survival, 7 showed significantly worse survival for nonadherent or nonpersistent patients, at hazard ratios of 1.39-2.44.
• Of nine studies that examined overall survival, seven demonstrated a significantly higher risk for mortality in the groups with nonadherence and nonpersistence, at HRs of 1.26-2.18.
• The largest study, which included data on more than 30,000 patients in Taiwan, found that nonadherence and nonpersistence were associated with a significantly increased risk for mortality, at HRs of 1.98 and 2.18, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“The available data highlight the dangers of nonadherence and nonpersistence, showing an up to twofold higher risk of relapse or death for patients who do not use endocrine treatment as prescribed,” the researchers said. “Importantly, improving adherence and persistence represents a low-hanging fruit for increasing survival in luminal breast cancer.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Finn Magnus Eliassen, MD, department of surgery, Stavanger (Norway) University Hospital, was published online on July 4 in BMC Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

• The review is limited by the relatively small number of studies that met the eligibility criteria and by their heterogeneity, which ruled out a meta-analysis.
• There are no gold-standard definitions of adherence and persistence.

DISCLOSURES:

• No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
• A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Scientists have developed a biodegradable implant that helps chemotherapy drugs penetrate the blood-brain barrier in mice and deliver a direct hit on brain tumors.

It’s the latest advance in a rapidly growing field using ultrasound – high-frequency sound waves undetectable to humans – to fight cancer and other diseases.

The problem addressed by the researchers is the blood-brain barrier, a nearly impenetrable blood vessel lining that keeps harmful molecules from passing into the brain from the blood. But this lining can also block chemo drugs from reaching cancer cells.

So the scientists implanted 1-cm² devices into the skulls of mice, directly behind the tumor site. The implants generate ultrasound waves, loosening the barrier and allowing the drugs to reach the tumor. The sound waves leave healthy tissue undamaged.

“You inject the drug into the body and turn on the ultrasound at the same time. You’re going to hit precisely at the tumor area every single time you use it,” said lead study author Thanh Nguyen, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.

The drug used in the study was paclitaxel, which normally struggles to get through the blood-brain barrier. The tumors shrank, and the mice doubled their lifetime, compared with untreated mice. The mice showed no bad health effects 6 months later. 
 

Breaking through the blood-brain barrier 

The biodegradable implant is made of glycine, an amino acid that’s also strongly piezoelectric, meaning it vibrates when subjected to an electrical current. To make it, researchers cultivated glycine crystals, shattered them into pieces, and finally used a process called electrospinning, which applies a high electrical voltage to the nanocrystals. 

Voltage flows to the implant via an external device. The resulting ultrasound causes the tightly adhered cells of the blood-brain barrier to vibrate, stretching them out and creating space for pores to form. 

“That allows in very tiny particles, including chemo drugs,” said Dr. Nguyen. 

His earlier biodegradable implant broke apart from the force, but the new glycine implant is more flexible, stable, and highly piezoelectric. It could be implanted after a patient has surgery to remove a brain tumor, to continue treating residual cancer cells. The implant dissolves harmlessly in the body over time, and doctors can control its lifespan. 
 

A new wave of uses for ultrasound 

Dr. Nguyen’s study builds on similar efforts, including a recent clinical trial of a nonbiodegradable implant for treating brain tumors. Ultrasound can focus energy on precise targets in the body.

It’s like “using a magnifying glass to focus multiple beams of light on a point and burn a hole in a leaf,” said Neal Kassell, MD, founder and chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. This approach spares adjacent normal tissue.  

Doctors now understand more than 30 ways that ultrasound interacts with tissue – from destroying abnormal tissue to delivering drugs more effectively to stimulating an immune response. A decade ago, only five such interactions were known.

This opens the door for treating “a wide spectrum of medical disorders,” from neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to difficult-to-treat cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and even addiction, said Dr. Kassell. 

Dr. Kassell envisions using focused ultrasound to treat brain tumors as an alternative (or complement) to surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy. In the meantime, implants have helped show “the effectiveness of opening the blood-brain barrier.”

Dr. Nguyen’s team plans on testing the safety and efficacy of their implant in pigs next. Eventually, Dr. Nguyen hopes to develop a patch with an array of implants to target different areas of the brain. 

One study coauthor is cofounder of PiezoBioMembrane and SingleTimeMicroneedles. The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Scientists have developed a biodegradable implant that helps chemotherapy drugs penetrate the blood-brain barrier in mice and deliver a direct hit on brain tumors.

It’s the latest advance in a rapidly growing field using ultrasound – high-frequency sound waves undetectable to humans – to fight cancer and other diseases.

The problem addressed by the researchers is the blood-brain barrier, a nearly impenetrable blood vessel lining that keeps harmful molecules from passing into the brain from the blood. But this lining can also block chemo drugs from reaching cancer cells.

So the scientists implanted 1-cm² devices into the skulls of mice, directly behind the tumor site. The implants generate ultrasound waves, loosening the barrier and allowing the drugs to reach the tumor. The sound waves leave healthy tissue undamaged.

“You inject the drug into the body and turn on the ultrasound at the same time. You’re going to hit precisely at the tumor area every single time you use it,” said lead study author Thanh Nguyen, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.

The drug used in the study was paclitaxel, which normally struggles to get through the blood-brain barrier. The tumors shrank, and the mice doubled their lifetime, compared with untreated mice. The mice showed no bad health effects 6 months later. 
 

Breaking through the blood-brain barrier 

The biodegradable implant is made of glycine, an amino acid that’s also strongly piezoelectric, meaning it vibrates when subjected to an electrical current. To make it, researchers cultivated glycine crystals, shattered them into pieces, and finally used a process called electrospinning, which applies a high electrical voltage to the nanocrystals. 

Voltage flows to the implant via an external device. The resulting ultrasound causes the tightly adhered cells of the blood-brain barrier to vibrate, stretching them out and creating space for pores to form. 

“That allows in very tiny particles, including chemo drugs,” said Dr. Nguyen. 

His earlier biodegradable implant broke apart from the force, but the new glycine implant is more flexible, stable, and highly piezoelectric. It could be implanted after a patient has surgery to remove a brain tumor, to continue treating residual cancer cells. The implant dissolves harmlessly in the body over time, and doctors can control its lifespan. 
 

A new wave of uses for ultrasound 

Dr. Nguyen’s study builds on similar efforts, including a recent clinical trial of a nonbiodegradable implant for treating brain tumors. Ultrasound can focus energy on precise targets in the body.

It’s like “using a magnifying glass to focus multiple beams of light on a point and burn a hole in a leaf,” said Neal Kassell, MD, founder and chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. This approach spares adjacent normal tissue.  

Doctors now understand more than 30 ways that ultrasound interacts with tissue – from destroying abnormal tissue to delivering drugs more effectively to stimulating an immune response. A decade ago, only five such interactions were known.

This opens the door for treating “a wide spectrum of medical disorders,” from neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to difficult-to-treat cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and even addiction, said Dr. Kassell. 

Dr. Kassell envisions using focused ultrasound to treat brain tumors as an alternative (or complement) to surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy. In the meantime, implants have helped show “the effectiveness of opening the blood-brain barrier.”

Dr. Nguyen’s team plans on testing the safety and efficacy of their implant in pigs next. Eventually, Dr. Nguyen hopes to develop a patch with an array of implants to target different areas of the brain. 

One study coauthor is cofounder of PiezoBioMembrane and SingleTimeMicroneedles. The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Scientists have developed a biodegradable implant that helps chemotherapy drugs penetrate the blood-brain barrier in mice and deliver a direct hit on brain tumors.

It’s the latest advance in a rapidly growing field using ultrasound – high-frequency sound waves undetectable to humans – to fight cancer and other diseases.

The problem addressed by the researchers is the blood-brain barrier, a nearly impenetrable blood vessel lining that keeps harmful molecules from passing into the brain from the blood. But this lining can also block chemo drugs from reaching cancer cells.

So the scientists implanted 1-cm² devices into the skulls of mice, directly behind the tumor site. The implants generate ultrasound waves, loosening the barrier and allowing the drugs to reach the tumor. The sound waves leave healthy tissue undamaged.

“You inject the drug into the body and turn on the ultrasound at the same time. You’re going to hit precisely at the tumor area every single time you use it,” said lead study author Thanh Nguyen, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.

The drug used in the study was paclitaxel, which normally struggles to get through the blood-brain barrier. The tumors shrank, and the mice doubled their lifetime, compared with untreated mice. The mice showed no bad health effects 6 months later. 
 

Breaking through the blood-brain barrier 

The biodegradable implant is made of glycine, an amino acid that’s also strongly piezoelectric, meaning it vibrates when subjected to an electrical current. To make it, researchers cultivated glycine crystals, shattered them into pieces, and finally used a process called electrospinning, which applies a high electrical voltage to the nanocrystals. 

Voltage flows to the implant via an external device. The resulting ultrasound causes the tightly adhered cells of the blood-brain barrier to vibrate, stretching them out and creating space for pores to form. 

“That allows in very tiny particles, including chemo drugs,” said Dr. Nguyen. 

His earlier biodegradable implant broke apart from the force, but the new glycine implant is more flexible, stable, and highly piezoelectric. It could be implanted after a patient has surgery to remove a brain tumor, to continue treating residual cancer cells. The implant dissolves harmlessly in the body over time, and doctors can control its lifespan. 
 

A new wave of uses for ultrasound 

Dr. Nguyen’s study builds on similar efforts, including a recent clinical trial of a nonbiodegradable implant for treating brain tumors. Ultrasound can focus energy on precise targets in the body.

It’s like “using a magnifying glass to focus multiple beams of light on a point and burn a hole in a leaf,” said Neal Kassell, MD, founder and chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. This approach spares adjacent normal tissue.  

Doctors now understand more than 30 ways that ultrasound interacts with tissue – from destroying abnormal tissue to delivering drugs more effectively to stimulating an immune response. A decade ago, only five such interactions were known.

This opens the door for treating “a wide spectrum of medical disorders,” from neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to difficult-to-treat cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and even addiction, said Dr. Kassell. 

Dr. Kassell envisions using focused ultrasound to treat brain tumors as an alternative (or complement) to surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy. In the meantime, implants have helped show “the effectiveness of opening the blood-brain barrier.”

Dr. Nguyen’s team plans on testing the safety and efficacy of their implant in pigs next. Eventually, Dr. Nguyen hopes to develop a patch with an array of implants to target different areas of the brain. 

One study coauthor is cofounder of PiezoBioMembrane and SingleTimeMicroneedles. The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

SEATTLE – The latest American Association of Clinical Endocrinology type 2 diabetes management algorithm uses graphics to focus on individualized care while adding newly compiled information about medication access and affordability, vaccinations, and weight loss drugs.

The clinical guidance document was presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.

Using text and colorful graphics, the document summarizes information from last year’s update and other recent AACE documents, including those addressing dyslipidemia and use of diabetes technology.

“The algorithm takes from the larger clinical practice guideline and distills down those management principles in a much more digestible way, and a way that can be used every day in the clinic,” lead author Susan L. Samson, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “I like their simple graphics. For the Department of Health Services in Los Angeles County, we have been painstakingly trying to create our own flow diagrams. ... These will help.”
 

Eleven separate algorithms with text and graphics

Included are 11 visual management algorithms, with accompanying text for each one. The first lists 10 overall management principles, including “lifestyle modification underlies all therapy,” “maintain or achieve optimal weight,” “choice of therapy includes ease of use and access,” “individualize all glucose targets,” “avoid hypoglycemia,” and “comorbidities must be managed for comprehensive care.”

Three more algorithms cover the diabetes-adjacent topics of adiposity-based chronic disease, prediabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension.

Four separate graphics address glucose-lowering. Two are “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” algorithms, another covers insulin initiation and titration, and a table summarizes the benefits and risks of currently available glucose-lowering medications, as well as cost.

Splitting the glucose-lowering algorithms into “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” graphics is new, Dr. Samson said. “The complications one comes first, deliberately. You need to think about: Does my patient have a history of or high risk for cardiovascular disease, heart failure, stroke, or diabetic kidney disease? And, you want to prioritize those medications that have evidence to improve outcomes with those different diabetes complications versus a one-size-fits-all approach.”

And for patients without those complications, the glucose-centric algorithm considers obesity, hypoglycemia risk, and access/cost issues. “So, overall the diabetes medication algorithm has been split in order to emphasize that personalized approach to decision-making,” Dr. Samson explained.

Also new is a table listing the benefits and risks of weight-loss medications, and another covering immunization guidance for people with diabetes based on recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Coming out of the pandemic, we’re thinking about how can we protect our patients from infectious disease and all the comorbidities. In some cases, people with diabetes can have a much higher risk for adverse events,” Dr. Samson noted.

Regarding the weight-loss medications table, she pointed out that the task force couldn’t include the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide because it’s not yet approved for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, it is included in the glucose-lowering drug table with weight loss listed among its benefits.

“We want this to be a living document that should be updated in a timely fashion, and so, as these new indications are approved and we see more evidence supporting their different uses, this should be updated in a really timely fashion to reflect that,” Dr. Samson said.

The end of the document includes a full page of each graphic, meant for wall posting.

Dr. Peters noted that for the most part, the AACE guidelines and algorithm align with joint guidance by the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“For many years there seemed to be big differences between the AACE and ADA guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes. Although small differences still exist ... the ADA and AACE guidelines have become quite similar,” she said.

Dr. Peters also praised the AACE algorithm for providing “a pathway for people who have issues with access and cost.”

“I am incredibly proud that in the County of Los Angeles you can get a [glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist] and/or a [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor] even with the most restricted MediCal insurance if indications are met. But there remain many people in many places where access and cost limit options, and I am grateful that AACE includes this in their algorithms,” she said.

Dr. Samson has reported receiving research support to the Mayo Clinic from Corcept, serving on a steering committee and being a national or overall principal investigator for Chiasma and Novartis, and being a committee chair for the American Board of Internal Medicine. Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, receiving research grants from Abbott Diabetes Care and Insulet, and holding stock options in Teladoc and Omada Health.

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

SEATTLE – The latest American Association of Clinical Endocrinology type 2 diabetes management algorithm uses graphics to focus on individualized care while adding newly compiled information about medication access and affordability, vaccinations, and weight loss drugs.

The clinical guidance document was presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.

Using text and colorful graphics, the document summarizes information from last year’s update and other recent AACE documents, including those addressing dyslipidemia and use of diabetes technology.

“The algorithm takes from the larger clinical practice guideline and distills down those management principles in a much more digestible way, and a way that can be used every day in the clinic,” lead author Susan L. Samson, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “I like their simple graphics. For the Department of Health Services in Los Angeles County, we have been painstakingly trying to create our own flow diagrams. ... These will help.”
 

Eleven separate algorithms with text and graphics

Included are 11 visual management algorithms, with accompanying text for each one. The first lists 10 overall management principles, including “lifestyle modification underlies all therapy,” “maintain or achieve optimal weight,” “choice of therapy includes ease of use and access,” “individualize all glucose targets,” “avoid hypoglycemia,” and “comorbidities must be managed for comprehensive care.”

Three more algorithms cover the diabetes-adjacent topics of adiposity-based chronic disease, prediabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension.

Four separate graphics address glucose-lowering. Two are “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” algorithms, another covers insulin initiation and titration, and a table summarizes the benefits and risks of currently available glucose-lowering medications, as well as cost.

Splitting the glucose-lowering algorithms into “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” graphics is new, Dr. Samson said. “The complications one comes first, deliberately. You need to think about: Does my patient have a history of or high risk for cardiovascular disease, heart failure, stroke, or diabetic kidney disease? And, you want to prioritize those medications that have evidence to improve outcomes with those different diabetes complications versus a one-size-fits-all approach.”

And for patients without those complications, the glucose-centric algorithm considers obesity, hypoglycemia risk, and access/cost issues. “So, overall the diabetes medication algorithm has been split in order to emphasize that personalized approach to decision-making,” Dr. Samson explained.

Also new is a table listing the benefits and risks of weight-loss medications, and another covering immunization guidance for people with diabetes based on recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Coming out of the pandemic, we’re thinking about how can we protect our patients from infectious disease and all the comorbidities. In some cases, people with diabetes can have a much higher risk for adverse events,” Dr. Samson noted.

Regarding the weight-loss medications table, she pointed out that the task force couldn’t include the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide because it’s not yet approved for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, it is included in the glucose-lowering drug table with weight loss listed among its benefits.

“We want this to be a living document that should be updated in a timely fashion, and so, as these new indications are approved and we see more evidence supporting their different uses, this should be updated in a really timely fashion to reflect that,” Dr. Samson said.

The end of the document includes a full page of each graphic, meant for wall posting.

Dr. Peters noted that for the most part, the AACE guidelines and algorithm align with joint guidance by the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“For many years there seemed to be big differences between the AACE and ADA guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes. Although small differences still exist ... the ADA and AACE guidelines have become quite similar,” she said.

Dr. Peters also praised the AACE algorithm for providing “a pathway for people who have issues with access and cost.”

“I am incredibly proud that in the County of Los Angeles you can get a [glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist] and/or a [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor] even with the most restricted MediCal insurance if indications are met. But there remain many people in many places where access and cost limit options, and I am grateful that AACE includes this in their algorithms,” she said.

Dr. Samson has reported receiving research support to the Mayo Clinic from Corcept, serving on a steering committee and being a national or overall principal investigator for Chiasma and Novartis, and being a committee chair for the American Board of Internal Medicine. Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, receiving research grants from Abbott Diabetes Care and Insulet, and holding stock options in Teladoc and Omada Health.

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

SEATTLE – The latest American Association of Clinical Endocrinology type 2 diabetes management algorithm uses graphics to focus on individualized care while adding newly compiled information about medication access and affordability, vaccinations, and weight loss drugs.

The clinical guidance document was presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.

Using text and colorful graphics, the document summarizes information from last year’s update and other recent AACE documents, including those addressing dyslipidemia and use of diabetes technology.

“The algorithm takes from the larger clinical practice guideline and distills down those management principles in a much more digestible way, and a way that can be used every day in the clinic,” lead author Susan L. Samson, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “I like their simple graphics. For the Department of Health Services in Los Angeles County, we have been painstakingly trying to create our own flow diagrams. ... These will help.”
 

Eleven separate algorithms with text and graphics

Included are 11 visual management algorithms, with accompanying text for each one. The first lists 10 overall management principles, including “lifestyle modification underlies all therapy,” “maintain or achieve optimal weight,” “choice of therapy includes ease of use and access,” “individualize all glucose targets,” “avoid hypoglycemia,” and “comorbidities must be managed for comprehensive care.”

Three more algorithms cover the diabetes-adjacent topics of adiposity-based chronic disease, prediabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension.

Four separate graphics address glucose-lowering. Two are “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” algorithms, another covers insulin initiation and titration, and a table summarizes the benefits and risks of currently available glucose-lowering medications, as well as cost.

Splitting the glucose-lowering algorithms into “complications-centric” and “glucose-centric” graphics is new, Dr. Samson said. “The complications one comes first, deliberately. You need to think about: Does my patient have a history of or high risk for cardiovascular disease, heart failure, stroke, or diabetic kidney disease? And, you want to prioritize those medications that have evidence to improve outcomes with those different diabetes complications versus a one-size-fits-all approach.”

And for patients without those complications, the glucose-centric algorithm considers obesity, hypoglycemia risk, and access/cost issues. “So, overall the diabetes medication algorithm has been split in order to emphasize that personalized approach to decision-making,” Dr. Samson explained.

Also new is a table listing the benefits and risks of weight-loss medications, and another covering immunization guidance for people with diabetes based on recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Coming out of the pandemic, we’re thinking about how can we protect our patients from infectious disease and all the comorbidities. In some cases, people with diabetes can have a much higher risk for adverse events,” Dr. Samson noted.

Regarding the weight-loss medications table, she pointed out that the task force couldn’t include the blockbuster twincretin tirzepatide because it’s not yet approved for weight loss by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. However, it is included in the glucose-lowering drug table with weight loss listed among its benefits.

“We want this to be a living document that should be updated in a timely fashion, and so, as these new indications are approved and we see more evidence supporting their different uses, this should be updated in a really timely fashion to reflect that,” Dr. Samson said.

The end of the document includes a full page of each graphic, meant for wall posting.

Dr. Peters noted that for the most part, the AACE guidelines and algorithm align with joint guidance by the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“For many years there seemed to be big differences between the AACE and ADA guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes. Although small differences still exist ... the ADA and AACE guidelines have become quite similar,” she said.

Dr. Peters also praised the AACE algorithm for providing “a pathway for people who have issues with access and cost.”

“I am incredibly proud that in the County of Los Angeles you can get a [glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist] and/or a [sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor] even with the most restricted MediCal insurance if indications are met. But there remain many people in many places where access and cost limit options, and I am grateful that AACE includes this in their algorithms,” she said.

Dr. Samson has reported receiving research support to the Mayo Clinic from Corcept, serving on a steering committee and being a national or overall principal investigator for Chiasma and Novartis, and being a committee chair for the American Board of Internal Medicine. Dr. Peters has reported relationships with Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, receiving research grants from Abbott Diabetes Care and Insulet, and holding stock options in Teladoc and Omada Health.

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

Two classes of drugs may be more effective than others for the treatment of gastroparesis, though the overall quality of evidence remains low to moderate and additional data are needed, according to a new report.

Oral dopamine antagonists and tachykinin-1 antagonists appear superior to placebo, finds the study. In addition, some drugs rank higher for addressing individual symptoms.

“Gastroparesis has a substantial impact on quality of life and societal functioning for patients, and the costs to the health service are high,” Alexander Ford, MBChB, MD, a professor of gastroenterology and honorary consultant gastroenterologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Medical Research at St. James’s, University of Leeds, said in an interview.

“There are very few licensed therapies, but some novel drugs are in the pipeline, some existing drugs that are licensed for other conditions could be repurposed if efficacious, and some older drugs that have safety concerns may be beneficial,” he said. “Given the impact on patients and their symptoms, they may be willing to accept these safety risks in return for symptom improvement.”

Only one drug, the dopamine antagonist metoclopramide, has Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of gastroparesis, noted Dr. Ford and colleagues. The lack of other recommended drugs or new medications has resulted in off-label use of drugs in other classes.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Investigating treatments

To address the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of licensed and unlicensed drugs for the condition, the researchers conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of drugs for gastroparesis dating from 1947 to September 2022. The trials involved more than dozen drugs in several classes.

They determined drug efficacy on the basis of global symptoms of gastroparesis and individual symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness. They judged safety on the basis of total adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal.

The research team extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures. They reported efficacy as a pooled relative risk of symptoms not improving and ranked the drugs according to P-score.

The analysis included 29 randomized controlled trials with 3,772 patients. Only four trials were at low risk of bias.

Overall, only two drug classes were considered efficacious: oral dopamine antagonists (RR, 0.58; P-score, 0.96) and tachykinin-1 antagonists (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.83).

On the basis of 25 trials that reported on global symptoms, clebopride ranked first for efficacy (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.99), followed by domperidone (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.76). None of the other drugs were superior to the placebo. After direct and indirect comparisons, clebopride was superior to all other drugs except aprepitant.

After excluding three trials with a placebo run-in and a trial where only responders to single-blind domperidone were randomized, the researchers analyzed 21 trials with 2,233 patients. In this analysis, domperidone ranked first (RR, 0.48; P-score, 0.93), followed by oral metoclopramide (RR, 0.54; P-score, 0.87). None of the other drugs were superior to placebo.

Among 16 trials, including 1,381 patients, that confirmed delayed gastric emptying among all participants, only clebopride and metoclopramide were more efficacious than placebo. Clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.95) and metoclopramide ranked third (RR, 0.48).

Among 13 trials with 785 patients with diabetic gastroparesis, none of the active drugs were superior to placebo. Among 12 trials recruiting patients with idiopathic or mixed etiology gastroparesis, clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.93).

On the basis of trials that assessed individual symptoms, oral metoclopramide ranked first for nausea (RR, 0.46; P-score, 0.95), fullness (RR, 0.67; P-score, 0.86), and bloating (RR, 0.53; P-score, 0.97). However, the data came from one small trial. Tradipitant and TZP-102, a ghrelin agonist, were efficacious for nausea, and TZP-102 ranked second for fullness. No drugs were more efficacious than the placebo for abdominal pain or vomiting.

Among 20 trials that reported on the total number of adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 0.77; P-score, 0.93) and prucalopride was the most likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 2.96; P-score, 0.10). Prucalopride, oral metoclopramide, and aprepitant also were more likely than placebo to be associated with adverse events.

In 23 trials that reported on withdrawals caused by adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 0.20; P-score, 0.87). Nortriptyline was the most likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 3.33; P-score, 0.16). However, there were no significant differences between any individual drug and placebo.
 

Urgent need remains

More trials of drugs to treat gastroparesis are needed, Ford said.

“We need to consider the reintroduction of dopamine antagonists, if patients are willing to accept the safety concerns,” he added. “The other important point is most drugs were not of benefit. There is an urgent need to find efficacious therapies, and these should be fast-tracked for licensing approval if efficacy is proven.”

The study is “helpful for practicing clinicians since it provides a comprehensive review of clinical trials in gastroparesis,” Anthony Lembo, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

Dr. Lembo, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched several drugs for gastroparesis, including relamorelin and TZP-102. He agreed that additional research is needed.

“There is a paucity of novel treatments currently in development,” he said. “However, there is interest in developing a product similar to domperidone without cardiac side effects, as well as performing larger studies with botulinum toxin injection.”

The authors did not disclose a funding source for the study. One author disclosed research funding from the National Institutes of Health and consulting roles with various pharmaceutical companies. Ford and the other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Lembo reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Two classes of drugs may be more effective than others for the treatment of gastroparesis, though the overall quality of evidence remains low to moderate and additional data are needed, according to a new report.

Oral dopamine antagonists and tachykinin-1 antagonists appear superior to placebo, finds the study. In addition, some drugs rank higher for addressing individual symptoms.

“Gastroparesis has a substantial impact on quality of life and societal functioning for patients, and the costs to the health service are high,” Alexander Ford, MBChB, MD, a professor of gastroenterology and honorary consultant gastroenterologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Medical Research at St. James’s, University of Leeds, said in an interview.

“There are very few licensed therapies, but some novel drugs are in the pipeline, some existing drugs that are licensed for other conditions could be repurposed if efficacious, and some older drugs that have safety concerns may be beneficial,” he said. “Given the impact on patients and their symptoms, they may be willing to accept these safety risks in return for symptom improvement.”

Only one drug, the dopamine antagonist metoclopramide, has Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of gastroparesis, noted Dr. Ford and colleagues. The lack of other recommended drugs or new medications has resulted in off-label use of drugs in other classes.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Investigating treatments

To address the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of licensed and unlicensed drugs for the condition, the researchers conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of drugs for gastroparesis dating from 1947 to September 2022. The trials involved more than dozen drugs in several classes.

They determined drug efficacy on the basis of global symptoms of gastroparesis and individual symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness. They judged safety on the basis of total adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal.

The research team extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures. They reported efficacy as a pooled relative risk of symptoms not improving and ranked the drugs according to P-score.

The analysis included 29 randomized controlled trials with 3,772 patients. Only four trials were at low risk of bias.

Overall, only two drug classes were considered efficacious: oral dopamine antagonists (RR, 0.58; P-score, 0.96) and tachykinin-1 antagonists (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.83).

On the basis of 25 trials that reported on global symptoms, clebopride ranked first for efficacy (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.99), followed by domperidone (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.76). None of the other drugs were superior to the placebo. After direct and indirect comparisons, clebopride was superior to all other drugs except aprepitant.

After excluding three trials with a placebo run-in and a trial where only responders to single-blind domperidone were randomized, the researchers analyzed 21 trials with 2,233 patients. In this analysis, domperidone ranked first (RR, 0.48; P-score, 0.93), followed by oral metoclopramide (RR, 0.54; P-score, 0.87). None of the other drugs were superior to placebo.

Among 16 trials, including 1,381 patients, that confirmed delayed gastric emptying among all participants, only clebopride and metoclopramide were more efficacious than placebo. Clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.95) and metoclopramide ranked third (RR, 0.48).

Among 13 trials with 785 patients with diabetic gastroparesis, none of the active drugs were superior to placebo. Among 12 trials recruiting patients with idiopathic or mixed etiology gastroparesis, clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.93).

On the basis of trials that assessed individual symptoms, oral metoclopramide ranked first for nausea (RR, 0.46; P-score, 0.95), fullness (RR, 0.67; P-score, 0.86), and bloating (RR, 0.53; P-score, 0.97). However, the data came from one small trial. Tradipitant and TZP-102, a ghrelin agonist, were efficacious for nausea, and TZP-102 ranked second for fullness. No drugs were more efficacious than the placebo for abdominal pain or vomiting.

Among 20 trials that reported on the total number of adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 0.77; P-score, 0.93) and prucalopride was the most likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 2.96; P-score, 0.10). Prucalopride, oral metoclopramide, and aprepitant also were more likely than placebo to be associated with adverse events.

In 23 trials that reported on withdrawals caused by adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 0.20; P-score, 0.87). Nortriptyline was the most likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 3.33; P-score, 0.16). However, there were no significant differences between any individual drug and placebo.
 

Urgent need remains

More trials of drugs to treat gastroparesis are needed, Ford said.

“We need to consider the reintroduction of dopamine antagonists, if patients are willing to accept the safety concerns,” he added. “The other important point is most drugs were not of benefit. There is an urgent need to find efficacious therapies, and these should be fast-tracked for licensing approval if efficacy is proven.”

The study is “helpful for practicing clinicians since it provides a comprehensive review of clinical trials in gastroparesis,” Anthony Lembo, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

Dr. Lembo, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched several drugs for gastroparesis, including relamorelin and TZP-102. He agreed that additional research is needed.

“There is a paucity of novel treatments currently in development,” he said. “However, there is interest in developing a product similar to domperidone without cardiac side effects, as well as performing larger studies with botulinum toxin injection.”

The authors did not disclose a funding source for the study. One author disclosed research funding from the National Institutes of Health and consulting roles with various pharmaceutical companies. Ford and the other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Lembo reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Two classes of drugs may be more effective than others for the treatment of gastroparesis, though the overall quality of evidence remains low to moderate and additional data are needed, according to a new report.

Oral dopamine antagonists and tachykinin-1 antagonists appear superior to placebo, finds the study. In addition, some drugs rank higher for addressing individual symptoms.

“Gastroparesis has a substantial impact on quality of life and societal functioning for patients, and the costs to the health service are high,” Alexander Ford, MBChB, MD, a professor of gastroenterology and honorary consultant gastroenterologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Medical Research at St. James’s, University of Leeds, said in an interview.

“There are very few licensed therapies, but some novel drugs are in the pipeline, some existing drugs that are licensed for other conditions could be repurposed if efficacious, and some older drugs that have safety concerns may be beneficial,” he said. “Given the impact on patients and their symptoms, they may be willing to accept these safety risks in return for symptom improvement.”

Only one drug, the dopamine antagonist metoclopramide, has Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of gastroparesis, noted Dr. Ford and colleagues. The lack of other recommended drugs or new medications has resulted in off-label use of drugs in other classes.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Investigating treatments

To address the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of licensed and unlicensed drugs for the condition, the researchers conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of drugs for gastroparesis dating from 1947 to September 2022. The trials involved more than dozen drugs in several classes.

They determined drug efficacy on the basis of global symptoms of gastroparesis and individual symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness. They judged safety on the basis of total adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal.

The research team extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures. They reported efficacy as a pooled relative risk of symptoms not improving and ranked the drugs according to P-score.

The analysis included 29 randomized controlled trials with 3,772 patients. Only four trials were at low risk of bias.

Overall, only two drug classes were considered efficacious: oral dopamine antagonists (RR, 0.58; P-score, 0.96) and tachykinin-1 antagonists (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.83).

On the basis of 25 trials that reported on global symptoms, clebopride ranked first for efficacy (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.99), followed by domperidone (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.76). None of the other drugs were superior to the placebo. After direct and indirect comparisons, clebopride was superior to all other drugs except aprepitant.

After excluding three trials with a placebo run-in and a trial where only responders to single-blind domperidone were randomized, the researchers analyzed 21 trials with 2,233 patients. In this analysis, domperidone ranked first (RR, 0.48; P-score, 0.93), followed by oral metoclopramide (RR, 0.54; P-score, 0.87). None of the other drugs were superior to placebo.

Among 16 trials, including 1,381 patients, that confirmed delayed gastric emptying among all participants, only clebopride and metoclopramide were more efficacious than placebo. Clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.95) and metoclopramide ranked third (RR, 0.48).

Among 13 trials with 785 patients with diabetic gastroparesis, none of the active drugs were superior to placebo. Among 12 trials recruiting patients with idiopathic or mixed etiology gastroparesis, clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.93).

On the basis of trials that assessed individual symptoms, oral metoclopramide ranked first for nausea (RR, 0.46; P-score, 0.95), fullness (RR, 0.67; P-score, 0.86), and bloating (RR, 0.53; P-score, 0.97). However, the data came from one small trial. Tradipitant and TZP-102, a ghrelin agonist, were efficacious for nausea, and TZP-102 ranked second for fullness. No drugs were more efficacious than the placebo for abdominal pain or vomiting.

Among 20 trials that reported on the total number of adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 0.77; P-score, 0.93) and prucalopride was the most likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 2.96; P-score, 0.10). Prucalopride, oral metoclopramide, and aprepitant also were more likely than placebo to be associated with adverse events.

In 23 trials that reported on withdrawals caused by adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 0.20; P-score, 0.87). Nortriptyline was the most likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 3.33; P-score, 0.16). However, there were no significant differences between any individual drug and placebo.
 

Urgent need remains

More trials of drugs to treat gastroparesis are needed, Ford said.

“We need to consider the reintroduction of dopamine antagonists, if patients are willing to accept the safety concerns,” he added. “The other important point is most drugs were not of benefit. There is an urgent need to find efficacious therapies, and these should be fast-tracked for licensing approval if efficacy is proven.”

The study is “helpful for practicing clinicians since it provides a comprehensive review of clinical trials in gastroparesis,” Anthony Lembo, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

Dr. Lembo, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched several drugs for gastroparesis, including relamorelin and TZP-102. He agreed that additional research is needed.

“There is a paucity of novel treatments currently in development,” he said. “However, there is interest in developing a product similar to domperidone without cardiac side effects, as well as performing larger studies with botulinum toxin injection.”

The authors did not disclose a funding source for the study. One author disclosed research funding from the National Institutes of Health and consulting roles with various pharmaceutical companies. Ford and the other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Lembo reported no relevant disclosures.

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