Video

MADRID – To achieve positive trials with new agents in osteoarthritis, patient selection should be considered in the context of the primary endpoints, according to Philip G. Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Leeds (England).

In an interview, Dr. Conaghan explained that the issue has arisen with emerging agents that are designed for structural improvements with the expectation that symptom improvements will follow. Recapping a presentation he made at the European Congress of Rheumatology, he cautioned that the key aspects of trial design for these novel agents, including patient and endpoint selection, are particularly challenging.

As an example, Dr. Conaghan referred to the experience so far with the ongoing phase 2 FORWARD trial with sprifermin, a recombinant form of human fibroblast growth factor. In this study, sprifermin has already shown promise for growing cartilage, but the benefit accrues slowly, and there is no symptomatic improvement early in the course of treatment.


Based on the experience with FORWARD, much has been learned about a potential tension between structural and symptomatic endpoints in osteoarthritis, according to Dr. Conaghan. For one, it appears to be important to select patients most likely to achieve measurable structural improvements quickly to achieve a positive result in a reasonable period of time.

For another, it may be necessary to select symptom endpoints that reflect structural change while cautioning patients about the potential for a long delay before a clinical benefit is experienced.

In osteoarthritis, clinical benefit has been traditionally captured with relief of pain. Although an improvement in joint structure might be the best way to produce this result, this has to be proved. Reasonable and achievable endpoints are needed for emerging drugs with the potential to rebuild the joint not just to control pain, he said.

SOURCE: Gühring H et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):70-1. Abstract OP0010. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1216.

MADRID – To achieve positive trials with new agents in osteoarthritis, patient selection should be considered in the context of the primary endpoints, according to Philip G. Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Leeds (England).

In an interview, Dr. Conaghan explained that the issue has arisen with emerging agents that are designed for structural improvements with the expectation that symptom improvements will follow. Recapping a presentation he made at the European Congress of Rheumatology, he cautioned that the key aspects of trial design for these novel agents, including patient and endpoint selection, are particularly challenging.

As an example, Dr. Conaghan referred to the experience so far with the ongoing phase 2 FORWARD trial with sprifermin, a recombinant form of human fibroblast growth factor. In this study, sprifermin has already shown promise for growing cartilage, but the benefit accrues slowly, and there is no symptomatic improvement early in the course of treatment.


Based on the experience with FORWARD, much has been learned about a potential tension between structural and symptomatic endpoints in osteoarthritis, according to Dr. Conaghan. For one, it appears to be important to select patients most likely to achieve measurable structural improvements quickly to achieve a positive result in a reasonable period of time.

For another, it may be necessary to select symptom endpoints that reflect structural change while cautioning patients about the potential for a long delay before a clinical benefit is experienced.

In osteoarthritis, clinical benefit has been traditionally captured with relief of pain. Although an improvement in joint structure might be the best way to produce this result, this has to be proved. Reasonable and achievable endpoints are needed for emerging drugs with the potential to rebuild the joint not just to control pain, he said.

SOURCE: Gühring H et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):70-1. Abstract OP0010. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1216.

MADRID – To achieve positive trials with new agents in osteoarthritis, patient selection should be considered in the context of the primary endpoints, according to Philip G. Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Leeds (England).

In an interview, Dr. Conaghan explained that the issue has arisen with emerging agents that are designed for structural improvements with the expectation that symptom improvements will follow. Recapping a presentation he made at the European Congress of Rheumatology, he cautioned that the key aspects of trial design for these novel agents, including patient and endpoint selection, are particularly challenging.

As an example, Dr. Conaghan referred to the experience so far with the ongoing phase 2 FORWARD trial with sprifermin, a recombinant form of human fibroblast growth factor. In this study, sprifermin has already shown promise for growing cartilage, but the benefit accrues slowly, and there is no symptomatic improvement early in the course of treatment.


Based on the experience with FORWARD, much has been learned about a potential tension between structural and symptomatic endpoints in osteoarthritis, according to Dr. Conaghan. For one, it appears to be important to select patients most likely to achieve measurable structural improvements quickly to achieve a positive result in a reasonable period of time.

For another, it may be necessary to select symptom endpoints that reflect structural change while cautioning patients about the potential for a long delay before a clinical benefit is experienced.

In osteoarthritis, clinical benefit has been traditionally captured with relief of pain. Although an improvement in joint structure might be the best way to produce this result, this has to be proved. Reasonable and achievable endpoints are needed for emerging drugs with the potential to rebuild the joint not just to control pain, he said.

SOURCE: Gühring H et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):70-1. Abstract OP0010. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1216.

MADRID – Treating patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) until a specific target is reached is an emerging concept that has gained a lot of traction in the past few years, Pedro Machado, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Vidyard Video

“The availability of biologic therapies has improved the clinical outcomes for our patients with axial spondyloarthritis and targeting clinical remission or inactive disease is now an achievable treatment goal in clinical practice,” he observed. “This has trigged the question: Is there a role for ‘treat-to-target’ in axial spondyloarthritis?”

Dr. Machado, an honorary consultant in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College Hospital and the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London, took a critical look at the treat-to-target approach during a clinical science session at the meeting, organized by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR).

The concept of treat-to-target is not new, he acknowledged, having been imported from other chronic conditions where there is a very specific target to achieve – such as lowering glycated hemoglobin in diabetes or hypertension or hyperlipidemia in cardiovascular disease.

“The concept involves changing or escalating therapy according to a predefined target under the assumption that this may lead to a better outcome compared to what we call ‘routine care,’ ” Dr. Machado explained.

Treat-to-target is not only well established in nonrheumatic diseases but also has proved to work in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis with evidence from the TICORA (Tight Control of Rheumatoid Arthritis) and TICOPA (Tight Control in Psoriatic Arthritis) trials.

Whether the approach can also work in axSpA is open to debate, and one of the main arguments against using a treat-to-target in axSpA asks, what exactly is the target? While there is no firm agreement yet, Dr. Machado observed that achieving either clinical remission or inactive disease would be the most likely target.

It could be argued this is already being done to some degree, but “we need to be more ambitious,” Dr. Machado said. Indeed, current Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society/EULAR recommendations for the treatment of axSpA (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[6]:978–91) note when patients with high disease activity despite sufficient standard treatment should be escalated to treatment with a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD). High disease activity was defined as an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of 2.1 or more or a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more.

Another argument against using the approach concerns the evidence base. There are no prospective, randomized trials supporting the use of treat-to-target over routine care. However, there is a lot of observational evidence, Dr. Machado said in an interview. Such studies have shown that achieving inactive disease may improve structural outcomes and stop the development of radiographic damage of the spine. Importantly, these observational studies also show that achieving inactive disease may also help to improve patients’ functional outcomes and quality of life.

Evidence backing a treat-to-target approach in axSpA from a randomized, controlled trial may currently be lacking, but the TiCOSPA (Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis) trial is in progress and should help change that, Dr. Machado said.

“The missing bit is a randomized trial, but I would say that the observational evidence is almost enough to advocate a treat-to-target strategy in axial spondyloarthritis.” This was also the view of an international task force that recently published recommendations and overarching principles for a treat-target strategy in spondyloarthritis, including axSpA (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:3-17).

Of course, a treat-to-target approach may not be without its pitfalls. There are a limited number of drugs currently that could be used to “hit the target” of disease activity, Dr. Machado said in his presentation. The approach might also lead to ‘overtreatment,’ and more treatment is not always better as it could not only lead to more adverse events, but it also may mean the approach is not cost-effective.

Depending on the TiCOSPA study results, which are expected next year, Dr. Machado said that “the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of such a strategy in clinical practice also needs to be tested.”

MADRID – Treating patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) until a specific target is reached is an emerging concept that has gained a lot of traction in the past few years, Pedro Machado, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Vidyard Video

“The availability of biologic therapies has improved the clinical outcomes for our patients with axial spondyloarthritis and targeting clinical remission or inactive disease is now an achievable treatment goal in clinical practice,” he observed. “This has trigged the question: Is there a role for ‘treat-to-target’ in axial spondyloarthritis?”

Dr. Machado, an honorary consultant in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College Hospital and the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London, took a critical look at the treat-to-target approach during a clinical science session at the meeting, organized by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR).

The concept of treat-to-target is not new, he acknowledged, having been imported from other chronic conditions where there is a very specific target to achieve – such as lowering glycated hemoglobin in diabetes or hypertension or hyperlipidemia in cardiovascular disease.

“The concept involves changing or escalating therapy according to a predefined target under the assumption that this may lead to a better outcome compared to what we call ‘routine care,’ ” Dr. Machado explained.

Treat-to-target is not only well established in nonrheumatic diseases but also has proved to work in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis with evidence from the TICORA (Tight Control of Rheumatoid Arthritis) and TICOPA (Tight Control in Psoriatic Arthritis) trials.

Whether the approach can also work in axSpA is open to debate, and one of the main arguments against using a treat-to-target in axSpA asks, what exactly is the target? While there is no firm agreement yet, Dr. Machado observed that achieving either clinical remission or inactive disease would be the most likely target.

It could be argued this is already being done to some degree, but “we need to be more ambitious,” Dr. Machado said. Indeed, current Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society/EULAR recommendations for the treatment of axSpA (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[6]:978–91) note when patients with high disease activity despite sufficient standard treatment should be escalated to treatment with a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD). High disease activity was defined as an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of 2.1 or more or a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more.

Another argument against using the approach concerns the evidence base. There are no prospective, randomized trials supporting the use of treat-to-target over routine care. However, there is a lot of observational evidence, Dr. Machado said in an interview. Such studies have shown that achieving inactive disease may improve structural outcomes and stop the development of radiographic damage of the spine. Importantly, these observational studies also show that achieving inactive disease may also help to improve patients’ functional outcomes and quality of life.

Evidence backing a treat-to-target approach in axSpA from a randomized, controlled trial may currently be lacking, but the TiCOSPA (Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis) trial is in progress and should help change that, Dr. Machado said.

“The missing bit is a randomized trial, but I would say that the observational evidence is almost enough to advocate a treat-to-target strategy in axial spondyloarthritis.” This was also the view of an international task force that recently published recommendations and overarching principles for a treat-target strategy in spondyloarthritis, including axSpA (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:3-17).

Of course, a treat-to-target approach may not be without its pitfalls. There are a limited number of drugs currently that could be used to “hit the target” of disease activity, Dr. Machado said in his presentation. The approach might also lead to ‘overtreatment,’ and more treatment is not always better as it could not only lead to more adverse events, but it also may mean the approach is not cost-effective.

Depending on the TiCOSPA study results, which are expected next year, Dr. Machado said that “the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of such a strategy in clinical practice also needs to be tested.”

MADRID – Treating patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) until a specific target is reached is an emerging concept that has gained a lot of traction in the past few years, Pedro Machado, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Vidyard Video

“The availability of biologic therapies has improved the clinical outcomes for our patients with axial spondyloarthritis and targeting clinical remission or inactive disease is now an achievable treatment goal in clinical practice,” he observed. “This has trigged the question: Is there a role for ‘treat-to-target’ in axial spondyloarthritis?”

Dr. Machado, an honorary consultant in rheumatology and muscle diseases at University College Hospital and the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London, took a critical look at the treat-to-target approach during a clinical science session at the meeting, organized by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR).

The concept of treat-to-target is not new, he acknowledged, having been imported from other chronic conditions where there is a very specific target to achieve – such as lowering glycated hemoglobin in diabetes or hypertension or hyperlipidemia in cardiovascular disease.

“The concept involves changing or escalating therapy according to a predefined target under the assumption that this may lead to a better outcome compared to what we call ‘routine care,’ ” Dr. Machado explained.

Treat-to-target is not only well established in nonrheumatic diseases but also has proved to work in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis with evidence from the TICORA (Tight Control of Rheumatoid Arthritis) and TICOPA (Tight Control in Psoriatic Arthritis) trials.

Whether the approach can also work in axSpA is open to debate, and one of the main arguments against using a treat-to-target in axSpA asks, what exactly is the target? While there is no firm agreement yet, Dr. Machado observed that achieving either clinical remission or inactive disease would be the most likely target.

It could be argued this is already being done to some degree, but “we need to be more ambitious,” Dr. Machado said. Indeed, current Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society/EULAR recommendations for the treatment of axSpA (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[6]:978–91) note when patients with high disease activity despite sufficient standard treatment should be escalated to treatment with a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD). High disease activity was defined as an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of 2.1 or more or a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more.

Another argument against using the approach concerns the evidence base. There are no prospective, randomized trials supporting the use of treat-to-target over routine care. However, there is a lot of observational evidence, Dr. Machado said in an interview. Such studies have shown that achieving inactive disease may improve structural outcomes and stop the development of radiographic damage of the spine. Importantly, these observational studies also show that achieving inactive disease may also help to improve patients’ functional outcomes and quality of life.

Evidence backing a treat-to-target approach in axSpA from a randomized, controlled trial may currently be lacking, but the TiCOSPA (Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis) trial is in progress and should help change that, Dr. Machado said.

“The missing bit is a randomized trial, but I would say that the observational evidence is almost enough to advocate a treat-to-target strategy in axial spondyloarthritis.” This was also the view of an international task force that recently published recommendations and overarching principles for a treat-target strategy in spondyloarthritis, including axSpA (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:3-17).

Of course, a treat-to-target approach may not be without its pitfalls. There are a limited number of drugs currently that could be used to “hit the target” of disease activity, Dr. Machado said in his presentation. The approach might also lead to ‘overtreatment,’ and more treatment is not always better as it could not only lead to more adverse events, but it also may mean the approach is not cost-effective.

Depending on the TiCOSPA study results, which are expected next year, Dr. Machado said that “the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of such a strategy in clinical practice also needs to be tested.”

SAN FRANCISCO – Climate change is having a negative impact on patients, and “psychiatrists see themselves as one of the remedies,” Lise Van Susteren, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Vidyard Video

“We can find reasons to hope even in dark times,” Dr. Van Susteren said. “We understand science. We have all the tools ... this is what we do for a living. We warn about behaviors that are going hurt us now and are going to be even worse down the road.”


In a video discussion, Dr. Van Susteren spoke with David A. Pollack, MD, about the accomplishments of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance, an organization they helped launch more than 2 years ago that warns the medical profession and the public about risks of climate change and the impact of climate disruption on mental health. One victory, for example, was getting the APA to vote to divest from fossil fuels.

Dr. Van Susteren and Dr. Pollack also discuss steps psychiatrists can take as individuals to provide care for patients suffering from the effects of climate change – such as prescribing “park therapy.” In their offices, physicians can look toward emerging solutions such as My Green Doctor and Health Care Without Harm, Dr. Pollack said.


Dr. Van Susteren has a private psychiatry private practice in Washington and has no disclosures. Dr. Pollack is affiliated with Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. He has no disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Climate change is having a negative impact on patients, and “psychiatrists see themselves as one of the remedies,” Lise Van Susteren, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Vidyard Video

“We can find reasons to hope even in dark times,” Dr. Van Susteren said. “We understand science. We have all the tools ... this is what we do for a living. We warn about behaviors that are going hurt us now and are going to be even worse down the road.”


In a video discussion, Dr. Van Susteren spoke with David A. Pollack, MD, about the accomplishments of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance, an organization they helped launch more than 2 years ago that warns the medical profession and the public about risks of climate change and the impact of climate disruption on mental health. One victory, for example, was getting the APA to vote to divest from fossil fuels.

Dr. Van Susteren and Dr. Pollack also discuss steps psychiatrists can take as individuals to provide care for patients suffering from the effects of climate change – such as prescribing “park therapy.” In their offices, physicians can look toward emerging solutions such as My Green Doctor and Health Care Without Harm, Dr. Pollack said.


Dr. Van Susteren has a private psychiatry private practice in Washington and has no disclosures. Dr. Pollack is affiliated with Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. He has no disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Climate change is having a negative impact on patients, and “psychiatrists see themselves as one of the remedies,” Lise Van Susteren, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Vidyard Video

“We can find reasons to hope even in dark times,” Dr. Van Susteren said. “We understand science. We have all the tools ... this is what we do for a living. We warn about behaviors that are going hurt us now and are going to be even worse down the road.”


In a video discussion, Dr. Van Susteren spoke with David A. Pollack, MD, about the accomplishments of the Climate Psychiatry Alliance, an organization they helped launch more than 2 years ago that warns the medical profession and the public about risks of climate change and the impact of climate disruption on mental health. One victory, for example, was getting the APA to vote to divest from fossil fuels.

Dr. Van Susteren and Dr. Pollack also discuss steps psychiatrists can take as individuals to provide care for patients suffering from the effects of climate change – such as prescribing “park therapy.” In their offices, physicians can look toward emerging solutions such as My Green Doctor and Health Care Without Harm, Dr. Pollack said.


Dr. Van Susteren has a private psychiatry private practice in Washington and has no disclosures. Dr. Pollack is affiliated with Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. He has no disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Fewer than 1 in 20 adults with cancer enroll in clinical trials, and even when cancer patients are willing to participate in a trial, they are often excluded because of comorbidities, prior therapies, or a host of other factors that could confound results.

But as a team of investigators shows in a proof-of-concept study, more generous exclusion criteria in some trials could nearly double the number of participants. Using retrospective, deidentified electronic health record data from the American Society of Clinical Oncology CancerLinQ Discovery database, R. Donald Harvey, PharmD and colleagues found that when they applied broader inclusion criteria for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the number of patients who would be eligible for clinical trials nearly doubled from 5,495 to 10,349.

In this video interview from the ASCO annual meeting, Dr. Harvey of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Atlanta discusses collaborations between the oncology community, federal agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry that could improve clinical trials by safely increasing sample sizes.

The study received funding from ASCO. Dr. Harvey disclosed consulting or advisory roles with and institutional research funding from multiple entities.

CHICAGO – Fewer than 1 in 20 adults with cancer enroll in clinical trials, and even when cancer patients are willing to participate in a trial, they are often excluded because of comorbidities, prior therapies, or a host of other factors that could confound results.

But as a team of investigators shows in a proof-of-concept study, more generous exclusion criteria in some trials could nearly double the number of participants. Using retrospective, deidentified electronic health record data from the American Society of Clinical Oncology CancerLinQ Discovery database, R. Donald Harvey, PharmD and colleagues found that when they applied broader inclusion criteria for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the number of patients who would be eligible for clinical trials nearly doubled from 5,495 to 10,349.

In this video interview from the ASCO annual meeting, Dr. Harvey of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Atlanta discusses collaborations between the oncology community, federal agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry that could improve clinical trials by safely increasing sample sizes.

The study received funding from ASCO. Dr. Harvey disclosed consulting or advisory roles with and institutional research funding from multiple entities.

CHICAGO – Fewer than 1 in 20 adults with cancer enroll in clinical trials, and even when cancer patients are willing to participate in a trial, they are often excluded because of comorbidities, prior therapies, or a host of other factors that could confound results.

But as a team of investigators shows in a proof-of-concept study, more generous exclusion criteria in some trials could nearly double the number of participants. Using retrospective, deidentified electronic health record data from the American Society of Clinical Oncology CancerLinQ Discovery database, R. Donald Harvey, PharmD and colleagues found that when they applied broader inclusion criteria for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the number of patients who would be eligible for clinical trials nearly doubled from 5,495 to 10,349.

In this video interview from the ASCO annual meeting, Dr. Harvey of the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Atlanta discusses collaborations between the oncology community, federal agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry that could improve clinical trials by safely increasing sample sizes.

The study received funding from ASCO. Dr. Harvey disclosed consulting or advisory roles with and institutional research funding from multiple entities.

SEATTLE – From the 1999 identification of neuromyelitis optica (NMO) as a disease state distinct from multiple sclerosis and first diagnostic criteria to the present time, the progress made in the understanding of NMO has been continuous. At the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Brian Weinshenker, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., summarized some of the milestones in the timeline of NMO research.

These milestones include the 2004 identification of NMO-IgG, an autoantibody marker of NMO that distinguishes it from multiple sclerosis; the 2005 discovery that the antibody was reactive to aquaporin 4, the dominant CNS water channel and an astrocyte protein; further characterizations of NMO manifestations; the revised international panel diagnostic criteria in 2015; and the current phase 3 trials of three potential treatments for NMO – eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab.

Dr. Weinshenker reported the following disclosures: receiving royalties from the RSR Group, Oxford University, Hospices Civils de Lyon, and MVZ Labor PD Dr. Volkmann und Kollegen for a patent of NMO-IgG as a diagnostic test for NMO and related disorders; serving as an adjudication committee member for clinical trials in NMO being conducted by MedImmune and Alexion; and consulting for Chugai regarding a clinical trial for NMO.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – From the 1999 identification of neuromyelitis optica (NMO) as a disease state distinct from multiple sclerosis and first diagnostic criteria to the present time, the progress made in the understanding of NMO has been continuous. At the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Brian Weinshenker, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., summarized some of the milestones in the timeline of NMO research.

These milestones include the 2004 identification of NMO-IgG, an autoantibody marker of NMO that distinguishes it from multiple sclerosis; the 2005 discovery that the antibody was reactive to aquaporin 4, the dominant CNS water channel and an astrocyte protein; further characterizations of NMO manifestations; the revised international panel diagnostic criteria in 2015; and the current phase 3 trials of three potential treatments for NMO – eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab.

Dr. Weinshenker reported the following disclosures: receiving royalties from the RSR Group, Oxford University, Hospices Civils de Lyon, and MVZ Labor PD Dr. Volkmann und Kollegen for a patent of NMO-IgG as a diagnostic test for NMO and related disorders; serving as an adjudication committee member for clinical trials in NMO being conducted by MedImmune and Alexion; and consulting for Chugai regarding a clinical trial for NMO.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – From the 1999 identification of neuromyelitis optica (NMO) as a disease state distinct from multiple sclerosis and first diagnostic criteria to the present time, the progress made in the understanding of NMO has been continuous. At the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, Brian Weinshenker, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., summarized some of the milestones in the timeline of NMO research.

These milestones include the 2004 identification of NMO-IgG, an autoantibody marker of NMO that distinguishes it from multiple sclerosis; the 2005 discovery that the antibody was reactive to aquaporin 4, the dominant CNS water channel and an astrocyte protein; further characterizations of NMO manifestations; the revised international panel diagnostic criteria in 2015; and the current phase 3 trials of three potential treatments for NMO – eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab.

Dr. Weinshenker reported the following disclosures: receiving royalties from the RSR Group, Oxford University, Hospices Civils de Lyon, and MVZ Labor PD Dr. Volkmann und Kollegen for a patent of NMO-IgG as a diagnostic test for NMO and related disorders; serving as an adjudication committee member for clinical trials in NMO being conducted by MedImmune and Alexion; and consulting for Chugai regarding a clinical trial for NMO.

[email protected]

The American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation recently issued a joint guideline on the management and treatment of psoriasis, with a focus on comorbidities. The guideline offers information and recommendations on mental health in patients with psoriasis.

Vidyard Video

The American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation recently issued a joint guideline on the management and treatment of psoriasis, with a focus on comorbidities. The guideline offers information and recommendations on mental health in patients with psoriasis.

Vidyard Video

The American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation recently issued a joint guideline on the management and treatment of psoriasis, with a focus on comorbidities. The guideline offers information and recommendations on mental health in patients with psoriasis.

Vidyard Video

SEATTLE – Researchers are working on new tools to objectively measure several domains affected by multiple sclerosis (MS) in hope of improving patient care, according to Jared Srinivasan.

Mr. Srinivasan, a research coordinator at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., sat down at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers for a video interview summarizing his work on new measurement tools for assessing disease status in MS patients with Mark Gudesblatt, MD, and other colleagues at South Shore Neurologic Associates.

“We are trying to find better ways of measuring disease status, rather than the EDSS [Expanded Disability Status Scale] ... It is not as sensitive as some other measures can be,” Mr. Srinivasan said. “We are trying to shed light on some new tools regarding objectively measuring cognition, manual dexterity, gait, and ocular coherence tomography.”

The overall goal, he said, “is to use a combination of these granular outcome measures to create a bigger picture of a patient’s disease so we can better treat them.”

One of the tools is called Neurotrax, which measures cognition in multiple dimensions (e.g., attention, information processing, motor skills, verbal functioning). With this and other new tools for manual dexterity and its cognitive aspects, as well as other dimensions of MS, the researchers are trying capture a fuller picture of MS in individual patients.

“The end goal of this is that if we can show that MS is such a complex disease that the current tools we are using do not quite capture the full nuances and granularity in it, then we can move toward using better measures that will capture that, which will move patient care forward.”

Mr. Srinivasan had nothing to disclose.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Researchers are working on new tools to objectively measure several domains affected by multiple sclerosis (MS) in hope of improving patient care, according to Jared Srinivasan.

Mr. Srinivasan, a research coordinator at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., sat down at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers for a video interview summarizing his work on new measurement tools for assessing disease status in MS patients with Mark Gudesblatt, MD, and other colleagues at South Shore Neurologic Associates.

“We are trying to find better ways of measuring disease status, rather than the EDSS [Expanded Disability Status Scale] ... It is not as sensitive as some other measures can be,” Mr. Srinivasan said. “We are trying to shed light on some new tools regarding objectively measuring cognition, manual dexterity, gait, and ocular coherence tomography.”

The overall goal, he said, “is to use a combination of these granular outcome measures to create a bigger picture of a patient’s disease so we can better treat them.”

One of the tools is called Neurotrax, which measures cognition in multiple dimensions (e.g., attention, information processing, motor skills, verbal functioning). With this and other new tools for manual dexterity and its cognitive aspects, as well as other dimensions of MS, the researchers are trying capture a fuller picture of MS in individual patients.

“The end goal of this is that if we can show that MS is such a complex disease that the current tools we are using do not quite capture the full nuances and granularity in it, then we can move toward using better measures that will capture that, which will move patient care forward.”

Mr. Srinivasan had nothing to disclose.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Researchers are working on new tools to objectively measure several domains affected by multiple sclerosis (MS) in hope of improving patient care, according to Jared Srinivasan.

Mr. Srinivasan, a research coordinator at South Shore Neurologic Associates in Patchogue, N.Y., sat down at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers for a video interview summarizing his work on new measurement tools for assessing disease status in MS patients with Mark Gudesblatt, MD, and other colleagues at South Shore Neurologic Associates.

“We are trying to find better ways of measuring disease status, rather than the EDSS [Expanded Disability Status Scale] ... It is not as sensitive as some other measures can be,” Mr. Srinivasan said. “We are trying to shed light on some new tools regarding objectively measuring cognition, manual dexterity, gait, and ocular coherence tomography.”

The overall goal, he said, “is to use a combination of these granular outcome measures to create a bigger picture of a patient’s disease so we can better treat them.”

One of the tools is called Neurotrax, which measures cognition in multiple dimensions (e.g., attention, information processing, motor skills, verbal functioning). With this and other new tools for manual dexterity and its cognitive aspects, as well as other dimensions of MS, the researchers are trying capture a fuller picture of MS in individual patients.

“The end goal of this is that if we can show that MS is such a complex disease that the current tools we are using do not quite capture the full nuances and granularity in it, then we can move toward using better measures that will capture that, which will move patient care forward.”

Mr. Srinivasan had nothing to disclose.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Patients with advanced urothelial cancer that has progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy and immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors have a poor prognosis and few effective therapeutic options.

But in a phase 2 trial in 125 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, the investigational agent enfortumab vedotin was associated with a 44% objective response rate, including a 12% complete response rate and 32% partial response rate. The responses were observed across all subgroups, irrespective of response to prior immunotherapy or the presence of liver metastases, reported Daniel Petrylak, MD, a professor of medical oncology and urology at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Petrylak described how the agent is directed toward a novel target, Nectin-4, a protein expressed in about 97% of urothelial cancers and in other solid tumor types.

The study is sponsored by Seattle Genetics and Astellas Pharma. Dr. Petrylak disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Astellas and others, funding from Seattle Genetics, and financial relationships with multiple other companies.
 

CHICAGO – Patients with advanced urothelial cancer that has progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy and immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors have a poor prognosis and few effective therapeutic options.

But in a phase 2 trial in 125 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, the investigational agent enfortumab vedotin was associated with a 44% objective response rate, including a 12% complete response rate and 32% partial response rate. The responses were observed across all subgroups, irrespective of response to prior immunotherapy or the presence of liver metastases, reported Daniel Petrylak, MD, a professor of medical oncology and urology at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Petrylak described how the agent is directed toward a novel target, Nectin-4, a protein expressed in about 97% of urothelial cancers and in other solid tumor types.

The study is sponsored by Seattle Genetics and Astellas Pharma. Dr. Petrylak disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Astellas and others, funding from Seattle Genetics, and financial relationships with multiple other companies.
 

CHICAGO – Patients with advanced urothelial cancer that has progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy and immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors have a poor prognosis and few effective therapeutic options.

But in a phase 2 trial in 125 patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer, the investigational agent enfortumab vedotin was associated with a 44% objective response rate, including a 12% complete response rate and 32% partial response rate. The responses were observed across all subgroups, irrespective of response to prior immunotherapy or the presence of liver metastases, reported Daniel Petrylak, MD, a professor of medical oncology and urology at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Petrylak described how the agent is directed toward a novel target, Nectin-4, a protein expressed in about 97% of urothelial cancers and in other solid tumor types.

The study is sponsored by Seattle Genetics and Astellas Pharma. Dr. Petrylak disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Astellas and others, funding from Seattle Genetics, and financial relationships with multiple other companies.
 

CHICAGO – For colorectal cancer patients with liver metastases, laparoscopic surgery has short-term advantages over open surgery, including fewer complications and better quality of life as compared to open surgery. Now, there are data to show that long-term outcomes with the laparoscopic approach aren’t any worse with the laparoscopic approach.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Åsmund Avdem Fretland, MD, discusses results of the 280-patient randomized OSLO-COMET study, including 5-year survival of 56% for the laparoscopic approach, and similarly, 57% for the open procedure.

Based on lower morbidity, and now similar life expectancy, more centers should be doing laparoscopic procedures for liver metastases, said Dr. Fretland, a surgeon in the department of HPB surgery at Oslo University Hospital.

For now, however, open surgery appears to be the dominant approach. According to a recent survey, just 22% of U.S. patients with colorectal liver metastases have laparoscopic surgery.

More data could help. Dr. Fretland said in the interview that more randomized trials are underway aimed at evaluating the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open procedures.

Dr. Fretland reported honoraria from Olympus Medical Systems.

CHICAGO – For colorectal cancer patients with liver metastases, laparoscopic surgery has short-term advantages over open surgery, including fewer complications and better quality of life as compared to open surgery. Now, there are data to show that long-term outcomes with the laparoscopic approach aren’t any worse with the laparoscopic approach.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Åsmund Avdem Fretland, MD, discusses results of the 280-patient randomized OSLO-COMET study, including 5-year survival of 56% for the laparoscopic approach, and similarly, 57% for the open procedure.

Based on lower morbidity, and now similar life expectancy, more centers should be doing laparoscopic procedures for liver metastases, said Dr. Fretland, a surgeon in the department of HPB surgery at Oslo University Hospital.

For now, however, open surgery appears to be the dominant approach. According to a recent survey, just 22% of U.S. patients with colorectal liver metastases have laparoscopic surgery.

More data could help. Dr. Fretland said in the interview that more randomized trials are underway aimed at evaluating the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open procedures.

Dr. Fretland reported honoraria from Olympus Medical Systems.

CHICAGO – For colorectal cancer patients with liver metastases, laparoscopic surgery has short-term advantages over open surgery, including fewer complications and better quality of life as compared to open surgery. Now, there are data to show that long-term outcomes with the laparoscopic approach aren’t any worse with the laparoscopic approach.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Åsmund Avdem Fretland, MD, discusses results of the 280-patient randomized OSLO-COMET study, including 5-year survival of 56% for the laparoscopic approach, and similarly, 57% for the open procedure.

Based on lower morbidity, and now similar life expectancy, more centers should be doing laparoscopic procedures for liver metastases, said Dr. Fretland, a surgeon in the department of HPB surgery at Oslo University Hospital.

For now, however, open surgery appears to be the dominant approach. According to a recent survey, just 22% of U.S. patients with colorectal liver metastases have laparoscopic surgery.

More data could help. Dr. Fretland said in the interview that more randomized trials are underway aimed at evaluating the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open procedures.

Dr. Fretland reported honoraria from Olympus Medical Systems.