LAS VEGAS – Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) was equivalent to high-resolution manometry (HRM) in predicting clinical response by Eckardt score 6 months or more after per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outlet obstruction (EGJOO).

Measures for clinical response following lower esophageal sphincter myotomy procedures include Eckardt Score, timed barium esophagram, HRM, and FLIP. However, since FLIP is a relatively new technique, there are few clinical data comparing its efficacy versus HRM in patients who have a positive response to POEM measured by the Eckardt score, according to John DeWitt, MD, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

FLIP can be performed during a follow-up endoscopy while a patient is sedated, while HRM requires the patient to be awake. Some patients find the procedure intolerable, and Dr. DeWitt estimates that 10%-20% of patients don’t return for follow-up assessments because of the discomfort.

“[FLIP] is a relatively new technology, the role of which is still being discovered. We have a lot more information on the diagnosis side of things. The role in follow-up, particularly after myotomy, is really not defined well. This is the first study to my knowledge that has evaluated manometry and FLIP head-to-head to compare patient-reported outcomes,” said Dr. DeWitt in an interview. He is a professor of medicine and the director of endoscopic ultrasound at Indiana University Medical Center, in Indianapolis.
 

Going head-to-head

The researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 265 consecutive patients who underwent POEM for achalasia or EGJOO from 2016 through 2020. A clinical response was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3, EGJ distensibility index (EGJ-DI) higher than 2.8 mm²/mm Hg, maximum integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) <15 mm Hg, or a maximum EGJ diameter greater than 14 mm at any balloon distension.

In all, 126 patients returned for follow-up and completed an upper endoscopy with FLIP, HRM, and Eckardt scores within a 6-12 month period after the POEM procedure.

With respect to HRM, an IRP measurement <15 mm Hg predicted post-POEM Eckardt score with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% confidence interval, 79.3-92.2) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an area under the curve of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.39-0.81). A maximum EJG diameter ≥ 14 mm had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI, 69.0-84.6) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.76).

The performance was similar with FLIP: EGJ-DI > 2.8 mm²/mm Hg at any balloon setting had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.4-98.1) and a specificity% of 0.0, and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55). A similar measurement at 40 mL or 50 mL distension had a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI, 87.3-97.1) and a specificity of 16.7% (95% CI, 0.4-64.1), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39-0.72). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant difference between ability of FLIP and HRM to predict a normal Eckardt score.

If the study is repeated in other patient populations, Dr. DeWitt hopes that it could eliminate manometry altogether in a large majority of patients. “That would be potentially a game changer for bringing patients back to see how well they’re doing,” said Dr. DeWitt.

Not all patients who undergo POEM would be good candidates for FLIP, said Dr. DeWitt. The study was limited to patients with hypertension in the lower esophageal sphincter. Other disorders such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type III achalasia would not likely be candidates for FLIP. “Those patients are going to probably still need manometry because if the esophageal body abnormalities are still present, then repeat testing might need to be performed,” said Dr. DeWitt. Still, he estimated about 80% of patients could be eligible for FLIP instead.
 

Impact on patients

“I think it’s interesting new data,” said Patrick Young, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented. He noted that the treatment of achalasia is evolving away from surgery, and the techniques to measure response are evolving along with it. “As we progress in that technology and using that procedure, we need to understand better how to follow those people up. I think adding this new device may help us to understand who’s going to respond well, and who’s not going to respond well. This is an early investigation, so I think we’ll need to do trials, but I think this is a good first step,” said Dr. Young, who is a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.

Comoderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, also praised the study, but noted that the cost of FLIP could be a concern. “We want to have a reasonable ratio of the cost versus the effectiveness,” said Dr. Yaghoobi, who is an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Young, and Dr. Yaghoobi had no relevant disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) was equivalent to high-resolution manometry (HRM) in predicting clinical response by Eckardt score 6 months or more after per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outlet obstruction (EGJOO).

Measures for clinical response following lower esophageal sphincter myotomy procedures include Eckardt Score, timed barium esophagram, HRM, and FLIP. However, since FLIP is a relatively new technique, there are few clinical data comparing its efficacy versus HRM in patients who have a positive response to POEM measured by the Eckardt score, according to John DeWitt, MD, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

FLIP can be performed during a follow-up endoscopy while a patient is sedated, while HRM requires the patient to be awake. Some patients find the procedure intolerable, and Dr. DeWitt estimates that 10%-20% of patients don’t return for follow-up assessments because of the discomfort.

“[FLIP] is a relatively new technology, the role of which is still being discovered. We have a lot more information on the diagnosis side of things. The role in follow-up, particularly after myotomy, is really not defined well. This is the first study to my knowledge that has evaluated manometry and FLIP head-to-head to compare patient-reported outcomes,” said Dr. DeWitt in an interview. He is a professor of medicine and the director of endoscopic ultrasound at Indiana University Medical Center, in Indianapolis.
 

Going head-to-head

The researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 265 consecutive patients who underwent POEM for achalasia or EGJOO from 2016 through 2020. A clinical response was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3, EGJ distensibility index (EGJ-DI) higher than 2.8 mm²/mm Hg, maximum integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) <15 mm Hg, or a maximum EGJ diameter greater than 14 mm at any balloon distension.

In all, 126 patients returned for follow-up and completed an upper endoscopy with FLIP, HRM, and Eckardt scores within a 6-12 month period after the POEM procedure.

With respect to HRM, an IRP measurement <15 mm Hg predicted post-POEM Eckardt score with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% confidence interval, 79.3-92.2) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an area under the curve of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.39-0.81). A maximum EJG diameter ≥ 14 mm had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI, 69.0-84.6) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.76).

The performance was similar with FLIP: EGJ-DI > 2.8 mm²/mm Hg at any balloon setting had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.4-98.1) and a specificity% of 0.0, and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55). A similar measurement at 40 mL or 50 mL distension had a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI, 87.3-97.1) and a specificity of 16.7% (95% CI, 0.4-64.1), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39-0.72). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant difference between ability of FLIP and HRM to predict a normal Eckardt score.

If the study is repeated in other patient populations, Dr. DeWitt hopes that it could eliminate manometry altogether in a large majority of patients. “That would be potentially a game changer for bringing patients back to see how well they’re doing,” said Dr. DeWitt.

Not all patients who undergo POEM would be good candidates for FLIP, said Dr. DeWitt. The study was limited to patients with hypertension in the lower esophageal sphincter. Other disorders such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type III achalasia would not likely be candidates for FLIP. “Those patients are going to probably still need manometry because if the esophageal body abnormalities are still present, then repeat testing might need to be performed,” said Dr. DeWitt. Still, he estimated about 80% of patients could be eligible for FLIP instead.
 

Impact on patients

“I think it’s interesting new data,” said Patrick Young, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented. He noted that the treatment of achalasia is evolving away from surgery, and the techniques to measure response are evolving along with it. “As we progress in that technology and using that procedure, we need to understand better how to follow those people up. I think adding this new device may help us to understand who’s going to respond well, and who’s not going to respond well. This is an early investigation, so I think we’ll need to do trials, but I think this is a good first step,” said Dr. Young, who is a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.

Comoderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, also praised the study, but noted that the cost of FLIP could be a concern. “We want to have a reasonable ratio of the cost versus the effectiveness,” said Dr. Yaghoobi, who is an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Young, and Dr. Yaghoobi had no relevant disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) was equivalent to high-resolution manometry (HRM) in predicting clinical response by Eckardt score 6 months or more after per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outlet obstruction (EGJOO).

Measures for clinical response following lower esophageal sphincter myotomy procedures include Eckardt Score, timed barium esophagram, HRM, and FLIP. However, since FLIP is a relatively new technique, there are few clinical data comparing its efficacy versus HRM in patients who have a positive response to POEM measured by the Eckardt score, according to John DeWitt, MD, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

FLIP can be performed during a follow-up endoscopy while a patient is sedated, while HRM requires the patient to be awake. Some patients find the procedure intolerable, and Dr. DeWitt estimates that 10%-20% of patients don’t return for follow-up assessments because of the discomfort.

“[FLIP] is a relatively new technology, the role of which is still being discovered. We have a lot more information on the diagnosis side of things. The role in follow-up, particularly after myotomy, is really not defined well. This is the first study to my knowledge that has evaluated manometry and FLIP head-to-head to compare patient-reported outcomes,” said Dr. DeWitt in an interview. He is a professor of medicine and the director of endoscopic ultrasound at Indiana University Medical Center, in Indianapolis.
 

Going head-to-head

The researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 265 consecutive patients who underwent POEM for achalasia or EGJOO from 2016 through 2020. A clinical response was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3, EGJ distensibility index (EGJ-DI) higher than 2.8 mm²/mm Hg, maximum integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) <15 mm Hg, or a maximum EGJ diameter greater than 14 mm at any balloon distension.

In all, 126 patients returned for follow-up and completed an upper endoscopy with FLIP, HRM, and Eckardt scores within a 6-12 month period after the POEM procedure.

With respect to HRM, an IRP measurement <15 mm Hg predicted post-POEM Eckardt score with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% confidence interval, 79.3-92.2) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an area under the curve of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.39-0.81). A maximum EJG diameter ≥ 14 mm had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI, 69.0-84.6) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.76).

The performance was similar with FLIP: EGJ-DI > 2.8 mm²/mm Hg at any balloon setting had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.4-98.1) and a specificity% of 0.0, and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55). A similar measurement at 40 mL or 50 mL distension had a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI, 87.3-97.1) and a specificity of 16.7% (95% CI, 0.4-64.1), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39-0.72). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant difference between ability of FLIP and HRM to predict a normal Eckardt score.

If the study is repeated in other patient populations, Dr. DeWitt hopes that it could eliminate manometry altogether in a large majority of patients. “That would be potentially a game changer for bringing patients back to see how well they’re doing,” said Dr. DeWitt.

Not all patients who undergo POEM would be good candidates for FLIP, said Dr. DeWitt. The study was limited to patients with hypertension in the lower esophageal sphincter. Other disorders such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type III achalasia would not likely be candidates for FLIP. “Those patients are going to probably still need manometry because if the esophageal body abnormalities are still present, then repeat testing might need to be performed,” said Dr. DeWitt. Still, he estimated about 80% of patients could be eligible for FLIP instead.
 

Impact on patients

“I think it’s interesting new data,” said Patrick Young, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented. He noted that the treatment of achalasia is evolving away from surgery, and the techniques to measure response are evolving along with it. “As we progress in that technology and using that procedure, we need to understand better how to follow those people up. I think adding this new device may help us to understand who’s going to respond well, and who’s not going to respond well. This is an early investigation, so I think we’ll need to do trials, but I think this is a good first step,” said Dr. Young, who is a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.

Comoderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, also praised the study, but noted that the cost of FLIP could be a concern. “We want to have a reasonable ratio of the cost versus the effectiveness,” said Dr. Yaghoobi, who is an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Young, and Dr. Yaghoobi had no relevant disclosures.

LAS VEGAS –Data from the 28-week extension of the Liberty EoE TREET phase 3 clinical trial showed that the anti–interleukin-4/IL-13 antibody dupilumab led to long-term improvement in eosinophil count, histology, and patient-reported symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) out to 28 weeks. Dupilumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Many patients don’t respond to the standard therapies of proton pump inhibitors, steroids, or diet. Some evidence suggests that EoE might be driven by type 2 inflammation, and dupilumab’s effect on the shared receptor of IL-4 and IL-13 directly counters that pathway.

“The current treatments are [proton pump inhibitors], steroids, or diet – a good proportion of patients don’t respond to them. And they’re also not targeted,” Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Dr. Dellon presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“The bottom line is that people who responded up front to dupilumab maintain that response to a year, and the people on placebo gained a similar response as the people who were treated. It looked good. It was histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes,” said Dr. Dellon.

Many of the patients in the new study were steroid refractory, making it a difficult population to treat, according to Dr. Dellon. “You can’t compare to the steroid-treated patients, but the 6-month data showed about a 60% response rate histologically, which is right up there with where steroids and diet are for easier to treat patients. So the fact that it’s a harder to treat cohort is pretty impressive from that standpoint,” said Dr. Dellon.

Data from the first 24 weeks was previously reported at UEG Week 2020 and showed that dupilumab outperformed placebo in EoE patients aged 12 years and older, with dupilumab producing better outcomes in peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) Score at 24 weeks.

At ACG 2021, Dr. Dellon reported on 52-week results, where all patients from both treated and placebo groups received dupilumab after the initial 24-week phase. Dupilumab reduced dysphagia symptoms as measured by the absolute change in DSQ score at 24 weeks (–21.9 vs. –9.6; P < .001). At 52 weeks, the dupilumab group showed a change of –23.4 from the start of the study, and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a DSQ score change of –21.7. Dupilumab also led to a greater percentage reduction in DSQ score by 24 weeks (69.2% versus 31.7%; P < .001); at 52 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 75.9% reduction and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a 65.9% reduction (no significant difference).

The dupilumab group had a greater proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal eosinophil count of 6 eosinophils or less per high power field at 24 weeks (59.5% vs. 5.1%); at 52 weeks, 55.9% had achieved this measure, versus 60.0% of the placebo-to-dupilumab group. At 24 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 71.2% reduction in peak eosinophil count from baseline versus –3.0% in placebo (P < .001). At week 52, the reductions were 88.6% and 83.8%, respectively.

Histology features were improved with dupilumab. At week 24, the absolute change in histology scoring system mean grade score (histologic severity) from initial baseline was greater in the dupilumab group (least squares mean, –0.761 vs. –0.001; P < .001). The improvement continued at week 52 (LS mean, –0.87) and occurred in the placebo-to-dupilumab group (LS mean, –0.87). The dupilumab group had a greater absolute change in mean stage score at 24 weeks (histologic extent, LS mean, –0.753 vs. –0.012; P < .001) and 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.89), while the placebo-to-dupilumab group achieved a similar change at 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.87).

Endoscopic features improved in the dupilumab group as measured by endoscopic reference score at 24 weeks (LS mean, –3.2 versus –0.3; P <.001) and at 52 weeks (LS mean, –4.1). The placebo-to-dupilumab group had a similar outcome at 52 weeks (LS mean, –3.9).

Dupilumab was well tolerated, with the only significant difference in treatment-emergent adverse events being injection-site reactions and injection-site erythema.

“I thought the data was really impressive and compelling,” said Amy Oxentenko, MD, chair of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who comoderated the session. “It’d be nice to have something like this that is a targeted therapy that clearly shows improvement in not only some of the symptoms and histology, but also having an impact possibly on that fibrotic piece, which I think is really the area of morbidity in these patients long term.”

If approved, dupilumab could improve compliance among patients, who sometimes struggle with taking topical steroids properly, said comoderator David Hass, MD, who is an associate clinical professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He also agreed that the potential for remodeling would be a significant benefit over steroids.

One concern with dupilumab would be any potential for immune suppression. “It’s always something to think about,” Dr. Hass said.

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon has consulted and received research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Oxentenko and Dr. Hass have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated Nov. 4, 2021.

LAS VEGAS –Data from the 28-week extension of the Liberty EoE TREET phase 3 clinical trial showed that the anti–interleukin-4/IL-13 antibody dupilumab led to long-term improvement in eosinophil count, histology, and patient-reported symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) out to 28 weeks. Dupilumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Many patients don’t respond to the standard therapies of proton pump inhibitors, steroids, or diet. Some evidence suggests that EoE might be driven by type 2 inflammation, and dupilumab’s effect on the shared receptor of IL-4 and IL-13 directly counters that pathway.

“The current treatments are [proton pump inhibitors], steroids, or diet – a good proportion of patients don’t respond to them. And they’re also not targeted,” Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Dr. Dellon presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“The bottom line is that people who responded up front to dupilumab maintain that response to a year, and the people on placebo gained a similar response as the people who were treated. It looked good. It was histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes,” said Dr. Dellon.

Many of the patients in the new study were steroid refractory, making it a difficult population to treat, according to Dr. Dellon. “You can’t compare to the steroid-treated patients, but the 6-month data showed about a 60% response rate histologically, which is right up there with where steroids and diet are for easier to treat patients. So the fact that it’s a harder to treat cohort is pretty impressive from that standpoint,” said Dr. Dellon.

Data from the first 24 weeks was previously reported at UEG Week 2020 and showed that dupilumab outperformed placebo in EoE patients aged 12 years and older, with dupilumab producing better outcomes in peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) Score at 24 weeks.

At ACG 2021, Dr. Dellon reported on 52-week results, where all patients from both treated and placebo groups received dupilumab after the initial 24-week phase. Dupilumab reduced dysphagia symptoms as measured by the absolute change in DSQ score at 24 weeks (–21.9 vs. –9.6; P < .001). At 52 weeks, the dupilumab group showed a change of –23.4 from the start of the study, and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a DSQ score change of –21.7. Dupilumab also led to a greater percentage reduction in DSQ score by 24 weeks (69.2% versus 31.7%; P < .001); at 52 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 75.9% reduction and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a 65.9% reduction (no significant difference).

The dupilumab group had a greater proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal eosinophil count of 6 eosinophils or less per high power field at 24 weeks (59.5% vs. 5.1%); at 52 weeks, 55.9% had achieved this measure, versus 60.0% of the placebo-to-dupilumab group. At 24 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 71.2% reduction in peak eosinophil count from baseline versus –3.0% in placebo (P < .001). At week 52, the reductions were 88.6% and 83.8%, respectively.

Histology features were improved with dupilumab. At week 24, the absolute change in histology scoring system mean grade score (histologic severity) from initial baseline was greater in the dupilumab group (least squares mean, –0.761 vs. –0.001; P < .001). The improvement continued at week 52 (LS mean, –0.87) and occurred in the placebo-to-dupilumab group (LS mean, –0.87). The dupilumab group had a greater absolute change in mean stage score at 24 weeks (histologic extent, LS mean, –0.753 vs. –0.012; P < .001) and 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.89), while the placebo-to-dupilumab group achieved a similar change at 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.87).

Endoscopic features improved in the dupilumab group as measured by endoscopic reference score at 24 weeks (LS mean, –3.2 versus –0.3; P <.001) and at 52 weeks (LS mean, –4.1). The placebo-to-dupilumab group had a similar outcome at 52 weeks (LS mean, –3.9).

Dupilumab was well tolerated, with the only significant difference in treatment-emergent adverse events being injection-site reactions and injection-site erythema.

“I thought the data was really impressive and compelling,” said Amy Oxentenko, MD, chair of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who comoderated the session. “It’d be nice to have something like this that is a targeted therapy that clearly shows improvement in not only some of the symptoms and histology, but also having an impact possibly on that fibrotic piece, which I think is really the area of morbidity in these patients long term.”

If approved, dupilumab could improve compliance among patients, who sometimes struggle with taking topical steroids properly, said comoderator David Hass, MD, who is an associate clinical professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He also agreed that the potential for remodeling would be a significant benefit over steroids.

One concern with dupilumab would be any potential for immune suppression. “It’s always something to think about,” Dr. Hass said.

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon has consulted and received research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Oxentenko and Dr. Hass have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated Nov. 4, 2021.

LAS VEGAS –Data from the 28-week extension of the Liberty EoE TREET phase 3 clinical trial showed that the anti–interleukin-4/IL-13 antibody dupilumab led to long-term improvement in eosinophil count, histology, and patient-reported symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) out to 28 weeks. Dupilumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Many patients don’t respond to the standard therapies of proton pump inhibitors, steroids, or diet. Some evidence suggests that EoE might be driven by type 2 inflammation, and dupilumab’s effect on the shared receptor of IL-4 and IL-13 directly counters that pathway.

“The current treatments are [proton pump inhibitors], steroids, or diet – a good proportion of patients don’t respond to them. And they’re also not targeted,” Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Dr. Dellon presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“The bottom line is that people who responded up front to dupilumab maintain that response to a year, and the people on placebo gained a similar response as the people who were treated. It looked good. It was histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes,” said Dr. Dellon.

Many of the patients in the new study were steroid refractory, making it a difficult population to treat, according to Dr. Dellon. “You can’t compare to the steroid-treated patients, but the 6-month data showed about a 60% response rate histologically, which is right up there with where steroids and diet are for easier to treat patients. So the fact that it’s a harder to treat cohort is pretty impressive from that standpoint,” said Dr. Dellon.

Data from the first 24 weeks was previously reported at UEG Week 2020 and showed that dupilumab outperformed placebo in EoE patients aged 12 years and older, with dupilumab producing better outcomes in peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) Score at 24 weeks.

At ACG 2021, Dr. Dellon reported on 52-week results, where all patients from both treated and placebo groups received dupilumab after the initial 24-week phase. Dupilumab reduced dysphagia symptoms as measured by the absolute change in DSQ score at 24 weeks (–21.9 vs. –9.6; P < .001). At 52 weeks, the dupilumab group showed a change of –23.4 from the start of the study, and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a DSQ score change of –21.7. Dupilumab also led to a greater percentage reduction in DSQ score by 24 weeks (69.2% versus 31.7%; P < .001); at 52 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 75.9% reduction and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a 65.9% reduction (no significant difference).

The dupilumab group had a greater proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal eosinophil count of 6 eosinophils or less per high power field at 24 weeks (59.5% vs. 5.1%); at 52 weeks, 55.9% had achieved this measure, versus 60.0% of the placebo-to-dupilumab group. At 24 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 71.2% reduction in peak eosinophil count from baseline versus –3.0% in placebo (P < .001). At week 52, the reductions were 88.6% and 83.8%, respectively.

Histology features were improved with dupilumab. At week 24, the absolute change in histology scoring system mean grade score (histologic severity) from initial baseline was greater in the dupilumab group (least squares mean, –0.761 vs. –0.001; P < .001). The improvement continued at week 52 (LS mean, –0.87) and occurred in the placebo-to-dupilumab group (LS mean, –0.87). The dupilumab group had a greater absolute change in mean stage score at 24 weeks (histologic extent, LS mean, –0.753 vs. –0.012; P < .001) and 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.89), while the placebo-to-dupilumab group achieved a similar change at 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.87).

Endoscopic features improved in the dupilumab group as measured by endoscopic reference score at 24 weeks (LS mean, –3.2 versus –0.3; P <.001) and at 52 weeks (LS mean, –4.1). The placebo-to-dupilumab group had a similar outcome at 52 weeks (LS mean, –3.9).

Dupilumab was well tolerated, with the only significant difference in treatment-emergent adverse events being injection-site reactions and injection-site erythema.

“I thought the data was really impressive and compelling,” said Amy Oxentenko, MD, chair of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who comoderated the session. “It’d be nice to have something like this that is a targeted therapy that clearly shows improvement in not only some of the symptoms and histology, but also having an impact possibly on that fibrotic piece, which I think is really the area of morbidity in these patients long term.”

If approved, dupilumab could improve compliance among patients, who sometimes struggle with taking topical steroids properly, said comoderator David Hass, MD, who is an associate clinical professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He also agreed that the potential for remodeling would be a significant benefit over steroids.

One concern with dupilumab would be any potential for immune suppression. “It’s always something to think about,” Dr. Hass said.

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon has consulted and received research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Oxentenko and Dr. Hass have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated Nov. 4, 2021.

New Jersey officials have suspended the license of a physician whose aesthetic medicine practice allegedly poses a “clear and imminent danger” to the public, as reported in NJ.com.

The physician, Muhammad A. Mirza, MD, is a board-certified internal medicine doctor and owner of Mirza Aesthetics, which has its main New Jersey office in Cedar Grove, a township in Essex County. The practice also leases space in New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, where at press time Dr. Mirza was still licensed to practice medicine.

The acting New Jersey attorney general said that Dr. Mirza had deviated from the accepted standards of medical care in at least four key areas: he practiced in ways that put his patients in bodily danger; he lacked the formal training in and an adequate knowledge of aesthetic medicine; he practiced in office settings that inspectors found to be subpar; and he failed to safely store medical supplies or maintain proper medical records.

In one instance singled out by the attorney general’s office, Dr. Mirza used an injectable dermal filler to enhance a patient’s penis. As a result of that nonsurgical procedure, the patient needed to be rushed to a nearby hospital, where he underwent two emergency surgical interventions. Contacted by the emergency department doctor, Dr. Mirza allegedly failed to disclose the name of the filler he used, thereby complicating the patient’s recovery, according to the board complaint.

Dr. Mirza’s other alleged breaches of professional conduct include the following:

• Failure to wear a mask or surgical gloves during procedures
• Failure to keep electronic medical records of any kind
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler in proximity to patients’ eyes
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler for breast enhancement
• Use of a certain injectable dermal filler without first testing for skin allergies

In addition, site inspections of Dr. Mirza’s offices turned up substandard conditions. On April 23, 2021, in response to numerous patient complaints, the Enforcement Bureau of the Division of Consumer Affairs inspected Dr. Mirza’s Summit, N.J. office, one of several in the state.

Among other things, the inspection uncovered the following:

• The medical office was one large room. A curtain separated the reception area and the examination/treatment area, which consisted of only chairs and a fold-away table.
• “Duffle bags” were used to store injectable fillers. No medical storage refrigerators were observed.
• COVID-19 protocols were not followed. Inspectors could identify no barrier between receptionist and patients, no posted mask mandate, no social distancing policy, and no COVID-19 screening measures.

In addition to temporarily suspending Dr. Mirza’s license, the medical board has prohibited him from treating New Jersey patients in any of the out-of-state locations where he’s licensed to practice medicine.

Prosecutors have urged other patients who believe they’ve been injured by Mirza Aesthetics to file a complaint with the State Division of Consumer Affairs.

Dr. Mirza has agreed to the temporary suspension of his medical license, pending a hearing before an administrative law judge. In addition to facing civil penalties for each of the counts against him, he could be held responsible for paying investigative costs, attorney fees, trial costs, and other costs.
 

Doctor’s failure to diagnose results in mega award

In what is believed to be a record verdict in a wrongful death suit in Volusia County, Fla., a jury awarded $6.46 million to the family of a woman who died from an undiagnosed heart infection after being transferred from a local hospital, according to a report in The Daytona Beach News-Journal, among other news outlets.

In March 2016, Laura Staib went to what was then Florida Hospital DeLand — now AdventHealth DeLand — complaining of a variety of symptoms. There, she was examined by a doctor who was a member of a nearby cardiology group. His diagnosis: congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and sepsis. Transferred to a long-term care facility, Ms. Staib died 4 days later.

In their complaint against the cardiologist and his cardiology group, family members alleged that the doctor failed to identify Ms. Staib’s main problem: viral myocarditis.

“This was primarily a heart failure problem and a heart infection that was probably causing some problems in the lungs,” said the attorney representing the family. “A virus was attacking her heart, and they missed it,” he said. Claims against the hospital and other doctors were eventually resolved and dismissed.

The jury’s verdict will be appealed, said the attorney representing the cardiologist.

He argues that his client “did not cause that woman’s death. She died of an overwhelming lung infection...acute respiratory distress syndrome, caused by an overwhelming pneumonia that got worse after she was transferred to a facility where [my client] doesn’t practice.”

The bulk of the award will be in compensation for family members’ future pain and suffering and for other noneconomic damages.
 

Botched outpatient procedure leaves woman disfigured

In early September, a patient was allegedly administered the wrong drug during an outpatient procedure on her hand. She sued the Austin, Tex., hospital and surgical center where that procedure was performed, according to a story in Law/Street.

On January 9, 2020, Jessica Arguello went to HCA Healthcare’s South Austin Surgery Center to undergo a right-hand first metacarpophalangeal arthrodesis (fusion) and neuroma excision. In her suit against the hospital, Ms. Arguello claims that while her surgeon was preparing to close the incision after having irrigated the site, he called for a syringe containing an anesthetic. He was instead handed a syringe that contained formalin, the chemical used to preserve specimens for later review.

The mistake, Ms. Arguello claims, caused her to suffer massive chemical burns and necrosis of her flesh, which required four additional surgeries. In the end, she says, her right hand is disfigured and has limited mobility.

She adds that her injuries were preventable. Standard surgical procedure typically forbids chemicals such as formalin to be included among items on the prep tray. In addition to other compensation, she seeks damages for past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering.

At press time, the defendants had not responded to Ms. Arguello’s complaint.

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

New Jersey officials have suspended the license of a physician whose aesthetic medicine practice allegedly poses a “clear and imminent danger” to the public, as reported in NJ.com.

The physician, Muhammad A. Mirza, MD, is a board-certified internal medicine doctor and owner of Mirza Aesthetics, which has its main New Jersey office in Cedar Grove, a township in Essex County. The practice also leases space in New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, where at press time Dr. Mirza was still licensed to practice medicine.

The acting New Jersey attorney general said that Dr. Mirza had deviated from the accepted standards of medical care in at least four key areas: he practiced in ways that put his patients in bodily danger; he lacked the formal training in and an adequate knowledge of aesthetic medicine; he practiced in office settings that inspectors found to be subpar; and he failed to safely store medical supplies or maintain proper medical records.

In one instance singled out by the attorney general’s office, Dr. Mirza used an injectable dermal filler to enhance a patient’s penis. As a result of that nonsurgical procedure, the patient needed to be rushed to a nearby hospital, where he underwent two emergency surgical interventions. Contacted by the emergency department doctor, Dr. Mirza allegedly failed to disclose the name of the filler he used, thereby complicating the patient’s recovery, according to the board complaint.

Dr. Mirza’s other alleged breaches of professional conduct include the following:

• Failure to wear a mask or surgical gloves during procedures
• Failure to keep electronic medical records of any kind
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler in proximity to patients’ eyes
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler for breast enhancement
• Use of a certain injectable dermal filler without first testing for skin allergies

In addition, site inspections of Dr. Mirza’s offices turned up substandard conditions. On April 23, 2021, in response to numerous patient complaints, the Enforcement Bureau of the Division of Consumer Affairs inspected Dr. Mirza’s Summit, N.J. office, one of several in the state.

Among other things, the inspection uncovered the following:

• The medical office was one large room. A curtain separated the reception area and the examination/treatment area, which consisted of only chairs and a fold-away table.
• “Duffle bags” were used to store injectable fillers. No medical storage refrigerators were observed.
• COVID-19 protocols were not followed. Inspectors could identify no barrier between receptionist and patients, no posted mask mandate, no social distancing policy, and no COVID-19 screening measures.

In addition to temporarily suspending Dr. Mirza’s license, the medical board has prohibited him from treating New Jersey patients in any of the out-of-state locations where he’s licensed to practice medicine.

Prosecutors have urged other patients who believe they’ve been injured by Mirza Aesthetics to file a complaint with the State Division of Consumer Affairs.

Dr. Mirza has agreed to the temporary suspension of his medical license, pending a hearing before an administrative law judge. In addition to facing civil penalties for each of the counts against him, he could be held responsible for paying investigative costs, attorney fees, trial costs, and other costs.
 

Doctor’s failure to diagnose results in mega award

In what is believed to be a record verdict in a wrongful death suit in Volusia County, Fla., a jury awarded $6.46 million to the family of a woman who died from an undiagnosed heart infection after being transferred from a local hospital, according to a report in The Daytona Beach News-Journal, among other news outlets.

In March 2016, Laura Staib went to what was then Florida Hospital DeLand — now AdventHealth DeLand — complaining of a variety of symptoms. There, she was examined by a doctor who was a member of a nearby cardiology group. His diagnosis: congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and sepsis. Transferred to a long-term care facility, Ms. Staib died 4 days later.

In their complaint against the cardiologist and his cardiology group, family members alleged that the doctor failed to identify Ms. Staib’s main problem: viral myocarditis.

“This was primarily a heart failure problem and a heart infection that was probably causing some problems in the lungs,” said the attorney representing the family. “A virus was attacking her heart, and they missed it,” he said. Claims against the hospital and other doctors were eventually resolved and dismissed.

The jury’s verdict will be appealed, said the attorney representing the cardiologist.

He argues that his client “did not cause that woman’s death. She died of an overwhelming lung infection...acute respiratory distress syndrome, caused by an overwhelming pneumonia that got worse after she was transferred to a facility where [my client] doesn’t practice.”

The bulk of the award will be in compensation for family members’ future pain and suffering and for other noneconomic damages.
 

Botched outpatient procedure leaves woman disfigured

In early September, a patient was allegedly administered the wrong drug during an outpatient procedure on her hand. She sued the Austin, Tex., hospital and surgical center where that procedure was performed, according to a story in Law/Street.

On January 9, 2020, Jessica Arguello went to HCA Healthcare’s South Austin Surgery Center to undergo a right-hand first metacarpophalangeal arthrodesis (fusion) and neuroma excision. In her suit against the hospital, Ms. Arguello claims that while her surgeon was preparing to close the incision after having irrigated the site, he called for a syringe containing an anesthetic. He was instead handed a syringe that contained formalin, the chemical used to preserve specimens for later review.

The mistake, Ms. Arguello claims, caused her to suffer massive chemical burns and necrosis of her flesh, which required four additional surgeries. In the end, she says, her right hand is disfigured and has limited mobility.

She adds that her injuries were preventable. Standard surgical procedure typically forbids chemicals such as formalin to be included among items on the prep tray. In addition to other compensation, she seeks damages for past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering.

At press time, the defendants had not responded to Ms. Arguello’s complaint.

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

New Jersey officials have suspended the license of a physician whose aesthetic medicine practice allegedly poses a “clear and imminent danger” to the public, as reported in NJ.com.

The physician, Muhammad A. Mirza, MD, is a board-certified internal medicine doctor and owner of Mirza Aesthetics, which has its main New Jersey office in Cedar Grove, a township in Essex County. The practice also leases space in New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, where at press time Dr. Mirza was still licensed to practice medicine.

The acting New Jersey attorney general said that Dr. Mirza had deviated from the accepted standards of medical care in at least four key areas: he practiced in ways that put his patients in bodily danger; he lacked the formal training in and an adequate knowledge of aesthetic medicine; he practiced in office settings that inspectors found to be subpar; and he failed to safely store medical supplies or maintain proper medical records.

In one instance singled out by the attorney general’s office, Dr. Mirza used an injectable dermal filler to enhance a patient’s penis. As a result of that nonsurgical procedure, the patient needed to be rushed to a nearby hospital, where he underwent two emergency surgical interventions. Contacted by the emergency department doctor, Dr. Mirza allegedly failed to disclose the name of the filler he used, thereby complicating the patient’s recovery, according to the board complaint.

Dr. Mirza’s other alleged breaches of professional conduct include the following:

• Failure to wear a mask or surgical gloves during procedures
• Failure to keep electronic medical records of any kind
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler in proximity to patients’ eyes
• Improper, off-label use of an injectable dermal filler for breast enhancement
• Use of a certain injectable dermal filler without first testing for skin allergies

In addition, site inspections of Dr. Mirza’s offices turned up substandard conditions. On April 23, 2021, in response to numerous patient complaints, the Enforcement Bureau of the Division of Consumer Affairs inspected Dr. Mirza’s Summit, N.J. office, one of several in the state.

Among other things, the inspection uncovered the following:

• The medical office was one large room. A curtain separated the reception area and the examination/treatment area, which consisted of only chairs and a fold-away table.
• “Duffle bags” were used to store injectable fillers. No medical storage refrigerators were observed.
• COVID-19 protocols were not followed. Inspectors could identify no barrier between receptionist and patients, no posted mask mandate, no social distancing policy, and no COVID-19 screening measures.

In addition to temporarily suspending Dr. Mirza’s license, the medical board has prohibited him from treating New Jersey patients in any of the out-of-state locations where he’s licensed to practice medicine.

Prosecutors have urged other patients who believe they’ve been injured by Mirza Aesthetics to file a complaint with the State Division of Consumer Affairs.

Dr. Mirza has agreed to the temporary suspension of his medical license, pending a hearing before an administrative law judge. In addition to facing civil penalties for each of the counts against him, he could be held responsible for paying investigative costs, attorney fees, trial costs, and other costs.
 

Doctor’s failure to diagnose results in mega award

In what is believed to be a record verdict in a wrongful death suit in Volusia County, Fla., a jury awarded $6.46 million to the family of a woman who died from an undiagnosed heart infection after being transferred from a local hospital, according to a report in The Daytona Beach News-Journal, among other news outlets.

In March 2016, Laura Staib went to what was then Florida Hospital DeLand — now AdventHealth DeLand — complaining of a variety of symptoms. There, she was examined by a doctor who was a member of a nearby cardiology group. His diagnosis: congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and sepsis. Transferred to a long-term care facility, Ms. Staib died 4 days later.

In their complaint against the cardiologist and his cardiology group, family members alleged that the doctor failed to identify Ms. Staib’s main problem: viral myocarditis.

“This was primarily a heart failure problem and a heart infection that was probably causing some problems in the lungs,” said the attorney representing the family. “A virus was attacking her heart, and they missed it,” he said. Claims against the hospital and other doctors were eventually resolved and dismissed.

The jury’s verdict will be appealed, said the attorney representing the cardiologist.

He argues that his client “did not cause that woman’s death. She died of an overwhelming lung infection...acute respiratory distress syndrome, caused by an overwhelming pneumonia that got worse after she was transferred to a facility where [my client] doesn’t practice.”

The bulk of the award will be in compensation for family members’ future pain and suffering and for other noneconomic damages.
 

Botched outpatient procedure leaves woman disfigured

In early September, a patient was allegedly administered the wrong drug during an outpatient procedure on her hand. She sued the Austin, Tex., hospital and surgical center where that procedure was performed, according to a story in Law/Street.

On January 9, 2020, Jessica Arguello went to HCA Healthcare’s South Austin Surgery Center to undergo a right-hand first metacarpophalangeal arthrodesis (fusion) and neuroma excision. In her suit against the hospital, Ms. Arguello claims that while her surgeon was preparing to close the incision after having irrigated the site, he called for a syringe containing an anesthetic. He was instead handed a syringe that contained formalin, the chemical used to preserve specimens for later review.

The mistake, Ms. Arguello claims, caused her to suffer massive chemical burns and necrosis of her flesh, which required four additional surgeries. In the end, she says, her right hand is disfigured and has limited mobility.

She adds that her injuries were preventable. Standard surgical procedure typically forbids chemicals such as formalin to be included among items on the prep tray. In addition to other compensation, she seeks damages for past and future medical expenses and past and future pain and suffering.

At press time, the defendants had not responded to Ms. Arguello’s complaint.

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

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) is inversely correlated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), which supports use of APC as a new quality control measure, according to investigators.

Data from 138 endoscopists showed that patients screened by physicians with higher APCs had significantly lower rates of PCCRC, and an APC of 0.6 offered more protection than either an APC of 0.4 or an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 25%, reported lead author Joseph C. Anderson, MD, of White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.

“Unfortunately, APC has never been validated as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC in exams performed by endoscopists with higher rates,” Dr. Anderson said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

To this end, Dr. Anderson and colleagues reviewed data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR), including 9,023 screening colonoscopies with a follow-up event 6-60 months after the initial exam. Procedures were conducted by 138 endoscopists in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine.

Three quality measures were analyzed for associations with PCCRC: an APC of 0.4, an APC of 0.6, and an ADR of 25%. Hazard ratios were calculated for all PCCRCs, as well as PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. Rates were reported for two time periods: 6-36 months and 6-60 months.

From 6 to 60 months, 82 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed, among which 50 were diagnosed between 6 and 36 months.

For both periods, all three quality measures were significantly associated with reductions in PCCRC. The higher APC of 0.6, however, offered greater protection, reducing all PCCRCs by 71% and 61% in the shorter and longer period, respectively. In comparison, the lower APC of 0.4 reduced rates by 63% and 53%, while the ADR benchmark reduced rates by 62% and 42%.

These trends were maintained for PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. An APC of 0.6 was associated with respective reductions of 79% and 65% for the shorter and longer period, compared with 64% and 57% for the lower APC, and 67% and 49% for ADR.

Additional analysis clarified the relationship between APC level and likelihood of developing PCCRC. In terms of absolute risk, patients screened by an endoscopist with an APC greater than 0.6 had a 0.5% chance of developing PCCRC from 6 to 36 months, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 2.1% for an APC of less than 0.4 (P = .0001). This pattern held through 60 months, during which time an APC greater than 0.6 was associated with an absolute risk of PCCRC of 0.4%, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 1.6% for an APC less than 0.4 (P = .0001).

“Our novel data support the use of APC as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC risk in exams performed by endoscopists with higher APCs,” Dr. Anderson concluded, noting that an APC of 0.6 appeared to offer more protection than an APC of 0.4. “I feel that ... APC as a quality measure, now that we’ve validated it, may be accepted because of its ability to differentiate endoscopists on their adenoma detection skills.”

According to Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., “It’s an important study that will probably contribute to where we’re going forward.”

Dr. Lawrence, chair of the division and medical director of the endoscopy units at Kingston General and Hotel Dieu hospitals, said that APC may overcome the main concern with ADR – that endoscopists who find one adenoma may not be motivated to seek out as many as possible.

“The problem with ADR, in general, is that if you find one polyp, and if ADR is the stat you’re living by, then you don’t need to find any other polyps, and that obviously doesn’t do that patient a favor, necessarily,” Dr. Hookey said in an interview. “It does bring them back sooner for surveillance, but it doesn’t help remove the rest of the polyps that they have. And not that someone is going to find one polyp and turn off the light and pull the scope out, but you may not be looking as hard.”

APC mitigates this issue, he explained, because it determines “whether or not you’re truly clearing things out and getting rid of as many [polyps] as possible.”

Dr. Hookey said that APC is “probably the best” quality control measure on the horizon, and he suggested that more work is needed to determine the optimal benchmark figure, which should ideally be investigated through larger studies.

“I just want to see it in bigger groups,” he said.

The investigators and Dr. Hookey reported no conflicts of interest.

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) is inversely correlated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), which supports use of APC as a new quality control measure, according to investigators.

Data from 138 endoscopists showed that patients screened by physicians with higher APCs had significantly lower rates of PCCRC, and an APC of 0.6 offered more protection than either an APC of 0.4 or an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 25%, reported lead author Joseph C. Anderson, MD, of White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.

“Unfortunately, APC has never been validated as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC in exams performed by endoscopists with higher rates,” Dr. Anderson said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

To this end, Dr. Anderson and colleagues reviewed data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR), including 9,023 screening colonoscopies with a follow-up event 6-60 months after the initial exam. Procedures were conducted by 138 endoscopists in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine.

Three quality measures were analyzed for associations with PCCRC: an APC of 0.4, an APC of 0.6, and an ADR of 25%. Hazard ratios were calculated for all PCCRCs, as well as PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. Rates were reported for two time periods: 6-36 months and 6-60 months.

From 6 to 60 months, 82 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed, among which 50 were diagnosed between 6 and 36 months.

For both periods, all three quality measures were significantly associated with reductions in PCCRC. The higher APC of 0.6, however, offered greater protection, reducing all PCCRCs by 71% and 61% in the shorter and longer period, respectively. In comparison, the lower APC of 0.4 reduced rates by 63% and 53%, while the ADR benchmark reduced rates by 62% and 42%.

These trends were maintained for PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. An APC of 0.6 was associated with respective reductions of 79% and 65% for the shorter and longer period, compared with 64% and 57% for the lower APC, and 67% and 49% for ADR.

Additional analysis clarified the relationship between APC level and likelihood of developing PCCRC. In terms of absolute risk, patients screened by an endoscopist with an APC greater than 0.6 had a 0.5% chance of developing PCCRC from 6 to 36 months, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 2.1% for an APC of less than 0.4 (P = .0001). This pattern held through 60 months, during which time an APC greater than 0.6 was associated with an absolute risk of PCCRC of 0.4%, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 1.6% for an APC less than 0.4 (P = .0001).

“Our novel data support the use of APC as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC risk in exams performed by endoscopists with higher APCs,” Dr. Anderson concluded, noting that an APC of 0.6 appeared to offer more protection than an APC of 0.4. “I feel that ... APC as a quality measure, now that we’ve validated it, may be accepted because of its ability to differentiate endoscopists on their adenoma detection skills.”

According to Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., “It’s an important study that will probably contribute to where we’re going forward.”

Dr. Lawrence, chair of the division and medical director of the endoscopy units at Kingston General and Hotel Dieu hospitals, said that APC may overcome the main concern with ADR – that endoscopists who find one adenoma may not be motivated to seek out as many as possible.

“The problem with ADR, in general, is that if you find one polyp, and if ADR is the stat you’re living by, then you don’t need to find any other polyps, and that obviously doesn’t do that patient a favor, necessarily,” Dr. Hookey said in an interview. “It does bring them back sooner for surveillance, but it doesn’t help remove the rest of the polyps that they have. And not that someone is going to find one polyp and turn off the light and pull the scope out, but you may not be looking as hard.”

APC mitigates this issue, he explained, because it determines “whether or not you’re truly clearing things out and getting rid of as many [polyps] as possible.”

Dr. Hookey said that APC is “probably the best” quality control measure on the horizon, and he suggested that more work is needed to determine the optimal benchmark figure, which should ideally be investigated through larger studies.

“I just want to see it in bigger groups,” he said.

The investigators and Dr. Hookey reported no conflicts of interest.

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) is inversely correlated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), which supports use of APC as a new quality control measure, according to investigators.

Data from 138 endoscopists showed that patients screened by physicians with higher APCs had significantly lower rates of PCCRC, and an APC of 0.6 offered more protection than either an APC of 0.4 or an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 25%, reported lead author Joseph C. Anderson, MD, of White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.

“Unfortunately, APC has never been validated as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC in exams performed by endoscopists with higher rates,” Dr. Anderson said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

To this end, Dr. Anderson and colleagues reviewed data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR), including 9,023 screening colonoscopies with a follow-up event 6-60 months after the initial exam. Procedures were conducted by 138 endoscopists in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine.

Three quality measures were analyzed for associations with PCCRC: an APC of 0.4, an APC of 0.6, and an ADR of 25%. Hazard ratios were calculated for all PCCRCs, as well as PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. Rates were reported for two time periods: 6-36 months and 6-60 months.

From 6 to 60 months, 82 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed, among which 50 were diagnosed between 6 and 36 months.

For both periods, all three quality measures were significantly associated with reductions in PCCRC. The higher APC of 0.6, however, offered greater protection, reducing all PCCRCs by 71% and 61% in the shorter and longer period, respectively. In comparison, the lower APC of 0.4 reduced rates by 63% and 53%, while the ADR benchmark reduced rates by 62% and 42%.

These trends were maintained for PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. An APC of 0.6 was associated with respective reductions of 79% and 65% for the shorter and longer period, compared with 64% and 57% for the lower APC, and 67% and 49% for ADR.

Additional analysis clarified the relationship between APC level and likelihood of developing PCCRC. In terms of absolute risk, patients screened by an endoscopist with an APC greater than 0.6 had a 0.5% chance of developing PCCRC from 6 to 36 months, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 2.1% for an APC of less than 0.4 (P = .0001). This pattern held through 60 months, during which time an APC greater than 0.6 was associated with an absolute risk of PCCRC of 0.4%, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 1.6% for an APC less than 0.4 (P = .0001).

“Our novel data support the use of APC as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC risk in exams performed by endoscopists with higher APCs,” Dr. Anderson concluded, noting that an APC of 0.6 appeared to offer more protection than an APC of 0.4. “I feel that ... APC as a quality measure, now that we’ve validated it, may be accepted because of its ability to differentiate endoscopists on their adenoma detection skills.”

According to Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., “It’s an important study that will probably contribute to where we’re going forward.”

Dr. Lawrence, chair of the division and medical director of the endoscopy units at Kingston General and Hotel Dieu hospitals, said that APC may overcome the main concern with ADR – that endoscopists who find one adenoma may not be motivated to seek out as many as possible.

“The problem with ADR, in general, is that if you find one polyp, and if ADR is the stat you’re living by, then you don’t need to find any other polyps, and that obviously doesn’t do that patient a favor, necessarily,” Dr. Hookey said in an interview. “It does bring them back sooner for surveillance, but it doesn’t help remove the rest of the polyps that they have. And not that someone is going to find one polyp and turn off the light and pull the scope out, but you may not be looking as hard.”

APC mitigates this issue, he explained, because it determines “whether or not you’re truly clearing things out and getting rid of as many [polyps] as possible.”

Dr. Hookey said that APC is “probably the best” quality control measure on the horizon, and he suggested that more work is needed to determine the optimal benchmark figure, which should ideally be investigated through larger studies.

“I just want to see it in bigger groups,” he said.

The investigators and Dr. Hookey reported no conflicts of interest.

Most patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) develop a humoral immune response after completing an mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine series, according to data from almost 800 patients.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

Anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 were detectable in 95% of patients, with “generally similar” results across vaccine type, age group, and medication class, apart from corticosteroid users, who had an 86% antibody detection rate, reported lead author Kimberly N. Weaver, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues.

“Patients with IBD on immunosuppressive medications have the potential for attenuated response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination,” Dr. Weaver said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

In support of this possibility, Dr. Weaver cited two recent trials from earlier in 2021: one demonstrated blunted antibody responses in IBD patients taking infliximab, while the other showed that full vaccination was less effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD than nonimmunosuppressed individuals.

To better characterize antibody responses after receiving an mRNA vaccination series, Dr. Weaver and colleagues launched the PREVENT-COVID trial, including the present dataset of 787 patients with IBD older than 12 years, all of whom provided serum samples 8 weeks after completing an mRNA vaccine series. Patients with positive nucleocapsid antibody (indicating prior infection), and/or those who reported prior COVID-19 infection, were excluded. Most patients were White (95%) and female (73%), with an average age of 48 years. Slightly more patients received the BNT162b2 vaccine than the mRNA-1273 vaccine (58% vs. 42%).

At 8 weeks, 752 out of 787 patients had detectable antibodies (95%). Antibody rates were highest among patients receiving vedolizumab monotherapy (n = 83; 99%) or ustekinumab monotherapy (n = 102; 99%), followed by mercaptopurine, azathioprine, or methotrexate monotherapy (n = 67; 97%); anti–tumor necrosis factor monotherapy (n = 270; 96%); mesalamine, sulfasalazine, or budesonide monotherapy or no medication (n = 143; 95%); and finally anti-TNF/immunosuppressive combination therapy (n = 75; 86%). Median and mean antibody titers were lowest for anti-TNF combination therapy and highest for vedolizumab.

Thirty-five patients taking corticosteroids had an antibody detection rate of 85.7% (95% CI, 70.6-93.7), compared with 95.9% (95% CI, 94.2-97.1) among nonsteroid users. In contrast, antibody detection rates were not significantly affected by age or vaccine type.

“Reassuringly, most IBD medications do not prevent an initial antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and this is unlike other classes of immune suppression such as B-cell depletion therapy,” Dr. Weaver concluded. “Additional data are forthcoming on a larger subset of participants in the PREVENT-COVID study which will allow for analysis of factors associated with humoral immune response and potential optimization of immunization strategies.” She described a dataset of about 500 IBD patients in which booster vaccines overcame poor antibody responses to the initial vaccine series.
 

‘The data we need’

Serre-yu Wong, MD, PhD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, agreed that the findings should offer some reassurance to patients with IBD and their care providers.

“At the end of the day we have really nice seroconversion rates for the IBD population,” Dr. Wong said.

In April 2021, Dr. Wong and the ICARUS-IBD Working Group published a similar report of 48 patients with IBD receiving biologic therapies, among whom the seroconversion rate was 100%.

“A lot of the early data, including ours, are on infusion medications, and that’s sort of a practical thing because those were the only patients we could get samples from, but [Dr. Weaver and colleagues] were able to get samples from patients not on medications, on oral medications, and on other injection medications that people can take at home, and these are really the data we need for all of our other IBD patients,” Dr. Wong said.

Dr. Wong highlighted that both trials showed some IBD patients generating “very, very high” titers, many of them above the threshold needed for donating convalescent plasma for COVID-19 treatment; still, exact titer levels needed to protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection remain unclear.

“This is going to require longitudinal studies,” Dr. Wong said. “We can’t answer that perfectly right now. We don’t know the magic level of antibodies. I don’t know if you need a titer of 1:100 or 1:1,000.”

Although postvaccination antibody testing is not recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Wong said that “many patients” check their titers anyway, leading to anxiety if antibodies are low or undetectable.

“I know that it’s very disconcerting sometimes when you don’t see an antibody response, and this is one of the hardest things to try to explain to patients,” Dr. Wong said. “[It’s necessary] to have a frank discussion about the fact that we don’t know the magic level of antibodies, and that there are also other parts of the immune system that we haven’t tested with antibodies. We haven’t tested the T-cell response, and we do know you can have a T-cell response even if you don’t have a B-cell response.”

Dr. Wong suggested that more work is needed to determine the impact of the IBD disease process on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the rates of antibody responses for the various other vaccines being used around the world.

The PREVENT-COVID study was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and others. Dr. Wong reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was updated Oct. 28, 2021.

Most patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) develop a humoral immune response after completing an mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine series, according to data from almost 800 patients.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

Anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 were detectable in 95% of patients, with “generally similar” results across vaccine type, age group, and medication class, apart from corticosteroid users, who had an 86% antibody detection rate, reported lead author Kimberly N. Weaver, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues.

“Patients with IBD on immunosuppressive medications have the potential for attenuated response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination,” Dr. Weaver said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

In support of this possibility, Dr. Weaver cited two recent trials from earlier in 2021: one demonstrated blunted antibody responses in IBD patients taking infliximab, while the other showed that full vaccination was less effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD than nonimmunosuppressed individuals.

To better characterize antibody responses after receiving an mRNA vaccination series, Dr. Weaver and colleagues launched the PREVENT-COVID trial, including the present dataset of 787 patients with IBD older than 12 years, all of whom provided serum samples 8 weeks after completing an mRNA vaccine series. Patients with positive nucleocapsid antibody (indicating prior infection), and/or those who reported prior COVID-19 infection, were excluded. Most patients were White (95%) and female (73%), with an average age of 48 years. Slightly more patients received the BNT162b2 vaccine than the mRNA-1273 vaccine (58% vs. 42%).

At 8 weeks, 752 out of 787 patients had detectable antibodies (95%). Antibody rates were highest among patients receiving vedolizumab monotherapy (n = 83; 99%) or ustekinumab monotherapy (n = 102; 99%), followed by mercaptopurine, azathioprine, or methotrexate monotherapy (n = 67; 97%); anti–tumor necrosis factor monotherapy (n = 270; 96%); mesalamine, sulfasalazine, or budesonide monotherapy or no medication (n = 143; 95%); and finally anti-TNF/immunosuppressive combination therapy (n = 75; 86%). Median and mean antibody titers were lowest for anti-TNF combination therapy and highest for vedolizumab.

Thirty-five patients taking corticosteroids had an antibody detection rate of 85.7% (95% CI, 70.6-93.7), compared with 95.9% (95% CI, 94.2-97.1) among nonsteroid users. In contrast, antibody detection rates were not significantly affected by age or vaccine type.

“Reassuringly, most IBD medications do not prevent an initial antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and this is unlike other classes of immune suppression such as B-cell depletion therapy,” Dr. Weaver concluded. “Additional data are forthcoming on a larger subset of participants in the PREVENT-COVID study which will allow for analysis of factors associated with humoral immune response and potential optimization of immunization strategies.” She described a dataset of about 500 IBD patients in which booster vaccines overcame poor antibody responses to the initial vaccine series.
 

‘The data we need’

Serre-yu Wong, MD, PhD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, agreed that the findings should offer some reassurance to patients with IBD and their care providers.

“At the end of the day we have really nice seroconversion rates for the IBD population,” Dr. Wong said.

In April 2021, Dr. Wong and the ICARUS-IBD Working Group published a similar report of 48 patients with IBD receiving biologic therapies, among whom the seroconversion rate was 100%.

“A lot of the early data, including ours, are on infusion medications, and that’s sort of a practical thing because those were the only patients we could get samples from, but [Dr. Weaver and colleagues] were able to get samples from patients not on medications, on oral medications, and on other injection medications that people can take at home, and these are really the data we need for all of our other IBD patients,” Dr. Wong said.

Dr. Wong highlighted that both trials showed some IBD patients generating “very, very high” titers, many of them above the threshold needed for donating convalescent plasma for COVID-19 treatment; still, exact titer levels needed to protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection remain unclear.

“This is going to require longitudinal studies,” Dr. Wong said. “We can’t answer that perfectly right now. We don’t know the magic level of antibodies. I don’t know if you need a titer of 1:100 or 1:1,000.”

Although postvaccination antibody testing is not recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Wong said that “many patients” check their titers anyway, leading to anxiety if antibodies are low or undetectable.

“I know that it’s very disconcerting sometimes when you don’t see an antibody response, and this is one of the hardest things to try to explain to patients,” Dr. Wong said. “[It’s necessary] to have a frank discussion about the fact that we don’t know the magic level of antibodies, and that there are also other parts of the immune system that we haven’t tested with antibodies. We haven’t tested the T-cell response, and we do know you can have a T-cell response even if you don’t have a B-cell response.”

Dr. Wong suggested that more work is needed to determine the impact of the IBD disease process on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the rates of antibody responses for the various other vaccines being used around the world.

The PREVENT-COVID study was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and others. Dr. Wong reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was updated Oct. 28, 2021.

Most patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) develop a humoral immune response after completing an mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine series, according to data from almost 800 patients.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

Anti–receptor binding domain IgG antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 were detectable in 95% of patients, with “generally similar” results across vaccine type, age group, and medication class, apart from corticosteroid users, who had an 86% antibody detection rate, reported lead author Kimberly N. Weaver, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues.

“Patients with IBD on immunosuppressive medications have the potential for attenuated response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination,” Dr. Weaver said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

In support of this possibility, Dr. Weaver cited two recent trials from earlier in 2021: one demonstrated blunted antibody responses in IBD patients taking infliximab, while the other showed that full vaccination was less effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD than nonimmunosuppressed individuals.

To better characterize antibody responses after receiving an mRNA vaccination series, Dr. Weaver and colleagues launched the PREVENT-COVID trial, including the present dataset of 787 patients with IBD older than 12 years, all of whom provided serum samples 8 weeks after completing an mRNA vaccine series. Patients with positive nucleocapsid antibody (indicating prior infection), and/or those who reported prior COVID-19 infection, were excluded. Most patients were White (95%) and female (73%), with an average age of 48 years. Slightly more patients received the BNT162b2 vaccine than the mRNA-1273 vaccine (58% vs. 42%).

At 8 weeks, 752 out of 787 patients had detectable antibodies (95%). Antibody rates were highest among patients receiving vedolizumab monotherapy (n = 83; 99%) or ustekinumab monotherapy (n = 102; 99%), followed by mercaptopurine, azathioprine, or methotrexate monotherapy (n = 67; 97%); anti–tumor necrosis factor monotherapy (n = 270; 96%); mesalamine, sulfasalazine, or budesonide monotherapy or no medication (n = 143; 95%); and finally anti-TNF/immunosuppressive combination therapy (n = 75; 86%). Median and mean antibody titers were lowest for anti-TNF combination therapy and highest for vedolizumab.

Thirty-five patients taking corticosteroids had an antibody detection rate of 85.7% (95% CI, 70.6-93.7), compared with 95.9% (95% CI, 94.2-97.1) among nonsteroid users. In contrast, antibody detection rates were not significantly affected by age or vaccine type.

“Reassuringly, most IBD medications do not prevent an initial antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and this is unlike other classes of immune suppression such as B-cell depletion therapy,” Dr. Weaver concluded. “Additional data are forthcoming on a larger subset of participants in the PREVENT-COVID study which will allow for analysis of factors associated with humoral immune response and potential optimization of immunization strategies.” She described a dataset of about 500 IBD patients in which booster vaccines overcame poor antibody responses to the initial vaccine series.
 

‘The data we need’

Serre-yu Wong, MD, PhD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, agreed that the findings should offer some reassurance to patients with IBD and their care providers.

“At the end of the day we have really nice seroconversion rates for the IBD population,” Dr. Wong said.

In April 2021, Dr. Wong and the ICARUS-IBD Working Group published a similar report of 48 patients with IBD receiving biologic therapies, among whom the seroconversion rate was 100%.

“A lot of the early data, including ours, are on infusion medications, and that’s sort of a practical thing because those were the only patients we could get samples from, but [Dr. Weaver and colleagues] were able to get samples from patients not on medications, on oral medications, and on other injection medications that people can take at home, and these are really the data we need for all of our other IBD patients,” Dr. Wong said.

Dr. Wong highlighted that both trials showed some IBD patients generating “very, very high” titers, many of them above the threshold needed for donating convalescent plasma for COVID-19 treatment; still, exact titer levels needed to protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection remain unclear.

“This is going to require longitudinal studies,” Dr. Wong said. “We can’t answer that perfectly right now. We don’t know the magic level of antibodies. I don’t know if you need a titer of 1:100 or 1:1,000.”

Although postvaccination antibody testing is not recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Wong said that “many patients” check their titers anyway, leading to anxiety if antibodies are low or undetectable.

“I know that it’s very disconcerting sometimes when you don’t see an antibody response, and this is one of the hardest things to try to explain to patients,” Dr. Wong said. “[It’s necessary] to have a frank discussion about the fact that we don’t know the magic level of antibodies, and that there are also other parts of the immune system that we haven’t tested with antibodies. We haven’t tested the T-cell response, and we do know you can have a T-cell response even if you don’t have a B-cell response.”

Dr. Wong suggested that more work is needed to determine the impact of the IBD disease process on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the rates of antibody responses for the various other vaccines being used around the world.

The PREVENT-COVID study was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, and others. Dr. Wong reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was updated Oct. 28, 2021.

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors does not appear to raise the risk for fractures in older adults, new research suggests.

The data come from a nationwide propensity score-matched study of U.S. Medicare recipients with type 2 diabetes who were new users of either an SGLT2 inhibitor, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, or a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist.

“The use of SGLT2 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of nontraumatic fractures compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Results were consistent across categories of sex, frailty, age, and insulin use,” say Min Zhuo, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, who published their work online October 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our results add to the evidence base evaluating the safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults outside of [randomized controlled trials] and further characterize the risk-benefit balance of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” they write.

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “This is a high-quality study that is generally reassuring that relatively short, less than 1 year, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor does not appear to significantly increase the risk of bone fractures.”

However, Dr. Taylor, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, also noted: “Notwithstanding these reassuring data, the paper also does a good job of pointing out important limitations.”

“Most importantly, these data do not address questions related to the risk of long-term chronic therapy. It is instructive to refer back to the published data demonstrating an approximately 2-year lag before a significant increase in the risk of fracture was observed in rosiglitazone-treated patients in the ADOPT study. The length of the lag is likely related to the baseline bone mineral density at the time drug therapy is initiated. These considerations may contribute to the observed variation in bone-related outcomes in different studies.”

Concern about SGLT2 inhibitors and fractures first arose in 2017 from the CANVAS study, in which the overall fracture risk with canagliflozin was a significant 26% higher than placebo. However, subsequent larger randomized trials of canagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors did not find the same risk.

In addition, previous observational studies in younger adults have also not found use of SGLT2 inhibitors to be associated with increased fracture risk compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
 

Understanding fracture risk with SGLT2 inhibitors is ‘critical’

Older adults with type 2 diabetes may benefit from reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, end-stage kidney disease, and death associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, but the fact that aging may have negative effects on bone metabolism means “understanding the fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes is critical,” say Dr. Zhuo and colleagues.

In the current study, they analyzed claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older (1 year past Medicare eligibility) who were newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, DPP-4 inhibitor, or GLP-1 agonist between April 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2017.

A total of 45,889 patients from each treatment group were propensity-matched using 58 baseline characteristics, for a total of 137,667 patients.

After matching, there were 501 events of the primary composite outcome (nontraumatic pelvic fracture, hip fracture requiring surgery, or humerus, radius, or ulna fracture requiring intervention) within 30 days. By treatment group, fracture rates per 1,000 person-years were 4.69, 5.26, and 4.71 for SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 agonists respectively.

The differences between patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared with SGLT2 inhibitors were not significant, with hazard ratios of 0.90 and 1.00, respectively.     

Results remained consistent in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including limiting the data to just the canagliflozin group. Overall, the fracture rate was greater with female sex, frailty, older age, and insulin use, consistent across drug classes.

The risks for falls and hypoglycemia were lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus matched DPP-4 inhibitor groups (hazard ratio, 0.82), and there was no difference in syncope. None of those differences were significant for the SGLT2 inhibitor group compared with the GLP-1 agonist group.

Consistent with previous data, the risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was higher with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists (HR, 1.29 and 1.58), and the risk for heart failure hospitalization was lower (HR, 0.42 and 0.69).

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zhuo was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors does not appear to raise the risk for fractures in older adults, new research suggests.

The data come from a nationwide propensity score-matched study of U.S. Medicare recipients with type 2 diabetes who were new users of either an SGLT2 inhibitor, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, or a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist.

“The use of SGLT2 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of nontraumatic fractures compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Results were consistent across categories of sex, frailty, age, and insulin use,” say Min Zhuo, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, who published their work online October 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our results add to the evidence base evaluating the safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults outside of [randomized controlled trials] and further characterize the risk-benefit balance of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” they write.

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “This is a high-quality study that is generally reassuring that relatively short, less than 1 year, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor does not appear to significantly increase the risk of bone fractures.”

However, Dr. Taylor, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, also noted: “Notwithstanding these reassuring data, the paper also does a good job of pointing out important limitations.”

“Most importantly, these data do not address questions related to the risk of long-term chronic therapy. It is instructive to refer back to the published data demonstrating an approximately 2-year lag before a significant increase in the risk of fracture was observed in rosiglitazone-treated patients in the ADOPT study. The length of the lag is likely related to the baseline bone mineral density at the time drug therapy is initiated. These considerations may contribute to the observed variation in bone-related outcomes in different studies.”

Concern about SGLT2 inhibitors and fractures first arose in 2017 from the CANVAS study, in which the overall fracture risk with canagliflozin was a significant 26% higher than placebo. However, subsequent larger randomized trials of canagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors did not find the same risk.

In addition, previous observational studies in younger adults have also not found use of SGLT2 inhibitors to be associated with increased fracture risk compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
 

Understanding fracture risk with SGLT2 inhibitors is ‘critical’

Older adults with type 2 diabetes may benefit from reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, end-stage kidney disease, and death associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, but the fact that aging may have negative effects on bone metabolism means “understanding the fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes is critical,” say Dr. Zhuo and colleagues.

In the current study, they analyzed claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older (1 year past Medicare eligibility) who were newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, DPP-4 inhibitor, or GLP-1 agonist between April 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2017.

A total of 45,889 patients from each treatment group were propensity-matched using 58 baseline characteristics, for a total of 137,667 patients.

After matching, there were 501 events of the primary composite outcome (nontraumatic pelvic fracture, hip fracture requiring surgery, or humerus, radius, or ulna fracture requiring intervention) within 30 days. By treatment group, fracture rates per 1,000 person-years were 4.69, 5.26, and 4.71 for SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 agonists respectively.

The differences between patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared with SGLT2 inhibitors were not significant, with hazard ratios of 0.90 and 1.00, respectively.     

Results remained consistent in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including limiting the data to just the canagliflozin group. Overall, the fracture rate was greater with female sex, frailty, older age, and insulin use, consistent across drug classes.

The risks for falls and hypoglycemia were lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus matched DPP-4 inhibitor groups (hazard ratio, 0.82), and there was no difference in syncope. None of those differences were significant for the SGLT2 inhibitor group compared with the GLP-1 agonist group.

Consistent with previous data, the risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was higher with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists (HR, 1.29 and 1.58), and the risk for heart failure hospitalization was lower (HR, 0.42 and 0.69).

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zhuo was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors does not appear to raise the risk for fractures in older adults, new research suggests.

The data come from a nationwide propensity score-matched study of U.S. Medicare recipients with type 2 diabetes who were new users of either an SGLT2 inhibitor, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, or a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) receptor agonist.

“The use of SGLT2 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of nontraumatic fractures compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Results were consistent across categories of sex, frailty, age, and insulin use,” say Min Zhuo, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, who published their work online October 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our results add to the evidence base evaluating the safety profile of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults outside of [randomized controlled trials] and further characterize the risk-benefit balance of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” they write.

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, told this news organization, “This is a high-quality study that is generally reassuring that relatively short, less than 1 year, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor does not appear to significantly increase the risk of bone fractures.”

However, Dr. Taylor, of the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, also noted: “Notwithstanding these reassuring data, the paper also does a good job of pointing out important limitations.”

“Most importantly, these data do not address questions related to the risk of long-term chronic therapy. It is instructive to refer back to the published data demonstrating an approximately 2-year lag before a significant increase in the risk of fracture was observed in rosiglitazone-treated patients in the ADOPT study. The length of the lag is likely related to the baseline bone mineral density at the time drug therapy is initiated. These considerations may contribute to the observed variation in bone-related outcomes in different studies.”

Concern about SGLT2 inhibitors and fractures first arose in 2017 from the CANVAS study, in which the overall fracture risk with canagliflozin was a significant 26% higher than placebo. However, subsequent larger randomized trials of canagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors did not find the same risk.

In addition, previous observational studies in younger adults have also not found use of SGLT2 inhibitors to be associated with increased fracture risk compared with DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
 

Understanding fracture risk with SGLT2 inhibitors is ‘critical’

Older adults with type 2 diabetes may benefit from reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, end-stage kidney disease, and death associated with SGLT2 inhibitors, but the fact that aging may have negative effects on bone metabolism means “understanding the fracture risk associated with SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes is critical,” say Dr. Zhuo and colleagues.

In the current study, they analyzed claims data for Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years and older (1 year past Medicare eligibility) who were newly prescribed an SGLT2 inhibitor, DPP-4 inhibitor, or GLP-1 agonist between April 1, 2013 and Dec. 31, 2017.

A total of 45,889 patients from each treatment group were propensity-matched using 58 baseline characteristics, for a total of 137,667 patients.

After matching, there were 501 events of the primary composite outcome (nontraumatic pelvic fracture, hip fracture requiring surgery, or humerus, radius, or ulna fracture requiring intervention) within 30 days. By treatment group, fracture rates per 1,000 person-years were 4.69, 5.26, and 4.71 for SGLT2 inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 agonists respectively.

The differences between patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared with SGLT2 inhibitors were not significant, with hazard ratios of 0.90 and 1.00, respectively.     

Results remained consistent in various sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including limiting the data to just the canagliflozin group. Overall, the fracture rate was greater with female sex, frailty, older age, and insulin use, consistent across drug classes.

The risks for falls and hypoglycemia were lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus matched DPP-4 inhibitor groups (hazard ratio, 0.82), and there was no difference in syncope. None of those differences were significant for the SGLT2 inhibitor group compared with the GLP-1 agonist group.

Consistent with previous data, the risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was higher with SGLT2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists (HR, 1.29 and 1.58), and the risk for heart failure hospitalization was lower (HR, 0.42 and 0.69).

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Zhuo was supported by the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

“Short-term hospitalization [for reasons other than diabetes] may not be the time to intervene in long-term diabetes management,” researchers conclude.

They found that, in a national cohort of older almost entirely male veterans with non–insulin-treated type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized for non–diabetes-related common medical conditions, intensified diabetes treatment on hospital discharge was linked to an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia in the immediate postdischarge period.

However, diabetes treatment intensification – that is, receiving a prescription for a new or higher dose of diabetes medicine – was not associated with decreased risks of severe hyperglycemia or with improved glycemic (hemoglobin A1c) control at 30 days or 1 year, according to study results, published in JAMA Network Open.

“We didn’t see a reduction in diabetes emergencies in more intensively treated patients,” lead investigator Timothy S. Anderson, MD, said in an interview.

Also, importantly, there was a low rate of persistence with the new treatment. “Half of the patients were no longer taking these [intensified diabetes medicines] at 1 year, which tells me that context is key,” he pointed out. “If a patient is in the hospital for diabetes [unlike the patients in this study], I think it makes a lot of sense to modify and adjust their regimen to try to help them right then and there.”

The overall risk of severe hyperglycemia or severe hypoglycemia was pretty small in the overall cohort, Dr. Anderson noted, “but we do put people at risk of leaving the hospital and ending up back in the hospital with low blood sugar when we intensify medications, and there’s not necessarily a good signal to suggest that it’s all that urgent to change these medicines.”

Instead, the “safer path” may be to make recommendations to the patient’s outpatient physician and also inform the patient – for example, “We saw some concerns about your diabetes while you were in the hospital, and this is really something that should be looked at when you’re recovered and feeling better from the rest of your health standpoint” – rather than making a diabetes medication change while the person is acutely ill or recovering from illness, said Dr. Anderson, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The researchers also found an “unexpected” significant decrease in 30-day mortality in the patients with intensified diabetes treatment, which was probably because of confounding that was not accounted for, Dr. Anderson speculated, since clinical trials have consistently shown that benefits from diabetes medications take a longer time to show an effect.
 

‘Important study,’ but lacked newer meds

This is an “important” study for primary care and in-hospital physicians that shows that “hospitalization is really not the time and the place” to intensify diabetes medication, Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, coauthor of an invited commentary, told this news organization in an interview.

“While overcoming treatment inertia is important, [it should be] done appropriately, so that we don’t overtreat patients,” Dr. McCoy, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., stressed.

The very low rate of persistence of taking intensified medications is a major finding, she agreed. Hospitalized patients “are not in their usual state of health, so if we make long-term treatment decisions based on their acute abnormal situation, that may not be appropriate.”

However, patients with high A1c may benefit from a change at hospital discharge rather than when they see their primary care provider, with the caveat that they need close follow-up as an outpatient.

The study emphasizes the “need for longitudinal patient care rather than episodic patches,” according to Dr. McCoy.

For example, a patient who is hospitalized for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma exacerbation may be receiving steroids that cause high blood glucose levels but as soon as they’re done with their steroid course, blood glucose will decrease, so the “need for close outpatient follow-up is very important.”

One limitation of the current work is that an earlier study in the same population by the research group showed that 49% of patients whose treatment regimens were intensified had limited life expectancy or were at or below their A1c goal, so they would not have benefited from the stepped-up treatment, she noted.

Another limitation is that the findings cannot be generalized to women or younger patients, or to patients treated with glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

The study patients were seen in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration health system when these newer agents were not used. Three-quarters of patients received intensified treatment with sulfonylurea or insulin, and only one patient received a new GLP-1–receptor agonist.

Ideally, Dr. McCoy said, patients should have been prescribed a GLP-1–receptor agonist if they had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, or an SGLT2 inhibitor if they had kidney disease or heart failure, which may have led to different results, and would need to be determined in further study.

Dr. Anderson agreed that “SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists are broadly much safer than the older diabetes medicines, at least when it comes to risk of hypoglycemia, and may have more clear benefits in heart disease and mortality. So I would not want to extrapolate our findings to those new classes,” he said. “A similar set of studies would need to be done.”
 

Study rationale and findings

Hospitalized older adults with diabetes commonly have transiently elevated blood glucose levels that might lead clinicians to discharge them from hospital with a prescription for more intensive diabetes medications than they were on before they were hospitalized, but it is not clear if these diabetes medication changes would improve outcomes.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from patients with diabetes who were 65 and older and hospitalized for common medical conditions in VHA hospitals during January 2011–September 2016, and then discharged to the community.

They excluded patients who were hospitalized for things that require immediate change in diabetes treatment and patients who were using insulin before their hospitalization (because instructions to modify insulin dosing frequently don’t have a new prescription).

The researchers identified 28,198 adults with diabetes who were not on insulin and were hospitalized in the VHA health system for heart failure (18%), coronary artery disease (13%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), pneumonia (9.6%), and urinary tract infection (7.5%), and less often and not in decreasing order, for acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia, asthma, chest pain, conduction disorders, heart valve disorders, sepsis, skin infection, stroke, and transient ischemic attack.

Of these patients, 2,768 patients (9.8%) received diabetes medication intensification, and the researchers matched 2,648 of these patients with an equal number of patients who did not receive this treatment intensification.

The patients in each group had a mean age of 73 and 98.5% were male; 78% were White.

They had a mean A1c of 7.9%. Most were receiving sulfonylurea (43%) or metformin (39%), and few were receiving thiazolidinediones (4.1%), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (2.7%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (2.0%), or other types of diabetes drugs (0.1%).

Of the 2,768 patients who received intensified diabetes medication, most received a prescription for insulin (51%) or sulfonylurea (23%).

In the propensity-matched cohort, patients with intensified diabetes medication had a higher rate of severe hypoglycemia at 30 days (1% vs. 0.5%), which translated into a significant twofold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.17).

The rates of severe hypoglycemia at 1 year were similar in both groups (3.1% and 2.9%).

The incidence of severe hyperglycemia was the same in both groups at 30 days (0.3%) and 1 year (1.3%).

In secondary outcomes, at 1 year, 48% of new oral diabetes medications and 39% of new insulin prescriptions were no longer being filled.

Overall, patients who were discharged with intensified diabetes medication were significantly less likely to die within 30 days than the other patients (1.3% vs. 2.4%; HR, 0.55).

However, this mortality benefit was found only in the subgroup of 2,524 patients who had uncontrolled diabetes when they were admitted to hospital (A1c >7.5%; mean A1c, 9.1%), and not in the propensity-matched subgroup of 2,672 patients who had controlled diabetes then (A1c up to 7.5%; mean A1c, 6.8%).

There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality in patients with versus without intensified treatment (15.8% vs. 17.8%).

There were also no significant between-group difference in rates of hospital readmission at 30 days (roughly 17%) or 1 year (roughly 51%).

The decreases in mean A1c from hospital discharge to 1 year later were also the same in both groups (going from 7.9% to 7.7%).

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Anderson has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McCoy reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, AARP, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. The disclosures of the other authors and the editorial coauthor are available with the article and commentary.

“Short-term hospitalization [for reasons other than diabetes] may not be the time to intervene in long-term diabetes management,” researchers conclude.

They found that, in a national cohort of older almost entirely male veterans with non–insulin-treated type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized for non–diabetes-related common medical conditions, intensified diabetes treatment on hospital discharge was linked to an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia in the immediate postdischarge period.

However, diabetes treatment intensification – that is, receiving a prescription for a new or higher dose of diabetes medicine – was not associated with decreased risks of severe hyperglycemia or with improved glycemic (hemoglobin A1c) control at 30 days or 1 year, according to study results, published in JAMA Network Open.

“We didn’t see a reduction in diabetes emergencies in more intensively treated patients,” lead investigator Timothy S. Anderson, MD, said in an interview.

Also, importantly, there was a low rate of persistence with the new treatment. “Half of the patients were no longer taking these [intensified diabetes medicines] at 1 year, which tells me that context is key,” he pointed out. “If a patient is in the hospital for diabetes [unlike the patients in this study], I think it makes a lot of sense to modify and adjust their regimen to try to help them right then and there.”

The overall risk of severe hyperglycemia or severe hypoglycemia was pretty small in the overall cohort, Dr. Anderson noted, “but we do put people at risk of leaving the hospital and ending up back in the hospital with low blood sugar when we intensify medications, and there’s not necessarily a good signal to suggest that it’s all that urgent to change these medicines.”

Instead, the “safer path” may be to make recommendations to the patient’s outpatient physician and also inform the patient – for example, “We saw some concerns about your diabetes while you were in the hospital, and this is really something that should be looked at when you’re recovered and feeling better from the rest of your health standpoint” – rather than making a diabetes medication change while the person is acutely ill or recovering from illness, said Dr. Anderson, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The researchers also found an “unexpected” significant decrease in 30-day mortality in the patients with intensified diabetes treatment, which was probably because of confounding that was not accounted for, Dr. Anderson speculated, since clinical trials have consistently shown that benefits from diabetes medications take a longer time to show an effect.
 

‘Important study,’ but lacked newer meds

This is an “important” study for primary care and in-hospital physicians that shows that “hospitalization is really not the time and the place” to intensify diabetes medication, Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, coauthor of an invited commentary, told this news organization in an interview.

“While overcoming treatment inertia is important, [it should be] done appropriately, so that we don’t overtreat patients,” Dr. McCoy, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., stressed.

The very low rate of persistence of taking intensified medications is a major finding, she agreed. Hospitalized patients “are not in their usual state of health, so if we make long-term treatment decisions based on their acute abnormal situation, that may not be appropriate.”

However, patients with high A1c may benefit from a change at hospital discharge rather than when they see their primary care provider, with the caveat that they need close follow-up as an outpatient.

The study emphasizes the “need for longitudinal patient care rather than episodic patches,” according to Dr. McCoy.

For example, a patient who is hospitalized for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma exacerbation may be receiving steroids that cause high blood glucose levels but as soon as they’re done with their steroid course, blood glucose will decrease, so the “need for close outpatient follow-up is very important.”

One limitation of the current work is that an earlier study in the same population by the research group showed that 49% of patients whose treatment regimens were intensified had limited life expectancy or were at or below their A1c goal, so they would not have benefited from the stepped-up treatment, she noted.

Another limitation is that the findings cannot be generalized to women or younger patients, or to patients treated with glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

The study patients were seen in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration health system when these newer agents were not used. Three-quarters of patients received intensified treatment with sulfonylurea or insulin, and only one patient received a new GLP-1–receptor agonist.

Ideally, Dr. McCoy said, patients should have been prescribed a GLP-1–receptor agonist if they had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, or an SGLT2 inhibitor if they had kidney disease or heart failure, which may have led to different results, and would need to be determined in further study.

Dr. Anderson agreed that “SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists are broadly much safer than the older diabetes medicines, at least when it comes to risk of hypoglycemia, and may have more clear benefits in heart disease and mortality. So I would not want to extrapolate our findings to those new classes,” he said. “A similar set of studies would need to be done.”
 

Study rationale and findings

Hospitalized older adults with diabetes commonly have transiently elevated blood glucose levels that might lead clinicians to discharge them from hospital with a prescription for more intensive diabetes medications than they were on before they were hospitalized, but it is not clear if these diabetes medication changes would improve outcomes.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from patients with diabetes who were 65 and older and hospitalized for common medical conditions in VHA hospitals during January 2011–September 2016, and then discharged to the community.

They excluded patients who were hospitalized for things that require immediate change in diabetes treatment and patients who were using insulin before their hospitalization (because instructions to modify insulin dosing frequently don’t have a new prescription).

The researchers identified 28,198 adults with diabetes who were not on insulin and were hospitalized in the VHA health system for heart failure (18%), coronary artery disease (13%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), pneumonia (9.6%), and urinary tract infection (7.5%), and less often and not in decreasing order, for acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia, asthma, chest pain, conduction disorders, heart valve disorders, sepsis, skin infection, stroke, and transient ischemic attack.

Of these patients, 2,768 patients (9.8%) received diabetes medication intensification, and the researchers matched 2,648 of these patients with an equal number of patients who did not receive this treatment intensification.

The patients in each group had a mean age of 73 and 98.5% were male; 78% were White.

They had a mean A1c of 7.9%. Most were receiving sulfonylurea (43%) or metformin (39%), and few were receiving thiazolidinediones (4.1%), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (2.7%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (2.0%), or other types of diabetes drugs (0.1%).

Of the 2,768 patients who received intensified diabetes medication, most received a prescription for insulin (51%) or sulfonylurea (23%).

In the propensity-matched cohort, patients with intensified diabetes medication had a higher rate of severe hypoglycemia at 30 days (1% vs. 0.5%), which translated into a significant twofold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.17).

The rates of severe hypoglycemia at 1 year were similar in both groups (3.1% and 2.9%).

The incidence of severe hyperglycemia was the same in both groups at 30 days (0.3%) and 1 year (1.3%).

In secondary outcomes, at 1 year, 48% of new oral diabetes medications and 39% of new insulin prescriptions were no longer being filled.

Overall, patients who were discharged with intensified diabetes medication were significantly less likely to die within 30 days than the other patients (1.3% vs. 2.4%; HR, 0.55).

However, this mortality benefit was found only in the subgroup of 2,524 patients who had uncontrolled diabetes when they were admitted to hospital (A1c >7.5%; mean A1c, 9.1%), and not in the propensity-matched subgroup of 2,672 patients who had controlled diabetes then (A1c up to 7.5%; mean A1c, 6.8%).

There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality in patients with versus without intensified treatment (15.8% vs. 17.8%).

There were also no significant between-group difference in rates of hospital readmission at 30 days (roughly 17%) or 1 year (roughly 51%).

The decreases in mean A1c from hospital discharge to 1 year later were also the same in both groups (going from 7.9% to 7.7%).

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Anderson has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McCoy reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, AARP, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. The disclosures of the other authors and the editorial coauthor are available with the article and commentary.

“Short-term hospitalization [for reasons other than diabetes] may not be the time to intervene in long-term diabetes management,” researchers conclude.

They found that, in a national cohort of older almost entirely male veterans with non–insulin-treated type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized for non–diabetes-related common medical conditions, intensified diabetes treatment on hospital discharge was linked to an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia in the immediate postdischarge period.

However, diabetes treatment intensification – that is, receiving a prescription for a new or higher dose of diabetes medicine – was not associated with decreased risks of severe hyperglycemia or with improved glycemic (hemoglobin A1c) control at 30 days or 1 year, according to study results, published in JAMA Network Open.

“We didn’t see a reduction in diabetes emergencies in more intensively treated patients,” lead investigator Timothy S. Anderson, MD, said in an interview.

Also, importantly, there was a low rate of persistence with the new treatment. “Half of the patients were no longer taking these [intensified diabetes medicines] at 1 year, which tells me that context is key,” he pointed out. “If a patient is in the hospital for diabetes [unlike the patients in this study], I think it makes a lot of sense to modify and adjust their regimen to try to help them right then and there.”

The overall risk of severe hyperglycemia or severe hypoglycemia was pretty small in the overall cohort, Dr. Anderson noted, “but we do put people at risk of leaving the hospital and ending up back in the hospital with low blood sugar when we intensify medications, and there’s not necessarily a good signal to suggest that it’s all that urgent to change these medicines.”

Instead, the “safer path” may be to make recommendations to the patient’s outpatient physician and also inform the patient – for example, “We saw some concerns about your diabetes while you were in the hospital, and this is really something that should be looked at when you’re recovered and feeling better from the rest of your health standpoint” – rather than making a diabetes medication change while the person is acutely ill or recovering from illness, said Dr. Anderson, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The researchers also found an “unexpected” significant decrease in 30-day mortality in the patients with intensified diabetes treatment, which was probably because of confounding that was not accounted for, Dr. Anderson speculated, since clinical trials have consistently shown that benefits from diabetes medications take a longer time to show an effect.
 

‘Important study,’ but lacked newer meds

This is an “important” study for primary care and in-hospital physicians that shows that “hospitalization is really not the time and the place” to intensify diabetes medication, Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, coauthor of an invited commentary, told this news organization in an interview.

“While overcoming treatment inertia is important, [it should be] done appropriately, so that we don’t overtreat patients,” Dr. McCoy, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., stressed.

The very low rate of persistence of taking intensified medications is a major finding, she agreed. Hospitalized patients “are not in their usual state of health, so if we make long-term treatment decisions based on their acute abnormal situation, that may not be appropriate.”

However, patients with high A1c may benefit from a change at hospital discharge rather than when they see their primary care provider, with the caveat that they need close follow-up as an outpatient.

The study emphasizes the “need for longitudinal patient care rather than episodic patches,” according to Dr. McCoy.

For example, a patient who is hospitalized for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma exacerbation may be receiving steroids that cause high blood glucose levels but as soon as they’re done with their steroid course, blood glucose will decrease, so the “need for close outpatient follow-up is very important.”

One limitation of the current work is that an earlier study in the same population by the research group showed that 49% of patients whose treatment regimens were intensified had limited life expectancy or were at or below their A1c goal, so they would not have benefited from the stepped-up treatment, she noted.

Another limitation is that the findings cannot be generalized to women or younger patients, or to patients treated with glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

The study patients were seen in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration health system when these newer agents were not used. Three-quarters of patients received intensified treatment with sulfonylurea or insulin, and only one patient received a new GLP-1–receptor agonist.

Ideally, Dr. McCoy said, patients should have been prescribed a GLP-1–receptor agonist if they had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, or an SGLT2 inhibitor if they had kidney disease or heart failure, which may have led to different results, and would need to be determined in further study.

Dr. Anderson agreed that “SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists are broadly much safer than the older diabetes medicines, at least when it comes to risk of hypoglycemia, and may have more clear benefits in heart disease and mortality. So I would not want to extrapolate our findings to those new classes,” he said. “A similar set of studies would need to be done.”
 

Study rationale and findings

Hospitalized older adults with diabetes commonly have transiently elevated blood glucose levels that might lead clinicians to discharge them from hospital with a prescription for more intensive diabetes medications than they were on before they were hospitalized, but it is not clear if these diabetes medication changes would improve outcomes.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from patients with diabetes who were 65 and older and hospitalized for common medical conditions in VHA hospitals during January 2011–September 2016, and then discharged to the community.

They excluded patients who were hospitalized for things that require immediate change in diabetes treatment and patients who were using insulin before their hospitalization (because instructions to modify insulin dosing frequently don’t have a new prescription).

The researchers identified 28,198 adults with diabetes who were not on insulin and were hospitalized in the VHA health system for heart failure (18%), coronary artery disease (13%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), pneumonia (9.6%), and urinary tract infection (7.5%), and less often and not in decreasing order, for acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia, asthma, chest pain, conduction disorders, heart valve disorders, sepsis, skin infection, stroke, and transient ischemic attack.

Of these patients, 2,768 patients (9.8%) received diabetes medication intensification, and the researchers matched 2,648 of these patients with an equal number of patients who did not receive this treatment intensification.

The patients in each group had a mean age of 73 and 98.5% were male; 78% were White.

They had a mean A1c of 7.9%. Most were receiving sulfonylurea (43%) or metformin (39%), and few were receiving thiazolidinediones (4.1%), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (2.7%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (2.0%), or other types of diabetes drugs (0.1%).

Of the 2,768 patients who received intensified diabetes medication, most received a prescription for insulin (51%) or sulfonylurea (23%).

In the propensity-matched cohort, patients with intensified diabetes medication had a higher rate of severe hypoglycemia at 30 days (1% vs. 0.5%), which translated into a significant twofold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.17).

The rates of severe hypoglycemia at 1 year were similar in both groups (3.1% and 2.9%).

The incidence of severe hyperglycemia was the same in both groups at 30 days (0.3%) and 1 year (1.3%).

In secondary outcomes, at 1 year, 48% of new oral diabetes medications and 39% of new insulin prescriptions were no longer being filled.

Overall, patients who were discharged with intensified diabetes medication were significantly less likely to die within 30 days than the other patients (1.3% vs. 2.4%; HR, 0.55).

However, this mortality benefit was found only in the subgroup of 2,524 patients who had uncontrolled diabetes when they were admitted to hospital (A1c >7.5%; mean A1c, 9.1%), and not in the propensity-matched subgroup of 2,672 patients who had controlled diabetes then (A1c up to 7.5%; mean A1c, 6.8%).

There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality in patients with versus without intensified treatment (15.8% vs. 17.8%).

There were also no significant between-group difference in rates of hospital readmission at 30 days (roughly 17%) or 1 year (roughly 51%).

The decreases in mean A1c from hospital discharge to 1 year later were also the same in both groups (going from 7.9% to 7.7%).

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Anderson has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McCoy reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, AARP, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. The disclosures of the other authors and the editorial coauthor are available with the article and commentary.

Personalized medicine is just about the biggest buzzword in health. But neurologist Ellen M. Mowry, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steers patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) away from the concept when she first starts talking to them about initial therapy options and possible ways to forestall disability down the line.

“I try to be quite honest,” she told colleagues at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). “I describe the escalation and early intensive-therapy paradigms very broadly, and I tell them that we don’t have a great way of individualizing their treatment decisions at this point.”

Observational and clinical trials offer extremely limited insight, she said in a keynote address, so there aren’t any simple answers about the best strategies. However, she highlighted new research projects that aim to provide more reliable answers.

As Dr. Mowry noted, patients tend to do well early on regardless of the choice of drug, so the question isn’t how to immediately control MS. “I personally find that most people can have control of relapses and the development of new lesions. I don’t find that there are too many individuals these days who don’t achieve control of their inflammatory activity,” she said. “I’m really interested in understanding whether the treatment choices a person with MS and myself make – at the time of their diagnosis – matters with respect to how they’re doing several years down the road. One major question is: Should I be using higher-efficacy therapy right out of the gate to better impact long-term disability?”

Research suggests that disability in MS is declining dramatically, she said, although it’s not quite clear if this is caused by evolving definitions of the disease or better medications. If the latter is the case, it’s useful to know that “there have been several publications suggesting that using stronger therapies right out of the gate may have an even greater impact on the long-term disability trajectory [than lower-efficacy treatments],” she said.

But some studies in this area are observational and come with various weaknesses, she said. Clinical trials offer data of their own, but “the conditions of clinical trials are also not real world or generalizable.” They often have healthier subjects than physicians actually see, and their requirements – such as requiring patients to have failed certain therapies – can muddy the messages of their outcomes. And, she added, people are more complicated in real life than in these trials, with many having a mix of both higher- and lower-risk features.

So how can physicians make the best decisions? Dr. Mowry recommends considering several factors, such patient comorbidities and reproductive status, the way drugs are administered, monitoring requirements, and cost. Safety is crucial too. She noted that newly diagnosed patients with MS are very concerned about safety – “they’re very much afraid of risks of stronger medications” – and many choose escalation therapy instead of immediately embracing higher-efficacy therapy for that reason.

At her clinic, she doesn’t push quick decisions. “I find that the treatment-decision discussion with individuals with MS takes several appointments, which we offer typically in quick succession. If we go with the escalation route, we are very strongly conscientious about escalating if there’s breakthrough disease. For me, that means after the medication should have kicked in, we may indeed escalate that therapy right away if there’s a new relapse or more than one new lesion.”

As for the future, Dr. Mowry highlighted two ongoing clinical trials that are expected to provide guidance about first-line therapy options. One is TREAT-MS, which will track intermediate-term risk of disability based on choices regarding first-line and later therapy. The pragmatic trial aims to enroll 900 subjects for up to 5 years. The other is DELIVER-MS, which aims to track how treatment choices affect brain volume.

“We really do need more definitive data to support the early treatment choices that people need to make,” she said.

Dr. Mowry disclosed grant/research support from Biogen, Teva, and Genentech, as welll as honoraria (editorial royalties) from UpToDate.

Personalized medicine is just about the biggest buzzword in health. But neurologist Ellen M. Mowry, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steers patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) away from the concept when she first starts talking to them about initial therapy options and possible ways to forestall disability down the line.

“I try to be quite honest,” she told colleagues at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). “I describe the escalation and early intensive-therapy paradigms very broadly, and I tell them that we don’t have a great way of individualizing their treatment decisions at this point.”

Observational and clinical trials offer extremely limited insight, she said in a keynote address, so there aren’t any simple answers about the best strategies. However, she highlighted new research projects that aim to provide more reliable answers.

As Dr. Mowry noted, patients tend to do well early on regardless of the choice of drug, so the question isn’t how to immediately control MS. “I personally find that most people can have control of relapses and the development of new lesions. I don’t find that there are too many individuals these days who don’t achieve control of their inflammatory activity,” she said. “I’m really interested in understanding whether the treatment choices a person with MS and myself make – at the time of their diagnosis – matters with respect to how they’re doing several years down the road. One major question is: Should I be using higher-efficacy therapy right out of the gate to better impact long-term disability?”

Research suggests that disability in MS is declining dramatically, she said, although it’s not quite clear if this is caused by evolving definitions of the disease or better medications. If the latter is the case, it’s useful to know that “there have been several publications suggesting that using stronger therapies right out of the gate may have an even greater impact on the long-term disability trajectory [than lower-efficacy treatments],” she said.

But some studies in this area are observational and come with various weaknesses, she said. Clinical trials offer data of their own, but “the conditions of clinical trials are also not real world or generalizable.” They often have healthier subjects than physicians actually see, and their requirements – such as requiring patients to have failed certain therapies – can muddy the messages of their outcomes. And, she added, people are more complicated in real life than in these trials, with many having a mix of both higher- and lower-risk features.

So how can physicians make the best decisions? Dr. Mowry recommends considering several factors, such patient comorbidities and reproductive status, the way drugs are administered, monitoring requirements, and cost. Safety is crucial too. She noted that newly diagnosed patients with MS are very concerned about safety – “they’re very much afraid of risks of stronger medications” – and many choose escalation therapy instead of immediately embracing higher-efficacy therapy for that reason.

At her clinic, she doesn’t push quick decisions. “I find that the treatment-decision discussion with individuals with MS takes several appointments, which we offer typically in quick succession. If we go with the escalation route, we are very strongly conscientious about escalating if there’s breakthrough disease. For me, that means after the medication should have kicked in, we may indeed escalate that therapy right away if there’s a new relapse or more than one new lesion.”

As for the future, Dr. Mowry highlighted two ongoing clinical trials that are expected to provide guidance about first-line therapy options. One is TREAT-MS, which will track intermediate-term risk of disability based on choices regarding first-line and later therapy. The pragmatic trial aims to enroll 900 subjects for up to 5 years. The other is DELIVER-MS, which aims to track how treatment choices affect brain volume.

“We really do need more definitive data to support the early treatment choices that people need to make,” she said.

Dr. Mowry disclosed grant/research support from Biogen, Teva, and Genentech, as welll as honoraria (editorial royalties) from UpToDate.

Personalized medicine is just about the biggest buzzword in health. But neurologist Ellen M. Mowry, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, steers patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) away from the concept when she first starts talking to them about initial therapy options and possible ways to forestall disability down the line.

“I try to be quite honest,” she told colleagues at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC). “I describe the escalation and early intensive-therapy paradigms very broadly, and I tell them that we don’t have a great way of individualizing their treatment decisions at this point.”

Observational and clinical trials offer extremely limited insight, she said in a keynote address, so there aren’t any simple answers about the best strategies. However, she highlighted new research projects that aim to provide more reliable answers.

As Dr. Mowry noted, patients tend to do well early on regardless of the choice of drug, so the question isn’t how to immediately control MS. “I personally find that most people can have control of relapses and the development of new lesions. I don’t find that there are too many individuals these days who don’t achieve control of their inflammatory activity,” she said. “I’m really interested in understanding whether the treatment choices a person with MS and myself make – at the time of their diagnosis – matters with respect to how they’re doing several years down the road. One major question is: Should I be using higher-efficacy therapy right out of the gate to better impact long-term disability?”

Research suggests that disability in MS is declining dramatically, she said, although it’s not quite clear if this is caused by evolving definitions of the disease or better medications. If the latter is the case, it’s useful to know that “there have been several publications suggesting that using stronger therapies right out of the gate may have an even greater impact on the long-term disability trajectory [than lower-efficacy treatments],” she said.

But some studies in this area are observational and come with various weaknesses, she said. Clinical trials offer data of their own, but “the conditions of clinical trials are also not real world or generalizable.” They often have healthier subjects than physicians actually see, and their requirements – such as requiring patients to have failed certain therapies – can muddy the messages of their outcomes. And, she added, people are more complicated in real life than in these trials, with many having a mix of both higher- and lower-risk features.

So how can physicians make the best decisions? Dr. Mowry recommends considering several factors, such patient comorbidities and reproductive status, the way drugs are administered, monitoring requirements, and cost. Safety is crucial too. She noted that newly diagnosed patients with MS are very concerned about safety – “they’re very much afraid of risks of stronger medications” – and many choose escalation therapy instead of immediately embracing higher-efficacy therapy for that reason.

At her clinic, she doesn’t push quick decisions. “I find that the treatment-decision discussion with individuals with MS takes several appointments, which we offer typically in quick succession. If we go with the escalation route, we are very strongly conscientious about escalating if there’s breakthrough disease. For me, that means after the medication should have kicked in, we may indeed escalate that therapy right away if there’s a new relapse or more than one new lesion.”

As for the future, Dr. Mowry highlighted two ongoing clinical trials that are expected to provide guidance about first-line therapy options. One is TREAT-MS, which will track intermediate-term risk of disability based on choices regarding first-line and later therapy. The pragmatic trial aims to enroll 900 subjects for up to 5 years. The other is DELIVER-MS, which aims to track how treatment choices affect brain volume.

“We really do need more definitive data to support the early treatment choices that people need to make,” she said.

Dr. Mowry disclosed grant/research support from Biogen, Teva, and Genentech, as welll as honoraria (editorial royalties) from UpToDate.

In the clinical assessment of vitamin D concentrations, free 25-hydroxyvitamin D shows little added benefit to the current standard of total 25(OH)D, with deficiencies in each associated with at least a twofold risk of all-cause mortality, new research shows.

“In this prospective, population-based study of middle-aged and older European men, total 25(OH)D levels below 20 mcg/L were independently associated with a twofold increased all-cause mortality,” the researchers reported.

“Lower concentrations of free 25(OH)D were also predictive of mortality, but did not provide any additional information,” they noted. “The data do not support routine measurement of free 25(OH)D or 1,25(OH)2D [1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D] over total 25(OH)D levels.”

Despite vitamin D deficiency being well established as playing a role in a wide range of adverse health effects, including cardiovascular disease and mortality, there has been a lack of consensus on the optimal concentration of total 25(OH)D, with studies showing inconsistent levels to define insufficiency and deficiency.

One aspect of the debate has focused on precisely how to measure the concentrations, with some evidence supporting the “free hormone hypothesis,” which suggests that free 25(OH)D could represent a better indicator than the standard total 25(OH)D of functional availability of vitamin D, and have stronger clinical utility.

To investigate both issues, Marian Dejaeger, MD, PhD, and colleagues evaluated prospective data on 1,915 men recruited from eight centers around Europe in the European Male Aging Study in a report published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

The men, who were aged between 40 and 79 years, had a mean follow-up of 12.3 years; during that time, about a quarter (23.5%) of them died.

In addition to other factors, including being older, having a higher body mass index, and having at least two comorbidities, men who died had significantly lower levels of total 25(OH)D, total 1,25(OH)2D, free 25(OH)D, and free 1,25(OH)2D, as well as higher parathyroid hormone and creatinine values.

After adjustment for key confounders, including body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, kidney function, number of comorbidities at baseline and other factors, men with a total 25(OH)D below 20 mcg/L had a significantly increased risk of mortality, compared with those who had normal levels of vitamin D, defined as above 30 mcg/L (hazard ratio, 2.03; P < .001).

In terms of free 25(OH)D, the lowest three free 25(OH)D quintiles (under 4.43 ng/L) similarly had a significantly higher mortality risk, compared with the highest quintile (HR, 2.09; P < .01) after adjustment for the confounders.

Further observations of all quintiles of other measures of 1,25(OH)2D and vitamin D binding protein (DBP) showed no associations with mortality after adjusting for confounders.
 

Methods of measurement

An important caveat of the study is the type of method used to measure free 25(OH)D. The authors calculated free 25(OH)D using a formula, as opposed to the alternative of direct measurement with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit, and there can be important differences between the two approaches, said Daniel Bikle, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and dermatology at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of California, San Francisco, in a comment on the research.

“The biggest problem is that calculating free 25(OH)D does not give an accurate estimate of the real free level, so making conclusions regarding its role in clinical situations is subject to error,” said Dr. Bikle, who recently authored a review of the free hormone hypothesis.

A calculation approach “depends heavily on the total 25(OH)D level, so in a population with reasonably normal DBP and albumin levels, the correlation with total 25(OH)D is very high, so I am not surprised by the results showing no additional value,” he said in an interview.

The authors addressed their use of the calculation over the direct measurement in the study, noting that there is a “high correlation between both methods.”

But they added that, “as no equilibrium analysis method is available for free 25(OH)D, nor for free 1,25(OH)2D, no method can be considered superior.”

Dr. Dejaeger, of the department of public health and primary care, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), added that she agreed that high or low DBP could potentially shift some correlations, but noted that other research has shown calculated and direct measures to match relatively well.

“So we partly agree [with Dr. Bikle] not being surprised that we did not find an added value because we also found little variation in DBP, but we are not convinced that a different measurement method could make the difference here.”

Another caveat of the study is that, despite half of the measurements being taken in the summer, more than 90% of subjects in the study’s cohort had vitamin D insufficiency, defined in the study as total 25(OH)D levels below 30 mcg/L, and as many as 70% had deficiency, with levels below 20 mcg/L.

Therefore, “as the number of participants with high levels of total 25(OH)D in our study is small, a true threshold concentration for optimal vitamin D status cannot be defined on basis of our data,” the authors noted.

Under current recommendations, the Endocrine Society indicates that concentrations below 30 mcg/L are insufficient, while other groups, including the Institute of Medicine, suggest concentrations of 20 mcg/L or above are adequate.
 

Free hormone hypothesis

Under the free hormone hypothesis, which is observed with thyroid hormones and sex steroids, the very small fraction of free hormones that are not bound to protein carriers can enter cells and help facilitate biologic activity.

The hypothesis of a role of free 25(OH)D in mortality was supported by a recent study, in which free 25(OH)D levels – but not total 25(OH)D levels, were found to be independently associated with an increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among patients with coronary artery disease.

However, two other studies are more consistent with the new findings, including one study showing no added value of free 25(OH)D as a marker for bone mineral density in older women, and another study showing no value as a marker of metabolic variables in healthy children.

“Currently, there are no hard data to support routine measurements of free 25(OH)D or 1,25(OH)2D over total 25(OH)D, the current standard of assessing vitamin D status, as stated in guidelines from different scientific bodies,” Dr. Dejaeger said in an interview.

The study received support from Versus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Dejaeger and Dr. Bikle had no disclosures to report.

In the clinical assessment of vitamin D concentrations, free 25-hydroxyvitamin D shows little added benefit to the current standard of total 25(OH)D, with deficiencies in each associated with at least a twofold risk of all-cause mortality, new research shows.

“In this prospective, population-based study of middle-aged and older European men, total 25(OH)D levels below 20 mcg/L were independently associated with a twofold increased all-cause mortality,” the researchers reported.

“Lower concentrations of free 25(OH)D were also predictive of mortality, but did not provide any additional information,” they noted. “The data do not support routine measurement of free 25(OH)D or 1,25(OH)2D [1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D] over total 25(OH)D levels.”

Despite vitamin D deficiency being well established as playing a role in a wide range of adverse health effects, including cardiovascular disease and mortality, there has been a lack of consensus on the optimal concentration of total 25(OH)D, with studies showing inconsistent levels to define insufficiency and deficiency.

One aspect of the debate has focused on precisely how to measure the concentrations, with some evidence supporting the “free hormone hypothesis,” which suggests that free 25(OH)D could represent a better indicator than the standard total 25(OH)D of functional availability of vitamin D, and have stronger clinical utility.

To investigate both issues, Marian Dejaeger, MD, PhD, and colleagues evaluated prospective data on 1,915 men recruited from eight centers around Europe in the European Male Aging Study in a report published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

The men, who were aged between 40 and 79 years, had a mean follow-up of 12.3 years; during that time, about a quarter (23.5%) of them died.

In addition to other factors, including being older, having a higher body mass index, and having at least two comorbidities, men who died had significantly lower levels of total 25(OH)D, total 1,25(OH)2D, free 25(OH)D, and free 1,25(OH)2D, as well as higher parathyroid hormone and creatinine values.

After adjustment for key confounders, including body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, kidney function, number of comorbidities at baseline and other factors, men with a total 25(OH)D below 20 mcg/L had a significantly increased risk of mortality, compared with those who had normal levels of vitamin D, defined as above 30 mcg/L (hazard ratio, 2.03; P < .001).

In terms of free 25(OH)D, the lowest three free 25(OH)D quintiles (under 4.43 ng/L) similarly had a significantly higher mortality risk, compared with the highest quintile (HR, 2.09; P < .01) after adjustment for the confounders.

Further observations of all quintiles of other measures of 1,25(OH)2D and vitamin D binding protein (DBP) showed no associations with mortality after adjusting for confounders.
 

Methods of measurement

An important caveat of the study is the type of method used to measure free 25(OH)D. The authors calculated free 25(OH)D using a formula, as opposed to the alternative of direct measurement with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit, and there can be important differences between the two approaches, said Daniel Bikle, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and dermatology at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of California, San Francisco, in a comment on the research.

“The biggest problem is that calculating free 25(OH)D does not give an accurate estimate of the real free level, so making conclusions regarding its role in clinical situations is subject to error,” said Dr. Bikle, who recently authored a review of the free hormone hypothesis.

A calculation approach “depends heavily on the total 25(OH)D level, so in a population with reasonably normal DBP and albumin levels, the correlation with total 25(OH)D is very high, so I am not surprised by the results showing no additional value,” he said in an interview.

The authors addressed their use of the calculation over the direct measurement in the study, noting that there is a “high correlation between both methods.”

But they added that, “as no equilibrium analysis method is available for free 25(OH)D, nor for free 1,25(OH)2D, no method can be considered superior.”

Dr. Dejaeger, of the department of public health and primary care, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), added that she agreed that high or low DBP could potentially shift some correlations, but noted that other research has shown calculated and direct measures to match relatively well.

“So we partly agree [with Dr. Bikle] not being surprised that we did not find an added value because we also found little variation in DBP, but we are not convinced that a different measurement method could make the difference here.”

Another caveat of the study is that, despite half of the measurements being taken in the summer, more than 90% of subjects in the study’s cohort had vitamin D insufficiency, defined in the study as total 25(OH)D levels below 30 mcg/L, and as many as 70% had deficiency, with levels below 20 mcg/L.

Therefore, “as the number of participants with high levels of total 25(OH)D in our study is small, a true threshold concentration for optimal vitamin D status cannot be defined on basis of our data,” the authors noted.

Under current recommendations, the Endocrine Society indicates that concentrations below 30 mcg/L are insufficient, while other groups, including the Institute of Medicine, suggest concentrations of 20 mcg/L or above are adequate.
 

Free hormone hypothesis

Under the free hormone hypothesis, which is observed with thyroid hormones and sex steroids, the very small fraction of free hormones that are not bound to protein carriers can enter cells and help facilitate biologic activity.

The hypothesis of a role of free 25(OH)D in mortality was supported by a recent study, in which free 25(OH)D levels – but not total 25(OH)D levels, were found to be independently associated with an increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among patients with coronary artery disease.

However, two other studies are more consistent with the new findings, including one study showing no added value of free 25(OH)D as a marker for bone mineral density in older women, and another study showing no value as a marker of metabolic variables in healthy children.

“Currently, there are no hard data to support routine measurements of free 25(OH)D or 1,25(OH)2D over total 25(OH)D, the current standard of assessing vitamin D status, as stated in guidelines from different scientific bodies,” Dr. Dejaeger said in an interview.

The study received support from Versus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Dejaeger and Dr. Bikle had no disclosures to report.

In the clinical assessment of vitamin D concentrations, free 25-hydroxyvitamin D shows little added benefit to the current standard of total 25(OH)D, with deficiencies in each associated with at least a twofold risk of all-cause mortality, new research shows.

“In this prospective, population-based study of middle-aged and older European men, total 25(OH)D levels below 20 mcg/L were independently associated with a twofold increased all-cause mortality,” the researchers reported.

“Lower concentrations of free 25(OH)D were also predictive of mortality, but did not provide any additional information,” they noted. “The data do not support routine measurement of free 25(OH)D or 1,25(OH)2D [1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D] over total 25(OH)D levels.”

Despite vitamin D deficiency being well established as playing a role in a wide range of adverse health effects, including cardiovascular disease and mortality, there has been a lack of consensus on the optimal concentration of total 25(OH)D, with studies showing inconsistent levels to define insufficiency and deficiency.

One aspect of the debate has focused on precisely how to measure the concentrations, with some evidence supporting the “free hormone hypothesis,” which suggests that free 25(OH)D could represent a better indicator than the standard total 25(OH)D of functional availability of vitamin D, and have stronger clinical utility.

To investigate both issues, Marian Dejaeger, MD, PhD, and colleagues evaluated prospective data on 1,915 men recruited from eight centers around Europe in the European Male Aging Study in a report published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

The men, who were aged between 40 and 79 years, had a mean follow-up of 12.3 years; during that time, about a quarter (23.5%) of them died.

In addition to other factors, including being older, having a higher body mass index, and having at least two comorbidities, men who died had significantly lower levels of total 25(OH)D, total 1,25(OH)2D, free 25(OH)D, and free 1,25(OH)2D, as well as higher parathyroid hormone and creatinine values.

After adjustment for key confounders, including body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, kidney function, number of comorbidities at baseline and other factors, men with a total 25(OH)D below 20 mcg/L had a significantly increased risk of mortality, compared with those who had normal levels of vitamin D, defined as above 30 mcg/L (hazard ratio, 2.03; P < .001).

In terms of free 25(OH)D, the lowest three free 25(OH)D quintiles (under 4.43 ng/L) similarly had a significantly higher mortality risk, compared with the highest quintile (HR, 2.09; P < .01) after adjustment for the confounders.

Further observations of all quintiles of other measures of 1,25(OH)2D and vitamin D binding protein (DBP) showed no associations with mortality after adjusting for confounders.
 

Methods of measurement

An important caveat of the study is the type of method used to measure free 25(OH)D. The authors calculated free 25(OH)D using a formula, as opposed to the alternative of direct measurement with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit, and there can be important differences between the two approaches, said Daniel Bikle, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and dermatology at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of California, San Francisco, in a comment on the research.

“The biggest problem is that calculating free 25(OH)D does not give an accurate estimate of the real free level, so making conclusions regarding its role in clinical situations is subject to error,” said Dr. Bikle, who recently authored a review of the free hormone hypothesis.

A calculation approach “depends heavily on the total 25(OH)D level, so in a population with reasonably normal DBP and albumin levels, the correlation with total 25(OH)D is very high, so I am not surprised by the results showing no additional value,” he said in an interview.

The authors addressed their use of the calculation over the direct measurement in the study, noting that there is a “high correlation between both methods.”

But they added that, “as no equilibrium analysis method is available for free 25(OH)D, nor for free 1,25(OH)2D, no method can be considered superior.”

Dr. Dejaeger, of the department of public health and primary care, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), added that she agreed that high or low DBP could potentially shift some correlations, but noted that other research has shown calculated and direct measures to match relatively well.

“So we partly agree [with Dr. Bikle] not being surprised that we did not find an added value because we also found little variation in DBP, but we are not convinced that a different measurement method could make the difference here.”

Another caveat of the study is that, despite half of the measurements being taken in the summer, more than 90% of subjects in the study’s cohort had vitamin D insufficiency, defined in the study as total 25(OH)D levels below 30 mcg/L, and as many as 70% had deficiency, with levels below 20 mcg/L.

Therefore, “as the number of participants with high levels of total 25(OH)D in our study is small, a true threshold concentration for optimal vitamin D status cannot be defined on basis of our data,” the authors noted.

Under current recommendations, the Endocrine Society indicates that concentrations below 30 mcg/L are insufficient, while other groups, including the Institute of Medicine, suggest concentrations of 20 mcg/L or above are adequate.
 

Free hormone hypothesis

Under the free hormone hypothesis, which is observed with thyroid hormones and sex steroids, the very small fraction of free hormones that are not bound to protein carriers can enter cells and help facilitate biologic activity.

The hypothesis of a role of free 25(OH)D in mortality was supported by a recent study, in which free 25(OH)D levels – but not total 25(OH)D levels, were found to be independently associated with an increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among patients with coronary artery disease.

However, two other studies are more consistent with the new findings, including one study showing no added value of free 25(OH)D as a marker for bone mineral density in older women, and another study showing no value as a marker of metabolic variables in healthy children.

“Currently, there are no hard data to support routine measurements of free 25(OH)D or 1,25(OH)2D over total 25(OH)D, the current standard of assessing vitamin D status, as stated in guidelines from different scientific bodies,” Dr. Dejaeger said in an interview.

The study received support from Versus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Dejaeger and Dr. Bikle had no disclosures to report.

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.