Identifying biomarkers in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has become an integral part of choosing treatments and understanding disease progression. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline, published in 2015, recommends an initial biopsy to confirm estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status as well as repeat biopsies to watch for receptor status changes over time.
 

“Decisions concerning the initiation of systemic therapy or selection of systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer should be guided by ER, PR, and HER2 status in conjunction with clinical evaluation, judgment, and the patient’s goals for care,” according to the guideline authors.Along with tumor subtypes, experts continue to identify a host of other actionable targets that can shape treatment decisions. This news organization reached out to Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist and oncologist in the department of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, to explore the role biomarker testing plays in managing MBC.

Question: How important is biomarker testing in guiding MBC treatments? Is there a standard or recommended process?

Dr. McCann: Biomarker testing is essential to breast cancer treatment and the development of targeted therapies. Oncologists typically identify a tumor’s canonical biomarkers — ER, PR, and HER2 — using immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing and then try to match the tumor biology to drugs that target that subtype.

For tumors that lack canonical biomarkers — for example, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) — I send the tumor tissue for next-generation sequencing at the time of metastatic diagnosis to identify a wider range of potential targets or oncogenic drivers, such as somatic or germline mutations in homologous recombination repair genes ( BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 ) or mutations in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway.

In our attempts to define tumor biology and design a treatment strategy, two additional issues quickly arise. First, tumors are heterogeneous from the start. Second, tumors evolve.

Let’s start with how we define or subtype a tumor. Would you walk us through this process?

Defining a breast tumor can be tricky because these cancers often don’t fit neatly into predefined categories. Let’s take the estrogen receptor. In clinical trials, we need to define the cutoff for what constitutes ER-positive MBC or TNBC. Some trials define ER-positive as 1% or greater, others define it as 10% or greater.

But is a PR- and HER2-negative tumor with 1% or even 5% ER expression really ER-positive in the biological or prognostic sense? Probably not. A tumor with less than 10% ER expression, for instance, will actually behave like a triple-negative tumor. Instead of choosing a regimen targeting the ER-positive cells, I’ll lean more toward cytotoxic chemotherapy, the standard treatment for TNBC.

Tumors may have multiple drivers as well. What are some aberrations in addition to the main subtypes?

Tumors also often harbor more than one targetable driver. For instance, PIK3CA gene mutations are present in about 40% of hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative tumors. Activating mutations in ESR1 develop in anywhere from 10% to 50% of MBCs as a resistance mechanism to estrogen deprivation therapy, conferring estrogen independence to the cells. Activating mutations in ERBB2, which essentially turns HER2 into an active receptor, are found in 2%-4% of breast cancers, including ER-positive, HER2-mutant breast cancers, and are enriched in lobular breast cancers, which are typically ER positive, HER2 negative.

What about tumor evolution, given the growing body of evidence that biomarker status in MBC can change over time?

Patients with MBC often have several active areas of cancer, and these areas will evolve differently. During each line of treatment, some metastases will develop resistance and others won’t. For instance, if my patient’s liver metastases start to grow, I will change therapy immediately. If, however, a single bone metastasis begins to grow and the liver metastases have responded well, I might consider local therapy — such as radiation — to target that bone metastasis, though this particular approach hasn’t been formally studied.

Ultimately, we can expect tumors to change over time as they become more biologically aggressive or resistant to current therapy. The most common biomarker change is probably loss of ER or PR expression, but the frequency of ER, PR, or HER2 biomarker changes is still not well understood.

Resistance mutations can also happen. When, for instance, activating mutations in ESR1 occur, the estrogen receptor becomes independent of estrogen and tumors then develop resistance to endocrine therapies. We see a similar problem arise in metastatic prostate cancer. With chronic testosterone deprivation, eventually the androgen receptor evolves to become independent of testosterone in a stage known as castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

Which biomarkers or combinations of biomarkers can be paired with an approved treatment?

We have a range of treatments targeting ER-positive and HER2-positive MBC in particular. For tumors harboring additional targetable mutations, preliminary data suggest that HER2-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as tucatinib and neratinib, are effective against activating mutations in ERBB2.

The PI3K inhibitor alpelisib in combination with fulvestrant has been approved for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC and mutations in PIK3CA. The mTOR inhibitor everolimus plus exemestane is an option for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative. And for those with activating mutations in ESR1, I switch patients to a selective estrogen receptor degrader, such as fulvestrant.

PARP inhibitors, including olaparib or talazoparib, target metastatic HR-positive disease or TNBC with deleterious germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Sacituzumab govitecan has been approved for treating metastatic TNBC and targets the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in almost 90% of TNBC tumors.

What targets, on the other hand, are less informative for treatment choice?

When we order next-generation sequencing, we also will get a list of possible targets for which there are currently no therapeutic options, but there may be in the future. I find this knowledge is helpful. For example, an activating mutation in KRAS tells me that the cancer has a very strong oncogenic driver that I won›t be able to target. I know that activating KRAS mutations in lung cancer and colon cancer portend a poorer prognosis, which helps me to prepare the patient and family.

Atezolizumab in combination with paclitaxel has been FDA-approved for PD-L1 TNBC in the first-line setting, though data show that immune checkpoint inhibitors may be effective even without PD-L1 expression. Although cell surface protein TROP2 has emerged as a target in recent years, its expression is so common in TNBC that confirmatory testing for TROP2 expression is not required to prescribe sacituzumab govitecan.

What factors do you weigh when selecting among the large number of tests available for tumor testing?

We have many biomarker tests available, but the National Comprehensive Cancer Network does not have guidelines for tumor genetics testing in breast cancer. That means insurance does not have to cover the cost, and many companies don’t. Ultimately, though, drug companies and some testing companies have an incentive to cover the cost themselves because a companion diagnostic might be linked to their drug — therascreen PIK3CA RGQ PCR kit for alpelisib, for instance.

I tend not to use a companion diagnostic test because I want more information with a wider panel. The tumor tests I often use are FoundationOne CDx, Caris Molecular Intelligence, and Tempus. I use Tempus because their financial aid is very generous and almost all of my patients qualify to be tested for less than $100. For germline genetic testing, Invitae, Myriad, and Color are also options. Invitae and Color are about $250 out of pocket without insurance. Many academic centers have their own gene panels as well. 

How far have we come in identifying biomarkers in MBC?

Targeted treatment for breast cancer has advanced significantly since doing my PhD research in cancer biology about 15 years ago. Of course, targeted therapies for ER-positive and HER2-amplified cancers were available at that point, but many more have been developed. The most significant advance has been the development of efficient and affordable genome sequencing, which has led to these large panels and identification of therapeutic targets. We’ve also expanded our knowledge of genetic predispositions for breast cancer beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2, which not only allows us to preemptively advise patients and their families about cancer risks and recommendations for cancer screening, but also to select a therapy to target a cancer’s DNA repair deficits.

I feel that we are in an exciting discovery phase in oncology. We currently rely on biomarkers to manage MBC and will continue to refine our strategies and develop more effective drug therapies as we identify more oncogenic drivers, tumor-specific proteins, and cancer cell vulnerabilities.

Identifying biomarkers in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has become an integral part of choosing treatments and understanding disease progression. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline, published in 2015, recommends an initial biopsy to confirm estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status as well as repeat biopsies to watch for receptor status changes over time.
 

“Decisions concerning the initiation of systemic therapy or selection of systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer should be guided by ER, PR, and HER2 status in conjunction with clinical evaluation, judgment, and the patient’s goals for care,” according to the guideline authors.Along with tumor subtypes, experts continue to identify a host of other actionable targets that can shape treatment decisions. This news organization reached out to Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist and oncologist in the department of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, to explore the role biomarker testing plays in managing MBC.

Question: How important is biomarker testing in guiding MBC treatments? Is there a standard or recommended process?

Dr. McCann: Biomarker testing is essential to breast cancer treatment and the development of targeted therapies. Oncologists typically identify a tumor’s canonical biomarkers — ER, PR, and HER2 — using immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing and then try to match the tumor biology to drugs that target that subtype.

For tumors that lack canonical biomarkers — for example, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) — I send the tumor tissue for next-generation sequencing at the time of metastatic diagnosis to identify a wider range of potential targets or oncogenic drivers, such as somatic or germline mutations in homologous recombination repair genes ( BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 ) or mutations in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway.

In our attempts to define tumor biology and design a treatment strategy, two additional issues quickly arise. First, tumors are heterogeneous from the start. Second, tumors evolve.

Let’s start with how we define or subtype a tumor. Would you walk us through this process?

Defining a breast tumor can be tricky because these cancers often don’t fit neatly into predefined categories. Let’s take the estrogen receptor. In clinical trials, we need to define the cutoff for what constitutes ER-positive MBC or TNBC. Some trials define ER-positive as 1% or greater, others define it as 10% or greater.

But is a PR- and HER2-negative tumor with 1% or even 5% ER expression really ER-positive in the biological or prognostic sense? Probably not. A tumor with less than 10% ER expression, for instance, will actually behave like a triple-negative tumor. Instead of choosing a regimen targeting the ER-positive cells, I’ll lean more toward cytotoxic chemotherapy, the standard treatment for TNBC.

Tumors may have multiple drivers as well. What are some aberrations in addition to the main subtypes?

Tumors also often harbor more than one targetable driver. For instance, PIK3CA gene mutations are present in about 40% of hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative tumors. Activating mutations in ESR1 develop in anywhere from 10% to 50% of MBCs as a resistance mechanism to estrogen deprivation therapy, conferring estrogen independence to the cells. Activating mutations in ERBB2, which essentially turns HER2 into an active receptor, are found in 2%-4% of breast cancers, including ER-positive, HER2-mutant breast cancers, and are enriched in lobular breast cancers, which are typically ER positive, HER2 negative.

What about tumor evolution, given the growing body of evidence that biomarker status in MBC can change over time?

Patients with MBC often have several active areas of cancer, and these areas will evolve differently. During each line of treatment, some metastases will develop resistance and others won’t. For instance, if my patient’s liver metastases start to grow, I will change therapy immediately. If, however, a single bone metastasis begins to grow and the liver metastases have responded well, I might consider local therapy — such as radiation — to target that bone metastasis, though this particular approach hasn’t been formally studied.

Ultimately, we can expect tumors to change over time as they become more biologically aggressive or resistant to current therapy. The most common biomarker change is probably loss of ER or PR expression, but the frequency of ER, PR, or HER2 biomarker changes is still not well understood.

Resistance mutations can also happen. When, for instance, activating mutations in ESR1 occur, the estrogen receptor becomes independent of estrogen and tumors then develop resistance to endocrine therapies. We see a similar problem arise in metastatic prostate cancer. With chronic testosterone deprivation, eventually the androgen receptor evolves to become independent of testosterone in a stage known as castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

Which biomarkers or combinations of biomarkers can be paired with an approved treatment?

We have a range of treatments targeting ER-positive and HER2-positive MBC in particular. For tumors harboring additional targetable mutations, preliminary data suggest that HER2-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as tucatinib and neratinib, are effective against activating mutations in ERBB2.

The PI3K inhibitor alpelisib in combination with fulvestrant has been approved for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC and mutations in PIK3CA. The mTOR inhibitor everolimus plus exemestane is an option for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative. And for those with activating mutations in ESR1, I switch patients to a selective estrogen receptor degrader, such as fulvestrant.

PARP inhibitors, including olaparib or talazoparib, target metastatic HR-positive disease or TNBC with deleterious germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Sacituzumab govitecan has been approved for treating metastatic TNBC and targets the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in almost 90% of TNBC tumors.

What targets, on the other hand, are less informative for treatment choice?

When we order next-generation sequencing, we also will get a list of possible targets for which there are currently no therapeutic options, but there may be in the future. I find this knowledge is helpful. For example, an activating mutation in KRAS tells me that the cancer has a very strong oncogenic driver that I won›t be able to target. I know that activating KRAS mutations in lung cancer and colon cancer portend a poorer prognosis, which helps me to prepare the patient and family.

Atezolizumab in combination with paclitaxel has been FDA-approved for PD-L1 TNBC in the first-line setting, though data show that immune checkpoint inhibitors may be effective even without PD-L1 expression. Although cell surface protein TROP2 has emerged as a target in recent years, its expression is so common in TNBC that confirmatory testing for TROP2 expression is not required to prescribe sacituzumab govitecan.

What factors do you weigh when selecting among the large number of tests available for tumor testing?

We have many biomarker tests available, but the National Comprehensive Cancer Network does not have guidelines for tumor genetics testing in breast cancer. That means insurance does not have to cover the cost, and many companies don’t. Ultimately, though, drug companies and some testing companies have an incentive to cover the cost themselves because a companion diagnostic might be linked to their drug — therascreen PIK3CA RGQ PCR kit for alpelisib, for instance.

I tend not to use a companion diagnostic test because I want more information with a wider panel. The tumor tests I often use are FoundationOne CDx, Caris Molecular Intelligence, and Tempus. I use Tempus because their financial aid is very generous and almost all of my patients qualify to be tested for less than $100. For germline genetic testing, Invitae, Myriad, and Color are also options. Invitae and Color are about $250 out of pocket without insurance. Many academic centers have their own gene panels as well. 

How far have we come in identifying biomarkers in MBC?

Targeted treatment for breast cancer has advanced significantly since doing my PhD research in cancer biology about 15 years ago. Of course, targeted therapies for ER-positive and HER2-amplified cancers were available at that point, but many more have been developed. The most significant advance has been the development of efficient and affordable genome sequencing, which has led to these large panels and identification of therapeutic targets. We’ve also expanded our knowledge of genetic predispositions for breast cancer beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2, which not only allows us to preemptively advise patients and their families about cancer risks and recommendations for cancer screening, but also to select a therapy to target a cancer’s DNA repair deficits.

I feel that we are in an exciting discovery phase in oncology. We currently rely on biomarkers to manage MBC and will continue to refine our strategies and develop more effective drug therapies as we identify more oncogenic drivers, tumor-specific proteins, and cancer cell vulnerabilities.

Identifying biomarkers in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has become an integral part of choosing treatments and understanding disease progression. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline, published in 2015, recommends an initial biopsy to confirm estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status as well as repeat biopsies to watch for receptor status changes over time.
 

“Decisions concerning the initiation of systemic therapy or selection of systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer should be guided by ER, PR, and HER2 status in conjunction with clinical evaluation, judgment, and the patient’s goals for care,” according to the guideline authors.Along with tumor subtypes, experts continue to identify a host of other actionable targets that can shape treatment decisions. This news organization reached out to Kelly McCann, MD, PhD, a hematologist and oncologist in the department of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, to explore the role biomarker testing plays in managing MBC.

Question: How important is biomarker testing in guiding MBC treatments? Is there a standard or recommended process?

Dr. McCann: Biomarker testing is essential to breast cancer treatment and the development of targeted therapies. Oncologists typically identify a tumor’s canonical biomarkers — ER, PR, and HER2 — using immunohistochemistry or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing and then try to match the tumor biology to drugs that target that subtype.

For tumors that lack canonical biomarkers — for example, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) — I send the tumor tissue for next-generation sequencing at the time of metastatic diagnosis to identify a wider range of potential targets or oncogenic drivers, such as somatic or germline mutations in homologous recombination repair genes ( BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 ) or mutations in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway.

In our attempts to define tumor biology and design a treatment strategy, two additional issues quickly arise. First, tumors are heterogeneous from the start. Second, tumors evolve.

Let’s start with how we define or subtype a tumor. Would you walk us through this process?

Defining a breast tumor can be tricky because these cancers often don’t fit neatly into predefined categories. Let’s take the estrogen receptor. In clinical trials, we need to define the cutoff for what constitutes ER-positive MBC or TNBC. Some trials define ER-positive as 1% or greater, others define it as 10% or greater.

But is a PR- and HER2-negative tumor with 1% or even 5% ER expression really ER-positive in the biological or prognostic sense? Probably not. A tumor with less than 10% ER expression, for instance, will actually behave like a triple-negative tumor. Instead of choosing a regimen targeting the ER-positive cells, I’ll lean more toward cytotoxic chemotherapy, the standard treatment for TNBC.

Tumors may have multiple drivers as well. What are some aberrations in addition to the main subtypes?

Tumors also often harbor more than one targetable driver. For instance, PIK3CA gene mutations are present in about 40% of hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative tumors. Activating mutations in ESR1 develop in anywhere from 10% to 50% of MBCs as a resistance mechanism to estrogen deprivation therapy, conferring estrogen independence to the cells. Activating mutations in ERBB2, which essentially turns HER2 into an active receptor, are found in 2%-4% of breast cancers, including ER-positive, HER2-mutant breast cancers, and are enriched in lobular breast cancers, which are typically ER positive, HER2 negative.

What about tumor evolution, given the growing body of evidence that biomarker status in MBC can change over time?

Patients with MBC often have several active areas of cancer, and these areas will evolve differently. During each line of treatment, some metastases will develop resistance and others won’t. For instance, if my patient’s liver metastases start to grow, I will change therapy immediately. If, however, a single bone metastasis begins to grow and the liver metastases have responded well, I might consider local therapy — such as radiation — to target that bone metastasis, though this particular approach hasn’t been formally studied.

Ultimately, we can expect tumors to change over time as they become more biologically aggressive or resistant to current therapy. The most common biomarker change is probably loss of ER or PR expression, but the frequency of ER, PR, or HER2 biomarker changes is still not well understood.

Resistance mutations can also happen. When, for instance, activating mutations in ESR1 occur, the estrogen receptor becomes independent of estrogen and tumors then develop resistance to endocrine therapies. We see a similar problem arise in metastatic prostate cancer. With chronic testosterone deprivation, eventually the androgen receptor evolves to become independent of testosterone in a stage known as castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

Which biomarkers or combinations of biomarkers can be paired with an approved treatment?

We have a range of treatments targeting ER-positive and HER2-positive MBC in particular. For tumors harboring additional targetable mutations, preliminary data suggest that HER2-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as tucatinib and neratinib, are effective against activating mutations in ERBB2.

The PI3K inhibitor alpelisib in combination with fulvestrant has been approved for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC and mutations in PIK3CA. The mTOR inhibitor everolimus plus exemestane is an option for patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative. And for those with activating mutations in ESR1, I switch patients to a selective estrogen receptor degrader, such as fulvestrant.

PARP inhibitors, including olaparib or talazoparib, target metastatic HR-positive disease or TNBC with deleterious germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Sacituzumab govitecan has been approved for treating metastatic TNBC and targets the cell surface protein TROP2, expressed in almost 90% of TNBC tumors.

What targets, on the other hand, are less informative for treatment choice?

When we order next-generation sequencing, we also will get a list of possible targets for which there are currently no therapeutic options, but there may be in the future. I find this knowledge is helpful. For example, an activating mutation in KRAS tells me that the cancer has a very strong oncogenic driver that I won›t be able to target. I know that activating KRAS mutations in lung cancer and colon cancer portend a poorer prognosis, which helps me to prepare the patient and family.

Atezolizumab in combination with paclitaxel has been FDA-approved for PD-L1 TNBC in the first-line setting, though data show that immune checkpoint inhibitors may be effective even without PD-L1 expression. Although cell surface protein TROP2 has emerged as a target in recent years, its expression is so common in TNBC that confirmatory testing for TROP2 expression is not required to prescribe sacituzumab govitecan.

What factors do you weigh when selecting among the large number of tests available for tumor testing?

We have many biomarker tests available, but the National Comprehensive Cancer Network does not have guidelines for tumor genetics testing in breast cancer. That means insurance does not have to cover the cost, and many companies don’t. Ultimately, though, drug companies and some testing companies have an incentive to cover the cost themselves because a companion diagnostic might be linked to their drug — therascreen PIK3CA RGQ PCR kit for alpelisib, for instance.

I tend not to use a companion diagnostic test because I want more information with a wider panel. The tumor tests I often use are FoundationOne CDx, Caris Molecular Intelligence, and Tempus. I use Tempus because their financial aid is very generous and almost all of my patients qualify to be tested for less than $100. For germline genetic testing, Invitae, Myriad, and Color are also options. Invitae and Color are about $250 out of pocket without insurance. Many academic centers have their own gene panels as well. 

How far have we come in identifying biomarkers in MBC?

Targeted treatment for breast cancer has advanced significantly since doing my PhD research in cancer biology about 15 years ago. Of course, targeted therapies for ER-positive and HER2-amplified cancers were available at that point, but many more have been developed. The most significant advance has been the development of efficient and affordable genome sequencing, which has led to these large panels and identification of therapeutic targets. We’ve also expanded our knowledge of genetic predispositions for breast cancer beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2, which not only allows us to preemptively advise patients and their families about cancer risks and recommendations for cancer screening, but also to select a therapy to target a cancer’s DNA repair deficits.

I feel that we are in an exciting discovery phase in oncology. We currently rely on biomarkers to manage MBC and will continue to refine our strategies and develop more effective drug therapies as we identify more oncogenic drivers, tumor-specific proteins, and cancer cell vulnerabilities.

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Statin use is associated with increased likelihood of diabetes progression, according to a new matched cohort analysis of data from the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Patients with diabetes who were on statins were more likely to begin taking insulin, become hyperglycemic, and to develop acute glycemic complications, and they were also more likely to be prescribed medications from more glucose-lowering drug classes.

Although previous observational and randomized, controlled trials suggested a link between statin use and diabetes progression, they typically relied on measures like insulin resistance, hemoglobin A1c, or fasting blood glucose levels. The new work, however, outlines changes in glycemic control.

The differences between fasting glucose levels and A1c levels were generally smaller than the differences in insulin sensitivity. But A1c and fasting glucose may underestimate a potential effect of statins, since physicians may escalate antidiabetes therapy in response to changes.

Insulin sensitivity is also rarely measured in real-world settings. “This study translated findings reported on academic studies of increased insulin resistance associated with statin use in research papers into everyday language of patient care. That is, patients on statins may need to escalate their antidiabetes therapy and there may have higher occurrences of uncontrolled diabetes events,” lead author Ishak Mansi, MD, said in an interview.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Mansi, who is staff internist at the VA North Texas Health System and a professor of medicine and data and population science at the University of Texas, both in Dallas, cautioned about overinterpretation of the findings. “This is an observational study; therefore, it can establish association, but not causation.”
 

No reason to turn down statins

Dr. Mansi noted that it’s important to distinguish between those being prescribed statins as a primary preventive measurement against cardiovascular disease, and those starting statins with preexisting cardiovascular disease for secondary prevention. Statins are a key therapeutic class for secondary prevention. “Their benefits are tremendous, and we should emphasize that no patient should stop taking their statins based on our study – rather, they should talk to their doctors,” said Dr. Mansi.

The study is one of few to look at statin use and diabetes progression in patients who already have diabetes, and the first with a propensity-matched design, according to Om Ganda, MD, who was asked for comment. The results should not deter physicians from prescribing and patients from accepting statins. “Statins should not be withheld in people with high risk of cardiovascular disease, even for primary prevention, as the risk of progression of glucose levels is relatively much smaller and manageable, rather than risking cardiovascular events by stopping or not initiating when indicated by current guidelines,” said Dr. Ganda, who is the medical director of the Lipid Clinic at the Joslin Diabetes Center and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

It’s possible that statins could increase risk of diabetes progression through promoting insulin resistance, and they may also reduce beta-cell function, which could in turn reduce insulin secretion, according to Dr. Ganda.

The study group included 83,022 pairs of statin users and matched controls, of whom 95% were men; 68.2% were White; 22% were Black; 2.1% were Native American, Pacific Islander, or Alaska Native; and 0.8% were Asian. The mean age was 60 years.

Some 56% of statin users experienced diabetes progression, compared with 48% of control patients (odds ratio, 1.37; P < .001). Progression was defined as intensification of diabetes therapy through new use of insulin or increase in the number of medication classes, new onset chronic hyperglycemia, or acute complications from hyperglycemia.

The association was seen in the component measures, including an increased number of glucose-lowering medication classes (OR, 1.41; P < .001), the frequency of new insulin use (OR, 1.16; P < .001), persistent glycemia (OR, 1.13; P < .001), and a new diagnosis of ketoacidosis or uncontrolled diabetes (OR, 1.24; P < .001).

There was also a dose-response relationship between the intensity of LDL cholesterol–lowering medication and diabetes progression.
 

More research needed

The findings don’t necessarily have a strong clinical impact, but the researchers hope it pushes toward greater personalization of statin treatment. The benefits of statins have been well studied, but their potential harms have not received the same attention. Dr. Mansi hopes to learn more about which populations stand to gain the most for primary cardiovascular disease prevention, such as older versus younger populations, healthier or sicker patients, and those with well-controlled versus uncontrolled diabetes. “Answering these questions [would] impact hundreds of millions of patients and cannot be postponed,” said Dr. Mansi. He also called for dedicated funding for research into the adverse events of frequently used medications.

Dr. Mansi and Dr. Ganda have no relevant financial disclosures.

Circulating ketone bodies (KBs) are substantially elevated at presentation and 24 hours after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to new research.

The study also showed that greater KB levels measured after 24 hours of reperfusion were associated with larger infarct size and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

The findings suggest a potential role for ketone metabolism in response to myocardial ischemia, conclude researchers in their report, published in the October 5 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Ketones serve as an alternative source of energy for the heart,” lead author Marie-Sophie L.Y. de Koning, MD, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

“These results might suggest that ketone bodies may be an important fuel for the heart after myocardial ischemia.” The role of KBs in heart failure has been previously studied, but their role in myocardial infarction has not, Dr. De Koning said.

“In heart failure, metabolic changes occur that cause the heart to increasingly rely on ketone bodies as an important energy source. Accordingly, concentrations of circulating ketone bodies are elevated and higher concentrations have been linked with more severe heart failure,” she said.

”This might suggest that upregulation of ketone metabolism is a universal cardiac response to stress,” Dr. De Koning added. “But the role of ketone bodies in myocardial infarction remained largely unknown, and this triggered us to investigate circulating ketone bodies in patients presenting with STEMI.”

She and her team measured circulating KBs in archived plasma samples from 369 participants in the randomized GIPS-III trial. The study had primarily looked at the effect of 4 months of metformin therapy, compared with placebo, on LVEF in nondiabetic patients with a first STEMI.

Blood samples had been taken at baseline before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), at 24 hours after reperfusion, and at 4 months.

The current study investigated longitudinal post-STEMI changes in the circulating KBs beta-hydroxybutyrate, acetoacetate, and acetone. It also looked at associations of KBs with infarct size and LVEF, both of which were measured with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging 4 months after STEMI.

Circulating KB levels were three times higher at STEMI presentation than at 4 months. At presentation, the median total KB level was 520 μmol/L. It was still higher 24 hours after reperfusion than at 4 months (206 vs. 166 μmol/L; P < .001).

The 24-hour KB elevations were independently and positively associated with larger infarct size (P = .016) and lower LVEF (P = .012), the group reports.

“Our results indicate a possible role for ketone bodies during myocardial infarction,” Dr. De Koning said.

The KB elevations were probably followed by “an increase in cardiac ketone body metabolism, in order to fuel the heart that is energetically depleted.”

But the study didn’t explore cardiac KB consumption, Dr. De Koning cautioned, adding that the next steps in this research should be to investigate post-STEMI cardiac ketone metabolism and its pathophysiologic mechanisms. “This may facilitate future trials to study therapeutic effects of ketone body supplementation during or after STEMI.”

The current findings “form an essential basis for our understanding of the role of KBs in ischemia/reperfusion,” write Salva R. Yurista, MD, PhD, and colleagues, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

“Although the appeal of enhancing KBs as a therapeutic approach is understandable, additional rigorous preclinical and clinical studies will be required to test this therapeutic hypothesis and determine the mechanisms contributing to any benefits observed,” they note.

”Exposure to cardiac stress, such as ischemia, infarction, or heart failure, will stimulate the release of neurohormones, pro-inflammatory cytokines, and natriuretic peptides, which may play roles in stimulating ketogenesis or the production of ketone bodies,” Dr. Yurista told this news organization.

The increased circulating ketone concentrations and myocardial ketone oxidation that were associated with poor functional outcomes have been reported in other clinical contexts, including heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, heart failure with preserved cardiac function, diabetic cardiomyopathy, and arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, he said.

Dr. Yurista agrees that KBs could have therapeutic merit.

“Circulating ketone concentrations determine the contribution of ketones to the cardiac diet,” he said. “Thus, increasing cardiac delivery of ketone bodies through supplementation or other means to the heart undergoing stress, including STEMI and heart failure, could have therapeutic potential.”

The GIPS-III trial was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Neither Dr. De Koning nor the other authors report relevant financial relationships. Dr. Yurista and the other editorialists report no relevant relationships.

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

Circulating ketone bodies (KBs) are substantially elevated at presentation and 24 hours after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to new research.

The study also showed that greater KB levels measured after 24 hours of reperfusion were associated with larger infarct size and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

The findings suggest a potential role for ketone metabolism in response to myocardial ischemia, conclude researchers in their report, published in the October 5 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Ketones serve as an alternative source of energy for the heart,” lead author Marie-Sophie L.Y. de Koning, MD, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

“These results might suggest that ketone bodies may be an important fuel for the heart after myocardial ischemia.” The role of KBs in heart failure has been previously studied, but their role in myocardial infarction has not, Dr. De Koning said.

“In heart failure, metabolic changes occur that cause the heart to increasingly rely on ketone bodies as an important energy source. Accordingly, concentrations of circulating ketone bodies are elevated and higher concentrations have been linked with more severe heart failure,” she said.

”This might suggest that upregulation of ketone metabolism is a universal cardiac response to stress,” Dr. De Koning added. “But the role of ketone bodies in myocardial infarction remained largely unknown, and this triggered us to investigate circulating ketone bodies in patients presenting with STEMI.”

She and her team measured circulating KBs in archived plasma samples from 369 participants in the randomized GIPS-III trial. The study had primarily looked at the effect of 4 months of metformin therapy, compared with placebo, on LVEF in nondiabetic patients with a first STEMI.

Blood samples had been taken at baseline before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), at 24 hours after reperfusion, and at 4 months.

The current study investigated longitudinal post-STEMI changes in the circulating KBs beta-hydroxybutyrate, acetoacetate, and acetone. It also looked at associations of KBs with infarct size and LVEF, both of which were measured with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging 4 months after STEMI.

Circulating KB levels were three times higher at STEMI presentation than at 4 months. At presentation, the median total KB level was 520 μmol/L. It was still higher 24 hours after reperfusion than at 4 months (206 vs. 166 μmol/L; P < .001).

The 24-hour KB elevations were independently and positively associated with larger infarct size (P = .016) and lower LVEF (P = .012), the group reports.

“Our results indicate a possible role for ketone bodies during myocardial infarction,” Dr. De Koning said.

The KB elevations were probably followed by “an increase in cardiac ketone body metabolism, in order to fuel the heart that is energetically depleted.”

But the study didn’t explore cardiac KB consumption, Dr. De Koning cautioned, adding that the next steps in this research should be to investigate post-STEMI cardiac ketone metabolism and its pathophysiologic mechanisms. “This may facilitate future trials to study therapeutic effects of ketone body supplementation during or after STEMI.”

The current findings “form an essential basis for our understanding of the role of KBs in ischemia/reperfusion,” write Salva R. Yurista, MD, PhD, and colleagues, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

“Although the appeal of enhancing KBs as a therapeutic approach is understandable, additional rigorous preclinical and clinical studies will be required to test this therapeutic hypothesis and determine the mechanisms contributing to any benefits observed,” they note.

”Exposure to cardiac stress, such as ischemia, infarction, or heart failure, will stimulate the release of neurohormones, pro-inflammatory cytokines, and natriuretic peptides, which may play roles in stimulating ketogenesis or the production of ketone bodies,” Dr. Yurista told this news organization.

The increased circulating ketone concentrations and myocardial ketone oxidation that were associated with poor functional outcomes have been reported in other clinical contexts, including heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, heart failure with preserved cardiac function, diabetic cardiomyopathy, and arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, he said.

Dr. Yurista agrees that KBs could have therapeutic merit.

“Circulating ketone concentrations determine the contribution of ketones to the cardiac diet,” he said. “Thus, increasing cardiac delivery of ketone bodies through supplementation or other means to the heart undergoing stress, including STEMI and heart failure, could have therapeutic potential.”

The GIPS-III trial was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Neither Dr. De Koning nor the other authors report relevant financial relationships. Dr. Yurista and the other editorialists report no relevant relationships.

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

Circulating ketone bodies (KBs) are substantially elevated at presentation and 24 hours after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to new research.

The study also showed that greater KB levels measured after 24 hours of reperfusion were associated with larger infarct size and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

The findings suggest a potential role for ketone metabolism in response to myocardial ischemia, conclude researchers in their report, published in the October 5 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Ketones serve as an alternative source of energy for the heart,” lead author Marie-Sophie L.Y. de Koning, MD, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

“These results might suggest that ketone bodies may be an important fuel for the heart after myocardial ischemia.” The role of KBs in heart failure has been previously studied, but their role in myocardial infarction has not, Dr. De Koning said.

“In heart failure, metabolic changes occur that cause the heart to increasingly rely on ketone bodies as an important energy source. Accordingly, concentrations of circulating ketone bodies are elevated and higher concentrations have been linked with more severe heart failure,” she said.

”This might suggest that upregulation of ketone metabolism is a universal cardiac response to stress,” Dr. De Koning added. “But the role of ketone bodies in myocardial infarction remained largely unknown, and this triggered us to investigate circulating ketone bodies in patients presenting with STEMI.”

She and her team measured circulating KBs in archived plasma samples from 369 participants in the randomized GIPS-III trial. The study had primarily looked at the effect of 4 months of metformin therapy, compared with placebo, on LVEF in nondiabetic patients with a first STEMI.

Blood samples had been taken at baseline before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), at 24 hours after reperfusion, and at 4 months.

The current study investigated longitudinal post-STEMI changes in the circulating KBs beta-hydroxybutyrate, acetoacetate, and acetone. It also looked at associations of KBs with infarct size and LVEF, both of which were measured with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging 4 months after STEMI.

Circulating KB levels were three times higher at STEMI presentation than at 4 months. At presentation, the median total KB level was 520 μmol/L. It was still higher 24 hours after reperfusion than at 4 months (206 vs. 166 μmol/L; P < .001).

The 24-hour KB elevations were independently and positively associated with larger infarct size (P = .016) and lower LVEF (P = .012), the group reports.

“Our results indicate a possible role for ketone bodies during myocardial infarction,” Dr. De Koning said.

The KB elevations were probably followed by “an increase in cardiac ketone body metabolism, in order to fuel the heart that is energetically depleted.”

But the study didn’t explore cardiac KB consumption, Dr. De Koning cautioned, adding that the next steps in this research should be to investigate post-STEMI cardiac ketone metabolism and its pathophysiologic mechanisms. “This may facilitate future trials to study therapeutic effects of ketone body supplementation during or after STEMI.”

The current findings “form an essential basis for our understanding of the role of KBs in ischemia/reperfusion,” write Salva R. Yurista, MD, PhD, and colleagues, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

“Although the appeal of enhancing KBs as a therapeutic approach is understandable, additional rigorous preclinical and clinical studies will be required to test this therapeutic hypothesis and determine the mechanisms contributing to any benefits observed,” they note.

”Exposure to cardiac stress, such as ischemia, infarction, or heart failure, will stimulate the release of neurohormones, pro-inflammatory cytokines, and natriuretic peptides, which may play roles in stimulating ketogenesis or the production of ketone bodies,” Dr. Yurista told this news organization.

The increased circulating ketone concentrations and myocardial ketone oxidation that were associated with poor functional outcomes have been reported in other clinical contexts, including heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, heart failure with preserved cardiac function, diabetic cardiomyopathy, and arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, he said.

Dr. Yurista agrees that KBs could have therapeutic merit.

“Circulating ketone concentrations determine the contribution of ketones to the cardiac diet,” he said. “Thus, increasing cardiac delivery of ketone bodies through supplementation or other means to the heart undergoing stress, including STEMI and heart failure, could have therapeutic potential.”

The GIPS-III trial was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Neither Dr. De Koning nor the other authors report relevant financial relationships. Dr. Yurista and the other editorialists report no relevant relationships.

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

A handheld vision screening device to test for amblyopia and strabismus has been found to have a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 85%, and a median acquisition time of 28 seconds, according to a study published in the Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.

The prospective study involved 300 children recruited from two Kaiser Permanente Southern California pediatric clinics. The patients, aged 24-72 months, were first screened by trained research staff for amblyopia and strabismus using the device, called the Pediatric Vision Scanner (PVS). They were subsequently screened by a pediatric ophthalmologist who was masked to the previous screening results and who then performed a comprehensive eye examination.

With the gold-standard ophthalmologist examination, six children (2%) were identified as having amblyopia and/or strabismus. Using the PVS, all six children with amblyopia and/or strabismus were identified, yielding 100% sensitivity. PVS findings were normal for 45 children (15%), yielding a specificity rate of 85%. The positive predictive value was 26.0% (95% confidence interval, 12.4%-32.4%), and the negative predictive value was 100% (95% CI, 97.1%-100%).

The findings suggest that the device could be used to screen for amblyopia, according to Shaival S. Shah, MD, the study’s first author, who is a pediatric ophthalmologist and regional section lead of pediatric ophthalmology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group.

“A strength of this device is that it is user friendly and easy to use and very quick, which is essential when working with young children,” said Dr. Shah in an interview. He noted that the device could be used for children as young as 2 years.

Dr. Shah pointed out that the children were recruited from a pediatrician’s office and reflect more of a “real-world setting” than had they been recruited from a pediatric ophthalmology clinic.

Dr. Shah added that, with a negative predictive value of 100%, the device is highly reliable at informing the clinician that amblyopia is not present. “It did have a positive predictive value of 26%, which needs to be considered when deciding one’s vision screening strategy,” he said.

A limitation of the study is that there was no head-to-head comparison with another screening device, noted Dr. Shah. “While it may have been more useful to include another vision screening device to have a head-to-head comparison, we did not do this to limit complexity and cost.”

Michael J. Wan, MD, FRCSC, pediatric ophthalmologist, Sick Kids Hospital, Toronto, and assistant professor at the University of Toronto, told this news organization that the device has multiple strengths, including quick acquisition time and excellent detection rate of amblyopia and strabismus in children as young as 2 years.

“It is highly reliable at informing the clinician that amblyopia is not present,” said Dr. Wan, who was not involved in the study. “The PVS uses an elegant mechanism to test for amblyopia directly (as opposed to other screening devices, which only detect risk factors). This study demonstrates the impressive diagnostic accuracy of this approach. With a study population of 300 children, the PVS had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 85% (over 90% in cooperative children). This means that the PVS would detect essentially all cases of amblyopia and strabismus while minimizing the number of unnecessary referrals and examinations.”

He added that, although the study included children as young as 2 years, only 2.5% of the children were unable to complete the PVS test. “Detecting amblyopia in children at an age when treatment is still effective has been a longstanding goal in pediatric ophthalmology,” said Dr. Wan, who described the technology as user friendly. “Based on this study, the search for an accurate and practical pediatric vision screening device appears to be over.”

Dr. Wan said it would be useful to replicate this study with a different population to confirm the findings.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Wan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A handheld vision screening device to test for amblyopia and strabismus has been found to have a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 85%, and a median acquisition time of 28 seconds, according to a study published in the Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.

The prospective study involved 300 children recruited from two Kaiser Permanente Southern California pediatric clinics. The patients, aged 24-72 months, were first screened by trained research staff for amblyopia and strabismus using the device, called the Pediatric Vision Scanner (PVS). They were subsequently screened by a pediatric ophthalmologist who was masked to the previous screening results and who then performed a comprehensive eye examination.

With the gold-standard ophthalmologist examination, six children (2%) were identified as having amblyopia and/or strabismus. Using the PVS, all six children with amblyopia and/or strabismus were identified, yielding 100% sensitivity. PVS findings were normal for 45 children (15%), yielding a specificity rate of 85%. The positive predictive value was 26.0% (95% confidence interval, 12.4%-32.4%), and the negative predictive value was 100% (95% CI, 97.1%-100%).

The findings suggest that the device could be used to screen for amblyopia, according to Shaival S. Shah, MD, the study’s first author, who is a pediatric ophthalmologist and regional section lead of pediatric ophthalmology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group.

“A strength of this device is that it is user friendly and easy to use and very quick, which is essential when working with young children,” said Dr. Shah in an interview. He noted that the device could be used for children as young as 2 years.

Dr. Shah pointed out that the children were recruited from a pediatrician’s office and reflect more of a “real-world setting” than had they been recruited from a pediatric ophthalmology clinic.

Dr. Shah added that, with a negative predictive value of 100%, the device is highly reliable at informing the clinician that amblyopia is not present. “It did have a positive predictive value of 26%, which needs to be considered when deciding one’s vision screening strategy,” he said.

A limitation of the study is that there was no head-to-head comparison with another screening device, noted Dr. Shah. “While it may have been more useful to include another vision screening device to have a head-to-head comparison, we did not do this to limit complexity and cost.”

Michael J. Wan, MD, FRCSC, pediatric ophthalmologist, Sick Kids Hospital, Toronto, and assistant professor at the University of Toronto, told this news organization that the device has multiple strengths, including quick acquisition time and excellent detection rate of amblyopia and strabismus in children as young as 2 years.

“It is highly reliable at informing the clinician that amblyopia is not present,” said Dr. Wan, who was not involved in the study. “The PVS uses an elegant mechanism to test for amblyopia directly (as opposed to other screening devices, which only detect risk factors). This study demonstrates the impressive diagnostic accuracy of this approach. With a study population of 300 children, the PVS had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 85% (over 90% in cooperative children). This means that the PVS would detect essentially all cases of amblyopia and strabismus while minimizing the number of unnecessary referrals and examinations.”

He added that, although the study included children as young as 2 years, only 2.5% of the children were unable to complete the PVS test. “Detecting amblyopia in children at an age when treatment is still effective has been a longstanding goal in pediatric ophthalmology,” said Dr. Wan, who described the technology as user friendly. “Based on this study, the search for an accurate and practical pediatric vision screening device appears to be over.”

Dr. Wan said it would be useful to replicate this study with a different population to confirm the findings.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Wan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A handheld vision screening device to test for amblyopia and strabismus has been found to have a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 85%, and a median acquisition time of 28 seconds, according to a study published in the Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.

The prospective study involved 300 children recruited from two Kaiser Permanente Southern California pediatric clinics. The patients, aged 24-72 months, were first screened by trained research staff for amblyopia and strabismus using the device, called the Pediatric Vision Scanner (PVS). They were subsequently screened by a pediatric ophthalmologist who was masked to the previous screening results and who then performed a comprehensive eye examination.

With the gold-standard ophthalmologist examination, six children (2%) were identified as having amblyopia and/or strabismus. Using the PVS, all six children with amblyopia and/or strabismus were identified, yielding 100% sensitivity. PVS findings were normal for 45 children (15%), yielding a specificity rate of 85%. The positive predictive value was 26.0% (95% confidence interval, 12.4%-32.4%), and the negative predictive value was 100% (95% CI, 97.1%-100%).

The findings suggest that the device could be used to screen for amblyopia, according to Shaival S. Shah, MD, the study’s first author, who is a pediatric ophthalmologist and regional section lead of pediatric ophthalmology, Southern California Permanente Medical Group.

“A strength of this device is that it is user friendly and easy to use and very quick, which is essential when working with young children,” said Dr. Shah in an interview. He noted that the device could be used for children as young as 2 years.

Dr. Shah pointed out that the children were recruited from a pediatrician’s office and reflect more of a “real-world setting” than had they been recruited from a pediatric ophthalmology clinic.

Dr. Shah added that, with a negative predictive value of 100%, the device is highly reliable at informing the clinician that amblyopia is not present. “It did have a positive predictive value of 26%, which needs to be considered when deciding one’s vision screening strategy,” he said.

A limitation of the study is that there was no head-to-head comparison with another screening device, noted Dr. Shah. “While it may have been more useful to include another vision screening device to have a head-to-head comparison, we did not do this to limit complexity and cost.”

Michael J. Wan, MD, FRCSC, pediatric ophthalmologist, Sick Kids Hospital, Toronto, and assistant professor at the University of Toronto, told this news organization that the device has multiple strengths, including quick acquisition time and excellent detection rate of amblyopia and strabismus in children as young as 2 years.

“It is highly reliable at informing the clinician that amblyopia is not present,” said Dr. Wan, who was not involved in the study. “The PVS uses an elegant mechanism to test for amblyopia directly (as opposed to other screening devices, which only detect risk factors). This study demonstrates the impressive diagnostic accuracy of this approach. With a study population of 300 children, the PVS had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 85% (over 90% in cooperative children). This means that the PVS would detect essentially all cases of amblyopia and strabismus while minimizing the number of unnecessary referrals and examinations.”

He added that, although the study included children as young as 2 years, only 2.5% of the children were unable to complete the PVS test. “Detecting amblyopia in children at an age when treatment is still effective has been a longstanding goal in pediatric ophthalmology,” said Dr. Wan, who described the technology as user friendly. “Based on this study, the search for an accurate and practical pediatric vision screening device appears to be over.”

Dr. Wan said it would be useful to replicate this study with a different population to confirm the findings.

Dr. Shah and Dr. Wan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared SyncThink’s Eye-Sync technology to aid in the diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury, the company has announced.

Eye-Sync is a virtual reality eye-tracking platform that provides objective measurements to aid in the assessment of concussion. It’s the first mobile, rapid test for concussion that has been cleared by the FDA, the company said.

As reported by this news organization, Eye-Sync received breakthrough designation from the FDA for this indication in March 2019.

The FDA initially cleared the Eye-Sync platform for recording, viewing, and analyzing eye movements to help clinicians identify visual tracking impairment.

The Eye-Sync technology uses a series of 60-second eye tracking assessments, neurocognitive batteries, symptom inventories, and standardized patient inventories to identify the type and severity of impairment after concussion.

“The platform generates customizable and interpretive reports that support clinical decision making and offers visual and vestibular therapies to remedy deficits and monitor improvement over time,” the company said.

In support of the application for use in concussion, SyncThink enrolled 1,655 children and adults into a clinical study that collected comprehensive patient and concussion-related data for over 12 months.

The company used these data to develop proprietary algorithms and deep learning models to identify a positive or negative indication of concussion.

The study showed that Eye-Sinc had sensitivity greater than 82% and specificity greater than 93%, “thereby providing clinicians with significant and actionable data when evaluating individuals with concussion,” the company said in a news release.

“The outcome of this study very clearly shows the effectiveness of our technology at detecting concussion and definitively demonstrates the clinical utility of Eye-Sinc,” SyncThink Chief Clinical Officer Scott Anderson said in the release.

“It also shows that the future of concussion diagnosis is no longer purely symptom-based but that of a technology driven multi-modal approach,” Mr. Anderson said.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared SyncThink’s Eye-Sync technology to aid in the diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury, the company has announced.

Eye-Sync is a virtual reality eye-tracking platform that provides objective measurements to aid in the assessment of concussion. It’s the first mobile, rapid test for concussion that has been cleared by the FDA, the company said.

As reported by this news organization, Eye-Sync received breakthrough designation from the FDA for this indication in March 2019.

The FDA initially cleared the Eye-Sync platform for recording, viewing, and analyzing eye movements to help clinicians identify visual tracking impairment.

The Eye-Sync technology uses a series of 60-second eye tracking assessments, neurocognitive batteries, symptom inventories, and standardized patient inventories to identify the type and severity of impairment after concussion.

“The platform generates customizable and interpretive reports that support clinical decision making and offers visual and vestibular therapies to remedy deficits and monitor improvement over time,” the company said.

In support of the application for use in concussion, SyncThink enrolled 1,655 children and adults into a clinical study that collected comprehensive patient and concussion-related data for over 12 months.

The company used these data to develop proprietary algorithms and deep learning models to identify a positive or negative indication of concussion.

The study showed that Eye-Sinc had sensitivity greater than 82% and specificity greater than 93%, “thereby providing clinicians with significant and actionable data when evaluating individuals with concussion,” the company said in a news release.

“The outcome of this study very clearly shows the effectiveness of our technology at detecting concussion and definitively demonstrates the clinical utility of Eye-Sinc,” SyncThink Chief Clinical Officer Scott Anderson said in the release.

“It also shows that the future of concussion diagnosis is no longer purely symptom-based but that of a technology driven multi-modal approach,” Mr. Anderson said.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared SyncThink’s Eye-Sync technology to aid in the diagnosis of mild traumatic brain injury, the company has announced.

Eye-Sync is a virtual reality eye-tracking platform that provides objective measurements to aid in the assessment of concussion. It’s the first mobile, rapid test for concussion that has been cleared by the FDA, the company said.

As reported by this news organization, Eye-Sync received breakthrough designation from the FDA for this indication in March 2019.

The FDA initially cleared the Eye-Sync platform for recording, viewing, and analyzing eye movements to help clinicians identify visual tracking impairment.

The Eye-Sync technology uses a series of 60-second eye tracking assessments, neurocognitive batteries, symptom inventories, and standardized patient inventories to identify the type and severity of impairment after concussion.

“The platform generates customizable and interpretive reports that support clinical decision making and offers visual and vestibular therapies to remedy deficits and monitor improvement over time,” the company said.

In support of the application for use in concussion, SyncThink enrolled 1,655 children and adults into a clinical study that collected comprehensive patient and concussion-related data for over 12 months.

The company used these data to develop proprietary algorithms and deep learning models to identify a positive or negative indication of concussion.

The study showed that Eye-Sinc had sensitivity greater than 82% and specificity greater than 93%, “thereby providing clinicians with significant and actionable data when evaluating individuals with concussion,” the company said in a news release.

“The outcome of this study very clearly shows the effectiveness of our technology at detecting concussion and definitively demonstrates the clinical utility of Eye-Sinc,” SyncThink Chief Clinical Officer Scott Anderson said in the release.

“It also shows that the future of concussion diagnosis is no longer purely symptom-based but that of a technology driven multi-modal approach,” Mr. Anderson said.

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

Dr. Paula Braveman, director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, says her latest research revealed an “astounding” level of evidence that racism is a decisive “upstream” cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women.

The tipping point for Dr. Paula Braveman came when a longtime patient of hers at a community clinic in San Francisco’s Mission District slipped past the front desk and knocked on her office door to say goodbye. He wouldn’t be coming to the clinic anymore, he told her, because he could no longer afford it.

It was a decisive moment for Dr. Braveman, who decided she wanted not only to heal ailing patients but also to advocate for policies that would help them be healthier when they arrived at her clinic. In the nearly four decades since, Dr. Braveman has dedicated herself to studying the “social determinants of health” – how the spaces where we live, work, play and learn, and the relationships we have in those places influence how healthy we are.

As director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Braveman has studied the link between neighborhood wealth and children’s health, and how access to insurance influences prenatal care. A longtime advocate of translating research into policy, she has collaborated on major health initiatives with the health department in San Francisco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

Dr. Braveman has a particular interest in maternal and infant health. Her latest research reviews what’s known about the persistent gap in preterm birth rates between Black and White women in the United States. Black women are about 1.6 times as likely as White women to give birth more than three weeks before the due date. That statistic bears alarming and costly health consequences, as infants born prematurely are at higher risk for breathing, heart, and brain abnormalities, among other complications.

Dr. Braveman coauthored the review with a group of experts convened by the March of Dimes that included geneticists, clinicians, epidemiologists, biomedical experts, and neurologists. They examined more than two dozen suspected causes of preterm births – including quality of prenatal care, environmental toxics, chronic stress, poverty and obesity – and determined that racism, directly or indirectly, best explained the racial disparities in preterm birth rates.

(Note: In the review, the authors make extensive use of the terms “upstream” and “downstream” to describe what determines people’s health. A downstream risk is the condition or factor most directly responsible for a health outcome, while an upstream factor is what causes or fuels the downstream risk – and often what needs to change to prevent someone from becoming sick. For example, a person living near drinking water polluted with toxic chemicals might get sick from drinking the water. The downstream fix would be telling individuals to use filters. The upstream solution would be to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals.)

KHN spoke with Dr. Braveman about the study and its findings. The excerpts have been edited for length and style.
 

Q: You have been studying the issue of preterm birth and racial disparities for so long. Were there any findings from this review that surprised you?

The process of systematically going through all of the risk factors that are written about in the literature and then seeing how the story of racism was an upstream determinant for virtually all of them. That was kind of astounding.

The other thing that was very impressive: When we looked at the idea that genetic factors could be the cause of the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. The genetics experts in the group, and there were three or four of them, concluded from the evidence that genetic factors might influence the disparity in preterm birth, but at most the effect would be very small, very small indeed. This could not account for the greater rate of preterm birth among Black women compared to White women.
 

Q: You were looking to identify not just what causes preterm birth but also to explain racial differences in rates of preterm birth. Are there examples of factors that can influence preterm birth that don’t explain racial disparities?

It does look like there are genetic components to preterm birth, but they don’t explain the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. Another example is having an early elective C-section. That’s one of the problems contributing to avoidable preterm birth, but it doesn’t look like that’s really contributing to the Black-White disparity in preterm birth.
 

Q: You and your colleagues listed exactly one upstream cause of preterm birth: racism. How would you characterize the certainty that racism is a decisive upstream cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women?

It makes me think of this saying: A randomized clinical trial wouldn’t be necessary to give certainty about the importance of having a parachute on if you jump from a plane. To me, at this point, it is close to that.

Going through that paper – and we worked on that paper over a three- or four-year period, so there was a lot of time to think about it – I don’t see how the evidence that we have could be explained otherwise.
 

Q: What did you learn about how a mother’s broader lifetime experience of racism might affect birth outcomes versus what she experienced within the medical establishment during pregnancy?

There were many ways that experiencing racial discrimination would affect a woman’s pregnancy, but one major way would be through pathways and biological mechanisms involved in stress and stress physiology. In neuroscience, what’s been clear is that a chronic stressor seems to be more damaging to health than an acute stressor.

So it doesn’t make much sense to be looking only during pregnancy. But that’s where most of that research has been done: stress during pregnancy and racial discrimination, and its role in birth outcomes. Very few studies have looked at experiences of racial discrimination across the life course.

My colleagues and I have published a paper where we asked African American women about their experiences of racism, and we didn’t even define what we meant. Women did not talk a lot about the experiences of racism during pregnancy from their medical providers; they talked about the lifetime experience and particularly experiences going back to childhood. And they talked about having to worry, and constant vigilance, so that even if they’re not experiencing an incident, their antennae have to be out to be prepared in case an incident does occur.

Putting all of it together with what we know about stress physiology, I would put my money on the lifetime experiences being so much more important than experiences during pregnancy. There isn’t enough known about preterm birth, but from what is known, inflammation is involved, immune dysfunction, and that’s what stress leads to. The neuroscientists have shown us that chronic stress produces inflammation and immune system dysfunction.

Q: What policies do you think are most important at this stage for reducing preterm birth for Black women?

I wish I could just say one policy or two policies, but I think it does get back to the need to dismantle racism in our society. In all of its manifestations. That’s unfortunate, not to be able to say, “Oh, here, I have this magic bullet, and if you just go with that, that will solve the problem.”

If you take the conclusions of this study seriously, you say, well, policies to just go after these downstream factors are not going to work. It’s up to the upstream investment in trying to achieve a more equitable and less racist society. Ultimately, I think that’s the take-home, and it’s a tall, tall order.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Dr. Paula Braveman, director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, says her latest research revealed an “astounding” level of evidence that racism is a decisive “upstream” cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women.

The tipping point for Dr. Paula Braveman came when a longtime patient of hers at a community clinic in San Francisco’s Mission District slipped past the front desk and knocked on her office door to say goodbye. He wouldn’t be coming to the clinic anymore, he told her, because he could no longer afford it.

It was a decisive moment for Dr. Braveman, who decided she wanted not only to heal ailing patients but also to advocate for policies that would help them be healthier when they arrived at her clinic. In the nearly four decades since, Dr. Braveman has dedicated herself to studying the “social determinants of health” – how the spaces where we live, work, play and learn, and the relationships we have in those places influence how healthy we are.

As director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Braveman has studied the link between neighborhood wealth and children’s health, and how access to insurance influences prenatal care. A longtime advocate of translating research into policy, she has collaborated on major health initiatives with the health department in San Francisco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

Dr. Braveman has a particular interest in maternal and infant health. Her latest research reviews what’s known about the persistent gap in preterm birth rates between Black and White women in the United States. Black women are about 1.6 times as likely as White women to give birth more than three weeks before the due date. That statistic bears alarming and costly health consequences, as infants born prematurely are at higher risk for breathing, heart, and brain abnormalities, among other complications.

Dr. Braveman coauthored the review with a group of experts convened by the March of Dimes that included geneticists, clinicians, epidemiologists, biomedical experts, and neurologists. They examined more than two dozen suspected causes of preterm births – including quality of prenatal care, environmental toxics, chronic stress, poverty and obesity – and determined that racism, directly or indirectly, best explained the racial disparities in preterm birth rates.

(Note: In the review, the authors make extensive use of the terms “upstream” and “downstream” to describe what determines people’s health. A downstream risk is the condition or factor most directly responsible for a health outcome, while an upstream factor is what causes or fuels the downstream risk – and often what needs to change to prevent someone from becoming sick. For example, a person living near drinking water polluted with toxic chemicals might get sick from drinking the water. The downstream fix would be telling individuals to use filters. The upstream solution would be to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals.)

KHN spoke with Dr. Braveman about the study and its findings. The excerpts have been edited for length and style.
 

Q: You have been studying the issue of preterm birth and racial disparities for so long. Were there any findings from this review that surprised you?

The process of systematically going through all of the risk factors that are written about in the literature and then seeing how the story of racism was an upstream determinant for virtually all of them. That was kind of astounding.

The other thing that was very impressive: When we looked at the idea that genetic factors could be the cause of the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. The genetics experts in the group, and there were three or four of them, concluded from the evidence that genetic factors might influence the disparity in preterm birth, but at most the effect would be very small, very small indeed. This could not account for the greater rate of preterm birth among Black women compared to White women.
 

Q: You were looking to identify not just what causes preterm birth but also to explain racial differences in rates of preterm birth. Are there examples of factors that can influence preterm birth that don’t explain racial disparities?

It does look like there are genetic components to preterm birth, but they don’t explain the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. Another example is having an early elective C-section. That’s one of the problems contributing to avoidable preterm birth, but it doesn’t look like that’s really contributing to the Black-White disparity in preterm birth.
 

Q: You and your colleagues listed exactly one upstream cause of preterm birth: racism. How would you characterize the certainty that racism is a decisive upstream cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women?

It makes me think of this saying: A randomized clinical trial wouldn’t be necessary to give certainty about the importance of having a parachute on if you jump from a plane. To me, at this point, it is close to that.

Going through that paper – and we worked on that paper over a three- or four-year period, so there was a lot of time to think about it – I don’t see how the evidence that we have could be explained otherwise.
 

Q: What did you learn about how a mother’s broader lifetime experience of racism might affect birth outcomes versus what she experienced within the medical establishment during pregnancy?

There were many ways that experiencing racial discrimination would affect a woman’s pregnancy, but one major way would be through pathways and biological mechanisms involved in stress and stress physiology. In neuroscience, what’s been clear is that a chronic stressor seems to be more damaging to health than an acute stressor.

So it doesn’t make much sense to be looking only during pregnancy. But that’s where most of that research has been done: stress during pregnancy and racial discrimination, and its role in birth outcomes. Very few studies have looked at experiences of racial discrimination across the life course.

My colleagues and I have published a paper where we asked African American women about their experiences of racism, and we didn’t even define what we meant. Women did not talk a lot about the experiences of racism during pregnancy from their medical providers; they talked about the lifetime experience and particularly experiences going back to childhood. And they talked about having to worry, and constant vigilance, so that even if they’re not experiencing an incident, their antennae have to be out to be prepared in case an incident does occur.

Putting all of it together with what we know about stress physiology, I would put my money on the lifetime experiences being so much more important than experiences during pregnancy. There isn’t enough known about preterm birth, but from what is known, inflammation is involved, immune dysfunction, and that’s what stress leads to. The neuroscientists have shown us that chronic stress produces inflammation and immune system dysfunction.

Q: What policies do you think are most important at this stage for reducing preterm birth for Black women?

I wish I could just say one policy or two policies, but I think it does get back to the need to dismantle racism in our society. In all of its manifestations. That’s unfortunate, not to be able to say, “Oh, here, I have this magic bullet, and if you just go with that, that will solve the problem.”

If you take the conclusions of this study seriously, you say, well, policies to just go after these downstream factors are not going to work. It’s up to the upstream investment in trying to achieve a more equitable and less racist society. Ultimately, I think that’s the take-home, and it’s a tall, tall order.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Dr. Paula Braveman, director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, says her latest research revealed an “astounding” level of evidence that racism is a decisive “upstream” cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women.

The tipping point for Dr. Paula Braveman came when a longtime patient of hers at a community clinic in San Francisco’s Mission District slipped past the front desk and knocked on her office door to say goodbye. He wouldn’t be coming to the clinic anymore, he told her, because he could no longer afford it.

It was a decisive moment for Dr. Braveman, who decided she wanted not only to heal ailing patients but also to advocate for policies that would help them be healthier when they arrived at her clinic. In the nearly four decades since, Dr. Braveman has dedicated herself to studying the “social determinants of health” – how the spaces where we live, work, play and learn, and the relationships we have in those places influence how healthy we are.

As director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Braveman has studied the link between neighborhood wealth and children’s health, and how access to insurance influences prenatal care. A longtime advocate of translating research into policy, she has collaborated on major health initiatives with the health department in San Francisco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization.

Dr. Braveman has a particular interest in maternal and infant health. Her latest research reviews what’s known about the persistent gap in preterm birth rates between Black and White women in the United States. Black women are about 1.6 times as likely as White women to give birth more than three weeks before the due date. That statistic bears alarming and costly health consequences, as infants born prematurely are at higher risk for breathing, heart, and brain abnormalities, among other complications.

Dr. Braveman coauthored the review with a group of experts convened by the March of Dimes that included geneticists, clinicians, epidemiologists, biomedical experts, and neurologists. They examined more than two dozen suspected causes of preterm births – including quality of prenatal care, environmental toxics, chronic stress, poverty and obesity – and determined that racism, directly or indirectly, best explained the racial disparities in preterm birth rates.

(Note: In the review, the authors make extensive use of the terms “upstream” and “downstream” to describe what determines people’s health. A downstream risk is the condition or factor most directly responsible for a health outcome, while an upstream factor is what causes or fuels the downstream risk – and often what needs to change to prevent someone from becoming sick. For example, a person living near drinking water polluted with toxic chemicals might get sick from drinking the water. The downstream fix would be telling individuals to use filters. The upstream solution would be to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals.)

KHN spoke with Dr. Braveman about the study and its findings. The excerpts have been edited for length and style.
 

Q: You have been studying the issue of preterm birth and racial disparities for so long. Were there any findings from this review that surprised you?

The process of systematically going through all of the risk factors that are written about in the literature and then seeing how the story of racism was an upstream determinant for virtually all of them. That was kind of astounding.

The other thing that was very impressive: When we looked at the idea that genetic factors could be the cause of the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. The genetics experts in the group, and there were three or four of them, concluded from the evidence that genetic factors might influence the disparity in preterm birth, but at most the effect would be very small, very small indeed. This could not account for the greater rate of preterm birth among Black women compared to White women.
 

Q: You were looking to identify not just what causes preterm birth but also to explain racial differences in rates of preterm birth. Are there examples of factors that can influence preterm birth that don’t explain racial disparities?

It does look like there are genetic components to preterm birth, but they don’t explain the Black-White disparity in preterm birth. Another example is having an early elective C-section. That’s one of the problems contributing to avoidable preterm birth, but it doesn’t look like that’s really contributing to the Black-White disparity in preterm birth.
 

Q: You and your colleagues listed exactly one upstream cause of preterm birth: racism. How would you characterize the certainty that racism is a decisive upstream cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women?

It makes me think of this saying: A randomized clinical trial wouldn’t be necessary to give certainty about the importance of having a parachute on if you jump from a plane. To me, at this point, it is close to that.

Going through that paper – and we worked on that paper over a three- or four-year period, so there was a lot of time to think about it – I don’t see how the evidence that we have could be explained otherwise.
 

Q: What did you learn about how a mother’s broader lifetime experience of racism might affect birth outcomes versus what she experienced within the medical establishment during pregnancy?

There were many ways that experiencing racial discrimination would affect a woman’s pregnancy, but one major way would be through pathways and biological mechanisms involved in stress and stress physiology. In neuroscience, what’s been clear is that a chronic stressor seems to be more damaging to health than an acute stressor.

So it doesn’t make much sense to be looking only during pregnancy. But that’s where most of that research has been done: stress during pregnancy and racial discrimination, and its role in birth outcomes. Very few studies have looked at experiences of racial discrimination across the life course.

My colleagues and I have published a paper where we asked African American women about their experiences of racism, and we didn’t even define what we meant. Women did not talk a lot about the experiences of racism during pregnancy from their medical providers; they talked about the lifetime experience and particularly experiences going back to childhood. And they talked about having to worry, and constant vigilance, so that even if they’re not experiencing an incident, their antennae have to be out to be prepared in case an incident does occur.

Putting all of it together with what we know about stress physiology, I would put my money on the lifetime experiences being so much more important than experiences during pregnancy. There isn’t enough known about preterm birth, but from what is known, inflammation is involved, immune dysfunction, and that’s what stress leads to. The neuroscientists have shown us that chronic stress produces inflammation and immune system dysfunction.

Q: What policies do you think are most important at this stage for reducing preterm birth for Black women?

I wish I could just say one policy or two policies, but I think it does get back to the need to dismantle racism in our society. In all of its manifestations. That’s unfortunate, not to be able to say, “Oh, here, I have this magic bullet, and if you just go with that, that will solve the problem.”

If you take the conclusions of this study seriously, you say, well, policies to just go after these downstream factors are not going to work. It’s up to the upstream investment in trying to achieve a more equitable and less racist society. Ultimately, I think that’s the take-home, and it’s a tall, tall order.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus) for the treatment of adult patients (18 years and older) with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

The therapy is the first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell treatment approved for adults with ALL.

This is a “meaningful advance,” because “roughly half of all adults with B-ALL will relapse on currently available therapies,” said Bijal Shah, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., in a press statement from the manufacturer, Kite.

“A single infusion of Tecartus has demonstrated durable responses, suggesting the potential for long-term remission and a new approach to care,” he added.

“Roughly half of all cases actually occur in adults, and unlike pediatric ALL, adult ALL has historically had a poor prognosis,” said Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, in the statement. The median overall survival (OS) is only about 8 months in this setting with current treatments, according to the company.

The new FDA approval, which is the fourth indication for brexucabtagene autoleucel, is based on results from ZUMA-3, a multicenter, single-arm study of 71 patients, with 54 efficacy-evaluable patients.

Efficacy was established on the basis of complete remission (CR) rate within 3 months after infusion and the duration of CR (DOCR). Twenty-eight (51.9%) of evaluable patients achieved CR, with a median follow-up for responders of 7.1 months. The median DOCR was not reached.

The median time to CR was 56 days. All 54 efficacy-evaluable patients had potential follow-up for 10 or more months with a median actual follow-up time of 12.3 months.

Among the 54 patients, the median time from leukapheresis to product delivery was 16 days and the median time from leukapheresis to infusion was 29 days.

Of the 17 study patients who did reach efficacy evaluation, 6 did not receive the agent because of manufacturing failure, 8 were not treated because of adverse events following leukapheresis, 2 underwent leukapheresis and received lymphodepleting chemotherapy but were not treated with the drug, and 1 treated patient was not evaluable for efficacy, per the prescribing information.

Among all patients treated with brexucabtagene autoleucel at its target dose, grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events occurred in 26% and 35% of patients, respectively, and were generally well managed, according to the company.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) among ALL patients are fever, CRS, hypotension, encephalopathy, tachycardia, nausea, chills, headache, fatigue, febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, hypoxia, rash, edema, tremor, infection with pathogen unspecified, constipation, decreased appetite, and vomiting.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicities; the drug is approved with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) because of these risks.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus) for the treatment of adult patients (18 years and older) with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

The therapy is the first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell treatment approved for adults with ALL.

This is a “meaningful advance,” because “roughly half of all adults with B-ALL will relapse on currently available therapies,” said Bijal Shah, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., in a press statement from the manufacturer, Kite.

“A single infusion of Tecartus has demonstrated durable responses, suggesting the potential for long-term remission and a new approach to care,” he added.

“Roughly half of all cases actually occur in adults, and unlike pediatric ALL, adult ALL has historically had a poor prognosis,” said Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, in the statement. The median overall survival (OS) is only about 8 months in this setting with current treatments, according to the company.

The new FDA approval, which is the fourth indication for brexucabtagene autoleucel, is based on results from ZUMA-3, a multicenter, single-arm study of 71 patients, with 54 efficacy-evaluable patients.

Efficacy was established on the basis of complete remission (CR) rate within 3 months after infusion and the duration of CR (DOCR). Twenty-eight (51.9%) of evaluable patients achieved CR, with a median follow-up for responders of 7.1 months. The median DOCR was not reached.

The median time to CR was 56 days. All 54 efficacy-evaluable patients had potential follow-up for 10 or more months with a median actual follow-up time of 12.3 months.

Among the 54 patients, the median time from leukapheresis to product delivery was 16 days and the median time from leukapheresis to infusion was 29 days.

Of the 17 study patients who did reach efficacy evaluation, 6 did not receive the agent because of manufacturing failure, 8 were not treated because of adverse events following leukapheresis, 2 underwent leukapheresis and received lymphodepleting chemotherapy but were not treated with the drug, and 1 treated patient was not evaluable for efficacy, per the prescribing information.

Among all patients treated with brexucabtagene autoleucel at its target dose, grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events occurred in 26% and 35% of patients, respectively, and were generally well managed, according to the company.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) among ALL patients are fever, CRS, hypotension, encephalopathy, tachycardia, nausea, chills, headache, fatigue, febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, hypoxia, rash, edema, tremor, infection with pathogen unspecified, constipation, decreased appetite, and vomiting.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicities; the drug is approved with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) because of these risks.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus) for the treatment of adult patients (18 years and older) with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

The therapy is the first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell treatment approved for adults with ALL.

This is a “meaningful advance,” because “roughly half of all adults with B-ALL will relapse on currently available therapies,” said Bijal Shah, MD, of Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla., in a press statement from the manufacturer, Kite.

“A single infusion of Tecartus has demonstrated durable responses, suggesting the potential for long-term remission and a new approach to care,” he added.

“Roughly half of all cases actually occur in adults, and unlike pediatric ALL, adult ALL has historically had a poor prognosis,” said Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, in the statement. The median overall survival (OS) is only about 8 months in this setting with current treatments, according to the company.

The new FDA approval, which is the fourth indication for brexucabtagene autoleucel, is based on results from ZUMA-3, a multicenter, single-arm study of 71 patients, with 54 efficacy-evaluable patients.

Efficacy was established on the basis of complete remission (CR) rate within 3 months after infusion and the duration of CR (DOCR). Twenty-eight (51.9%) of evaluable patients achieved CR, with a median follow-up for responders of 7.1 months. The median DOCR was not reached.

The median time to CR was 56 days. All 54 efficacy-evaluable patients had potential follow-up for 10 or more months with a median actual follow-up time of 12.3 months.

Among the 54 patients, the median time from leukapheresis to product delivery was 16 days and the median time from leukapheresis to infusion was 29 days.

Of the 17 study patients who did reach efficacy evaluation, 6 did not receive the agent because of manufacturing failure, 8 were not treated because of adverse events following leukapheresis, 2 underwent leukapheresis and received lymphodepleting chemotherapy but were not treated with the drug, and 1 treated patient was not evaluable for efficacy, per the prescribing information.

Among all patients treated with brexucabtagene autoleucel at its target dose, grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events occurred in 26% and 35% of patients, respectively, and were generally well managed, according to the company.

The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) among ALL patients are fever, CRS, hypotension, encephalopathy, tachycardia, nausea, chills, headache, fatigue, febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, musculoskeletal pain, hypoxia, rash, edema, tremor, infection with pathogen unspecified, constipation, decreased appetite, and vomiting.

The prescribing information includes a boxed warning about the risks of CRS and neurologic toxicities; the drug is approved with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) because of these risks.

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

The Diagnosis: Drug-Induced Hyperpigmentation

Additional history provided by the patient’s caretaker elucidated an extensive list of medications including chlorpromazine and minocycline, among several others. The caretaker revealed that the patient began treatment for acne vulgaris 2 years prior; despite the acne resolving, therapy was not discontinued. The blue-gray and brown pigmentation on our patient’s shins likely was attributed to a medication he was taking.

Both chlorpromazine and minocycline, among many other medications, are known to cause abnormal pigmentation of the skin.¹ Minocycline is a tetracycline antibiotic prescribed for acne and other inflammatory cutaneous conditions. It is highly lipophilic, allowing it to reach high drug concentrations in the skin and nail unit.² Patients taking minocycline long term and at high doses are at greatest risk for pigment deposition.^3,4

Minocycline-induced hyperpigmentation is classified into 3 types. Type I describes blue-black deposition of pigment in acne scars and areas of inflammation, typically on facial skin.^1,5 Histologically, type I stains positive for Perls Prussian blue, indicating an increased deposition of iron as hemosiderin,¹ which likely occurs because minocycline is thought to play a role in defective clearance of hemosiderin from the dermis of injured tissue.⁵ Type II hyperpigmentation presents as bluegray pigment on the lower legs and occasionally the arms.^6,7 Type II stains positive for both Perls Prussian blue and Fontana-Masson, demonstrating hemosiderin and melanin, respectively.⁶ The third form of hyperpigmentation results in diffuse, dark brown to gray pigmentation with a predilection for sun-exposed areas.⁸ Histology of type III shows increased pigment in the basal portion of the epidermis and brown-black pigment in macrophages of the dermis. Type III stains positive for Fontana-Masson and negative for Perls Prussian blue. The etiology of hyperpigmentation has been suspected to be caused by minocycline stimulating melanin production and/or deposition of minocycline-melanin complexes in dermal macrophages after a certain drug level; this largely is seen in patients receiving 100 to 200 mg daily as early as 1 year into treatment.⁸

Chlorpromazine is a typical antipsychotic that causes abnormal skin pigmentation in sun-exposed areas due to increased melanogenesis.⁹ Similar to type III minocyclineinduced hyperpigmentation, a histologic specimen may stain positive for Fontana-Masson yet negative for Perls Prussian blue. Lal et al10 demonstrated complete resolution of abnormal skin pigmentation within 5 years after stopping chlorpromazine. In contrast, minocyclineinduced hyperpigmentation may be permanent in some cases. There is substantial clinical and histologic overlap for drug-induced hyperpigmentation etiologies; it would behoove the clinician to focus on the most common locations affected and the generalized coloration.

Treatment of minocycline-induced hyperpigmentation includes the use of Q-switched lasers, specifically Q-switched ruby and Q-switched alexandrite.¹¹ The use of the Q-switched Nd:YAG laser appears to be ineffective at clearing minocycline-induced pigmentation.^7,11 In our patient, minocycline was discontinued immediately. Due to the patient’s critical condition, he deferred all other therapy. Erythema dyschromicum perstans, also referred to as ashy dermatosis, is an idiopathic form of hyperpigmentation.¹² Lesions start as blue-gray to ashy gray macules, occasionally surrounded by a slightly erythematous, raised border.

Erythema dyschromicum perstans typically presents on the trunk, face, and arms of patients with Fitzpatrick skin types III and IV; it is considered a variant of lichen planus actinicus.¹² Histologically, erythema dyschromicum perstans may mimic lichen planus pigmentosus (LPP); however, subtle differences exist to distinguish the 2 conditions. Erythema dyschromicum perstans demonstrates a mild lichenoid infiltrate, focal basal vacuolization at the dermoepidermal junction, and melanophage deposition.¹³ In contrast, LPP demonstrates pigmentary incontinence and a more severe inflammatory infiltrate. A perifollicular infiltrate and fibrosis also can be seen in LPP, which may explain the frontal fibrosing alopecia that often precedes LPP.¹³

Addison disease, also known as primary adrenal insufficiency, can cause diffuse hyperpigmentation in the skin, mucosae, and nail beds. The pigmentation is prominent in regions of naturally increased pigmentation, such as the flexural surfaces and intertriginous areas.¹⁴ Patients with adrenal insufficiency will have accompanying weight loss, hypotension, and fatigue, among other symptoms related to deficiency of cortisol and aldosterone. Skin biopsy shows acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, focal parakeratosis, spongiosis, superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, basal melanin deposition, and superficial dermal macrophages.¹⁵

Confluent and reticulated papillomatosis is an uncommon dermatosis that presents with multiple hyperpigmented macules and papules that coalesce to form patches and plaques centrally with reticulation in the periphery.¹⁶ Confluent and reticulated papillomatosis commonly presents on the upper trunk, axillae, and neck, though involvement can include flexural surfaces as well as the lower trunk and legs.^16,17 Biopsy demonstrates undulating hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, acanthosis, and negative fungal staining.¹⁶

Pretibial myxedema most commonly is associated with Graves disease and presents as well-defined thickening and induration with overlying pink or purple-brown papules in the pretibial region.¹⁸ An acral surface and mucin deposition within the entire dermis may be appreciated on histology with staining for colloidal iron or Alcian blue.

The Diagnosis: Drug-Induced Hyperpigmentation

Additional history provided by the patient’s caretaker elucidated an extensive list of medications including chlorpromazine and minocycline, among several others. The caretaker revealed that the patient began treatment for acne vulgaris 2 years prior; despite the acne resolving, therapy was not discontinued. The blue-gray and brown pigmentation on our patient’s shins likely was attributed to a medication he was taking.

Both chlorpromazine and minocycline, among many other medications, are known to cause abnormal pigmentation of the skin.¹ Minocycline is a tetracycline antibiotic prescribed for acne and other inflammatory cutaneous conditions. It is highly lipophilic, allowing it to reach high drug concentrations in the skin and nail unit.² Patients taking minocycline long term and at high doses are at greatest risk for pigment deposition.^3,4

Minocycline-induced hyperpigmentation is classified into 3 types. Type I describes blue-black deposition of pigment in acne scars and areas of inflammation, typically on facial skin.^1,5 Histologically, type I stains positive for Perls Prussian blue, indicating an increased deposition of iron as hemosiderin,¹ which likely occurs because minocycline is thought to play a role in defective clearance of hemosiderin from the dermis of injured tissue.⁵ Type II hyperpigmentation presents as bluegray pigment on the lower legs and occasionally the arms.^6,7 Type II stains positive for both Perls Prussian blue and Fontana-Masson, demonstrating hemosiderin and melanin, respectively.⁶ The third form of hyperpigmentation results in diffuse, dark brown to gray pigmentation with a predilection for sun-exposed areas.⁸ Histology of type III shows increased pigment in the basal portion of the epidermis and brown-black pigment in macrophages of the dermis. Type III stains positive for Fontana-Masson and negative for Perls Prussian blue. The etiology of hyperpigmentation has been suspected to be caused by minocycline stimulating melanin production and/or deposition of minocycline-melanin complexes in dermal macrophages after a certain drug level; this largely is seen in patients receiving 100 to 200 mg daily as early as 1 year into treatment.⁸

Chlorpromazine is a typical antipsychotic that causes abnormal skin pigmentation in sun-exposed areas due to increased melanogenesis.⁹ Similar to type III minocyclineinduced hyperpigmentation, a histologic specimen may stain positive for Fontana-Masson yet negative for Perls Prussian blue. Lal et al10 demonstrated complete resolution of abnormal skin pigmentation within 5 years after stopping chlorpromazine. In contrast, minocyclineinduced hyperpigmentation may be permanent in some cases. There is substantial clinical and histologic overlap for drug-induced hyperpigmentation etiologies; it would behoove the clinician to focus on the most common locations affected and the generalized coloration.

Treatment of minocycline-induced hyperpigmentation includes the use of Q-switched lasers, specifically Q-switched ruby and Q-switched alexandrite.¹¹ The use of the Q-switched Nd:YAG laser appears to be ineffective at clearing minocycline-induced pigmentation.^7,11 In our patient, minocycline was discontinued immediately. Due to the patient’s critical condition, he deferred all other therapy. Erythema dyschromicum perstans, also referred to as ashy dermatosis, is an idiopathic form of hyperpigmentation.¹² Lesions start as blue-gray to ashy gray macules, occasionally surrounded by a slightly erythematous, raised border.

Erythema dyschromicum perstans typically presents on the trunk, face, and arms of patients with Fitzpatrick skin types III and IV; it is considered a variant of lichen planus actinicus.¹² Histologically, erythema dyschromicum perstans may mimic lichen planus pigmentosus (LPP); however, subtle differences exist to distinguish the 2 conditions. Erythema dyschromicum perstans demonstrates a mild lichenoid infiltrate, focal basal vacuolization at the dermoepidermal junction, and melanophage deposition.¹³ In contrast, LPP demonstrates pigmentary incontinence and a more severe inflammatory infiltrate. A perifollicular infiltrate and fibrosis also can be seen in LPP, which may explain the frontal fibrosing alopecia that often precedes LPP.¹³

Addison disease, also known as primary adrenal insufficiency, can cause diffuse hyperpigmentation in the skin, mucosae, and nail beds. The pigmentation is prominent in regions of naturally increased pigmentation, such as the flexural surfaces and intertriginous areas.¹⁴ Patients with adrenal insufficiency will have accompanying weight loss, hypotension, and fatigue, among other symptoms related to deficiency of cortisol and aldosterone. Skin biopsy shows acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, focal parakeratosis, spongiosis, superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, basal melanin deposition, and superficial dermal macrophages.¹⁵

Confluent and reticulated papillomatosis is an uncommon dermatosis that presents with multiple hyperpigmented macules and papules that coalesce to form patches and plaques centrally with reticulation in the periphery.¹⁶ Confluent and reticulated papillomatosis commonly presents on the upper trunk, axillae, and neck, though involvement can include flexural surfaces as well as the lower trunk and legs.^16,17 Biopsy demonstrates undulating hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, acanthosis, and negative fungal staining.¹⁶

Pretibial myxedema most commonly is associated with Graves disease and presents as well-defined thickening and induration with overlying pink or purple-brown papules in the pretibial region.¹⁸ An acral surface and mucin deposition within the entire dermis may be appreciated on histology with staining for colloidal iron or Alcian blue.

The Diagnosis: Drug-Induced Hyperpigmentation

Additional history provided by the patient’s caretaker elucidated an extensive list of medications including chlorpromazine and minocycline, among several others. The caretaker revealed that the patient began treatment for acne vulgaris 2 years prior; despite the acne resolving, therapy was not discontinued. The blue-gray and brown pigmentation on our patient’s shins likely was attributed to a medication he was taking.

Both chlorpromazine and minocycline, among many other medications, are known to cause abnormal pigmentation of the skin.¹ Minocycline is a tetracycline antibiotic prescribed for acne and other inflammatory cutaneous conditions. It is highly lipophilic, allowing it to reach high drug concentrations in the skin and nail unit.² Patients taking minocycline long term and at high doses are at greatest risk for pigment deposition.^3,4

Minocycline-induced hyperpigmentation is classified into 3 types. Type I describes blue-black deposition of pigment in acne scars and areas of inflammation, typically on facial skin.^1,5 Histologically, type I stains positive for Perls Prussian blue, indicating an increased deposition of iron as hemosiderin,¹ which likely occurs because minocycline is thought to play a role in defective clearance of hemosiderin from the dermis of injured tissue.⁵ Type II hyperpigmentation presents as bluegray pigment on the lower legs and occasionally the arms.^6,7 Type II stains positive for both Perls Prussian blue and Fontana-Masson, demonstrating hemosiderin and melanin, respectively.⁶ The third form of hyperpigmentation results in diffuse, dark brown to gray pigmentation with a predilection for sun-exposed areas.⁸ Histology of type III shows increased pigment in the basal portion of the epidermis and brown-black pigment in macrophages of the dermis. Type III stains positive for Fontana-Masson and negative for Perls Prussian blue. The etiology of hyperpigmentation has been suspected to be caused by minocycline stimulating melanin production and/or deposition of minocycline-melanin complexes in dermal macrophages after a certain drug level; this largely is seen in patients receiving 100 to 200 mg daily as early as 1 year into treatment.⁸

Chlorpromazine is a typical antipsychotic that causes abnormal skin pigmentation in sun-exposed areas due to increased melanogenesis.⁹ Similar to type III minocyclineinduced hyperpigmentation, a histologic specimen may stain positive for Fontana-Masson yet negative for Perls Prussian blue. Lal et al10 demonstrated complete resolution of abnormal skin pigmentation within 5 years after stopping chlorpromazine. In contrast, minocyclineinduced hyperpigmentation may be permanent in some cases. There is substantial clinical and histologic overlap for drug-induced hyperpigmentation etiologies; it would behoove the clinician to focus on the most common locations affected and the generalized coloration.

Treatment of minocycline-induced hyperpigmentation includes the use of Q-switched lasers, specifically Q-switched ruby and Q-switched alexandrite.¹¹ The use of the Q-switched Nd:YAG laser appears to be ineffective at clearing minocycline-induced pigmentation.^7,11 In our patient, minocycline was discontinued immediately. Due to the patient’s critical condition, he deferred all other therapy. Erythema dyschromicum perstans, also referred to as ashy dermatosis, is an idiopathic form of hyperpigmentation.¹² Lesions start as blue-gray to ashy gray macules, occasionally surrounded by a slightly erythematous, raised border.

Erythema dyschromicum perstans typically presents on the trunk, face, and arms of patients with Fitzpatrick skin types III and IV; it is considered a variant of lichen planus actinicus.¹² Histologically, erythema dyschromicum perstans may mimic lichen planus pigmentosus (LPP); however, subtle differences exist to distinguish the 2 conditions. Erythema dyschromicum perstans demonstrates a mild lichenoid infiltrate, focal basal vacuolization at the dermoepidermal junction, and melanophage deposition.¹³ In contrast, LPP demonstrates pigmentary incontinence and a more severe inflammatory infiltrate. A perifollicular infiltrate and fibrosis also can be seen in LPP, which may explain the frontal fibrosing alopecia that often precedes LPP.¹³

Addison disease, also known as primary adrenal insufficiency, can cause diffuse hyperpigmentation in the skin, mucosae, and nail beds. The pigmentation is prominent in regions of naturally increased pigmentation, such as the flexural surfaces and intertriginous areas.¹⁴ Patients with adrenal insufficiency will have accompanying weight loss, hypotension, and fatigue, among other symptoms related to deficiency of cortisol and aldosterone. Skin biopsy shows acanthosis, hyperkeratosis, focal parakeratosis, spongiosis, superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate, basal melanin deposition, and superficial dermal macrophages.¹⁵

Confluent and reticulated papillomatosis is an uncommon dermatosis that presents with multiple hyperpigmented macules and papules that coalesce to form patches and plaques centrally with reticulation in the periphery.¹⁶ Confluent and reticulated papillomatosis commonly presents on the upper trunk, axillae, and neck, though involvement can include flexural surfaces as well as the lower trunk and legs.^16,17 Biopsy demonstrates undulating hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, acanthosis, and negative fungal staining.¹⁶

Pretibial myxedema most commonly is associated with Graves disease and presents as well-defined thickening and induration with overlying pink or purple-brown papules in the pretibial region.¹⁸ An acral surface and mucin deposition within the entire dermis may be appreciated on histology with staining for colloidal iron or Alcian blue.

Even third-degree relatives of people with early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) are at elevated risk for the disease, according to a study that researchers say could influence screening recommendations.

Among first-degree relatives, there was a sixfold increased risk of developing the malignancy before age 50 in comparison with the general population. Among second- and third-degree relatives, the risk was 1.5 times higher.

Family history is a recognized risk factor for CRC. Roughly 1 in 10 cases of CRC in the United States occurs in people younger than 50 years. It has not been clear to what extent having relatives with early-onset CRC contributes to risk beyond familial syndromes and whether risk extends beyond first-degree relatives, according to study author Lisa A. Cannon-Albright, PhD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The new findings suggest “that extended family history should be part of the discussion when making cancer screening decisions,” the researchers write. Their study appears in the August issue of Cancer Epidemiology.

The authors used the Utah Population Data Base (UPDB) to examine genealogies in which more than three generations were linked to the Utah Cancer Registry. The analysis comprised all CRC cases for which there were linked genealogy data.

Of the 1,510 cases of early-onset CRC that the team identified, the risk for CRC was 6.00, 3.09, and 1.56 times higher than expected on the basis of UPDB disease rates for first-, second-, and third-degree relatives, respectively. All results were statistically significant.

The authors also found that individuals with a first-degree relative with early-onset CRC were at 2.64-fold higher risk for CRC at any age. The risk was 1.96-fold higher risk with a second-degree relative and 1.3-fold higher with a third-degree relative. In other words, “the risk for [early-onset] CRC is higher than the risk for CRC at any age, for all degrees of relatives shown,” the team writes.

“Significantly elevated risk for CRC at both locations (left or right) was observed for all degrees of relationship; however the confidence intervals are overlapping, suggesting no difference in risk of left- vs. right-sided CRC,” they state.

The findings held up when the researchers used a genealogic index of familiality test instead of calculating relative risk. Although the authors were unable to exclude from the analysis people with inherited syndromes, they say that it is not likely that Lynch syndrome is driving the results, given that more than three-quarters of the early-onset CRC cases were left-sided, “and Lynch primarily occurs in the proximal colon.”

The authors caution, however, that the majority of the study population were of Northern European ancestry, which could limit generalizability to other groups.

Currently, there are no screening guidelines for second- or third-degree relatives of persons with early-onset CRC unless Lynch syndrome or another genetic condition is identified, the researchers write.

The authors note that their findings suggest that early colonoscopy screening may be considered not only for first-degree relatives, but also for second- and possibly third-degree relatives of persons who have early-onset CRC and that the findings could “influence future CRC screening recommendations.

“Relatives may also benefit from an evaluation with genetic counseling to assess underlying inherited conditions,” they write. “However, we note that there are important considerations in the need for resources to accomplish earlier population-based CRC screening.”

The study was supported by the Utah Cancer Registry, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute’s SEER Program, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries. Additional support was provided by the University of Utah and Huntsman Cancer Foundation. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Even third-degree relatives of people with early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) are at elevated risk for the disease, according to a study that researchers say could influence screening recommendations.

Among first-degree relatives, there was a sixfold increased risk of developing the malignancy before age 50 in comparison with the general population. Among second- and third-degree relatives, the risk was 1.5 times higher.

Family history is a recognized risk factor for CRC. Roughly 1 in 10 cases of CRC in the United States occurs in people younger than 50 years. It has not been clear to what extent having relatives with early-onset CRC contributes to risk beyond familial syndromes and whether risk extends beyond first-degree relatives, according to study author Lisa A. Cannon-Albright, PhD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The new findings suggest “that extended family history should be part of the discussion when making cancer screening decisions,” the researchers write. Their study appears in the August issue of Cancer Epidemiology.

The authors used the Utah Population Data Base (UPDB) to examine genealogies in which more than three generations were linked to the Utah Cancer Registry. The analysis comprised all CRC cases for which there were linked genealogy data.

Of the 1,510 cases of early-onset CRC that the team identified, the risk for CRC was 6.00, 3.09, and 1.56 times higher than expected on the basis of UPDB disease rates for first-, second-, and third-degree relatives, respectively. All results were statistically significant.

The authors also found that individuals with a first-degree relative with early-onset CRC were at 2.64-fold higher risk for CRC at any age. The risk was 1.96-fold higher risk with a second-degree relative and 1.3-fold higher with a third-degree relative. In other words, “the risk for [early-onset] CRC is higher than the risk for CRC at any age, for all degrees of relatives shown,” the team writes.

“Significantly elevated risk for CRC at both locations (left or right) was observed for all degrees of relationship; however the confidence intervals are overlapping, suggesting no difference in risk of left- vs. right-sided CRC,” they state.

The findings held up when the researchers used a genealogic index of familiality test instead of calculating relative risk. Although the authors were unable to exclude from the analysis people with inherited syndromes, they say that it is not likely that Lynch syndrome is driving the results, given that more than three-quarters of the early-onset CRC cases were left-sided, “and Lynch primarily occurs in the proximal colon.”

The authors caution, however, that the majority of the study population were of Northern European ancestry, which could limit generalizability to other groups.

Currently, there are no screening guidelines for second- or third-degree relatives of persons with early-onset CRC unless Lynch syndrome or another genetic condition is identified, the researchers write.

The authors note that their findings suggest that early colonoscopy screening may be considered not only for first-degree relatives, but also for second- and possibly third-degree relatives of persons who have early-onset CRC and that the findings could “influence future CRC screening recommendations.

“Relatives may also benefit from an evaluation with genetic counseling to assess underlying inherited conditions,” they write. “However, we note that there are important considerations in the need for resources to accomplish earlier population-based CRC screening.”

The study was supported by the Utah Cancer Registry, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute’s SEER Program, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries. Additional support was provided by the University of Utah and Huntsman Cancer Foundation. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Even third-degree relatives of people with early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) are at elevated risk for the disease, according to a study that researchers say could influence screening recommendations.

Among first-degree relatives, there was a sixfold increased risk of developing the malignancy before age 50 in comparison with the general population. Among second- and third-degree relatives, the risk was 1.5 times higher.

Family history is a recognized risk factor for CRC. Roughly 1 in 10 cases of CRC in the United States occurs in people younger than 50 years. It has not been clear to what extent having relatives with early-onset CRC contributes to risk beyond familial syndromes and whether risk extends beyond first-degree relatives, according to study author Lisa A. Cannon-Albright, PhD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The new findings suggest “that extended family history should be part of the discussion when making cancer screening decisions,” the researchers write. Their study appears in the August issue of Cancer Epidemiology.

The authors used the Utah Population Data Base (UPDB) to examine genealogies in which more than three generations were linked to the Utah Cancer Registry. The analysis comprised all CRC cases for which there were linked genealogy data.

Of the 1,510 cases of early-onset CRC that the team identified, the risk for CRC was 6.00, 3.09, and 1.56 times higher than expected on the basis of UPDB disease rates for first-, second-, and third-degree relatives, respectively. All results were statistically significant.

The authors also found that individuals with a first-degree relative with early-onset CRC were at 2.64-fold higher risk for CRC at any age. The risk was 1.96-fold higher risk with a second-degree relative and 1.3-fold higher with a third-degree relative. In other words, “the risk for [early-onset] CRC is higher than the risk for CRC at any age, for all degrees of relatives shown,” the team writes.

“Significantly elevated risk for CRC at both locations (left or right) was observed for all degrees of relationship; however the confidence intervals are overlapping, suggesting no difference in risk of left- vs. right-sided CRC,” they state.

The findings held up when the researchers used a genealogic index of familiality test instead of calculating relative risk. Although the authors were unable to exclude from the analysis people with inherited syndromes, they say that it is not likely that Lynch syndrome is driving the results, given that more than three-quarters of the early-onset CRC cases were left-sided, “and Lynch primarily occurs in the proximal colon.”

The authors caution, however, that the majority of the study population were of Northern European ancestry, which could limit generalizability to other groups.

Currently, there are no screening guidelines for second- or third-degree relatives of persons with early-onset CRC unless Lynch syndrome or another genetic condition is identified, the researchers write.

The authors note that their findings suggest that early colonoscopy screening may be considered not only for first-degree relatives, but also for second- and possibly third-degree relatives of persons who have early-onset CRC and that the findings could “influence future CRC screening recommendations.

“Relatives may also benefit from an evaluation with genetic counseling to assess underlying inherited conditions,” they write. “However, we note that there are important considerations in the need for resources to accomplish earlier population-based CRC screening.”

The study was supported by the Utah Cancer Registry, which is funded by the National Cancer Institute’s SEER Program, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries. Additional support was provided by the University of Utah and Huntsman Cancer Foundation. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Discovery of substantial atrial fibrillation (AFib) is usually an indication to start oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention, but it’s far from settled whether such AFib is actually a direct cause of thromboembolic stroke. And that has implications for whether patients with occasional bouts of the arrhythmia need to be on continuous OAC.  

It’s possible that some with infrequent paroxysmal AFib can get away with OAC maintained only about as long as the arrhythmia persists, and then go off the drugs, say researchers based on their study, which, they caution, would need the support of prospective trials before such a strategy could be considered.

But importantly, in their patients who had been continuously monitored by their cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) prior to experiencing a stroke, the 30-day risk of that stroke more than tripled if their AFib burden on 1 day reached at least 5-6 hours. The risk jumped especially high within the first few days after accumulating that amount of AFib in a day, but then fell off sharply over the next few days.

Based on the study, “Your risk of stroke goes up acutely when you have an episode of AFib, and it decreases rapidly, back to baseline – certainly by 30 days and it looked like in our data by 5 days,” Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

Increasingly, he noted, “there’s a widespread belief that AFib is a risk marker, not a causal risk factor.” In that scenario, most embolic strokes are caused by thrombi formed as a result of an atrial myopathy, characterized by fibrosis and inflammation, that also happens to trigger AFib.

But the current findings are, “from a mechanistic point of view, very much in favor of AFib being a causal risk factor, acutely raising the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Singer, who is lead author on the analysis published online Sept. 29 in JAMA Cardiology.

Some studies have “shown that anticoagulants seem to lower stroke risk even in patients without atrial fib, and even from sources not likely to be coming from the atrium,” Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, Palo Alto, said in an interview. Collectively they point to “atrial fibrillation as a cause of and a noncausal marker for stroke.”

For example, Dr. Turakhia pointed out in an editorial accompanying the current report that stroke in patients with CIEDs “may occur during prolonged periods of sinus rhythm.”

The current study, he said in an interview, doesn’t preclude atrial myopathy as one direct cause of stroke-associated thrombus, because probably both the myopathy and AFib can be culprits. Still, AFib itself it may bear more responsibility for strokes in patients with fewer competing risks for stroke.

In such patients at lower vascular risk, who may have a CHA2DS2-VASc score of only 1 or 2, for example, “AFib can become a more important cause” of ischemic stroke, Dr. Turakhia said. That’s when AFib is more likely to be temporally related to stroke as the likely culprit, the mechanism addressed by Dr. Singer and associates.

“I think we’re all trying to grapple with what the truth is,” Dr. Singer observed. Still, the current study was unusual for primarily looking at the temporal relationship between AFib and stroke, rather than stroke risk. “And once again, as we found in our earlier study, but now a much larger study, it’s a tight relationship.”

Based on the current results, he said, the risk is “high when you have AFib, and it decreases very rapidly after the AFib is over.” And, “it takes multiple hours of AFib to raise stroke risk.” Inclusion in the analysis required accumulation of at least 5.5 hours of AFib on at least 1 day in a month, the cut point at which stroke risk started to climb significantly in an earlier trial.  

In the current analysis, however, the 30-day odds ratio for stroke was a nonsignificant 2.75 for an AFib burden of 6-23 hours in a day and jumped to a significant 5.0 for a burden in excess of 23 hours in a day. “That’s a lot of AFib” before the risk actually goes up, and supports AFib as causative, Dr. Singer said. If it were the myopathy itself triggering stroke in these particular patients, the risk would be ongoing and not subject to a threshold of AFib burden.
 

Implications for noncontinuous OAC

“The hope is that there are people who have very little AFib: They may have several hours, and then they have nothing for 6 months. Do they have to be anticoagulated or not?” Dr. Singer asked.

“If you believe the risk-marker story, you might say they have to be anticoagulated. But if you believe our results, you would certainly think there’s a good chance they don’t have to be anticoagulated,” he said.

“So it is logical to think, if you have the right people and continuous monitoring, that you could have time-delimited anticoagulation.” That is, patients might start right away on a direct OAC once reaching the AFib threshold in a day, Dr. Singer said, “going on and off anticoagulants in parallel with their episodes of AFib.”

The strategy wouldn’t be feasible in patients who often experience AFib, Dr. Singer noted, “but it might work for people who have infrequent paroxysmal AFib.” It certainly would first have to be tested in prospective trials, he said. Such trials would be more practical than ever to carry out given the growing availability of continuous AFib monitoring by wearables.

“We need a trial to make the case whether it’s safe or not,” Dr. Turakhia said of such a rhythm-guided approach to OAC for AFib. The population to start with, he said, would be patients with paroxysmal AFib and low CHA2DS2-VASc scores. “If you think CHA2DS2-VASc as an integrated score of vascular risk, such patients would have a lot fewer reasons to have strokes. And if they do have a stroke, it’s more reasonable to assume that it’s likely caused by atrial fib and not just a marker.”

Importantly, such a strategy could well be safer than continuous OAC for some patients – those at the lowest vascular risk and with the most occasional AFib and lowest AFib burden “who are otherwise doing fine,” Dr. Turakhia said. In such patients on continuous OAC, he proposed, the risks of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage could potentially exceed the expected degree of protection from ischemic events.
 

Discordant periods of AFib burden

Dr. Singer and his colleagues linked a national electronic health record database with Medtronic CareLink records covering 10 years to identify 891 patients who experienced an ischemic stroke preceded by at least 120 days of continuous heart-rhythm monitoring.

The patients were then categorized by their pattern of AFib, if any, within each of two prestroke periods: the most recent 30 days, which was the test period, and the preceding 91-120 days, the control period.

The analysis then excluded any patients who reached an AFib-burden threshold of at least 5.5 hours on any day during both the test and control periods, and those who did not attain that threshold in either period.

“The ones who had AFib in both periods mostly had permanent AFib, and ones that didn’t have AFib in either period mostly were in sinus rhythm,” Dr. Singer said. It was “close to 100%” in both cases.

Those exclusions left 66 patients, 7.4% of the total, who reached the AFib-burden threshold on at least 1 day during either the test or control periods, but not both. They included 52 and 14 patients, respectively, with “discordant” periods, that is, at least that burden of AFib in a day during either the test or control period, but not both.

Comparing AFib burden at test versus control periods among patients for whom the two periods were discordant yielded an OR for stroke of 3.71 (95% confidence interval, 2.06-6.70).

Stroke risk levels were not evenly spread throughout the 24-hour periods that met the AFib-burden threshold or the 30 days preceding the patients’ strokes. The OR for stroke was 5.00 (95% CI, 2.62-9.55) during days 1-5 following the day in which the AFib-burden threshold was met. And it was 5.00 (95% CI, 2.08-12.01) over 30 days if the AFib burden exceeded 23 hours on any day of the test period.

The study’s case-crossover design, in which each patient served as their own control, is one of its advantages, Dr. Singer observed. Most patient features, including CHA2DS2-VASc score and comorbidities, did not change appreciably from earliest to the latest 30-day period, which strengthens the comparison of the two because “you don’t have to worry about long-term confounding.”

Dr. Singer was supported by the Eliot B. and Edith C. Shoolman fund of the Massachusetts General Hospital. He discloses receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol-Myers Squibb; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer; and royalties from UpToDate.

Dr. Turakhia discloses personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Sanofi, Pfizer, Myokardia, Johnson & Johnson, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, InCarda Therapeutics, 100Plus, Forward Pharma, and AliveCor; and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the American Heart Association, Apple, and Bayer.

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

Discovery of substantial atrial fibrillation (AFib) is usually an indication to start oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention, but it’s far from settled whether such AFib is actually a direct cause of thromboembolic stroke. And that has implications for whether patients with occasional bouts of the arrhythmia need to be on continuous OAC.  

It’s possible that some with infrequent paroxysmal AFib can get away with OAC maintained only about as long as the arrhythmia persists, and then go off the drugs, say researchers based on their study, which, they caution, would need the support of prospective trials before such a strategy could be considered.

But importantly, in their patients who had been continuously monitored by their cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) prior to experiencing a stroke, the 30-day risk of that stroke more than tripled if their AFib burden on 1 day reached at least 5-6 hours. The risk jumped especially high within the first few days after accumulating that amount of AFib in a day, but then fell off sharply over the next few days.

Based on the study, “Your risk of stroke goes up acutely when you have an episode of AFib, and it decreases rapidly, back to baseline – certainly by 30 days and it looked like in our data by 5 days,” Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

Increasingly, he noted, “there’s a widespread belief that AFib is a risk marker, not a causal risk factor.” In that scenario, most embolic strokes are caused by thrombi formed as a result of an atrial myopathy, characterized by fibrosis and inflammation, that also happens to trigger AFib.

But the current findings are, “from a mechanistic point of view, very much in favor of AFib being a causal risk factor, acutely raising the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Singer, who is lead author on the analysis published online Sept. 29 in JAMA Cardiology.

Some studies have “shown that anticoagulants seem to lower stroke risk even in patients without atrial fib, and even from sources not likely to be coming from the atrium,” Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, Palo Alto, said in an interview. Collectively they point to “atrial fibrillation as a cause of and a noncausal marker for stroke.”

For example, Dr. Turakhia pointed out in an editorial accompanying the current report that stroke in patients with CIEDs “may occur during prolonged periods of sinus rhythm.”

The current study, he said in an interview, doesn’t preclude atrial myopathy as one direct cause of stroke-associated thrombus, because probably both the myopathy and AFib can be culprits. Still, AFib itself it may bear more responsibility for strokes in patients with fewer competing risks for stroke.

In such patients at lower vascular risk, who may have a CHA2DS2-VASc score of only 1 or 2, for example, “AFib can become a more important cause” of ischemic stroke, Dr. Turakhia said. That’s when AFib is more likely to be temporally related to stroke as the likely culprit, the mechanism addressed by Dr. Singer and associates.

“I think we’re all trying to grapple with what the truth is,” Dr. Singer observed. Still, the current study was unusual for primarily looking at the temporal relationship between AFib and stroke, rather than stroke risk. “And once again, as we found in our earlier study, but now a much larger study, it’s a tight relationship.”

Based on the current results, he said, the risk is “high when you have AFib, and it decreases very rapidly after the AFib is over.” And, “it takes multiple hours of AFib to raise stroke risk.” Inclusion in the analysis required accumulation of at least 5.5 hours of AFib on at least 1 day in a month, the cut point at which stroke risk started to climb significantly in an earlier trial.  

In the current analysis, however, the 30-day odds ratio for stroke was a nonsignificant 2.75 for an AFib burden of 6-23 hours in a day and jumped to a significant 5.0 for a burden in excess of 23 hours in a day. “That’s a lot of AFib” before the risk actually goes up, and supports AFib as causative, Dr. Singer said. If it were the myopathy itself triggering stroke in these particular patients, the risk would be ongoing and not subject to a threshold of AFib burden.
 

Implications for noncontinuous OAC

“The hope is that there are people who have very little AFib: They may have several hours, and then they have nothing for 6 months. Do they have to be anticoagulated or not?” Dr. Singer asked.

“If you believe the risk-marker story, you might say they have to be anticoagulated. But if you believe our results, you would certainly think there’s a good chance they don’t have to be anticoagulated,” he said.

“So it is logical to think, if you have the right people and continuous monitoring, that you could have time-delimited anticoagulation.” That is, patients might start right away on a direct OAC once reaching the AFib threshold in a day, Dr. Singer said, “going on and off anticoagulants in parallel with their episodes of AFib.”

The strategy wouldn’t be feasible in patients who often experience AFib, Dr. Singer noted, “but it might work for people who have infrequent paroxysmal AFib.” It certainly would first have to be tested in prospective trials, he said. Such trials would be more practical than ever to carry out given the growing availability of continuous AFib monitoring by wearables.

“We need a trial to make the case whether it’s safe or not,” Dr. Turakhia said of such a rhythm-guided approach to OAC for AFib. The population to start with, he said, would be patients with paroxysmal AFib and low CHA2DS2-VASc scores. “If you think CHA2DS2-VASc as an integrated score of vascular risk, such patients would have a lot fewer reasons to have strokes. And if they do have a stroke, it’s more reasonable to assume that it’s likely caused by atrial fib and not just a marker.”

Importantly, such a strategy could well be safer than continuous OAC for some patients – those at the lowest vascular risk and with the most occasional AFib and lowest AFib burden “who are otherwise doing fine,” Dr. Turakhia said. In such patients on continuous OAC, he proposed, the risks of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage could potentially exceed the expected degree of protection from ischemic events.
 

Discordant periods of AFib burden

Dr. Singer and his colleagues linked a national electronic health record database with Medtronic CareLink records covering 10 years to identify 891 patients who experienced an ischemic stroke preceded by at least 120 days of continuous heart-rhythm monitoring.

The patients were then categorized by their pattern of AFib, if any, within each of two prestroke periods: the most recent 30 days, which was the test period, and the preceding 91-120 days, the control period.

The analysis then excluded any patients who reached an AFib-burden threshold of at least 5.5 hours on any day during both the test and control periods, and those who did not attain that threshold in either period.

“The ones who had AFib in both periods mostly had permanent AFib, and ones that didn’t have AFib in either period mostly were in sinus rhythm,” Dr. Singer said. It was “close to 100%” in both cases.

Those exclusions left 66 patients, 7.4% of the total, who reached the AFib-burden threshold on at least 1 day during either the test or control periods, but not both. They included 52 and 14 patients, respectively, with “discordant” periods, that is, at least that burden of AFib in a day during either the test or control period, but not both.

Comparing AFib burden at test versus control periods among patients for whom the two periods were discordant yielded an OR for stroke of 3.71 (95% confidence interval, 2.06-6.70).

Stroke risk levels were not evenly spread throughout the 24-hour periods that met the AFib-burden threshold or the 30 days preceding the patients’ strokes. The OR for stroke was 5.00 (95% CI, 2.62-9.55) during days 1-5 following the day in which the AFib-burden threshold was met. And it was 5.00 (95% CI, 2.08-12.01) over 30 days if the AFib burden exceeded 23 hours on any day of the test period.

The study’s case-crossover design, in which each patient served as their own control, is one of its advantages, Dr. Singer observed. Most patient features, including CHA2DS2-VASc score and comorbidities, did not change appreciably from earliest to the latest 30-day period, which strengthens the comparison of the two because “you don’t have to worry about long-term confounding.”

Dr. Singer was supported by the Eliot B. and Edith C. Shoolman fund of the Massachusetts General Hospital. He discloses receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol-Myers Squibb; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer; and royalties from UpToDate.

Dr. Turakhia discloses personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Sanofi, Pfizer, Myokardia, Johnson & Johnson, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, InCarda Therapeutics, 100Plus, Forward Pharma, and AliveCor; and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the American Heart Association, Apple, and Bayer.

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

Discovery of substantial atrial fibrillation (AFib) is usually an indication to start oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention, but it’s far from settled whether such AFib is actually a direct cause of thromboembolic stroke. And that has implications for whether patients with occasional bouts of the arrhythmia need to be on continuous OAC.  

It’s possible that some with infrequent paroxysmal AFib can get away with OAC maintained only about as long as the arrhythmia persists, and then go off the drugs, say researchers based on their study, which, they caution, would need the support of prospective trials before such a strategy could be considered.

But importantly, in their patients who had been continuously monitored by their cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) prior to experiencing a stroke, the 30-day risk of that stroke more than tripled if their AFib burden on 1 day reached at least 5-6 hours. The risk jumped especially high within the first few days after accumulating that amount of AFib in a day, but then fell off sharply over the next few days.

Based on the study, “Your risk of stroke goes up acutely when you have an episode of AFib, and it decreases rapidly, back to baseline – certainly by 30 days and it looked like in our data by 5 days,” Daniel E. Singer, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

Increasingly, he noted, “there’s a widespread belief that AFib is a risk marker, not a causal risk factor.” In that scenario, most embolic strokes are caused by thrombi formed as a result of an atrial myopathy, characterized by fibrosis and inflammation, that also happens to trigger AFib.

But the current findings are, “from a mechanistic point of view, very much in favor of AFib being a causal risk factor, acutely raising the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Singer, who is lead author on the analysis published online Sept. 29 in JAMA Cardiology.

Some studies have “shown that anticoagulants seem to lower stroke risk even in patients without atrial fib, and even from sources not likely to be coming from the atrium,” Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, Palo Alto, said in an interview. Collectively they point to “atrial fibrillation as a cause of and a noncausal marker for stroke.”

For example, Dr. Turakhia pointed out in an editorial accompanying the current report that stroke in patients with CIEDs “may occur during prolonged periods of sinus rhythm.”

The current study, he said in an interview, doesn’t preclude atrial myopathy as one direct cause of stroke-associated thrombus, because probably both the myopathy and AFib can be culprits. Still, AFib itself it may bear more responsibility for strokes in patients with fewer competing risks for stroke.

In such patients at lower vascular risk, who may have a CHA2DS2-VASc score of only 1 or 2, for example, “AFib can become a more important cause” of ischemic stroke, Dr. Turakhia said. That’s when AFib is more likely to be temporally related to stroke as the likely culprit, the mechanism addressed by Dr. Singer and associates.

“I think we’re all trying to grapple with what the truth is,” Dr. Singer observed. Still, the current study was unusual for primarily looking at the temporal relationship between AFib and stroke, rather than stroke risk. “And once again, as we found in our earlier study, but now a much larger study, it’s a tight relationship.”

Based on the current results, he said, the risk is “high when you have AFib, and it decreases very rapidly after the AFib is over.” And, “it takes multiple hours of AFib to raise stroke risk.” Inclusion in the analysis required accumulation of at least 5.5 hours of AFib on at least 1 day in a month, the cut point at which stroke risk started to climb significantly in an earlier trial.  

In the current analysis, however, the 30-day odds ratio for stroke was a nonsignificant 2.75 for an AFib burden of 6-23 hours in a day and jumped to a significant 5.0 for a burden in excess of 23 hours in a day. “That’s a lot of AFib” before the risk actually goes up, and supports AFib as causative, Dr. Singer said. If it were the myopathy itself triggering stroke in these particular patients, the risk would be ongoing and not subject to a threshold of AFib burden.
 

Implications for noncontinuous OAC

“The hope is that there are people who have very little AFib: They may have several hours, and then they have nothing for 6 months. Do they have to be anticoagulated or not?” Dr. Singer asked.

“If you believe the risk-marker story, you might say they have to be anticoagulated. But if you believe our results, you would certainly think there’s a good chance they don’t have to be anticoagulated,” he said.

“So it is logical to think, if you have the right people and continuous monitoring, that you could have time-delimited anticoagulation.” That is, patients might start right away on a direct OAC once reaching the AFib threshold in a day, Dr. Singer said, “going on and off anticoagulants in parallel with their episodes of AFib.”

The strategy wouldn’t be feasible in patients who often experience AFib, Dr. Singer noted, “but it might work for people who have infrequent paroxysmal AFib.” It certainly would first have to be tested in prospective trials, he said. Such trials would be more practical than ever to carry out given the growing availability of continuous AFib monitoring by wearables.

“We need a trial to make the case whether it’s safe or not,” Dr. Turakhia said of such a rhythm-guided approach to OAC for AFib. The population to start with, he said, would be patients with paroxysmal AFib and low CHA2DS2-VASc scores. “If you think CHA2DS2-VASc as an integrated score of vascular risk, such patients would have a lot fewer reasons to have strokes. And if they do have a stroke, it’s more reasonable to assume that it’s likely caused by atrial fib and not just a marker.”

Importantly, such a strategy could well be safer than continuous OAC for some patients – those at the lowest vascular risk and with the most occasional AFib and lowest AFib burden “who are otherwise doing fine,” Dr. Turakhia said. In such patients on continuous OAC, he proposed, the risks of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage could potentially exceed the expected degree of protection from ischemic events.
 

Discordant periods of AFib burden

Dr. Singer and his colleagues linked a national electronic health record database with Medtronic CareLink records covering 10 years to identify 891 patients who experienced an ischemic stroke preceded by at least 120 days of continuous heart-rhythm monitoring.

The patients were then categorized by their pattern of AFib, if any, within each of two prestroke periods: the most recent 30 days, which was the test period, and the preceding 91-120 days, the control period.

The analysis then excluded any patients who reached an AFib-burden threshold of at least 5.5 hours on any day during both the test and control periods, and those who did not attain that threshold in either period.

“The ones who had AFib in both periods mostly had permanent AFib, and ones that didn’t have AFib in either period mostly were in sinus rhythm,” Dr. Singer said. It was “close to 100%” in both cases.

Those exclusions left 66 patients, 7.4% of the total, who reached the AFib-burden threshold on at least 1 day during either the test or control periods, but not both. They included 52 and 14 patients, respectively, with “discordant” periods, that is, at least that burden of AFib in a day during either the test or control period, but not both.

Comparing AFib burden at test versus control periods among patients for whom the two periods were discordant yielded an OR for stroke of 3.71 (95% confidence interval, 2.06-6.70).

Stroke risk levels were not evenly spread throughout the 24-hour periods that met the AFib-burden threshold or the 30 days preceding the patients’ strokes. The OR for stroke was 5.00 (95% CI, 2.62-9.55) during days 1-5 following the day in which the AFib-burden threshold was met. And it was 5.00 (95% CI, 2.08-12.01) over 30 days if the AFib burden exceeded 23 hours on any day of the test period.

The study’s case-crossover design, in which each patient served as their own control, is one of its advantages, Dr. Singer observed. Most patient features, including CHA2DS2-VASc score and comorbidities, did not change appreciably from earliest to the latest 30-day period, which strengthens the comparison of the two because “you don’t have to worry about long-term confounding.”

Dr. Singer was supported by the Eliot B. and Edith C. Shoolman fund of the Massachusetts General Hospital. He discloses receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol-Myers Squibb; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer; and royalties from UpToDate.

Dr. Turakhia discloses personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Sanofi, Pfizer, Myokardia, Johnson & Johnson, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, InCarda Therapeutics, 100Plus, Forward Pharma, and AliveCor; and grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the American Heart Association, Apple, and Bayer.

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