Converge 2021 session

Making The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies Work for You

Presenters

Erin Fisher, MD, MHM, FAAP; Sandra Gage, MD, PhD, SFHM, FAAP; Jennifer Maniscalco, MD, MPH, MAcM, FAAP; Sofia Teferi, MD, SFHM, FAAP

Session summary

The Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) Core Competencies were originally published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2010, and created a framework for graduate and continuing medical education, reflecting the roles and expectations for all pediatric hospitalists in the United States. Since that time, the field of PHM, scope of practice, and roles of hospitalists has evolved, making a substantial update to this dossier necessary.

The 2020 PHM Core Competencies consist of four sections, including common clinical diagnoses and conditions, specialized services, core skills, and the health care system. The four topics are covered in 66 chapters, which were updated or created for the present version.

The Core Competencies have many practical applications, including teaching or curriculum development, which may be used by trainees as well as PHM providers. The speakers gave real-world examples of the competencies’ application to evaluations, and the continuum of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and system implementation in the development of a trainee from student to practicing hospitalist. Trainees’ knowledge gaps can be identified using the competencies, and utilization of the provided compendium will help identify sources that can aid in teaching.

Professional development is an excellent way to utilize the Core Competencies. Division directors may identify a needed area for improvement and the competencies can serve as a road map for establishing goals, plan development, and analysis of results of the intervention. They are also a great resource for PHM board prep. Although the competencies were not developed specifically for the PHM boards, they do contain all 13 PHM content domains set forth by the American Board of Pediatrics for PHM.

The Core Competencies can also be used to justify service line needs and resources in discussions with administration. For instance, if one is a pediatric hospitalist at a community hospital and asked to take over the newborn nursery, the competencies can be used to get buy-in from the group, as a guide for additional training, to provide a framework for development of practice pathways, and to request resources needed.

The Pediatric Core Competencies are a great resource for pediatric hospitalists and group leaders with many uses, from board preparation to education and professional development. They provide a framework for improvement of knowledge, skills, and attitudes within an organization.
 

Key takeaways

• Given a change in scope of practice of pediatric hospitalists over the past 10 years, the PHM Core Competencies were updated and published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2020.
• The Core Competencies have many practical applications including education, curriculum development, professional development, and PHM board preparation.
• The Core Competencies provide a framework for improvement of knowledge, skills, and attitudes within an organization.

Dr. Schwenk is a pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital in Louisville, Ky., where he serves as a medical director of inpatient services. He is an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. He is a Senior Fellow of Hospital Medicine and has served on the executive council of the Pediatrics Special Interest Group and the Annual Meeting Committee for SHM Converge.

Converge 2021 session

Making The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies Work for You

Presenters

Erin Fisher, MD, MHM, FAAP; Sandra Gage, MD, PhD, SFHM, FAAP; Jennifer Maniscalco, MD, MPH, MAcM, FAAP; Sofia Teferi, MD, SFHM, FAAP

Session summary

The Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) Core Competencies were originally published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2010, and created a framework for graduate and continuing medical education, reflecting the roles and expectations for all pediatric hospitalists in the United States. Since that time, the field of PHM, scope of practice, and roles of hospitalists has evolved, making a substantial update to this dossier necessary.

The 2020 PHM Core Competencies consist of four sections, including common clinical diagnoses and conditions, specialized services, core skills, and the health care system. The four topics are covered in 66 chapters, which were updated or created for the present version.

The Core Competencies have many practical applications, including teaching or curriculum development, which may be used by trainees as well as PHM providers. The speakers gave real-world examples of the competencies’ application to evaluations, and the continuum of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and system implementation in the development of a trainee from student to practicing hospitalist. Trainees’ knowledge gaps can be identified using the competencies, and utilization of the provided compendium will help identify sources that can aid in teaching.

Professional development is an excellent way to utilize the Core Competencies. Division directors may identify a needed area for improvement and the competencies can serve as a road map for establishing goals, plan development, and analysis of results of the intervention. They are also a great resource for PHM board prep. Although the competencies were not developed specifically for the PHM boards, they do contain all 13 PHM content domains set forth by the American Board of Pediatrics for PHM.

The Core Competencies can also be used to justify service line needs and resources in discussions with administration. For instance, if one is a pediatric hospitalist at a community hospital and asked to take over the newborn nursery, the competencies can be used to get buy-in from the group, as a guide for additional training, to provide a framework for development of practice pathways, and to request resources needed.

The Pediatric Core Competencies are a great resource for pediatric hospitalists and group leaders with many uses, from board preparation to education and professional development. They provide a framework for improvement of knowledge, skills, and attitudes within an organization.
 

Key takeaways

• Given a change in scope of practice of pediatric hospitalists over the past 10 years, the PHM Core Competencies were updated and published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2020.
• The Core Competencies have many practical applications including education, curriculum development, professional development, and PHM board preparation.
• The Core Competencies provide a framework for improvement of knowledge, skills, and attitudes within an organization.

Dr. Schwenk is a pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital in Louisville, Ky., where he serves as a medical director of inpatient services. He is an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. He is a Senior Fellow of Hospital Medicine and has served on the executive council of the Pediatrics Special Interest Group and the Annual Meeting Committee for SHM Converge.

Converge 2021 session

Making The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies Work for You

Presenters

Erin Fisher, MD, MHM, FAAP; Sandra Gage, MD, PhD, SFHM, FAAP; Jennifer Maniscalco, MD, MPH, MAcM, FAAP; Sofia Teferi, MD, SFHM, FAAP

Session summary

The Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) Core Competencies were originally published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2010, and created a framework for graduate and continuing medical education, reflecting the roles and expectations for all pediatric hospitalists in the United States. Since that time, the field of PHM, scope of practice, and roles of hospitalists has evolved, making a substantial update to this dossier necessary.

The 2020 PHM Core Competencies consist of four sections, including common clinical diagnoses and conditions, specialized services, core skills, and the health care system. The four topics are covered in 66 chapters, which were updated or created for the present version.

The Core Competencies have many practical applications, including teaching or curriculum development, which may be used by trainees as well as PHM providers. The speakers gave real-world examples of the competencies’ application to evaluations, and the continuum of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and system implementation in the development of a trainee from student to practicing hospitalist. Trainees’ knowledge gaps can be identified using the competencies, and utilization of the provided compendium will help identify sources that can aid in teaching.

Professional development is an excellent way to utilize the Core Competencies. Division directors may identify a needed area for improvement and the competencies can serve as a road map for establishing goals, plan development, and analysis of results of the intervention. They are also a great resource for PHM board prep. Although the competencies were not developed specifically for the PHM boards, they do contain all 13 PHM content domains set forth by the American Board of Pediatrics for PHM.

The Core Competencies can also be used to justify service line needs and resources in discussions with administration. For instance, if one is a pediatric hospitalist at a community hospital and asked to take over the newborn nursery, the competencies can be used to get buy-in from the group, as a guide for additional training, to provide a framework for development of practice pathways, and to request resources needed.

The Pediatric Core Competencies are a great resource for pediatric hospitalists and group leaders with many uses, from board preparation to education and professional development. They provide a framework for improvement of knowledge, skills, and attitudes within an organization.
 

Key takeaways

• Given a change in scope of practice of pediatric hospitalists over the past 10 years, the PHM Core Competencies were updated and published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2020.
• The Core Competencies have many practical applications including education, curriculum development, professional development, and PHM board preparation.
• The Core Competencies provide a framework for improvement of knowledge, skills, and attitudes within an organization.

Dr. Schwenk is a pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital in Louisville, Ky., where he serves as a medical director of inpatient services. He is an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. He is a Senior Fellow of Hospital Medicine and has served on the executive council of the Pediatrics Special Interest Group and the Annual Meeting Committee for SHM Converge.

The newly updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definitions and endpoints proposed for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) research aim to add more granularity and a patient focus to a rapidly evolving field, the authors say.

Work began in 2016 to update definitions in the document to be more contemporary, as TAVR matured over the last 10 years to include younger, lower-risk patients and began moving to long-term outcomes, lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, said in an interview.

“The main change in VARC-3 is really that we tried to define not only procedural outcome, both for TAVR and aortic valve replacement performed by surgery, but also more the long-term outcomes mainly based on the patient – so quality of life, bioprosthetic valve failure, how do we define a valve failure, and also the need for rehospitalization,” he said.

However, soon after the VARC-3 document was published on April 19, 2021, in the European Heart Journal and Journal of the American College of Cardiology, surgeons took to social media to highlight the writing committee’s financial ties to industry and to suggest some definitions were shaped to favor transcatheter approaches.

“There’s no doubt that the coauthors who participated in these guidelines are experts; nobody would argue about that but what we can argue, and I’m 100% sure about, is that we have experts outside the payroll of industry who are excellent and can be part of this guideline drafting in an unbiased way,” Victor Dayan, MD, adjunct professor of cardiac surgery, National Institute of Cardiac Surgery, Montevideo, Uruguay, said in an interview.

Although the American College of Physicians recommends guideline committee members with moderate- or high-level conflicts of interest recuse themselves from authorship, he noted that one author has received more than $2 million in fees from industry in the past 4-5 years.

In all, 20 of 23 authors were involved in PARTNER, SURTAVI, and PORTICO, and several also write clinical guidelines for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. “So we have the same authors that are judge, jury, and attorney for these issues,” Dr. Dayan said.

In a comment, J. Rafael Sádaba, MD, PhD, interim secretary general for the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, pointed out that only three committee members are surgeons and that author disclosures took up nearly a full page of the document. “Surely they would be able to find very capable physicians with far less conflicts of interest.”

Dr. Sádaba said the question to him is why professional societies like ACC and AHA don’t define the endpoints for the clinical trials that will inform their guidelines.

“One could say these people are there because they’re good scientists, trialists, but one at least has to ask why is this happening. Why are these people setting the rules for the trials they’re running?” said Dr. Sádaba, of the Royal Navarre Hospital, Pamplona, Spain.

Dr. Généreux dismissed the Twitter comments as coming from a handful of people who engage in conspiracy theories. The VARC-3 document, he said, was created with input from 75 experts, including Food and Drug Administration officials, and the final document was reviewed by the FDA and underwent rigorous peer review prior to publication.

“The question is: do you believe there is bias when people are involved in studies driven by the industry? Well, this is where we derive our science in this field,” he said. “We are very transparent and disclose our conflicts of interest [COI].”

Commenting further, Dr. Généreux added, “this was a very well-balanced group and to imply that because we work with industry, we don’t have the best interest of the patient in mind is wrong.”

Editor in chief of the EHJ, Filippo Crea, MD, PhD, Catholic University, Rome, said in an comment that “it is not surprising that most of the authors have experience in TAVR trials. All of the authors have carefully disclosed their COIs.”

He noted that the EHJ and JACC copublished the first VARC consensus in 2011, VARC-2 1 year later, and that VARC-3 was reviewed by four external reviewers and two editors and was accepted for publication after two revisions.

Asked about a shot on social media that the EHJ had long ago “sold its soul” to be the scientific “arm” of industry, Dr. Crea said allegations need to be substantiated by facts.

“The wide adoption of VARC definitions implies that they have been well accepted by the scientific community and that they have stood the test of time,” Dr. Crea said. “EHJ has a history of publishing high-quality science. We welcome robust arguments that may challenge previously published work. Readers who perceive gaps are encouraged to provide a detailed challenge and engage with the journal.”
 

Defining hospitalizations

One of the surgeons’ biggest concerns is that VARC-3 now defines hospitalization or rehospitalization as “any admission after the index hospitalization or study enrollment” for at least 24 hours, including an ED stay.

VARC-2 and SURTAVI defined hospitalizations as those for valve-related symptoms or worsening heart failure, whereas the newly reformulated definition of hospitalization was part of the main composite endpoint in the PARTNER-3 trial, along with stroke and mortality, that drove the superiority of TAVR over SAVR at 1 year for low-risk patients, Dr. Dayan noted.

“It’s not uncommon for patients who have cardiac surgery to come back for issues related to wound healing or mild pulmonary edema for a day or 2, and if you include these hospitalizations in the primary endpoint, it will dilute the real benefit of SAVR versus TAVR, which is mortality and stroke,” he added.

In choosing the broader definition, Dr. Généreux said they borrowed from heart failure studies that take a granular approach and account for every hospitalization, be it for a medication change or adjustment. “We cannot pick and choose which hospitalization we are going to consider or ignore.”

VARC-3 proposes criteria for identifying and diagnosing hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) and reduced leaflet motion and features a detailed chart of the new classification scheme for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure.

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction includes structural valve deterioration, nonstructural valve dysfunction (including abnormalities not intrinsic to the valve such as paravalvular regurgitation or prosthesis-patient mismatch), thrombosis, and endocarditis. VARC-3 proposes a five-class grading system for paravalvular regurgitation (mild, mild-moderate, moderate, moderate-severe, severe).

The document updates what the authors called a “previously vague definition” of valve thrombosis proposed in 2011 to now include “clinically significant” prosthetic valve thrombosis. This requires clinical sequelae of a thromboembolic event (stroke, transient ischemic attack, retinal occlusion, or other evidence of thromboembolism) or worsening valve stenosis/regurgitation and either hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 2 or 3 or confirmatory imaging (CT evidence of HALT or transesophageal echocardiographic findings). In the absence of symptoms/clinical sequelae, valve thrombosis (subclinical) can be diagnosed if there is hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 3 and confirmatory imaging.

Bioprosthetic valve failure is divided into three stages, with stage 1 taking into account clinical factors along with valve dysfunction, stage 2 being reintervention, and stage 3 being valve-related death.

“For us, bioprosthesis valve failure is not only the need for reintervention, but it’s also mortality, it’s also a significant increase in gradient or the occurrence of paravalvular leak,” said Dr. Généreux, of the Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “So it’s much more clinical.”
 

Stroke, myocardial infarction

VARC-3 provides detailed definitions of neurologic events and, in an attempt to harmonize with the Neurologic Academic Research Consortium, recommends combining assessment of neurologic symptoms with tissue-based criteria (pathology or neuroimaging, ideally diffusion-weighted MRI) to define stroke and other central nervous system injury.

It also recommends that assessment be performed 30-90 days after a neurologic event and that assessment of neurologic deficits for cerebral embolic protection trials be performed by a neurologist.

VARC-3 endorses the fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction for MI types 1-3, 4B, and 4C.

For periprocedural MI after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary bypass graft surgery, TAVR, and SAVR, however, it endorses the modified Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and Academic Research Consortium-2 definition, which uses troponin or creatine kinase-MB thresholds.

“Given that most current and future studies related to AVR strategies will involve long-term follow-up, with patients frequently suffering from coronary artery disease, VARC-3 believes that these definitions will allow the most appropriate characterization and classification of types of MI occurring in this population,” the committee wrote.

The decision comes after last year’s controversy surrounding the Abbott-sponsored EXCEL trial, which used a modified version of the SCAI definition for periprocedural MI as part of its primary composite endpoint of death, stroke, and MI.

Initial reports showed nearly twice the rate of periprocedural MI with cardiac surgery as with PCI, but after a BBC investigation involving leaked data and an onslaught of criticism from surgeons, later results using the third universal definition showed surgery had the advantage.

The debacle frayed relations between surgeons and interventionalists and prompted EACTS to withdraw its support for treatment recommendations for left main coronary artery disease.

Dr. Dayan applauded VARC-3 for incorporating more detailed information on stroke and neurologic events, but said the use of the SCAI definition in the final published document is in “total disregard” to the controversy generated among surgeons and interventionalists.

“The main concern for surgeons is defining periprocedural MI just by biochemical definitions, without any additional criteria like ECG, angiographic,” he said. “This is totally new and goes against what surgeons have been advocating for years around EXCEL.”

Dr. Sádaba was troubled by the definitions of MI and hospitalization, but also questioned other changes, like lumping vascular complications together with access-related complications. “The sense is a lot of what they’ve put here favors one type of intervention over the other.”

Dr. Généreux reported receiving consultant fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular System, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, and has equity in Pi-Cardia, Sig.Num, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Saranas, and Puzzle Medical. Dr. Crea reported receiving personal fees from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and AstraZeneca, and is a member of the advisory board of GlyCardial Diagnostics. Dr. Dayan and Dr. Sádaba reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The newly updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definitions and endpoints proposed for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) research aim to add more granularity and a patient focus to a rapidly evolving field, the authors say.

Work began in 2016 to update definitions in the document to be more contemporary, as TAVR matured over the last 10 years to include younger, lower-risk patients and began moving to long-term outcomes, lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, said in an interview.

“The main change in VARC-3 is really that we tried to define not only procedural outcome, both for TAVR and aortic valve replacement performed by surgery, but also more the long-term outcomes mainly based on the patient – so quality of life, bioprosthetic valve failure, how do we define a valve failure, and also the need for rehospitalization,” he said.

However, soon after the VARC-3 document was published on April 19, 2021, in the European Heart Journal and Journal of the American College of Cardiology, surgeons took to social media to highlight the writing committee’s financial ties to industry and to suggest some definitions were shaped to favor transcatheter approaches.

“There’s no doubt that the coauthors who participated in these guidelines are experts; nobody would argue about that but what we can argue, and I’m 100% sure about, is that we have experts outside the payroll of industry who are excellent and can be part of this guideline drafting in an unbiased way,” Victor Dayan, MD, adjunct professor of cardiac surgery, National Institute of Cardiac Surgery, Montevideo, Uruguay, said in an interview.

Although the American College of Physicians recommends guideline committee members with moderate- or high-level conflicts of interest recuse themselves from authorship, he noted that one author has received more than $2 million in fees from industry in the past 4-5 years.

In all, 20 of 23 authors were involved in PARTNER, SURTAVI, and PORTICO, and several also write clinical guidelines for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. “So we have the same authors that are judge, jury, and attorney for these issues,” Dr. Dayan said.

In a comment, J. Rafael Sádaba, MD, PhD, interim secretary general for the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, pointed out that only three committee members are surgeons and that author disclosures took up nearly a full page of the document. “Surely they would be able to find very capable physicians with far less conflicts of interest.”

Dr. Sádaba said the question to him is why professional societies like ACC and AHA don’t define the endpoints for the clinical trials that will inform their guidelines.

“One could say these people are there because they’re good scientists, trialists, but one at least has to ask why is this happening. Why are these people setting the rules for the trials they’re running?” said Dr. Sádaba, of the Royal Navarre Hospital, Pamplona, Spain.

Dr. Généreux dismissed the Twitter comments as coming from a handful of people who engage in conspiracy theories. The VARC-3 document, he said, was created with input from 75 experts, including Food and Drug Administration officials, and the final document was reviewed by the FDA and underwent rigorous peer review prior to publication.

“The question is: do you believe there is bias when people are involved in studies driven by the industry? Well, this is where we derive our science in this field,” he said. “We are very transparent and disclose our conflicts of interest [COI].”

Commenting further, Dr. Généreux added, “this was a very well-balanced group and to imply that because we work with industry, we don’t have the best interest of the patient in mind is wrong.”

Editor in chief of the EHJ, Filippo Crea, MD, PhD, Catholic University, Rome, said in an comment that “it is not surprising that most of the authors have experience in TAVR trials. All of the authors have carefully disclosed their COIs.”

He noted that the EHJ and JACC copublished the first VARC consensus in 2011, VARC-2 1 year later, and that VARC-3 was reviewed by four external reviewers and two editors and was accepted for publication after two revisions.

Asked about a shot on social media that the EHJ had long ago “sold its soul” to be the scientific “arm” of industry, Dr. Crea said allegations need to be substantiated by facts.

“The wide adoption of VARC definitions implies that they have been well accepted by the scientific community and that they have stood the test of time,” Dr. Crea said. “EHJ has a history of publishing high-quality science. We welcome robust arguments that may challenge previously published work. Readers who perceive gaps are encouraged to provide a detailed challenge and engage with the journal.”
 

Defining hospitalizations

One of the surgeons’ biggest concerns is that VARC-3 now defines hospitalization or rehospitalization as “any admission after the index hospitalization or study enrollment” for at least 24 hours, including an ED stay.

VARC-2 and SURTAVI defined hospitalizations as those for valve-related symptoms or worsening heart failure, whereas the newly reformulated definition of hospitalization was part of the main composite endpoint in the PARTNER-3 trial, along with stroke and mortality, that drove the superiority of TAVR over SAVR at 1 year for low-risk patients, Dr. Dayan noted.

“It’s not uncommon for patients who have cardiac surgery to come back for issues related to wound healing or mild pulmonary edema for a day or 2, and if you include these hospitalizations in the primary endpoint, it will dilute the real benefit of SAVR versus TAVR, which is mortality and stroke,” he added.

In choosing the broader definition, Dr. Généreux said they borrowed from heart failure studies that take a granular approach and account for every hospitalization, be it for a medication change or adjustment. “We cannot pick and choose which hospitalization we are going to consider or ignore.”

VARC-3 proposes criteria for identifying and diagnosing hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) and reduced leaflet motion and features a detailed chart of the new classification scheme for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure.

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction includes structural valve deterioration, nonstructural valve dysfunction (including abnormalities not intrinsic to the valve such as paravalvular regurgitation or prosthesis-patient mismatch), thrombosis, and endocarditis. VARC-3 proposes a five-class grading system for paravalvular regurgitation (mild, mild-moderate, moderate, moderate-severe, severe).

The document updates what the authors called a “previously vague definition” of valve thrombosis proposed in 2011 to now include “clinically significant” prosthetic valve thrombosis. This requires clinical sequelae of a thromboembolic event (stroke, transient ischemic attack, retinal occlusion, or other evidence of thromboembolism) or worsening valve stenosis/regurgitation and either hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 2 or 3 or confirmatory imaging (CT evidence of HALT or transesophageal echocardiographic findings). In the absence of symptoms/clinical sequelae, valve thrombosis (subclinical) can be diagnosed if there is hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 3 and confirmatory imaging.

Bioprosthetic valve failure is divided into three stages, with stage 1 taking into account clinical factors along with valve dysfunction, stage 2 being reintervention, and stage 3 being valve-related death.

“For us, bioprosthesis valve failure is not only the need for reintervention, but it’s also mortality, it’s also a significant increase in gradient or the occurrence of paravalvular leak,” said Dr. Généreux, of the Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “So it’s much more clinical.”
 

Stroke, myocardial infarction

VARC-3 provides detailed definitions of neurologic events and, in an attempt to harmonize with the Neurologic Academic Research Consortium, recommends combining assessment of neurologic symptoms with tissue-based criteria (pathology or neuroimaging, ideally diffusion-weighted MRI) to define stroke and other central nervous system injury.

It also recommends that assessment be performed 30-90 days after a neurologic event and that assessment of neurologic deficits for cerebral embolic protection trials be performed by a neurologist.

VARC-3 endorses the fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction for MI types 1-3, 4B, and 4C.

For periprocedural MI after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary bypass graft surgery, TAVR, and SAVR, however, it endorses the modified Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and Academic Research Consortium-2 definition, which uses troponin or creatine kinase-MB thresholds.

“Given that most current and future studies related to AVR strategies will involve long-term follow-up, with patients frequently suffering from coronary artery disease, VARC-3 believes that these definitions will allow the most appropriate characterization and classification of types of MI occurring in this population,” the committee wrote.

The decision comes after last year’s controversy surrounding the Abbott-sponsored EXCEL trial, which used a modified version of the SCAI definition for periprocedural MI as part of its primary composite endpoint of death, stroke, and MI.

Initial reports showed nearly twice the rate of periprocedural MI with cardiac surgery as with PCI, but after a BBC investigation involving leaked data and an onslaught of criticism from surgeons, later results using the third universal definition showed surgery had the advantage.

The debacle frayed relations between surgeons and interventionalists and prompted EACTS to withdraw its support for treatment recommendations for left main coronary artery disease.

Dr. Dayan applauded VARC-3 for incorporating more detailed information on stroke and neurologic events, but said the use of the SCAI definition in the final published document is in “total disregard” to the controversy generated among surgeons and interventionalists.

“The main concern for surgeons is defining periprocedural MI just by biochemical definitions, without any additional criteria like ECG, angiographic,” he said. “This is totally new and goes against what surgeons have been advocating for years around EXCEL.”

Dr. Sádaba was troubled by the definitions of MI and hospitalization, but also questioned other changes, like lumping vascular complications together with access-related complications. “The sense is a lot of what they’ve put here favors one type of intervention over the other.”

Dr. Généreux reported receiving consultant fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular System, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, and has equity in Pi-Cardia, Sig.Num, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Saranas, and Puzzle Medical. Dr. Crea reported receiving personal fees from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and AstraZeneca, and is a member of the advisory board of GlyCardial Diagnostics. Dr. Dayan and Dr. Sádaba reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The newly updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definitions and endpoints proposed for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) research aim to add more granularity and a patient focus to a rapidly evolving field, the authors say.

Work began in 2016 to update definitions in the document to be more contemporary, as TAVR matured over the last 10 years to include younger, lower-risk patients and began moving to long-term outcomes, lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, said in an interview.

“The main change in VARC-3 is really that we tried to define not only procedural outcome, both for TAVR and aortic valve replacement performed by surgery, but also more the long-term outcomes mainly based on the patient – so quality of life, bioprosthetic valve failure, how do we define a valve failure, and also the need for rehospitalization,” he said.

However, soon after the VARC-3 document was published on April 19, 2021, in the European Heart Journal and Journal of the American College of Cardiology, surgeons took to social media to highlight the writing committee’s financial ties to industry and to suggest some definitions were shaped to favor transcatheter approaches.

“There’s no doubt that the coauthors who participated in these guidelines are experts; nobody would argue about that but what we can argue, and I’m 100% sure about, is that we have experts outside the payroll of industry who are excellent and can be part of this guideline drafting in an unbiased way,” Victor Dayan, MD, adjunct professor of cardiac surgery, National Institute of Cardiac Surgery, Montevideo, Uruguay, said in an interview.

Although the American College of Physicians recommends guideline committee members with moderate- or high-level conflicts of interest recuse themselves from authorship, he noted that one author has received more than $2 million in fees from industry in the past 4-5 years.

In all, 20 of 23 authors were involved in PARTNER, SURTAVI, and PORTICO, and several also write clinical guidelines for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. “So we have the same authors that are judge, jury, and attorney for these issues,” Dr. Dayan said.

In a comment, J. Rafael Sádaba, MD, PhD, interim secretary general for the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, pointed out that only three committee members are surgeons and that author disclosures took up nearly a full page of the document. “Surely they would be able to find very capable physicians with far less conflicts of interest.”

Dr. Sádaba said the question to him is why professional societies like ACC and AHA don’t define the endpoints for the clinical trials that will inform their guidelines.

“One could say these people are there because they’re good scientists, trialists, but one at least has to ask why is this happening. Why are these people setting the rules for the trials they’re running?” said Dr. Sádaba, of the Royal Navarre Hospital, Pamplona, Spain.

Dr. Généreux dismissed the Twitter comments as coming from a handful of people who engage in conspiracy theories. The VARC-3 document, he said, was created with input from 75 experts, including Food and Drug Administration officials, and the final document was reviewed by the FDA and underwent rigorous peer review prior to publication.

“The question is: do you believe there is bias when people are involved in studies driven by the industry? Well, this is where we derive our science in this field,” he said. “We are very transparent and disclose our conflicts of interest [COI].”

Commenting further, Dr. Généreux added, “this was a very well-balanced group and to imply that because we work with industry, we don’t have the best interest of the patient in mind is wrong.”

Editor in chief of the EHJ, Filippo Crea, MD, PhD, Catholic University, Rome, said in an comment that “it is not surprising that most of the authors have experience in TAVR trials. All of the authors have carefully disclosed their COIs.”

He noted that the EHJ and JACC copublished the first VARC consensus in 2011, VARC-2 1 year later, and that VARC-3 was reviewed by four external reviewers and two editors and was accepted for publication after two revisions.

Asked about a shot on social media that the EHJ had long ago “sold its soul” to be the scientific “arm” of industry, Dr. Crea said allegations need to be substantiated by facts.

“The wide adoption of VARC definitions implies that they have been well accepted by the scientific community and that they have stood the test of time,” Dr. Crea said. “EHJ has a history of publishing high-quality science. We welcome robust arguments that may challenge previously published work. Readers who perceive gaps are encouraged to provide a detailed challenge and engage with the journal.”
 

Defining hospitalizations

One of the surgeons’ biggest concerns is that VARC-3 now defines hospitalization or rehospitalization as “any admission after the index hospitalization or study enrollment” for at least 24 hours, including an ED stay.

VARC-2 and SURTAVI defined hospitalizations as those for valve-related symptoms or worsening heart failure, whereas the newly reformulated definition of hospitalization was part of the main composite endpoint in the PARTNER-3 trial, along with stroke and mortality, that drove the superiority of TAVR over SAVR at 1 year for low-risk patients, Dr. Dayan noted.

“It’s not uncommon for patients who have cardiac surgery to come back for issues related to wound healing or mild pulmonary edema for a day or 2, and if you include these hospitalizations in the primary endpoint, it will dilute the real benefit of SAVR versus TAVR, which is mortality and stroke,” he added.

In choosing the broader definition, Dr. Généreux said they borrowed from heart failure studies that take a granular approach and account for every hospitalization, be it for a medication change or adjustment. “We cannot pick and choose which hospitalization we are going to consider or ignore.”

VARC-3 proposes criteria for identifying and diagnosing hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) and reduced leaflet motion and features a detailed chart of the new classification scheme for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure.

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction includes structural valve deterioration, nonstructural valve dysfunction (including abnormalities not intrinsic to the valve such as paravalvular regurgitation or prosthesis-patient mismatch), thrombosis, and endocarditis. VARC-3 proposes a five-class grading system for paravalvular regurgitation (mild, mild-moderate, moderate, moderate-severe, severe).

The document updates what the authors called a “previously vague definition” of valve thrombosis proposed in 2011 to now include “clinically significant” prosthetic valve thrombosis. This requires clinical sequelae of a thromboembolic event (stroke, transient ischemic attack, retinal occlusion, or other evidence of thromboembolism) or worsening valve stenosis/regurgitation and either hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 2 or 3 or confirmatory imaging (CT evidence of HALT or transesophageal echocardiographic findings). In the absence of symptoms/clinical sequelae, valve thrombosis (subclinical) can be diagnosed if there is hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 3 and confirmatory imaging.

Bioprosthetic valve failure is divided into three stages, with stage 1 taking into account clinical factors along with valve dysfunction, stage 2 being reintervention, and stage 3 being valve-related death.

“For us, bioprosthesis valve failure is not only the need for reintervention, but it’s also mortality, it’s also a significant increase in gradient or the occurrence of paravalvular leak,” said Dr. Généreux, of the Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “So it’s much more clinical.”
 

Stroke, myocardial infarction

VARC-3 provides detailed definitions of neurologic events and, in an attempt to harmonize with the Neurologic Academic Research Consortium, recommends combining assessment of neurologic symptoms with tissue-based criteria (pathology or neuroimaging, ideally diffusion-weighted MRI) to define stroke and other central nervous system injury.

It also recommends that assessment be performed 30-90 days after a neurologic event and that assessment of neurologic deficits for cerebral embolic protection trials be performed by a neurologist.

VARC-3 endorses the fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction for MI types 1-3, 4B, and 4C.

For periprocedural MI after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary bypass graft surgery, TAVR, and SAVR, however, it endorses the modified Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and Academic Research Consortium-2 definition, which uses troponin or creatine kinase-MB thresholds.

“Given that most current and future studies related to AVR strategies will involve long-term follow-up, with patients frequently suffering from coronary artery disease, VARC-3 believes that these definitions will allow the most appropriate characterization and classification of types of MI occurring in this population,” the committee wrote.

The decision comes after last year’s controversy surrounding the Abbott-sponsored EXCEL trial, which used a modified version of the SCAI definition for periprocedural MI as part of its primary composite endpoint of death, stroke, and MI.

Initial reports showed nearly twice the rate of periprocedural MI with cardiac surgery as with PCI, but after a BBC investigation involving leaked data and an onslaught of criticism from surgeons, later results using the third universal definition showed surgery had the advantage.

The debacle frayed relations between surgeons and interventionalists and prompted EACTS to withdraw its support for treatment recommendations for left main coronary artery disease.

Dr. Dayan applauded VARC-3 for incorporating more detailed information on stroke and neurologic events, but said the use of the SCAI definition in the final published document is in “total disregard” to the controversy generated among surgeons and interventionalists.

“The main concern for surgeons is defining periprocedural MI just by biochemical definitions, without any additional criteria like ECG, angiographic,” he said. “This is totally new and goes against what surgeons have been advocating for years around EXCEL.”

Dr. Sádaba was troubled by the definitions of MI and hospitalization, but also questioned other changes, like lumping vascular complications together with access-related complications. “The sense is a lot of what they’ve put here favors one type of intervention over the other.”

Dr. Généreux reported receiving consultant fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular System, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, and has equity in Pi-Cardia, Sig.Num, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Saranas, and Puzzle Medical. Dr. Crea reported receiving personal fees from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and AstraZeneca, and is a member of the advisory board of GlyCardial Diagnostics. Dr. Dayan and Dr. Sádaba reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab, particularly at a dosage of 300 mg, has significant efficacy and an acceptable safety profile for treatment of migraine.

Major finding: Eptinezumab significantly reduced the mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) compared with placebo at week 12 at a dosage of 30 mg (change in MMDs, −0.29; P = .0001), 100 mg (change in MMDs, −0.31; P less than .00001), and 300 mg (change in MMDs, −0.41; P less than .00001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were not significantly different between eptinezumab and placebo.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials including 2,739 patients with migraine.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Suzhou Health Talents Training Project. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Yan Z et al. J Headache Pain. 2021 Mar 6. doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01220-y.

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab, particularly at a dosage of 300 mg, has significant efficacy and an acceptable safety profile for treatment of migraine.

Major finding: Eptinezumab significantly reduced the mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) compared with placebo at week 12 at a dosage of 30 mg (change in MMDs, −0.29; P = .0001), 100 mg (change in MMDs, −0.31; P less than .00001), and 300 mg (change in MMDs, −0.41; P less than .00001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were not significantly different between eptinezumab and placebo.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials including 2,739 patients with migraine.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Suzhou Health Talents Training Project. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Yan Z et al. J Headache Pain. 2021 Mar 6. doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01220-y.

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab, particularly at a dosage of 300 mg, has significant efficacy and an acceptable safety profile for treatment of migraine.

Major finding: Eptinezumab significantly reduced the mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) compared with placebo at week 12 at a dosage of 30 mg (change in MMDs, −0.29; P = .0001), 100 mg (change in MMDs, −0.31; P less than .00001), and 300 mg (change in MMDs, −0.41; P less than .00001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were not significantly different between eptinezumab and placebo.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials including 2,739 patients with migraine.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the Suzhou Health Talents Training Project. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Yan Z et al. J Headache Pain. 2021 Mar 6. doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01220-y.

Key clinical point: Components of nonpharmacological interventions are effective for treatment of pediatric migraine.

Major finding: Short-term self-administered treatments (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.26-2.62), biofeedback (SMD, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.64-2.17), relaxation (SMD, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.61-2.14), and psychological treatments (SMD, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.15-2.57) were more effective than the waiting list, with findings being similar for long-term treatments.

Study details: A network meta-analysis of 12 randomized clinical trials that evaluated nonpharmacological treatments for pediatric migraine in 576 children and adolescents with episodic migraine.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by the Sara Page Mayo Endowment for Pediatric Pain Research, Education, and Treatment. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Source: Koechlin H et al. Pediatrics. 2021 Mar 9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-4107.

Key clinical point: Components of nonpharmacological interventions are effective for treatment of pediatric migraine.

Major finding: Short-term self-administered treatments (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.26-2.62), biofeedback (SMD, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.64-2.17), relaxation (SMD, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.61-2.14), and psychological treatments (SMD, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.15-2.57) were more effective than the waiting list, with findings being similar for long-term treatments.

Study details: A network meta-analysis of 12 randomized clinical trials that evaluated nonpharmacological treatments for pediatric migraine in 576 children and adolescents with episodic migraine.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by the Sara Page Mayo Endowment for Pediatric Pain Research, Education, and Treatment. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Source: Koechlin H et al. Pediatrics. 2021 Mar 9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-4107.

Key clinical point: Components of nonpharmacological interventions are effective for treatment of pediatric migraine.

Major finding: Short-term self-administered treatments (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.26-2.62), biofeedback (SMD, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.64-2.17), relaxation (SMD, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.61-2.14), and psychological treatments (SMD, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.15-2.57) were more effective than the waiting list, with findings being similar for long-term treatments.

Study details: A network meta-analysis of 12 randomized clinical trials that evaluated nonpharmacological treatments for pediatric migraine in 576 children and adolescents with episodic migraine.

Disclosures: The study was supported in part by the Sara Page Mayo Endowment for Pediatric Pain Research, Education, and Treatment. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Source: Koechlin H et al. Pediatrics. 2021 Mar 9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-4107.

Every spring, I look forward to attending the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting. It has become a ritual that starts many months before the actual conference.

Submissions for presentations are due in September, so the planning often starts in the late summer. Hotel and plane reservations are made in January, and the meeting itself begins in May.

The city that hosts the event changes each year but, for me, many things do not. The Clinical Psychiatry News editorial board meeting takes place on Monday morning at 7 a.m., and I scour the program for what sessions to attend. In recent years, I have made a point of writing an article for about one of the sessions while still at the meeting – in 2019 I wrote about the improv-acting workshops I attended – something that just doesn’t translate to a Zoom experience.

I go with the same friend every year, I always attend the Hopkins alumni reception, and I organize dinner at a nice restaurant for friends. I have collected so many funny stories and memories over the years that it would be hard to catalog them all. There was the time in Toronto that I set up a meal at a restaurant named Susur – a meal like no other I’ve ever had – and the check arrived with a jaw-dropping sum that I had not anticipated. In San Diego, we watched a gorgeous sunset over the Pacific Ocean from the veranda of the Hotel Coronado. There was the time I sunbathed on the beach in Waikiki with my book editor, and the notable distress when my colleague’s husband called from the airport to say he was not permitted to board his plane in Baltimore to join us in California! There are funny stories, but there is the sadness that one friend who joined us for so many of these events has died.

I always find the program options to be overwhelming: There is so much going on at once that it can be hard to decide what to go to. I try to attend a mix of sessions, some that are inspiring or entertaining, and others that will be informative for clinical issues.

The speakers have been incredible and over the years I’ve heard then-Vice President Joseph Biden, retired quarterback Terry Bradshaw, Oliver Sacks, Alan Alda, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and perhaps my favorite – Lorraine Bracco, the actress who played Dr. Melfi on “The Sopranos” – to name just a few. And, of course, the opportunity to get the continuing medical education credits I need for licensing is just one more reason to attend.

Last year in May I was still adjusting to my “new” career from home with a computer screen. I had been scheduled to participate in several panels for the meeting in Philadelphia, but extra computer hours had no appeal. And while the fatigue of doing telemental health has eased, I still avoid extra hours interacting with my computer screen and I did not attend this year’s meeting. Without the lure of friends, fun, and the novelty of being somewhere new, my APA experience would have to wait for real life.

Virtual APA has had a drop in participation. In 2019, the last real-life convention in San Francisco, there were 700 scientific sessions and 11,000 professionals in attendance. This year’s virtual conference hosted 135 sessions with more than 7,000 attendees. Attendance was down, but so were costs associated with live conventions and the APA is considering the addition of a virtual component when the annual meeting returns to the in-person venue.

Tom Abdallah is a medical student at Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar in Education City. He has never attended an in-person APA annual meeting, but he joined for this year’s virtual sessions. “The scientific sessions were fantastic and diverse. Networking was limited in comparison to in-person conferences. The meeting was very well organized, and it gave me the opportunity to attend without worrying about travel.”

Steven Daviss, MD, a psychiatrist in Maryland, also commented on the ease and financial benefit of attending the meeting from his home office. He calculated that the cost was much less: $350 for virtual APA, compared with approximately $3,500 for the real thing, allowing for transportation, hotels, meals out, and lost income. “But,” said Dr. Daviss, “engagement with colleagues was minimal.”

APA Assembly member Annette Hanson, MD, has continued to go into work throughout the pandemic. Still, she noted that meetings and committee work have made sure she does not miss out on the “Zoom fatigue” that everyone else is feeling. The virtual APA was tiring for her.

“It was brutal. There was the APA Assembly 1 weekend, right after evening Zoom reference committee meetings the week before. Then virtual APA the next weekend. By the end of the week, I had worked every day for 3 weeks straight, including my more-than-full-time job!”

It has been a challenging time, to say the least, and it has certainly helped that videoconferencing has allowed us to be there for our patients and for each other in so many different circumstances. Former APA President Paul Summergrad, MD, talked about how virtual meetings can be very good as educational tools, but he conveyed what I have been feeling in a sentence: “I miss the social aspect of meetings.”

Please get your vaccine, and I hope to see you in New Orleans next May!

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Every spring, I look forward to attending the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting. It has become a ritual that starts many months before the actual conference.

Submissions for presentations are due in September, so the planning often starts in the late summer. Hotel and plane reservations are made in January, and the meeting itself begins in May.

The city that hosts the event changes each year but, for me, many things do not. The Clinical Psychiatry News editorial board meeting takes place on Monday morning at 7 a.m., and I scour the program for what sessions to attend. In recent years, I have made a point of writing an article for about one of the sessions while still at the meeting – in 2019 I wrote about the improv-acting workshops I attended – something that just doesn’t translate to a Zoom experience.

I go with the same friend every year, I always attend the Hopkins alumni reception, and I organize dinner at a nice restaurant for friends. I have collected so many funny stories and memories over the years that it would be hard to catalog them all. There was the time in Toronto that I set up a meal at a restaurant named Susur – a meal like no other I’ve ever had – and the check arrived with a jaw-dropping sum that I had not anticipated. In San Diego, we watched a gorgeous sunset over the Pacific Ocean from the veranda of the Hotel Coronado. There was the time I sunbathed on the beach in Waikiki with my book editor, and the notable distress when my colleague’s husband called from the airport to say he was not permitted to board his plane in Baltimore to join us in California! There are funny stories, but there is the sadness that one friend who joined us for so many of these events has died.

I always find the program options to be overwhelming: There is so much going on at once that it can be hard to decide what to go to. I try to attend a mix of sessions, some that are inspiring or entertaining, and others that will be informative for clinical issues.

The speakers have been incredible and over the years I’ve heard then-Vice President Joseph Biden, retired quarterback Terry Bradshaw, Oliver Sacks, Alan Alda, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and perhaps my favorite – Lorraine Bracco, the actress who played Dr. Melfi on “The Sopranos” – to name just a few. And, of course, the opportunity to get the continuing medical education credits I need for licensing is just one more reason to attend.

Last year in May I was still adjusting to my “new” career from home with a computer screen. I had been scheduled to participate in several panels for the meeting in Philadelphia, but extra computer hours had no appeal. And while the fatigue of doing telemental health has eased, I still avoid extra hours interacting with my computer screen and I did not attend this year’s meeting. Without the lure of friends, fun, and the novelty of being somewhere new, my APA experience would have to wait for real life.

Virtual APA has had a drop in participation. In 2019, the last real-life convention in San Francisco, there were 700 scientific sessions and 11,000 professionals in attendance. This year’s virtual conference hosted 135 sessions with more than 7,000 attendees. Attendance was down, but so were costs associated with live conventions and the APA is considering the addition of a virtual component when the annual meeting returns to the in-person venue.

Tom Abdallah is a medical student at Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar in Education City. He has never attended an in-person APA annual meeting, but he joined for this year’s virtual sessions. “The scientific sessions were fantastic and diverse. Networking was limited in comparison to in-person conferences. The meeting was very well organized, and it gave me the opportunity to attend without worrying about travel.”

Steven Daviss, MD, a psychiatrist in Maryland, also commented on the ease and financial benefit of attending the meeting from his home office. He calculated that the cost was much less: $350 for virtual APA, compared with approximately $3,500 for the real thing, allowing for transportation, hotels, meals out, and lost income. “But,” said Dr. Daviss, “engagement with colleagues was minimal.”

APA Assembly member Annette Hanson, MD, has continued to go into work throughout the pandemic. Still, she noted that meetings and committee work have made sure she does not miss out on the “Zoom fatigue” that everyone else is feeling. The virtual APA was tiring for her.

“It was brutal. There was the APA Assembly 1 weekend, right after evening Zoom reference committee meetings the week before. Then virtual APA the next weekend. By the end of the week, I had worked every day for 3 weeks straight, including my more-than-full-time job!”

It has been a challenging time, to say the least, and it has certainly helped that videoconferencing has allowed us to be there for our patients and for each other in so many different circumstances. Former APA President Paul Summergrad, MD, talked about how virtual meetings can be very good as educational tools, but he conveyed what I have been feeling in a sentence: “I miss the social aspect of meetings.”

Please get your vaccine, and I hope to see you in New Orleans next May!

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Every spring, I look forward to attending the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting. It has become a ritual that starts many months before the actual conference.

Submissions for presentations are due in September, so the planning often starts in the late summer. Hotel and plane reservations are made in January, and the meeting itself begins in May.

The city that hosts the event changes each year but, for me, many things do not. The Clinical Psychiatry News editorial board meeting takes place on Monday morning at 7 a.m., and I scour the program for what sessions to attend. In recent years, I have made a point of writing an article for about one of the sessions while still at the meeting – in 2019 I wrote about the improv-acting workshops I attended – something that just doesn’t translate to a Zoom experience.

I go with the same friend every year, I always attend the Hopkins alumni reception, and I organize dinner at a nice restaurant for friends. I have collected so many funny stories and memories over the years that it would be hard to catalog them all. There was the time in Toronto that I set up a meal at a restaurant named Susur – a meal like no other I’ve ever had – and the check arrived with a jaw-dropping sum that I had not anticipated. In San Diego, we watched a gorgeous sunset over the Pacific Ocean from the veranda of the Hotel Coronado. There was the time I sunbathed on the beach in Waikiki with my book editor, and the notable distress when my colleague’s husband called from the airport to say he was not permitted to board his plane in Baltimore to join us in California! There are funny stories, but there is the sadness that one friend who joined us for so many of these events has died.

I always find the program options to be overwhelming: There is so much going on at once that it can be hard to decide what to go to. I try to attend a mix of sessions, some that are inspiring or entertaining, and others that will be informative for clinical issues.

The speakers have been incredible and over the years I’ve heard then-Vice President Joseph Biden, retired quarterback Terry Bradshaw, Oliver Sacks, Alan Alda, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and perhaps my favorite – Lorraine Bracco, the actress who played Dr. Melfi on “The Sopranos” – to name just a few. And, of course, the opportunity to get the continuing medical education credits I need for licensing is just one more reason to attend.

Last year in May I was still adjusting to my “new” career from home with a computer screen. I had been scheduled to participate in several panels for the meeting in Philadelphia, but extra computer hours had no appeal. And while the fatigue of doing telemental health has eased, I still avoid extra hours interacting with my computer screen and I did not attend this year’s meeting. Without the lure of friends, fun, and the novelty of being somewhere new, my APA experience would have to wait for real life.

Virtual APA has had a drop in participation. In 2019, the last real-life convention in San Francisco, there were 700 scientific sessions and 11,000 professionals in attendance. This year’s virtual conference hosted 135 sessions with more than 7,000 attendees. Attendance was down, but so were costs associated with live conventions and the APA is considering the addition of a virtual component when the annual meeting returns to the in-person venue.

Tom Abdallah is a medical student at Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar in Education City. He has never attended an in-person APA annual meeting, but he joined for this year’s virtual sessions. “The scientific sessions were fantastic and diverse. Networking was limited in comparison to in-person conferences. The meeting was very well organized, and it gave me the opportunity to attend without worrying about travel.”

Steven Daviss, MD, a psychiatrist in Maryland, also commented on the ease and financial benefit of attending the meeting from his home office. He calculated that the cost was much less: $350 for virtual APA, compared with approximately $3,500 for the real thing, allowing for transportation, hotels, meals out, and lost income. “But,” said Dr. Daviss, “engagement with colleagues was minimal.”

APA Assembly member Annette Hanson, MD, has continued to go into work throughout the pandemic. Still, she noted that meetings and committee work have made sure she does not miss out on the “Zoom fatigue” that everyone else is feeling. The virtual APA was tiring for her.

“It was brutal. There was the APA Assembly 1 weekend, right after evening Zoom reference committee meetings the week before. Then virtual APA the next weekend. By the end of the week, I had worked every day for 3 weeks straight, including my more-than-full-time job!”

It has been a challenging time, to say the least, and it has certainly helped that videoconferencing has allowed us to be there for our patients and for each other in so many different circumstances. Former APA President Paul Summergrad, MD, talked about how virtual meetings can be very good as educational tools, but he conveyed what I have been feeling in a sentence: “I miss the social aspect of meetings.”

Please get your vaccine, and I hope to see you in New Orleans next May!

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Intramuscular injections of glucocorticoids have efficacy similar to that of intra-articular injections in reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis but without the concerns about joint infection and the challenges of administration, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial reported at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are commonly used to relieve OA pain, but some general practitioners have difficulty administering them to patients, said Qiuke Wang, a PhD candidate at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. There are also concerns about whether intra-articular injections may cause damage to knee cartilage, Mr. Wang said at the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Mr. Wang and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled trial in which 145 patients with symptomatic knee OA received either an intramuscular or intra-articular injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, and then followed up at regular intervals for 24 weeks.

The study showed that Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for pain improved in both the intra-articular and intramuscular groups. Improvements in pain scores peaked in the intra-articular injection group at the 4-week mark, when the difference with intramuscular injections was statistically significant. However, the two groups showed no significant differences in pain improvement at the 8-, 12-, and 24-week follow-up points.

“Intra-articular injection can act immediately on inhibiting joint inflammation after injection,” Mr. Wang said in an interview. “In contrast, for intramuscular injection, glucocorticoid needs firstly to be absorbed by muscle into blood and then travel into the knee via the circulatory system.”

The study also showed no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary outcomes of patient symptoms, stiffness, function, and sport and quality of life scores. There were more adverse events in the intra-articular injection group: 42% of patients reported an adverse event, compared to 33% in the intramuscular group, and the adverse events reported in the intramuscular group were nonserious events, such as headache and flushing.

Mr. Wang told the conference that while the intramuscular injection was inferior to intra-articular injections at 4 weeks, it was noninferior at 8 and 24 weeks and should be considered an effective way to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.

“This trial provides evidence for shared decision making because in some cases a patient may have a preference for specific injection and the GP may feel incompetent to administer the intra-articular injection,” he said.

An audience member pointed out that there was now a growing body of evidence suggesting that intra-articular injections may contribute to faster progression of knee OA because of effects on knee cartilage.

Mr. Wang acknowledged that their own research had shown these side effects of intra-articular injections, which was why the trial was intended to examine whether intramuscular injections might achieve the same pain relief.

“In the real practice, I would say that both injections are effective, but the intra-articular injection may provide a slightly [better] effect in the short term,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Martin van der Esch, PhD, of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said there were no guidelines as to whether intra-articular or intramuscular injections were the best option, so it really came down to the clinician’s decision.

“Therefore this is really an interesting study, because it gives some light – not the answer – but some light in what direction it could go for specific groups of patients,” Dr. van der Esch said in an interview.

Dr. van der Esch suggested that intramuscular injections might be more appropriate for patients with more systemic disease affecting multiple joints, but intra-articular injections might offer greater benefits in a patient with severe and long-lasting disease in a single joint.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

Intramuscular injections of glucocorticoids have efficacy similar to that of intra-articular injections in reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis but without the concerns about joint infection and the challenges of administration, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial reported at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are commonly used to relieve OA pain, but some general practitioners have difficulty administering them to patients, said Qiuke Wang, a PhD candidate at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. There are also concerns about whether intra-articular injections may cause damage to knee cartilage, Mr. Wang said at the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Mr. Wang and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled trial in which 145 patients with symptomatic knee OA received either an intramuscular or intra-articular injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, and then followed up at regular intervals for 24 weeks.

The study showed that Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for pain improved in both the intra-articular and intramuscular groups. Improvements in pain scores peaked in the intra-articular injection group at the 4-week mark, when the difference with intramuscular injections was statistically significant. However, the two groups showed no significant differences in pain improvement at the 8-, 12-, and 24-week follow-up points.

“Intra-articular injection can act immediately on inhibiting joint inflammation after injection,” Mr. Wang said in an interview. “In contrast, for intramuscular injection, glucocorticoid needs firstly to be absorbed by muscle into blood and then travel into the knee via the circulatory system.”

The study also showed no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary outcomes of patient symptoms, stiffness, function, and sport and quality of life scores. There were more adverse events in the intra-articular injection group: 42% of patients reported an adverse event, compared to 33% in the intramuscular group, and the adverse events reported in the intramuscular group were nonserious events, such as headache and flushing.

Mr. Wang told the conference that while the intramuscular injection was inferior to intra-articular injections at 4 weeks, it was noninferior at 8 and 24 weeks and should be considered an effective way to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.

“This trial provides evidence for shared decision making because in some cases a patient may have a preference for specific injection and the GP may feel incompetent to administer the intra-articular injection,” he said.

An audience member pointed out that there was now a growing body of evidence suggesting that intra-articular injections may contribute to faster progression of knee OA because of effects on knee cartilage.

Mr. Wang acknowledged that their own research had shown these side effects of intra-articular injections, which was why the trial was intended to examine whether intramuscular injections might achieve the same pain relief.

“In the real practice, I would say that both injections are effective, but the intra-articular injection may provide a slightly [better] effect in the short term,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Martin van der Esch, PhD, of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said there were no guidelines as to whether intra-articular or intramuscular injections were the best option, so it really came down to the clinician’s decision.

“Therefore this is really an interesting study, because it gives some light – not the answer – but some light in what direction it could go for specific groups of patients,” Dr. van der Esch said in an interview.

Dr. van der Esch suggested that intramuscular injections might be more appropriate for patients with more systemic disease affecting multiple joints, but intra-articular injections might offer greater benefits in a patient with severe and long-lasting disease in a single joint.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

Intramuscular injections of glucocorticoids have efficacy similar to that of intra-articular injections in reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis but without the concerns about joint infection and the challenges of administration, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial reported at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are commonly used to relieve OA pain, but some general practitioners have difficulty administering them to patients, said Qiuke Wang, a PhD candidate at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. There are also concerns about whether intra-articular injections may cause damage to knee cartilage, Mr. Wang said at the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Mr. Wang and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled trial in which 145 patients with symptomatic knee OA received either an intramuscular or intra-articular injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, and then followed up at regular intervals for 24 weeks.

The study showed that Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for pain improved in both the intra-articular and intramuscular groups. Improvements in pain scores peaked in the intra-articular injection group at the 4-week mark, when the difference with intramuscular injections was statistically significant. However, the two groups showed no significant differences in pain improvement at the 8-, 12-, and 24-week follow-up points.

“Intra-articular injection can act immediately on inhibiting joint inflammation after injection,” Mr. Wang said in an interview. “In contrast, for intramuscular injection, glucocorticoid needs firstly to be absorbed by muscle into blood and then travel into the knee via the circulatory system.”

The study also showed no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary outcomes of patient symptoms, stiffness, function, and sport and quality of life scores. There were more adverse events in the intra-articular injection group: 42% of patients reported an adverse event, compared to 33% in the intramuscular group, and the adverse events reported in the intramuscular group were nonserious events, such as headache and flushing.

Mr. Wang told the conference that while the intramuscular injection was inferior to intra-articular injections at 4 weeks, it was noninferior at 8 and 24 weeks and should be considered an effective way to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.

“This trial provides evidence for shared decision making because in some cases a patient may have a preference for specific injection and the GP may feel incompetent to administer the intra-articular injection,” he said.

An audience member pointed out that there was now a growing body of evidence suggesting that intra-articular injections may contribute to faster progression of knee OA because of effects on knee cartilage.

Mr. Wang acknowledged that their own research had shown these side effects of intra-articular injections, which was why the trial was intended to examine whether intramuscular injections might achieve the same pain relief.

“In the real practice, I would say that both injections are effective, but the intra-articular injection may provide a slightly [better] effect in the short term,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Martin van der Esch, PhD, of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said there were no guidelines as to whether intra-articular or intramuscular injections were the best option, so it really came down to the clinician’s decision.

“Therefore this is really an interesting study, because it gives some light – not the answer – but some light in what direction it could go for specific groups of patients,” Dr. van der Esch said in an interview.

Dr. van der Esch suggested that intramuscular injections might be more appropriate for patients with more systemic disease affecting multiple joints, but intra-articular injections might offer greater benefits in a patient with severe and long-lasting disease in a single joint.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

A plant-based fusion protein is safe and effective for inducing favorable immune modulation in patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis with no immune suppression–side effects reported.

OPRX-106, an orally administered BY2 plant cell–expressing recombinant TNF fusion protein, has demonstrated effectiveness as an anti–TNF-alpha therapy, according to Einat Almon, PhD, of Protalix Biotherapeutics, and colleagues.

“Oral immune therapy is based on the concept of oral administration of nonabsorbable compounds which target the gut immune system to redirect the systemic immune system toward an anti-inflammatory direction, without immunosuppression,” the researchers said.

A phase 1 study of OPRX-106 in healthy human volunteers showed safety and immune modulatory effects at doses of 2, 8, or 16 mg/day.

In this phase 2a clinical trial published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers enrolled 24 patients with ulcerative colitis (11 male and 13 female) aged 23-73 years, with an average age of 42.6 years. Patients received either 2 mg or 8 mg of OPRX-106 at least once daily for 8 weeks. All patients were monitored for 6 hours after receiving medication on day 1 and week 8 for pharmacokinetic sampling, and a lower endoscopy was performed at week 8.

After 8 weeks, 67% of the patients demonstrated clinical response and 28% showed clinical remission.

Clinical response and clinical remission were defined by a specific set of criteria including improvement in the Mayo score. Clinical response was a “decrease in the Mayo score of at least 3 points, decrease in the subscore for rectal bleeding of at least 1 point, [and] a rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1.” Clinical remission at week 8 was defined as “clinically symptom-free, Mayo score of ≤2 with no individual subscore exceeding 1 point after treatment, histopathological improvement in Geboes histologic grading from baseline to week 8, improvement in high sensitivity C-reactive protein levels from baseline to week 8, improvement in fecal calprotectin levels from baseline to week 8, and changes in systemic immune modulation parameters from baseline to week 8.”

In addition, 89% of the patients experienced some degree of improvement in their Mayo scores, 61% had mucosal improvement, and 33% achieved mucosal healing.

No side effects associated with general immune suppression were reported. No patients discontinued the study because of adverse events, the researchers said. However, overall, 40 adverse events were reported in 15 patients; 95% of these were mild to moderate and 40% were reported as treatment related. No differences appeared in adverse events related to the two doses.

Evidence of a systemic anti-inflammatory effect was seen with a decrease in serum levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines interleukin-6 and interferon-gamma that correlated with the clinical response, the researchers noted. Similarly, an increase in the CD3+CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ subset of suppressor lymphocytes correlated with clinical response.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size, open-label design, and lack of control subjects. However, by targeting the gut immune system, the drug “may provide an answer to the long-term immune suppression encountered in patients with chronic disorders who use these agents for prolonged periods of time, in addition to loss of response due to neutralizing antibodies,” they concluded.
 

Findings provide foundation for further research

“Conducting a study of a novel treatment for ulcerative colitis is valuable and timely because the available options are limited,” Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, said in an interview. “The currently available TNF antagonists are administered intravenously or subcutaneously and bear the risk of infectious complications, so the development of an agent that can be administered orally with fewer side effects is of importance.”

Although the data are preliminary, Dr. Sakuraba emphasized that the take-home message for clinicians is that “the present open-label study consisting of a small number of subjects demonstrated that OPRX-106 was effective and safe in active ulcerative colitis, so further investigation is warranted. Larger-powered, randomized, placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.”

The study was supported by Protalix Biotherapeutics; Dr. Almon and several coauthors are employed by Protalix Biotherapeutics. Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A plant-based fusion protein is safe and effective for inducing favorable immune modulation in patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis with no immune suppression–side effects reported.

OPRX-106, an orally administered BY2 plant cell–expressing recombinant TNF fusion protein, has demonstrated effectiveness as an anti–TNF-alpha therapy, according to Einat Almon, PhD, of Protalix Biotherapeutics, and colleagues.

“Oral immune therapy is based on the concept of oral administration of nonabsorbable compounds which target the gut immune system to redirect the systemic immune system toward an anti-inflammatory direction, without immunosuppression,” the researchers said.

A phase 1 study of OPRX-106 in healthy human volunteers showed safety and immune modulatory effects at doses of 2, 8, or 16 mg/day.

In this phase 2a clinical trial published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers enrolled 24 patients with ulcerative colitis (11 male and 13 female) aged 23-73 years, with an average age of 42.6 years. Patients received either 2 mg or 8 mg of OPRX-106 at least once daily for 8 weeks. All patients were monitored for 6 hours after receiving medication on day 1 and week 8 for pharmacokinetic sampling, and a lower endoscopy was performed at week 8.

After 8 weeks, 67% of the patients demonstrated clinical response and 28% showed clinical remission.

Clinical response and clinical remission were defined by a specific set of criteria including improvement in the Mayo score. Clinical response was a “decrease in the Mayo score of at least 3 points, decrease in the subscore for rectal bleeding of at least 1 point, [and] a rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1.” Clinical remission at week 8 was defined as “clinically symptom-free, Mayo score of ≤2 with no individual subscore exceeding 1 point after treatment, histopathological improvement in Geboes histologic grading from baseline to week 8, improvement in high sensitivity C-reactive protein levels from baseline to week 8, improvement in fecal calprotectin levels from baseline to week 8, and changes in systemic immune modulation parameters from baseline to week 8.”

In addition, 89% of the patients experienced some degree of improvement in their Mayo scores, 61% had mucosal improvement, and 33% achieved mucosal healing.

No side effects associated with general immune suppression were reported. No patients discontinued the study because of adverse events, the researchers said. However, overall, 40 adverse events were reported in 15 patients; 95% of these were mild to moderate and 40% were reported as treatment related. No differences appeared in adverse events related to the two doses.

Evidence of a systemic anti-inflammatory effect was seen with a decrease in serum levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines interleukin-6 and interferon-gamma that correlated with the clinical response, the researchers noted. Similarly, an increase in the CD3+CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ subset of suppressor lymphocytes correlated with clinical response.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size, open-label design, and lack of control subjects. However, by targeting the gut immune system, the drug “may provide an answer to the long-term immune suppression encountered in patients with chronic disorders who use these agents for prolonged periods of time, in addition to loss of response due to neutralizing antibodies,” they concluded.
 

Findings provide foundation for further research

“Conducting a study of a novel treatment for ulcerative colitis is valuable and timely because the available options are limited,” Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, said in an interview. “The currently available TNF antagonists are administered intravenously or subcutaneously and bear the risk of infectious complications, so the development of an agent that can be administered orally with fewer side effects is of importance.”

Although the data are preliminary, Dr. Sakuraba emphasized that the take-home message for clinicians is that “the present open-label study consisting of a small number of subjects demonstrated that OPRX-106 was effective and safe in active ulcerative colitis, so further investigation is warranted. Larger-powered, randomized, placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.”

The study was supported by Protalix Biotherapeutics; Dr. Almon and several coauthors are employed by Protalix Biotherapeutics. Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A plant-based fusion protein is safe and effective for inducing favorable immune modulation in patients with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis with no immune suppression–side effects reported.

OPRX-106, an orally administered BY2 plant cell–expressing recombinant TNF fusion protein, has demonstrated effectiveness as an anti–TNF-alpha therapy, according to Einat Almon, PhD, of Protalix Biotherapeutics, and colleagues.

“Oral immune therapy is based on the concept of oral administration of nonabsorbable compounds which target the gut immune system to redirect the systemic immune system toward an anti-inflammatory direction, without immunosuppression,” the researchers said.

A phase 1 study of OPRX-106 in healthy human volunteers showed safety and immune modulatory effects at doses of 2, 8, or 16 mg/day.

In this phase 2a clinical trial published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, the researchers enrolled 24 patients with ulcerative colitis (11 male and 13 female) aged 23-73 years, with an average age of 42.6 years. Patients received either 2 mg or 8 mg of OPRX-106 at least once daily for 8 weeks. All patients were monitored for 6 hours after receiving medication on day 1 and week 8 for pharmacokinetic sampling, and a lower endoscopy was performed at week 8.

After 8 weeks, 67% of the patients demonstrated clinical response and 28% showed clinical remission.

Clinical response and clinical remission were defined by a specific set of criteria including improvement in the Mayo score. Clinical response was a “decrease in the Mayo score of at least 3 points, decrease in the subscore for rectal bleeding of at least 1 point, [and] a rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1.” Clinical remission at week 8 was defined as “clinically symptom-free, Mayo score of ≤2 with no individual subscore exceeding 1 point after treatment, histopathological improvement in Geboes histologic grading from baseline to week 8, improvement in high sensitivity C-reactive protein levels from baseline to week 8, improvement in fecal calprotectin levels from baseline to week 8, and changes in systemic immune modulation parameters from baseline to week 8.”

In addition, 89% of the patients experienced some degree of improvement in their Mayo scores, 61% had mucosal improvement, and 33% achieved mucosal healing.

No side effects associated with general immune suppression were reported. No patients discontinued the study because of adverse events, the researchers said. However, overall, 40 adverse events were reported in 15 patients; 95% of these were mild to moderate and 40% were reported as treatment related. No differences appeared in adverse events related to the two doses.

Evidence of a systemic anti-inflammatory effect was seen with a decrease in serum levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines interleukin-6 and interferon-gamma that correlated with the clinical response, the researchers noted. Similarly, an increase in the CD3+CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ subset of suppressor lymphocytes correlated with clinical response.

The study findings were limited by the small sample size, open-label design, and lack of control subjects. However, by targeting the gut immune system, the drug “may provide an answer to the long-term immune suppression encountered in patients with chronic disorders who use these agents for prolonged periods of time, in addition to loss of response due to neutralizing antibodies,” they concluded.
 

Findings provide foundation for further research

“Conducting a study of a novel treatment for ulcerative colitis is valuable and timely because the available options are limited,” Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, said in an interview. “The currently available TNF antagonists are administered intravenously or subcutaneously and bear the risk of infectious complications, so the development of an agent that can be administered orally with fewer side effects is of importance.”

Although the data are preliminary, Dr. Sakuraba emphasized that the take-home message for clinicians is that “the present open-label study consisting of a small number of subjects demonstrated that OPRX-106 was effective and safe in active ulcerative colitis, so further investigation is warranted. Larger-powered, randomized, placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.”

The study was supported by Protalix Biotherapeutics; Dr. Almon and several coauthors are employed by Protalix Biotherapeutics. Dr. Sakuraba had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Click here for the Friday issue of the SHM Converge Daily News newsletter.

Click here for the Friday issue of the SHM Converge Daily News newsletter.

Click here for the Friday issue of the SHM Converge Daily News newsletter.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, there were substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, there were substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, there were substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

While the COVID-19 pandemic has generated anxiety and confusion in medicine, one thing should bring a sense of clarity to hospitalists: They’re needed now more than ever.

Larry Wellikson, MD, MHM, the former, longtime CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine, in a May 6 keynote speech at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine, said the COVID-19 era has underscored the singular importance of the specialty.

“I think one thing that this recent pandemic has emphasized is just how important and vital hospitalists are to the United States’ health care system,” Dr. Wellikson said. “The response to the acute care needs in this pandemic would have been impossible in the health care system that existed before hospitalists. And so this is something that we should understand and appreciate.”

The “upheaval” experienced in hospital medicine continues a trend of change that will go on, both in the corporate health care landscape and in the role that hospitalists play in providing care, he said. Insurers have been merging and looking to consolidate. Hospital medicine companies have been merging, and “newfangled bedfellows” have been a trend, such as CVS stepping beyond its pharmacy role into an expanded health care role, Cigna buying Express Scripts, and an Amazon-Berkshire Hathaway-J.P. Morgan health care partnership that ultimately did not pan out, although that hasn’t ended Amazon’s presence in health care.

“You may not realize it, but Amazon is currently one of the largest hospital supply-chain companies,” Dr. Wellikson said. “They’re attempting to become a major pharmacy benefits manager and will only further enter into health care and into our personal and professional lives.”

New models of care point to the way of the future, he said. Mount Sinai’s continuing success with its Hospital at Home program – which involves an acute care nurse and team assigned to a patient in the home – introduces a concept that will be adopted more broadly, because of its cost savings and good outcomes, he said. Mergers of hospital systems, leading to excess hospital capacity, has given rise to what he calls “ED-plus,” or using formerly full-service hospitals as more focused centers – providing emergency, obstetrician, cardiology, x-ray, or orthopedics care, or whatever is needed in a given community.

An increasing focus on population health rather than procedures plays into the strengths of hospitalists, Dr. Wellikson said, and the need for their skills will continue to deepen.

When changes in reimbursement began about 4 years ago, specialties such as cardiology entered into new contracts with hospitals, but the facilities began to notice that many of the services – such as initial heart failure and chest pain management – can be provided by hospitalists.

“They’re signing fewer cardiologists and needing therefore to hire more hospitalists,” he said.

To keep readmissions low and subsequent costs down, hospitalists will continue to handle the first few postdischarge visits with patients, he said. This is crucial in bundled payment systems.

“Most of the savings in those systems comes from being very efficient in the initial postdischarge portion of people’s care,” Dr. Wellikson said.

At the same time, hospitalists are not in “unlimited supply.”

“I think every hospital medicine group should be assessing and working on improving their clinicians’ well-being,” he said. “We need to ration somewhat, so we’re deploying hospitalists for the things that only we can do.” He predicted that hospitalists will be required to work in the electronic medical record less frequently, with this task handled by others.

Dr. Wellikson also called on the specialty to continue to expand its racial and ethnic diversity so that it reflects the patient population it serves.

“We’re looking to create pathways to leadership for everyone and not just a tokenism moving forward,” he said.

The basic strengths of hospital medicine – its flexibility, professional culture, and youth – leave it well prepared for all of these changes, he said.

“There is a bright future and hospitalists are right in the middle of this – we’re not going to be marginalized or on the periphery,” Dr. Wellikson said. “If I had one message for all of you, I would say be relevant and add value and you will not only survive, but thrive.”
 

RIV winners announced

The winners of the 2021 RIV competition were also announced at the May 6 general session of Converge. There were two winners in each of the three categories, as follows:

RESEARCH
Overall: “Suboptimal Communication During Inter-Hospital Transfer,” Stephanie Mueller, MD, MPH, SFHM

Trainee: “Mentorship in Pediatric Hospital Medicine: A Survey of Division Directors,” Brandon Palmer, MD

INNOVATIONS
Overall: “Leveraging Artificial Intelligence for a Team-Based Approach to Advance Care Planning,” Ron Li, MD

Trainee: “A Trainee-Designed Initiative Reshapes Communication for Hospital Medicine Patients During COVID-19,” Smitha Ganeshan, MD, MBA

CLINICAL VIGNETTES
Adults: “Holy Spontaneous Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia,” Min Hwang

Pediatrics: “The Great Pretender: A Tale of Two Systems,” Shivani Desai, MD

While the COVID-19 pandemic has generated anxiety and confusion in medicine, one thing should bring a sense of clarity to hospitalists: They’re needed now more than ever.

Larry Wellikson, MD, MHM, the former, longtime CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine, in a May 6 keynote speech at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine, said the COVID-19 era has underscored the singular importance of the specialty.

“I think one thing that this recent pandemic has emphasized is just how important and vital hospitalists are to the United States’ health care system,” Dr. Wellikson said. “The response to the acute care needs in this pandemic would have been impossible in the health care system that existed before hospitalists. And so this is something that we should understand and appreciate.”

The “upheaval” experienced in hospital medicine continues a trend of change that will go on, both in the corporate health care landscape and in the role that hospitalists play in providing care, he said. Insurers have been merging and looking to consolidate. Hospital medicine companies have been merging, and “newfangled bedfellows” have been a trend, such as CVS stepping beyond its pharmacy role into an expanded health care role, Cigna buying Express Scripts, and an Amazon-Berkshire Hathaway-J.P. Morgan health care partnership that ultimately did not pan out, although that hasn’t ended Amazon’s presence in health care.

“You may not realize it, but Amazon is currently one of the largest hospital supply-chain companies,” Dr. Wellikson said. “They’re attempting to become a major pharmacy benefits manager and will only further enter into health care and into our personal and professional lives.”

New models of care point to the way of the future, he said. Mount Sinai’s continuing success with its Hospital at Home program – which involves an acute care nurse and team assigned to a patient in the home – introduces a concept that will be adopted more broadly, because of its cost savings and good outcomes, he said. Mergers of hospital systems, leading to excess hospital capacity, has given rise to what he calls “ED-plus,” or using formerly full-service hospitals as more focused centers – providing emergency, obstetrician, cardiology, x-ray, or orthopedics care, or whatever is needed in a given community.

An increasing focus on population health rather than procedures plays into the strengths of hospitalists, Dr. Wellikson said, and the need for their skills will continue to deepen.

When changes in reimbursement began about 4 years ago, specialties such as cardiology entered into new contracts with hospitals, but the facilities began to notice that many of the services – such as initial heart failure and chest pain management – can be provided by hospitalists.

“They’re signing fewer cardiologists and needing therefore to hire more hospitalists,” he said.

To keep readmissions low and subsequent costs down, hospitalists will continue to handle the first few postdischarge visits with patients, he said. This is crucial in bundled payment systems.

“Most of the savings in those systems comes from being very efficient in the initial postdischarge portion of people’s care,” Dr. Wellikson said.

At the same time, hospitalists are not in “unlimited supply.”

“I think every hospital medicine group should be assessing and working on improving their clinicians’ well-being,” he said. “We need to ration somewhat, so we’re deploying hospitalists for the things that only we can do.” He predicted that hospitalists will be required to work in the electronic medical record less frequently, with this task handled by others.

Dr. Wellikson also called on the specialty to continue to expand its racial and ethnic diversity so that it reflects the patient population it serves.

“We’re looking to create pathways to leadership for everyone and not just a tokenism moving forward,” he said.

The basic strengths of hospital medicine – its flexibility, professional culture, and youth – leave it well prepared for all of these changes, he said.

“There is a bright future and hospitalists are right in the middle of this – we’re not going to be marginalized or on the periphery,” Dr. Wellikson said. “If I had one message for all of you, I would say be relevant and add value and you will not only survive, but thrive.”
 

RIV winners announced

The winners of the 2021 RIV competition were also announced at the May 6 general session of Converge. There were two winners in each of the three categories, as follows:

RESEARCH
Overall: “Suboptimal Communication During Inter-Hospital Transfer,” Stephanie Mueller, MD, MPH, SFHM

Trainee: “Mentorship in Pediatric Hospital Medicine: A Survey of Division Directors,” Brandon Palmer, MD

INNOVATIONS
Overall: “Leveraging Artificial Intelligence for a Team-Based Approach to Advance Care Planning,” Ron Li, MD

Trainee: “A Trainee-Designed Initiative Reshapes Communication for Hospital Medicine Patients During COVID-19,” Smitha Ganeshan, MD, MBA

CLINICAL VIGNETTES
Adults: “Holy Spontaneous Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia,” Min Hwang

Pediatrics: “The Great Pretender: A Tale of Two Systems,” Shivani Desai, MD

While the COVID-19 pandemic has generated anxiety and confusion in medicine, one thing should bring a sense of clarity to hospitalists: They’re needed now more than ever.

Larry Wellikson, MD, MHM, the former, longtime CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine, in a May 6 keynote speech at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine, said the COVID-19 era has underscored the singular importance of the specialty.

“I think one thing that this recent pandemic has emphasized is just how important and vital hospitalists are to the United States’ health care system,” Dr. Wellikson said. “The response to the acute care needs in this pandemic would have been impossible in the health care system that existed before hospitalists. And so this is something that we should understand and appreciate.”

The “upheaval” experienced in hospital medicine continues a trend of change that will go on, both in the corporate health care landscape and in the role that hospitalists play in providing care, he said. Insurers have been merging and looking to consolidate. Hospital medicine companies have been merging, and “newfangled bedfellows” have been a trend, such as CVS stepping beyond its pharmacy role into an expanded health care role, Cigna buying Express Scripts, and an Amazon-Berkshire Hathaway-J.P. Morgan health care partnership that ultimately did not pan out, although that hasn’t ended Amazon’s presence in health care.

“You may not realize it, but Amazon is currently one of the largest hospital supply-chain companies,” Dr. Wellikson said. “They’re attempting to become a major pharmacy benefits manager and will only further enter into health care and into our personal and professional lives.”

New models of care point to the way of the future, he said. Mount Sinai’s continuing success with its Hospital at Home program – which involves an acute care nurse and team assigned to a patient in the home – introduces a concept that will be adopted more broadly, because of its cost savings and good outcomes, he said. Mergers of hospital systems, leading to excess hospital capacity, has given rise to what he calls “ED-plus,” or using formerly full-service hospitals as more focused centers – providing emergency, obstetrician, cardiology, x-ray, or orthopedics care, or whatever is needed in a given community.

An increasing focus on population health rather than procedures plays into the strengths of hospitalists, Dr. Wellikson said, and the need for their skills will continue to deepen.

When changes in reimbursement began about 4 years ago, specialties such as cardiology entered into new contracts with hospitals, but the facilities began to notice that many of the services – such as initial heart failure and chest pain management – can be provided by hospitalists.

“They’re signing fewer cardiologists and needing therefore to hire more hospitalists,” he said.

To keep readmissions low and subsequent costs down, hospitalists will continue to handle the first few postdischarge visits with patients, he said. This is crucial in bundled payment systems.

“Most of the savings in those systems comes from being very efficient in the initial postdischarge portion of people’s care,” Dr. Wellikson said.

At the same time, hospitalists are not in “unlimited supply.”

“I think every hospital medicine group should be assessing and working on improving their clinicians’ well-being,” he said. “We need to ration somewhat, so we’re deploying hospitalists for the things that only we can do.” He predicted that hospitalists will be required to work in the electronic medical record less frequently, with this task handled by others.

Dr. Wellikson also called on the specialty to continue to expand its racial and ethnic diversity so that it reflects the patient population it serves.

“We’re looking to create pathways to leadership for everyone and not just a tokenism moving forward,” he said.

The basic strengths of hospital medicine – its flexibility, professional culture, and youth – leave it well prepared for all of these changes, he said.

“There is a bright future and hospitalists are right in the middle of this – we’re not going to be marginalized or on the periphery,” Dr. Wellikson said. “If I had one message for all of you, I would say be relevant and add value and you will not only survive, but thrive.”
 

RIV winners announced

The winners of the 2021 RIV competition were also announced at the May 6 general session of Converge. There were two winners in each of the three categories, as follows:

RESEARCH
Overall: “Suboptimal Communication During Inter-Hospital Transfer,” Stephanie Mueller, MD, MPH, SFHM

Trainee: “Mentorship in Pediatric Hospital Medicine: A Survey of Division Directors,” Brandon Palmer, MD

INNOVATIONS
Overall: “Leveraging Artificial Intelligence for a Team-Based Approach to Advance Care Planning,” Ron Li, MD

Trainee: “A Trainee-Designed Initiative Reshapes Communication for Hospital Medicine Patients During COVID-19,” Smitha Ganeshan, MD, MBA

CLINICAL VIGNETTES
Adults: “Holy Spontaneous Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia,” Min Hwang

Pediatrics: “The Great Pretender: A Tale of Two Systems,” Shivani Desai, MD