User login
NfL levels linked to worse disability in real-world MS
according to new findings from a large, diverse population of patients with MS. “This is one of the largest studies to evaluate serum neurofilament light chain levels in people with MS,” said lead author Elias S. Sotirchos, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
“An important strength of this cohort is that it is a real-world cohort of patients followed in U.S. and European MS centers,” he said. “The study captures the diversity of the MS population, including demographics, comorbidities, lifestyle factors, and clinical characteristics that may otherwise not be captured in a clinical trial population.”
The research was presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
Scrutinizing serum neurofilament light chain levels in a real-world cohort
Neurofilaments – neuron-specific proteins that release in response to neuroaxonal injury – have been observed to be elevated in a variety of neurologic disorders, and with a need for biomarkers in MS, there is high interest of their role in the disease. But studies involving real-world, heterogeneous MS populations are lacking, the researchers noted.
To take a broader look at the issue, Dr. Sotirchos and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional evaluation of 6,968 people with MS in the Multiple Sclerosis Partners Advancing Technology and Health Solutions (MS PATHS), a large network of MS centers in the United States and Europe.
Participants’ baseline serum neurofilament light chain levels were compared with those of 201 healthy controls in the cohort using a novel, high-throughput immunoassay (Siemens Healthineers).
Of those with MS, 1,202 (17.2%) showed elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels, above the age-specific 97.5th percentile derived from the healthy controls.
A look at key factors associated with elevations showed significant links to having progressive MS (odds ratio, 1.63), non-White race (OR, 1.43), type 2 diabetes (OR, 1.89), and smoking (current vs. never smoker; OR, 1.49).
Associations with age and symptom duration were somewhat complex, but overall, younger patients and those with shorter disease duration had the highest frequency of elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels.
Interestingly, those with a higher body mass index (BMI) showed a reduced odds of having elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels (OR, 0.83 per 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI).
Evaluation of neuroperformance measures – including walking speed, manual dexterity and processing speed, and MRI data – showed that those with elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels had worse neurologic function, lower brain parenchymal fraction, lower thalamic volume, and higher T2 lesion volume (P < .001 for all).
Dr. Sotirchos noted that the higher rates of elevations in younger people, also observed in previous clinical trials, may reflect higher early-stage disease activity. “Generally, people who are younger and earlier in the course of disease tend to have more inflammatory disease activity in MS, and that could be what we’re capturing here, but we need to better understand the pathologic correlates of elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels.”
The lower levels of neurofilament light chain with higher BMI, also recently reported in another study, likewise need further investigation, including in healthy controls, Dr. Sotirchos added. “Having lower serum neurofilament light chain levels with increasing BMI could have to do with effects of blood volume and how the serum neurofilament light chain levels is distributed in the body,” he explained.
The findings suggest that interpretation of serum neurofilament light chain levels without accounting for BMI could result in false-negative or false-positive results, Dr. Sotirchos noted. “It will be important to further evaluate this observation in control populations and account for BMI in neurofilament light chain reference ranges.”
Dr. Sotirchos added that the 17% rate of elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels seen in people with MS in the study is likely an underestimate.
“This is a cross-sectional study and represents one sample per patient, so it is a snapshot in time,” he said. “With the nature of MS, we know that people’s levels fluctuate over time.” In addition, most patients were on disease-modifying therapy for MS, so serum neurofilament light chain elevations could have been suppressed.
Applying the findings to individual patients
Commenting on the findings, Jennifer Graves, MD, PhD, director of the neuroimmunology research program at the University of California, San Diego, said the study is an important addition to the ongoing evidence on serum neurofilament light chain in MS.
“The current presented research importantly addresses the gaps we have in understanding how best to apply serum filament light chain levels to individual patients and not just using them to assess group level means of outcome measures,” she said.
“The MS PATHS collaborative is looking at multiple factors (in addition to MS activity) that drive serum neurofilament light chain levels so meaningful and practical cutoffs for what’s abnormal can be created,” said Dr. Graves, who also directs the Rady Children’s Pediatric MS Clinic in San Diego.
Dr. Graves noted that the findings on BMI were unexpected. “Elevated BMI has been shown to be associated with greater brain atrophy and greater relapses and disability in MS participants, so to have an opposite effect with serum neurofilament light chain is interesting.
“My thoughts would be that obesity is somehow affecting measurable blood levels of this marker. I think it less likely BMI has a protective effect against neurodegeneration given the observations with other MS outcome measures,” she added.
Future research
In terms of future directions, Dr. Sotirchos noted that the researchers are following the group longitudinally to further assess changes in neurofilament light chain over time, and will be looking at associations with longitudinal, clinical, and radiologic outcomes.
The current research, meanwhile, offers important insights in terms of developing precision reference ranges, he noted.
“It appears that reference ranges may need to account for sex, race, BMI, and comorbid/lifestyle factors,” Dr. Sotirchos said, “in order to potentially improve the performance of serum neurofilament light chain as a biomarker in MS and other neurological diseases.”
The study received funding from Biogen and the MS PATHS network receives funding from Biogen. Dr. Sotirchos has served on scientific advisory boards for Alexion, Viela Bio, and Genentech, and has received speaker honoraria from Viela Bio and Biogen. Dr. Graves has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to new findings from a large, diverse population of patients with MS. “This is one of the largest studies to evaluate serum neurofilament light chain levels in people with MS,” said lead author Elias S. Sotirchos, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
“An important strength of this cohort is that it is a real-world cohort of patients followed in U.S. and European MS centers,” he said. “The study captures the diversity of the MS population, including demographics, comorbidities, lifestyle factors, and clinical characteristics that may otherwise not be captured in a clinical trial population.”
The research was presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
Scrutinizing serum neurofilament light chain levels in a real-world cohort
Neurofilaments – neuron-specific proteins that release in response to neuroaxonal injury – have been observed to be elevated in a variety of neurologic disorders, and with a need for biomarkers in MS, there is high interest of their role in the disease. But studies involving real-world, heterogeneous MS populations are lacking, the researchers noted.
To take a broader look at the issue, Dr. Sotirchos and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional evaluation of 6,968 people with MS in the Multiple Sclerosis Partners Advancing Technology and Health Solutions (MS PATHS), a large network of MS centers in the United States and Europe.
Participants’ baseline serum neurofilament light chain levels were compared with those of 201 healthy controls in the cohort using a novel, high-throughput immunoassay (Siemens Healthineers).
Of those with MS, 1,202 (17.2%) showed elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels, above the age-specific 97.5th percentile derived from the healthy controls.
A look at key factors associated with elevations showed significant links to having progressive MS (odds ratio, 1.63), non-White race (OR, 1.43), type 2 diabetes (OR, 1.89), and smoking (current vs. never smoker; OR, 1.49).
Associations with age and symptom duration were somewhat complex, but overall, younger patients and those with shorter disease duration had the highest frequency of elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels.
Interestingly, those with a higher body mass index (BMI) showed a reduced odds of having elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels (OR, 0.83 per 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI).
Evaluation of neuroperformance measures – including walking speed, manual dexterity and processing speed, and MRI data – showed that those with elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels had worse neurologic function, lower brain parenchymal fraction, lower thalamic volume, and higher T2 lesion volume (P < .001 for all).
Dr. Sotirchos noted that the higher rates of elevations in younger people, also observed in previous clinical trials, may reflect higher early-stage disease activity. “Generally, people who are younger and earlier in the course of disease tend to have more inflammatory disease activity in MS, and that could be what we’re capturing here, but we need to better understand the pathologic correlates of elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels.”
The lower levels of neurofilament light chain with higher BMI, also recently reported in another study, likewise need further investigation, including in healthy controls, Dr. Sotirchos added. “Having lower serum neurofilament light chain levels with increasing BMI could have to do with effects of blood volume and how the serum neurofilament light chain levels is distributed in the body,” he explained.
The findings suggest that interpretation of serum neurofilament light chain levels without accounting for BMI could result in false-negative or false-positive results, Dr. Sotirchos noted. “It will be important to further evaluate this observation in control populations and account for BMI in neurofilament light chain reference ranges.”
Dr. Sotirchos added that the 17% rate of elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels seen in people with MS in the study is likely an underestimate.
“This is a cross-sectional study and represents one sample per patient, so it is a snapshot in time,” he said. “With the nature of MS, we know that people’s levels fluctuate over time.” In addition, most patients were on disease-modifying therapy for MS, so serum neurofilament light chain elevations could have been suppressed.
Applying the findings to individual patients
Commenting on the findings, Jennifer Graves, MD, PhD, director of the neuroimmunology research program at the University of California, San Diego, said the study is an important addition to the ongoing evidence on serum neurofilament light chain in MS.
“The current presented research importantly addresses the gaps we have in understanding how best to apply serum filament light chain levels to individual patients and not just using them to assess group level means of outcome measures,” she said.
“The MS PATHS collaborative is looking at multiple factors (in addition to MS activity) that drive serum neurofilament light chain levels so meaningful and practical cutoffs for what’s abnormal can be created,” said Dr. Graves, who also directs the Rady Children’s Pediatric MS Clinic in San Diego.
Dr. Graves noted that the findings on BMI were unexpected. “Elevated BMI has been shown to be associated with greater brain atrophy and greater relapses and disability in MS participants, so to have an opposite effect with serum neurofilament light chain is interesting.
“My thoughts would be that obesity is somehow affecting measurable blood levels of this marker. I think it less likely BMI has a protective effect against neurodegeneration given the observations with other MS outcome measures,” she added.
Future research
In terms of future directions, Dr. Sotirchos noted that the researchers are following the group longitudinally to further assess changes in neurofilament light chain over time, and will be looking at associations with longitudinal, clinical, and radiologic outcomes.
The current research, meanwhile, offers important insights in terms of developing precision reference ranges, he noted.
“It appears that reference ranges may need to account for sex, race, BMI, and comorbid/lifestyle factors,” Dr. Sotirchos said, “in order to potentially improve the performance of serum neurofilament light chain as a biomarker in MS and other neurological diseases.”
The study received funding from Biogen and the MS PATHS network receives funding from Biogen. Dr. Sotirchos has served on scientific advisory boards for Alexion, Viela Bio, and Genentech, and has received speaker honoraria from Viela Bio and Biogen. Dr. Graves has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to new findings from a large, diverse population of patients with MS. “This is one of the largest studies to evaluate serum neurofilament light chain levels in people with MS,” said lead author Elias S. Sotirchos, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
“An important strength of this cohort is that it is a real-world cohort of patients followed in U.S. and European MS centers,” he said. “The study captures the diversity of the MS population, including demographics, comorbidities, lifestyle factors, and clinical characteristics that may otherwise not be captured in a clinical trial population.”
The research was presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
Scrutinizing serum neurofilament light chain levels in a real-world cohort
Neurofilaments – neuron-specific proteins that release in response to neuroaxonal injury – have been observed to be elevated in a variety of neurologic disorders, and with a need for biomarkers in MS, there is high interest of their role in the disease. But studies involving real-world, heterogeneous MS populations are lacking, the researchers noted.
To take a broader look at the issue, Dr. Sotirchos and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional evaluation of 6,968 people with MS in the Multiple Sclerosis Partners Advancing Technology and Health Solutions (MS PATHS), a large network of MS centers in the United States and Europe.
Participants’ baseline serum neurofilament light chain levels were compared with those of 201 healthy controls in the cohort using a novel, high-throughput immunoassay (Siemens Healthineers).
Of those with MS, 1,202 (17.2%) showed elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels, above the age-specific 97.5th percentile derived from the healthy controls.
A look at key factors associated with elevations showed significant links to having progressive MS (odds ratio, 1.63), non-White race (OR, 1.43), type 2 diabetes (OR, 1.89), and smoking (current vs. never smoker; OR, 1.49).
Associations with age and symptom duration were somewhat complex, but overall, younger patients and those with shorter disease duration had the highest frequency of elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels.
Interestingly, those with a higher body mass index (BMI) showed a reduced odds of having elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels (OR, 0.83 per 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI).
Evaluation of neuroperformance measures – including walking speed, manual dexterity and processing speed, and MRI data – showed that those with elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels had worse neurologic function, lower brain parenchymal fraction, lower thalamic volume, and higher T2 lesion volume (P < .001 for all).
Dr. Sotirchos noted that the higher rates of elevations in younger people, also observed in previous clinical trials, may reflect higher early-stage disease activity. “Generally, people who are younger and earlier in the course of disease tend to have more inflammatory disease activity in MS, and that could be what we’re capturing here, but we need to better understand the pathologic correlates of elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels.”
The lower levels of neurofilament light chain with higher BMI, also recently reported in another study, likewise need further investigation, including in healthy controls, Dr. Sotirchos added. “Having lower serum neurofilament light chain levels with increasing BMI could have to do with effects of blood volume and how the serum neurofilament light chain levels is distributed in the body,” he explained.
The findings suggest that interpretation of serum neurofilament light chain levels without accounting for BMI could result in false-negative or false-positive results, Dr. Sotirchos noted. “It will be important to further evaluate this observation in control populations and account for BMI in neurofilament light chain reference ranges.”
Dr. Sotirchos added that the 17% rate of elevated serum neurofilament light chain levels seen in people with MS in the study is likely an underestimate.
“This is a cross-sectional study and represents one sample per patient, so it is a snapshot in time,” he said. “With the nature of MS, we know that people’s levels fluctuate over time.” In addition, most patients were on disease-modifying therapy for MS, so serum neurofilament light chain elevations could have been suppressed.
Applying the findings to individual patients
Commenting on the findings, Jennifer Graves, MD, PhD, director of the neuroimmunology research program at the University of California, San Diego, said the study is an important addition to the ongoing evidence on serum neurofilament light chain in MS.
“The current presented research importantly addresses the gaps we have in understanding how best to apply serum filament light chain levels to individual patients and not just using them to assess group level means of outcome measures,” she said.
“The MS PATHS collaborative is looking at multiple factors (in addition to MS activity) that drive serum neurofilament light chain levels so meaningful and practical cutoffs for what’s abnormal can be created,” said Dr. Graves, who also directs the Rady Children’s Pediatric MS Clinic in San Diego.
Dr. Graves noted that the findings on BMI were unexpected. “Elevated BMI has been shown to be associated with greater brain atrophy and greater relapses and disability in MS participants, so to have an opposite effect with serum neurofilament light chain is interesting.
“My thoughts would be that obesity is somehow affecting measurable blood levels of this marker. I think it less likely BMI has a protective effect against neurodegeneration given the observations with other MS outcome measures,” she added.
Future research
In terms of future directions, Dr. Sotirchos noted that the researchers are following the group longitudinally to further assess changes in neurofilament light chain over time, and will be looking at associations with longitudinal, clinical, and radiologic outcomes.
The current research, meanwhile, offers important insights in terms of developing precision reference ranges, he noted.
“It appears that reference ranges may need to account for sex, race, BMI, and comorbid/lifestyle factors,” Dr. Sotirchos said, “in order to potentially improve the performance of serum neurofilament light chain as a biomarker in MS and other neurological diseases.”
The study received funding from Biogen and the MS PATHS network receives funding from Biogen. Dr. Sotirchos has served on scientific advisory boards for Alexion, Viela Bio, and Genentech, and has received speaker honoraria from Viela Bio and Biogen. Dr. Graves has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACTRIMS 2021
Earlier antibiotic initiation for sepsis did not lead to overuse
There has been a marked increase in the time to antibiotic administration for ICU patients with sepsis across Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, but there is no evidence that they are being given inappropriately, according to new findings.
Accelerating time-to-antibiotics in sepsis means that patients will be treated earlier, but it could also result in more patients receiving antibiotics, including those without infection. This in turn may contribute to antimicrobial resistance.
“The time to antibiotics for sepsis accelerated across VA hospitals, and declined from 5.8 to 4.8 hours between 2013 and 2018,” said lead study author Sarah Seelye, PhD, data scientist at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor, Mich. “Despite this, there was no evidence between hospital level antibiotic acceleration in sepsis and antibiotic use among all patients with potential sepsis.”
The results were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, which was held virtually this year.
“Many hospitals have initiated programs like this to accelerate the use of antibiotics in patients with severe sepsis, but at the same time, there is growing concern that earlier antibiotic initiation may result in increased antibiotic treatment overall, including those without infection,” said Dr. Seelye. “However, to date, there is little evidence to support this claim.”
The goal of their study was to investigate whether hospital-level acceleration in antibiotic timing for sepsis was associated with increasing antibiotic use among patients hospitalized with potential infection.
They identified 1,101,239 hospitalizations for potential infection in 132 VA hospitals during the period from 2013 to 2018. Of these patients, 608,128 (55.2%) received antibiotics within 48 hours of presentation to the emergency department. A total of 117,435 (10.7%) met the criteria for sepsis.
Hospitals were classified into tertiles of antibiotic acceleration for sepsis: rapid, slow, and flat.
In the VA system, patients with severe sepsis began receiving faster antibiotic treatment in 2017, compared with earlier years. In 2017-2018 more than 20% of sepsis patients had received their first treatment within 2 hours, compared with 14% in 2013-1014.
In 2017-2018, more than 20% of sepsis patients had received their first treatment within 2 hours, compared with 14% in 2013-1014.
Hospitals categorized as rapid accelerators decreased their time to antibiotic initiation from 6.4 hours to 4.5 hours, while slow accelerators went from 5.6 to 4.6 hours from 2013 to 2018, and flat accelerators remained stable during the time period (5.3 hours down to 5.2 hours).
However, statistical analysis showed no real difference between the three groups in antibiotic prescribing.
“Despite this, there was no evidence between hospital-level antibiotic acceleration in sepsis and antibiotic use among all patients with potential sepsis,” said Dr. Seelye.
Weighing in on the study results, Craig M. Coopersmith, MD, professor of surgery at Emory University, Atlanta, noted that these results are very convincing, considering the size of the study and that it encompassed 132 different facilities.
“It’s difficult to say how generalizable these results are but they are definitely generalizable to all hospitals in the VA system,” he said. “In general, there are similarities between large health care systems, and it would be surprising if we found the opposite to be true in non-VA health systems.”
However, he emphasized that there is some possibility that the results would not be identical because different health care systems have different methods of providing care.
“This paper does show that you can get antibiotics into patients faster, which can be life saving, without inappropriately using them on everybody,” Dr. Coopersmith said.
He explained that there is more attention being paid now to antibiotic stewardship, compared with 10 or 15 years ago. “Given the choice of giving someone a single dose of antibiotics who may not need it, as opposed to withholding them from someone who is septic which is life threatening, the risk benefit ratio weighs heavily towards starting them early,” he said. “And then escalate rapidly.”
There has been a marked increase in the time to antibiotic administration for ICU patients with sepsis across Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, but there is no evidence that they are being given inappropriately, according to new findings.
Accelerating time-to-antibiotics in sepsis means that patients will be treated earlier, but it could also result in more patients receiving antibiotics, including those without infection. This in turn may contribute to antimicrobial resistance.
“The time to antibiotics for sepsis accelerated across VA hospitals, and declined from 5.8 to 4.8 hours between 2013 and 2018,” said lead study author Sarah Seelye, PhD, data scientist at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor, Mich. “Despite this, there was no evidence between hospital level antibiotic acceleration in sepsis and antibiotic use among all patients with potential sepsis.”
The results were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, which was held virtually this year.
“Many hospitals have initiated programs like this to accelerate the use of antibiotics in patients with severe sepsis, but at the same time, there is growing concern that earlier antibiotic initiation may result in increased antibiotic treatment overall, including those without infection,” said Dr. Seelye. “However, to date, there is little evidence to support this claim.”
The goal of their study was to investigate whether hospital-level acceleration in antibiotic timing for sepsis was associated with increasing antibiotic use among patients hospitalized with potential infection.
They identified 1,101,239 hospitalizations for potential infection in 132 VA hospitals during the period from 2013 to 2018. Of these patients, 608,128 (55.2%) received antibiotics within 48 hours of presentation to the emergency department. A total of 117,435 (10.7%) met the criteria for sepsis.
Hospitals were classified into tertiles of antibiotic acceleration for sepsis: rapid, slow, and flat.
In the VA system, patients with severe sepsis began receiving faster antibiotic treatment in 2017, compared with earlier years. In 2017-2018 more than 20% of sepsis patients had received their first treatment within 2 hours, compared with 14% in 2013-1014.
In 2017-2018, more than 20% of sepsis patients had received their first treatment within 2 hours, compared with 14% in 2013-1014.
Hospitals categorized as rapid accelerators decreased their time to antibiotic initiation from 6.4 hours to 4.5 hours, while slow accelerators went from 5.6 to 4.6 hours from 2013 to 2018, and flat accelerators remained stable during the time period (5.3 hours down to 5.2 hours).
However, statistical analysis showed no real difference between the three groups in antibiotic prescribing.
“Despite this, there was no evidence between hospital-level antibiotic acceleration in sepsis and antibiotic use among all patients with potential sepsis,” said Dr. Seelye.
Weighing in on the study results, Craig M. Coopersmith, MD, professor of surgery at Emory University, Atlanta, noted that these results are very convincing, considering the size of the study and that it encompassed 132 different facilities.
“It’s difficult to say how generalizable these results are but they are definitely generalizable to all hospitals in the VA system,” he said. “In general, there are similarities between large health care systems, and it would be surprising if we found the opposite to be true in non-VA health systems.”
However, he emphasized that there is some possibility that the results would not be identical because different health care systems have different methods of providing care.
“This paper does show that you can get antibiotics into patients faster, which can be life saving, without inappropriately using them on everybody,” Dr. Coopersmith said.
He explained that there is more attention being paid now to antibiotic stewardship, compared with 10 or 15 years ago. “Given the choice of giving someone a single dose of antibiotics who may not need it, as opposed to withholding them from someone who is septic which is life threatening, the risk benefit ratio weighs heavily towards starting them early,” he said. “And then escalate rapidly.”
There has been a marked increase in the time to antibiotic administration for ICU patients with sepsis across Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, but there is no evidence that they are being given inappropriately, according to new findings.
Accelerating time-to-antibiotics in sepsis means that patients will be treated earlier, but it could also result in more patients receiving antibiotics, including those without infection. This in turn may contribute to antimicrobial resistance.
“The time to antibiotics for sepsis accelerated across VA hospitals, and declined from 5.8 to 4.8 hours between 2013 and 2018,” said lead study author Sarah Seelye, PhD, data scientist at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Ann Arbor, Mich. “Despite this, there was no evidence between hospital level antibiotic acceleration in sepsis and antibiotic use among all patients with potential sepsis.”
The results were presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, which was held virtually this year.
“Many hospitals have initiated programs like this to accelerate the use of antibiotics in patients with severe sepsis, but at the same time, there is growing concern that earlier antibiotic initiation may result in increased antibiotic treatment overall, including those without infection,” said Dr. Seelye. “However, to date, there is little evidence to support this claim.”
The goal of their study was to investigate whether hospital-level acceleration in antibiotic timing for sepsis was associated with increasing antibiotic use among patients hospitalized with potential infection.
They identified 1,101,239 hospitalizations for potential infection in 132 VA hospitals during the period from 2013 to 2018. Of these patients, 608,128 (55.2%) received antibiotics within 48 hours of presentation to the emergency department. A total of 117,435 (10.7%) met the criteria for sepsis.
Hospitals were classified into tertiles of antibiotic acceleration for sepsis: rapid, slow, and flat.
In the VA system, patients with severe sepsis began receiving faster antibiotic treatment in 2017, compared with earlier years. In 2017-2018 more than 20% of sepsis patients had received their first treatment within 2 hours, compared with 14% in 2013-1014.
In 2017-2018, more than 20% of sepsis patients had received their first treatment within 2 hours, compared with 14% in 2013-1014.
Hospitals categorized as rapid accelerators decreased their time to antibiotic initiation from 6.4 hours to 4.5 hours, while slow accelerators went from 5.6 to 4.6 hours from 2013 to 2018, and flat accelerators remained stable during the time period (5.3 hours down to 5.2 hours).
However, statistical analysis showed no real difference between the three groups in antibiotic prescribing.
“Despite this, there was no evidence between hospital-level antibiotic acceleration in sepsis and antibiotic use among all patients with potential sepsis,” said Dr. Seelye.
Weighing in on the study results, Craig M. Coopersmith, MD, professor of surgery at Emory University, Atlanta, noted that these results are very convincing, considering the size of the study and that it encompassed 132 different facilities.
“It’s difficult to say how generalizable these results are but they are definitely generalizable to all hospitals in the VA system,” he said. “In general, there are similarities between large health care systems, and it would be surprising if we found the opposite to be true in non-VA health systems.”
However, he emphasized that there is some possibility that the results would not be identical because different health care systems have different methods of providing care.
“This paper does show that you can get antibiotics into patients faster, which can be life saving, without inappropriately using them on everybody,” Dr. Coopersmith said.
He explained that there is more attention being paid now to antibiotic stewardship, compared with 10 or 15 years ago. “Given the choice of giving someone a single dose of antibiotics who may not need it, as opposed to withholding them from someone who is septic which is life threatening, the risk benefit ratio weighs heavily towards starting them early,” he said. “And then escalate rapidly.”
FROM CCC50
Vitamin D deficiency linked to early cognitive impairment in MS
according to new research that adds to the known adverse relationship between low vitamin D and MS.
“We confirmed that low vitamin D may affect not only early disability but also cognition in newly MS diagnosed patients,” said lead author Eleonora Virgilio, MD, of the MS Center, neurology unit, at the University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.
“The possible effects of vitamin D on both cognition (in particular, information processing speed) and early disability in newly diagnosed MS patients needs to be further investigated because this association might represent a marker of future disability, supporting the need for prompt supplementation,” she said.
The findings were presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
Low vitamin D and MS
Previous studies have linked insufficient serum vitamin D with everything from the development of MS to activity and disease progression, but less has been reported on a specific link to the impairment of cognitive function, an important complication of MS.
“Cognitive impairment, and, in particular, slowed information processing speed, is very frequent in the MS population from the early stages of disease, and frequently underestimated,” Dr. Virgilio noted. “It has yet to be completely elucidated what the exact underlying mechanisms are.”
To evaluate the relationship, Dr. Virgilio and colleagues enrolled 60 patients in Italy with MS who were newly diagnosed and had serum vitamin D levels collected upon diagnosis. The participants were also tested at diagnosis with the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) for information processing speed, which is a hallmark of the cognitive impairment that can occur in MS and is typically the first cognitive domain to show effects of the disease.
Among the patients, 40 were female and the mean age at diagnosis was 39.5 years; 90% had relapsing remitting MS at baseline and 10% had progressive MS. Their median Expanded Disability Status Scale score at diagnosis was 1.5.
At baseline, as many as 85% of the participants (51) had low serum vitamin D levels, defined as below 30 ng/mL, which Dr. Virgilio noted is consistent with other rates reported among people with MS in the Lombardy region of Italy, where the study was conducted.
The patients had a mean vitamin D level of 21.17 ng/mL (± 10.02), with 51.7% considered to have a deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) and 33.3% with an insufficiency (20-30 ng/mL).
Of the patients, 16 (27%) had cognitive impairment, defined as a z score of 1.5 or less. Their mean raw SDMT score was 46.50 (± 14.73) and mean z score was –0.62 (± 1.29).
Importantly, those with cognitive impairment were significantly more likely to have severe hypovitaminosis D, compared with those with sufficient vitamin D levels, none of whom showed cognitive impairment (P = .02).
Furthermore, vitamin D levels positively correlated with SDMT raw values (P = .001) and z score (P = .008).
Over a mean follow-up of 2 years, a significant correlation was observed between serum vitamin D levels at diagnosis and early disability on the MS severity score (MSSS; P = .02) and a weak correlation with age-related MSSS (ARMSS; P = .08) at the last clinical follow-up.
Dr. Virgilio noted that factors including disease treatment effects or other factors could have played a role in the weaker results. “It is possible that the linear correlation we found was not as strong as expected [because of] an effect of treatment with disease-modifying therapies or vitamin D supplementation, or because of the short follow-up available at the moment for our population – only for a mean period of 2 years after MS diagnosis.”
The mechanisms for vitamin D deficiency in the MS population are likely multifactorial, with genetic as well as environmental links, she noted.
“The immunomodulatory effects of vitamin D are well known,” Dr. Virgilio said.
“Vitamin D was already linked to cognitive function in other neurodegenerative diseases, [including] Alzheimer’s disease, but more importantly, also in other autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus,” she explained.
Vitamin D also linked to long-term cognitive function
The study adds to recent research showing longer-term effects of vitamin D deficiency and cognitive impairment in MS: In the longitudinal BENEFIT trial published in 2020, researchers following 278 patients with MS over the course of 11 years found that a 50 ng/L higher mean vitamin D level in the first 2 years of the study was associated with a 65% lower odds of a poor performance on Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test scores at the 11-year follow-up.
That study also looked at neurofilament light chain concentrations, which are associated with MS disease activity, and found they were 20% lower among those with higher vitamin D at baseline. Smokers also had lower cognitive scores.
“Lower vitamin D and smoking after clinical onset predicted worse long-term cognitive function and neuronal integrity in patients with MS,” the authors concluded.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to new research that adds to the known adverse relationship between low vitamin D and MS.
“We confirmed that low vitamin D may affect not only early disability but also cognition in newly MS diagnosed patients,” said lead author Eleonora Virgilio, MD, of the MS Center, neurology unit, at the University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.
“The possible effects of vitamin D on both cognition (in particular, information processing speed) and early disability in newly diagnosed MS patients needs to be further investigated because this association might represent a marker of future disability, supporting the need for prompt supplementation,” she said.
The findings were presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
Low vitamin D and MS
Previous studies have linked insufficient serum vitamin D with everything from the development of MS to activity and disease progression, but less has been reported on a specific link to the impairment of cognitive function, an important complication of MS.
“Cognitive impairment, and, in particular, slowed information processing speed, is very frequent in the MS population from the early stages of disease, and frequently underestimated,” Dr. Virgilio noted. “It has yet to be completely elucidated what the exact underlying mechanisms are.”
To evaluate the relationship, Dr. Virgilio and colleagues enrolled 60 patients in Italy with MS who were newly diagnosed and had serum vitamin D levels collected upon diagnosis. The participants were also tested at diagnosis with the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) for information processing speed, which is a hallmark of the cognitive impairment that can occur in MS and is typically the first cognitive domain to show effects of the disease.
Among the patients, 40 were female and the mean age at diagnosis was 39.5 years; 90% had relapsing remitting MS at baseline and 10% had progressive MS. Their median Expanded Disability Status Scale score at diagnosis was 1.5.
At baseline, as many as 85% of the participants (51) had low serum vitamin D levels, defined as below 30 ng/mL, which Dr. Virgilio noted is consistent with other rates reported among people with MS in the Lombardy region of Italy, where the study was conducted.
The patients had a mean vitamin D level of 21.17 ng/mL (± 10.02), with 51.7% considered to have a deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) and 33.3% with an insufficiency (20-30 ng/mL).
Of the patients, 16 (27%) had cognitive impairment, defined as a z score of 1.5 or less. Their mean raw SDMT score was 46.50 (± 14.73) and mean z score was –0.62 (± 1.29).
Importantly, those with cognitive impairment were significantly more likely to have severe hypovitaminosis D, compared with those with sufficient vitamin D levels, none of whom showed cognitive impairment (P = .02).
Furthermore, vitamin D levels positively correlated with SDMT raw values (P = .001) and z score (P = .008).
Over a mean follow-up of 2 years, a significant correlation was observed between serum vitamin D levels at diagnosis and early disability on the MS severity score (MSSS; P = .02) and a weak correlation with age-related MSSS (ARMSS; P = .08) at the last clinical follow-up.
Dr. Virgilio noted that factors including disease treatment effects or other factors could have played a role in the weaker results. “It is possible that the linear correlation we found was not as strong as expected [because of] an effect of treatment with disease-modifying therapies or vitamin D supplementation, or because of the short follow-up available at the moment for our population – only for a mean period of 2 years after MS diagnosis.”
The mechanisms for vitamin D deficiency in the MS population are likely multifactorial, with genetic as well as environmental links, she noted.
“The immunomodulatory effects of vitamin D are well known,” Dr. Virgilio said.
“Vitamin D was already linked to cognitive function in other neurodegenerative diseases, [including] Alzheimer’s disease, but more importantly, also in other autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus,” she explained.
Vitamin D also linked to long-term cognitive function
The study adds to recent research showing longer-term effects of vitamin D deficiency and cognitive impairment in MS: In the longitudinal BENEFIT trial published in 2020, researchers following 278 patients with MS over the course of 11 years found that a 50 ng/L higher mean vitamin D level in the first 2 years of the study was associated with a 65% lower odds of a poor performance on Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test scores at the 11-year follow-up.
That study also looked at neurofilament light chain concentrations, which are associated with MS disease activity, and found they were 20% lower among those with higher vitamin D at baseline. Smokers also had lower cognitive scores.
“Lower vitamin D and smoking after clinical onset predicted worse long-term cognitive function and neuronal integrity in patients with MS,” the authors concluded.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to new research that adds to the known adverse relationship between low vitamin D and MS.
“We confirmed that low vitamin D may affect not only early disability but also cognition in newly MS diagnosed patients,” said lead author Eleonora Virgilio, MD, of the MS Center, neurology unit, at the University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.
“The possible effects of vitamin D on both cognition (in particular, information processing speed) and early disability in newly diagnosed MS patients needs to be further investigated because this association might represent a marker of future disability, supporting the need for prompt supplementation,” she said.
The findings were presented at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
Low vitamin D and MS
Previous studies have linked insufficient serum vitamin D with everything from the development of MS to activity and disease progression, but less has been reported on a specific link to the impairment of cognitive function, an important complication of MS.
“Cognitive impairment, and, in particular, slowed information processing speed, is very frequent in the MS population from the early stages of disease, and frequently underestimated,” Dr. Virgilio noted. “It has yet to be completely elucidated what the exact underlying mechanisms are.”
To evaluate the relationship, Dr. Virgilio and colleagues enrolled 60 patients in Italy with MS who were newly diagnosed and had serum vitamin D levels collected upon diagnosis. The participants were also tested at diagnosis with the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) for information processing speed, which is a hallmark of the cognitive impairment that can occur in MS and is typically the first cognitive domain to show effects of the disease.
Among the patients, 40 were female and the mean age at diagnosis was 39.5 years; 90% had relapsing remitting MS at baseline and 10% had progressive MS. Their median Expanded Disability Status Scale score at diagnosis was 1.5.
At baseline, as many as 85% of the participants (51) had low serum vitamin D levels, defined as below 30 ng/mL, which Dr. Virgilio noted is consistent with other rates reported among people with MS in the Lombardy region of Italy, where the study was conducted.
The patients had a mean vitamin D level of 21.17 ng/mL (± 10.02), with 51.7% considered to have a deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) and 33.3% with an insufficiency (20-30 ng/mL).
Of the patients, 16 (27%) had cognitive impairment, defined as a z score of 1.5 or less. Their mean raw SDMT score was 46.50 (± 14.73) and mean z score was –0.62 (± 1.29).
Importantly, those with cognitive impairment were significantly more likely to have severe hypovitaminosis D, compared with those with sufficient vitamin D levels, none of whom showed cognitive impairment (P = .02).
Furthermore, vitamin D levels positively correlated with SDMT raw values (P = .001) and z score (P = .008).
Over a mean follow-up of 2 years, a significant correlation was observed between serum vitamin D levels at diagnosis and early disability on the MS severity score (MSSS; P = .02) and a weak correlation with age-related MSSS (ARMSS; P = .08) at the last clinical follow-up.
Dr. Virgilio noted that factors including disease treatment effects or other factors could have played a role in the weaker results. “It is possible that the linear correlation we found was not as strong as expected [because of] an effect of treatment with disease-modifying therapies or vitamin D supplementation, or because of the short follow-up available at the moment for our population – only for a mean period of 2 years after MS diagnosis.”
The mechanisms for vitamin D deficiency in the MS population are likely multifactorial, with genetic as well as environmental links, she noted.
“The immunomodulatory effects of vitamin D are well known,” Dr. Virgilio said.
“Vitamin D was already linked to cognitive function in other neurodegenerative diseases, [including] Alzheimer’s disease, but more importantly, also in other autoimmune diseases, such as systemic lupus erythematosus,” she explained.
Vitamin D also linked to long-term cognitive function
The study adds to recent research showing longer-term effects of vitamin D deficiency and cognitive impairment in MS: In the longitudinal BENEFIT trial published in 2020, researchers following 278 patients with MS over the course of 11 years found that a 50 ng/L higher mean vitamin D level in the first 2 years of the study was associated with a 65% lower odds of a poor performance on Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test scores at the 11-year follow-up.
That study also looked at neurofilament light chain concentrations, which are associated with MS disease activity, and found they were 20% lower among those with higher vitamin D at baseline. Smokers also had lower cognitive scores.
“Lower vitamin D and smoking after clinical onset predicted worse long-term cognitive function and neuronal integrity in patients with MS,” the authors concluded.
The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACTRIMS FORUM 2021
Metformin for pediatric obesity? Researchers review the evidence
Metformin has a modest favorable effect on body mass index z score and insulin resistance in children and adolescents with obesity, compared with placebo, according to a systematic review of trial data.
“The available evidence is of varying quality,” however, and the drug increases the likelihood of gastrointestinal adverse effects, reported Reem Masarwa, PharmD, PhD, and colleagues in Pediatrics. “Nonetheless, metformin may be considered for use as a pharmacologic therapy in this pediatric population because of its modest efficacy, availability, cost, and safety profile.”
The Food and Drug Administration has approved metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. Doctors have used the drug off label for weight loss in children with obesity, but this use “remains controversial,” the review authors said.
To assess the efficacy and safety of metformin plus lifestyle interventions compared with placebo plus lifestyle interventions in children and adolescents with obesity, Dr. Masarwa, with the Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, and the department of epidemiology, biostatistics, and occupational health, McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues systematically reviewed data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Their review was published online in Pediatrics.
The investigators focused on studies that examined outcomes such as body mass index, BMI z score, insulin resistance, and gastrointestinal adverse effects. They excluded studies of children with type 2 diabetes.
The researchers included 24 RCTs in their review. The studies included 1,623 children and adolescents who received metformin (861 participants) or placebo (762 participants). Indications included uncomplicated obesity in 10 studies, obesity with insulin resistance in 9 studies, prediabetes in 3 studies, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in 2 studies. One of the trials did not incorporate a lifestyle cointervention.
Participants ranged in age from 4 years to 19 years, and trial durations ranged from 2 months to 2 years. The total daily dose of metformin ranged from 500 mg to 2,000 mg.
In 14 RCTs that reported BMI, metformin generally decreased BMI (range of mean changes: –2.70 to 1.30), compared with placebo (range of mean changes: –1.12 to 1.90), although three trials suggested that metformin increased BMI. The average difference in the treatment effect between the metformin and placebo groups ranged from –2.72 to 0.70. “Importantly, the authors of many RCTs reported variable treatment effects, preventing definitive conclusions from being drawn from individual trials,” Dr. Masarwa and coauthors wrote.
In seven RCTs that reported BMI z score, metformin consistently decreased BMI z score (range of mean changes: –0.37 to –0.03), compared with placebo (range of mean changes: –0.22 to 0.15). The mean difference in the treatment effect between treatment groups ranged from –0.15 to –0.07. The largest decrease occurred in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
The rate of gastrointestinal adverse events nearly doubled with metformin treatment, relative to placebo (rate range: 2%-74% for metformin vs. 0%-42% for placebo).
Metformin adherence rates ranged from 60% to 90%, and lifestyle cointerventions varied substantially across the trials, the researchers noted. The clinical significance and long-term effects of metformin treatment in this population “remain uncertain,” they said.
Off-label use may not be ideal
“Ideally, children with obesity should be entered into a clinical trial rather than placed on an off-label medication,” Vandana Raman, MD, and Carol M. Foster, MD, said in a related commentary. Still, treatment with metformin may be reasonable in certain cases, said Dr. Raman and Dr. Foster of the division of endocrinology in the department of pediatrics at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. “Metformin is a low-cost option and may provide modest clinical benefit for weight loss with minimal side effects. If lifestyle modification has been pursued but has achieved minimal weight loss, it may be reasonable to try an agent such as metformin as adjunctive therapy,” they said.
Lifestyle modification therapy – including nutritional changes, physical activity, and behavior modification – has been the “mainstay of management” for patients with obesity, and this approach underpins successful weight loss, they said. But durable weight loss with lifestyle modification may be challenging, and pharmacologic treatments “are attractive options before proceeding to bariatric surgery,” they said.
For younger patients, FDA-approved medications for obesity include orlistat and liraglutide for patients aged 12 years and older, and phentermine for patients aged 16 years and older.
“Orlistat has been associated with modest BMI reduction but may cause intolerable gastrointestinal side effects and possible fat-soluble vitamin deficiency,” they said. “Phentermine is approved for short-term therapy only and may increase heart rate and blood pressure and cause irritability and insomnia.”
Liraglutide, which was approved for the treatment of pediatric obesity in December 2020, reduced BMI in a trial that included adolescents with obesity. About 43% of the participants who received liraglutide, compared with 18% who received placebo, had a 5% reduction in BMI. In addition, 26% and 8%, respectively, had a 10% reduction in BMI. The use of liraglutide “is limited by the need for daily subcutaneous injections and high frequency of gastrointestinal side effects and high cost,” however, the commentary authors noted.
In addition, the FDA has approved setmelanotide for children older than 6 years with obesity caused by three rare genetic conditions.
Some small studies have suggested that topiramate may lead to meaningful weight loss in children, but the medication has been associated with cognitive dysfunction, they said.
Considering surgery
“This is an important review of the efficacy of metformin as a tool for weight loss in children with obesity,” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor emeritus of pediatrics and community and family medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. “Results showed modest decreases in BMI z scores compared to placebo but there were a significant percentage of GI side effects and dropouts from the trials.”
“Tools other than lifestyle changes are needed to address” pediatric obesity, Dr. Boulter said. “Another tool is gastric bypass which is now a recommended intervention in selected clinical sites for adolescents 14 years of age and older with BMIs greater than 35.”
Dr. Boulter highlighted a recent study in Pediatrics that examined data from more than 200 adolescents who underwent bariatric surgery. The researchers found that outcomes were similar for older and younger patients.
“It would be interesting to pediatricians in practice to see a comparison study between metformin and bariatric surgery long-term results,” Dr. Boulter added.
Dr. Masarwa and coauthors received support from the Quebec Foundation for Health Research and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Drug Safety and Effectiveness Cross-Disciplinary Training Program. One coauthor also is supported by an award from McGill University.
The authors of the systematic review and the accompanying commentary had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Boulter is a member of the editorial advisory board for Pediatric News and had no relevant financial disclosures.
Metformin has a modest favorable effect on body mass index z score and insulin resistance in children and adolescents with obesity, compared with placebo, according to a systematic review of trial data.
“The available evidence is of varying quality,” however, and the drug increases the likelihood of gastrointestinal adverse effects, reported Reem Masarwa, PharmD, PhD, and colleagues in Pediatrics. “Nonetheless, metformin may be considered for use as a pharmacologic therapy in this pediatric population because of its modest efficacy, availability, cost, and safety profile.”
The Food and Drug Administration has approved metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. Doctors have used the drug off label for weight loss in children with obesity, but this use “remains controversial,” the review authors said.
To assess the efficacy and safety of metformin plus lifestyle interventions compared with placebo plus lifestyle interventions in children and adolescents with obesity, Dr. Masarwa, with the Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, and the department of epidemiology, biostatistics, and occupational health, McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues systematically reviewed data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Their review was published online in Pediatrics.
The investigators focused on studies that examined outcomes such as body mass index, BMI z score, insulin resistance, and gastrointestinal adverse effects. They excluded studies of children with type 2 diabetes.
The researchers included 24 RCTs in their review. The studies included 1,623 children and adolescents who received metformin (861 participants) or placebo (762 participants). Indications included uncomplicated obesity in 10 studies, obesity with insulin resistance in 9 studies, prediabetes in 3 studies, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in 2 studies. One of the trials did not incorporate a lifestyle cointervention.
Participants ranged in age from 4 years to 19 years, and trial durations ranged from 2 months to 2 years. The total daily dose of metformin ranged from 500 mg to 2,000 mg.
In 14 RCTs that reported BMI, metformin generally decreased BMI (range of mean changes: –2.70 to 1.30), compared with placebo (range of mean changes: –1.12 to 1.90), although three trials suggested that metformin increased BMI. The average difference in the treatment effect between the metformin and placebo groups ranged from –2.72 to 0.70. “Importantly, the authors of many RCTs reported variable treatment effects, preventing definitive conclusions from being drawn from individual trials,” Dr. Masarwa and coauthors wrote.
In seven RCTs that reported BMI z score, metformin consistently decreased BMI z score (range of mean changes: –0.37 to –0.03), compared with placebo (range of mean changes: –0.22 to 0.15). The mean difference in the treatment effect between treatment groups ranged from –0.15 to –0.07. The largest decrease occurred in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
The rate of gastrointestinal adverse events nearly doubled with metformin treatment, relative to placebo (rate range: 2%-74% for metformin vs. 0%-42% for placebo).
Metformin adherence rates ranged from 60% to 90%, and lifestyle cointerventions varied substantially across the trials, the researchers noted. The clinical significance and long-term effects of metformin treatment in this population “remain uncertain,” they said.
Off-label use may not be ideal
“Ideally, children with obesity should be entered into a clinical trial rather than placed on an off-label medication,” Vandana Raman, MD, and Carol M. Foster, MD, said in a related commentary. Still, treatment with metformin may be reasonable in certain cases, said Dr. Raman and Dr. Foster of the division of endocrinology in the department of pediatrics at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. “Metformin is a low-cost option and may provide modest clinical benefit for weight loss with minimal side effects. If lifestyle modification has been pursued but has achieved minimal weight loss, it may be reasonable to try an agent such as metformin as adjunctive therapy,” they said.
Lifestyle modification therapy – including nutritional changes, physical activity, and behavior modification – has been the “mainstay of management” for patients with obesity, and this approach underpins successful weight loss, they said. But durable weight loss with lifestyle modification may be challenging, and pharmacologic treatments “are attractive options before proceeding to bariatric surgery,” they said.
For younger patients, FDA-approved medications for obesity include orlistat and liraglutide for patients aged 12 years and older, and phentermine for patients aged 16 years and older.
“Orlistat has been associated with modest BMI reduction but may cause intolerable gastrointestinal side effects and possible fat-soluble vitamin deficiency,” they said. “Phentermine is approved for short-term therapy only and may increase heart rate and blood pressure and cause irritability and insomnia.”
Liraglutide, which was approved for the treatment of pediatric obesity in December 2020, reduced BMI in a trial that included adolescents with obesity. About 43% of the participants who received liraglutide, compared with 18% who received placebo, had a 5% reduction in BMI. In addition, 26% and 8%, respectively, had a 10% reduction in BMI. The use of liraglutide “is limited by the need for daily subcutaneous injections and high frequency of gastrointestinal side effects and high cost,” however, the commentary authors noted.
In addition, the FDA has approved setmelanotide for children older than 6 years with obesity caused by three rare genetic conditions.
Some small studies have suggested that topiramate may lead to meaningful weight loss in children, but the medication has been associated with cognitive dysfunction, they said.
Considering surgery
“This is an important review of the efficacy of metformin as a tool for weight loss in children with obesity,” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor emeritus of pediatrics and community and family medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. “Results showed modest decreases in BMI z scores compared to placebo but there were a significant percentage of GI side effects and dropouts from the trials.”
“Tools other than lifestyle changes are needed to address” pediatric obesity, Dr. Boulter said. “Another tool is gastric bypass which is now a recommended intervention in selected clinical sites for adolescents 14 years of age and older with BMIs greater than 35.”
Dr. Boulter highlighted a recent study in Pediatrics that examined data from more than 200 adolescents who underwent bariatric surgery. The researchers found that outcomes were similar for older and younger patients.
“It would be interesting to pediatricians in practice to see a comparison study between metformin and bariatric surgery long-term results,” Dr. Boulter added.
Dr. Masarwa and coauthors received support from the Quebec Foundation for Health Research and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Drug Safety and Effectiveness Cross-Disciplinary Training Program. One coauthor also is supported by an award from McGill University.
The authors of the systematic review and the accompanying commentary had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Boulter is a member of the editorial advisory board for Pediatric News and had no relevant financial disclosures.
Metformin has a modest favorable effect on body mass index z score and insulin resistance in children and adolescents with obesity, compared with placebo, according to a systematic review of trial data.
“The available evidence is of varying quality,” however, and the drug increases the likelihood of gastrointestinal adverse effects, reported Reem Masarwa, PharmD, PhD, and colleagues in Pediatrics. “Nonetheless, metformin may be considered for use as a pharmacologic therapy in this pediatric population because of its modest efficacy, availability, cost, and safety profile.”
The Food and Drug Administration has approved metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents. Doctors have used the drug off label for weight loss in children with obesity, but this use “remains controversial,” the review authors said.
To assess the efficacy and safety of metformin plus lifestyle interventions compared with placebo plus lifestyle interventions in children and adolescents with obesity, Dr. Masarwa, with the Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, and the department of epidemiology, biostatistics, and occupational health, McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues systematically reviewed data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Their review was published online in Pediatrics.
The investigators focused on studies that examined outcomes such as body mass index, BMI z score, insulin resistance, and gastrointestinal adverse effects. They excluded studies of children with type 2 diabetes.
The researchers included 24 RCTs in their review. The studies included 1,623 children and adolescents who received metformin (861 participants) or placebo (762 participants). Indications included uncomplicated obesity in 10 studies, obesity with insulin resistance in 9 studies, prediabetes in 3 studies, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in 2 studies. One of the trials did not incorporate a lifestyle cointervention.
Participants ranged in age from 4 years to 19 years, and trial durations ranged from 2 months to 2 years. The total daily dose of metformin ranged from 500 mg to 2,000 mg.
In 14 RCTs that reported BMI, metformin generally decreased BMI (range of mean changes: –2.70 to 1.30), compared with placebo (range of mean changes: –1.12 to 1.90), although three trials suggested that metformin increased BMI. The average difference in the treatment effect between the metformin and placebo groups ranged from –2.72 to 0.70. “Importantly, the authors of many RCTs reported variable treatment effects, preventing definitive conclusions from being drawn from individual trials,” Dr. Masarwa and coauthors wrote.
In seven RCTs that reported BMI z score, metformin consistently decreased BMI z score (range of mean changes: –0.37 to –0.03), compared with placebo (range of mean changes: –0.22 to 0.15). The mean difference in the treatment effect between treatment groups ranged from –0.15 to –0.07. The largest decrease occurred in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
The rate of gastrointestinal adverse events nearly doubled with metformin treatment, relative to placebo (rate range: 2%-74% for metformin vs. 0%-42% for placebo).
Metformin adherence rates ranged from 60% to 90%, and lifestyle cointerventions varied substantially across the trials, the researchers noted. The clinical significance and long-term effects of metformin treatment in this population “remain uncertain,” they said.
Off-label use may not be ideal
“Ideally, children with obesity should be entered into a clinical trial rather than placed on an off-label medication,” Vandana Raman, MD, and Carol M. Foster, MD, said in a related commentary. Still, treatment with metformin may be reasonable in certain cases, said Dr. Raman and Dr. Foster of the division of endocrinology in the department of pediatrics at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. “Metformin is a low-cost option and may provide modest clinical benefit for weight loss with minimal side effects. If lifestyle modification has been pursued but has achieved minimal weight loss, it may be reasonable to try an agent such as metformin as adjunctive therapy,” they said.
Lifestyle modification therapy – including nutritional changes, physical activity, and behavior modification – has been the “mainstay of management” for patients with obesity, and this approach underpins successful weight loss, they said. But durable weight loss with lifestyle modification may be challenging, and pharmacologic treatments “are attractive options before proceeding to bariatric surgery,” they said.
For younger patients, FDA-approved medications for obesity include orlistat and liraglutide for patients aged 12 years and older, and phentermine for patients aged 16 years and older.
“Orlistat has been associated with modest BMI reduction but may cause intolerable gastrointestinal side effects and possible fat-soluble vitamin deficiency,” they said. “Phentermine is approved for short-term therapy only and may increase heart rate and blood pressure and cause irritability and insomnia.”
Liraglutide, which was approved for the treatment of pediatric obesity in December 2020, reduced BMI in a trial that included adolescents with obesity. About 43% of the participants who received liraglutide, compared with 18% who received placebo, had a 5% reduction in BMI. In addition, 26% and 8%, respectively, had a 10% reduction in BMI. The use of liraglutide “is limited by the need for daily subcutaneous injections and high frequency of gastrointestinal side effects and high cost,” however, the commentary authors noted.
In addition, the FDA has approved setmelanotide for children older than 6 years with obesity caused by three rare genetic conditions.
Some small studies have suggested that topiramate may lead to meaningful weight loss in children, but the medication has been associated with cognitive dysfunction, they said.
Considering surgery
“This is an important review of the efficacy of metformin as a tool for weight loss in children with obesity,” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor emeritus of pediatrics and community and family medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. “Results showed modest decreases in BMI z scores compared to placebo but there were a significant percentage of GI side effects and dropouts from the trials.”
“Tools other than lifestyle changes are needed to address” pediatric obesity, Dr. Boulter said. “Another tool is gastric bypass which is now a recommended intervention in selected clinical sites for adolescents 14 years of age and older with BMIs greater than 35.”
Dr. Boulter highlighted a recent study in Pediatrics that examined data from more than 200 adolescents who underwent bariatric surgery. The researchers found that outcomes were similar for older and younger patients.
“It would be interesting to pediatricians in practice to see a comparison study between metformin and bariatric surgery long-term results,” Dr. Boulter added.
Dr. Masarwa and coauthors received support from the Quebec Foundation for Health Research and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Drug Safety and Effectiveness Cross-Disciplinary Training Program. One coauthor also is supported by an award from McGill University.
The authors of the systematic review and the accompanying commentary had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Boulter is a member of the editorial advisory board for Pediatric News and had no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Study: Shared decision-making in lung cancer screening needs work
Shared decision-making is an integral step in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) in high-risk patients, but a cross-sectional study at two academic medical centers in Texas has found wide variability in the quality of shared decision-making encounters and that nearly a third of patients reported being conflicted about their decisions to pursue screening.
Lead author Shawn P.E. Nishi, MD, associate professor in the division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, department of internal medicine, of the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, noted two striking findings of the study, published in Chest: that physicians rarely used decision aids according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services direction, and that a “considerable imbalance” exists in the way physicians present management choices to patients. “As physicians, we want to focus on the positive,” she said, “but in shared decision-making (SDM) there needs to be a better balance between presentation and understanding of the risks and the benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS).”
Since 2015, CMS has reimbursed for LCS counseling and an shared decision-making visit before a patient has the screening.
The study analyzed self-reported survey results of 266 patients who had been through SDM at UTMB Galveston and MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston in 2017. They completed patient surveys the following year. The study population was 87% White, 38% had a family history of lung cancer, and 39% were current smokers. The mean pack-year history was 40.4 years.
A high percentage – 86.6% – said they were satisfied with the level in which they were involved in their screening decision. Patients reported that their doctors talked to them about the benefits of LCS far more frequently than the potential harms, 68.3% to 20.8%. And 12.5% said they understood that an abnormal scan was likely to result in a negative finding. Only 30.7% said they’d received educational materials about LCS during the screening process.
A year after completing the SDM process, their knowledge of LCS was variable at best; on average, they answered 41.4% of the questions correctly, and almost one-third (31%) indicated that screening, rather than quitting smoking, was the best way reduce their lung cancer risk.
The study noted that, for patients who derive a small benefit from LCS, the absolute risk reduction is only 0.3%, which may not be enough to offset the potential harms of LDCT.
“The LCS exam itself is a simple noninvasive procedure; you get a scan and go about your day once it’s read,” Dr. Nishi said. “However there is a high false-positive rate, and the question really becomes that, as you start to work up those false positives and even true positives, however small, there is a risk associated with every procedure or evaluation thereafter. So the shared decision-making process is really there to ensure that patients value finding their lung cancer early if they do have it versus the potential harms down the line.”
However, as this study points out, there aren’t many parameters for what SDM entails. “It’s more than just an information exchange back and forth,” Dr. Nishi said. “It’s about having good-quality communication between the provider and patients so that the right decision can ultimately be made for each patient. It takes a very dedicated person that can commit the time and expertise to it. I don’t think that it should be taken lightly.”
As Dr. Nishi and colleagues pointed out in their study, SDM incorporates three essential elements: recognizing and acknowledging that a decision has to be made, knowing and understanding the best available evidence, and incorporating the patient’s own values and preferences in the decision.
CMS outlines specific components of SDM. It includes, beyond a discussion of the potential benefits and harms and use of a decision aid, education on the need for adherence to annual screening, and counseling on either stopping smoking or continued abstinence.
For physicians, dedicating the time and energy SDM needs can be a challenge, Dr. Nishi noted, “Health care doesn’t have a lot of support to perform shared decision-making,” she said. “In a very busy practice it’s very hard to make sure you have a good process where you can sit down and take all the time you need with a patient to open up a dialog about the risks and benefits.”
After they completed the screening process, 33.6% of patients said they had some conflicting feelings about their decision. Non-White patients were about four times more likely than White patients to feel conflicted about their choices (odds ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-13.70), as were former smokers, compared with current smokers (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.04-3.55).
Future studies of SDM in LCS should focus on outcomes, said Dr. Nishi. “Hopefully then we can focus on those things that benefit patients the most.”
Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said this study confirmed what other studies found about shortcomings of SDM, with one difference. “We already knew we were not doing a great job at shared decision-making,” she said. “To me, the difference in this study is that most of the patients were pretty satisfied with their degree of involvement.”
She noted the low percentage of patients who understood that abnormal scans may be noncancerous. “This is one area that I think is an important place for us to improve,” Dr. Begnaud said.
The findings about non-White patients and former smokers are also telling, Dr. Begnaud said. “This highlights that we need to pay close attention to these two groups – people who have traditionally, historically been marginalized in medical care – and provide them the support they need to make a decision.”
Dr. Nishi and colleagues have no relevant disclosures. The study was supported by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and received grants from the National Cancer Institute and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant relationships to disclose.
Shared decision-making is an integral step in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) in high-risk patients, but a cross-sectional study at two academic medical centers in Texas has found wide variability in the quality of shared decision-making encounters and that nearly a third of patients reported being conflicted about their decisions to pursue screening.
Lead author Shawn P.E. Nishi, MD, associate professor in the division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, department of internal medicine, of the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, noted two striking findings of the study, published in Chest: that physicians rarely used decision aids according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services direction, and that a “considerable imbalance” exists in the way physicians present management choices to patients. “As physicians, we want to focus on the positive,” she said, “but in shared decision-making (SDM) there needs to be a better balance between presentation and understanding of the risks and the benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS).”
Since 2015, CMS has reimbursed for LCS counseling and an shared decision-making visit before a patient has the screening.
The study analyzed self-reported survey results of 266 patients who had been through SDM at UTMB Galveston and MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston in 2017. They completed patient surveys the following year. The study population was 87% White, 38% had a family history of lung cancer, and 39% were current smokers. The mean pack-year history was 40.4 years.
A high percentage – 86.6% – said they were satisfied with the level in which they were involved in their screening decision. Patients reported that their doctors talked to them about the benefits of LCS far more frequently than the potential harms, 68.3% to 20.8%. And 12.5% said they understood that an abnormal scan was likely to result in a negative finding. Only 30.7% said they’d received educational materials about LCS during the screening process.
A year after completing the SDM process, their knowledge of LCS was variable at best; on average, they answered 41.4% of the questions correctly, and almost one-third (31%) indicated that screening, rather than quitting smoking, was the best way reduce their lung cancer risk.
The study noted that, for patients who derive a small benefit from LCS, the absolute risk reduction is only 0.3%, which may not be enough to offset the potential harms of LDCT.
“The LCS exam itself is a simple noninvasive procedure; you get a scan and go about your day once it’s read,” Dr. Nishi said. “However there is a high false-positive rate, and the question really becomes that, as you start to work up those false positives and even true positives, however small, there is a risk associated with every procedure or evaluation thereafter. So the shared decision-making process is really there to ensure that patients value finding their lung cancer early if they do have it versus the potential harms down the line.”
However, as this study points out, there aren’t many parameters for what SDM entails. “It’s more than just an information exchange back and forth,” Dr. Nishi said. “It’s about having good-quality communication between the provider and patients so that the right decision can ultimately be made for each patient. It takes a very dedicated person that can commit the time and expertise to it. I don’t think that it should be taken lightly.”
As Dr. Nishi and colleagues pointed out in their study, SDM incorporates three essential elements: recognizing and acknowledging that a decision has to be made, knowing and understanding the best available evidence, and incorporating the patient’s own values and preferences in the decision.
CMS outlines specific components of SDM. It includes, beyond a discussion of the potential benefits and harms and use of a decision aid, education on the need for adherence to annual screening, and counseling on either stopping smoking or continued abstinence.
For physicians, dedicating the time and energy SDM needs can be a challenge, Dr. Nishi noted, “Health care doesn’t have a lot of support to perform shared decision-making,” she said. “In a very busy practice it’s very hard to make sure you have a good process where you can sit down and take all the time you need with a patient to open up a dialog about the risks and benefits.”
After they completed the screening process, 33.6% of patients said they had some conflicting feelings about their decision. Non-White patients were about four times more likely than White patients to feel conflicted about their choices (odds ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-13.70), as were former smokers, compared with current smokers (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.04-3.55).
Future studies of SDM in LCS should focus on outcomes, said Dr. Nishi. “Hopefully then we can focus on those things that benefit patients the most.”
Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said this study confirmed what other studies found about shortcomings of SDM, with one difference. “We already knew we were not doing a great job at shared decision-making,” she said. “To me, the difference in this study is that most of the patients were pretty satisfied with their degree of involvement.”
She noted the low percentage of patients who understood that abnormal scans may be noncancerous. “This is one area that I think is an important place for us to improve,” Dr. Begnaud said.
The findings about non-White patients and former smokers are also telling, Dr. Begnaud said. “This highlights that we need to pay close attention to these two groups – people who have traditionally, historically been marginalized in medical care – and provide them the support they need to make a decision.”
Dr. Nishi and colleagues have no relevant disclosures. The study was supported by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and received grants from the National Cancer Institute and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant relationships to disclose.
Shared decision-making is an integral step in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) in high-risk patients, but a cross-sectional study at two academic medical centers in Texas has found wide variability in the quality of shared decision-making encounters and that nearly a third of patients reported being conflicted about their decisions to pursue screening.
Lead author Shawn P.E. Nishi, MD, associate professor in the division of pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine, department of internal medicine, of the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, noted two striking findings of the study, published in Chest: that physicians rarely used decision aids according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services direction, and that a “considerable imbalance” exists in the way physicians present management choices to patients. “As physicians, we want to focus on the positive,” she said, “but in shared decision-making (SDM) there needs to be a better balance between presentation and understanding of the risks and the benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS).”
Since 2015, CMS has reimbursed for LCS counseling and an shared decision-making visit before a patient has the screening.
The study analyzed self-reported survey results of 266 patients who had been through SDM at UTMB Galveston and MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston in 2017. They completed patient surveys the following year. The study population was 87% White, 38% had a family history of lung cancer, and 39% were current smokers. The mean pack-year history was 40.4 years.
A high percentage – 86.6% – said they were satisfied with the level in which they were involved in their screening decision. Patients reported that their doctors talked to them about the benefits of LCS far more frequently than the potential harms, 68.3% to 20.8%. And 12.5% said they understood that an abnormal scan was likely to result in a negative finding. Only 30.7% said they’d received educational materials about LCS during the screening process.
A year after completing the SDM process, their knowledge of LCS was variable at best; on average, they answered 41.4% of the questions correctly, and almost one-third (31%) indicated that screening, rather than quitting smoking, was the best way reduce their lung cancer risk.
The study noted that, for patients who derive a small benefit from LCS, the absolute risk reduction is only 0.3%, which may not be enough to offset the potential harms of LDCT.
“The LCS exam itself is a simple noninvasive procedure; you get a scan and go about your day once it’s read,” Dr. Nishi said. “However there is a high false-positive rate, and the question really becomes that, as you start to work up those false positives and even true positives, however small, there is a risk associated with every procedure or evaluation thereafter. So the shared decision-making process is really there to ensure that patients value finding their lung cancer early if they do have it versus the potential harms down the line.”
However, as this study points out, there aren’t many parameters for what SDM entails. “It’s more than just an information exchange back and forth,” Dr. Nishi said. “It’s about having good-quality communication between the provider and patients so that the right decision can ultimately be made for each patient. It takes a very dedicated person that can commit the time and expertise to it. I don’t think that it should be taken lightly.”
As Dr. Nishi and colleagues pointed out in their study, SDM incorporates three essential elements: recognizing and acknowledging that a decision has to be made, knowing and understanding the best available evidence, and incorporating the patient’s own values and preferences in the decision.
CMS outlines specific components of SDM. It includes, beyond a discussion of the potential benefits and harms and use of a decision aid, education on the need for adherence to annual screening, and counseling on either stopping smoking or continued abstinence.
For physicians, dedicating the time and energy SDM needs can be a challenge, Dr. Nishi noted, “Health care doesn’t have a lot of support to perform shared decision-making,” she said. “In a very busy practice it’s very hard to make sure you have a good process where you can sit down and take all the time you need with a patient to open up a dialog about the risks and benefits.”
After they completed the screening process, 33.6% of patients said they had some conflicting feelings about their decision. Non-White patients were about four times more likely than White patients to feel conflicted about their choices (odds ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-13.70), as were former smokers, compared with current smokers (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.04-3.55).
Future studies of SDM in LCS should focus on outcomes, said Dr. Nishi. “Hopefully then we can focus on those things that benefit patients the most.”
Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said this study confirmed what other studies found about shortcomings of SDM, with one difference. “We already knew we were not doing a great job at shared decision-making,” she said. “To me, the difference in this study is that most of the patients were pretty satisfied with their degree of involvement.”
She noted the low percentage of patients who understood that abnormal scans may be noncancerous. “This is one area that I think is an important place for us to improve,” Dr. Begnaud said.
The findings about non-White patients and former smokers are also telling, Dr. Begnaud said. “This highlights that we need to pay close attention to these two groups – people who have traditionally, historically been marginalized in medical care – and provide them the support they need to make a decision.”
Dr. Nishi and colleagues have no relevant disclosures. The study was supported by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and received grants from the National Cancer Institute and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment. Dr. Begnaud has no relevant relationships to disclose.
FROM CHEST
Study clarifies who gets post–COVID-19 interstitial lung disease
A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.
In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.
Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.
Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.
The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.
“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.
Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”
The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.
The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.
The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.
Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.
The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.
The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”
The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.
The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”
Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.
Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.
A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.
In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.
Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.
Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.
The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.
“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.
Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”
The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.
The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.
The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.
Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.
The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.
The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”
The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.
The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”
Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.
Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.
A study of post–COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom who developed severe lung inflammation after they left the hospital may provide greater clarity on which patients are most likely to have persistent lung dysfunction.
In addition to pinpointing those most at risk, the findings showed that conventional corticosteroid treatment is highly effective in improving lung function and reducing symptoms.
Researchers from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ National Health Foundation Trust in London reported that a small percentage of patients – 4.8%, or 35 of 837 patients in the study – had severe persistent interstitial lung disease (ILD), mostly organizing pneumonia, 4 weeks after discharge. Of these patients, 30 received steroid treatment, all of whom showed improvement in lung function.
Lead author Katherine Jane Myall, MRCP, and colleagues wrote that the most common radiologic finding in acute COVID-19 is bilateral ground-glass opacification, and findings of organizing pneumonia are common. However, no reports exist of the role of inflammatory infiltrates during recovery from COVID-19 or of the effectiveness of treatments for persistent ILD. “The long-term respiratory morbidity remains unclear,” Dr. Myall and colleagues wrote.
The study findings are significant because they quantify the degree of lung disease that patients have after COVID-19, said Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif. He added that the disease course and presentation followed the pattern of organizing pneumonia in some patients, and traditional corticosteroid therapy seemed to resolve symptoms and improve lung function.
“This is a really important piece to get out there because it describes what a lot of us are worried about in patients with post-COVID lung disease and about what type of lung disease they have. It offers a potential treatment,” he said.
Dr. Myall and colleagues noted that even a “relatively small proportion” of patients with persistent, severe ILD – as reported in this study – pose “a significant disease burden.” They added: “Prompt therapy may avoid potentially permanent fibrosis and functional impairment.”
The single-center, prospective, observational study followed discharged patients with telephone calls 4 weeks after discharge to determine their status. At that point, 39% of the study cohort (n = 325) reported ongoing symptoms.
The patients had outpatient examinations at 6 weeks post discharge, at which time 42.9% (n = 138) had no signs or symptoms of persistent disease; 33.8% (n = 110) had symptoms but no radiologic findings and received referrals to other departments; and 24% (n = 77) were referred to the post-COVID lung disease multidisciplinary team. A total of 59 were diagnosed with persistent post-COVID interstitial change, 35 of whom had organizing pneumonia, hence the rationale for using steroids in this group, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated.
The 30 patients treated with corticosteroids received a maximum initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg prednisolone, which was rapidly weaned over 3 weeks. Some patients received lower doses depending on their comorbidities.
Treatment resulted in an average relative increase in transfer factor of 31.6% (P < .001) and forced vital capacity of 9.6% (P = .014), along with significant improvement in symptoms and x-ray signs.
The study identified some key characteristics of the patients who had persistent post–COVID-19 inflammatory ILD. They were mostly male (71.5%) and overweight with an average body mass index of 28.3, but only 26% were obese. Most had at least one comorbidity, with the most common being diabetes and asthma (22.9%). Their average hospital stay was 16.9 days, 82.9% required oxygen, 55% were in the ICU, and 46% needed invasive mechanical ventilation.
The patients most vulnerable to ILD and organizing pneumonia were the “sicker” of the whole cohort, Dr. Gupta said. “In one sense, it’s reassuring that this is not just happening in anyone; this is happening in patients who had the worst course and were hospitalized in the ICU for the most part.”
The study shows that identifying these patients early on and initiating steroid therapy could avoid persistent lung injury and scarring, Dr. Gupta said.
The London researchers noted that theirs wasn’t a radiologic study, so CT scans weren’t formally scored before and after treatment. They also acknowledged vagueness about imaging and clinical findings representing “nothing other than slow ongoing recovery.”
Patients with post–COVID-19 ILD will require ongoing follow-up to better understand the disease course, Dr. Myall and colleagues stated, although they predicted organizing pneumonia is unlikely to recur once it resolves.
Dr. Myall and coauthors had no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Gupta disclosed he is also an employee and shareholder at Genentech.
FROM ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY
When should a patient’s violent thoughts trigger your action?
When patients relay their fantasies during psychotherapy sessions, those visions are often rooted in frustration or wish fulfillment, according to Jessica Ferranti, MD.
“[Sigmund] Freud talked about how our fantasy life is invested with large amounts of energy and interest and conveys a true essence of our personality – a truth about what we’re thinking and who we are,” Dr. Ferranti, a forensic psychiatrist in the division of psychiatry and the law at the University of California, Davis, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.
“Fantasy life is one of the most important conveyances of information that we can get from our patients, whether in the general office or in the forensic realm – if we can access it, which is difficult, because fantasies are often intensely personal. They fall into the category of very high resistance topics with many patients.”
Psychiatrists routinely ask about violent thoughts and homicidal ideation, but violent fantasies – especially those that are sexually violent in nature – can be a warning sign of future danger. Dr. Ferranti defined violent fantasies as those depicting the use of physical force with the intent to injure another person or destroy property.
“This would be an individual who fantasizes about sadistically raping a woman, for instance,” said Dr. Ferranti, who directs the UC Davis Workplace Safety and Psychiatric Assessment Clinic. “That is an ominous and psychopathological sign in terms of the preoccupation with that kind of violent crime.”
Aggression, on the other hand, “is a very broad spectrum, with actions like assertion, interpersonal confrontation, or verbal expressions that are angry or hostile, but that do not necessarily lead to violence.”
Dr. Ferranti acknowledged that today’s rushed clinical environment makes it challenging for psychiatrists and psychologists to get patients to share detailed fantasies they may be harboring.
“It’s very difficult to get to deeper material with patients, unless potentially you have more intensive therapy going on, like a psychotherapeutic relationship where you see the patient frequently, an intensive treatment, [or] perhaps an inpatient hospitalization or a partial day program.” The key is that “the patient gets comfortable with relaying more of the truth about what they’re experiencing,” she said. “In some cases, this occurs during the forensic evaluation, because we have the luxury to do very lengthy evaluations. Under the stress of being with another person in the room for many hours, oftentimes the patient will disclose things eventually.
“I’ve been a forensic psychiatrist for the better part of 12 years, and I can tell you after hundreds of evaluations I’ve never had a person not speak. That’s a good thing, because a principle of the work we do, or talk therapy even, is that When we lose symbolism, the ability to represent things in our mind and speak about them, we are at greater risk of collapsing into the real and acting on the things we think about.”
Statutory reporting duties vary from state to state. In California, mandatory reporting duties include child abuse, elder abuse, abuse or neglect of developmentally disabled individuals, domestic violence, and victims of a gunshot wound. “Failing to report any of these crimes is a misdemeanor in California,” she said. “With all these statutory reporting duties, we have no legal obligation to inform the patient of the report. Under California law, patients do not have the right to refuse the report. These are reports we make in our best judgment, whether the patient is happy about that or not.”
What happens if your patient confesses to a past crime? “There’s no legal duty to report this,” Dr. Ferranti said. “The general rule is, unless there’s a current person who’s at risk, it would be violating confidentiality to report. This includes murder, bank robbery, and sexual assault. In addition, you cannot admit a patient to an inpatient setting to help them avoid arrest, even if you think the act in question was due to symptoms of a mental disorder, disease, or defect. You can actually be charged with aiding and abetting a criminal.”
In the 1976 landmark case Tarasoff v. the Regents of the University of California, the California Supreme Court ruled that psychiatrists and other therapists have a duty to do what is reasonably necessary to protect third parties if a patient presents a serious risk of violence to another person.
“Reasonable steps may include warning the third party, notifying police, detaining and hospitalizing the patient, intensifying the treatment to a higher level of care or more frequent outpatient appointments, removing weapons, and changing the medication therapy,” Dr. Ferranti said. “The more you can do of these, the better.”
She also discussed the concept of foreseeability, which she defined as the reasonable anticipation that harm or injury is likely to result from an act or omission to act.
“This is the malpractice standard for negligence,” she said. “In other words, was it foreseeable by a reasonable psychiatrist that this person was going to hurt someone else or themselves?” Another landmark case, Jablonski Pahls v. the United States broadened the reporting obligations of psychiatrists. In this 1983 case, the U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit ruled that mental health professionals have to do more than warn foreseeable victims of an imminent danger of potential harm; they must involuntarily hospitalize the dangerous individual and consult that person’s prior records.
There is no sure-fire way to predict when an individual’s underlying violent fantasies are likely to be acted on, but Dr. Ferranti mentioned several behaviors that should raise alarm. One is a heightened physiological arousal when the person discusses the fantasy, such as rapid heartbeat, sweating; or physical posturing, such as clenching their fists or pounding their hands on an object as they tell you about it. You also want to determine the persistence of the fantasy.
“Can the patient think about it?” she asked. “Can they retain the ability to symbolize and separate themselves from necessarily doing whatever it is they think about?” You also want to determine the individual’s propensity for externalizing behaviors. “Here we’re talking about cluster B personality group patients – antisocial, narcissistic, and borderline patients who by virtue of their aggressivity titer and difficulties with anger, have a higher propensity for acting out and acting violently.”
Then there’s the concept of foreseeability. “Ask yourself, how likely is it that this could actually happen, based on the known risk factors and what you know about the patient?” Dr. Ferranti said. “Past history of violence is also very important. What people have done once before, they’re likely to do again.”
A good violence risk assessment can help you mitigate the potential for one of your patients to carry out harm to self or to others. Key risk factors include psychopathy, past violence, substance abuse, specific person/entity threatened, a history of impulsivity, unemployment, military history, gun possession, and the presence of paranoid and/or persecutory ideation or delusions.
“Know your specific state statutes and case law,” Dr. Ferranti concluded. “Delaying Tarasoff notification may indicate no need to violate confidentiality. If you think it’s warranted, do it without delay. Documentation is important when you’re consulting with therapists back and forth. You also want to attempt to obtain prior records and release only information that is required in a case of violence toward others. The details of the therapy or diagnosis are likely not relevant.”
Dr. Ferranti reported having no disclosures.
When patients relay their fantasies during psychotherapy sessions, those visions are often rooted in frustration or wish fulfillment, according to Jessica Ferranti, MD.
“[Sigmund] Freud talked about how our fantasy life is invested with large amounts of energy and interest and conveys a true essence of our personality – a truth about what we’re thinking and who we are,” Dr. Ferranti, a forensic psychiatrist in the division of psychiatry and the law at the University of California, Davis, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.
“Fantasy life is one of the most important conveyances of information that we can get from our patients, whether in the general office or in the forensic realm – if we can access it, which is difficult, because fantasies are often intensely personal. They fall into the category of very high resistance topics with many patients.”
Psychiatrists routinely ask about violent thoughts and homicidal ideation, but violent fantasies – especially those that are sexually violent in nature – can be a warning sign of future danger. Dr. Ferranti defined violent fantasies as those depicting the use of physical force with the intent to injure another person or destroy property.
“This would be an individual who fantasizes about sadistically raping a woman, for instance,” said Dr. Ferranti, who directs the UC Davis Workplace Safety and Psychiatric Assessment Clinic. “That is an ominous and psychopathological sign in terms of the preoccupation with that kind of violent crime.”
Aggression, on the other hand, “is a very broad spectrum, with actions like assertion, interpersonal confrontation, or verbal expressions that are angry or hostile, but that do not necessarily lead to violence.”
Dr. Ferranti acknowledged that today’s rushed clinical environment makes it challenging for psychiatrists and psychologists to get patients to share detailed fantasies they may be harboring.
“It’s very difficult to get to deeper material with patients, unless potentially you have more intensive therapy going on, like a psychotherapeutic relationship where you see the patient frequently, an intensive treatment, [or] perhaps an inpatient hospitalization or a partial day program.” The key is that “the patient gets comfortable with relaying more of the truth about what they’re experiencing,” she said. “In some cases, this occurs during the forensic evaluation, because we have the luxury to do very lengthy evaluations. Under the stress of being with another person in the room for many hours, oftentimes the patient will disclose things eventually.
“I’ve been a forensic psychiatrist for the better part of 12 years, and I can tell you after hundreds of evaluations I’ve never had a person not speak. That’s a good thing, because a principle of the work we do, or talk therapy even, is that When we lose symbolism, the ability to represent things in our mind and speak about them, we are at greater risk of collapsing into the real and acting on the things we think about.”
Statutory reporting duties vary from state to state. In California, mandatory reporting duties include child abuse, elder abuse, abuse or neglect of developmentally disabled individuals, domestic violence, and victims of a gunshot wound. “Failing to report any of these crimes is a misdemeanor in California,” she said. “With all these statutory reporting duties, we have no legal obligation to inform the patient of the report. Under California law, patients do not have the right to refuse the report. These are reports we make in our best judgment, whether the patient is happy about that or not.”
What happens if your patient confesses to a past crime? “There’s no legal duty to report this,” Dr. Ferranti said. “The general rule is, unless there’s a current person who’s at risk, it would be violating confidentiality to report. This includes murder, bank robbery, and sexual assault. In addition, you cannot admit a patient to an inpatient setting to help them avoid arrest, even if you think the act in question was due to symptoms of a mental disorder, disease, or defect. You can actually be charged with aiding and abetting a criminal.”
In the 1976 landmark case Tarasoff v. the Regents of the University of California, the California Supreme Court ruled that psychiatrists and other therapists have a duty to do what is reasonably necessary to protect third parties if a patient presents a serious risk of violence to another person.
“Reasonable steps may include warning the third party, notifying police, detaining and hospitalizing the patient, intensifying the treatment to a higher level of care or more frequent outpatient appointments, removing weapons, and changing the medication therapy,” Dr. Ferranti said. “The more you can do of these, the better.”
She also discussed the concept of foreseeability, which she defined as the reasonable anticipation that harm or injury is likely to result from an act or omission to act.
“This is the malpractice standard for negligence,” she said. “In other words, was it foreseeable by a reasonable psychiatrist that this person was going to hurt someone else or themselves?” Another landmark case, Jablonski Pahls v. the United States broadened the reporting obligations of psychiatrists. In this 1983 case, the U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit ruled that mental health professionals have to do more than warn foreseeable victims of an imminent danger of potential harm; they must involuntarily hospitalize the dangerous individual and consult that person’s prior records.
There is no sure-fire way to predict when an individual’s underlying violent fantasies are likely to be acted on, but Dr. Ferranti mentioned several behaviors that should raise alarm. One is a heightened physiological arousal when the person discusses the fantasy, such as rapid heartbeat, sweating; or physical posturing, such as clenching their fists or pounding their hands on an object as they tell you about it. You also want to determine the persistence of the fantasy.
“Can the patient think about it?” she asked. “Can they retain the ability to symbolize and separate themselves from necessarily doing whatever it is they think about?” You also want to determine the individual’s propensity for externalizing behaviors. “Here we’re talking about cluster B personality group patients – antisocial, narcissistic, and borderline patients who by virtue of their aggressivity titer and difficulties with anger, have a higher propensity for acting out and acting violently.”
Then there’s the concept of foreseeability. “Ask yourself, how likely is it that this could actually happen, based on the known risk factors and what you know about the patient?” Dr. Ferranti said. “Past history of violence is also very important. What people have done once before, they’re likely to do again.”
A good violence risk assessment can help you mitigate the potential for one of your patients to carry out harm to self or to others. Key risk factors include psychopathy, past violence, substance abuse, specific person/entity threatened, a history of impulsivity, unemployment, military history, gun possession, and the presence of paranoid and/or persecutory ideation or delusions.
“Know your specific state statutes and case law,” Dr. Ferranti concluded. “Delaying Tarasoff notification may indicate no need to violate confidentiality. If you think it’s warranted, do it without delay. Documentation is important when you’re consulting with therapists back and forth. You also want to attempt to obtain prior records and release only information that is required in a case of violence toward others. The details of the therapy or diagnosis are likely not relevant.”
Dr. Ferranti reported having no disclosures.
When patients relay their fantasies during psychotherapy sessions, those visions are often rooted in frustration or wish fulfillment, according to Jessica Ferranti, MD.
“[Sigmund] Freud talked about how our fantasy life is invested with large amounts of energy and interest and conveys a true essence of our personality – a truth about what we’re thinking and who we are,” Dr. Ferranti, a forensic psychiatrist in the division of psychiatry and the law at the University of California, Davis, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association.
“Fantasy life is one of the most important conveyances of information that we can get from our patients, whether in the general office or in the forensic realm – if we can access it, which is difficult, because fantasies are often intensely personal. They fall into the category of very high resistance topics with many patients.”
Psychiatrists routinely ask about violent thoughts and homicidal ideation, but violent fantasies – especially those that are sexually violent in nature – can be a warning sign of future danger. Dr. Ferranti defined violent fantasies as those depicting the use of physical force with the intent to injure another person or destroy property.
“This would be an individual who fantasizes about sadistically raping a woman, for instance,” said Dr. Ferranti, who directs the UC Davis Workplace Safety and Psychiatric Assessment Clinic. “That is an ominous and psychopathological sign in terms of the preoccupation with that kind of violent crime.”
Aggression, on the other hand, “is a very broad spectrum, with actions like assertion, interpersonal confrontation, or verbal expressions that are angry or hostile, but that do not necessarily lead to violence.”
Dr. Ferranti acknowledged that today’s rushed clinical environment makes it challenging for psychiatrists and psychologists to get patients to share detailed fantasies they may be harboring.
“It’s very difficult to get to deeper material with patients, unless potentially you have more intensive therapy going on, like a psychotherapeutic relationship where you see the patient frequently, an intensive treatment, [or] perhaps an inpatient hospitalization or a partial day program.” The key is that “the patient gets comfortable with relaying more of the truth about what they’re experiencing,” she said. “In some cases, this occurs during the forensic evaluation, because we have the luxury to do very lengthy evaluations. Under the stress of being with another person in the room for many hours, oftentimes the patient will disclose things eventually.
“I’ve been a forensic psychiatrist for the better part of 12 years, and I can tell you after hundreds of evaluations I’ve never had a person not speak. That’s a good thing, because a principle of the work we do, or talk therapy even, is that When we lose symbolism, the ability to represent things in our mind and speak about them, we are at greater risk of collapsing into the real and acting on the things we think about.”
Statutory reporting duties vary from state to state. In California, mandatory reporting duties include child abuse, elder abuse, abuse or neglect of developmentally disabled individuals, domestic violence, and victims of a gunshot wound. “Failing to report any of these crimes is a misdemeanor in California,” she said. “With all these statutory reporting duties, we have no legal obligation to inform the patient of the report. Under California law, patients do not have the right to refuse the report. These are reports we make in our best judgment, whether the patient is happy about that or not.”
What happens if your patient confesses to a past crime? “There’s no legal duty to report this,” Dr. Ferranti said. “The general rule is, unless there’s a current person who’s at risk, it would be violating confidentiality to report. This includes murder, bank robbery, and sexual assault. In addition, you cannot admit a patient to an inpatient setting to help them avoid arrest, even if you think the act in question was due to symptoms of a mental disorder, disease, or defect. You can actually be charged with aiding and abetting a criminal.”
In the 1976 landmark case Tarasoff v. the Regents of the University of California, the California Supreme Court ruled that psychiatrists and other therapists have a duty to do what is reasonably necessary to protect third parties if a patient presents a serious risk of violence to another person.
“Reasonable steps may include warning the third party, notifying police, detaining and hospitalizing the patient, intensifying the treatment to a higher level of care or more frequent outpatient appointments, removing weapons, and changing the medication therapy,” Dr. Ferranti said. “The more you can do of these, the better.”
She also discussed the concept of foreseeability, which she defined as the reasonable anticipation that harm or injury is likely to result from an act or omission to act.
“This is the malpractice standard for negligence,” she said. “In other words, was it foreseeable by a reasonable psychiatrist that this person was going to hurt someone else or themselves?” Another landmark case, Jablonski Pahls v. the United States broadened the reporting obligations of psychiatrists. In this 1983 case, the U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit ruled that mental health professionals have to do more than warn foreseeable victims of an imminent danger of potential harm; they must involuntarily hospitalize the dangerous individual and consult that person’s prior records.
There is no sure-fire way to predict when an individual’s underlying violent fantasies are likely to be acted on, but Dr. Ferranti mentioned several behaviors that should raise alarm. One is a heightened physiological arousal when the person discusses the fantasy, such as rapid heartbeat, sweating; or physical posturing, such as clenching their fists or pounding their hands on an object as they tell you about it. You also want to determine the persistence of the fantasy.
“Can the patient think about it?” she asked. “Can they retain the ability to symbolize and separate themselves from necessarily doing whatever it is they think about?” You also want to determine the individual’s propensity for externalizing behaviors. “Here we’re talking about cluster B personality group patients – antisocial, narcissistic, and borderline patients who by virtue of their aggressivity titer and difficulties with anger, have a higher propensity for acting out and acting violently.”
Then there’s the concept of foreseeability. “Ask yourself, how likely is it that this could actually happen, based on the known risk factors and what you know about the patient?” Dr. Ferranti said. “Past history of violence is also very important. What people have done once before, they’re likely to do again.”
A good violence risk assessment can help you mitigate the potential for one of your patients to carry out harm to self or to others. Key risk factors include psychopathy, past violence, substance abuse, specific person/entity threatened, a history of impulsivity, unemployment, military history, gun possession, and the presence of paranoid and/or persecutory ideation or delusions.
“Know your specific state statutes and case law,” Dr. Ferranti concluded. “Delaying Tarasoff notification may indicate no need to violate confidentiality. If you think it’s warranted, do it without delay. Documentation is important when you’re consulting with therapists back and forth. You also want to attempt to obtain prior records and release only information that is required in a case of violence toward others. The details of the therapy or diagnosis are likely not relevant.”
Dr. Ferranti reported having no disclosures.
FROM NPA 2021
Dermatologic surgeons debut adverse event reporting database
The 
CAPER is a voluntary reporting system designed to collect reports of patients’ adverse events encountered during dermatologic surgery procedures, both cosmetic and those related to skin cancer. The goals of the CAPER registry are to provide safety monitoring, identify practice and/or education gaps associated with adverse events, and identify potential adverse event risk factors.
“CAPER is a registry overseen by a group of board-certified dermatologists, clinicians, and researchers with more than 20 years of experience in patient care and physician advocacy who are committed to improving safety outcomes,” according to an ASDSA press release. “The collaboration between Northwestern University and ASDSA will ensure that CAPER becomes the common place for dermatologic surgeons and their staff to report adverse events from devices, drugs or biologics.”
The launch of the database is important because it fills a gap in adverse event reporting, Murad Alam, MD, professor of dermatology and chief of cutaneous and aesthetic surgery in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, said in an interview.
There has been no central registry specifically for reporting adverse events associated with dermatologic surgical procedures, including cosmetic and injectable treatments, he said. “While minimally invasive cosmetic and skin procedures have been proven to be exceedingly safe, this registry will provide an early warning system to identify any problems that do occur, so these can be addressed promptly. This registry will allow dermatologists, patients, and industry scientists to work together to further improve the safety of dermatologic procedures,” added Dr. Alam, the past ASDSA president, and current chair of the ASDSA’s Federal Affairs Work Group.
In addition, “recent reports of the possible interaction between some filler injections and certain COVID vaccines confirms the timeliness of redoubling our emphasis on safety. Dermatologists have always been at the forefront of maximizing the patient experience while minimizing risk; this registry is further evidence of that ongoing commitment,” he emphasized.
The CAPER database will gather information on a variety of dermatologic and cosmetic procedures, including those involving topicals and injectables (such as botulinum toxin, fillers, and chemical peels), devices (such as lasers and microneedling devices), cellular-based therapies (such as platelet-rich plasma and stem cell treatments), and surgical treatments (such as liposuction and hair transplantation), Dr. Alam said.
“Novel procedures, and those yet to be devised, as long as they relate to skin surgery or cosmetic improvement, will also be able to be reported. We encourage the reporting of all associated adverse events, even if it is not clear what caused the event. No dermatologic or cosmetic procedures will be excluded from reporting,” he added.
The purpose of the CAPER registry is “to help patients, physicians, and industry work collaboratively to ensure the highest levels of patient safety,” Dr. Alam continued. Data entered into the registry will be deidentified and will remain confidential, and as data on particular topics accumulate, the data “may be analyzed to better understand the patient experience and, secondly, to develop strategies to further improve safety,” he noted.
“One unique element of this registry is that it is focused on dermatologic and cosmetic procedures,” Dr. Alam added. “As a result, those managing and analyzing the data collected will be attuned to the particular concerns associated with such procedures and the patients receiving them.”
For more information and to report dermatologic surgery-related adverse events, go to caper.net.
The
CAPER is a voluntary reporting system designed to collect reports of patients’ adverse events encountered during dermatologic surgery procedures, both cosmetic and those related to skin cancer. The goals of the CAPER registry are to provide safety monitoring, identify practice and/or education gaps associated with adverse events, and identify potential adverse event risk factors.
“CAPER is a registry overseen by a group of board-certified dermatologists, clinicians, and researchers with more than 20 years of experience in patient care and physician advocacy who are committed to improving safety outcomes,” according to an ASDSA press release. “The collaboration between Northwestern University and ASDSA will ensure that CAPER becomes the common place for dermatologic surgeons and their staff to report adverse events from devices, drugs or biologics.”
The launch of the database is important because it fills a gap in adverse event reporting, Murad Alam, MD, professor of dermatology and chief of cutaneous and aesthetic surgery in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, said in an interview.
There has been no central registry specifically for reporting adverse events associated with dermatologic surgical procedures, including cosmetic and injectable treatments, he said. “While minimally invasive cosmetic and skin procedures have been proven to be exceedingly safe, this registry will provide an early warning system to identify any problems that do occur, so these can be addressed promptly. This registry will allow dermatologists, patients, and industry scientists to work together to further improve the safety of dermatologic procedures,” added Dr. Alam, the past ASDSA president, and current chair of the ASDSA’s Federal Affairs Work Group.
In addition, “recent reports of the possible interaction between some filler injections and certain COVID vaccines confirms the timeliness of redoubling our emphasis on safety. Dermatologists have always been at the forefront of maximizing the patient experience while minimizing risk; this registry is further evidence of that ongoing commitment,” he emphasized.
The CAPER database will gather information on a variety of dermatologic and cosmetic procedures, including those involving topicals and injectables (such as botulinum toxin, fillers, and chemical peels), devices (such as lasers and microneedling devices), cellular-based therapies (such as platelet-rich plasma and stem cell treatments), and surgical treatments (such as liposuction and hair transplantation), Dr. Alam said.
“Novel procedures, and those yet to be devised, as long as they relate to skin surgery or cosmetic improvement, will also be able to be reported. We encourage the reporting of all associated adverse events, even if it is not clear what caused the event. No dermatologic or cosmetic procedures will be excluded from reporting,” he added.
The purpose of the CAPER registry is “to help patients, physicians, and industry work collaboratively to ensure the highest levels of patient safety,” Dr. Alam continued. Data entered into the registry will be deidentified and will remain confidential, and as data on particular topics accumulate, the data “may be analyzed to better understand the patient experience and, secondly, to develop strategies to further improve safety,” he noted.
“One unique element of this registry is that it is focused on dermatologic and cosmetic procedures,” Dr. Alam added. “As a result, those managing and analyzing the data collected will be attuned to the particular concerns associated with such procedures and the patients receiving them.”
For more information and to report dermatologic surgery-related adverse events, go to caper.net.
The
CAPER is a voluntary reporting system designed to collect reports of patients’ adverse events encountered during dermatologic surgery procedures, both cosmetic and those related to skin cancer. The goals of the CAPER registry are to provide safety monitoring, identify practice and/or education gaps associated with adverse events, and identify potential adverse event risk factors.
“CAPER is a registry overseen by a group of board-certified dermatologists, clinicians, and researchers with more than 20 years of experience in patient care and physician advocacy who are committed to improving safety outcomes,” according to an ASDSA press release. “The collaboration between Northwestern University and ASDSA will ensure that CAPER becomes the common place for dermatologic surgeons and their staff to report adverse events from devices, drugs or biologics.”
The launch of the database is important because it fills a gap in adverse event reporting, Murad Alam, MD, professor of dermatology and chief of cutaneous and aesthetic surgery in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, said in an interview.
There has been no central registry specifically for reporting adverse events associated with dermatologic surgical procedures, including cosmetic and injectable treatments, he said. “While minimally invasive cosmetic and skin procedures have been proven to be exceedingly safe, this registry will provide an early warning system to identify any problems that do occur, so these can be addressed promptly. This registry will allow dermatologists, patients, and industry scientists to work together to further improve the safety of dermatologic procedures,” added Dr. Alam, the past ASDSA president, and current chair of the ASDSA’s Federal Affairs Work Group.
In addition, “recent reports of the possible interaction between some filler injections and certain COVID vaccines confirms the timeliness of redoubling our emphasis on safety. Dermatologists have always been at the forefront of maximizing the patient experience while minimizing risk; this registry is further evidence of that ongoing commitment,” he emphasized.
The CAPER database will gather information on a variety of dermatologic and cosmetic procedures, including those involving topicals and injectables (such as botulinum toxin, fillers, and chemical peels), devices (such as lasers and microneedling devices), cellular-based therapies (such as platelet-rich plasma and stem cell treatments), and surgical treatments (such as liposuction and hair transplantation), Dr. Alam said.
“Novel procedures, and those yet to be devised, as long as they relate to skin surgery or cosmetic improvement, will also be able to be reported. We encourage the reporting of all associated adverse events, even if it is not clear what caused the event. No dermatologic or cosmetic procedures will be excluded from reporting,” he added.
The purpose of the CAPER registry is “to help patients, physicians, and industry work collaboratively to ensure the highest levels of patient safety,” Dr. Alam continued. Data entered into the registry will be deidentified and will remain confidential, and as data on particular topics accumulate, the data “may be analyzed to better understand the patient experience and, secondly, to develop strategies to further improve safety,” he noted.
“One unique element of this registry is that it is focused on dermatologic and cosmetic procedures,” Dr. Alam added. “As a result, those managing and analyzing the data collected will be attuned to the particular concerns associated with such procedures and the patients receiving them.”
For more information and to report dermatologic surgery-related adverse events, go to caper.net.
AGA Clinical Practice Update: Palliative care management in cirrhosis
Clinicians who manage patients with cirrhosis should incorporate palliative care “irrespective of transplant candidacy,” according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.
“[T]his care should be based on needs assessment instead of prognosis alone, delivered concurrently with curative or life-prolonging treatments, and tailored to the stage of disease,” wrote Puneeta Tandon, MD, of University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alta., and associates. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Cirrhosis has a median survival ranging from 2 years for decompensated disease to 12 years for compensated disease, according to one systemic review. Moreover, even compensated cirrhosis incurs “a high burden of physical and psychological symptoms,” which increases as cirrhosis progresses, the update authors noted.
According to another review, there is established evidence outside cirrhosis that palliative care – including comprehensive symptom management, advance care planning, and timely referrals to specialty palliative care and hospice support – has the potential to significantly improve quality of life, end-of-life care, health care costs, coordination among providers, and caregiver outcomes.
However, the update authors noted that there remain few guidelines or guidance statements regarding palliative care in cirrhosis. Hence, the clinical practice update reviews 10 best practices to help clinicians fill this gap.
Providers “from any specialty, within any healthcare setting” can help provide palliative care for patients with cirrhosis, the experts emphasized. This is, in part, because of the growing population with cirrhosis being met with a limited number of palliative care specialists; dealing with this reality can be helped by inviting other providers to learn about and engage in palliative care.
Another best practice statement addressed assessing symptoms “within physical, psychological, social, and spiritual domains related to [patients’] liver disease, its treatment, and prognosis.” This approach is needed because of the complex effects that a life-threatening illness and its symptoms can have on many variables, including loss of independence/identity, financial stress, and impact on personal relationships. A systematic review of symptom prevalence in end-stage liver disease revealed a complex milieu, including pain, muscle cramps, sexual dysfunction, insomnia, and anxiety.
High-quality communication is important in palliative care, including discussion of prognosis and goals of care. Providers specializing in gastroenterology/hepatology should reevaluate prognosis and clarify prognosis and goals of care with patients and caregivers during routine visits and sentinel events, such as new complications, a hospital or intensive care admission, and when transplant eligibility is determined. However, prognostication in cirrhosis can be challenging, the experts noted. The update authors also acknowledged that, while more research is needed to inform practice regarding communicating with patients with serious illness about palliative care and goals of care, there are courses and resources meant to help improve those skills, including those provided by Vital Talk, Respecting Choices, and the Serious Illness Conversation Guide.
Cirrhosis “has physical, mental, and financial consequences” for caregivers, especially when patients have decompensated disease. To support caregivers, clinicians can routinely evaluate their burdens and needs. Tools such as the Caregiver Strain Index are useful and can be administered by ancillary staff. Clinicians also can reach out to primary care and palliative care providers to identify local resources for caregiver support.
“Because lack of time is one of the major barriers to administering palliative care, healthcare providers should consider how they can optimize efficiencies in palliative care delivery,” the experts wrote. Examples include identifying local billing codes, arranging for ancillary staff to screen patients on their palliative care needs, and setting up multidisciplinary teams that work together to deliver palliative care. If access to specialty palliative care is limited, providers can collaborate with local specialist teams to set “clear triggers and pathways for referral.”
Finally, hospice referrals are often delayed for patients with cirrhosis. “Find out your local referral criteria for hospice and what would be required to refer a cirrhosis patient there,” the experts advised. “Healthcare providers caring for patients with cirrhosis should provide timely referral to hospice for patients who have comfort-oriented goals and prognosis of 6 months or less.”
The authors of the clinical practice update received no funding support. They reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
Clinicians who manage patients with cirrhosis should incorporate palliative care “irrespective of transplant candidacy,” according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.
“[T]his care should be based on needs assessment instead of prognosis alone, delivered concurrently with curative or life-prolonging treatments, and tailored to the stage of disease,” wrote Puneeta Tandon, MD, of University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alta., and associates. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Cirrhosis has a median survival ranging from 2 years for decompensated disease to 12 years for compensated disease, according to one systemic review. Moreover, even compensated cirrhosis incurs “a high burden of physical and psychological symptoms,” which increases as cirrhosis progresses, the update authors noted.
According to another review, there is established evidence outside cirrhosis that palliative care – including comprehensive symptom management, advance care planning, and timely referrals to specialty palliative care and hospice support – has the potential to significantly improve quality of life, end-of-life care, health care costs, coordination among providers, and caregiver outcomes.
However, the update authors noted that there remain few guidelines or guidance statements regarding palliative care in cirrhosis. Hence, the clinical practice update reviews 10 best practices to help clinicians fill this gap.
Providers “from any specialty, within any healthcare setting” can help provide palliative care for patients with cirrhosis, the experts emphasized. This is, in part, because of the growing population with cirrhosis being met with a limited number of palliative care specialists; dealing with this reality can be helped by inviting other providers to learn about and engage in palliative care.
Another best practice statement addressed assessing symptoms “within physical, psychological, social, and spiritual domains related to [patients’] liver disease, its treatment, and prognosis.” This approach is needed because of the complex effects that a life-threatening illness and its symptoms can have on many variables, including loss of independence/identity, financial stress, and impact on personal relationships. A systematic review of symptom prevalence in end-stage liver disease revealed a complex milieu, including pain, muscle cramps, sexual dysfunction, insomnia, and anxiety.
High-quality communication is important in palliative care, including discussion of prognosis and goals of care. Providers specializing in gastroenterology/hepatology should reevaluate prognosis and clarify prognosis and goals of care with patients and caregivers during routine visits and sentinel events, such as new complications, a hospital or intensive care admission, and when transplant eligibility is determined. However, prognostication in cirrhosis can be challenging, the experts noted. The update authors also acknowledged that, while more research is needed to inform practice regarding communicating with patients with serious illness about palliative care and goals of care, there are courses and resources meant to help improve those skills, including those provided by Vital Talk, Respecting Choices, and the Serious Illness Conversation Guide.
Cirrhosis “has physical, mental, and financial consequences” for caregivers, especially when patients have decompensated disease. To support caregivers, clinicians can routinely evaluate their burdens and needs. Tools such as the Caregiver Strain Index are useful and can be administered by ancillary staff. Clinicians also can reach out to primary care and palliative care providers to identify local resources for caregiver support.
“Because lack of time is one of the major barriers to administering palliative care, healthcare providers should consider how they can optimize efficiencies in palliative care delivery,” the experts wrote. Examples include identifying local billing codes, arranging for ancillary staff to screen patients on their palliative care needs, and setting up multidisciplinary teams that work together to deliver palliative care. If access to specialty palliative care is limited, providers can collaborate with local specialist teams to set “clear triggers and pathways for referral.”
Finally, hospice referrals are often delayed for patients with cirrhosis. “Find out your local referral criteria for hospice and what would be required to refer a cirrhosis patient there,” the experts advised. “Healthcare providers caring for patients with cirrhosis should provide timely referral to hospice for patients who have comfort-oriented goals and prognosis of 6 months or less.”
The authors of the clinical practice update received no funding support. They reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
Clinicians who manage patients with cirrhosis should incorporate palliative care “irrespective of transplant candidacy,” according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.
“[T]his care should be based on needs assessment instead of prognosis alone, delivered concurrently with curative or life-prolonging treatments, and tailored to the stage of disease,” wrote Puneeta Tandon, MD, of University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alta., and associates. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Cirrhosis has a median survival ranging from 2 years for decompensated disease to 12 years for compensated disease, according to one systemic review. Moreover, even compensated cirrhosis incurs “a high burden of physical and psychological symptoms,” which increases as cirrhosis progresses, the update authors noted.
According to another review, there is established evidence outside cirrhosis that palliative care – including comprehensive symptom management, advance care planning, and timely referrals to specialty palliative care and hospice support – has the potential to significantly improve quality of life, end-of-life care, health care costs, coordination among providers, and caregiver outcomes.
However, the update authors noted that there remain few guidelines or guidance statements regarding palliative care in cirrhosis. Hence, the clinical practice update reviews 10 best practices to help clinicians fill this gap.
Providers “from any specialty, within any healthcare setting” can help provide palliative care for patients with cirrhosis, the experts emphasized. This is, in part, because of the growing population with cirrhosis being met with a limited number of palliative care specialists; dealing with this reality can be helped by inviting other providers to learn about and engage in palliative care.
Another best practice statement addressed assessing symptoms “within physical, psychological, social, and spiritual domains related to [patients’] liver disease, its treatment, and prognosis.” This approach is needed because of the complex effects that a life-threatening illness and its symptoms can have on many variables, including loss of independence/identity, financial stress, and impact on personal relationships. A systematic review of symptom prevalence in end-stage liver disease revealed a complex milieu, including pain, muscle cramps, sexual dysfunction, insomnia, and anxiety.
High-quality communication is important in palliative care, including discussion of prognosis and goals of care. Providers specializing in gastroenterology/hepatology should reevaluate prognosis and clarify prognosis and goals of care with patients and caregivers during routine visits and sentinel events, such as new complications, a hospital or intensive care admission, and when transplant eligibility is determined. However, prognostication in cirrhosis can be challenging, the experts noted. The update authors also acknowledged that, while more research is needed to inform practice regarding communicating with patients with serious illness about palliative care and goals of care, there are courses and resources meant to help improve those skills, including those provided by Vital Talk, Respecting Choices, and the Serious Illness Conversation Guide.
Cirrhosis “has physical, mental, and financial consequences” for caregivers, especially when patients have decompensated disease. To support caregivers, clinicians can routinely evaluate their burdens and needs. Tools such as the Caregiver Strain Index are useful and can be administered by ancillary staff. Clinicians also can reach out to primary care and palliative care providers to identify local resources for caregiver support.
“Because lack of time is one of the major barriers to administering palliative care, healthcare providers should consider how they can optimize efficiencies in palliative care delivery,” the experts wrote. Examples include identifying local billing codes, arranging for ancillary staff to screen patients on their palliative care needs, and setting up multidisciplinary teams that work together to deliver palliative care. If access to specialty palliative care is limited, providers can collaborate with local specialist teams to set “clear triggers and pathways for referral.”
Finally, hospice referrals are often delayed for patients with cirrhosis. “Find out your local referral criteria for hospice and what would be required to refer a cirrhosis patient there,” the experts advised. “Healthcare providers caring for patients with cirrhosis should provide timely referral to hospice for patients who have comfort-oriented goals and prognosis of 6 months or less.”
The authors of the clinical practice update received no funding support. They reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
New ASH guidelines: VTE prevention and treatment in cancer patients
New guidelines from the American Society of Hematology “strongly recommend” using no thromboprophylaxis over using parenteral thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy who have low venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, and using no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists in those at any VTE risk level.
The evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patient with cancer, published online in Blood Advances, also include a “conditional recommendation” for using either thromboprophylaxis with the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban or rivaroxaban or using no thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with intermediate risk and using the DOACs over no thromboprophylaxis in those with high VTE risk.
The purpose of the guidelines, which also address VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer and the use of anticoagulation for VTE treatment in patients with cancer, is to provide clinical decision support for shared decision-making by patients and clinicians, Gary H. Lyman, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle and Marc Carrier, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and their colleagues from the multidisciplinary guidelines panel explained.
“The recommendations take into consideration the strength of the evidence, risks of mortality, VTE, and bleeding, as well as quality of life, acceptability, and cost considerations,” they wrote, noting that VTE is a common complication in patients with cancer, who are at markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality from VTE.
Levels of evidence
The panel members relied on updated and original systematic evidence reviews. Conditional recommendations, as opposed to strong recommendations, are defined by the panel as “suggestions,” and all 33 recommendations that make up the guidelines include a statement on the strength of the relevant evidence.
For example, the thromboprophylaxis recommendations for low, intermediate, and high VTE risk are made based on “moderate certainty in the evidence of effects,” and the recommendation for no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists is a strong recommendation based on “very low certainty in the evidence of benefits, but high certainty about the harms.”
The guidelines panel also strongly recommends, based on moderate certainty in the evidence of effects, using low-molecular-weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, and suggests, based on “very low certainty in the evidence of effects,” using LMWH over fondaparinux in this setting.
In addition to primary prophylaxis in ambulatory and hospitalized patients and initial VTE treatment, they also address primary prophylaxis for patients with cancer who have a central venous catheter, VTE treatment in surgical patients with cancer, short-term VTE treatment, and long-term VTE treatment.
For example, the guidelines panel conditionally recommends:
- Not using parenteral or oral thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer and a central venous catheter
- Using LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer
- Using DOACS for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOACs for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.
The perils of VTE
VTE in patients with cancer can interfere with treatment, increase mortality risk, and increase costs, the authors noted, adding that VTE can also adversely affect cancer patients’ quality of life.
“Some have even reported the experience of VTE to be more upsetting than that of the cancer,” they wrote. “More than 50% of thrombotic events occur within 3 months of the cancer diagnosis, a time when most cancer treatments will be underway. Patients, who are still coming to terms with a recent cancer diagnosis, often view the occurrence of VTE as a further threat to life, confirmation of the severity of their condition, and a poor prognostic sign.”
Therefore, the new guidelines aim to reduce VTE frequency, risk of bleeding complications, morbidity, and costs, thereby improving quality of life and the patient experience, the authors said, noting that three other recent guidelines on VTEs in patients with cancer have been published: the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, the 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer guidelines, and the 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.
The ASH guidelines are similar in many ways to the other guidelines, but differ in some ways, as well. An example is the timing of initiation of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer-related major abdominal surgery. The ASCO and ITAC guidelines advise starting thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, whereas the ASH guidelines recommend initiating thromboprophylaxis postoperatively, citing “the limited advantages to initiating thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, in addition to the potential bleeding and logistical considerations associated with neuraxial anesthesia.”
These differences highlight a lack of data in that setting and the need for additional studies, the authors said.
ASH vs. ASCO
James Douketis, MD, a practicing clinician and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., highlighted another difference between the ASH and ASCO guidelines.
“For the treatment of [cancer-associated thrombosis], ASCO gives a strong recommendation to use LMWH or DOACs (with some caveats), which is easy to follow. ASH, on the other hand, suggests LMWH or a DOAC for the first 7-10 days, DOACs for the first 3-6 months, and back to LMWH or DOACs after 6 months,” he said in an interview.
The recommendation is “very evidence based but ambiguous and not helpful for the practicing clinician,” added Dr. Douketis, who helped develop the ITAC guidelines, but was not part of the ASH or ASCO guideline panels.
ASCO also provides a clear recommendation for giving VTE prophylaxis for 4 weeks after cancer surgery in patients with high VTE risk, whereas ASH gives “a somewhat vague recommendation” for thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge.
The guidelines are “pretty well aligned” with respect to recommendations on VTE prophylaxis in medical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and although the “extremely academic” ASH guidelines were developed by “a superb team using the same evidence and excellent methodology,” they are interpreted in slightly different ways and fall short when it comes to being clinician friendly, Dr. Douketis said.
“At the end of day, for practicing clinicians, the ASH guidelines don’t provide a message that’s easy to digest,” he added.
ASH has, however, provided a resource page that includes tools and information for implementing the guidelines in clinical practice, and will maintain the guidelines “through surveillance for new evidence, ongoing review by experts, and regular revisions,” the authors said.
New guidelines from the American Society of Hematology “strongly recommend” using no thromboprophylaxis over using parenteral thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy who have low venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, and using no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists in those at any VTE risk level.
The evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patient with cancer, published online in Blood Advances, also include a “conditional recommendation” for using either thromboprophylaxis with the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban or rivaroxaban or using no thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with intermediate risk and using the DOACs over no thromboprophylaxis in those with high VTE risk.
The purpose of the guidelines, which also address VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer and the use of anticoagulation for VTE treatment in patients with cancer, is to provide clinical decision support for shared decision-making by patients and clinicians, Gary H. Lyman, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle and Marc Carrier, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and their colleagues from the multidisciplinary guidelines panel explained.
“The recommendations take into consideration the strength of the evidence, risks of mortality, VTE, and bleeding, as well as quality of life, acceptability, and cost considerations,” they wrote, noting that VTE is a common complication in patients with cancer, who are at markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality from VTE.
Levels of evidence
The panel members relied on updated and original systematic evidence reviews. Conditional recommendations, as opposed to strong recommendations, are defined by the panel as “suggestions,” and all 33 recommendations that make up the guidelines include a statement on the strength of the relevant evidence.
For example, the thromboprophylaxis recommendations for low, intermediate, and high VTE risk are made based on “moderate certainty in the evidence of effects,” and the recommendation for no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists is a strong recommendation based on “very low certainty in the evidence of benefits, but high certainty about the harms.”
The guidelines panel also strongly recommends, based on moderate certainty in the evidence of effects, using low-molecular-weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, and suggests, based on “very low certainty in the evidence of effects,” using LMWH over fondaparinux in this setting.
In addition to primary prophylaxis in ambulatory and hospitalized patients and initial VTE treatment, they also address primary prophylaxis for patients with cancer who have a central venous catheter, VTE treatment in surgical patients with cancer, short-term VTE treatment, and long-term VTE treatment.
For example, the guidelines panel conditionally recommends:
- Not using parenteral or oral thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer and a central venous catheter
- Using LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer
- Using DOACS for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOACs for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.
The perils of VTE
VTE in patients with cancer can interfere with treatment, increase mortality risk, and increase costs, the authors noted, adding that VTE can also adversely affect cancer patients’ quality of life.
“Some have even reported the experience of VTE to be more upsetting than that of the cancer,” they wrote. “More than 50% of thrombotic events occur within 3 months of the cancer diagnosis, a time when most cancer treatments will be underway. Patients, who are still coming to terms with a recent cancer diagnosis, often view the occurrence of VTE as a further threat to life, confirmation of the severity of their condition, and a poor prognostic sign.”
Therefore, the new guidelines aim to reduce VTE frequency, risk of bleeding complications, morbidity, and costs, thereby improving quality of life and the patient experience, the authors said, noting that three other recent guidelines on VTEs in patients with cancer have been published: the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, the 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer guidelines, and the 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.
The ASH guidelines are similar in many ways to the other guidelines, but differ in some ways, as well. An example is the timing of initiation of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer-related major abdominal surgery. The ASCO and ITAC guidelines advise starting thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, whereas the ASH guidelines recommend initiating thromboprophylaxis postoperatively, citing “the limited advantages to initiating thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, in addition to the potential bleeding and logistical considerations associated with neuraxial anesthesia.”
These differences highlight a lack of data in that setting and the need for additional studies, the authors said.
ASH vs. ASCO
James Douketis, MD, a practicing clinician and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., highlighted another difference between the ASH and ASCO guidelines.
“For the treatment of [cancer-associated thrombosis], ASCO gives a strong recommendation to use LMWH or DOACs (with some caveats), which is easy to follow. ASH, on the other hand, suggests LMWH or a DOAC for the first 7-10 days, DOACs for the first 3-6 months, and back to LMWH or DOACs after 6 months,” he said in an interview.
The recommendation is “very evidence based but ambiguous and not helpful for the practicing clinician,” added Dr. Douketis, who helped develop the ITAC guidelines, but was not part of the ASH or ASCO guideline panels.
ASCO also provides a clear recommendation for giving VTE prophylaxis for 4 weeks after cancer surgery in patients with high VTE risk, whereas ASH gives “a somewhat vague recommendation” for thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge.
The guidelines are “pretty well aligned” with respect to recommendations on VTE prophylaxis in medical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and although the “extremely academic” ASH guidelines were developed by “a superb team using the same evidence and excellent methodology,” they are interpreted in slightly different ways and fall short when it comes to being clinician friendly, Dr. Douketis said.
“At the end of day, for practicing clinicians, the ASH guidelines don’t provide a message that’s easy to digest,” he added.
ASH has, however, provided a resource page that includes tools and information for implementing the guidelines in clinical practice, and will maintain the guidelines “through surveillance for new evidence, ongoing review by experts, and regular revisions,” the authors said.
New guidelines from the American Society of Hematology “strongly recommend” using no thromboprophylaxis over using parenteral thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy who have low venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, and using no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists in those at any VTE risk level.
The evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patient with cancer, published online in Blood Advances, also include a “conditional recommendation” for using either thromboprophylaxis with the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban or rivaroxaban or using no thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with intermediate risk and using the DOACs over no thromboprophylaxis in those with high VTE risk.
The purpose of the guidelines, which also address VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with cancer and the use of anticoagulation for VTE treatment in patients with cancer, is to provide clinical decision support for shared decision-making by patients and clinicians, Gary H. Lyman, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle and Marc Carrier, MD, of the University of Ottawa, and their colleagues from the multidisciplinary guidelines panel explained.
“The recommendations take into consideration the strength of the evidence, risks of mortality, VTE, and bleeding, as well as quality of life, acceptability, and cost considerations,” they wrote, noting that VTE is a common complication in patients with cancer, who are at markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality from VTE.
Levels of evidence
The panel members relied on updated and original systematic evidence reviews. Conditional recommendations, as opposed to strong recommendations, are defined by the panel as “suggestions,” and all 33 recommendations that make up the guidelines include a statement on the strength of the relevant evidence.
For example, the thromboprophylaxis recommendations for low, intermediate, and high VTE risk are made based on “moderate certainty in the evidence of effects,” and the recommendation for no thromboprophylaxis over oral thromboprophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists is a strong recommendation based on “very low certainty in the evidence of benefits, but high certainty about the harms.”
The guidelines panel also strongly recommends, based on moderate certainty in the evidence of effects, using low-molecular-weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, and suggests, based on “very low certainty in the evidence of effects,” using LMWH over fondaparinux in this setting.
In addition to primary prophylaxis in ambulatory and hospitalized patients and initial VTE treatment, they also address primary prophylaxis for patients with cancer who have a central venous catheter, VTE treatment in surgical patients with cancer, short-term VTE treatment, and long-term VTE treatment.
For example, the guidelines panel conditionally recommends:
- Not using parenteral or oral thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer and a central venous catheter
- Using LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer
- Using DOACS for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOACs for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.
The perils of VTE
VTE in patients with cancer can interfere with treatment, increase mortality risk, and increase costs, the authors noted, adding that VTE can also adversely affect cancer patients’ quality of life.
“Some have even reported the experience of VTE to be more upsetting than that of the cancer,” they wrote. “More than 50% of thrombotic events occur within 3 months of the cancer diagnosis, a time when most cancer treatments will be underway. Patients, who are still coming to terms with a recent cancer diagnosis, often view the occurrence of VTE as a further threat to life, confirmation of the severity of their condition, and a poor prognostic sign.”
Therefore, the new guidelines aim to reduce VTE frequency, risk of bleeding complications, morbidity, and costs, thereby improving quality of life and the patient experience, the authors said, noting that three other recent guidelines on VTEs in patients with cancer have been published: the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, the 2019 International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer guidelines, and the 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.
The ASH guidelines are similar in many ways to the other guidelines, but differ in some ways, as well. An example is the timing of initiation of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing cancer-related major abdominal surgery. The ASCO and ITAC guidelines advise starting thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, whereas the ASH guidelines recommend initiating thromboprophylaxis postoperatively, citing “the limited advantages to initiating thromboprophylaxis preoperatively, in addition to the potential bleeding and logistical considerations associated with neuraxial anesthesia.”
These differences highlight a lack of data in that setting and the need for additional studies, the authors said.
ASH vs. ASCO
James Douketis, MD, a practicing clinician and professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., highlighted another difference between the ASH and ASCO guidelines.
“For the treatment of [cancer-associated thrombosis], ASCO gives a strong recommendation to use LMWH or DOACs (with some caveats), which is easy to follow. ASH, on the other hand, suggests LMWH or a DOAC for the first 7-10 days, DOACs for the first 3-6 months, and back to LMWH or DOACs after 6 months,” he said in an interview.
The recommendation is “very evidence based but ambiguous and not helpful for the practicing clinician,” added Dr. Douketis, who helped develop the ITAC guidelines, but was not part of the ASH or ASCO guideline panels.
ASCO also provides a clear recommendation for giving VTE prophylaxis for 4 weeks after cancer surgery in patients with high VTE risk, whereas ASH gives “a somewhat vague recommendation” for thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge.
The guidelines are “pretty well aligned” with respect to recommendations on VTE prophylaxis in medical cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and although the “extremely academic” ASH guidelines were developed by “a superb team using the same evidence and excellent methodology,” they are interpreted in slightly different ways and fall short when it comes to being clinician friendly, Dr. Douketis said.
“At the end of day, for practicing clinicians, the ASH guidelines don’t provide a message that’s easy to digest,” he added.
ASH has, however, provided a resource page that includes tools and information for implementing the guidelines in clinical practice, and will maintain the guidelines “through surveillance for new evidence, ongoing review by experts, and regular revisions,” the authors said.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES