A new guideline from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes group addressing issues around diabetes management in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has just been published in synopsis form in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The full guideline, including 12 recommendations and 48 practice points for clinicians caring for patients with diabetes and CKD, was published last month in Kidney International and on the KDIGO website.

More than 40% of people with diabetes develop CKD, and a significant number develop kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant. This is the first guidance from KDIGO to address the comorbidity.

The new synopsis is aimed at primary care and nonnephrology specialist clinicians who manage patients with diabetes and CKD, in addition to nephrologists, first author Sankar D. Navaneethan, MD, said in an interview.

“Most of these patients are in the hands of primary care, endocrinology, and cardiology. We want to emphasize when they see patients with different severities of kidney disease [is] what are some of the things they have to be cognizant of,” said Dr. Navaneethan, professor of medicine and director of clinical research in the section of nephrology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The synopsis summarizes key recommendations from the larger guidance regarding comprehensive care needs, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, glucose-lowering therapies, and educational/integrated care approaches.

It does not depart from prior diabetes guidelines, but it does provide advice for specific situations relevant to CKD, such as the limitations of hemoglobin A1c when estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 30 mL/min per 1.73m², and dietary protein consumption. It is based on published evidence up until February 2020.

For the nephrologist audience in particular, Dr. Navaneethan said, “we wanted to highlight team-based care, interacting with other specialists and working with them.”

“We [nephrologists] are more used to team-based care in dialysis patients. ... So we wanted to highlight that self-management programs and team-based care are important for empowering patients.”

“As nephrologists, we might not be comfortable starting patients on an SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitor. We may need to reach out to our endocrinology or primary care colleagues and learn from them,” he explained.
 

RAS inhibitor use, smoking cessation, glycemic targets

Under “comprehensive care,” the guideline panel recommends treatment with an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker – renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade – for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and albuminuria (albumin-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g).

These medications should be titrated to the highest approved tolerated dose, with close monitoring of serum potassium and serum creatinine levels within 2-4 weeks of initiation or change in dose.

The document guides clinicians on that monitoring, as well as on RAS blockade use in patient subgroups, use of alternative agents, and mitigation of adverse effects.

Patients with diabetes and CKD who use tobacco should be advised to quit.

The group recommended A1c to monitor glycemic control in patients with diabetes and CKD not receiving dialysis.

However, when eGFR is below 30 mL/min per 1.73m2, A1c levels tend to be lower because of shortened erythrocyte lifespan, which interpretation should take into account. Continuous glucose monitoring can be used as an alternative because it is not affected by CKD.

Glycemic targets should be individualized depending on hypoglycemia risk, ranging from 6.5% to 8.0% for A1c or time in range of 70-180 mg/dL for continuous glucose monitoring readings.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors, metformin, and GLP-1 agonists

The panel also recommends treatment with both metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and an eGFR ≥30 mL/min per 1.73m2.

For those who do not achieve glycemic targets or who cannot take those medications, a long-acting glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist can be used instead.

Clinical trial data are summarized for the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin supporting its use in patients with CKD specifically, along with mitigation of adverse events. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved this agent to slow the progression of diabetic nephropathy based on the CREDENCE study.

Results from the DAPA-CKD trial showing CKD reduction with another SGLT2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, were not available at the time the new document was written, nor was the recent study showing diabetic CKD benefit for the novel mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone, Dr. Navaneethan noted.

The panel determined that there is insufficient evidence for adding other glucose-lowering agents to insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and CKD.
 

Lifestyle interventions: Dietary protein, sodium, and physical activity

Most of the dietary guidance for patients with diabetes and CKD is the same as for the general population, including a recommendation to eat a diet high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fiber, legumes, plant-based proteins, unsaturated fats, and nuts, and lower in processed meats, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages.

However, the guideline details two key areas that differ, one with regard to protein intake and the other on sodium.

Although lower protein intake had been advised in the past for patients with CKD, clinical trial evidence has not shown protein restriction to reduce glomerular hyperfiltration or slow kidney disease progression.

Therefore, the same level recommended for the general population – 0.8 g/kg per day – is also advised for those with diabetes and CKD who are not on dialysis.

Those who are on dialysis can increase daily protein intake to 1.0-1.2 g/kg per day to offset catabolism and negative nitrogen imbalance.

Because kidney function decline is associated with sodium retention that can raise cardiovascular risk, sodium should be limited to less than 2 g/day (or less than 90 mmol or 5 g of sodium chloride per day).

The panel also recommended moderate-intensity physical activity for at least 150 minutes per week or to tolerance.

“We wanted to emphasize how important lifestyle is. It’s the foundation you want to build on. You can take medications without all these other things – exercise, diet, weight loss – but they won’t be nearly as effective,” Dr. Navaneethan commented.
 

Self-management education, team-based care

The final section of the synopsis advises that people with diabetes and CKD receive structured self-management educational programs, and that “policy makers and institutional decision-makers implement team-based, integrated care focused on risk evaluation and patient empowerment to provide comprehensive care in patients with diabetes and CKD.”

Despite limited data for those measures specifically in patients with diabetes and CKD, “the working group believed that well-informed patients would choose self-management as the cornerstone of any chronic care model; therefore, a high value was placed on the potential benefits of self-management education programs in persons with diabetes and CKD.”

And regarding team-based care, “despite a paucity of direct evidence, the working group judged that multidisciplinary integrated care for patients with diabetes and CKD would represent a good investment.”

The guidelines will likely be updated in the next 1-2 years, Dr. Navaneethan said in an interview.

Dr. Navaneethan has reported receiving consultancy fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Reata, and Tricida, and research support from Keryx.

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

A new guideline from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes group addressing issues around diabetes management in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has just been published in synopsis form in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The full guideline, including 12 recommendations and 48 practice points for clinicians caring for patients with diabetes and CKD, was published last month in Kidney International and on the KDIGO website.

More than 40% of people with diabetes develop CKD, and a significant number develop kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant. This is the first guidance from KDIGO to address the comorbidity.

The new synopsis is aimed at primary care and nonnephrology specialist clinicians who manage patients with diabetes and CKD, in addition to nephrologists, first author Sankar D. Navaneethan, MD, said in an interview.

“Most of these patients are in the hands of primary care, endocrinology, and cardiology. We want to emphasize when they see patients with different severities of kidney disease [is] what are some of the things they have to be cognizant of,” said Dr. Navaneethan, professor of medicine and director of clinical research in the section of nephrology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The synopsis summarizes key recommendations from the larger guidance regarding comprehensive care needs, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, glucose-lowering therapies, and educational/integrated care approaches.

It does not depart from prior diabetes guidelines, but it does provide advice for specific situations relevant to CKD, such as the limitations of hemoglobin A1c when estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 30 mL/min per 1.73m², and dietary protein consumption. It is based on published evidence up until February 2020.

For the nephrologist audience in particular, Dr. Navaneethan said, “we wanted to highlight team-based care, interacting with other specialists and working with them.”

“We [nephrologists] are more used to team-based care in dialysis patients. ... So we wanted to highlight that self-management programs and team-based care are important for empowering patients.”

“As nephrologists, we might not be comfortable starting patients on an SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitor. We may need to reach out to our endocrinology or primary care colleagues and learn from them,” he explained.
 

RAS inhibitor use, smoking cessation, glycemic targets

Under “comprehensive care,” the guideline panel recommends treatment with an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker – renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade – for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and albuminuria (albumin-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g).

These medications should be titrated to the highest approved tolerated dose, with close monitoring of serum potassium and serum creatinine levels within 2-4 weeks of initiation or change in dose.

The document guides clinicians on that monitoring, as well as on RAS blockade use in patient subgroups, use of alternative agents, and mitigation of adverse effects.

Patients with diabetes and CKD who use tobacco should be advised to quit.

The group recommended A1c to monitor glycemic control in patients with diabetes and CKD not receiving dialysis.

However, when eGFR is below 30 mL/min per 1.73m2, A1c levels tend to be lower because of shortened erythrocyte lifespan, which interpretation should take into account. Continuous glucose monitoring can be used as an alternative because it is not affected by CKD.

Glycemic targets should be individualized depending on hypoglycemia risk, ranging from 6.5% to 8.0% for A1c or time in range of 70-180 mg/dL for continuous glucose monitoring readings.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors, metformin, and GLP-1 agonists

The panel also recommends treatment with both metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and an eGFR ≥30 mL/min per 1.73m2.

For those who do not achieve glycemic targets or who cannot take those medications, a long-acting glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist can be used instead.

Clinical trial data are summarized for the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin supporting its use in patients with CKD specifically, along with mitigation of adverse events. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved this agent to slow the progression of diabetic nephropathy based on the CREDENCE study.

Results from the DAPA-CKD trial showing CKD reduction with another SGLT2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, were not available at the time the new document was written, nor was the recent study showing diabetic CKD benefit for the novel mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone, Dr. Navaneethan noted.

The panel determined that there is insufficient evidence for adding other glucose-lowering agents to insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and CKD.
 

Lifestyle interventions: Dietary protein, sodium, and physical activity

Most of the dietary guidance for patients with diabetes and CKD is the same as for the general population, including a recommendation to eat a diet high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fiber, legumes, plant-based proteins, unsaturated fats, and nuts, and lower in processed meats, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages.

However, the guideline details two key areas that differ, one with regard to protein intake and the other on sodium.

Although lower protein intake had been advised in the past for patients with CKD, clinical trial evidence has not shown protein restriction to reduce glomerular hyperfiltration or slow kidney disease progression.

Therefore, the same level recommended for the general population – 0.8 g/kg per day – is also advised for those with diabetes and CKD who are not on dialysis.

Those who are on dialysis can increase daily protein intake to 1.0-1.2 g/kg per day to offset catabolism and negative nitrogen imbalance.

Because kidney function decline is associated with sodium retention that can raise cardiovascular risk, sodium should be limited to less than 2 g/day (or less than 90 mmol or 5 g of sodium chloride per day).

The panel also recommended moderate-intensity physical activity for at least 150 minutes per week or to tolerance.

“We wanted to emphasize how important lifestyle is. It’s the foundation you want to build on. You can take medications without all these other things – exercise, diet, weight loss – but they won’t be nearly as effective,” Dr. Navaneethan commented.
 

Self-management education, team-based care

The final section of the synopsis advises that people with diabetes and CKD receive structured self-management educational programs, and that “policy makers and institutional decision-makers implement team-based, integrated care focused on risk evaluation and patient empowerment to provide comprehensive care in patients with diabetes and CKD.”

Despite limited data for those measures specifically in patients with diabetes and CKD, “the working group believed that well-informed patients would choose self-management as the cornerstone of any chronic care model; therefore, a high value was placed on the potential benefits of self-management education programs in persons with diabetes and CKD.”

And regarding team-based care, “despite a paucity of direct evidence, the working group judged that multidisciplinary integrated care for patients with diabetes and CKD would represent a good investment.”

The guidelines will likely be updated in the next 1-2 years, Dr. Navaneethan said in an interview.

Dr. Navaneethan has reported receiving consultancy fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Reata, and Tricida, and research support from Keryx.

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

A new guideline from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes group addressing issues around diabetes management in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has just been published in synopsis form in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The full guideline, including 12 recommendations and 48 practice points for clinicians caring for patients with diabetes and CKD, was published last month in Kidney International and on the KDIGO website.

More than 40% of people with diabetes develop CKD, and a significant number develop kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant. This is the first guidance from KDIGO to address the comorbidity.

The new synopsis is aimed at primary care and nonnephrology specialist clinicians who manage patients with diabetes and CKD, in addition to nephrologists, first author Sankar D. Navaneethan, MD, said in an interview.

“Most of these patients are in the hands of primary care, endocrinology, and cardiology. We want to emphasize when they see patients with different severities of kidney disease [is] what are some of the things they have to be cognizant of,” said Dr. Navaneethan, professor of medicine and director of clinical research in the section of nephrology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The synopsis summarizes key recommendations from the larger guidance regarding comprehensive care needs, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, glucose-lowering therapies, and educational/integrated care approaches.

It does not depart from prior diabetes guidelines, but it does provide advice for specific situations relevant to CKD, such as the limitations of hemoglobin A1c when estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 30 mL/min per 1.73m², and dietary protein consumption. It is based on published evidence up until February 2020.

For the nephrologist audience in particular, Dr. Navaneethan said, “we wanted to highlight team-based care, interacting with other specialists and working with them.”

“We [nephrologists] are more used to team-based care in dialysis patients. ... So we wanted to highlight that self-management programs and team-based care are important for empowering patients.”

“As nephrologists, we might not be comfortable starting patients on an SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitor. We may need to reach out to our endocrinology or primary care colleagues and learn from them,” he explained.
 

RAS inhibitor use, smoking cessation, glycemic targets

Under “comprehensive care,” the guideline panel recommends treatment with an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker – renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade – for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and albuminuria (albumin-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g).

These medications should be titrated to the highest approved tolerated dose, with close monitoring of serum potassium and serum creatinine levels within 2-4 weeks of initiation or change in dose.

The document guides clinicians on that monitoring, as well as on RAS blockade use in patient subgroups, use of alternative agents, and mitigation of adverse effects.

Patients with diabetes and CKD who use tobacco should be advised to quit.

The group recommended A1c to monitor glycemic control in patients with diabetes and CKD not receiving dialysis.

However, when eGFR is below 30 mL/min per 1.73m2, A1c levels tend to be lower because of shortened erythrocyte lifespan, which interpretation should take into account. Continuous glucose monitoring can be used as an alternative because it is not affected by CKD.

Glycemic targets should be individualized depending on hypoglycemia risk, ranging from 6.5% to 8.0% for A1c or time in range of 70-180 mg/dL for continuous glucose monitoring readings.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors, metformin, and GLP-1 agonists

The panel also recommends treatment with both metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and an eGFR ≥30 mL/min per 1.73m2.

For those who do not achieve glycemic targets or who cannot take those medications, a long-acting glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist can be used instead.

Clinical trial data are summarized for the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin supporting its use in patients with CKD specifically, along with mitigation of adverse events. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved this agent to slow the progression of diabetic nephropathy based on the CREDENCE study.

Results from the DAPA-CKD trial showing CKD reduction with another SGLT2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, were not available at the time the new document was written, nor was the recent study showing diabetic CKD benefit for the novel mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone, Dr. Navaneethan noted.

The panel determined that there is insufficient evidence for adding other glucose-lowering agents to insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and CKD.
 

Lifestyle interventions: Dietary protein, sodium, and physical activity

Most of the dietary guidance for patients with diabetes and CKD is the same as for the general population, including a recommendation to eat a diet high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fiber, legumes, plant-based proteins, unsaturated fats, and nuts, and lower in processed meats, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages.

However, the guideline details two key areas that differ, one with regard to protein intake and the other on sodium.

Although lower protein intake had been advised in the past for patients with CKD, clinical trial evidence has not shown protein restriction to reduce glomerular hyperfiltration or slow kidney disease progression.

Therefore, the same level recommended for the general population – 0.8 g/kg per day – is also advised for those with diabetes and CKD who are not on dialysis.

Those who are on dialysis can increase daily protein intake to 1.0-1.2 g/kg per day to offset catabolism and negative nitrogen imbalance.

Because kidney function decline is associated with sodium retention that can raise cardiovascular risk, sodium should be limited to less than 2 g/day (or less than 90 mmol or 5 g of sodium chloride per day).

The panel also recommended moderate-intensity physical activity for at least 150 minutes per week or to tolerance.

“We wanted to emphasize how important lifestyle is. It’s the foundation you want to build on. You can take medications without all these other things – exercise, diet, weight loss – but they won’t be nearly as effective,” Dr. Navaneethan commented.
 

Self-management education, team-based care

The final section of the synopsis advises that people with diabetes and CKD receive structured self-management educational programs, and that “policy makers and institutional decision-makers implement team-based, integrated care focused on risk evaluation and patient empowerment to provide comprehensive care in patients with diabetes and CKD.”

Despite limited data for those measures specifically in patients with diabetes and CKD, “the working group believed that well-informed patients would choose self-management as the cornerstone of any chronic care model; therefore, a high value was placed on the potential benefits of self-management education programs in persons with diabetes and CKD.”

And regarding team-based care, “despite a paucity of direct evidence, the working group judged that multidisciplinary integrated care for patients with diabetes and CKD would represent a good investment.”

The guidelines will likely be updated in the next 1-2 years, Dr. Navaneethan said in an interview.

Dr. Navaneethan has reported receiving consultancy fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Reata, and Tricida, and research support from Keryx.

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

Cardiovascular disease risk is elevated among transgender individuals seeking gender-affirming hormone therapy, according to a retrospective study in 427 patients.

nktwentythree/Getty Images

The transgender population often experiences socioeconomic and health disparities, including reduced access to care, Kara J. Denby, MD, said in an interview.

Previous research suggests that the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) may place transgender persons at increased cardiovascular risk, she said.

To identify the potential risk for transgender individuals, the researchers identified baseline cardiovascular risk in patients who had not yet undergone GAHT. Study participants were enrolled in a multidisciplinary transgender program, and the researchers collected data on demographics, medical history, vitals, medications, and laboratory results. The average age of the participants was 26 years, 172 identified as men, 236 as women, and 20 as nonbinary.

Overall, 55% of the participants had a chronic medical condition at baseline. Of these, 74 patients had hypertension, 41 had hyperlipidemia, 2 had a history of stroke, 7 had coronary artery disease, and 4 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

For all patients who did not have documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, their American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ASCVD and QRISK3 risk scores were calculated. “The incidence of undiagnosed hypertension and hyperlipidemia was 6.8% and 11.3% respectively, and of these cases, only 64% and 24% were on appropriate therapies,” noted Dr. Denby of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.

She reported the results Nov. 13 in a presentation at the at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The findings were limited by the observational nature of the study.

However, the results suggest that transgender patients “appear to be at higher risk than their age-matched historical cohorts regardless of gender,” said Dr. Denby. More research is needed, but cardiovascular disease–prevention efforts may be inadequate in the transgender population given the elevated risk observed in this study, she concluded.
 

Growing transgender population is medically underserved

The transgender population is growing in the United States and internationally, said Dr. Denby. “This group has a history of being marginalized as a result of their transgender status with socioeconomic and health repercussions,” she said. “It is well known that transgender patients are less likely to have access to health care or utilize health care for a variety of reasons, including stigma and fear of mistreatment. This often leads transgender individuals to present to care late in disease processes which makes their disease harder to treat and often leads to emergent medical conditions,” she added.

“Transgender men and women are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and often aren’t screened at recommended intervals because of decreased health care use compared to their cisgender counterparts,” she said. “This may lead to untreated diseases that make them even more likely to suffer poor health outcomes.”

The current study is important because there are “almost no prior data regarding the cardiovascular health status of this population prior to gender-affirming care,” Dr. Denby emphasized. “There are data that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are at higher risk for poor cardiovascular outcomes, but the same data are lacking in the transgender group,” she said.

“As transgender individuals have frequent physician visits while on hormonal therapy, this seems like the opportune time to screen for cardiovascular risk factors and treat previously undiagnosed diseases that can lead to poor health outcomes in the future,” Dr. Denby explained. “If we are able to intervene at an earlier age, perhaps we can help prevent poor health outcomes down the road,” she said.
 

Additional research can inform practice

Dr. Denby said she was not surprised by the findings. “This is a very high-risk population that often doesn’t follow closely in the health care system,” she said. “These data are very important in thinking holistically about transgender patients.” Clinicians can “use the opportunities we have when they present for gender-affirming care to optimize their overall health status, promote long-term health, and reduce the risks associated with hormonal therapy and gender-affirming surgeries,” she noted. “We hope to use this information to change our practice at the Cleveland Clinic and nationally as well. Transgender patients should be screened and aggressively treated for cardiovascular disease and risk factors,” she said.

Key barriers to overcome include determining the best way to reach out to transgender individuals and then making them feel comfortable in the clinical setting, Dr. Denby said. “This means that we must set up clinics that are approachable and safe for all comers. The lack of laws in many states that protect this vulnerable population also contributes to lack of access to care,” she added. 

“We hope to continue research in this arena about how to effectively screen and treat transgender patients as they present to care, not only in the transgender clinic, but also to primary care providers (ob.gyn., internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics) who also care for this population” since no specific guidelines currently exist to direct the screening for cardiovascular patients in particular, she said.
 

Findings offer foundation for LGBTQ cardiovascular studies

“This [study] provides us with a good rationale for why we should be considering cardiovascular health in transgender adults,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, said in an interview. “It is largely descriptive, but I think that that’s a good step in terms of at least understanding the magnitude of this problem. In addition, I think that what this abstract might do is help lead to future research that examines potentially the associations between not only gender-affirming hormone therapies but other potential social determinants like discrimination or poverty on the cardiovascular health of transgender people,” he noted.

Dr. Caceres served as chair of the writing group for the recent American Heart Association Scientific Statement: LGBTQ Heart Health published in Circulation. He had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Denby had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Denby KJ et al. AHA 2020, Presentation P2274.

Cardiovascular disease risk is elevated among transgender individuals seeking gender-affirming hormone therapy, according to a retrospective study in 427 patients.

nktwentythree/Getty Images

The transgender population often experiences socioeconomic and health disparities, including reduced access to care, Kara J. Denby, MD, said in an interview.

Previous research suggests that the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) may place transgender persons at increased cardiovascular risk, she said.

To identify the potential risk for transgender individuals, the researchers identified baseline cardiovascular risk in patients who had not yet undergone GAHT. Study participants were enrolled in a multidisciplinary transgender program, and the researchers collected data on demographics, medical history, vitals, medications, and laboratory results. The average age of the participants was 26 years, 172 identified as men, 236 as women, and 20 as nonbinary.

Overall, 55% of the participants had a chronic medical condition at baseline. Of these, 74 patients had hypertension, 41 had hyperlipidemia, 2 had a history of stroke, 7 had coronary artery disease, and 4 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

For all patients who did not have documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, their American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ASCVD and QRISK3 risk scores were calculated. “The incidence of undiagnosed hypertension and hyperlipidemia was 6.8% and 11.3% respectively, and of these cases, only 64% and 24% were on appropriate therapies,” noted Dr. Denby of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.

She reported the results Nov. 13 in a presentation at the at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The findings were limited by the observational nature of the study.

However, the results suggest that transgender patients “appear to be at higher risk than their age-matched historical cohorts regardless of gender,” said Dr. Denby. More research is needed, but cardiovascular disease–prevention efforts may be inadequate in the transgender population given the elevated risk observed in this study, she concluded.
 

Growing transgender population is medically underserved

The transgender population is growing in the United States and internationally, said Dr. Denby. “This group has a history of being marginalized as a result of their transgender status with socioeconomic and health repercussions,” she said. “It is well known that transgender patients are less likely to have access to health care or utilize health care for a variety of reasons, including stigma and fear of mistreatment. This often leads transgender individuals to present to care late in disease processes which makes their disease harder to treat and often leads to emergent medical conditions,” she added.

“Transgender men and women are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and often aren’t screened at recommended intervals because of decreased health care use compared to their cisgender counterparts,” she said. “This may lead to untreated diseases that make them even more likely to suffer poor health outcomes.”

The current study is important because there are “almost no prior data regarding the cardiovascular health status of this population prior to gender-affirming care,” Dr. Denby emphasized. “There are data that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are at higher risk for poor cardiovascular outcomes, but the same data are lacking in the transgender group,” she said.

“As transgender individuals have frequent physician visits while on hormonal therapy, this seems like the opportune time to screen for cardiovascular risk factors and treat previously undiagnosed diseases that can lead to poor health outcomes in the future,” Dr. Denby explained. “If we are able to intervene at an earlier age, perhaps we can help prevent poor health outcomes down the road,” she said.
 

Additional research can inform practice

Dr. Denby said she was not surprised by the findings. “This is a very high-risk population that often doesn’t follow closely in the health care system,” she said. “These data are very important in thinking holistically about transgender patients.” Clinicians can “use the opportunities we have when they present for gender-affirming care to optimize their overall health status, promote long-term health, and reduce the risks associated with hormonal therapy and gender-affirming surgeries,” she noted. “We hope to use this information to change our practice at the Cleveland Clinic and nationally as well. Transgender patients should be screened and aggressively treated for cardiovascular disease and risk factors,” she said.

Key barriers to overcome include determining the best way to reach out to transgender individuals and then making them feel comfortable in the clinical setting, Dr. Denby said. “This means that we must set up clinics that are approachable and safe for all comers. The lack of laws in many states that protect this vulnerable population also contributes to lack of access to care,” she added. 

“We hope to continue research in this arena about how to effectively screen and treat transgender patients as they present to care, not only in the transgender clinic, but also to primary care providers (ob.gyn., internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics) who also care for this population” since no specific guidelines currently exist to direct the screening for cardiovascular patients in particular, she said.
 

Findings offer foundation for LGBTQ cardiovascular studies

“This [study] provides us with a good rationale for why we should be considering cardiovascular health in transgender adults,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, said in an interview. “It is largely descriptive, but I think that that’s a good step in terms of at least understanding the magnitude of this problem. In addition, I think that what this abstract might do is help lead to future research that examines potentially the associations between not only gender-affirming hormone therapies but other potential social determinants like discrimination or poverty on the cardiovascular health of transgender people,” he noted.

Dr. Caceres served as chair of the writing group for the recent American Heart Association Scientific Statement: LGBTQ Heart Health published in Circulation. He had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Denby had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Denby KJ et al. AHA 2020, Presentation P2274.

Cardiovascular disease risk is elevated among transgender individuals seeking gender-affirming hormone therapy, according to a retrospective study in 427 patients.

nktwentythree/Getty Images

The transgender population often experiences socioeconomic and health disparities, including reduced access to care, Kara J. Denby, MD, said in an interview.

Previous research suggests that the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) may place transgender persons at increased cardiovascular risk, she said.

To identify the potential risk for transgender individuals, the researchers identified baseline cardiovascular risk in patients who had not yet undergone GAHT. Study participants were enrolled in a multidisciplinary transgender program, and the researchers collected data on demographics, medical history, vitals, medications, and laboratory results. The average age of the participants was 26 years, 172 identified as men, 236 as women, and 20 as nonbinary.

Overall, 55% of the participants had a chronic medical condition at baseline. Of these, 74 patients had hypertension, 41 had hyperlipidemia, 2 had a history of stroke, 7 had coronary artery disease, and 4 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

For all patients who did not have documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, their American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ASCVD and QRISK3 risk scores were calculated. “The incidence of undiagnosed hypertension and hyperlipidemia was 6.8% and 11.3% respectively, and of these cases, only 64% and 24% were on appropriate therapies,” noted Dr. Denby of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.

She reported the results Nov. 13 in a presentation at the at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The findings were limited by the observational nature of the study.

However, the results suggest that transgender patients “appear to be at higher risk than their age-matched historical cohorts regardless of gender,” said Dr. Denby. More research is needed, but cardiovascular disease–prevention efforts may be inadequate in the transgender population given the elevated risk observed in this study, she concluded.
 

Growing transgender population is medically underserved

The transgender population is growing in the United States and internationally, said Dr. Denby. “This group has a history of being marginalized as a result of their transgender status with socioeconomic and health repercussions,” she said. “It is well known that transgender patients are less likely to have access to health care or utilize health care for a variety of reasons, including stigma and fear of mistreatment. This often leads transgender individuals to present to care late in disease processes which makes their disease harder to treat and often leads to emergent medical conditions,” she added.

“Transgender men and women are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and often aren’t screened at recommended intervals because of decreased health care use compared to their cisgender counterparts,” she said. “This may lead to untreated diseases that make them even more likely to suffer poor health outcomes.”

The current study is important because there are “almost no prior data regarding the cardiovascular health status of this population prior to gender-affirming care,” Dr. Denby emphasized. “There are data that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are at higher risk for poor cardiovascular outcomes, but the same data are lacking in the transgender group,” she said.

“As transgender individuals have frequent physician visits while on hormonal therapy, this seems like the opportune time to screen for cardiovascular risk factors and treat previously undiagnosed diseases that can lead to poor health outcomes in the future,” Dr. Denby explained. “If we are able to intervene at an earlier age, perhaps we can help prevent poor health outcomes down the road,” she said.
 

Additional research can inform practice

Dr. Denby said she was not surprised by the findings. “This is a very high-risk population that often doesn’t follow closely in the health care system,” she said. “These data are very important in thinking holistically about transgender patients.” Clinicians can “use the opportunities we have when they present for gender-affirming care to optimize their overall health status, promote long-term health, and reduce the risks associated with hormonal therapy and gender-affirming surgeries,” she noted. “We hope to use this information to change our practice at the Cleveland Clinic and nationally as well. Transgender patients should be screened and aggressively treated for cardiovascular disease and risk factors,” she said.

Key barriers to overcome include determining the best way to reach out to transgender individuals and then making them feel comfortable in the clinical setting, Dr. Denby said. “This means that we must set up clinics that are approachable and safe for all comers. The lack of laws in many states that protect this vulnerable population also contributes to lack of access to care,” she added. 

“We hope to continue research in this arena about how to effectively screen and treat transgender patients as they present to care, not only in the transgender clinic, but also to primary care providers (ob.gyn., internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics) who also care for this population” since no specific guidelines currently exist to direct the screening for cardiovascular patients in particular, she said.
 

Findings offer foundation for LGBTQ cardiovascular studies

“This [study] provides us with a good rationale for why we should be considering cardiovascular health in transgender adults,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, said in an interview. “It is largely descriptive, but I think that that’s a good step in terms of at least understanding the magnitude of this problem. In addition, I think that what this abstract might do is help lead to future research that examines potentially the associations between not only gender-affirming hormone therapies but other potential social determinants like discrimination or poverty on the cardiovascular health of transgender people,” he noted.

Dr. Caceres served as chair of the writing group for the recent American Heart Association Scientific Statement: LGBTQ Heart Health published in Circulation. He had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Denby had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Denby KJ et al. AHA 2020, Presentation P2274.

Given the longstanding scarring alopecia, with negative fungal cultures and with perifollicular erythema and scaling, this diagnosis is most consistent with lichen planopilaris.

Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is considered one of the primary scarring alopecias, a group of diseases characterized by inflammation and subsequent irreversible hair loss.¹ LPP specifically is believed to be caused by dysfunction of cell-mediated immunity, resulting in T lymphocytes attacking follicular hair stem cells.² It typically presents with hair loss, pruritus, scaling, burning pain, and tenderness of the scalp when active,^1,3 with exam showing perifollicular scale and erythema on the borders of the patches of alopecia.^4,5 Over time, scarring of the scalp develops with loss of follicular ostia.¹ Definitive diagnosis typically requires punch biopsy of the affected scalp, as such can determine the presence or absence of inflammation in affected areas of the scalp.¹

What’s the treatment plan?

Given that LPP is an autoimmune inflammatory disease process, the goal of treatment is to calm down the inflammation of the scalp to prevent further progression of a patient’s hair loss. This is typically achieved with superpotent topical corticosteroids, such as clobetasol applied directly to the scalp, and/or intralesional corticosteroids, such as triamcinolone acetonide suspension injected directly to the affected scalp.^3,6,7 Other treatment options include systemic agents, such as hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, pioglitazone, and doxycycline.^3,6 Hair loss is not reversible as loss of follicular ostia and hair stem cells results in permanent scarring.¹ Management often requires a referral to dermatology for aggressive treatment to prevent further hair loss.

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of lichen planopilaris includes other scarring alopecias, including central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, discoid lupus erythematosus, folliculitis decalvans. While nonscarring, alopecia areata, trichotillomania, and telogen effluvium are discussed below as well.

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia is very rare in pediatrics, and is a type of asymptomatic scarring alopecia that begins at the vertex of the scalp, spreading centrifugally and resulting in shiny plaque development. Treatment involves reduction of hair grooming as well as topical and intralesional steroids.

Discoid lupus erythematosus presents as scaling erythematous plaques on the face and scalp that result in skin pigment changes and atrophy over time. Scalp involvement results in scarring alopecia. Treatment includes the use of high-potency topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and hydroxychloroquine.

Folliculitis decalvans is another form of scarring alopecia believed to be caused by an inflammatory response to Staphylococcus aureus in the scalp, resulting in the formation of scarring of the scalp and perifollicular pustules. Treatment is topical antibiotics and intralesional steroids.

Alopecia areata is a form of nonscarring alopecia resulting in small round patches of partially reversible hair loss characterized by the pathognomonic finding of so-called exclamation point hairs that are broader distally and taper toward the scalp on physical exam. Considered an autoimmune disorder, it varies greatly in extent and course. While focal hair loss is the hallmark of this disease, usually hair follicles are present.

Trichotillosis, also known as trichotillomania (hair pulling), results in alopecia with irregular borders and broken hairs of different lengths secondary to the urge to remove or pull one’s own hair, resulting in nonscarring alopecia. It may be associated with stress or anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorders, or other repetitive body-altering behaviors. Treatments include reassurance and education as it can be self-limited in some, behavior modification, or systemic therapy including tricyclic antidepressants or SSRIs.

Our patient underwent scalp punch biopsy to confirm the diagnosis and was started on potent topical corticosteroids with good disease control.

Dr. Haft is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is the vice chair of the department of dermatology and a professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the university, and he is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the hospital. Neither of the doctors had any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
 

References

1. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2004.06.015.

2. J Pathol. 2013 Oct. doi: 10.1002/path.4233.

3. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015 Sep-Oct. doi: 10.1111/pde.12624.

4. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2003.04.001.

5. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992 Dec. doi: 10.1016/0190-9622(92)70290-v.

6. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2018 Feb 27. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S137870.

7. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2009 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.sder.2008.12.006.

Given the longstanding scarring alopecia, with negative fungal cultures and with perifollicular erythema and scaling, this diagnosis is most consistent with lichen planopilaris.

Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is considered one of the primary scarring alopecias, a group of diseases characterized by inflammation and subsequent irreversible hair loss.¹ LPP specifically is believed to be caused by dysfunction of cell-mediated immunity, resulting in T lymphocytes attacking follicular hair stem cells.² It typically presents with hair loss, pruritus, scaling, burning pain, and tenderness of the scalp when active,^1,3 with exam showing perifollicular scale and erythema on the borders of the patches of alopecia.^4,5 Over time, scarring of the scalp develops with loss of follicular ostia.¹ Definitive diagnosis typically requires punch biopsy of the affected scalp, as such can determine the presence or absence of inflammation in affected areas of the scalp.¹

What’s the treatment plan?

Given that LPP is an autoimmune inflammatory disease process, the goal of treatment is to calm down the inflammation of the scalp to prevent further progression of a patient’s hair loss. This is typically achieved with superpotent topical corticosteroids, such as clobetasol applied directly to the scalp, and/or intralesional corticosteroids, such as triamcinolone acetonide suspension injected directly to the affected scalp.^3,6,7 Other treatment options include systemic agents, such as hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, pioglitazone, and doxycycline.^3,6 Hair loss is not reversible as loss of follicular ostia and hair stem cells results in permanent scarring.¹ Management often requires a referral to dermatology for aggressive treatment to prevent further hair loss.

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of lichen planopilaris includes other scarring alopecias, including central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, discoid lupus erythematosus, folliculitis decalvans. While nonscarring, alopecia areata, trichotillomania, and telogen effluvium are discussed below as well.

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia is very rare in pediatrics, and is a type of asymptomatic scarring alopecia that begins at the vertex of the scalp, spreading centrifugally and resulting in shiny plaque development. Treatment involves reduction of hair grooming as well as topical and intralesional steroids.

Discoid lupus erythematosus presents as scaling erythematous plaques on the face and scalp that result in skin pigment changes and atrophy over time. Scalp involvement results in scarring alopecia. Treatment includes the use of high-potency topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and hydroxychloroquine.

Folliculitis decalvans is another form of scarring alopecia believed to be caused by an inflammatory response to Staphylococcus aureus in the scalp, resulting in the formation of scarring of the scalp and perifollicular pustules. Treatment is topical antibiotics and intralesional steroids.

Alopecia areata is a form of nonscarring alopecia resulting in small round patches of partially reversible hair loss characterized by the pathognomonic finding of so-called exclamation point hairs that are broader distally and taper toward the scalp on physical exam. Considered an autoimmune disorder, it varies greatly in extent and course. While focal hair loss is the hallmark of this disease, usually hair follicles are present.

Trichotillosis, also known as trichotillomania (hair pulling), results in alopecia with irregular borders and broken hairs of different lengths secondary to the urge to remove or pull one’s own hair, resulting in nonscarring alopecia. It may be associated with stress or anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorders, or other repetitive body-altering behaviors. Treatments include reassurance and education as it can be self-limited in some, behavior modification, or systemic therapy including tricyclic antidepressants or SSRIs.

Our patient underwent scalp punch biopsy to confirm the diagnosis and was started on potent topical corticosteroids with good disease control.

Dr. Haft is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is the vice chair of the department of dermatology and a professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the university, and he is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the hospital. Neither of the doctors had any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
 

References

1. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2004.06.015.

2. J Pathol. 2013 Oct. doi: 10.1002/path.4233.

3. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015 Sep-Oct. doi: 10.1111/pde.12624.

4. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2003.04.001.

5. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992 Dec. doi: 10.1016/0190-9622(92)70290-v.

6. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2018 Feb 27. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S137870.

7. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2009 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.sder.2008.12.006.

Given the longstanding scarring alopecia, with negative fungal cultures and with perifollicular erythema and scaling, this diagnosis is most consistent with lichen planopilaris.

Lichen planopilaris (LPP) is considered one of the primary scarring alopecias, a group of diseases characterized by inflammation and subsequent irreversible hair loss.¹ LPP specifically is believed to be caused by dysfunction of cell-mediated immunity, resulting in T lymphocytes attacking follicular hair stem cells.² It typically presents with hair loss, pruritus, scaling, burning pain, and tenderness of the scalp when active,^1,3 with exam showing perifollicular scale and erythema on the borders of the patches of alopecia.^4,5 Over time, scarring of the scalp develops with loss of follicular ostia.¹ Definitive diagnosis typically requires punch biopsy of the affected scalp, as such can determine the presence or absence of inflammation in affected areas of the scalp.¹

What’s the treatment plan?

Given that LPP is an autoimmune inflammatory disease process, the goal of treatment is to calm down the inflammation of the scalp to prevent further progression of a patient’s hair loss. This is typically achieved with superpotent topical corticosteroids, such as clobetasol applied directly to the scalp, and/or intralesional corticosteroids, such as triamcinolone acetonide suspension injected directly to the affected scalp.^3,6,7 Other treatment options include systemic agents, such as hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, pioglitazone, and doxycycline.^3,6 Hair loss is not reversible as loss of follicular ostia and hair stem cells results in permanent scarring.¹ Management often requires a referral to dermatology for aggressive treatment to prevent further hair loss.

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of lichen planopilaris includes other scarring alopecias, including central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, discoid lupus erythematosus, folliculitis decalvans. While nonscarring, alopecia areata, trichotillomania, and telogen effluvium are discussed below as well.

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia is very rare in pediatrics, and is a type of asymptomatic scarring alopecia that begins at the vertex of the scalp, spreading centrifugally and resulting in shiny plaque development. Treatment involves reduction of hair grooming as well as topical and intralesional steroids.

Discoid lupus erythematosus presents as scaling erythematous plaques on the face and scalp that result in skin pigment changes and atrophy over time. Scalp involvement results in scarring alopecia. Treatment includes the use of high-potency topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and hydroxychloroquine.

Folliculitis decalvans is another form of scarring alopecia believed to be caused by an inflammatory response to Staphylococcus aureus in the scalp, resulting in the formation of scarring of the scalp and perifollicular pustules. Treatment is topical antibiotics and intralesional steroids.

Alopecia areata is a form of nonscarring alopecia resulting in small round patches of partially reversible hair loss characterized by the pathognomonic finding of so-called exclamation point hairs that are broader distally and taper toward the scalp on physical exam. Considered an autoimmune disorder, it varies greatly in extent and course. While focal hair loss is the hallmark of this disease, usually hair follicles are present.

Trichotillosis, also known as trichotillomania (hair pulling), results in alopecia with irregular borders and broken hairs of different lengths secondary to the urge to remove or pull one’s own hair, resulting in nonscarring alopecia. It may be associated with stress or anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorders, or other repetitive body-altering behaviors. Treatments include reassurance and education as it can be self-limited in some, behavior modification, or systemic therapy including tricyclic antidepressants or SSRIs.

Our patient underwent scalp punch biopsy to confirm the diagnosis and was started on potent topical corticosteroids with good disease control.

Dr. Haft is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is the vice chair of the department of dermatology and a professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the university, and he is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the hospital. Neither of the doctors had any relevant financial disclosures. Email them at [email protected].
 

References

1. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2004.06.015.

2. J Pathol. 2013 Oct. doi: 10.1002/path.4233.

3. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015 Sep-Oct. doi: 10.1111/pde.12624.

4. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2003.04.001.

5. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1992 Dec. doi: 10.1016/0190-9622(92)70290-v.

6. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2018 Feb 27. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S137870.

7. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2009 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.sder.2008.12.006.

In a phase 3 trial where all participants received intensive behavior therapy, investigational 2.4-mg once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (Novo Nordisk) resulted in a 10.3% greater average weight loss than placebo over a period of 68 weeks.

If approved, this medication could be a “potential major breakthrough” in obesity management, the investigators suggested. But other experts urged caution, as cost and uptake are important considerations.
 

‘Potential weight loss that patients would be happy with’

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, presented results from the study of 611 adults with overweight or obesity but no diabetes at the virtual ObesityWeek® Interactive 2020 meeting.

“Perhaps even more impressive was the finding that 75% of patients lost 10% or more of baseline body weight,” said Dr. Wadden, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Moreover, in this trial of semaglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that is approved for treating type 2 diabetes at a weekly subcutaneous dose of 1 mg, but is being investigated at the higher dose for weight loss – 55% of patients lost ≥15% of their initial weight, and 36% lost ≥20% of their initial weight.

“These large categorical weight losses – particularly of 15% and 20% of initial weight – are potentially a major breakthrough in the management of obesity,” Dr. Wadden said in an interview.

Weight losses of this size, he added, “should confer greater improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors (such as hypertension, sleep apnea, and type 2 diabetes) as compared with losses of 5%-10% achieved with current behavioral or pharmacological approaches.” And patients are generally not satisfied with losses of less than 10% of initial weight when participating in intensive behavior programs or taking weight-loss medications.

Now, “the larger categorical weight losses will mean that a greater number of patients with obesity will be able to achieve a weight loss with which they are ... happy,” Dr. Wadden said in an interview.

According to Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Professor of Metabolic Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who is an investigator for another trial of semaglutide: “Even though it has the same mechanism of action [as liraglutide], the weight loss is two or more times greater [with semaglutide]. In my opinion, it’s really going to be a major advance in the treatment of obesity.”

In the discussion that followed the virtual presentation, one attendee asked about potential weight regain if a patient stopped taking the drug. Based on experience with another subcutaneous injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist, liraglutide (Saxenda), already approved for obesity, it may be that taking medicine for chronic overweight may become like taking a statin for elevated cholesterol, said Dr. Wadden.

Novo Nordisk has now completed the four trials in the STEP (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity) global phase 3 clinical development program, and plans to file applications with the Food and Drug Administration later this year and with the European Medicines Agency in early 2021 for review of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management.
 

“Fundamental issues need to be figured out”

Invited to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, said: “This is impressive data, confirming that semaglutide, particularly when used in concert with evidence-based counseling, is a highly effective agent for obesity management.”

However, “the real question, though, is what comes next,” stressed Dr. Kahan, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, DC.

“Will it be approved by the U.S. FDA? I believe so,” he said in an interview. “Yet we already have several effective obesity medications approved over the past decade – all of which are rarely used and therefore make little impact for patients in the real world.”

“Will there be insurance coverage, and therefore practical access for those who could most benefit?” he continued. “Will prescribers counsel their patients about obesity management, including the use of effective medications? Will patients utilize available options?”

“These and other fundamental issues must be figured out before we anoint any treatment option as a meaningful step forward, let alone a transformative development,” according to Dr. Kahan.

Similarly, Irl B. Hirsch, MD, stressed that, should this medication be approved for weight loss, cost would be a major factor in its uptake.

“I’m old enough to recall when we started using lovastatin in the late 1980s,” Dr. Hirsch, professor of medicine, University of Washington Medicine Diabetes Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.

“We used it without the type of evidence of statin use we have today. A pill, but in those days the statins were expensive. But over time, the evidence for statins grew and over the next 15 years it was quite clear that for both primary prevention (for those with diabetes) and secondary intervention these drugs needed to be used by millions of people. These recommendations became easier once the drugs became generic.

“Will the same thing happen for GLP-1 agonists? The problem is we need both ‘hard-outcome data’ [such as 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events] and more reasonable cost before we see this expanding to an entire population.

“In the future perhaps we could have a biosimilar GLP-1 agonist that would be more affordable than what we pay now, but even before that we need agreement from our reimbursement thought leaders that our society should reimburse these agents.

“My thinking now is the cost-benefit could be favorable, but this is all dependent on what happens to the cost of the drugs over time,” he said.
 

Additive effect of intensive behavior therapy plus medication

Dr. Wadden explained that intensive behavioral therapy “provides 14 or more counseling sessions in 6 months to modify diet and physical activity, through the patients’ use of behavioral strategies (such as keeping daily food and activity diaries).”

Such programs typically produce mean weight loss of 5%-8% of initial weight; less frequent (e.g., monthly) programs typically produce weight loss of only 1%-3%.

Prior studies suggest that intensive behavioral therapy and medication have additive effects. To investigate this, Dr. Wadden and colleagues randomized 611 adults (81% women) who were a mean age of 46 years and had a mean body mass index of 38 kg/m².

All participants received 30 intensive behavior therapy sessions provided by a registered dietitian (or other qualified provider), which typically lasted 20-30 minutes and were given weekly for 12 weeks, every other week for the next 12 weeks, and then monthly.  

The dietitian gave participants behavioral strategies to help them adhere to diet and physical activity goals.

During the first 8 weeks, participants were provided with a 1,000-1,200 kcal/day meal replacement diet that included liquid shakes, meal bars, and prepared entrees designed to facilitate a large initial weight loss.

They then transitioned to a diet of conventional foods (of their choosing), with a goal of 1,200-1,800 kcal/day based on body weight.  

The physical activity goal was 100 minutes/week of walking or other aerobic activity in the first month, building up to 200 minutes/week by month 6.
 

‘More effective than current FDA-approved weight-loss medications’

At week 68, mean body weight decreased from baseline by 16.0% in the semaglutide group versus 5.7% in the placebo group (P < .0001).

In this trial, where all participants received extensive intensive behavior therapy, more participants had weight loss ≥5%, ≥10%, ≥15%, and ≥20% of their initial weight with semaglutide versus placebo (87% vs. 48%; 75% vs. 27%; 56% vs. 13%; 36% vs. 4%, respectively; all P < .0001).

From baseline to week 68, the proportion of participants with prediabetes decreased from 48% to 7% in the semaglutide group and from 53% to 26% in the placebo group.

Patients who received semaglutide had greater improvements in lipids, too.

Although the weight loss was 10.3% (10.6 kg) greater with semaglutide, Dr. Wadden noted, “additional studies have shown this net benefit to be as great as 11%-12%, which would make semaglutide 2.4 mg more effective than current [FDA-approved] weight-loss medications.”

“Naltrexone-bupropion (Contrave) with lifestyle counseling, for example,” he continued, “produces a loss that is 5 kg greater than lifestyle counseling plus placebo, liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda) a loss 5.3 kg greater than placebo, and phentermine-topiramate (Qsymia) a loss that is 8.8 kg greater than placebo.” 

Semaglutide was well tolerated. Gastrointestinal adverse events, the most common type, occurred in 83% of patients in the semaglutide group and 63% of patients in the placebo group.

Nausea, as well as constipation and diarrhea, are common in medications that increase GLP-1 levels, Dr. Wadden noted. Side effects can be managed by slowly increasing the medication dose over 4 months.  

Dr. Wadden expects that, if approved, semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once-weekly will be recommended as an adjunct to a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity. Additional studies suggest that monthly counseling should be sufficient to obtain similar weight losses as those seen in the current trial, which had more intensive counseling.

As well as being approved as a weekly subcutaneous injectable treatment for type 2 diabetes, semaglutide is also approved as an once-daily oral agent for the same indication (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.

Dr. Wadden serves on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk and WW (formerly Weight Watchers), and has received grant support, on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania, from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aronne is an investigator in a long-term trial of semaglutide and has served on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk in the past. He also has other industry relationships that are not related to semaglutide.

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

In a phase 3 trial where all participants received intensive behavior therapy, investigational 2.4-mg once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (Novo Nordisk) resulted in a 10.3% greater average weight loss than placebo over a period of 68 weeks.

If approved, this medication could be a “potential major breakthrough” in obesity management, the investigators suggested. But other experts urged caution, as cost and uptake are important considerations.
 

‘Potential weight loss that patients would be happy with’

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, presented results from the study of 611 adults with overweight or obesity but no diabetes at the virtual ObesityWeek® Interactive 2020 meeting.

“Perhaps even more impressive was the finding that 75% of patients lost 10% or more of baseline body weight,” said Dr. Wadden, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Moreover, in this trial of semaglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that is approved for treating type 2 diabetes at a weekly subcutaneous dose of 1 mg, but is being investigated at the higher dose for weight loss – 55% of patients lost ≥15% of their initial weight, and 36% lost ≥20% of their initial weight.

“These large categorical weight losses – particularly of 15% and 20% of initial weight – are potentially a major breakthrough in the management of obesity,” Dr. Wadden said in an interview.

Weight losses of this size, he added, “should confer greater improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors (such as hypertension, sleep apnea, and type 2 diabetes) as compared with losses of 5%-10% achieved with current behavioral or pharmacological approaches.” And patients are generally not satisfied with losses of less than 10% of initial weight when participating in intensive behavior programs or taking weight-loss medications.

Now, “the larger categorical weight losses will mean that a greater number of patients with obesity will be able to achieve a weight loss with which they are ... happy,” Dr. Wadden said in an interview.

According to Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Professor of Metabolic Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who is an investigator for another trial of semaglutide: “Even though it has the same mechanism of action [as liraglutide], the weight loss is two or more times greater [with semaglutide]. In my opinion, it’s really going to be a major advance in the treatment of obesity.”

In the discussion that followed the virtual presentation, one attendee asked about potential weight regain if a patient stopped taking the drug. Based on experience with another subcutaneous injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist, liraglutide (Saxenda), already approved for obesity, it may be that taking medicine for chronic overweight may become like taking a statin for elevated cholesterol, said Dr. Wadden.

Novo Nordisk has now completed the four trials in the STEP (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity) global phase 3 clinical development program, and plans to file applications with the Food and Drug Administration later this year and with the European Medicines Agency in early 2021 for review of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management.
 

“Fundamental issues need to be figured out”

Invited to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, said: “This is impressive data, confirming that semaglutide, particularly when used in concert with evidence-based counseling, is a highly effective agent for obesity management.”

However, “the real question, though, is what comes next,” stressed Dr. Kahan, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, DC.

“Will it be approved by the U.S. FDA? I believe so,” he said in an interview. “Yet we already have several effective obesity medications approved over the past decade – all of which are rarely used and therefore make little impact for patients in the real world.”

“Will there be insurance coverage, and therefore practical access for those who could most benefit?” he continued. “Will prescribers counsel their patients about obesity management, including the use of effective medications? Will patients utilize available options?”

“These and other fundamental issues must be figured out before we anoint any treatment option as a meaningful step forward, let alone a transformative development,” according to Dr. Kahan.

Similarly, Irl B. Hirsch, MD, stressed that, should this medication be approved for weight loss, cost would be a major factor in its uptake.

“I’m old enough to recall when we started using lovastatin in the late 1980s,” Dr. Hirsch, professor of medicine, University of Washington Medicine Diabetes Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.

“We used it without the type of evidence of statin use we have today. A pill, but in those days the statins were expensive. But over time, the evidence for statins grew and over the next 15 years it was quite clear that for both primary prevention (for those with diabetes) and secondary intervention these drugs needed to be used by millions of people. These recommendations became easier once the drugs became generic.

“Will the same thing happen for GLP-1 agonists? The problem is we need both ‘hard-outcome data’ [such as 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events] and more reasonable cost before we see this expanding to an entire population.

“In the future perhaps we could have a biosimilar GLP-1 agonist that would be more affordable than what we pay now, but even before that we need agreement from our reimbursement thought leaders that our society should reimburse these agents.

“My thinking now is the cost-benefit could be favorable, but this is all dependent on what happens to the cost of the drugs over time,” he said.
 

Additive effect of intensive behavior therapy plus medication

Dr. Wadden explained that intensive behavioral therapy “provides 14 or more counseling sessions in 6 months to modify diet and physical activity, through the patients’ use of behavioral strategies (such as keeping daily food and activity diaries).”

Such programs typically produce mean weight loss of 5%-8% of initial weight; less frequent (e.g., monthly) programs typically produce weight loss of only 1%-3%.

Prior studies suggest that intensive behavioral therapy and medication have additive effects. To investigate this, Dr. Wadden and colleagues randomized 611 adults (81% women) who were a mean age of 46 years and had a mean body mass index of 38 kg/m².

All participants received 30 intensive behavior therapy sessions provided by a registered dietitian (or other qualified provider), which typically lasted 20-30 minutes and were given weekly for 12 weeks, every other week for the next 12 weeks, and then monthly.  

The dietitian gave participants behavioral strategies to help them adhere to diet and physical activity goals.

During the first 8 weeks, participants were provided with a 1,000-1,200 kcal/day meal replacement diet that included liquid shakes, meal bars, and prepared entrees designed to facilitate a large initial weight loss.

They then transitioned to a diet of conventional foods (of their choosing), with a goal of 1,200-1,800 kcal/day based on body weight.  

The physical activity goal was 100 minutes/week of walking or other aerobic activity in the first month, building up to 200 minutes/week by month 6.
 

‘More effective than current FDA-approved weight-loss medications’

At week 68, mean body weight decreased from baseline by 16.0% in the semaglutide group versus 5.7% in the placebo group (P < .0001).

In this trial, where all participants received extensive intensive behavior therapy, more participants had weight loss ≥5%, ≥10%, ≥15%, and ≥20% of their initial weight with semaglutide versus placebo (87% vs. 48%; 75% vs. 27%; 56% vs. 13%; 36% vs. 4%, respectively; all P < .0001).

From baseline to week 68, the proportion of participants with prediabetes decreased from 48% to 7% in the semaglutide group and from 53% to 26% in the placebo group.

Patients who received semaglutide had greater improvements in lipids, too.

Although the weight loss was 10.3% (10.6 kg) greater with semaglutide, Dr. Wadden noted, “additional studies have shown this net benefit to be as great as 11%-12%, which would make semaglutide 2.4 mg more effective than current [FDA-approved] weight-loss medications.”

“Naltrexone-bupropion (Contrave) with lifestyle counseling, for example,” he continued, “produces a loss that is 5 kg greater than lifestyle counseling plus placebo, liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda) a loss 5.3 kg greater than placebo, and phentermine-topiramate (Qsymia) a loss that is 8.8 kg greater than placebo.” 

Semaglutide was well tolerated. Gastrointestinal adverse events, the most common type, occurred in 83% of patients in the semaglutide group and 63% of patients in the placebo group.

Nausea, as well as constipation and diarrhea, are common in medications that increase GLP-1 levels, Dr. Wadden noted. Side effects can be managed by slowly increasing the medication dose over 4 months.  

Dr. Wadden expects that, if approved, semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once-weekly will be recommended as an adjunct to a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity. Additional studies suggest that monthly counseling should be sufficient to obtain similar weight losses as those seen in the current trial, which had more intensive counseling.

As well as being approved as a weekly subcutaneous injectable treatment for type 2 diabetes, semaglutide is also approved as an once-daily oral agent for the same indication (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.

Dr. Wadden serves on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk and WW (formerly Weight Watchers), and has received grant support, on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania, from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aronne is an investigator in a long-term trial of semaglutide and has served on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk in the past. He also has other industry relationships that are not related to semaglutide.

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

In a phase 3 trial where all participants received intensive behavior therapy, investigational 2.4-mg once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (Novo Nordisk) resulted in a 10.3% greater average weight loss than placebo over a period of 68 weeks.

If approved, this medication could be a “potential major breakthrough” in obesity management, the investigators suggested. But other experts urged caution, as cost and uptake are important considerations.
 

‘Potential weight loss that patients would be happy with’

Thomas A. Wadden, PhD, presented results from the study of 611 adults with overweight or obesity but no diabetes at the virtual ObesityWeek® Interactive 2020 meeting.

“Perhaps even more impressive was the finding that 75% of patients lost 10% or more of baseline body weight,” said Dr. Wadden, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Moreover, in this trial of semaglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that is approved for treating type 2 diabetes at a weekly subcutaneous dose of 1 mg, but is being investigated at the higher dose for weight loss – 55% of patients lost ≥15% of their initial weight, and 36% lost ≥20% of their initial weight.

“These large categorical weight losses – particularly of 15% and 20% of initial weight – are potentially a major breakthrough in the management of obesity,” Dr. Wadden said in an interview.

Weight losses of this size, he added, “should confer greater improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors (such as hypertension, sleep apnea, and type 2 diabetes) as compared with losses of 5%-10% achieved with current behavioral or pharmacological approaches.” And patients are generally not satisfied with losses of less than 10% of initial weight when participating in intensive behavior programs or taking weight-loss medications.

Now, “the larger categorical weight losses will mean that a greater number of patients with obesity will be able to achieve a weight loss with which they are ... happy,” Dr. Wadden said in an interview.

According to Louis J. Aronne, MD, Weill Professor of Metabolic Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who is an investigator for another trial of semaglutide: “Even though it has the same mechanism of action [as liraglutide], the weight loss is two or more times greater [with semaglutide]. In my opinion, it’s really going to be a major advance in the treatment of obesity.”

In the discussion that followed the virtual presentation, one attendee asked about potential weight regain if a patient stopped taking the drug. Based on experience with another subcutaneous injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist, liraglutide (Saxenda), already approved for obesity, it may be that taking medicine for chronic overweight may become like taking a statin for elevated cholesterol, said Dr. Wadden.

Novo Nordisk has now completed the four trials in the STEP (Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity) global phase 3 clinical development program, and plans to file applications with the Food and Drug Administration later this year and with the European Medicines Agency in early 2021 for review of semaglutide 2.4 mg for weight management.
 

“Fundamental issues need to be figured out”

Invited to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, said: “This is impressive data, confirming that semaglutide, particularly when used in concert with evidence-based counseling, is a highly effective agent for obesity management.”

However, “the real question, though, is what comes next,” stressed Dr. Kahan, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness, Washington, DC.

“Will it be approved by the U.S. FDA? I believe so,” he said in an interview. “Yet we already have several effective obesity medications approved over the past decade – all of which are rarely used and therefore make little impact for patients in the real world.”

“Will there be insurance coverage, and therefore practical access for those who could most benefit?” he continued. “Will prescribers counsel their patients about obesity management, including the use of effective medications? Will patients utilize available options?”

“These and other fundamental issues must be figured out before we anoint any treatment option as a meaningful step forward, let alone a transformative development,” according to Dr. Kahan.

Similarly, Irl B. Hirsch, MD, stressed that, should this medication be approved for weight loss, cost would be a major factor in its uptake.

“I’m old enough to recall when we started using lovastatin in the late 1980s,” Dr. Hirsch, professor of medicine, University of Washington Medicine Diabetes Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.

“We used it without the type of evidence of statin use we have today. A pill, but in those days the statins were expensive. But over time, the evidence for statins grew and over the next 15 years it was quite clear that for both primary prevention (for those with diabetes) and secondary intervention these drugs needed to be used by millions of people. These recommendations became easier once the drugs became generic.

“Will the same thing happen for GLP-1 agonists? The problem is we need both ‘hard-outcome data’ [such as 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events] and more reasonable cost before we see this expanding to an entire population.

“In the future perhaps we could have a biosimilar GLP-1 agonist that would be more affordable than what we pay now, but even before that we need agreement from our reimbursement thought leaders that our society should reimburse these agents.

“My thinking now is the cost-benefit could be favorable, but this is all dependent on what happens to the cost of the drugs over time,” he said.
 

Additive effect of intensive behavior therapy plus medication

Dr. Wadden explained that intensive behavioral therapy “provides 14 or more counseling sessions in 6 months to modify diet and physical activity, through the patients’ use of behavioral strategies (such as keeping daily food and activity diaries).”

Such programs typically produce mean weight loss of 5%-8% of initial weight; less frequent (e.g., monthly) programs typically produce weight loss of only 1%-3%.

Prior studies suggest that intensive behavioral therapy and medication have additive effects. To investigate this, Dr. Wadden and colleagues randomized 611 adults (81% women) who were a mean age of 46 years and had a mean body mass index of 38 kg/m².

All participants received 30 intensive behavior therapy sessions provided by a registered dietitian (or other qualified provider), which typically lasted 20-30 minutes and were given weekly for 12 weeks, every other week for the next 12 weeks, and then monthly.  

The dietitian gave participants behavioral strategies to help them adhere to diet and physical activity goals.

During the first 8 weeks, participants were provided with a 1,000-1,200 kcal/day meal replacement diet that included liquid shakes, meal bars, and prepared entrees designed to facilitate a large initial weight loss.

They then transitioned to a diet of conventional foods (of their choosing), with a goal of 1,200-1,800 kcal/day based on body weight.  

The physical activity goal was 100 minutes/week of walking or other aerobic activity in the first month, building up to 200 minutes/week by month 6.
 

‘More effective than current FDA-approved weight-loss medications’

At week 68, mean body weight decreased from baseline by 16.0% in the semaglutide group versus 5.7% in the placebo group (P < .0001).

In this trial, where all participants received extensive intensive behavior therapy, more participants had weight loss ≥5%, ≥10%, ≥15%, and ≥20% of their initial weight with semaglutide versus placebo (87% vs. 48%; 75% vs. 27%; 56% vs. 13%; 36% vs. 4%, respectively; all P < .0001).

From baseline to week 68, the proportion of participants with prediabetes decreased from 48% to 7% in the semaglutide group and from 53% to 26% in the placebo group.

Patients who received semaglutide had greater improvements in lipids, too.

Although the weight loss was 10.3% (10.6 kg) greater with semaglutide, Dr. Wadden noted, “additional studies have shown this net benefit to be as great as 11%-12%, which would make semaglutide 2.4 mg more effective than current [FDA-approved] weight-loss medications.”

“Naltrexone-bupropion (Contrave) with lifestyle counseling, for example,” he continued, “produces a loss that is 5 kg greater than lifestyle counseling plus placebo, liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda) a loss 5.3 kg greater than placebo, and phentermine-topiramate (Qsymia) a loss that is 8.8 kg greater than placebo.” 

Semaglutide was well tolerated. Gastrointestinal adverse events, the most common type, occurred in 83% of patients in the semaglutide group and 63% of patients in the placebo group.

Nausea, as well as constipation and diarrhea, are common in medications that increase GLP-1 levels, Dr. Wadden noted. Side effects can be managed by slowly increasing the medication dose over 4 months.  

Dr. Wadden expects that, if approved, semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneous once-weekly will be recommended as an adjunct to a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity. Additional studies suggest that monthly counseling should be sufficient to obtain similar weight losses as those seen in the current trial, which had more intensive counseling.

As well as being approved as a weekly subcutaneous injectable treatment for type 2 diabetes, semaglutide is also approved as an once-daily oral agent for the same indication (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.

Dr. Wadden serves on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk and WW (formerly Weight Watchers), and has received grant support, on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania, from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Aronne is an investigator in a long-term trial of semaglutide and has served on scientific advisory boards for Novo Nordisk in the past. He also has other industry relationships that are not related to semaglutide.

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

Treating lung cancer with proton beam radiotherapy instead of conventional photon radiotherapy almost halves the dose to the heart, reducing the risk of cardiovascular events over the next several years, a cohort study suggests.

Photo courtesy of Dr. Tris Arscott

The findings were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

Patients with lung cancer often have underlying cardiac risk factors, noted lead investigator Timothy Kegelman, MD, PhD, of University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“The dose to the heart correlates with adverse cardiovascular events following radiation therapy. One strategy to minimize dose to the heart is proton beam radiation,” Dr. Kegelman said.

He and his colleagues retrospectively studied consecutive patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with chemotherapy plus either proton beam radiotherapy or conventional photon radiotherapy.

The team used electronic health records to ascertain incidence of six cardiovascular events: MI, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, and transient ischemic attack. Patients who had previously experienced an event were not considered as part of the at-risk population for that specific event after radiotherapy.

Analyses were based on 98 patients who received proton beam radiotherapy and 104 patients who received conventional photon radiotherapy.

At baseline, the proton cohort was older, had a heavier smoking history, and had a higher prevalence of previous cardiovascular events (46.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .03).

The total median radiation dose was identical for the proton and photon groups (66.6 Gy), but the former group had significantly lower measures of cardiac radiation dose, including roughly half the mean dose to the heart (6.9 vs. 13.3 Gy).
 

Outcomes and next steps

At a median follow-up of 29 months, the proton beam radiotherapy group had a significantly lower incidence of transient ischemic attack, compared with the photon radiotherapy group (1.1% vs. 8.2%; P = .04).

The proton group also had numerically lower incidences of MI (2.3% vs. 9.0%; P = .06) and stroke (3.2% vs. 6.1%; P = .50).

The proton and photon groups were similar as far as the incidence of total cardiovascular events (53.1% vs. 47.1%; P = .48) and the 3-year overall survival rate (38.8% vs. 42.1%; P = .99).

“Our future studies aim to examine the potential relationships between grade of cardiac event and type of radiotherapy and dose to cardiac substructures,” Dr. Kegelman commented.

In addition, his institution is participating in RTOG 1308, a phase 3 trial comparing photon and proton beam radiotherapy in patients with inoperable lung cancer that will better assess cardiac-related morbidity and mortality. The trial is expected to be completed by the end of 2025.
 

Accumulating evidence

“This study adds to a growing body of evidence about the potential importance of heart dose in any radiation modality,” said Daniel Gomez, MD, MBA, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved in the study.

The RTOG 0617 trial and the Lung ART trial previously showed correlations between lower radiation dose to the heart and better survival in patients with lung cancer, Dr. Gomez noted.

“It’s been well established that protons can improve heart dose, and therefore it’s been inferred that they may improve outcomes, but the exact mechanisms remain unclear,” Dr. Gomez said.

Proton beam radiotherapy performed well in a single-arm, phase 2 trial among patients with unresectable NSCLC.

“The ongoing phase 3 trial is using a more modern proton technique and has a larger population, with a randomized study design. It will be much more informative,” Dr. Gomez predicted.

The current study did not receive specific funding. Dr. Kegelman disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Gomez disclosed honoraria from Varian.

SOURCE: Kegelman TP et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 1046.

Treating lung cancer with proton beam radiotherapy instead of conventional photon radiotherapy almost halves the dose to the heart, reducing the risk of cardiovascular events over the next several years, a cohort study suggests.

Photo courtesy of Dr. Tris Arscott

The findings were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

Patients with lung cancer often have underlying cardiac risk factors, noted lead investigator Timothy Kegelman, MD, PhD, of University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“The dose to the heart correlates with adverse cardiovascular events following radiation therapy. One strategy to minimize dose to the heart is proton beam radiation,” Dr. Kegelman said.

He and his colleagues retrospectively studied consecutive patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with chemotherapy plus either proton beam radiotherapy or conventional photon radiotherapy.

The team used electronic health records to ascertain incidence of six cardiovascular events: MI, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, and transient ischemic attack. Patients who had previously experienced an event were not considered as part of the at-risk population for that specific event after radiotherapy.

Analyses were based on 98 patients who received proton beam radiotherapy and 104 patients who received conventional photon radiotherapy.

At baseline, the proton cohort was older, had a heavier smoking history, and had a higher prevalence of previous cardiovascular events (46.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .03).

The total median radiation dose was identical for the proton and photon groups (66.6 Gy), but the former group had significantly lower measures of cardiac radiation dose, including roughly half the mean dose to the heart (6.9 vs. 13.3 Gy).
 

Outcomes and next steps

At a median follow-up of 29 months, the proton beam radiotherapy group had a significantly lower incidence of transient ischemic attack, compared with the photon radiotherapy group (1.1% vs. 8.2%; P = .04).

The proton group also had numerically lower incidences of MI (2.3% vs. 9.0%; P = .06) and stroke (3.2% vs. 6.1%; P = .50).

The proton and photon groups were similar as far as the incidence of total cardiovascular events (53.1% vs. 47.1%; P = .48) and the 3-year overall survival rate (38.8% vs. 42.1%; P = .99).

“Our future studies aim to examine the potential relationships between grade of cardiac event and type of radiotherapy and dose to cardiac substructures,” Dr. Kegelman commented.

In addition, his institution is participating in RTOG 1308, a phase 3 trial comparing photon and proton beam radiotherapy in patients with inoperable lung cancer that will better assess cardiac-related morbidity and mortality. The trial is expected to be completed by the end of 2025.
 

Accumulating evidence

“This study adds to a growing body of evidence about the potential importance of heart dose in any radiation modality,” said Daniel Gomez, MD, MBA, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved in the study.

The RTOG 0617 trial and the Lung ART trial previously showed correlations between lower radiation dose to the heart and better survival in patients with lung cancer, Dr. Gomez noted.

“It’s been well established that protons can improve heart dose, and therefore it’s been inferred that they may improve outcomes, but the exact mechanisms remain unclear,” Dr. Gomez said.

Proton beam radiotherapy performed well in a single-arm, phase 2 trial among patients with unresectable NSCLC.

“The ongoing phase 3 trial is using a more modern proton technique and has a larger population, with a randomized study design. It will be much more informative,” Dr. Gomez predicted.

The current study did not receive specific funding. Dr. Kegelman disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Gomez disclosed honoraria from Varian.

SOURCE: Kegelman TP et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 1046.

Treating lung cancer with proton beam radiotherapy instead of conventional photon radiotherapy almost halves the dose to the heart, reducing the risk of cardiovascular events over the next several years, a cohort study suggests.

Photo courtesy of Dr. Tris Arscott

The findings were reported at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting 2020.

Patients with lung cancer often have underlying cardiac risk factors, noted lead investigator Timothy Kegelman, MD, PhD, of University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“The dose to the heart correlates with adverse cardiovascular events following radiation therapy. One strategy to minimize dose to the heart is proton beam radiation,” Dr. Kegelman said.

He and his colleagues retrospectively studied consecutive patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with chemotherapy plus either proton beam radiotherapy or conventional photon radiotherapy.

The team used electronic health records to ascertain incidence of six cardiovascular events: MI, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, and transient ischemic attack. Patients who had previously experienced an event were not considered as part of the at-risk population for that specific event after radiotherapy.

Analyses were based on 98 patients who received proton beam radiotherapy and 104 patients who received conventional photon radiotherapy.

At baseline, the proton cohort was older, had a heavier smoking history, and had a higher prevalence of previous cardiovascular events (46.9% vs. 31.7%; P = .03).

The total median radiation dose was identical for the proton and photon groups (66.6 Gy), but the former group had significantly lower measures of cardiac radiation dose, including roughly half the mean dose to the heart (6.9 vs. 13.3 Gy).
 

Outcomes and next steps

At a median follow-up of 29 months, the proton beam radiotherapy group had a significantly lower incidence of transient ischemic attack, compared with the photon radiotherapy group (1.1% vs. 8.2%; P = .04).

The proton group also had numerically lower incidences of MI (2.3% vs. 9.0%; P = .06) and stroke (3.2% vs. 6.1%; P = .50).

The proton and photon groups were similar as far as the incidence of total cardiovascular events (53.1% vs. 47.1%; P = .48) and the 3-year overall survival rate (38.8% vs. 42.1%; P = .99).

“Our future studies aim to examine the potential relationships between grade of cardiac event and type of radiotherapy and dose to cardiac substructures,” Dr. Kegelman commented.

In addition, his institution is participating in RTOG 1308, a phase 3 trial comparing photon and proton beam radiotherapy in patients with inoperable lung cancer that will better assess cardiac-related morbidity and mortality. The trial is expected to be completed by the end of 2025.
 

Accumulating evidence

“This study adds to a growing body of evidence about the potential importance of heart dose in any radiation modality,” said Daniel Gomez, MD, MBA, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved in the study.

The RTOG 0617 trial and the Lung ART trial previously showed correlations between lower radiation dose to the heart and better survival in patients with lung cancer, Dr. Gomez noted.

“It’s been well established that protons can improve heart dose, and therefore it’s been inferred that they may improve outcomes, but the exact mechanisms remain unclear,” Dr. Gomez said.

Proton beam radiotherapy performed well in a single-arm, phase 2 trial among patients with unresectable NSCLC.

“The ongoing phase 3 trial is using a more modern proton technique and has a larger population, with a randomized study design. It will be much more informative,” Dr. Gomez predicted.

The current study did not receive specific funding. Dr. Kegelman disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Gomez disclosed honoraria from Varian.

SOURCE: Kegelman TP et al. ASTRO 2020, Abstract 1046.

Almost 60% of patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis showed resolution of NASH after treatment with semaglutide, according to a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the 2020 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) meeting.

“This bodes well for further study of semaglutide and is supported further by marked improvements in weight, glycemic control and lipid profile,” commented the study’s senior author Philip N. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, of the University of Birmingham (England), in an interview.

The highest daily dose (0.4 mg) of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, semaglutide, which is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, led to levels of NASH resolution “which are higher than any previously demonstrated,” noted Dr. Newsome. “This was also accompanied by improvement in noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis and also less fibrosis progression, compared to placebo.”

“I think this represents an exciting advance and will, if confirmed in further studies, mark a step-change in our management of patients with NASH,” he added.

The multicenter study, conducted at 143 sites in 16 countries, included 320 patients, aged 18-75 years, with or without type 2 diabetes, who had histologic evidence of NASH and stage 1-3 liver fibrosis.

They were randomized in a 3:3:3:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg, or placebo for 72 weeks.

The primary endpoint was resolution of NASH and no worsening of fibrosis, with a secondary endpoint being improvement of fibrosis by at least one stage without worsening of NASH.

The study found 40% of patients in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, 36% in the 0.2-mg group, and 59% in the 0.4-mg group achieved NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis, compared with 17% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 6.87; P < .001 for the highest semaglutide dose). However, the treatment did not lead to significant between-group differences in the secondary endpoint, which occurred in 43% of patients on the highest semaglutide dose compared to 33% in the placebo group (OR, 1.42; P = .48).

Treatment with semaglutide also resulted in dose-dependent reductions in body weight, as well as in glycated hemoglobin levels. Bodyweight was reduced by a mean of 5% in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, followed by mean reductions of 9% and 13% in the 0.2-mg and 0.4-mg groups respectively. This compared to a mean reduction of 1% in the placebo group.

Similarly, glycated hemoglobin levels among patients with type 2 diabetes dropped by 0.63, 1.07, and 1.15 percentage points in the 0.1-mg, 0.2-mg, and 0.4-mg semaglutide groups respectively, compared with a drop of 0.01 percentage point in the placebo group.

“The fact that the percentage of patients who had an improvement in fibrosis stage was not significantly higher with semaglutide than with placebo – despite a greater benefit with respect to NASH resolution and dose-dependent weight loss – was unexpected, given that previous studies have suggested that resolution of NASH and improvements in activity scores for the components of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are associated with regression of fibrosis,” wrote the authors. “However, the temporal association among NASH resolution, weight loss, and improvement in fibrosis stage is not fully understood. It is possible that the current trial was not of sufficient duration for improvements in fibrosis stage to become apparent.”

The authors also noted that the safety profile of semaglutide was “consistent with that observed in patients with type 2 diabetes in other trials and with the known effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists,” with gastrointestinal disorders being the most commonly reported.

Nausea, constipation, and vomiting were reported more often in the 0.4-mg semaglutide group than in the placebo group (nausea, 42% vs. 11%; constipation, 22% vs. 12%; and vomiting, 15% vs. 2%).

The overall incidence of benign, malignant, or unspecified neoplasms was 15% in the treatment groups versus 8% in the placebo group.

Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, who was not involved with the study, noted that “treatment of NASH is currently limited, and no therapies have yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The findings are “important but not yet exciting,” added Dr. Zetterman, who is professor emeritus of internal medicine and associate vice chancellor for strategic planning for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“Though reversal of liver fibrosis was not noted, the resolution of hepatic inflammation and liver cell injury by semaglutide suggests it may be slowing disease progression,” said Dr. Zetterman, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. This “warrants additional studies where longer treatment with semaglutide may prove reversal of fibrosis and/or prevention of progression to cirrhosis.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Newsome reported disclosures related to Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study, and to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Gilead, Pfizer, Pharmaxis, and Poxel. Several of the other study authors reported receiving fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies, including Novo Nordisk One author reported pending patents for the use of semaglutide. Dr. Zetterman had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Newsome PN et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2028395.

Almost 60% of patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis showed resolution of NASH after treatment with semaglutide, according to a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the 2020 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) meeting.

“This bodes well for further study of semaglutide and is supported further by marked improvements in weight, glycemic control and lipid profile,” commented the study’s senior author Philip N. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, of the University of Birmingham (England), in an interview.

The highest daily dose (0.4 mg) of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, semaglutide, which is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, led to levels of NASH resolution “which are higher than any previously demonstrated,” noted Dr. Newsome. “This was also accompanied by improvement in noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis and also less fibrosis progression, compared to placebo.”

“I think this represents an exciting advance and will, if confirmed in further studies, mark a step-change in our management of patients with NASH,” he added.

The multicenter study, conducted at 143 sites in 16 countries, included 320 patients, aged 18-75 years, with or without type 2 diabetes, who had histologic evidence of NASH and stage 1-3 liver fibrosis.

They were randomized in a 3:3:3:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg, or placebo for 72 weeks.

The primary endpoint was resolution of NASH and no worsening of fibrosis, with a secondary endpoint being improvement of fibrosis by at least one stage without worsening of NASH.

The study found 40% of patients in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, 36% in the 0.2-mg group, and 59% in the 0.4-mg group achieved NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis, compared with 17% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 6.87; P < .001 for the highest semaglutide dose). However, the treatment did not lead to significant between-group differences in the secondary endpoint, which occurred in 43% of patients on the highest semaglutide dose compared to 33% in the placebo group (OR, 1.42; P = .48).

Treatment with semaglutide also resulted in dose-dependent reductions in body weight, as well as in glycated hemoglobin levels. Bodyweight was reduced by a mean of 5% in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, followed by mean reductions of 9% and 13% in the 0.2-mg and 0.4-mg groups respectively. This compared to a mean reduction of 1% in the placebo group.

Similarly, glycated hemoglobin levels among patients with type 2 diabetes dropped by 0.63, 1.07, and 1.15 percentage points in the 0.1-mg, 0.2-mg, and 0.4-mg semaglutide groups respectively, compared with a drop of 0.01 percentage point in the placebo group.

“The fact that the percentage of patients who had an improvement in fibrosis stage was not significantly higher with semaglutide than with placebo – despite a greater benefit with respect to NASH resolution and dose-dependent weight loss – was unexpected, given that previous studies have suggested that resolution of NASH and improvements in activity scores for the components of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are associated with regression of fibrosis,” wrote the authors. “However, the temporal association among NASH resolution, weight loss, and improvement in fibrosis stage is not fully understood. It is possible that the current trial was not of sufficient duration for improvements in fibrosis stage to become apparent.”

The authors also noted that the safety profile of semaglutide was “consistent with that observed in patients with type 2 diabetes in other trials and with the known effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists,” with gastrointestinal disorders being the most commonly reported.

Nausea, constipation, and vomiting were reported more often in the 0.4-mg semaglutide group than in the placebo group (nausea, 42% vs. 11%; constipation, 22% vs. 12%; and vomiting, 15% vs. 2%).

The overall incidence of benign, malignant, or unspecified neoplasms was 15% in the treatment groups versus 8% in the placebo group.

Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, who was not involved with the study, noted that “treatment of NASH is currently limited, and no therapies have yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The findings are “important but not yet exciting,” added Dr. Zetterman, who is professor emeritus of internal medicine and associate vice chancellor for strategic planning for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“Though reversal of liver fibrosis was not noted, the resolution of hepatic inflammation and liver cell injury by semaglutide suggests it may be slowing disease progression,” said Dr. Zetterman, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. This “warrants additional studies where longer treatment with semaglutide may prove reversal of fibrosis and/or prevention of progression to cirrhosis.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Newsome reported disclosures related to Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study, and to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Gilead, Pfizer, Pharmaxis, and Poxel. Several of the other study authors reported receiving fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies, including Novo Nordisk One author reported pending patents for the use of semaglutide. Dr. Zetterman had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Newsome PN et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2028395.

Almost 60% of patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis showed resolution of NASH after treatment with semaglutide, according to a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the 2020 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) meeting.

“This bodes well for further study of semaglutide and is supported further by marked improvements in weight, glycemic control and lipid profile,” commented the study’s senior author Philip N. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, of the University of Birmingham (England), in an interview.

The highest daily dose (0.4 mg) of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, semaglutide, which is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, led to levels of NASH resolution “which are higher than any previously demonstrated,” noted Dr. Newsome. “This was also accompanied by improvement in noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis and also less fibrosis progression, compared to placebo.”

“I think this represents an exciting advance and will, if confirmed in further studies, mark a step-change in our management of patients with NASH,” he added.

The multicenter study, conducted at 143 sites in 16 countries, included 320 patients, aged 18-75 years, with or without type 2 diabetes, who had histologic evidence of NASH and stage 1-3 liver fibrosis.

They were randomized in a 3:3:3:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg, or placebo for 72 weeks.

The primary endpoint was resolution of NASH and no worsening of fibrosis, with a secondary endpoint being improvement of fibrosis by at least one stage without worsening of NASH.

The study found 40% of patients in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, 36% in the 0.2-mg group, and 59% in the 0.4-mg group achieved NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis, compared with 17% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 6.87; P < .001 for the highest semaglutide dose). However, the treatment did not lead to significant between-group differences in the secondary endpoint, which occurred in 43% of patients on the highest semaglutide dose compared to 33% in the placebo group (OR, 1.42; P = .48).

Treatment with semaglutide also resulted in dose-dependent reductions in body weight, as well as in glycated hemoglobin levels. Bodyweight was reduced by a mean of 5% in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, followed by mean reductions of 9% and 13% in the 0.2-mg and 0.4-mg groups respectively. This compared to a mean reduction of 1% in the placebo group.

Similarly, glycated hemoglobin levels among patients with type 2 diabetes dropped by 0.63, 1.07, and 1.15 percentage points in the 0.1-mg, 0.2-mg, and 0.4-mg semaglutide groups respectively, compared with a drop of 0.01 percentage point in the placebo group.

“The fact that the percentage of patients who had an improvement in fibrosis stage was not significantly higher with semaglutide than with placebo – despite a greater benefit with respect to NASH resolution and dose-dependent weight loss – was unexpected, given that previous studies have suggested that resolution of NASH and improvements in activity scores for the components of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are associated with regression of fibrosis,” wrote the authors. “However, the temporal association among NASH resolution, weight loss, and improvement in fibrosis stage is not fully understood. It is possible that the current trial was not of sufficient duration for improvements in fibrosis stage to become apparent.”

The authors also noted that the safety profile of semaglutide was “consistent with that observed in patients with type 2 diabetes in other trials and with the known effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists,” with gastrointestinal disorders being the most commonly reported.

Nausea, constipation, and vomiting were reported more often in the 0.4-mg semaglutide group than in the placebo group (nausea, 42% vs. 11%; constipation, 22% vs. 12%; and vomiting, 15% vs. 2%).

The overall incidence of benign, malignant, or unspecified neoplasms was 15% in the treatment groups versus 8% in the placebo group.

Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, who was not involved with the study, noted that “treatment of NASH is currently limited, and no therapies have yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The findings are “important but not yet exciting,” added Dr. Zetterman, who is professor emeritus of internal medicine and associate vice chancellor for strategic planning for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“Though reversal of liver fibrosis was not noted, the resolution of hepatic inflammation and liver cell injury by semaglutide suggests it may be slowing disease progression,” said Dr. Zetterman, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. This “warrants additional studies where longer treatment with semaglutide may prove reversal of fibrosis and/or prevention of progression to cirrhosis.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Newsome reported disclosures related to Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study, and to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Gilead, Pfizer, Pharmaxis, and Poxel. Several of the other study authors reported receiving fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies, including Novo Nordisk One author reported pending patents for the use of semaglutide. Dr. Zetterman had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Newsome PN et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2028395.

Coronavirus infections are expected to continue to climb in the upper Midwest and intermountain West of the United States, which will strain an already-maxed-out system as increased hospitalizations and deaths follow, say infectious diseases specialists.

“I think the situation in 2 to 4 weeks is going to be grim,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, on a call yesterday with reporters, sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

Cases began rising in Utah in mid-September and have gone up steeply since, increasing from 450 cases per day to 2,650 reported on Nov. 8, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. The New York Times reports that the 7-day rolling average for hospitalizations have gone up 34% and deaths have risen 93%, with 11 deaths this past Tuesday.

Other states in the west – Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, which reported 1,232 cases on Tuesday and have been averaging 660 cases a day in the last week, according to the Times – are being equally hard hit. The same is true for states in the upper Midwest, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

Most of the states being hit now have large swaths of rural countryside, which means health resources are limited and spread out, said Pavia.

“The situation really has to be described as dire,” said Pavia, noting that intensive care units in Utah are full, including contingency units that were purpose-built for the pandemic. Physicians and nurses are burned out and in short supply, he said. Instead of a 1:1 or 1:2 nurse-to-ICU patient ratio, the ratio is now 1:4, said Pavia. “Throughout the region, people are facing a crisis in staffing.”

The University of Utah hospital normally takes referrals from Idaho, Wyoming, and northern Arizona, but is prioritizing Utah residents for ICU admission, said Pavia.

Both Pavia and Daniel P. McQuillen, MD, president-elect of IDSA, also noted the shortage of infectious diseases specialists, which began at least a decade ago. McQuillen, senior infectious diseases physician at Beth Israel Lahey Health in Boston, said he and colleagues had done some research earlier this year anticipating the pandemic’s spread, and found that some 80% of counties – including the rural counties in the states now being hit – have one or zero infectious disease specialists.

Those specialists can help improve patient outcomes, explained McQuillen.
 

Colleges likely driving spike

Pavia said the reasons for sharp increases in the region vary, but there are several areas of commonality. Most of the states didn’t have many cases early in the pandemic, “so perhaps there was less fear of the virus.” There were fewer actions by government officials, driven perhaps by the reluctance to take on individuals who are distrustful of government, he said.

Cases started going up after some events – such as the August motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota – but the acceleration in September was likely driven by the reopening of colleges across the region, said Pavia.

“Most of the states have kept in-person schooling, and probably more importantly, they’ve kept extracurricular activities in sports,” he said, adding that in many of the areas the weather has turned cooler, driving people indoors.

McQuillen said it has been shown that a significant amount of transmission occurs within homes – and college students may be bringing the virus home and fueling spread, in addition to people not wearing masks while at small family gatherings.

Both he and Pavia said more emphasis needs to be placed on mitigation measures such as mask-wearing as well as on testing. IDSA is starting #MaskUpAmerica, a public service campaign aimed at getting people to wear masks in all community settings, including at work, in churches, at social gatherings, in gyms, and on public transportation.

Pavia said in some places people are refusing to be tested because they don’t want to be quarantined.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) issued a statewide mask mandate this past weekend and announced some other restrictions, including a 2-week pause on most, but not all, athletic events, according to CBS News. But local pushback could weaken those measures, said Pavia.

Many people are looking to vaccines to usher in a return to normal. But, said Pavia, “vaccines aren’t going to help us out much this winter,” noting that initial doses will be given mostly to first responders and healthcare workers.

“The only way we’re going to get out of this this winter is by doing the things that we’ve been talking about for months – wearing a mask, watching your social distance, and avoiding large gatherings,” he said.

There is an end in sight, said Pavia, but it won’t be in early 2021. “That end is next summer or fall,” he said. “And that’s a hard message to give but it’s really critical.”

McQuillen agreed: “Wearing masks and distancing are exactly all we have probably until middle of next year.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Coronavirus infections are expected to continue to climb in the upper Midwest and intermountain West of the United States, which will strain an already-maxed-out system as increased hospitalizations and deaths follow, say infectious diseases specialists.

“I think the situation in 2 to 4 weeks is going to be grim,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, on a call yesterday with reporters, sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

Cases began rising in Utah in mid-September and have gone up steeply since, increasing from 450 cases per day to 2,650 reported on Nov. 8, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. The New York Times reports that the 7-day rolling average for hospitalizations have gone up 34% and deaths have risen 93%, with 11 deaths this past Tuesday.

Other states in the west – Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, which reported 1,232 cases on Tuesday and have been averaging 660 cases a day in the last week, according to the Times – are being equally hard hit. The same is true for states in the upper Midwest, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

Most of the states being hit now have large swaths of rural countryside, which means health resources are limited and spread out, said Pavia.

“The situation really has to be described as dire,” said Pavia, noting that intensive care units in Utah are full, including contingency units that were purpose-built for the pandemic. Physicians and nurses are burned out and in short supply, he said. Instead of a 1:1 or 1:2 nurse-to-ICU patient ratio, the ratio is now 1:4, said Pavia. “Throughout the region, people are facing a crisis in staffing.”

The University of Utah hospital normally takes referrals from Idaho, Wyoming, and northern Arizona, but is prioritizing Utah residents for ICU admission, said Pavia.

Both Pavia and Daniel P. McQuillen, MD, president-elect of IDSA, also noted the shortage of infectious diseases specialists, which began at least a decade ago. McQuillen, senior infectious diseases physician at Beth Israel Lahey Health in Boston, said he and colleagues had done some research earlier this year anticipating the pandemic’s spread, and found that some 80% of counties – including the rural counties in the states now being hit – have one or zero infectious disease specialists.

Those specialists can help improve patient outcomes, explained McQuillen.
 

Colleges likely driving spike

Pavia said the reasons for sharp increases in the region vary, but there are several areas of commonality. Most of the states didn’t have many cases early in the pandemic, “so perhaps there was less fear of the virus.” There were fewer actions by government officials, driven perhaps by the reluctance to take on individuals who are distrustful of government, he said.

Cases started going up after some events – such as the August motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota – but the acceleration in September was likely driven by the reopening of colleges across the region, said Pavia.

“Most of the states have kept in-person schooling, and probably more importantly, they’ve kept extracurricular activities in sports,” he said, adding that in many of the areas the weather has turned cooler, driving people indoors.

McQuillen said it has been shown that a significant amount of transmission occurs within homes – and college students may be bringing the virus home and fueling spread, in addition to people not wearing masks while at small family gatherings.

Both he and Pavia said more emphasis needs to be placed on mitigation measures such as mask-wearing as well as on testing. IDSA is starting #MaskUpAmerica, a public service campaign aimed at getting people to wear masks in all community settings, including at work, in churches, at social gatherings, in gyms, and on public transportation.

Pavia said in some places people are refusing to be tested because they don’t want to be quarantined.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) issued a statewide mask mandate this past weekend and announced some other restrictions, including a 2-week pause on most, but not all, athletic events, according to CBS News. But local pushback could weaken those measures, said Pavia.

Many people are looking to vaccines to usher in a return to normal. But, said Pavia, “vaccines aren’t going to help us out much this winter,” noting that initial doses will be given mostly to first responders and healthcare workers.

“The only way we’re going to get out of this this winter is by doing the things that we’ve been talking about for months – wearing a mask, watching your social distance, and avoiding large gatherings,” he said.

There is an end in sight, said Pavia, but it won’t be in early 2021. “That end is next summer or fall,” he said. “And that’s a hard message to give but it’s really critical.”

McQuillen agreed: “Wearing masks and distancing are exactly all we have probably until middle of next year.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Coronavirus infections are expected to continue to climb in the upper Midwest and intermountain West of the United States, which will strain an already-maxed-out system as increased hospitalizations and deaths follow, say infectious diseases specialists.

“I think the situation in 2 to 4 weeks is going to be grim,” said Andrew Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, on a call yesterday with reporters, sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

Cases began rising in Utah in mid-September and have gone up steeply since, increasing from 450 cases per day to 2,650 reported on Nov. 8, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. The New York Times reports that the 7-day rolling average for hospitalizations have gone up 34% and deaths have risen 93%, with 11 deaths this past Tuesday.

Other states in the west – Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, which reported 1,232 cases on Tuesday and have been averaging 660 cases a day in the last week, according to the Times – are being equally hard hit. The same is true for states in the upper Midwest, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

Most of the states being hit now have large swaths of rural countryside, which means health resources are limited and spread out, said Pavia.

“The situation really has to be described as dire,” said Pavia, noting that intensive care units in Utah are full, including contingency units that were purpose-built for the pandemic. Physicians and nurses are burned out and in short supply, he said. Instead of a 1:1 or 1:2 nurse-to-ICU patient ratio, the ratio is now 1:4, said Pavia. “Throughout the region, people are facing a crisis in staffing.”

The University of Utah hospital normally takes referrals from Idaho, Wyoming, and northern Arizona, but is prioritizing Utah residents for ICU admission, said Pavia.

Both Pavia and Daniel P. McQuillen, MD, president-elect of IDSA, also noted the shortage of infectious diseases specialists, which began at least a decade ago. McQuillen, senior infectious diseases physician at Beth Israel Lahey Health in Boston, said he and colleagues had done some research earlier this year anticipating the pandemic’s spread, and found that some 80% of counties – including the rural counties in the states now being hit – have one or zero infectious disease specialists.

Those specialists can help improve patient outcomes, explained McQuillen.
 

Colleges likely driving spike

Pavia said the reasons for sharp increases in the region vary, but there are several areas of commonality. Most of the states didn’t have many cases early in the pandemic, “so perhaps there was less fear of the virus.” There were fewer actions by government officials, driven perhaps by the reluctance to take on individuals who are distrustful of government, he said.

Cases started going up after some events – such as the August motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota – but the acceleration in September was likely driven by the reopening of colleges across the region, said Pavia.

“Most of the states have kept in-person schooling, and probably more importantly, they’ve kept extracurricular activities in sports,” he said, adding that in many of the areas the weather has turned cooler, driving people indoors.

McQuillen said it has been shown that a significant amount of transmission occurs within homes – and college students may be bringing the virus home and fueling spread, in addition to people not wearing masks while at small family gatherings.

Both he and Pavia said more emphasis needs to be placed on mitigation measures such as mask-wearing as well as on testing. IDSA is starting #MaskUpAmerica, a public service campaign aimed at getting people to wear masks in all community settings, including at work, in churches, at social gatherings, in gyms, and on public transportation.

Pavia said in some places people are refusing to be tested because they don’t want to be quarantined.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) issued a statewide mask mandate this past weekend and announced some other restrictions, including a 2-week pause on most, but not all, athletic events, according to CBS News. But local pushback could weaken those measures, said Pavia.

Many people are looking to vaccines to usher in a return to normal. But, said Pavia, “vaccines aren’t going to help us out much this winter,” noting that initial doses will be given mostly to first responders and healthcare workers.

“The only way we’re going to get out of this this winter is by doing the things that we’ve been talking about for months – wearing a mask, watching your social distance, and avoiding large gatherings,” he said.

There is an end in sight, said Pavia, but it won’t be in early 2021. “That end is next summer or fall,” he said. “And that’s a hard message to give but it’s really critical.”

McQuillen agreed: “Wearing masks and distancing are exactly all we have probably until middle of next year.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Increasingly, clinicians are being called upon to advise athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 on when it is safe for them to return to play.

Now, they have two reports that offer more insights into the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 on the athletic heart.

In the first report, researchers report a high prevalence of pericardial involvement in college-student athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 and give their practical advice on how to let these athletes return to play safely.

In the second report, an expert panel of sports cardiologists provides a comprehensive guide to the appropriate imaging of athletes who may have cardiovascular complications from COVID-19.

Both are published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We were asked by the editors of JACC to submit this paper, and the impetus for it was the fact that there are so many athletes returning after being infected with COVID-19, we need to try and give guidance to cardiologists as to how best to evaluate these athletes,” Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., and lead author of the consensus statement, said in an interview.

The consensus statement acknowledges that information about the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 continues to evolve. Meanwhile, pathologies such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and right ventricular dysfunction, in the absence of significant clinical symptoms, in athletes who have been affected by COVID-19 remain of considerable concern.

It also emphasizes the unique challenges the average cardiologist faces in distinguishing between what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is true pathology after COVID-19 infection; details how different imaging modalities can help in screening, evaluating, and monitoring athletes with suspected cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 infection; and discusses the strengths and limitations of these modalities.

Finally, the consensus statement provides some well-needed guidance on return-to-play decision-making, for both the athlete and the clinician.
 

Athletic remodeling or covid-19 damage?

Athletes can develop certain cardiovascular characteristics because of their athletic activity, and sometimes, this can cloud the diagnostic picture.

“Is this change due to the effects of COVID-19, or is it just because this is an athlete’s heart? This was an international expert consensus, made up of sports cardiologists from all over the world who have a lot of experience in dealing with athletes,” Dr. Phelan said. “We were trying to relay the important information to the cardiologist who is not used to dealing with athletes on a day-to-day basis, as to what they might expect to find in that athlete, and what is not an expected finding and should be tested further.”

Phelan, a sports cardiologist, is familiar with what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is pathology.

“We know that athletes, particularly long-term endurance athletes, develop changes in the heart that can affect not only the electrics but the structure of the heart, and sometimes, that overlaps with abnormalities with pathology. This can be a challenge for the nonsports cardiologist to differentiate,” he said.

Phelan and his group have written two other consensus documents on the management of cardiovascular problems that develop in some athletes who have been infected with COVID-19.

The first was published in May in JAMA Cardiology, and the second, which revised some of the original recommendations made in the first document, was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA Cardiology.

The first set of recommendations called for imaging studies to be done in all athletes, but the second set states that athletes who recover and are asymptomatic do not need extensive (and expensive) imaging tests.

“These two papers work hand in hand,” Dr. Phelan said. “In May, we had very little experience with COVID, and there was a lot of concern about hospitalized patients having a very high incidence of heart disease. We published those recommendations, but we recognized at the time that we had very little data and that we would reconsider once we had more experience with data.

“This current set of recommendations that we have put forth here are for those athletes who do need to get further testing, so it’s a step beyond,” Dr. Phelan added. “So the second iteration states that young athletes who had mild or no symptoms didn’t need to go through all of that cardiac testing, but others do need it.”

To do widespread cardiovascular imaging for many individuals would be very costly. Realistically, there are not that many centers in the United States that have all the sophisticated equipment required to do such testing, Dr. Phelan noted.

“One of our major points is difficulty obtaining the test, but also the cost; these are very expensive tests. There are limitations. They are useful when used in the correct context,” he said.
 

To play or not to play, that is the question

Partho P. Sengupta, MD, DM, had to answer that question for more than 50 young athletes who were returning to college at West Virginia University, anxious to be back with their teams and on the playing field. They had been infected with COVID-19 and needed to know when they could return to play.

Dr. Sengupta, who is also an author for the Phelan et al consensus statement on imaging, said there was a lot of pressure – from all the various stakeholders, and from anxious parents, worried college athletes, their teammates, and the university – to determine if the youngsters could return to play.

The fear was that COVID-19 infection left the young athlete’s heart vulnerable to myocarditis and, thus, sudden death on the playing field after strenuous activity.

“At the time we were doing this imaging, there was a lot of concern in the media, and papers were coming out reporting a lot of cardiac involvement or myocarditis associated with COVID-19. Nobody really knew what to do,” he explained.

“There were all kinds of questions, concerns. The parents were putting pressure on us, the athletes wanted to know, the teams, the university. So we put together a team and completed all of the examinations, including testing of blood markers, within a 2-week period. These young athletes, they’re scared, they’re worried and anxious, they don’t know what’s going to happen with their scholarship, so there was some urgency to this work,” Dr. Sengupta said.

“We had to screen all comers within a very short period. We had 54 consecutive patients, gave them full screening, full battery of tests, blood tests, all in a 2-week period,” he said.

Speed was of the essence, and Dr. Sengupta and his team rolled up their sleeves and got to work “We had to know who was safe to clear to return to play and who might need extra follow-up.”
 

Screening echocardiograms

They performed screening echocardiograms on 54 consecutive college athletes who had tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction nasal swab testing or who showed that they had IgG antibodies against COVID-19. The screening echocardiograms were done after the athletes had quarantined for at least 14 days and were no longer infectious.

Most (85%) were male, and the mean age was 19 years. A total of 16 (30%) athletes were asymptomatic, 36 (66%) reported mild COVID-19 related symptoms, and two (4%) reported moderate symptoms.

Of the 54 athletes who were initially screened with echocardiography, 48 (11 asymptomatic, 37 symptomatic), went on to have cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Results showed that more than half the athletes (27; 56.3%), showed some cardiac abnormality. The most common was pericardial late enhancement with associated pericardial effusion, affecting 19 (39.5%) athletes.

Of these, six (12.5%) had reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS) or an increased native T1.

One patient showed myocardial enhancement.

Additionally, seven athletes (14.6%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or reduced GLS with or without increased native T1. Native T2 levels were normal in all subjects and no specific imaging features of myocardial inflammation were identified.

Participants were brought back to receive the results of their tests and to get an individualized plan about their safe return to play 3 to 5 weeks after they had ceased to be infectious with COVID-19.

“We saw pericardial inflammation that was resolving. We did not see any blood biomarkers to suggest that there was active inflammation going on,” he said. “We also did not see any muscle inflammation, but we did see pockets of fluid in over a third of our athletes.”

Fortunately, most were deemed able to get back to playing safely, despite having evidence of pericardial inflammation.

This was on strict condition that they be monitored very closely for any adverse events that might occur as they began to exercise again.

“Once they go back to the field to start exercising and practicing, it is under great supervision. We instructed all of our sports physicians and other team managers that these people need to be observed very carefully. So as long as they were asymptomatic, even though the signs of pericardial inflammation were there, if there were no signs of inflammation in the blood, we let them go back to play, closely monitored,” Dr. Sengupta said.

A small number remained very symptomatic at the end of the 5 weeks and were referred to cardiac rehabilitation, Dr. Sengupta said. “They were tired, fatigued, short of breath, even 5 weeks after they got over COVID, so we sent them for cardiac rehab to help them get conditioned again.”

The researchers plan to reevaluate and reimage all of the athletes in another 3 months to monitor their cardiac health.

Dr. Sengupta acknowledged the limitations of this single-center, nonrandomized, controlled report, but insists reports such as this add a bit more to what we are learning about COVID-19 every day.

“These kids were coming to us and asking questions. You have to use the best science you have available to you at that point in time. Some people ask why we did not have a control group, but how do you design a control population in the midst of a pandemic? The science may or may not be perfect, I agree, but the information we obtained is important,” he said.

“Right now, I don’t think we have enough science, and we are still learning. It is very difficult to predict who will develop the heart muscle disease or the pericardial disease,” Dr. Sengupta said. “We had to do our work quickly to give answers to the young athletes, their parents, their teammates, their university, as soon as possible, and we were doing this under pandemic conditions.”

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Phelan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sengupta reported that he is a consultant for HeartSciences, Kencor Health, and Ultromics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Increasingly, clinicians are being called upon to advise athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 on when it is safe for them to return to play.

Now, they have two reports that offer more insights into the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 on the athletic heart.

In the first report, researchers report a high prevalence of pericardial involvement in college-student athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 and give their practical advice on how to let these athletes return to play safely.

In the second report, an expert panel of sports cardiologists provides a comprehensive guide to the appropriate imaging of athletes who may have cardiovascular complications from COVID-19.

Both are published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We were asked by the editors of JACC to submit this paper, and the impetus for it was the fact that there are so many athletes returning after being infected with COVID-19, we need to try and give guidance to cardiologists as to how best to evaluate these athletes,” Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., and lead author of the consensus statement, said in an interview.

The consensus statement acknowledges that information about the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 continues to evolve. Meanwhile, pathologies such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and right ventricular dysfunction, in the absence of significant clinical symptoms, in athletes who have been affected by COVID-19 remain of considerable concern.

It also emphasizes the unique challenges the average cardiologist faces in distinguishing between what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is true pathology after COVID-19 infection; details how different imaging modalities can help in screening, evaluating, and monitoring athletes with suspected cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 infection; and discusses the strengths and limitations of these modalities.

Finally, the consensus statement provides some well-needed guidance on return-to-play decision-making, for both the athlete and the clinician.
 

Athletic remodeling or covid-19 damage?

Athletes can develop certain cardiovascular characteristics because of their athletic activity, and sometimes, this can cloud the diagnostic picture.

“Is this change due to the effects of COVID-19, or is it just because this is an athlete’s heart? This was an international expert consensus, made up of sports cardiologists from all over the world who have a lot of experience in dealing with athletes,” Dr. Phelan said. “We were trying to relay the important information to the cardiologist who is not used to dealing with athletes on a day-to-day basis, as to what they might expect to find in that athlete, and what is not an expected finding and should be tested further.”

Phelan, a sports cardiologist, is familiar with what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is pathology.

“We know that athletes, particularly long-term endurance athletes, develop changes in the heart that can affect not only the electrics but the structure of the heart, and sometimes, that overlaps with abnormalities with pathology. This can be a challenge for the nonsports cardiologist to differentiate,” he said.

Phelan and his group have written two other consensus documents on the management of cardiovascular problems that develop in some athletes who have been infected with COVID-19.

The first was published in May in JAMA Cardiology, and the second, which revised some of the original recommendations made in the first document, was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA Cardiology.

The first set of recommendations called for imaging studies to be done in all athletes, but the second set states that athletes who recover and are asymptomatic do not need extensive (and expensive) imaging tests.

“These two papers work hand in hand,” Dr. Phelan said. “In May, we had very little experience with COVID, and there was a lot of concern about hospitalized patients having a very high incidence of heart disease. We published those recommendations, but we recognized at the time that we had very little data and that we would reconsider once we had more experience with data.

“This current set of recommendations that we have put forth here are for those athletes who do need to get further testing, so it’s a step beyond,” Dr. Phelan added. “So the second iteration states that young athletes who had mild or no symptoms didn’t need to go through all of that cardiac testing, but others do need it.”

To do widespread cardiovascular imaging for many individuals would be very costly. Realistically, there are not that many centers in the United States that have all the sophisticated equipment required to do such testing, Dr. Phelan noted.

“One of our major points is difficulty obtaining the test, but also the cost; these are very expensive tests. There are limitations. They are useful when used in the correct context,” he said.
 

To play or not to play, that is the question

Partho P. Sengupta, MD, DM, had to answer that question for more than 50 young athletes who were returning to college at West Virginia University, anxious to be back with their teams and on the playing field. They had been infected with COVID-19 and needed to know when they could return to play.

Dr. Sengupta, who is also an author for the Phelan et al consensus statement on imaging, said there was a lot of pressure – from all the various stakeholders, and from anxious parents, worried college athletes, their teammates, and the university – to determine if the youngsters could return to play.

The fear was that COVID-19 infection left the young athlete’s heart vulnerable to myocarditis and, thus, sudden death on the playing field after strenuous activity.

“At the time we were doing this imaging, there was a lot of concern in the media, and papers were coming out reporting a lot of cardiac involvement or myocarditis associated with COVID-19. Nobody really knew what to do,” he explained.

“There were all kinds of questions, concerns. The parents were putting pressure on us, the athletes wanted to know, the teams, the university. So we put together a team and completed all of the examinations, including testing of blood markers, within a 2-week period. These young athletes, they’re scared, they’re worried and anxious, they don’t know what’s going to happen with their scholarship, so there was some urgency to this work,” Dr. Sengupta said.

“We had to screen all comers within a very short period. We had 54 consecutive patients, gave them full screening, full battery of tests, blood tests, all in a 2-week period,” he said.

Speed was of the essence, and Dr. Sengupta and his team rolled up their sleeves and got to work “We had to know who was safe to clear to return to play and who might need extra follow-up.”
 

Screening echocardiograms

They performed screening echocardiograms on 54 consecutive college athletes who had tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction nasal swab testing or who showed that they had IgG antibodies against COVID-19. The screening echocardiograms were done after the athletes had quarantined for at least 14 days and were no longer infectious.

Most (85%) were male, and the mean age was 19 years. A total of 16 (30%) athletes were asymptomatic, 36 (66%) reported mild COVID-19 related symptoms, and two (4%) reported moderate symptoms.

Of the 54 athletes who were initially screened with echocardiography, 48 (11 asymptomatic, 37 symptomatic), went on to have cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Results showed that more than half the athletes (27; 56.3%), showed some cardiac abnormality. The most common was pericardial late enhancement with associated pericardial effusion, affecting 19 (39.5%) athletes.

Of these, six (12.5%) had reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS) or an increased native T1.

One patient showed myocardial enhancement.

Additionally, seven athletes (14.6%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or reduced GLS with or without increased native T1. Native T2 levels were normal in all subjects and no specific imaging features of myocardial inflammation were identified.

Participants were brought back to receive the results of their tests and to get an individualized plan about their safe return to play 3 to 5 weeks after they had ceased to be infectious with COVID-19.

“We saw pericardial inflammation that was resolving. We did not see any blood biomarkers to suggest that there was active inflammation going on,” he said. “We also did not see any muscle inflammation, but we did see pockets of fluid in over a third of our athletes.”

Fortunately, most were deemed able to get back to playing safely, despite having evidence of pericardial inflammation.

This was on strict condition that they be monitored very closely for any adverse events that might occur as they began to exercise again.

“Once they go back to the field to start exercising and practicing, it is under great supervision. We instructed all of our sports physicians and other team managers that these people need to be observed very carefully. So as long as they were asymptomatic, even though the signs of pericardial inflammation were there, if there were no signs of inflammation in the blood, we let them go back to play, closely monitored,” Dr. Sengupta said.

A small number remained very symptomatic at the end of the 5 weeks and were referred to cardiac rehabilitation, Dr. Sengupta said. “They were tired, fatigued, short of breath, even 5 weeks after they got over COVID, so we sent them for cardiac rehab to help them get conditioned again.”

The researchers plan to reevaluate and reimage all of the athletes in another 3 months to monitor their cardiac health.

Dr. Sengupta acknowledged the limitations of this single-center, nonrandomized, controlled report, but insists reports such as this add a bit more to what we are learning about COVID-19 every day.

“These kids were coming to us and asking questions. You have to use the best science you have available to you at that point in time. Some people ask why we did not have a control group, but how do you design a control population in the midst of a pandemic? The science may or may not be perfect, I agree, but the information we obtained is important,” he said.

“Right now, I don’t think we have enough science, and we are still learning. It is very difficult to predict who will develop the heart muscle disease or the pericardial disease,” Dr. Sengupta said. “We had to do our work quickly to give answers to the young athletes, their parents, their teammates, their university, as soon as possible, and we were doing this under pandemic conditions.”

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Phelan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sengupta reported that he is a consultant for HeartSciences, Kencor Health, and Ultromics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Increasingly, clinicians are being called upon to advise athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 on when it is safe for them to return to play.

Now, they have two reports that offer more insights into the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 on the athletic heart.

In the first report, researchers report a high prevalence of pericardial involvement in college-student athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 and give their practical advice on how to let these athletes return to play safely.

In the second report, an expert panel of sports cardiologists provides a comprehensive guide to the appropriate imaging of athletes who may have cardiovascular complications from COVID-19.

Both are published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We were asked by the editors of JACC to submit this paper, and the impetus for it was the fact that there are so many athletes returning after being infected with COVID-19, we need to try and give guidance to cardiologists as to how best to evaluate these athletes,” Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., and lead author of the consensus statement, said in an interview.

The consensus statement acknowledges that information about the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 continues to evolve. Meanwhile, pathologies such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and right ventricular dysfunction, in the absence of significant clinical symptoms, in athletes who have been affected by COVID-19 remain of considerable concern.

It also emphasizes the unique challenges the average cardiologist faces in distinguishing between what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is true pathology after COVID-19 infection; details how different imaging modalities can help in screening, evaluating, and monitoring athletes with suspected cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 infection; and discusses the strengths and limitations of these modalities.

Finally, the consensus statement provides some well-needed guidance on return-to-play decision-making, for both the athlete and the clinician.
 

Athletic remodeling or covid-19 damage?

Athletes can develop certain cardiovascular characteristics because of their athletic activity, and sometimes, this can cloud the diagnostic picture.

“Is this change due to the effects of COVID-19, or is it just because this is an athlete’s heart? This was an international expert consensus, made up of sports cardiologists from all over the world who have a lot of experience in dealing with athletes,” Dr. Phelan said. “We were trying to relay the important information to the cardiologist who is not used to dealing with athletes on a day-to-day basis, as to what they might expect to find in that athlete, and what is not an expected finding and should be tested further.”

Phelan, a sports cardiologist, is familiar with what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is pathology.

“We know that athletes, particularly long-term endurance athletes, develop changes in the heart that can affect not only the electrics but the structure of the heart, and sometimes, that overlaps with abnormalities with pathology. This can be a challenge for the nonsports cardiologist to differentiate,” he said.

Phelan and his group have written two other consensus documents on the management of cardiovascular problems that develop in some athletes who have been infected with COVID-19.

The first was published in May in JAMA Cardiology, and the second, which revised some of the original recommendations made in the first document, was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA Cardiology.

The first set of recommendations called for imaging studies to be done in all athletes, but the second set states that athletes who recover and are asymptomatic do not need extensive (and expensive) imaging tests.

“These two papers work hand in hand,” Dr. Phelan said. “In May, we had very little experience with COVID, and there was a lot of concern about hospitalized patients having a very high incidence of heart disease. We published those recommendations, but we recognized at the time that we had very little data and that we would reconsider once we had more experience with data.

“This current set of recommendations that we have put forth here are for those athletes who do need to get further testing, so it’s a step beyond,” Dr. Phelan added. “So the second iteration states that young athletes who had mild or no symptoms didn’t need to go through all of that cardiac testing, but others do need it.”

To do widespread cardiovascular imaging for many individuals would be very costly. Realistically, there are not that many centers in the United States that have all the sophisticated equipment required to do such testing, Dr. Phelan noted.

“One of our major points is difficulty obtaining the test, but also the cost; these are very expensive tests. There are limitations. They are useful when used in the correct context,” he said.
 

To play or not to play, that is the question

Partho P. Sengupta, MD, DM, had to answer that question for more than 50 young athletes who were returning to college at West Virginia University, anxious to be back with their teams and on the playing field. They had been infected with COVID-19 and needed to know when they could return to play.

Dr. Sengupta, who is also an author for the Phelan et al consensus statement on imaging, said there was a lot of pressure – from all the various stakeholders, and from anxious parents, worried college athletes, their teammates, and the university – to determine if the youngsters could return to play.

The fear was that COVID-19 infection left the young athlete’s heart vulnerable to myocarditis and, thus, sudden death on the playing field after strenuous activity.

“At the time we were doing this imaging, there was a lot of concern in the media, and papers were coming out reporting a lot of cardiac involvement or myocarditis associated with COVID-19. Nobody really knew what to do,” he explained.

“There were all kinds of questions, concerns. The parents were putting pressure on us, the athletes wanted to know, the teams, the university. So we put together a team and completed all of the examinations, including testing of blood markers, within a 2-week period. These young athletes, they’re scared, they’re worried and anxious, they don’t know what’s going to happen with their scholarship, so there was some urgency to this work,” Dr. Sengupta said.

“We had to screen all comers within a very short period. We had 54 consecutive patients, gave them full screening, full battery of tests, blood tests, all in a 2-week period,” he said.

Speed was of the essence, and Dr. Sengupta and his team rolled up their sleeves and got to work “We had to know who was safe to clear to return to play and who might need extra follow-up.”
 

Screening echocardiograms

They performed screening echocardiograms on 54 consecutive college athletes who had tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction nasal swab testing or who showed that they had IgG antibodies against COVID-19. The screening echocardiograms were done after the athletes had quarantined for at least 14 days and were no longer infectious.

Most (85%) were male, and the mean age was 19 years. A total of 16 (30%) athletes were asymptomatic, 36 (66%) reported mild COVID-19 related symptoms, and two (4%) reported moderate symptoms.

Of the 54 athletes who were initially screened with echocardiography, 48 (11 asymptomatic, 37 symptomatic), went on to have cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Results showed that more than half the athletes (27; 56.3%), showed some cardiac abnormality. The most common was pericardial late enhancement with associated pericardial effusion, affecting 19 (39.5%) athletes.

Of these, six (12.5%) had reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS) or an increased native T1.

One patient showed myocardial enhancement.

Additionally, seven athletes (14.6%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or reduced GLS with or without increased native T1. Native T2 levels were normal in all subjects and no specific imaging features of myocardial inflammation were identified.

Participants were brought back to receive the results of their tests and to get an individualized plan about their safe return to play 3 to 5 weeks after they had ceased to be infectious with COVID-19.

“We saw pericardial inflammation that was resolving. We did not see any blood biomarkers to suggest that there was active inflammation going on,” he said. “We also did not see any muscle inflammation, but we did see pockets of fluid in over a third of our athletes.”

Fortunately, most were deemed able to get back to playing safely, despite having evidence of pericardial inflammation.

This was on strict condition that they be monitored very closely for any adverse events that might occur as they began to exercise again.

“Once they go back to the field to start exercising and practicing, it is under great supervision. We instructed all of our sports physicians and other team managers that these people need to be observed very carefully. So as long as they were asymptomatic, even though the signs of pericardial inflammation were there, if there were no signs of inflammation in the blood, we let them go back to play, closely monitored,” Dr. Sengupta said.

A small number remained very symptomatic at the end of the 5 weeks and were referred to cardiac rehabilitation, Dr. Sengupta said. “They were tired, fatigued, short of breath, even 5 weeks after they got over COVID, so we sent them for cardiac rehab to help them get conditioned again.”

The researchers plan to reevaluate and reimage all of the athletes in another 3 months to monitor their cardiac health.

Dr. Sengupta acknowledged the limitations of this single-center, nonrandomized, controlled report, but insists reports such as this add a bit more to what we are learning about COVID-19 every day.

“These kids were coming to us and asking questions. You have to use the best science you have available to you at that point in time. Some people ask why we did not have a control group, but how do you design a control population in the midst of a pandemic? The science may or may not be perfect, I agree, but the information we obtained is important,” he said.

“Right now, I don’t think we have enough science, and we are still learning. It is very difficult to predict who will develop the heart muscle disease or the pericardial disease,” Dr. Sengupta said. “We had to do our work quickly to give answers to the young athletes, their parents, their teammates, their university, as soon as possible, and we were doing this under pandemic conditions.”

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Phelan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sengupta reported that he is a consultant for HeartSciences, Kencor Health, and Ultromics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.

Prognoses remain extremely poor after hypomethylating agents (HMAs) fail in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). But a hematologist-oncologist told colleagues that novel therapies are in the works, and some show promise.

Still, “the clinical development for drugs in this setting has been quite challenging, and we have had a lot of drugs that have died in this space over the years,” cautioned Amer Zeidan, MBBS, MHS, an associate professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., in a presentation at the virtual Acute Leukemia Forum of Hemedicus. For now, “the best way to manage HMA failure in MDS patients is by preventing HMA failure.”

Dr. Zeidan highlighted a 2016 study – which he led – that found the median overall survival from diagnosis was just a median of 17.0 months (95% confidence interval, 15.8-18.4) in 632 patients with HR-MDS. Another 2016 study, which he also led, reported median overall survival of 11 months (95% CI, 10-14) and 12 months (95% CI, 11-16; P = .26) for patients aged 66 or older who had HR-MDS and took azacitidine and decitabine, respectively. Median survival is even shorter after HMA failure, he said.

The most important obstacle to effective therapy is “the biologic and molecular heterogeneity of the disease,” he said. “Only a certain number of genes are altered in a significant number of patients. And then you have a very long tail, with so many alterations, but most of them are rare. That makes targeting all patients with the same mechanism quite challenging. Also, we poorly understand how hypomethylating agents work and the mechanism of primary and secondary failure. And many MDS patients are older with multiple conditions, multiple comorbidities. By the time of failure, they are generally beaten up and very difficult to enroll in clinical trials.”

Even so, he said, “the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of MDS is starting to open the door for new drug development opportunities. What’s been changing over the last 5 years is an increased understanding of targeting some of the alterations that are specific to the patient – individualized targeting or precision medicine.”
 

Novel therapies

Dr. Zeidan said the novel therapies for HR-MDS after HMA failure fall into these categories: molecularly targeted agents, genetically agnostic small-molecule inhibitors, immunotherapies, and chemotherapy/epigenetic agents.

Multiple trials, for example, are examining a chemotherapy treatment CPX-351 (liposomal cytarabine-daunorubicin) in HR-MDS, and a 2018 study showed improvement in median survival in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. “However, this remains an investigational treatment,” Dr. Zeidan cautioned.

Venetoclax is also being studied. Animal and cell culture data suggest there may be helpful synergistic activity between venetoclax and azacitidine in both the frontline and relapse settings. Dr. Zeidan highlighted his own 2019 report on a phase 1b study of venetoclax versus venetoclax and azacitidine in the HMA failure/HR-MDS setting. The results are “quite exciting,” he said.

The report noted that, “although the study is still ongoing, the 6-month OS [overall survival] estimate of 57% in monotherapy [patients] compares favorably to historical controls.”

Glasdegib is “another drug of interest,” although it’s mostly been studied in the frontline setting, he said, and “we don’t have much data with this drug in the refractory setting for MDS patients.” APR-246 is also intriguing, he said, but again lacks data in the refractory setting.

Dr. Zeidan noted research into other treatments – rigosertib (recent findings have been disappointing), ivosidenib for IDH1-mutated MDS, AG221-001 and enasidenib (targeting IDH2 mutations), trametinib (targeting RAS pathway mutations), and others. For now, “clinical trial participation should be the best way to manage these patients.”

Dr. Zeidan disclosed multiple disclosures, including relationships with Pfizer, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, among others.

The Acute Leukemia Forum is held by Hemedicus, which is owned by the same company as this news organization.