In patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (MS), increased abundance of Blautia stercoris and its variants in the gut is associated with an increased risk of relapse. No broad differences in gut bacterial composition, however, are associated with risk of relapse, according to the investigators. The findings were presented at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS–ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

Previous research has found an association between Blautia stercoris and disease activity in other immune-mediated diseases such as systemic lupus. Although the current study is the largest in patients with MS that includes data about the microbiome and relapses, its findings require replication, said Mary Horton, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at the University of California, Berkeley.

Gut microbes digest food, produce vitamins (for example, B12 and K), create a barrier against pathogens, and regulate the immune system, among other tasks. Most current knowledge about the gut microbiome in MS comes from studies of patients with adult-onset MS. In 2016, Tremlett et al. found an increase in Desulfovibrionaceae and a decrease in Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae in patients with pediatric-onset MS. They also found that a decrease in Fusobacteria was associated with risk of relapse in this population.
 

Advanced analytical methods

Using a larger sample size and newer analytical methods than in the study by Tremlett and colleagues, Ms. Horton’s group sought to determine whether features of the gut microbiome are associated with relapse. From 2014 to 2018, the investigators recruited 53 patients with pediatric-onset MS from the University of California, San Francisco, and six centers in the U.S. Network of Pediatric MS Centers. At baseline, they collected stool samples, blood samples, information about past relapses, medication records, demographics, and environmental factors. At each relapse, the investigators collected information about the patient’s current and past medication use and about relapses that the patient had had since the previous visit.

Ms. Horton and colleagues analyzed the stool samples using 16S rRNA sequencing of the V4 region. They identified amplicon sequence variants (ASVs), which are used to define species of bacteria, with the Divisive Amplicon Denoising Algorithm-2 (DADA2). Taxonomies were assigned using the naive Bayesian classifier method, and the read count was normalized using multiple rarefaction.

The investigators identified ASV clusters using weighted genetic correlation network analysis (WGCNA). To evaluate whether individual ASVs were associated with relapse, they used a Prentice, Williams, and Peterson (PWP) recurrent event model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model.
 

The role of methanogenesis

Ms. Horton and colleagues included 53 patients (72% girls) in their study. The population’s mean age was 14.3 years at disease onset and 15.5 years at stool sample collection. About 70% of patients were White, and about 36% were Hispanic. Mean disease duration was 1.3 years, and median Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 1.0.

Approximately 45% of participants had one relapse, and 30% had more than one relapse during the subsequent mean follow-up of 2.5 years. About 91% of patients used a disease-modifying therapy during follow-up.

Gut bacterial abundance was broadly similar between patients who relapsed during the study period and those who did not. Of 270 ASVs included in the analyses, 20 were nominally associated with risk of relapse. Blautia stercoris had the most significant association with relapse risk (hazard ratio, 2.50). Blautia massiliensis also was among the 20 ASVs associated with risk of relapse.

WGCNA identified six ASV clusters. Higher values of one cluster’s eigengene were significantly associated with higher relapse risk (HR, 1.23). The following four ASVs nominally associated with higher relapse risk were in this cluster: Blautia massiliensis, Dorea longicatena, Coprococcus comes, and an unknown species in genus Subdoligranulum.

When Ms. Horton and colleagues examined the pathways from these bacterial species, they found 10 that were significantly associated with the risk of relapse. Four of these 10 pathways are involved in methane production, which suggests the involvement of methanogenesis pathways in relapse.

Although the investigators used advanced techniques for genetic and statistical analysis, the study’s sample size is small, Ms. Horton acknowledged. In addition, the conclusions that can be drawn from observational data are limited.

These suggest several avenues for future research. “There is a big question about how the different treatments that people are on when they are experiencing relapses might impact the microbiome,” said Ms. Horton. “Is the microbiome impacting your treatment response, or is it the reverse?” Investigators also could examine why the methane production pathway is overrepresented among people with MS who have relapses. “Which specific archaea might be leading to that increase in methane is a ripe future study question. Just what that means for health is really unknown.”

The National MS Society and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke provided funding for the study. Ms. Horton had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Horton M et al. MSVirtual2020, Abstract LB01.05.

In patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (MS), increased abundance of Blautia stercoris and its variants in the gut is associated with an increased risk of relapse. No broad differences in gut bacterial composition, however, are associated with risk of relapse, according to the investigators. The findings were presented at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS–ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

Previous research has found an association between Blautia stercoris and disease activity in other immune-mediated diseases such as systemic lupus. Although the current study is the largest in patients with MS that includes data about the microbiome and relapses, its findings require replication, said Mary Horton, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at the University of California, Berkeley.

Gut microbes digest food, produce vitamins (for example, B12 and K), create a barrier against pathogens, and regulate the immune system, among other tasks. Most current knowledge about the gut microbiome in MS comes from studies of patients with adult-onset MS. In 2016, Tremlett et al. found an increase in Desulfovibrionaceae and a decrease in Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae in patients with pediatric-onset MS. They also found that a decrease in Fusobacteria was associated with risk of relapse in this population.
 

Advanced analytical methods

Using a larger sample size and newer analytical methods than in the study by Tremlett and colleagues, Ms. Horton’s group sought to determine whether features of the gut microbiome are associated with relapse. From 2014 to 2018, the investigators recruited 53 patients with pediatric-onset MS from the University of California, San Francisco, and six centers in the U.S. Network of Pediatric MS Centers. At baseline, they collected stool samples, blood samples, information about past relapses, medication records, demographics, and environmental factors. At each relapse, the investigators collected information about the patient’s current and past medication use and about relapses that the patient had had since the previous visit.

Ms. Horton and colleagues analyzed the stool samples using 16S rRNA sequencing of the V4 region. They identified amplicon sequence variants (ASVs), which are used to define species of bacteria, with the Divisive Amplicon Denoising Algorithm-2 (DADA2). Taxonomies were assigned using the naive Bayesian classifier method, and the read count was normalized using multiple rarefaction.

The investigators identified ASV clusters using weighted genetic correlation network analysis (WGCNA). To evaluate whether individual ASVs were associated with relapse, they used a Prentice, Williams, and Peterson (PWP) recurrent event model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model.
 

The role of methanogenesis

Ms. Horton and colleagues included 53 patients (72% girls) in their study. The population’s mean age was 14.3 years at disease onset and 15.5 years at stool sample collection. About 70% of patients were White, and about 36% were Hispanic. Mean disease duration was 1.3 years, and median Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 1.0.

Approximately 45% of participants had one relapse, and 30% had more than one relapse during the subsequent mean follow-up of 2.5 years. About 91% of patients used a disease-modifying therapy during follow-up.

Gut bacterial abundance was broadly similar between patients who relapsed during the study period and those who did not. Of 270 ASVs included in the analyses, 20 were nominally associated with risk of relapse. Blautia stercoris had the most significant association with relapse risk (hazard ratio, 2.50). Blautia massiliensis also was among the 20 ASVs associated with risk of relapse.

WGCNA identified six ASV clusters. Higher values of one cluster’s eigengene were significantly associated with higher relapse risk (HR, 1.23). The following four ASVs nominally associated with higher relapse risk were in this cluster: Blautia massiliensis, Dorea longicatena, Coprococcus comes, and an unknown species in genus Subdoligranulum.

When Ms. Horton and colleagues examined the pathways from these bacterial species, they found 10 that were significantly associated with the risk of relapse. Four of these 10 pathways are involved in methane production, which suggests the involvement of methanogenesis pathways in relapse.

Although the investigators used advanced techniques for genetic and statistical analysis, the study’s sample size is small, Ms. Horton acknowledged. In addition, the conclusions that can be drawn from observational data are limited.

These suggest several avenues for future research. “There is a big question about how the different treatments that people are on when they are experiencing relapses might impact the microbiome,” said Ms. Horton. “Is the microbiome impacting your treatment response, or is it the reverse?” Investigators also could examine why the methane production pathway is overrepresented among people with MS who have relapses. “Which specific archaea might be leading to that increase in methane is a ripe future study question. Just what that means for health is really unknown.”

The National MS Society and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke provided funding for the study. Ms. Horton had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Horton M et al. MSVirtual2020, Abstract LB01.05.

In patients with pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (MS), increased abundance of Blautia stercoris and its variants in the gut is associated with an increased risk of relapse. No broad differences in gut bacterial composition, however, are associated with risk of relapse, according to the investigators. The findings were presented at the Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS–ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

Previous research has found an association between Blautia stercoris and disease activity in other immune-mediated diseases such as systemic lupus. Although the current study is the largest in patients with MS that includes data about the microbiome and relapses, its findings require replication, said Mary Horton, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at the University of California, Berkeley.

Gut microbes digest food, produce vitamins (for example, B12 and K), create a barrier against pathogens, and regulate the immune system, among other tasks. Most current knowledge about the gut microbiome in MS comes from studies of patients with adult-onset MS. In 2016, Tremlett et al. found an increase in Desulfovibrionaceae and a decrease in Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae in patients with pediatric-onset MS. They also found that a decrease in Fusobacteria was associated with risk of relapse in this population.
 

Advanced analytical methods

Using a larger sample size and newer analytical methods than in the study by Tremlett and colleagues, Ms. Horton’s group sought to determine whether features of the gut microbiome are associated with relapse. From 2014 to 2018, the investigators recruited 53 patients with pediatric-onset MS from the University of California, San Francisco, and six centers in the U.S. Network of Pediatric MS Centers. At baseline, they collected stool samples, blood samples, information about past relapses, medication records, demographics, and environmental factors. At each relapse, the investigators collected information about the patient’s current and past medication use and about relapses that the patient had had since the previous visit.

Ms. Horton and colleagues analyzed the stool samples using 16S rRNA sequencing of the V4 region. They identified amplicon sequence variants (ASVs), which are used to define species of bacteria, with the Divisive Amplicon Denoising Algorithm-2 (DADA2). Taxonomies were assigned using the naive Bayesian classifier method, and the read count was normalized using multiple rarefaction.

The investigators identified ASV clusters using weighted genetic correlation network analysis (WGCNA). To evaluate whether individual ASVs were associated with relapse, they used a Prentice, Williams, and Peterson (PWP) recurrent event model, an extension of the Cox proportional hazards model.
 

The role of methanogenesis

Ms. Horton and colleagues included 53 patients (72% girls) in their study. The population’s mean age was 14.3 years at disease onset and 15.5 years at stool sample collection. About 70% of patients were White, and about 36% were Hispanic. Mean disease duration was 1.3 years, and median Expanded Disability Status Scale score was 1.0.

Approximately 45% of participants had one relapse, and 30% had more than one relapse during the subsequent mean follow-up of 2.5 years. About 91% of patients used a disease-modifying therapy during follow-up.

Gut bacterial abundance was broadly similar between patients who relapsed during the study period and those who did not. Of 270 ASVs included in the analyses, 20 were nominally associated with risk of relapse. Blautia stercoris had the most significant association with relapse risk (hazard ratio, 2.50). Blautia massiliensis also was among the 20 ASVs associated with risk of relapse.

WGCNA identified six ASV clusters. Higher values of one cluster’s eigengene were significantly associated with higher relapse risk (HR, 1.23). The following four ASVs nominally associated with higher relapse risk were in this cluster: Blautia massiliensis, Dorea longicatena, Coprococcus comes, and an unknown species in genus Subdoligranulum.

When Ms. Horton and colleagues examined the pathways from these bacterial species, they found 10 that were significantly associated with the risk of relapse. Four of these 10 pathways are involved in methane production, which suggests the involvement of methanogenesis pathways in relapse.

Although the investigators used advanced techniques for genetic and statistical analysis, the study’s sample size is small, Ms. Horton acknowledged. In addition, the conclusions that can be drawn from observational data are limited.

These suggest several avenues for future research. “There is a big question about how the different treatments that people are on when they are experiencing relapses might impact the microbiome,” said Ms. Horton. “Is the microbiome impacting your treatment response, or is it the reverse?” Investigators also could examine why the methane production pathway is overrepresented among people with MS who have relapses. “Which specific archaea might be leading to that increase in methane is a ripe future study question. Just what that means for health is really unknown.”

The National MS Society and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke provided funding for the study. Ms. Horton had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Horton M et al. MSVirtual2020, Abstract LB01.05.

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

A new group of nonhormonal drugs currently in clinical trials shows strong promise for treating menopausal hot flashes as effectively as hormones, researchers told attendees at the virtual North American Menopause Society 2020 Annual Meeting.

“The KNDy [kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin] neuron manipulation is really exciting and holds great promise for rapid and highly effective amelioration of hot flashes, up to 80%, and improvement in other menopausal symptoms, though we’re still looking at the safety in phase 3 trials,” reported Susan D. Reed, MD, MPH, director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Research Program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

“If we continue to see good safety data, these are going to be the greatest things since sliced bread,” Dr. Reed said in an interview. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this in menopause therapeutics in a long time.”

While several nonhormonal drugs are already used to treat vasomotor symptoms in menopausal women with and without breast cancer, none are as effective as hormone treatments.

“For now, the SSRIs, SNRIs [serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors], and GABAergics are the best frontline nonhormonal options with a moderate effect, and clonidine and oxybutynin are effective, but we see more side effects with these,” Dr. Reed said. She noted the importance of considering patients’ mood, sleep, pain, sexual function, weight gain, overactive bladder, blood pressure, and individual quality of life (QOL) goals in tailoring those therapies.

But women still need more nonhormonal options that are at least as effective as hormonal options, Dr. Reed said. Some women are unable to take hormonal options because they are at risk for blood clots or breast cancer.

“Then there’s preference,” she said. “Sometimes people don’t like the way they feel when they take hormones, or they just don’t want hormones in their body. It’s absolutely critical to have these options available for women.”

Nanette F. Santoro, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved in the presentation, said in an interview that physicians may not always realize the extent to which vasomotor symptoms interfere with women’s daily lives.

“They have an eroding effect on QOL that is not appreciated sometimes,” she said. Though hot flashes eventually subside in most women, others may continue to experience them into their 70s, when hormonal therapies can begin causing more harm than benefit.

“It goes underappreciated that, for a proportion of women, hot flashes will never go away, and they’re just as bad [as] when they were in their 50s,” Dr. Santoro said. “They need to be treated, and the nonhormonal treatments do not work for everybody.”
 

Promising KNDy therapeutics

Autopsy studies of postmenopausal women revealed that a complex of neurons in the hypothalamus was “massively hypertrophied” and sits right next to the thermoregulatory center of the brain, Dr. Reed explained.

The complex produces three types of molecules: kisspeptin (a neuropeptide), neurokinin B (a neuropeptide), and dynorphin (a kappa opioid), collectively referred to as the KNDy. The KNDy neural complex is located in the same place as the majority of hormone receptors in the arcuate nucleus, a collection of nerve cells in the hypothalamus.

The current hypothesis is that the KNDy neurons, which communicate with each other, become hyperactivated and cause hot flashes by spilling over to and triggering the thermoregulatory center next door. NKB (kisspeptin and neurokinin B) agonists activate KNDy neurons and dynorphin agonists inactivate KNDy, so the expectation is that NKB antagonists or dynorphin agonists would stop hot flashes.

Indeed, research published in 2015 showed that women taking kappa agonists experienced fewer hot flashes than women in the placebo group. However, no peripherally restricted kappa agonists are currently in clinical trials, so their future as therapeutics is unclear.

Right now, three different NK antagonists are in the pipeline for reducing vasomotor symptoms: MLE 4901 (pavinetant) and ESN364 (fezolinetant) are both NK3R antagonists, and NT-814 is a dual NK1R/NK3R antagonist. All three of these drugs were originally developed to treat schizophrenia.

Phase 2 clinical trials of pavinetant were discontinued in November 2017 by Millendo Therapeutics because 3 of 28 women experienced abnormal liver function, which normalized within 90 days. However, the study had shown an 80% decrease in hot flashes in women taking pavinetant, compared with a 30% decrease in the placebo group.

Fezolinetant, currently in phase 3 trials with Astellas, showed a dose response effect on reproductive hormones in phase 1 studies and a short half-life (4-6 hours) in women. It also showed no concerning side effects.

“There was, in fact, a decrease in the endometrial thickness, a delayed or impeded ovulation and a prolonged cycle duration,” Reed said.

The subsequent phase 2a study showed a reduction of five hot flashes a day (93% decrease), compared with placebo (54% decrease, P <.001) “with an abrupt return to baseline hot flash frequency after cessation,” she said. Improvements also occurred in sleep quality, quality of life, disability, and interference of hot flashes in daily life.

The phase 2b study found no difference in effects between once-daily versus twice-daily doses. However, two severe adverse events occurred: a drug-induced liver injury in one woman and cholelithiasis in another, both on the 60-mg, once-daily dose. Additionally, five women on varying doses had transient increases (above 1000 U/L) in creatinine kinase, though apparently without dose response.

A 52-week, three-arm, phase 3 trial of fezolinetant is currently under way with a goal of enrolling 1,740 participants, and plans to be completed by December 2021. Participants will undergo regular adverse event screening first biweekly, then monthly, with vital signs, blood, and urine monitoring.

Meanwhile, NT-814 from KaNDy Therapeutics, has completed phase 2a and phase 2b trials with phase 3 slated to begin in 2021. Adverse events in phase 1 included sleepiness and headache, and it had a long half-life (about 26 hours) and rapid absorption (an hour).

The phase 2a trial found a reduction of five hot flashes a day, compared with placebo, with main side effects again being sleepiness and headache. No events of abnormal liver function occurred. Phase 2b results have not been published.

So far, existing research suggests that KNDy interventions will involve a single daily oral dose that begins taking effect within 3 days and is fully in effect within 1-2 weeks. The reduction in hot flashes, about five fewer a day, is more effective than any other currently used nonhormonal medications for vasomotor symptoms. SSRIs and SNRIs tend to result in 1.5-2 fewer hot flashes a day, and gabapentin results in about 3 fewer per day. It will take longer-term studies, however, and paying attention to liver concerns for the NK3R antagonists to move into clinic.

“We want to keep our eye on the [luteinizing hormone] because if it decreases too much, it could adversely affect sexual function, and this does appear to be a dose-response finding,” Dr. Reed said. It would also be ideal, she said, to target only the KNDy neurons with NK3 antagonists without effects on the NK3 receptors in the liver.
 

Other nonhormonal options

Oxybutynin is another a nonhormonal agent under investigation for vasomotor symptoms. It’s an anticholinergic that resulted in 80% fewer hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo in a 2016 trial, but 52% of women complained of dry mouth. A more recent study similarly found high efficacy – a 60%-80% drop in hot flashes, compared with 30% with placebo – but also side effects of dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain.

Finally, Dr. Reed mentioned three other agents under investigation as possible nonhormonal therapeutics, though she has little information about them. They include MT-8554 by Mitsubishi Tanabe; FP-101 by Fervent Pharmaceuticals; and Q-122 by QUE Oncology with Emory University, Atlanta, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 

None of the currently available nonhormonal options provide as high efficacy as hormones, but they do reduce symptoms:

Clonidine is an off-label option some physicians already use as a nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but again, the side effects are problematic: dry mouth, constipation, drowsiness, postural hypotension, and poor sleep.

Paroxetine, at 7.5-10 mg, is the only FDA-approved nonhormonal treatment for vasomotor symptoms, but she listed other off-label options found effective in evidence reviews: gabapentin (100-2,400 mg), venlafaxine (37.5-75 mg), citalopram (10 mg), desvenlafaxine (150 mg), and escitalopram (10 mg).

“I want you to take note of the lower doses in all of these products that are efficacious above those doses that might be used for mood,” Dr. Reed added.

Dr. Reed receives royalties from UpToDate and research funding from Bayer. Dr. Santoro owns stock in MenoGeniX and serves as a consultant or advisor to Ansh Labs, MenoGeniX, and Ogeda/Astellas.

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

Makena should be withdrawn from the market because a postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, according to a statement released today from the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.

The drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk of preterm birth in women who with previous spontaneous preterm birth. The FDA approved the medication under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

The required postmarketing study “not only failed to demonstrate Makena’s benefit to the neonate, but also failed to substantiate any effect of Makena on the surrogate endpoint of gestational age at delivery that was the basis of the initial approval,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the CDER, wrote in a letter to AMAG Pharma USA, which markets Makena. The letter also was sent to other companies developing products that use the drug.

Beyond the lack of efficacy, risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention. “The risk of exposing treated pregnant women to these harms, in addition to false hopes, costs, and additional healthcare utilization outweighs Makena’s unproven benefit,” Dr. Cavazzoni said.

The letter notifies companies about the opportunity for a hearing on the proposed withdrawal of marketing approval. Makena and its generic equivalents will remain on the market until the manufacturers remove the drugs or the FDA commissioner mandates their removal, the CDER said.

The FDA commissioner ultimately will decide whether to withdraw approval of the drug. An FDA panel previously voted to withdraw the drug from the market in October 2019, and the drug has remained in limbo since.

Health care professionals should discuss “Makena’s benefits, risks, and uncertainties with their patients to decide whether to use Makena while a final decision is being made about the drug’s marketing status,” the CDER announcement said.

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

Makena should be withdrawn from the market because a postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, according to a statement released today from the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.

The drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk of preterm birth in women who with previous spontaneous preterm birth. The FDA approved the medication under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

The required postmarketing study “not only failed to demonstrate Makena’s benefit to the neonate, but also failed to substantiate any effect of Makena on the surrogate endpoint of gestational age at delivery that was the basis of the initial approval,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the CDER, wrote in a letter to AMAG Pharma USA, which markets Makena. The letter also was sent to other companies developing products that use the drug.

Beyond the lack of efficacy, risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention. “The risk of exposing treated pregnant women to these harms, in addition to false hopes, costs, and additional healthcare utilization outweighs Makena’s unproven benefit,” Dr. Cavazzoni said.

The letter notifies companies about the opportunity for a hearing on the proposed withdrawal of marketing approval. Makena and its generic equivalents will remain on the market until the manufacturers remove the drugs or the FDA commissioner mandates their removal, the CDER said.

The FDA commissioner ultimately will decide whether to withdraw approval of the drug. An FDA panel previously voted to withdraw the drug from the market in October 2019, and the drug has remained in limbo since.

Health care professionals should discuss “Makena’s benefits, risks, and uncertainties with their patients to decide whether to use Makena while a final decision is being made about the drug’s marketing status,” the CDER announcement said.

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

Makena should be withdrawn from the market because a postmarketing study did not show clinical benefit, according to a statement released today from the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration.

The drug, hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection, was approved in 2011 to reduce the risk of preterm birth in women who with previous spontaneous preterm birth. The FDA approved the medication under an accelerated pathway that required another trial to confirm clinical benefit.

The required postmarketing study “not only failed to demonstrate Makena’s benefit to the neonate, but also failed to substantiate any effect of Makena on the surrogate endpoint of gestational age at delivery that was the basis of the initial approval,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the CDER, wrote in a letter to AMAG Pharma USA, which markets Makena. The letter also was sent to other companies developing products that use the drug.

Beyond the lack of efficacy, risks associated with the drug include thromboembolic disorders, allergic reactions, decreased glucose tolerance, and fluid retention. “The risk of exposing treated pregnant women to these harms, in addition to false hopes, costs, and additional healthcare utilization outweighs Makena’s unproven benefit,” Dr. Cavazzoni said.

The letter notifies companies about the opportunity for a hearing on the proposed withdrawal of marketing approval. Makena and its generic equivalents will remain on the market until the manufacturers remove the drugs or the FDA commissioner mandates their removal, the CDER said.

The FDA commissioner ultimately will decide whether to withdraw approval of the drug. An FDA panel previously voted to withdraw the drug from the market in October 2019, and the drug has remained in limbo since.

Health care professionals should discuss “Makena’s benefits, risks, and uncertainties with their patients to decide whether to use Makena while a final decision is being made about the drug’s marketing status,” the CDER announcement said.

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

The number of heart attack survivors in the United States who experienced repeat attacks within a year decreased between 2008 and 2017, especially among women, yet women’s awareness of their risk of death from heart disease also decreased, according to data from a pair of studies published in Circulation.

Recurrent MI rates drop, but not enough

Although the overall morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States has been on the decline for decades, CHD remains the leading cause of death and disability in both sexes, wrote Sanne A.E. Peters, PhD, of Imperial College London, and colleagues.

To better assess the rates of recurrent CHD by sex, the researchers reviewed data from 770,408 women and 700,477 men younger than 65 years with commercial health insurance or aged 66 years and older with Medicare who were hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017. The patients were followed for 1 year for recurrent MIs, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.

In the study of recurrent heart disease, the rate of recurrent heart attacks per 1,000 person-years declined from 89.2 to 72.3 in women and from 94.2 to 81.3 in men. In addition, the rate of recurrent heart disease events (defined as either an MI or an artery-opening procedure), dropped per 1,000 person-years from 166.3 to 133.3 in women and from 198.1 to 176.8 in men. The reduction was significantly greater among women compared with men (P < .001 for both recurrent MIs and recurrent CHD events) and the differences by sex were consistent throughout the study period.

However, no significant difference occurred in recurrent MI rates among younger women (aged 21-54 years), or men aged 55-79 years, the researchers noted.

Heart failure rates per 1,000 person-years decreased from 177.4 to 158.1 in women and from 162.9 to 156.1 in men during the study period, and all-cause mortality decreased per 1,000 person-years from 403.2 to 389.5 for women and from 436.1 to 417.9 in men.

Potential contributing factors to the reductions in rates of recurrent events after a heart attack may include improved acute cardiac procedures, in-hospital therapy, and secondary prevention, the researchers noted. In addition, “changes in the type and definition of MI may also have contributed to the decline in recurrent events,” they said. “Also, the introduction and increasing sensitivity of cardiac biomarkers assays, especially cardiac troponin, may have contributed to an increased detection of less severe MIs over time, which, in turn, could have resulted in artifactual reductions in the consequences of MI,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of claims data, lack of information on the severity of heart attacks, and inability to analyze population subgroups, but the results were strengthened by the use of a large, multicultural database.

Despite the decline seen in this study, overall rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality remain high, the researchers said, and the results “highlight the need for interventions to ensure men and women receive guideline recommended treatment to lower the risk for recurrent MI, recurrent CHD, heart failure, and mortality after hospital discharge for MI,” they concluded.

Many women don’t recognize heart disease risk

Although women showed a greater reduction in recurrent MI and recurrent CHD events compared with men, the awareness of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women has declined, according to a special report from the American Heart Association.

Based on survey data from 2009, 65% of women were aware that heart disease was their leading cause of death (LCOD); by 2019 the number dropped to 44%. The 10-year decline occurred across all races and ethnicities, as well as ages, with the exception of women aged 65 years and older.

The American Heart Association has conducted national surveys since 1997 to monitor awareness of cardiovascular disease among U.S. women. Data from earlier surveys showed increased awareness of heart disease as LCOD and increased awareness of heart attack symptoms between 1997 and 2012, wrote Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, chair of the writing group for the statement, and colleagues.

Heart disease needs new PR plan

The study of heart disease risk awareness among women was an important update to understand how well the message about women’s risk is getting out, said Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, in an interview.

The issue remains that heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women, and the decrease in awareness “means we need to amplify our message,” she said.

“I also question whether the symbol of the red dress [for women’s heart disease] is working, and it seems that now is the time to change this symbol,” she emphasized. “I wear a red dress pin on my lab coat and every day someone asks what it means, and no one recognizes it,” she said. “I think ‘Go Red for Women’ is great and part of our outward campaign, but our symbol needs to change to increase the connection and awareness in women,” she said.

What might be a better symbol? Simply, a heart, said Dr. Gulati. But “we need to study whatever is next to really connect with women and make them understand their risk for heart disease,” she added.

“Additionally, we really need to get to minority women,” she said. “We are lagging there, and the survey was conducted in English so it missed many people,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati said she was shocked at how much awareness of heart disease risk has fallen among women, even in those with risk factors such as hypertension, who were 30% less likely to be aware that heart disease remains their leading cause of death. “Younger women as well as very unaware; what this means to me is that our public education efforts need to be amplified,” Dr. Gulati said.

Barriers to educating women about heart disease risk include language and access to affordable screening, Dr. Gulati emphasized. “We need to ensure screening for heart disease is always included as a covered cost for a preventive service,” she said.

“Research needs to be done to identify what works toward educating women about cardiac risk. We need to identify a marketing tool to increase awareness in women. It might be something different for one race versus another,” Dr. Gulati said. “Our messaging needs to improve, but how we improve it needs more than just health care professionals,” she said.
 

Focus on prevention to reduce MI recurrence

“The study regarding recurrent events after MI is important because we really don’t know much about recurrent coronary heart disease after a MI over time,” said Dr. Gulati. These data can be helpful in managing surviving patients and understanding future risk, she said. “But I was surprised to see fewer recurrent events in women, as women still have more heart failure than men even if it has declined with time,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati questioned several aspects of the study and highlighted some of the limitations. “These are claims data, so do they accurately reflect the U.S. population?” she asked. “Remember, this is a study of people who survived a heart attack; those who didn’t survive aren’t included, and that group is more likely to be women, especially women younger than 55 years,” she said.

In addition, Dr. Gulati noted the lack of data on type of heart attack and on treatment adherence or referral to cardiac rehab, as well as lack of data on long-term medication adherence or follow-up care.

Prevention is the key take-home message from both studies, “whether we are talking primary prevention for the heart disease awareness study or secondary prevention for the recurrent heart attack study,” Dr. Gulati said.

The recurrent heart disease study was supported in part by Amgen and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Lead author Dr. Peters disclosed support from a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship with no financial conflicts. Dr. Cushman had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors on the writing committee disclosed relationships with companies including Amarin and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gulati had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Peters SAE et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047065; Cushman M et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000907.

The number of heart attack survivors in the United States who experienced repeat attacks within a year decreased between 2008 and 2017, especially among women, yet women’s awareness of their risk of death from heart disease also decreased, according to data from a pair of studies published in Circulation.

Recurrent MI rates drop, but not enough

Although the overall morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States has been on the decline for decades, CHD remains the leading cause of death and disability in both sexes, wrote Sanne A.E. Peters, PhD, of Imperial College London, and colleagues.

To better assess the rates of recurrent CHD by sex, the researchers reviewed data from 770,408 women and 700,477 men younger than 65 years with commercial health insurance or aged 66 years and older with Medicare who were hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017. The patients were followed for 1 year for recurrent MIs, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.

In the study of recurrent heart disease, the rate of recurrent heart attacks per 1,000 person-years declined from 89.2 to 72.3 in women and from 94.2 to 81.3 in men. In addition, the rate of recurrent heart disease events (defined as either an MI or an artery-opening procedure), dropped per 1,000 person-years from 166.3 to 133.3 in women and from 198.1 to 176.8 in men. The reduction was significantly greater among women compared with men (P < .001 for both recurrent MIs and recurrent CHD events) and the differences by sex were consistent throughout the study period.

However, no significant difference occurred in recurrent MI rates among younger women (aged 21-54 years), or men aged 55-79 years, the researchers noted.

Heart failure rates per 1,000 person-years decreased from 177.4 to 158.1 in women and from 162.9 to 156.1 in men during the study period, and all-cause mortality decreased per 1,000 person-years from 403.2 to 389.5 for women and from 436.1 to 417.9 in men.

Potential contributing factors to the reductions in rates of recurrent events after a heart attack may include improved acute cardiac procedures, in-hospital therapy, and secondary prevention, the researchers noted. In addition, “changes in the type and definition of MI may also have contributed to the decline in recurrent events,” they said. “Also, the introduction and increasing sensitivity of cardiac biomarkers assays, especially cardiac troponin, may have contributed to an increased detection of less severe MIs over time, which, in turn, could have resulted in artifactual reductions in the consequences of MI,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of claims data, lack of information on the severity of heart attacks, and inability to analyze population subgroups, but the results were strengthened by the use of a large, multicultural database.

Despite the decline seen in this study, overall rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality remain high, the researchers said, and the results “highlight the need for interventions to ensure men and women receive guideline recommended treatment to lower the risk for recurrent MI, recurrent CHD, heart failure, and mortality after hospital discharge for MI,” they concluded.

Many women don’t recognize heart disease risk

Although women showed a greater reduction in recurrent MI and recurrent CHD events compared with men, the awareness of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women has declined, according to a special report from the American Heart Association.

Based on survey data from 2009, 65% of women were aware that heart disease was their leading cause of death (LCOD); by 2019 the number dropped to 44%. The 10-year decline occurred across all races and ethnicities, as well as ages, with the exception of women aged 65 years and older.

The American Heart Association has conducted national surveys since 1997 to monitor awareness of cardiovascular disease among U.S. women. Data from earlier surveys showed increased awareness of heart disease as LCOD and increased awareness of heart attack symptoms between 1997 and 2012, wrote Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, chair of the writing group for the statement, and colleagues.

Heart disease needs new PR plan

The study of heart disease risk awareness among women was an important update to understand how well the message about women’s risk is getting out, said Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, in an interview.

The issue remains that heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women, and the decrease in awareness “means we need to amplify our message,” she said.

“I also question whether the symbol of the red dress [for women’s heart disease] is working, and it seems that now is the time to change this symbol,” she emphasized. “I wear a red dress pin on my lab coat and every day someone asks what it means, and no one recognizes it,” she said. “I think ‘Go Red for Women’ is great and part of our outward campaign, but our symbol needs to change to increase the connection and awareness in women,” she said.

What might be a better symbol? Simply, a heart, said Dr. Gulati. But “we need to study whatever is next to really connect with women and make them understand their risk for heart disease,” she added.

“Additionally, we really need to get to minority women,” she said. “We are lagging there, and the survey was conducted in English so it missed many people,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati said she was shocked at how much awareness of heart disease risk has fallen among women, even in those with risk factors such as hypertension, who were 30% less likely to be aware that heart disease remains their leading cause of death. “Younger women as well as very unaware; what this means to me is that our public education efforts need to be amplified,” Dr. Gulati said.

Barriers to educating women about heart disease risk include language and access to affordable screening, Dr. Gulati emphasized. “We need to ensure screening for heart disease is always included as a covered cost for a preventive service,” she said.

“Research needs to be done to identify what works toward educating women about cardiac risk. We need to identify a marketing tool to increase awareness in women. It might be something different for one race versus another,” Dr. Gulati said. “Our messaging needs to improve, but how we improve it needs more than just health care professionals,” she said.
 

Focus on prevention to reduce MI recurrence

“The study regarding recurrent events after MI is important because we really don’t know much about recurrent coronary heart disease after a MI over time,” said Dr. Gulati. These data can be helpful in managing surviving patients and understanding future risk, she said. “But I was surprised to see fewer recurrent events in women, as women still have more heart failure than men even if it has declined with time,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati questioned several aspects of the study and highlighted some of the limitations. “These are claims data, so do they accurately reflect the U.S. population?” she asked. “Remember, this is a study of people who survived a heart attack; those who didn’t survive aren’t included, and that group is more likely to be women, especially women younger than 55 years,” she said.

In addition, Dr. Gulati noted the lack of data on type of heart attack and on treatment adherence or referral to cardiac rehab, as well as lack of data on long-term medication adherence or follow-up care.

Prevention is the key take-home message from both studies, “whether we are talking primary prevention for the heart disease awareness study or secondary prevention for the recurrent heart attack study,” Dr. Gulati said.

The recurrent heart disease study was supported in part by Amgen and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Lead author Dr. Peters disclosed support from a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship with no financial conflicts. Dr. Cushman had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors on the writing committee disclosed relationships with companies including Amarin and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gulati had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Peters SAE et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047065; Cushman M et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000907.

The number of heart attack survivors in the United States who experienced repeat attacks within a year decreased between 2008 and 2017, especially among women, yet women’s awareness of their risk of death from heart disease also decreased, according to data from a pair of studies published in Circulation.

Recurrent MI rates drop, but not enough

Although the overall morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States has been on the decline for decades, CHD remains the leading cause of death and disability in both sexes, wrote Sanne A.E. Peters, PhD, of Imperial College London, and colleagues.

To better assess the rates of recurrent CHD by sex, the researchers reviewed data from 770,408 women and 700,477 men younger than 65 years with commercial health insurance or aged 66 years and older with Medicare who were hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017. The patients were followed for 1 year for recurrent MIs, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.

In the study of recurrent heart disease, the rate of recurrent heart attacks per 1,000 person-years declined from 89.2 to 72.3 in women and from 94.2 to 81.3 in men. In addition, the rate of recurrent heart disease events (defined as either an MI or an artery-opening procedure), dropped per 1,000 person-years from 166.3 to 133.3 in women and from 198.1 to 176.8 in men. The reduction was significantly greater among women compared with men (P < .001 for both recurrent MIs and recurrent CHD events) and the differences by sex were consistent throughout the study period.

However, no significant difference occurred in recurrent MI rates among younger women (aged 21-54 years), or men aged 55-79 years, the researchers noted.

Heart failure rates per 1,000 person-years decreased from 177.4 to 158.1 in women and from 162.9 to 156.1 in men during the study period, and all-cause mortality decreased per 1,000 person-years from 403.2 to 389.5 for women and from 436.1 to 417.9 in men.

Potential contributing factors to the reductions in rates of recurrent events after a heart attack may include improved acute cardiac procedures, in-hospital therapy, and secondary prevention, the researchers noted. In addition, “changes in the type and definition of MI may also have contributed to the decline in recurrent events,” they said. “Also, the introduction and increasing sensitivity of cardiac biomarkers assays, especially cardiac troponin, may have contributed to an increased detection of less severe MIs over time, which, in turn, could have resulted in artifactual reductions in the consequences of MI,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of claims data, lack of information on the severity of heart attacks, and inability to analyze population subgroups, but the results were strengthened by the use of a large, multicultural database.

Despite the decline seen in this study, overall rates of recurrent MI, recurrent CHD events, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality remain high, the researchers said, and the results “highlight the need for interventions to ensure men and women receive guideline recommended treatment to lower the risk for recurrent MI, recurrent CHD, heart failure, and mortality after hospital discharge for MI,” they concluded.

Many women don’t recognize heart disease risk

Although women showed a greater reduction in recurrent MI and recurrent CHD events compared with men, the awareness of heart disease as the No. 1 killer of women has declined, according to a special report from the American Heart Association.

Based on survey data from 2009, 65% of women were aware that heart disease was their leading cause of death (LCOD); by 2019 the number dropped to 44%. The 10-year decline occurred across all races and ethnicities, as well as ages, with the exception of women aged 65 years and older.

The American Heart Association has conducted national surveys since 1997 to monitor awareness of cardiovascular disease among U.S. women. Data from earlier surveys showed increased awareness of heart disease as LCOD and increased awareness of heart attack symptoms between 1997 and 2012, wrote Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, chair of the writing group for the statement, and colleagues.

Heart disease needs new PR plan

The study of heart disease risk awareness among women was an important update to understand how well the message about women’s risk is getting out, said Martha Gulati, MD, president-elect of the American Society of Preventive Cardiology, in an interview.

The issue remains that heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women, and the decrease in awareness “means we need to amplify our message,” she said.

“I also question whether the symbol of the red dress [for women’s heart disease] is working, and it seems that now is the time to change this symbol,” she emphasized. “I wear a red dress pin on my lab coat and every day someone asks what it means, and no one recognizes it,” she said. “I think ‘Go Red for Women’ is great and part of our outward campaign, but our symbol needs to change to increase the connection and awareness in women,” she said.

What might be a better symbol? Simply, a heart, said Dr. Gulati. But “we need to study whatever is next to really connect with women and make them understand their risk for heart disease,” she added.

“Additionally, we really need to get to minority women,” she said. “We are lagging there, and the survey was conducted in English so it missed many people,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati said she was shocked at how much awareness of heart disease risk has fallen among women, even in those with risk factors such as hypertension, who were 30% less likely to be aware that heart disease remains their leading cause of death. “Younger women as well as very unaware; what this means to me is that our public education efforts need to be amplified,” Dr. Gulati said.

Barriers to educating women about heart disease risk include language and access to affordable screening, Dr. Gulati emphasized. “We need to ensure screening for heart disease is always included as a covered cost for a preventive service,” she said.

“Research needs to be done to identify what works toward educating women about cardiac risk. We need to identify a marketing tool to increase awareness in women. It might be something different for one race versus another,” Dr. Gulati said. “Our messaging needs to improve, but how we improve it needs more than just health care professionals,” she said.
 

Focus on prevention to reduce MI recurrence

“The study regarding recurrent events after MI is important because we really don’t know much about recurrent coronary heart disease after a MI over time,” said Dr. Gulati. These data can be helpful in managing surviving patients and understanding future risk, she said. “But I was surprised to see fewer recurrent events in women, as women still have more heart failure than men even if it has declined with time,” she noted.

Dr. Gulati questioned several aspects of the study and highlighted some of the limitations. “These are claims data, so do they accurately reflect the U.S. population?” she asked. “Remember, this is a study of people who survived a heart attack; those who didn’t survive aren’t included, and that group is more likely to be women, especially women younger than 55 years,” she said.

In addition, Dr. Gulati noted the lack of data on type of heart attack and on treatment adherence or referral to cardiac rehab, as well as lack of data on long-term medication adherence or follow-up care.

Prevention is the key take-home message from both studies, “whether we are talking primary prevention for the heart disease awareness study or secondary prevention for the recurrent heart attack study,” Dr. Gulati said.

The recurrent heart disease study was supported in part by Amgen and the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Lead author Dr. Peters disclosed support from a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship with no financial conflicts. Dr. Cushman had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors on the writing committee disclosed relationships with companies including Amarin and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gulati had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

SOURCE: Peters SAE et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047065; Cushman M et al. Circulation. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000907.

I remember New Year’s Day 2020, full of hope and wonderment of what the year would bring. I was coming into the Society of Hospital Medicine as the incoming President, taking the 2020 reins in the organization’s 20th year. It would be a year of transitioning to a new CEO, reinvigorating our membership engagement efforts, and renewing a strategic plan for forward progress into the next decade. It would be a year chock full of travel, speaking engagements, and meetings with thousands of hospitalists around the globe.

What I didn’t know is that we would soon face the grim reality that the long-voiced concern of infectious disease experts and epidemiologists would come true. That our colleagues and friends and families would be infected, hospitalized, and die from this new disease, for which there were no good, effective treatments. That our ability to come together as a nation to implement basic infection control and epidemiologic practices would be fractured, uncoordinated, and ineffective. That within 6 months of the first case on U.S. soil, we would witness 5,270,000 people being infected from the disease, and 167,000 dying from it. And that the stunning toll of the disease would ripple into every nook and cranny of our society, from the economy to the fabric of our families and to the mental and physical health of all of our citizens.

However, what I couldn’t have known on this past New Year’s Day is how incredibly resilient and innovative our hospital medicine society and community would be to not only endure this new way of working and living, but also to find ways to improve upon how we care for all patients, despite COVID-19. What I couldn’t have known is how hospitalists would pivot to new arenas of care settings, including the EDs, ICUs, “COVID units,” and telehealth – flawlessly and seamlessly filling care gaps that would otherwise be catastrophically unfilled.

What I couldn’t have known is how we would be willing to come back into work, day after day, to care for our patients, despite the risks to ourselves and our families. What I couldn’t have known is how hospitalists would come together as a community to network and share knowledge in unprecedented ways, both humbly and proactively – knowing that we would not have all the answers but that we probably had better answers than most. What I couldn’t have known is that the SHM staff would pivot our entire SHM team away from previous “staple” offerings (e.g., live meetings) to virtual learning and network opportunities, which would be attended at rates higher than ever seen before, including live webinars, HMX exchanges, and e-learnings. What I couldn’t have known is that we would figure out, in a matter of weeks, what treatments were and were not effective for our patients and get those treatments to them despite the difficulties. And what I couldn’t have known is how much prouder I would be, more than ever before, to tell people: “I am a hospitalist.”

I took my son to the dentist recently, and when we were just about to leave, the dentist asked: “What do you do for a living?” and I stated: “I am a hospitalist.” He slowly breathed in and replied: “Oh … wow … you have really seen things …” Yes, we have.

So, is 2020 shaping up as expected? Absolutely not! But I am more inspired, humbled, and motivated than ever to proudly serve SHM with more energy and enthusiasm than I would have dreamed on New Year’s Day. And even if we can’t see each other in person (as we so naively planned), through virtual meetings (national, regional, and chapter), webinars, social media, and other listening modes, we will still be able to connect as a community and share ideas and issues as we muddle through the remainder of 2020 and beyond. We need each other more than ever before, and I am so proud to be a part of this SHM family.

Dr. Scheurer is chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. She is president of SHM.

I remember New Year’s Day 2020, full of hope and wonderment of what the year would bring. I was coming into the Society of Hospital Medicine as the incoming President, taking the 2020 reins in the organization’s 20th year. It would be a year of transitioning to a new CEO, reinvigorating our membership engagement efforts, and renewing a strategic plan for forward progress into the next decade. It would be a year chock full of travel, speaking engagements, and meetings with thousands of hospitalists around the globe.

What I didn’t know is that we would soon face the grim reality that the long-voiced concern of infectious disease experts and epidemiologists would come true. That our colleagues and friends and families would be infected, hospitalized, and die from this new disease, for which there were no good, effective treatments. That our ability to come together as a nation to implement basic infection control and epidemiologic practices would be fractured, uncoordinated, and ineffective. That within 6 months of the first case on U.S. soil, we would witness 5,270,000 people being infected from the disease, and 167,000 dying from it. And that the stunning toll of the disease would ripple into every nook and cranny of our society, from the economy to the fabric of our families and to the mental and physical health of all of our citizens.

However, what I couldn’t have known on this past New Year’s Day is how incredibly resilient and innovative our hospital medicine society and community would be to not only endure this new way of working and living, but also to find ways to improve upon how we care for all patients, despite COVID-19. What I couldn’t have known is how hospitalists would pivot to new arenas of care settings, including the EDs, ICUs, “COVID units,” and telehealth – flawlessly and seamlessly filling care gaps that would otherwise be catastrophically unfilled.

What I couldn’t have known is how we would be willing to come back into work, day after day, to care for our patients, despite the risks to ourselves and our families. What I couldn’t have known is how hospitalists would come together as a community to network and share knowledge in unprecedented ways, both humbly and proactively – knowing that we would not have all the answers but that we probably had better answers than most. What I couldn’t have known is that the SHM staff would pivot our entire SHM team away from previous “staple” offerings (e.g., live meetings) to virtual learning and network opportunities, which would be attended at rates higher than ever seen before, including live webinars, HMX exchanges, and e-learnings. What I couldn’t have known is that we would figure out, in a matter of weeks, what treatments were and were not effective for our patients and get those treatments to them despite the difficulties. And what I couldn’t have known is how much prouder I would be, more than ever before, to tell people: “I am a hospitalist.”

I took my son to the dentist recently, and when we were just about to leave, the dentist asked: “What do you do for a living?” and I stated: “I am a hospitalist.” He slowly breathed in and replied: “Oh … wow … you have really seen things …” Yes, we have.

So, is 2020 shaping up as expected? Absolutely not! But I am more inspired, humbled, and motivated than ever to proudly serve SHM with more energy and enthusiasm than I would have dreamed on New Year’s Day. And even if we can’t see each other in person (as we so naively planned), through virtual meetings (national, regional, and chapter), webinars, social media, and other listening modes, we will still be able to connect as a community and share ideas and issues as we muddle through the remainder of 2020 and beyond. We need each other more than ever before, and I am so proud to be a part of this SHM family.

Dr. Scheurer is chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. She is president of SHM.

I remember New Year’s Day 2020, full of hope and wonderment of what the year would bring. I was coming into the Society of Hospital Medicine as the incoming President, taking the 2020 reins in the organization’s 20th year. It would be a year of transitioning to a new CEO, reinvigorating our membership engagement efforts, and renewing a strategic plan for forward progress into the next decade. It would be a year chock full of travel, speaking engagements, and meetings with thousands of hospitalists around the globe.

What I didn’t know is that we would soon face the grim reality that the long-voiced concern of infectious disease experts and epidemiologists would come true. That our colleagues and friends and families would be infected, hospitalized, and die from this new disease, for which there were no good, effective treatments. That our ability to come together as a nation to implement basic infection control and epidemiologic practices would be fractured, uncoordinated, and ineffective. That within 6 months of the first case on U.S. soil, we would witness 5,270,000 people being infected from the disease, and 167,000 dying from it. And that the stunning toll of the disease would ripple into every nook and cranny of our society, from the economy to the fabric of our families and to the mental and physical health of all of our citizens.

However, what I couldn’t have known on this past New Year’s Day is how incredibly resilient and innovative our hospital medicine society and community would be to not only endure this new way of working and living, but also to find ways to improve upon how we care for all patients, despite COVID-19. What I couldn’t have known is how hospitalists would pivot to new arenas of care settings, including the EDs, ICUs, “COVID units,” and telehealth – flawlessly and seamlessly filling care gaps that would otherwise be catastrophically unfilled.

What I couldn’t have known is how we would be willing to come back into work, day after day, to care for our patients, despite the risks to ourselves and our families. What I couldn’t have known is how hospitalists would come together as a community to network and share knowledge in unprecedented ways, both humbly and proactively – knowing that we would not have all the answers but that we probably had better answers than most. What I couldn’t have known is that the SHM staff would pivot our entire SHM team away from previous “staple” offerings (e.g., live meetings) to virtual learning and network opportunities, which would be attended at rates higher than ever seen before, including live webinars, HMX exchanges, and e-learnings. What I couldn’t have known is that we would figure out, in a matter of weeks, what treatments were and were not effective for our patients and get those treatments to them despite the difficulties. And what I couldn’t have known is how much prouder I would be, more than ever before, to tell people: “I am a hospitalist.”

I took my son to the dentist recently, and when we were just about to leave, the dentist asked: “What do you do for a living?” and I stated: “I am a hospitalist.” He slowly breathed in and replied: “Oh … wow … you have really seen things …” Yes, we have.

So, is 2020 shaping up as expected? Absolutely not! But I am more inspired, humbled, and motivated than ever to proudly serve SHM with more energy and enthusiasm than I would have dreamed on New Year’s Day. And even if we can’t see each other in person (as we so naively planned), through virtual meetings (national, regional, and chapter), webinars, social media, and other listening modes, we will still be able to connect as a community and share ideas and issues as we muddle through the remainder of 2020 and beyond. We need each other more than ever before, and I am so proud to be a part of this SHM family.

Dr. Scheurer is chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. She is president of SHM.

In the opinion of Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, recent advances in the medical treatment of acne make it “an exciting time” for treating patients with the condition.

During the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium, he highlighted the following new acne treatment options:

• Trifarotene cream 0.005% (Aklief). This marks the first new retinoid indicated for acne in several decades. It is indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris in patients 9 years of age and older and has been studied in acne of the face, chest, and back. “It’s nice to have in our armamentarium,” he said.
• Tazarotene lotion 0.045% (Arazlo). The 0.1% formulation of tazarotene is commonly used for acne, but it can cause skin irritation, dryness, and erythema. The new 0.045% formulation was developed in a three-dimensional mesh matrix, with ingredients from an oil-in-water emulsion. “This allows for graduated dosing on the skin without as much irritation,” said Dr. Eichenfield, who is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
• Minocycline 4% topical foam (Amzeeq). This marks the first and only topical minocycline prescription treatment for acne. “Its hydrophobic composition allows for stable and efficient delivery of inherently unstable pharmaceutical ingredients,” he said. “There is no evidence of photosensitivity as you’d expect from a minocycline-based product, and there are low systemic levels compared with oral minocycline.”
• Clascoterone cream 1% (Winlevi). This first-in-class topical androgen receptor inhibitor has been approved for the treatment of acne in patients 12 years and older. It competes with dihydrotestosterone and selectively targets androgen receptors in sebocytes and hair papilla cells. “It has been studied on the face and trunk and has been shown to inhibit sebum production, reduce secretion of inflammatory cytokines, and inhibit inflammatory pathways,” said Dr. Eichenfield, who is also professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.
• From a systemic standpoint, sarecycline, a new tetracycline class antibiotic, has been approved for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of nonnodular moderate to severe acne vulgaris in patients 9 years and older. The once-daily drug can be taken with or without food in a weight-based dose. “This medicine appears to have a narrow spectrum of antibacterial activity compared with other tetracyclines,” he said. “It may have less of a negative effect on gut microbiome than traditional oral antibiotics.”

As for integrating these new options into existing clinical practice, Dr. Eichenfield predicts that the general approach to acne treatment will remain the same. “We’ll have to wait to see where the topical androgens fit into the treatment algorithms,” he said. “Our goal is to minimize scarring, minimize disease, and to modulate the disease course.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has been an investigator and/or consultant for Almirall, Cassiopea, Dermata, Foamix, Galderma, L’Oreal, and Ortho Dermatologics.

[email protected]

In the opinion of Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, recent advances in the medical treatment of acne make it “an exciting time” for treating patients with the condition.

During the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium, he highlighted the following new acne treatment options:

• Trifarotene cream 0.005% (Aklief). This marks the first new retinoid indicated for acne in several decades. It is indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris in patients 9 years of age and older and has been studied in acne of the face, chest, and back. “It’s nice to have in our armamentarium,” he said.
• Tazarotene lotion 0.045% (Arazlo). The 0.1% formulation of tazarotene is commonly used for acne, but it can cause skin irritation, dryness, and erythema. The new 0.045% formulation was developed in a three-dimensional mesh matrix, with ingredients from an oil-in-water emulsion. “This allows for graduated dosing on the skin without as much irritation,” said Dr. Eichenfield, who is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
• Minocycline 4% topical foam (Amzeeq). This marks the first and only topical minocycline prescription treatment for acne. “Its hydrophobic composition allows for stable and efficient delivery of inherently unstable pharmaceutical ingredients,” he said. “There is no evidence of photosensitivity as you’d expect from a minocycline-based product, and there are low systemic levels compared with oral minocycline.”
• Clascoterone cream 1% (Winlevi). This first-in-class topical androgen receptor inhibitor has been approved for the treatment of acne in patients 12 years and older. It competes with dihydrotestosterone and selectively targets androgen receptors in sebocytes and hair papilla cells. “It has been studied on the face and trunk and has been shown to inhibit sebum production, reduce secretion of inflammatory cytokines, and inhibit inflammatory pathways,” said Dr. Eichenfield, who is also professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.
• From a systemic standpoint, sarecycline, a new tetracycline class antibiotic, has been approved for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of nonnodular moderate to severe acne vulgaris in patients 9 years and older. The once-daily drug can be taken with or without food in a weight-based dose. “This medicine appears to have a narrow spectrum of antibacterial activity compared with other tetracyclines,” he said. “It may have less of a negative effect on gut microbiome than traditional oral antibiotics.”

As for integrating these new options into existing clinical practice, Dr. Eichenfield predicts that the general approach to acne treatment will remain the same. “We’ll have to wait to see where the topical androgens fit into the treatment algorithms,” he said. “Our goal is to minimize scarring, minimize disease, and to modulate the disease course.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has been an investigator and/or consultant for Almirall, Cassiopea, Dermata, Foamix, Galderma, L’Oreal, and Ortho Dermatologics.

[email protected]

In the opinion of Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, recent advances in the medical treatment of acne make it “an exciting time” for treating patients with the condition.

During the virtual annual Masters of Aesthetics Symposium, he highlighted the following new acne treatment options:

• Trifarotene cream 0.005% (Aklief). This marks the first new retinoid indicated for acne in several decades. It is indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris in patients 9 years of age and older and has been studied in acne of the face, chest, and back. “It’s nice to have in our armamentarium,” he said.
• Tazarotene lotion 0.045% (Arazlo). The 0.1% formulation of tazarotene is commonly used for acne, but it can cause skin irritation, dryness, and erythema. The new 0.045% formulation was developed in a three-dimensional mesh matrix, with ingredients from an oil-in-water emulsion. “This allows for graduated dosing on the skin without as much irritation,” said Dr. Eichenfield, who is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
• Minocycline 4% topical foam (Amzeeq). This marks the first and only topical minocycline prescription treatment for acne. “Its hydrophobic composition allows for stable and efficient delivery of inherently unstable pharmaceutical ingredients,” he said. “There is no evidence of photosensitivity as you’d expect from a minocycline-based product, and there are low systemic levels compared with oral minocycline.”
• Clascoterone cream 1% (Winlevi). This first-in-class topical androgen receptor inhibitor has been approved for the treatment of acne in patients 12 years and older. It competes with dihydrotestosterone and selectively targets androgen receptors in sebocytes and hair papilla cells. “It has been studied on the face and trunk and has been shown to inhibit sebum production, reduce secretion of inflammatory cytokines, and inhibit inflammatory pathways,” said Dr. Eichenfield, who is also professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.
• From a systemic standpoint, sarecycline, a new tetracycline class antibiotic, has been approved for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of nonnodular moderate to severe acne vulgaris in patients 9 years and older. The once-daily drug can be taken with or without food in a weight-based dose. “This medicine appears to have a narrow spectrum of antibacterial activity compared with other tetracyclines,” he said. “It may have less of a negative effect on gut microbiome than traditional oral antibiotics.”

As for integrating these new options into existing clinical practice, Dr. Eichenfield predicts that the general approach to acne treatment will remain the same. “We’ll have to wait to see where the topical androgens fit into the treatment algorithms,” he said. “Our goal is to minimize scarring, minimize disease, and to modulate the disease course.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has been an investigator and/or consultant for Almirall, Cassiopea, Dermata, Foamix, Galderma, L’Oreal, and Ortho Dermatologics.

[email protected]

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are injectable incretin hormones approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). They are highly efficacious agents with hemoglobin A_1c (Hb_A1c) reduction potential of approximately 0.8 to 1.6% and mechanisms of action that result in an average weight loss of 1 to 3 kg.^1,2 Published in 2016, The LEADER (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results) trial established cardiovascular benefits associated with liraglutide, making it a preferred GLP-1 RA.³

In addition to HbA_1c reduction, weight loss, and cardiovascular benefits, liraglutide also has shown insulin-sparing effects when used in combination with insulin. A trial by Lane and colleagues revealed a 34% decrease in total daily insulin dose 6 months after the addition of liraglutide to insulin in patients with T2DM receiving > 100 units of insulin daily.⁴ When used in combination with basal insulin analogues (glargine or detemir) similar findings also were shown.⁵

The Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, selected liraglutide as its preferred GLP-1 RA because of its favorable glycemic and cardiovascular outcomes. In addition, as part of a cost-savings initiative for fiscal year 2018, liraglutide 6 mg/mL injection 2-count pen packs was selected as the preferred liraglutide product. Before the availability of the 2-count pen packs, veterans previously received 3-count pen packs, which allowed for up to a 30-day supply of liraglutide 1.8 mg daily dosing. However, the cost-efficient 2-count pen packs allow for up to 1.2 mg daily dose of liraglutide for a 30-day supply. Due to these changes, veterans at MEDVAMC were converted from liraglutide 1.8 mg daily to 1.2 mg daily between May 2018 and August 2018.

The primary objective of this study was to assess sustained glycemic control and cost savings that resulted from this change. The secondary objectives were to assess sustained weight loss and adverse effects (AEs).

Methods

This study was approved by the MEDVAMC Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs committee. In this single-center study, a retrospective chart review was conducted on veterans with T2DM who underwent a liraglutide dose reduction from 1.8 mg daily to 1.2 mg daily between May 2018 and August 2018. Patients were included if they were aged ≥ 18 years with an active prescription for liraglutide 1.8 mg daily and insulin (with or without other antihyperglycemic agents) at the time of conversion. In addition, patients must have had ≥ 1 HbA_1c reading within 3 months of the dose conversion and a follow-up HbA1c within 6 months after the dose conversion. To assess the primary objective of glycemic control that resulted from the liraglutide dose reduction, mean change of HbA1c at time of dose conversion was compared with mean HbA_1c 6 months postconversion. To assess savings, cost information was obtained from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Drug Price Database and monthly and annual costs of liraglutide 6 mg/mL injection 2-count pen pack were compared with that of the 3-count pen pack. A chart review of patients’ electronic health records assessed secondary outcomes. The VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) was used to collect patient data.

Patients and Characteristics

The following patient information was obtained from patients’ records: age, sex, race/ethnicity, diabetic medications (at time of conversion and 6 months after conversion), cardiovascular history and risk factors (hypertension, coronary artery disease, heart failure, arrhythmias, peripheral artery disease, obesity, etc), prescriber type (physician, nurse practitioner/physician assistant, pharmacist, etc), weight (at baseline, at time of conversion, and 6 months after conversion), HbA_1c (at baseline, at time of conversion, and 6 months after conversion), average blood glucose (at baseline, at time of conversion, and 6 months after conversion), insulin dose (at time of conversion and 6 months after conversion), and reported AEs.

Statistical Analysis

The 2-tailed, paired t test was used to assess changes in HbA_1c, average blood glucose, and body weight. Demographic data and other outcomes were assessed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Prior to the dose reduction, 312 veterans had active prescriptions for liraglutide 1.8 mg daily. Due to lack of glycemic control benefit (failing to achieve a HbA_1c reduction of at least 0.5% after at least 3 to 6 months following initiation of therapy) or nonadherence (assessed by medication refill history), 126 veterans did not meet the criteria for the dose conversion. As a result, liraglutide was discontinued, and veterans were sent patient letter notifications and health care providers were notified via medication review notes in the patient electronic health record “to make medication adjustments if warranted. A total of 186 veterans underwent a liraglutide dose reduction between May and August 2018. Thirty-two veterans were without active insulin prescriptions, 53 were without HbA1c results, and 4 veterans died; resulting in 97 veterans who were included in the study (Figure 1).

Most of the patients included in the study were male (90.7%) and White (63.9%) with an average (SD) age of 65.9 years (7.9) and a mean (SD) HbA1c at baseline of 8.4% (1.2). About 56.7% received concurrent T2DM treatment with metformin, and 8.3% received concurrent treatment with empagliflozin. The most common cardiovascular disease/risk factors included hypertension (93.8%), hyperlipidemia (85.6%), and obesity (85.6%) (Table 1).

Glycemic Control and Weight Loss

At the time of conversion, the average (SD) HbA_1c was 8.2% (1.4) and increased to an average (SD) of 8.7% (1.8) (P =.0005) 6 months after the dose reduction (Table 2). The average (SD) body weight was 116.2 kg (23.2) at time of conversion and increased to 116.5 (24.6) 6 months following the dose reduction; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .8).

As a result of the HbA_1c change, 41.2% of veterans underwent an insulin dose increase with dose increase of 5 to 200 units of total daily insulin during the 6-month period. Antihyperglycemic regimen remained unchanged for 40.2% of veterans, while additional glucose lowering agents were initiated in 6 veterans. Medications initiated included empagliflozin in 4 veterans and saxagliptin in 2 veterans.

HbA_1c reduction was noted in 33% of veterans (Figure 2) mostly due to improved diet and exercise habits. A majority of veterans, 62%, experienced an increase in HbA1c, whereas 5.2% of veterans maintained the same HbA_1c. Of 60 veterans with HbA_1c increases, 15 had an increase between 0.1% and 0.5%, another 15 with an increase between 0.5 to 0.9%, and half had HbA1c increases of at least 1% with a maximum increase of 5.1% (Figure 3).

Cost Savings

Cost information was obtained from the VA Drug Price Database. The estimated monthly cost savings per patient associated with the conversion from 3-count to 2-count injection pen packs of liraglutide 6 mg/mL was $103.46. With 186 veterans converted to the 2-count pen packs, MEDVAMC saved $115,461.36 in a 6-month period. The estimated annualized cost savings was estimated to be about $231,000 (Figure 4).

Adverse Effects During the 6-month period following the dose conversion, no major AEs associated with liraglutide were documented. Documented AEs included 3 cases of diarrhea, resulting in the discontinuation of metformin. Metformin also was discontinued in a veteran with worsened renal function and eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2.

Discussion

According to previous clinical trials, when used in combination with insulin, 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg daily liraglutide showed significant improvement in glycemic control and body weight and was associated with decreased insulin requirements.^4-6 However, subgroup analyses were not performed to show differences in benefit between the liraglutide 1.8 mg and 1.2 mg groups.^4-6 Similarly, cardiovascular benefit was observed in patients receiving liraglutide 1.2 mg daily and liraglutide 1.8 mg daily in the LEADER trial with no subgroup analysis or distinction between treatment doses.³ With this information and approval by the Veterans Integrated Services Network, the pharmacoeconomics team at MEDVAMC made the decision to select a more cost-efficient preparation and, hence, lower dose of liraglutide.

To ensure that patients only taking liraglutide for glycemic control were captured, patients without insulin therapies at baseline were excluded. Due to concerns of potential off-label use of liraglutide for weight loss, patients without active prescriptions for insulin at baseline were excluded.

A mean HbA_1c increase of 0.5% was observed over the 6-month period, supporting findings of a dose-dependent HbA_1c decrease observed in clinical trials. In the LEAD-3 MONO trial when used as monotherapy, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with significantly greater HbA_1c reduction than liraglutide 1.2 mg (–0·29%; –0·50 to –0.09, P = .005) after 52 weeks of treatment.⁷ Liraglutide 1.8 mg was also associated with higher rates of AEs; particularly gastrointestinal. ⁷ To minimize these AEs, it is recommended to initiate liraglutide at 0.6 mg daily for a week then increase to 1.2 mg daily. If tolerated, liraglutide can be further titrated to 1.8 mg daily to optimize glycemic control.⁸ Unsurprisingly, no major AEs were noted in this study, as AEs are typically noted with increased doses.

Despite the observed trend of increased HbA_1c, no changes were made to glucoselowering agents in 39 veterans. This group of veterans consisted primarily of those whose HbA_1c remained unchanged during the 6-month period, those whose HbA_1c improved (with no documented hypoglycemia), and older veterans with less stringent HbA_1c goals. As a result, doses of glucose lowering agents were maintained as appropriate.

No significant difference was noted in body weight during the 6-month period. The slight weight gain observed may have been due to several factors. Lack of exercise and dietary changes may have contributed to weight gain. In addition, insulin doses were increased in 40 veterans, which may have contributed to the observed weight gain.

As expected, significant cost savings were achieved as a result of the liraglutide dose reduction. Of note, liraglutide was discontinued in 126 veterans (prior to the dose reduction) due to nonadherence or inadequate response to therapy, which also resulted in additional savings. Although cost savings was achieved, the long-term benefit of this initiative still remains unknown. The worsened glycemic control that was detected may increase the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications, thereby negating cost savings achieved. To assess this effect, longterm prospective studies are warranted.

Limitations

A number of issues limit these finding, including its retrospective data review, small sample size, additional factors contributing to HbA_1c increase, and missing documentation in some patient records. Only 97 patients were included in the study, reflecting less than half of the charts reviewed (52% exclusion rate). In addition, several confounding factors may have contributed to the increased HbA_1c observed. Medication changes and lifestyle factors may have contributed to the observed change in HbA_1c levels. Exclusion of patients without active prescriptions for insulin may have contributed to a selection bias, as most patients included in the study were veterans with uncontrolled T2DM requiring insulin. Finally, as a retrospective study involving patient records, investigators relied heavily on information provided in patients’ charts (HbA_1c, body weight, insulin doses, adverse effects, etc), which may not entirely be accurate and may have been missing other pertinent information.

Conclusions

The daily dose reduction of liraglutide from 1.8 mg to 1.2 mg due to a cost-savings initiative resulted in a HbA_1c increase of 0.5% in a 6-month period. Due to HbA1c increases, 41.2% of veterans underwent an insulin dose increase, negating the insulin-sparing role of liraglutide. Although this study further confirms the dose-dependent HbA_1c reduction with liraglutide that has been noted in previous trials, long-term prospective studies and cost-effectiveness analyses are warranted to assess the overall clinical significance and other benefits of the change, including its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are injectable incretin hormones approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). They are highly efficacious agents with hemoglobin A_1c (Hb_A1c) reduction potential of approximately 0.8 to 1.6% and mechanisms of action that result in an average weight loss of 1 to 3 kg.^1,2 Published in 2016, The LEADER (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results) trial established cardiovascular benefits associated with liraglutide, making it a preferred GLP-1 RA.³

In addition to HbA_1c reduction, weight loss, and cardiovascular benefits, liraglutide also has shown insulin-sparing effects when used in combination with insulin. A trial by Lane and colleagues revealed a 34% decrease in total daily insulin dose 6 months after the addition of liraglutide to insulin in patients with T2DM receiving > 100 units of insulin daily.⁴ When used in combination with basal insulin analogues (glargine or detemir) similar findings also were shown.⁵

The Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, selected liraglutide as its preferred GLP-1 RA because of its favorable glycemic and cardiovascular outcomes. In addition, as part of a cost-savings initiative for fiscal year 2018, liraglutide 6 mg/mL injection 2-count pen packs was selected as the preferred liraglutide product. Before the availability of the 2-count pen packs, veterans previously received 3-count pen packs, which allowed for up to a 30-day supply of liraglutide 1.8 mg daily dosing. However, the cost-efficient 2-count pen packs allow for up to 1.2 mg daily dose of liraglutide for a 30-day supply. Due to these changes, veterans at MEDVAMC were converted from liraglutide 1.8 mg daily to 1.2 mg daily between May 2018 and August 2018.

The primary objective of this study was to assess sustained glycemic control and cost savings that resulted from this change. The secondary objectives were to assess sustained weight loss and adverse effects (AEs).

Methods

This study was approved by the MEDVAMC Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs committee. In this single-center study, a retrospective chart review was conducted on veterans with T2DM who underwent a liraglutide dose reduction from 1.8 mg daily to 1.2 mg daily between May 2018 and August 2018. Patients were included if they were aged ≥ 18 years with an active prescription for liraglutide 1.8 mg daily and insulin (with or without other antihyperglycemic agents) at the time of conversion. In addition, patients must have had ≥ 1 HbA_1c reading within 3 months of the dose conversion and a follow-up HbA1c within 6 months after the dose conversion. To assess the primary objective of glycemic control that resulted from the liraglutide dose reduction, mean change of HbA1c at time of dose conversion was compared with mean HbA_1c 6 months postconversion. To assess savings, cost information was obtained from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Drug Price Database and monthly and annual costs of liraglutide 6 mg/mL injection 2-count pen pack were compared with that of the 3-count pen pack. A chart review of patients’ electronic health records assessed secondary outcomes. The VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) was used to collect patient data.

Patients and Characteristics

The following patient information was obtained from patients’ records: age, sex, race/ethnicity, diabetic medications (at time of conversion and 6 months after conversion), cardiovascular history and risk factors (hypertension, coronary artery disease, heart failure, arrhythmias, peripheral artery disease, obesity, etc), prescriber type (physician, nurse practitioner/physician assistant, pharmacist, etc), weight (at baseline, at time of conversion, and 6 months after conversion), HbA_1c (at baseline, at time of conversion, and 6 months after conversion), average blood glucose (at baseline, at time of conversion, and 6 months after conversion), insulin dose (at time of conversion and 6 months after conversion), and reported AEs.

Statistical Analysis

The 2-tailed, paired t test was used to assess changes in HbA_1c, average blood glucose, and body weight. Demographic data and other outcomes were assessed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Prior to the dose reduction, 312 veterans had active prescriptions for liraglutide 1.8 mg daily. Due to lack of glycemic control benefit (failing to achieve a HbA_1c reduction of at least 0.5% after at least 3 to 6 months following initiation of therapy) or nonadherence (assessed by medication refill history), 126 veterans did not meet the criteria for the dose conversion. As a result, liraglutide was discontinued, and veterans were sent patient letter notifications and health care providers were notified via medication review notes in the patient electronic health record “to make medication adjustments if warranted. A total of 186 veterans underwent a liraglutide dose reduction between May and August 2018. Thirty-two veterans were without active insulin prescriptions, 53 were without HbA1c results, and 4 veterans died; resulting in 97 veterans who were included in the study (Figure 1).

Most of the patients included in the study were male (90.7%) and White (63.9%) with an average (SD) age of 65.9 years (7.9) and a mean (SD) HbA1c at baseline of 8.4% (1.2). About 56.7% received concurrent T2DM treatment with metformin, and 8.3% received concurrent treatment with empagliflozin. The most common cardiovascular disease/risk factors included hypertension (93.8%), hyperlipidemia (85.6%), and obesity (85.6%) (Table 1).

Glycemic Control and Weight Loss

At the time of conversion, the average (SD) HbA_1c was 8.2% (1.4) and increased to an average (SD) of 8.7% (1.8) (P =.0005) 6 months after the dose reduction (Table 2). The average (SD) body weight was 116.2 kg (23.2) at time of conversion and increased to 116.5 (24.6) 6 months following the dose reduction; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .8).

As a result of the HbA_1c change, 41.2% of veterans underwent an insulin dose increase with dose increase of 5 to 200 units of total daily insulin during the 6-month period. Antihyperglycemic regimen remained unchanged for 40.2% of veterans, while additional glucose lowering agents were initiated in 6 veterans. Medications initiated included empagliflozin in 4 veterans and saxagliptin in 2 veterans.

HbA_1c reduction was noted in 33% of veterans (Figure 2) mostly due to improved diet and exercise habits. A majority of veterans, 62%, experienced an increase in HbA1c, whereas 5.2% of veterans maintained the same HbA_1c. Of 60 veterans with HbA_1c increases, 15 had an increase between 0.1% and 0.5%, another 15 with an increase between 0.5 to 0.9%, and half had HbA1c increases of at least 1% with a maximum increase of 5.1% (Figure 3).

Cost Savings

Cost information was obtained from the VA Drug Price Database. The estimated monthly cost savings per patient associated with the conversion from 3-count to 2-count injection pen packs of liraglutide 6 mg/mL was $103.46. With 186 veterans converted to the 2-count pen packs, MEDVAMC saved $115,461.36 in a 6-month period. The estimated annualized cost savings was estimated to be about $231,000 (Figure 4).

Adverse Effects During the 6-month period following the dose conversion, no major AEs associated with liraglutide were documented. Documented AEs included 3 cases of diarrhea, resulting in the discontinuation of metformin. Metformin also was discontinued in a veteran with worsened renal function and eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2.

Discussion

According to previous clinical trials, when used in combination with insulin, 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg daily liraglutide showed significant improvement in glycemic control and body weight and was associated with decreased insulin requirements.^4-6 However, subgroup analyses were not performed to show differences in benefit between the liraglutide 1.8 mg and 1.2 mg groups.^4-6 Similarly, cardiovascular benefit was observed in patients receiving liraglutide 1.2 mg daily and liraglutide 1.8 mg daily in the LEADER trial with no subgroup analysis or distinction between treatment doses.³ With this information and approval by the Veterans Integrated Services Network, the pharmacoeconomics team at MEDVAMC made the decision to select a more cost-efficient preparation and, hence, lower dose of liraglutide.

To ensure that patients only taking liraglutide for glycemic control were captured, patients without insulin therapies at baseline were excluded. Due to concerns of potential off-label use of liraglutide for weight loss, patients without active prescriptions for insulin at baseline were excluded.

A mean HbA_1c increase of 0.5% was observed over the 6-month period, supporting findings of a dose-dependent HbA_1c decrease observed in clinical trials. In the LEAD-3 MONO trial when used as monotherapy, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with significantly greater HbA_1c reduction than liraglutide 1.2 mg (–0·29%; –0·50 to –0.09, P = .005) after 52 weeks of treatment.⁷ Liraglutide 1.8 mg was also associated with higher rates of AEs; particularly gastrointestinal. ⁷ To minimize these AEs, it is recommended to initiate liraglutide at 0.6 mg daily for a week then increase to 1.2 mg daily. If tolerated, liraglutide can be further titrated to 1.8 mg daily to optimize glycemic control.⁸ Unsurprisingly, no major AEs were noted in this study, as AEs are typically noted with increased doses.

Despite the observed trend of increased HbA_1c, no changes were made to glucoselowering agents in 39 veterans. This group of veterans consisted primarily of those whose HbA_1c remained unchanged during the 6-month period, those whose HbA_1c improved (with no documented hypoglycemia), and older veterans with less stringent HbA_1c goals. As a result, doses of glucose lowering agents were maintained as appropriate.

No significant difference was noted in body weight during the 6-month period. The slight weight gain observed may have been due to several factors. Lack of exercise and dietary changes may have contributed to weight gain. In addition, insulin doses were increased in 40 veterans, which may have contributed to the observed weight gain.

As expected, significant cost savings were achieved as a result of the liraglutide dose reduction. Of note, liraglutide was discontinued in 126 veterans (prior to the dose reduction) due to nonadherence or inadequate response to therapy, which also resulted in additional savings. Although cost savings was achieved, the long-term benefit of this initiative still remains unknown. The worsened glycemic control that was detected may increase the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications, thereby negating cost savings achieved. To assess this effect, longterm prospective studies are warranted.

Limitations

A number of issues limit these finding, including its retrospective data review, small sample size, additional factors contributing to HbA_1c increase, and missing documentation in some patient records. Only 97 patients were included in the study, reflecting less than half of the charts reviewed (52% exclusion rate). In addition, several confounding factors may have contributed to the increased HbA_1c observed. Medication changes and lifestyle factors may have contributed to the observed change in HbA_1c levels. Exclusion of patients without active prescriptions for insulin may have contributed to a selection bias, as most patients included in the study were veterans with uncontrolled T2DM requiring insulin. Finally, as a retrospective study involving patient records, investigators relied heavily on information provided in patients’ charts (HbA_1c, body weight, insulin doses, adverse effects, etc), which may not entirely be accurate and may have been missing other pertinent information.

Conclusions

The daily dose reduction of liraglutide from 1.8 mg to 1.2 mg due to a cost-savings initiative resulted in a HbA_1c increase of 0.5% in a 6-month period. Due to HbA1c increases, 41.2% of veterans underwent an insulin dose increase, negating the insulin-sparing role of liraglutide. Although this study further confirms the dose-dependent HbA_1c reduction with liraglutide that has been noted in previous trials, long-term prospective studies and cost-effectiveness analyses are warranted to assess the overall clinical significance and other benefits of the change, including its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are injectable incretin hormones approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). They are highly efficacious agents with hemoglobin A_1c (Hb_A1c) reduction potential of approximately 0.8 to 1.6% and mechanisms of action that result in an average weight loss of 1 to 3 kg.^1,2 Published in 2016, The LEADER (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results) trial established cardiovascular benefits associated with liraglutide, making it a preferred GLP-1 RA.³

In addition to HbA_1c reduction, weight loss, and cardiovascular benefits, liraglutide also has shown insulin-sparing effects when used in combination with insulin. A trial by Lane and colleagues revealed a 34% decrease in total daily insulin dose 6 months after the addition of liraglutide to insulin in patients with T2DM receiving > 100 units of insulin daily.⁴ When used in combination with basal insulin analogues (glargine or detemir) similar findings also were shown.⁵

The Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, selected liraglutide as its preferred GLP-1 RA because of its favorable glycemic and cardiovascular outcomes. In addition, as part of a cost-savings initiative for fiscal year 2018, liraglutide 6 mg/mL injection 2-count pen packs was selected as the preferred liraglutide product. Before the availability of the 2-count pen packs, veterans previously received 3-count pen packs, which allowed for up to a 30-day supply of liraglutide 1.8 mg daily dosing. However, the cost-efficient 2-count pen packs allow for up to 1.2 mg daily dose of liraglutide for a 30-day supply. Due to these changes, veterans at MEDVAMC were converted from liraglutide 1.8 mg daily to 1.2 mg daily between May 2018 and August 2018.

The primary objective of this study was to assess sustained glycemic control and cost savings that resulted from this change. The secondary objectives were to assess sustained weight loss and adverse effects (AEs).

Methods

This study was approved by the MEDVAMC Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs committee. In this single-center study, a retrospective chart review was conducted on veterans with T2DM who underwent a liraglutide dose reduction from 1.8 mg daily to 1.2 mg daily between May 2018 and August 2018. Patients were included if they were aged ≥ 18 years with an active prescription for liraglutide 1.8 mg daily and insulin (with or without other antihyperglycemic agents) at the time of conversion. In addition, patients must have had ≥ 1 HbA_1c reading within 3 months of the dose conversion and a follow-up HbA1c within 6 months after the dose conversion. To assess the primary objective of glycemic control that resulted from the liraglutide dose reduction, mean change of HbA1c at time of dose conversion was compared with mean HbA_1c 6 months postconversion. To assess savings, cost information was obtained from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Drug Price Database and monthly and annual costs of liraglutide 6 mg/mL injection 2-count pen pack were compared with that of the 3-count pen pack. A chart review of patients’ electronic health records assessed secondary outcomes. The VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) was used to collect patient data.

Patients and Characteristics

The following patient information was obtained from patients’ records: age, sex, race/ethnicity, diabetic medications (at time of conversion and 6 months after conversion), cardiovascular history and risk factors (hypertension, coronary artery disease, heart failure, arrhythmias, peripheral artery disease, obesity, etc), prescriber type (physician, nurse practitioner/physician assistant, pharmacist, etc), weight (at baseline, at time of conversion, and 6 months after conversion), HbA_1c (at baseline, at time of conversion, and 6 months after conversion), average blood glucose (at baseline, at time of conversion, and 6 months after conversion), insulin dose (at time of conversion and 6 months after conversion), and reported AEs.

Statistical Analysis

The 2-tailed, paired t test was used to assess changes in HbA_1c, average blood glucose, and body weight. Demographic data and other outcomes were assessed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Prior to the dose reduction, 312 veterans had active prescriptions for liraglutide 1.8 mg daily. Due to lack of glycemic control benefit (failing to achieve a HbA_1c reduction of at least 0.5% after at least 3 to 6 months following initiation of therapy) or nonadherence (assessed by medication refill history), 126 veterans did not meet the criteria for the dose conversion. As a result, liraglutide was discontinued, and veterans were sent patient letter notifications and health care providers were notified via medication review notes in the patient electronic health record “to make medication adjustments if warranted. A total of 186 veterans underwent a liraglutide dose reduction between May and August 2018. Thirty-two veterans were without active insulin prescriptions, 53 were without HbA1c results, and 4 veterans died; resulting in 97 veterans who were included in the study (Figure 1).

Most of the patients included in the study were male (90.7%) and White (63.9%) with an average (SD) age of 65.9 years (7.9) and a mean (SD) HbA1c at baseline of 8.4% (1.2). About 56.7% received concurrent T2DM treatment with metformin, and 8.3% received concurrent treatment with empagliflozin. The most common cardiovascular disease/risk factors included hypertension (93.8%), hyperlipidemia (85.6%), and obesity (85.6%) (Table 1).

Glycemic Control and Weight Loss

At the time of conversion, the average (SD) HbA_1c was 8.2% (1.4) and increased to an average (SD) of 8.7% (1.8) (P =.0005) 6 months after the dose reduction (Table 2). The average (SD) body weight was 116.2 kg (23.2) at time of conversion and increased to 116.5 (24.6) 6 months following the dose reduction; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .8).

As a result of the HbA_1c change, 41.2% of veterans underwent an insulin dose increase with dose increase of 5 to 200 units of total daily insulin during the 6-month period. Antihyperglycemic regimen remained unchanged for 40.2% of veterans, while additional glucose lowering agents were initiated in 6 veterans. Medications initiated included empagliflozin in 4 veterans and saxagliptin in 2 veterans.

HbA_1c reduction was noted in 33% of veterans (Figure 2) mostly due to improved diet and exercise habits. A majority of veterans, 62%, experienced an increase in HbA1c, whereas 5.2% of veterans maintained the same HbA_1c. Of 60 veterans with HbA_1c increases, 15 had an increase between 0.1% and 0.5%, another 15 with an increase between 0.5 to 0.9%, and half had HbA1c increases of at least 1% with a maximum increase of 5.1% (Figure 3).

Cost Savings

Cost information was obtained from the VA Drug Price Database. The estimated monthly cost savings per patient associated with the conversion from 3-count to 2-count injection pen packs of liraglutide 6 mg/mL was $103.46. With 186 veterans converted to the 2-count pen packs, MEDVAMC saved $115,461.36 in a 6-month period. The estimated annualized cost savings was estimated to be about $231,000 (Figure 4).

Adverse Effects During the 6-month period following the dose conversion, no major AEs associated with liraglutide were documented. Documented AEs included 3 cases of diarrhea, resulting in the discontinuation of metformin. Metformin also was discontinued in a veteran with worsened renal function and eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2.

Discussion

According to previous clinical trials, when used in combination with insulin, 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg daily liraglutide showed significant improvement in glycemic control and body weight and was associated with decreased insulin requirements.^4-6 However, subgroup analyses were not performed to show differences in benefit between the liraglutide 1.8 mg and 1.2 mg groups.^4-6 Similarly, cardiovascular benefit was observed in patients receiving liraglutide 1.2 mg daily and liraglutide 1.8 mg daily in the LEADER trial with no subgroup analysis or distinction between treatment doses.³ With this information and approval by the Veterans Integrated Services Network, the pharmacoeconomics team at MEDVAMC made the decision to select a more cost-efficient preparation and, hence, lower dose of liraglutide.

To ensure that patients only taking liraglutide for glycemic control were captured, patients without insulin therapies at baseline were excluded. Due to concerns of potential off-label use of liraglutide for weight loss, patients without active prescriptions for insulin at baseline were excluded.

A mean HbA_1c increase of 0.5% was observed over the 6-month period, supporting findings of a dose-dependent HbA_1c decrease observed in clinical trials. In the LEAD-3 MONO trial when used as monotherapy, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with significantly greater HbA_1c reduction than liraglutide 1.2 mg (–0·29%; –0·50 to –0.09, P = .005) after 52 weeks of treatment.⁷ Liraglutide 1.8 mg was also associated with higher rates of AEs; particularly gastrointestinal. ⁷ To minimize these AEs, it is recommended to initiate liraglutide at 0.6 mg daily for a week then increase to 1.2 mg daily. If tolerated, liraglutide can be further titrated to 1.8 mg daily to optimize glycemic control.⁸ Unsurprisingly, no major AEs were noted in this study, as AEs are typically noted with increased doses.

Despite the observed trend of increased HbA_1c, no changes were made to glucoselowering agents in 39 veterans. This group of veterans consisted primarily of those whose HbA_1c remained unchanged during the 6-month period, those whose HbA_1c improved (with no documented hypoglycemia), and older veterans with less stringent HbA_1c goals. As a result, doses of glucose lowering agents were maintained as appropriate.

No significant difference was noted in body weight during the 6-month period. The slight weight gain observed may have been due to several factors. Lack of exercise and dietary changes may have contributed to weight gain. In addition, insulin doses were increased in 40 veterans, which may have contributed to the observed weight gain.

As expected, significant cost savings were achieved as a result of the liraglutide dose reduction. Of note, liraglutide was discontinued in 126 veterans (prior to the dose reduction) due to nonadherence or inadequate response to therapy, which also resulted in additional savings. Although cost savings was achieved, the long-term benefit of this initiative still remains unknown. The worsened glycemic control that was detected may increase the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications, thereby negating cost savings achieved. To assess this effect, longterm prospective studies are warranted.

Limitations

A number of issues limit these finding, including its retrospective data review, small sample size, additional factors contributing to HbA_1c increase, and missing documentation in some patient records. Only 97 patients were included in the study, reflecting less than half of the charts reviewed (52% exclusion rate). In addition, several confounding factors may have contributed to the increased HbA_1c observed. Medication changes and lifestyle factors may have contributed to the observed change in HbA_1c levels. Exclusion of patients without active prescriptions for insulin may have contributed to a selection bias, as most patients included in the study were veterans with uncontrolled T2DM requiring insulin. Finally, as a retrospective study involving patient records, investigators relied heavily on information provided in patients’ charts (HbA_1c, body weight, insulin doses, adverse effects, etc), which may not entirely be accurate and may have been missing other pertinent information.

Conclusions

The daily dose reduction of liraglutide from 1.8 mg to 1.2 mg due to a cost-savings initiative resulted in a HbA_1c increase of 0.5% in a 6-month period. Due to HbA1c increases, 41.2% of veterans underwent an insulin dose increase, negating the insulin-sparing role of liraglutide. Although this study further confirms the dose-dependent HbA_1c reduction with liraglutide that has been noted in previous trials, long-term prospective studies and cost-effectiveness analyses are warranted to assess the overall clinical significance and other benefits of the change, including its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.

Editor’s Note: This transcript from the October 7 episode of Psychcast and the October 8 episode of Blood & Cancer has been edited for clarity.

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this episode of Blood And Cancer. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry, and I’m joined today by another host in the MDedge family, Dr. Lorenzo Norris, who is the host of MDedge Psychcast on MDedge.com or wherever you get your podcasts. He is associate dean of student affairs and administration at the George Washington School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr. Norris, thank you so much for taking the time to do this today.

Dr. Norris: CBT in a nutshell -- how you think influences greatly your emotions, which influences your behavior. Very simple and very powerful. With breast cancer, as an example, patients are dealing with a great deal of stress. They are literally fighting for their lives.

And that’s going to allow you to actually think about or to screen for patients that you’re going to need to refer for treatment. So if you have a patient with advanced cancer, as an example, and you use the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9, then that’s going to give you a very evidence-based avenue in which to refer for treatment. Now you may be asking yourself, maybe I don’t want to use a PHQ-2 or 9, or I’m in a community practice or a private practice, I just don’t have the bandwidth to process this.

So I want to go off of just my own patient interaction. What are things that I can cue on?

With a patient with cancer, there’s going to be roughly four things that we’re considering in terms of depressive spectrum disorders: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depression, a mood disorder due to cancer itself, or substance-induced mood disorder.

For our audience I want you to concentrate on right now on adjustment disorder with depressed mood and major depression. Now when you look at the evidence, there are roughly nine things that some people like to think about in regard to depressive symptoms to key on. For all of us as health practitioners, these are the things I would like for you to focus on in particular:

1. Non-adherence with treatment for cancer.

2. Impairment of their social or occupational function.

3. Your patient becomes demoralized when they start to lose a little bit of confidence or hope.

When you have those three things, or any one of them, in an advanced stage of cancer, with or without a PHQ screening, you need to really think about how you’re going to refer this patient for treatment. So we can break this down into three different types of interventions. One, the biggest thing, is just to ask, “How are you feeling? What is your mood? Are you suffering from a clinical depression?” You know, take a little bit of inspiration from Dr. Henry. Just give it to people straight and just ask. That’s the biggest thing people don’t do. They don’t ask.

The next thing, if you want to use an evidence-based scale, use a PHQ-2...You would have to follow up, but you-- rather you’re practicing solo or in a group practice or whether you have, your nurse or PA -- they generally assist with that.

And then the third thing is, when you’re interacting with the patient, look for those three things that I talked about: Non-adherence with treatment, impairment of social or occupational function, and then demoralization.

And then the final thing I want to focus on, because you can’t talk about depression without talking about suicide or really significant distress. Obviously, you can ask and you should ask about suicide if that is in your wheelhouse, but to be perfectly frank, most oncologists are not going to-- or most people outside of psychiatrists aren’t going to necessarily just routinely ask that question.

But here’s what I would say. It’s an old one but it’s a good one: Listen to that little voice. Listen to that little voice, all right? Depending on the evidence that you look at, a lot of detecting suicide can be aided by a clinician listening to their own gut instincts. What I mean by that is, you feel a sense of distress. You feel a sense of lack of connection. You find yourself [saying], “Wait a minute, why do I want to call that patient and checkup? Why do I want to reach out?”

When you start to feel like this, you need to listen. More importantly, you need to stop and then you need to make sure that that patient has a referral in place.

Dr. Henry: So they’re just tuning out so badly, you’re really losing the connection, and that’s when your little voice talks to you.

Dr. Norris: Exactly. Well said, Dr. Henry. Well said.

Dr. Henry: In my long career, drug abuse, narcotics, and suicide have been extremely rare. I can think of one patient who was a drug abuser with cancer, or it turned out she was a drug abuser before she had cancer. And then suicide, really quite rare. I’m sure they occur, and we have to watch for them, as you say, but fortunately I’ve not seen that so much. Thanks to your comments, I want to be sure I’m watching and looking.

And the PHQ-2 and -9, I’m sure, with so many of us having electronic medical records, you can simply Google while you’re talking to the patient for those two questionnaires and say, oh, you know, how about you answer these two questions, these nine questions, and see how many points the patient gets and worry about referral or even medication yourself if it looks like an antidepressant is in order.

Dr. Norris: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Dr. Henry: Well, I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground. I really want to thank you. Any get-away thoughts? We worry about the cognitive behavioral therapy. We worry about it, and we should listen to it and do it.

Practicing in the COVID era is stressful for all of us. I told Dr. Norris at the outset, if I broke down and started baring my soul, he wouldn’t be surprised. Fortunately, I’ve kept it together while talking to a psychiatrist.

And finally watch for clinically significant depression, either by your own questions, which you’ve outlined, or the PHQ-2 and -9.

Really appreciate your thoughts today. Lorenzo, thanks so much for taking the time to do this today.


To hear the entire conversation, go to mdedge.com/podcasts or listen wherever you find your podcasts. David Henry, MD, is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of MDedge Hematology-Oncology and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. Dr. Henry reported being on the advisory board for Amgen, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, and Pharmacosmos. He reported institutional funding from the National Institutes of Health and FibroGen.

Lorenzo Norris, MD, is host of the MDedge Psychcast, editor in chief of MDedge Psychiatry, and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. He also serves as assistant dean of student affairs at the university, and medical director of psychiatric and behavioral sciences at GWU Hospital. Dr. Lorenzo Norris has no conflicts.

Editor’s Note: This transcript from the October 7 episode of Psychcast and the October 8 episode of Blood & Cancer has been edited for clarity.

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this episode of Blood And Cancer. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry, and I’m joined today by another host in the MDedge family, Dr. Lorenzo Norris, who is the host of MDedge Psychcast on MDedge.com or wherever you get your podcasts. He is associate dean of student affairs and administration at the George Washington School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr. Norris, thank you so much for taking the time to do this today.

Dr. Norris: CBT in a nutshell -- how you think influences greatly your emotions, which influences your behavior. Very simple and very powerful. With breast cancer, as an example, patients are dealing with a great deal of stress. They are literally fighting for their lives.

And that’s going to allow you to actually think about or to screen for patients that you’re going to need to refer for treatment. So if you have a patient with advanced cancer, as an example, and you use the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9, then that’s going to give you a very evidence-based avenue in which to refer for treatment. Now you may be asking yourself, maybe I don’t want to use a PHQ-2 or 9, or I’m in a community practice or a private practice, I just don’t have the bandwidth to process this.

So I want to go off of just my own patient interaction. What are things that I can cue on?

With a patient with cancer, there’s going to be roughly four things that we’re considering in terms of depressive spectrum disorders: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depression, a mood disorder due to cancer itself, or substance-induced mood disorder.

For our audience I want you to concentrate on right now on adjustment disorder with depressed mood and major depression. Now when you look at the evidence, there are roughly nine things that some people like to think about in regard to depressive symptoms to key on. For all of us as health practitioners, these are the things I would like for you to focus on in particular:

1. Non-adherence with treatment for cancer.

2. Impairment of their social or occupational function.

3. Your patient becomes demoralized when they start to lose a little bit of confidence or hope.

When you have those three things, or any one of them, in an advanced stage of cancer, with or without a PHQ screening, you need to really think about how you’re going to refer this patient for treatment. So we can break this down into three different types of interventions. One, the biggest thing, is just to ask, “How are you feeling? What is your mood? Are you suffering from a clinical depression?” You know, take a little bit of inspiration from Dr. Henry. Just give it to people straight and just ask. That’s the biggest thing people don’t do. They don’t ask.

The next thing, if you want to use an evidence-based scale, use a PHQ-2...You would have to follow up, but you-- rather you’re practicing solo or in a group practice or whether you have, your nurse or PA -- they generally assist with that.

And then the third thing is, when you’re interacting with the patient, look for those three things that I talked about: Non-adherence with treatment, impairment of social or occupational function, and then demoralization.

And then the final thing I want to focus on, because you can’t talk about depression without talking about suicide or really significant distress. Obviously, you can ask and you should ask about suicide if that is in your wheelhouse, but to be perfectly frank, most oncologists are not going to-- or most people outside of psychiatrists aren’t going to necessarily just routinely ask that question.

But here’s what I would say. It’s an old one but it’s a good one: Listen to that little voice. Listen to that little voice, all right? Depending on the evidence that you look at, a lot of detecting suicide can be aided by a clinician listening to their own gut instincts. What I mean by that is, you feel a sense of distress. You feel a sense of lack of connection. You find yourself [saying], “Wait a minute, why do I want to call that patient and checkup? Why do I want to reach out?”

When you start to feel like this, you need to listen. More importantly, you need to stop and then you need to make sure that that patient has a referral in place.

Dr. Henry: So they’re just tuning out so badly, you’re really losing the connection, and that’s when your little voice talks to you.

Dr. Norris: Exactly. Well said, Dr. Henry. Well said.

Dr. Henry: In my long career, drug abuse, narcotics, and suicide have been extremely rare. I can think of one patient who was a drug abuser with cancer, or it turned out she was a drug abuser before she had cancer. And then suicide, really quite rare. I’m sure they occur, and we have to watch for them, as you say, but fortunately I’ve not seen that so much. Thanks to your comments, I want to be sure I’m watching and looking.

And the PHQ-2 and -9, I’m sure, with so many of us having electronic medical records, you can simply Google while you’re talking to the patient for those two questionnaires and say, oh, you know, how about you answer these two questions, these nine questions, and see how many points the patient gets and worry about referral or even medication yourself if it looks like an antidepressant is in order.

Dr. Norris: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Dr. Henry: Well, I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground. I really want to thank you. Any get-away thoughts? We worry about the cognitive behavioral therapy. We worry about it, and we should listen to it and do it.

Practicing in the COVID era is stressful for all of us. I told Dr. Norris at the outset, if I broke down and started baring my soul, he wouldn’t be surprised. Fortunately, I’ve kept it together while talking to a psychiatrist.

And finally watch for clinically significant depression, either by your own questions, which you’ve outlined, or the PHQ-2 and -9.

Really appreciate your thoughts today. Lorenzo, thanks so much for taking the time to do this today.


To hear the entire conversation, go to mdedge.com/podcasts or listen wherever you find your podcasts. David Henry, MD, is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of MDedge Hematology-Oncology and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. Dr. Henry reported being on the advisory board for Amgen, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, and Pharmacosmos. He reported institutional funding from the National Institutes of Health and FibroGen.

Lorenzo Norris, MD, is host of the MDedge Psychcast, editor in chief of MDedge Psychiatry, and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. He also serves as assistant dean of student affairs at the university, and medical director of psychiatric and behavioral sciences at GWU Hospital. Dr. Lorenzo Norris has no conflicts.

Editor’s Note: This transcript from the October 7 episode of Psychcast and the October 8 episode of Blood & Cancer has been edited for clarity.

David Henry, MD: Welcome to this episode of Blood And Cancer. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry, and I’m joined today by another host in the MDedge family, Dr. Lorenzo Norris, who is the host of MDedge Psychcast on MDedge.com or wherever you get your podcasts. He is associate dean of student affairs and administration at the George Washington School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr. Norris, thank you so much for taking the time to do this today.

Dr. Norris: CBT in a nutshell -- how you think influences greatly your emotions, which influences your behavior. Very simple and very powerful. With breast cancer, as an example, patients are dealing with a great deal of stress. They are literally fighting for their lives.

And that’s going to allow you to actually think about or to screen for patients that you’re going to need to refer for treatment. So if you have a patient with advanced cancer, as an example, and you use the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9, then that’s going to give you a very evidence-based avenue in which to refer for treatment. Now you may be asking yourself, maybe I don’t want to use a PHQ-2 or 9, or I’m in a community practice or a private practice, I just don’t have the bandwidth to process this.

So I want to go off of just my own patient interaction. What are things that I can cue on?

With a patient with cancer, there’s going to be roughly four things that we’re considering in terms of depressive spectrum disorders: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depression, a mood disorder due to cancer itself, or substance-induced mood disorder.

For our audience I want you to concentrate on right now on adjustment disorder with depressed mood and major depression. Now when you look at the evidence, there are roughly nine things that some people like to think about in regard to depressive symptoms to key on. For all of us as health practitioners, these are the things I would like for you to focus on in particular:

1. Non-adherence with treatment for cancer.

2. Impairment of their social or occupational function.

3. Your patient becomes demoralized when they start to lose a little bit of confidence or hope.

When you have those three things, or any one of them, in an advanced stage of cancer, with or without a PHQ screening, you need to really think about how you’re going to refer this patient for treatment. So we can break this down into three different types of interventions. One, the biggest thing, is just to ask, “How are you feeling? What is your mood? Are you suffering from a clinical depression?” You know, take a little bit of inspiration from Dr. Henry. Just give it to people straight and just ask. That’s the biggest thing people don’t do. They don’t ask.

The next thing, if you want to use an evidence-based scale, use a PHQ-2...You would have to follow up, but you-- rather you’re practicing solo or in a group practice or whether you have, your nurse or PA -- they generally assist with that.

And then the third thing is, when you’re interacting with the patient, look for those three things that I talked about: Non-adherence with treatment, impairment of social or occupational function, and then demoralization.

And then the final thing I want to focus on, because you can’t talk about depression without talking about suicide or really significant distress. Obviously, you can ask and you should ask about suicide if that is in your wheelhouse, but to be perfectly frank, most oncologists are not going to-- or most people outside of psychiatrists aren’t going to necessarily just routinely ask that question.

But here’s what I would say. It’s an old one but it’s a good one: Listen to that little voice. Listen to that little voice, all right? Depending on the evidence that you look at, a lot of detecting suicide can be aided by a clinician listening to their own gut instincts. What I mean by that is, you feel a sense of distress. You feel a sense of lack of connection. You find yourself [saying], “Wait a minute, why do I want to call that patient and checkup? Why do I want to reach out?”

When you start to feel like this, you need to listen. More importantly, you need to stop and then you need to make sure that that patient has a referral in place.

Dr. Henry: So they’re just tuning out so badly, you’re really losing the connection, and that’s when your little voice talks to you.

Dr. Norris: Exactly. Well said, Dr. Henry. Well said.

Dr. Henry: In my long career, drug abuse, narcotics, and suicide have been extremely rare. I can think of one patient who was a drug abuser with cancer, or it turned out she was a drug abuser before she had cancer. And then suicide, really quite rare. I’m sure they occur, and we have to watch for them, as you say, but fortunately I’ve not seen that so much. Thanks to your comments, I want to be sure I’m watching and looking.

And the PHQ-2 and -9, I’m sure, with so many of us having electronic medical records, you can simply Google while you’re talking to the patient for those two questionnaires and say, oh, you know, how about you answer these two questions, these nine questions, and see how many points the patient gets and worry about referral or even medication yourself if it looks like an antidepressant is in order.

Dr. Norris: Absolutely. Absolutely.

Dr. Henry: Well, I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground. I really want to thank you. Any get-away thoughts? We worry about the cognitive behavioral therapy. We worry about it, and we should listen to it and do it.

Practicing in the COVID era is stressful for all of us. I told Dr. Norris at the outset, if I broke down and started baring my soul, he wouldn’t be surprised. Fortunately, I’ve kept it together while talking to a psychiatrist.

And finally watch for clinically significant depression, either by your own questions, which you’ve outlined, or the PHQ-2 and -9.

Really appreciate your thoughts today. Lorenzo, thanks so much for taking the time to do this today.


To hear the entire conversation, go to mdedge.com/podcasts or listen wherever you find your podcasts. David Henry, MD, is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of MDedge Hematology-Oncology and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. Dr. Henry reported being on the advisory board for Amgen, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, and Pharmacosmos. He reported institutional funding from the National Institutes of Health and FibroGen.

Lorenzo Norris, MD, is host of the MDedge Psychcast, editor in chief of MDedge Psychiatry, and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. He also serves as assistant dean of student affairs at the university, and medical director of psychiatric and behavioral sciences at GWU Hospital. Dr. Lorenzo Norris has no conflicts.

The popular new weight-loss approach of eating within a restricted window of time during the day, allowing for an extended period of fasting – also known as intermittent fasting – does not result in greater weight loss, compared with nonrestricted meal timing, results from a randomized clinical trial show.

“I was very surprised by all of [the results],” senior author Ethan J. Weiss, MD, said in an interview.

“Part of the reason we did the study was because I had been doing time-restricted eating myself for years and even recommending it to friends and patients as an effective weight-loss tool,” said Dr. Weiss, of the Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco.

“But no matter how you slice it, prescription of time-restricted eating – at least this version –is not a very effective weight-loss strategy,” Dr. Weiss said.

The study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Dylan A. Lowe, PhD, also of the University of California, San Francisco, involved 116 participants who were randomized to a 12-week regimen of either three structured meals per day or time-restricted eating, with instructions to eat only between 12:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and to completely abstain from eating at other times.

The participants were not given any specific instructions regarding caloric or macronutrient intake “so as to offer a simple, real-world recommendation to free-living individuals,” the authors wrote.

Although some prior research has shown improvements in measures such as glucose tolerance with time-restricted eating, studies showing weight loss with the approach, including one recently reported by Medscape Medical News, have been small and lacked control groups.

“To my knowledge this is the first randomized, controlled trial and definitely the biggest,” Dr. Weiss. “I think it is the most comprehensive dataset available in people, at least for this intervention.”
 

Participants used app to log details

At baseline, participants had a mean weight of 99.2 kg (approximately 219 lb). Their mean age was 46.5 years and 60.3% were men. They were drawn from anywhere in the United States and received study surveys through a custom mobile study application on the Eureka Research Platform. They were given a Bluetooth weight scale to use daily, which was connected with the app, and randomized to one of the two interventions. A subset of 50 participants living near San Francisco underwent in-person testing.

At the end of the 12 weeks, those in the time-restricted eating group (n = 59) did have a significant decrease in weight, compared with baseline (−0.94 kg; P = .01), while weight loss in the consistent-meal group (n = 57) was not significant (−0.68 kg; P = .07).

But importantly, the difference in weight loss between the groups was not significant (−0.26 kg; P = .63).

There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes of fasting insulin, glucose, hemoglobin A1c, or blood lipids within or between the time-restricted eating and consistent-meal group either. Nor were there any significant differences in resting metabolic rate.

Although participants did not self-report their caloric intake, the authors estimated that the differences were not significant using mathematical modeling developed at the National Institutes of Health.

Rates of adherence to the diets were 92.1% in the consistent-meal group versus 83.5% in the time-restricted group.
 

Not all diets are equal: Time-restricted eating group lost more lean mass

In a subset analysis, loss of lean mass was significantly greater in the time-restricted eating group, compared with the consistent-meals group, in terms of both appendicular lean mass (P = .009) and the appendicular lean mass index (P = .005).

In fact, as much as 65% of the weight lost (1.10 kg of the average 1.70 kg) in the time-restricted eating group consisted of lean mass, while much less was fat mass (0.51 kg).

“The proportion of lean mass loss in this study (approximately 65%) far exceeds the normal range of 20%-30%,” the authors wrote. “In addition, there was a highly significant between-group difference in appendicular lean mass.”

Appendicular lean mass correlates with nutritional and physical status, and its reduction can lead to weakness, disability, and impaired quality of life.

“This serves as a caution for patient populations at risk for sarcopenia because time-restricted eating could exacerbate muscle loss,” the authors asserted.

Furthermore, previous studies suggest that the loss of lean mass in such studies is positively linked with weight regain.

While a limitation of the work is that self-reported measures of energy or macronutrient or protein intake were not obtained, the authors speculated that the role of protein intake could be linked to the greater loss of lean mass.

“Given the loss of appendicular lean mass in participants in the time-restricted eating arm and previous reports of decreased protein consumption from time-restricted eating, it is possible that protein intake was altered by time-restricted eating in this cohort, and this clearly warrants future study,” they wrote.

Dr. Weiss said the findings underscore that not all weight loss in dieting is beneficial.

“Losing 1 kg of lean mass (is not equal) to a kilogram of fat,” he said. “Indeed, if one loses 0.65 kg of lean mass and only 0.35 kg of fat mass, that is an intervention I’d probably pass on.”
 

Time-restricted eating is popular, perhaps because it’s easy?

Time-restricted eating has gained popularity in recent years.

The approach “is attractive as a weight-loss option in that it does not require tedious and time-consuming methods such as calorie counting or adherence to complicated diets,” the authors noted. “Indeed, we found that self-reported adherence to the time-restricted eating schedule was high; however, in contrast to our hypothesis, there was no greater weight loss with time-restricted eating compared with the consistent meal timing.”

They explain that the 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. window for eating was chosen because they thought people might find it easier culturally to skip breakfast than dinner, the more social meal.

However, an 8 p.m. cutoff is somewhat late given there is some suggestion that fasting several hours before bedtime is most beneficial, Dr. Weiss noted. So it may be worth examining different time windows.

“I am very intrigued about looking at early time-restricted eating – 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.,” for example, he said. “It is on our list.”

Meanwhile, the study results support previous research showing no effect on weight outcomes in relation to skipping breakfast.

The study received funding from the UCSF cardiology division’s Cardiology Innovations Award Program and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, with additional support from the James Peter Read Foundation. Dr. Weiss has reported nonfinancial support from Mocacare and nonfinancial support from iHealth Labs during the conduct of the study. He also is a cofounder and equity stakeholder of Keyto, and owns stock and was formerly on the board of Virta.

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

The popular new weight-loss approach of eating within a restricted window of time during the day, allowing for an extended period of fasting – also known as intermittent fasting – does not result in greater weight loss, compared with nonrestricted meal timing, results from a randomized clinical trial show.

“I was very surprised by all of [the results],” senior author Ethan J. Weiss, MD, said in an interview.

“Part of the reason we did the study was because I had been doing time-restricted eating myself for years and even recommending it to friends and patients as an effective weight-loss tool,” said Dr. Weiss, of the Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco.

“But no matter how you slice it, prescription of time-restricted eating – at least this version –is not a very effective weight-loss strategy,” Dr. Weiss said.

The study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Dylan A. Lowe, PhD, also of the University of California, San Francisco, involved 116 participants who were randomized to a 12-week regimen of either three structured meals per day or time-restricted eating, with instructions to eat only between 12:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and to completely abstain from eating at other times.

The participants were not given any specific instructions regarding caloric or macronutrient intake “so as to offer a simple, real-world recommendation to free-living individuals,” the authors wrote.

Although some prior research has shown improvements in measures such as glucose tolerance with time-restricted eating, studies showing weight loss with the approach, including one recently reported by Medscape Medical News, have been small and lacked control groups.

“To my knowledge this is the first randomized, controlled trial and definitely the biggest,” Dr. Weiss. “I think it is the most comprehensive dataset available in people, at least for this intervention.”
 

Participants used app to log details

At baseline, participants had a mean weight of 99.2 kg (approximately 219 lb). Their mean age was 46.5 years and 60.3% were men. They were drawn from anywhere in the United States and received study surveys through a custom mobile study application on the Eureka Research Platform. They were given a Bluetooth weight scale to use daily, which was connected with the app, and randomized to one of the two interventions. A subset of 50 participants living near San Francisco underwent in-person testing.

At the end of the 12 weeks, those in the time-restricted eating group (n = 59) did have a significant decrease in weight, compared with baseline (−0.94 kg; P = .01), while weight loss in the consistent-meal group (n = 57) was not significant (−0.68 kg; P = .07).

But importantly, the difference in weight loss between the groups was not significant (−0.26 kg; P = .63).

There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes of fasting insulin, glucose, hemoglobin A1c, or blood lipids within or between the time-restricted eating and consistent-meal group either. Nor were there any significant differences in resting metabolic rate.

Although participants did not self-report their caloric intake, the authors estimated that the differences were not significant using mathematical modeling developed at the National Institutes of Health.

Rates of adherence to the diets were 92.1% in the consistent-meal group versus 83.5% in the time-restricted group.
 

Not all diets are equal: Time-restricted eating group lost more lean mass

In a subset analysis, loss of lean mass was significantly greater in the time-restricted eating group, compared with the consistent-meals group, in terms of both appendicular lean mass (P = .009) and the appendicular lean mass index (P = .005).

In fact, as much as 65% of the weight lost (1.10 kg of the average 1.70 kg) in the time-restricted eating group consisted of lean mass, while much less was fat mass (0.51 kg).

“The proportion of lean mass loss in this study (approximately 65%) far exceeds the normal range of 20%-30%,” the authors wrote. “In addition, there was a highly significant between-group difference in appendicular lean mass.”

Appendicular lean mass correlates with nutritional and physical status, and its reduction can lead to weakness, disability, and impaired quality of life.

“This serves as a caution for patient populations at risk for sarcopenia because time-restricted eating could exacerbate muscle loss,” the authors asserted.

Furthermore, previous studies suggest that the loss of lean mass in such studies is positively linked with weight regain.

While a limitation of the work is that self-reported measures of energy or macronutrient or protein intake were not obtained, the authors speculated that the role of protein intake could be linked to the greater loss of lean mass.

“Given the loss of appendicular lean mass in participants in the time-restricted eating arm and previous reports of decreased protein consumption from time-restricted eating, it is possible that protein intake was altered by time-restricted eating in this cohort, and this clearly warrants future study,” they wrote.

Dr. Weiss said the findings underscore that not all weight loss in dieting is beneficial.

“Losing 1 kg of lean mass (is not equal) to a kilogram of fat,” he said. “Indeed, if one loses 0.65 kg of lean mass and only 0.35 kg of fat mass, that is an intervention I’d probably pass on.”
 

Time-restricted eating is popular, perhaps because it’s easy?

Time-restricted eating has gained popularity in recent years.

The approach “is attractive as a weight-loss option in that it does not require tedious and time-consuming methods such as calorie counting or adherence to complicated diets,” the authors noted. “Indeed, we found that self-reported adherence to the time-restricted eating schedule was high; however, in contrast to our hypothesis, there was no greater weight loss with time-restricted eating compared with the consistent meal timing.”

They explain that the 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. window for eating was chosen because they thought people might find it easier culturally to skip breakfast than dinner, the more social meal.

However, an 8 p.m. cutoff is somewhat late given there is some suggestion that fasting several hours before bedtime is most beneficial, Dr. Weiss noted. So it may be worth examining different time windows.

“I am very intrigued about looking at early time-restricted eating – 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.,” for example, he said. “It is on our list.”

Meanwhile, the study results support previous research showing no effect on weight outcomes in relation to skipping breakfast.

The study received funding from the UCSF cardiology division’s Cardiology Innovations Award Program and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, with additional support from the James Peter Read Foundation. Dr. Weiss has reported nonfinancial support from Mocacare and nonfinancial support from iHealth Labs during the conduct of the study. He also is a cofounder and equity stakeholder of Keyto, and owns stock and was formerly on the board of Virta.

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

The popular new weight-loss approach of eating within a restricted window of time during the day, allowing for an extended period of fasting – also known as intermittent fasting – does not result in greater weight loss, compared with nonrestricted meal timing, results from a randomized clinical trial show.

“I was very surprised by all of [the results],” senior author Ethan J. Weiss, MD, said in an interview.

“Part of the reason we did the study was because I had been doing time-restricted eating myself for years and even recommending it to friends and patients as an effective weight-loss tool,” said Dr. Weiss, of the Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco.

“But no matter how you slice it, prescription of time-restricted eating – at least this version –is not a very effective weight-loss strategy,” Dr. Weiss said.

The study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine by Dylan A. Lowe, PhD, also of the University of California, San Francisco, involved 116 participants who were randomized to a 12-week regimen of either three structured meals per day or time-restricted eating, with instructions to eat only between 12:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and to completely abstain from eating at other times.

The participants were not given any specific instructions regarding caloric or macronutrient intake “so as to offer a simple, real-world recommendation to free-living individuals,” the authors wrote.

Although some prior research has shown improvements in measures such as glucose tolerance with time-restricted eating, studies showing weight loss with the approach, including one recently reported by Medscape Medical News, have been small and lacked control groups.

“To my knowledge this is the first randomized, controlled trial and definitely the biggest,” Dr. Weiss. “I think it is the most comprehensive dataset available in people, at least for this intervention.”
 

Participants used app to log details

At baseline, participants had a mean weight of 99.2 kg (approximately 219 lb). Their mean age was 46.5 years and 60.3% were men. They were drawn from anywhere in the United States and received study surveys through a custom mobile study application on the Eureka Research Platform. They were given a Bluetooth weight scale to use daily, which was connected with the app, and randomized to one of the two interventions. A subset of 50 participants living near San Francisco underwent in-person testing.

At the end of the 12 weeks, those in the time-restricted eating group (n = 59) did have a significant decrease in weight, compared with baseline (−0.94 kg; P = .01), while weight loss in the consistent-meal group (n = 57) was not significant (−0.68 kg; P = .07).

But importantly, the difference in weight loss between the groups was not significant (−0.26 kg; P = .63).

There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes of fasting insulin, glucose, hemoglobin A1c, or blood lipids within or between the time-restricted eating and consistent-meal group either. Nor were there any significant differences in resting metabolic rate.

Although participants did not self-report their caloric intake, the authors estimated that the differences were not significant using mathematical modeling developed at the National Institutes of Health.

Rates of adherence to the diets were 92.1% in the consistent-meal group versus 83.5% in the time-restricted group.
 

Not all diets are equal: Time-restricted eating group lost more lean mass

In a subset analysis, loss of lean mass was significantly greater in the time-restricted eating group, compared with the consistent-meals group, in terms of both appendicular lean mass (P = .009) and the appendicular lean mass index (P = .005).

In fact, as much as 65% of the weight lost (1.10 kg of the average 1.70 kg) in the time-restricted eating group consisted of lean mass, while much less was fat mass (0.51 kg).

“The proportion of lean mass loss in this study (approximately 65%) far exceeds the normal range of 20%-30%,” the authors wrote. “In addition, there was a highly significant between-group difference in appendicular lean mass.”

Appendicular lean mass correlates with nutritional and physical status, and its reduction can lead to weakness, disability, and impaired quality of life.

“This serves as a caution for patient populations at risk for sarcopenia because time-restricted eating could exacerbate muscle loss,” the authors asserted.

Furthermore, previous studies suggest that the loss of lean mass in such studies is positively linked with weight regain.

While a limitation of the work is that self-reported measures of energy or macronutrient or protein intake were not obtained, the authors speculated that the role of protein intake could be linked to the greater loss of lean mass.

“Given the loss of appendicular lean mass in participants in the time-restricted eating arm and previous reports of decreased protein consumption from time-restricted eating, it is possible that protein intake was altered by time-restricted eating in this cohort, and this clearly warrants future study,” they wrote.

Dr. Weiss said the findings underscore that not all weight loss in dieting is beneficial.

“Losing 1 kg of lean mass (is not equal) to a kilogram of fat,” he said. “Indeed, if one loses 0.65 kg of lean mass and only 0.35 kg of fat mass, that is an intervention I’d probably pass on.”
 

Time-restricted eating is popular, perhaps because it’s easy?

Time-restricted eating has gained popularity in recent years.

The approach “is attractive as a weight-loss option in that it does not require tedious and time-consuming methods such as calorie counting or adherence to complicated diets,” the authors noted. “Indeed, we found that self-reported adherence to the time-restricted eating schedule was high; however, in contrast to our hypothesis, there was no greater weight loss with time-restricted eating compared with the consistent meal timing.”

They explain that the 12 p.m. to 8 p.m. window for eating was chosen because they thought people might find it easier culturally to skip breakfast than dinner, the more social meal.

However, an 8 p.m. cutoff is somewhat late given there is some suggestion that fasting several hours before bedtime is most beneficial, Dr. Weiss noted. So it may be worth examining different time windows.

“I am very intrigued about looking at early time-restricted eating – 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.,” for example, he said. “It is on our list.”

Meanwhile, the study results support previous research showing no effect on weight outcomes in relation to skipping breakfast.

The study received funding from the UCSF cardiology division’s Cardiology Innovations Award Program and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, with additional support from the James Peter Read Foundation. Dr. Weiss has reported nonfinancial support from Mocacare and nonfinancial support from iHealth Labs during the conduct of the study. He also is a cofounder and equity stakeholder of Keyto, and owns stock and was formerly on the board of Virta.

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

Patients given antibiotics for appendicitis fared no worse in quality of life, at least in the short term, than did patients whose appendix was removed, according to a large, randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority study published online Oct. 5 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

One expert says the body of data, including this trial, indicates that the best appendicitis treatment now comes down to individual patients and choice.

David Flum, MD, director of the Surgical Outcomes Research Center at the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues conducted the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which compared a 10-day course of antibiotics with appendectomy for patients with appendicitis at 25 US centers.

Although some may interpret the study as praising the potential role of antibiotics, the author of an accompanying editorial warns against rushing to antibiotics, even during a pandemic when hospital resources may be strained.

In the study of 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith), 776 were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group and 776 to appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure).

After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, the standard of treatment for 120 years, as determined on the basis of 30-day scores for the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.001 to 0.03).

EQ-5D at 30 days was chosen as the primary endpoint because it has been validated as an overall measure of health after appendicitis treatment and the 30-day time frame mimics the typical recovery period for appendectomy, Flum and colleagues explain.
 

Some results favored appendectomy

However, editorialist Danny Jacobs, MD, MPH, president of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, points out that about a third (29%) of the patients in the antibiotics group had undergone appendectomy by 90 days.

Appendicolith, a well-established potential complication, he acknowledges, was the main driver of the need for surgery (41% with that complication needed appendectomy), but it was not the sole reason.

Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 – 3.98). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 – 2.50). Additionally, the number of emergency department visits was nearly three times higher in the antibiotics group, and more time was spent in the hospital by that group, Jacobs points out.

He notes that the article mentions circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic may figure into consideration when weighing antibiotics against appendectomy. But he warns that there also may be a danger of treatment bias in vulnerable populations and that COVID-19 has highlighted disparities in care overall.

“It will be important to ensure that some people, in particular vulnerable populations, are not offered antibiotic therapy preferentially or without adequate education regarding the longer-term implications,” Jacobs writes.

Flum told Medscape Medical News he agrees with Jacobs that the potential for bias is important.

“We should all be worried that new healthcare options won’t be equally applied,” he said.

But he and his coauthors offer an alternative view of the results of the study.

“In the antibiotics group,” they write, “more than 7 in 10 participants avoided surgery, many were treated on an outpatient basis, and participants and caregivers missed less time at work than with appendectomy.”

Flum said, “[T]hat’s going to be attractive to some patients. Not all, but some.”

Douglas Smink, MD, MPH, chief of surgery at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News that he sees this study as an argument for surgery remaining the go-to option for appendicitis, unless there is a safety reason for not performing the surgery.

Patients come in and want their appendix out immediately, he said, and surgery offers a quick option with short length of stay and few complications.

Additionally, he said, if patients are told that, with antibiotics, “there’s a 1 in 3 chance you’re going to need [an appendectomy] in the next 3 months, I think most people would say, ‘Just take it out then,’ ” he said.
 

Can research decide which is best?

The controversy has been well studied. But with no clear answer in any of the studies about whether appendectomy or use of antibiotics is better, should the current study put the research to rest?

Flum told Medscape Medical News that this study, which is three times the size of the next-largest study, makes clear “there are choices.”

Previous trials in Europe “did not move the needle” on the issue, he said, “in part because they didn’t include the patients who typically get appendectomies.”

He said their team tried to build on those studies and include “typical patients in typical hospitals with typical appendicitis” and found that both surgery and antibiotics are safe and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the patient.

Smink says one thing that has been definitively answered with this trial is that patients with appendicolith are “more likely to fail with antibiotics.”

Previous trials have excluded patients with appendicolith, and this one did not.

“That’s something we’ve not really known for sure but we’ve assumed,” he said.

But now, Smink says, he thinks the research on the topic has gone about as far as it can go.

He notes that none of the trials has shown antibiotics to be better than appendectomy. “I have a hard time believing we are going to find anything different if we did another study like this. This is a really well-done one,” he said.

“If the best you can do is show noninferiority, which is where we are with these studies on appendicitis, you’re always going to have both options, which is great for patients and doctors,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The original article lists the authors’ relevant financial relationships. Jacobs and Smink reported no such relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients given antibiotics for appendicitis fared no worse in quality of life, at least in the short term, than did patients whose appendix was removed, according to a large, randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority study published online Oct. 5 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

One expert says the body of data, including this trial, indicates that the best appendicitis treatment now comes down to individual patients and choice.

David Flum, MD, director of the Surgical Outcomes Research Center at the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues conducted the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which compared a 10-day course of antibiotics with appendectomy for patients with appendicitis at 25 US centers.

Although some may interpret the study as praising the potential role of antibiotics, the author of an accompanying editorial warns against rushing to antibiotics, even during a pandemic when hospital resources may be strained.

In the study of 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith), 776 were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group and 776 to appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure).

After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, the standard of treatment for 120 years, as determined on the basis of 30-day scores for the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.001 to 0.03).

EQ-5D at 30 days was chosen as the primary endpoint because it has been validated as an overall measure of health after appendicitis treatment and the 30-day time frame mimics the typical recovery period for appendectomy, Flum and colleagues explain.
 

Some results favored appendectomy

However, editorialist Danny Jacobs, MD, MPH, president of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, points out that about a third (29%) of the patients in the antibiotics group had undergone appendectomy by 90 days.

Appendicolith, a well-established potential complication, he acknowledges, was the main driver of the need for surgery (41% with that complication needed appendectomy), but it was not the sole reason.

Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 – 3.98). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 – 2.50). Additionally, the number of emergency department visits was nearly three times higher in the antibiotics group, and more time was spent in the hospital by that group, Jacobs points out.

He notes that the article mentions circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic may figure into consideration when weighing antibiotics against appendectomy. But he warns that there also may be a danger of treatment bias in vulnerable populations and that COVID-19 has highlighted disparities in care overall.

“It will be important to ensure that some people, in particular vulnerable populations, are not offered antibiotic therapy preferentially or without adequate education regarding the longer-term implications,” Jacobs writes.

Flum told Medscape Medical News he agrees with Jacobs that the potential for bias is important.

“We should all be worried that new healthcare options won’t be equally applied,” he said.

But he and his coauthors offer an alternative view of the results of the study.

“In the antibiotics group,” they write, “more than 7 in 10 participants avoided surgery, many were treated on an outpatient basis, and participants and caregivers missed less time at work than with appendectomy.”

Flum said, “[T]hat’s going to be attractive to some patients. Not all, but some.”

Douglas Smink, MD, MPH, chief of surgery at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News that he sees this study as an argument for surgery remaining the go-to option for appendicitis, unless there is a safety reason for not performing the surgery.

Patients come in and want their appendix out immediately, he said, and surgery offers a quick option with short length of stay and few complications.

Additionally, he said, if patients are told that, with antibiotics, “there’s a 1 in 3 chance you’re going to need [an appendectomy] in the next 3 months, I think most people would say, ‘Just take it out then,’ ” he said.
 

Can research decide which is best?

The controversy has been well studied. But with no clear answer in any of the studies about whether appendectomy or use of antibiotics is better, should the current study put the research to rest?

Flum told Medscape Medical News that this study, which is three times the size of the next-largest study, makes clear “there are choices.”

Previous trials in Europe “did not move the needle” on the issue, he said, “in part because they didn’t include the patients who typically get appendectomies.”

He said their team tried to build on those studies and include “typical patients in typical hospitals with typical appendicitis” and found that both surgery and antibiotics are safe and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the patient.

Smink says one thing that has been definitively answered with this trial is that patients with appendicolith are “more likely to fail with antibiotics.”

Previous trials have excluded patients with appendicolith, and this one did not.

“That’s something we’ve not really known for sure but we’ve assumed,” he said.

But now, Smink says, he thinks the research on the topic has gone about as far as it can go.

He notes that none of the trials has shown antibiotics to be better than appendectomy. “I have a hard time believing we are going to find anything different if we did another study like this. This is a really well-done one,” he said.

“If the best you can do is show noninferiority, which is where we are with these studies on appendicitis, you’re always going to have both options, which is great for patients and doctors,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The original article lists the authors’ relevant financial relationships. Jacobs and Smink reported no such relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients given antibiotics for appendicitis fared no worse in quality of life, at least in the short term, than did patients whose appendix was removed, according to a large, randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority study published online Oct. 5 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

One expert says the body of data, including this trial, indicates that the best appendicitis treatment now comes down to individual patients and choice.

David Flum, MD, director of the Surgical Outcomes Research Center at the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues conducted the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which compared a 10-day course of antibiotics with appendectomy for patients with appendicitis at 25 US centers.

Although some may interpret the study as praising the potential role of antibiotics, the author of an accompanying editorial warns against rushing to antibiotics, even during a pandemic when hospital resources may be strained.

In the study of 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith), 776 were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group and 776 to appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure).

After 30 days, antibiotics were found to be noninferior to appendectomy, the standard of treatment for 120 years, as determined on the basis of 30-day scores for the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% CI, −0.001 to 0.03).

EQ-5D at 30 days was chosen as the primary endpoint because it has been validated as an overall measure of health after appendicitis treatment and the 30-day time frame mimics the typical recovery period for appendectomy, Flum and colleagues explain.
 

Some results favored appendectomy

However, editorialist Danny Jacobs, MD, MPH, president of Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, points out that about a third (29%) of the patients in the antibiotics group had undergone appendectomy by 90 days.

Appendicolith, a well-established potential complication, he acknowledges, was the main driver of the need for surgery (41% with that complication needed appendectomy), but it was not the sole reason.

Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 – 3.98). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 – 2.50). Additionally, the number of emergency department visits was nearly three times higher in the antibiotics group, and more time was spent in the hospital by that group, Jacobs points out.

He notes that the article mentions circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic may figure into consideration when weighing antibiotics against appendectomy. But he warns that there also may be a danger of treatment bias in vulnerable populations and that COVID-19 has highlighted disparities in care overall.

“It will be important to ensure that some people, in particular vulnerable populations, are not offered antibiotic therapy preferentially or without adequate education regarding the longer-term implications,” Jacobs writes.

Flum told Medscape Medical News he agrees with Jacobs that the potential for bias is important.

“We should all be worried that new healthcare options won’t be equally applied,” he said.

But he and his coauthors offer an alternative view of the results of the study.

“In the antibiotics group,” they write, “more than 7 in 10 participants avoided surgery, many were treated on an outpatient basis, and participants and caregivers missed less time at work than with appendectomy.”

Flum said, “[T]hat’s going to be attractive to some patients. Not all, but some.”

Douglas Smink, MD, MPH, chief of surgery at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, told Medscape Medical News that he sees this study as an argument for surgery remaining the go-to option for appendicitis, unless there is a safety reason for not performing the surgery.

Patients come in and want their appendix out immediately, he said, and surgery offers a quick option with short length of stay and few complications.

Additionally, he said, if patients are told that, with antibiotics, “there’s a 1 in 3 chance you’re going to need [an appendectomy] in the next 3 months, I think most people would say, ‘Just take it out then,’ ” he said.
 

Can research decide which is best?

The controversy has been well studied. But with no clear answer in any of the studies about whether appendectomy or use of antibiotics is better, should the current study put the research to rest?

Flum told Medscape Medical News that this study, which is three times the size of the next-largest study, makes clear “there are choices.”

Previous trials in Europe “did not move the needle” on the issue, he said, “in part because they didn’t include the patients who typically get appendectomies.”

He said their team tried to build on those studies and include “typical patients in typical hospitals with typical appendicitis” and found that both surgery and antibiotics are safe and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the patient.

Smink says one thing that has been definitively answered with this trial is that patients with appendicolith are “more likely to fail with antibiotics.”

Previous trials have excluded patients with appendicolith, and this one did not.

“That’s something we’ve not really known for sure but we’ve assumed,” he said.

But now, Smink says, he thinks the research on the topic has gone about as far as it can go.

He notes that none of the trials has shown antibiotics to be better than appendectomy. “I have a hard time believing we are going to find anything different if we did another study like this. This is a really well-done one,” he said.

“If the best you can do is show noninferiority, which is where we are with these studies on appendicitis, you’re always going to have both options, which is great for patients and doctors,” he said.

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The original article lists the authors’ relevant financial relationships. Jacobs and Smink reported no such relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.