Objective neuropsychological tests can be used to subclassify the cognitive symptoms present in patients with major depression into three patterns having implications for treatment responsiveness, Gitte Moos Knudsen, MD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

“Our data highlight the importance of assessing and targeting cognitive symptoms,” said Dr. Knudsen, the ECNP president and professor of neurology at the University of Copenhagen.

She was a coauthor of the Danish NeuroPharm study, in which 92 antidepressant-free patients with moderate or severe major depressive disorder and 103 healthy controls completed a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. The testing included a validation study of the EMOTICOM test battery, a novel neuropsychological test battery developed specifically to assess what has been called “hot” cognition, such as emotion processing, social cognition, and affective verbal memory.

Overall, the depressed patients collectively showed moderate increases in measures of guilt and shame, moderate deficits in working and verbal memory, moderately slowed reaction time, and mild to moderate negative affective bias, compared with controls. No correlation was found between performance on any of the individual cognitive domains and depression severity as measured using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, underscoring the concept that cognitive impairment is a distinct component of depressive pathology rather than an extension of the classic mood and somatic symptoms of major depression.

Cluster analysis revealed three distinct patterns of cognitive impairment in the study population. Unlike the individual cognitive domains, these cognitive clusters did correlate with depression severity. The implication is that neuropsychological testing may identify large subgroups of patients with major depression who may benefit from augmentation of antidepressant medication with treatments targeting impaired cognition, as they become available.

Investigators classified 38 of the 92 patients with major depressive disorder as falling within Cluster A. That is, they exhibited marked deficits in hot cognition expressed in a greatly impaired ability to accurately identify facial emotions on photographs, with resultant high scores for emotion recognition bias and emotion misattribution bias. This impairment in hot cognition was accompanied by minimal guilt and shame and little or no deficits in the cold cognitive domains of verbal and working memory.

Cluster B, composed of 28 patients, was characterized by generally good cognitive function, with positive biases in emotion processing, near-normal guilt and shame ratings, but moderate deficits across the cold cognition domains, making for a mirror image of Cluster A.

The 26 patients in Cluster C demonstrated large deficits in both the hot and cold cognition domains, with particularly pronounced guilt and shame scores.

The three clusters didn’t differ in terms of age or sex. However, patients in Cluster C had significantly more severe core depressive symptoms as measured by Hamilton scores than in Clusters A and B.

This analysis from the NeuroPharm study was cross-sectional. Dr. Knudsen cited a recent large Chinese longitudinal study to underscore how the prevalence of patient-reported cognitive deficits in major depressive disorder is high. And while those deficits decrease over time, they nonetheless remain substantial after 6 months on antidepressant therapy.

That study included 598 Chinese outpatients with major depressive disorder. At baseline, 77% had cognitive symptoms as evidenced by a total score of 21 or more on the self-rated Perceived Deficits Questionnaire–Depression (PDQ-D). One month after going on antidepressant monotherapy, the prevalence of cognitive symptoms had dropped to 59%. At 2 months, the rate was 45%. And at month 6, a PDQ-D score of 21 or greater was still present in 32.4% of patients. High baseline PDQ-D scores were associated with worse clinical outcomes, including a lower treatment response rate at 1 month and a lower remission rate at 2 months. Moreover, high PDQ-D scores at 2 months were associated with lower remission and higher relapse rates at 6 months.

Dr. Knudsen reported having no financial conflicts regarding the NeuroPharm study, which was conducted free of commercial support. She serves as an adviser to Sage Therapeutics and Sanos.

[email protected]

Objective neuropsychological tests can be used to subclassify the cognitive symptoms present in patients with major depression into three patterns having implications for treatment responsiveness, Gitte Moos Knudsen, MD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

“Our data highlight the importance of assessing and targeting cognitive symptoms,” said Dr. Knudsen, the ECNP president and professor of neurology at the University of Copenhagen.

She was a coauthor of the Danish NeuroPharm study, in which 92 antidepressant-free patients with moderate or severe major depressive disorder and 103 healthy controls completed a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. The testing included a validation study of the EMOTICOM test battery, a novel neuropsychological test battery developed specifically to assess what has been called “hot” cognition, such as emotion processing, social cognition, and affective verbal memory.

Overall, the depressed patients collectively showed moderate increases in measures of guilt and shame, moderate deficits in working and verbal memory, moderately slowed reaction time, and mild to moderate negative affective bias, compared with controls. No correlation was found between performance on any of the individual cognitive domains and depression severity as measured using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, underscoring the concept that cognitive impairment is a distinct component of depressive pathology rather than an extension of the classic mood and somatic symptoms of major depression.

Cluster analysis revealed three distinct patterns of cognitive impairment in the study population. Unlike the individual cognitive domains, these cognitive clusters did correlate with depression severity. The implication is that neuropsychological testing may identify large subgroups of patients with major depression who may benefit from augmentation of antidepressant medication with treatments targeting impaired cognition, as they become available.

Investigators classified 38 of the 92 patients with major depressive disorder as falling within Cluster A. That is, they exhibited marked deficits in hot cognition expressed in a greatly impaired ability to accurately identify facial emotions on photographs, with resultant high scores for emotion recognition bias and emotion misattribution bias. This impairment in hot cognition was accompanied by minimal guilt and shame and little or no deficits in the cold cognitive domains of verbal and working memory.

Cluster B, composed of 28 patients, was characterized by generally good cognitive function, with positive biases in emotion processing, near-normal guilt and shame ratings, but moderate deficits across the cold cognition domains, making for a mirror image of Cluster A.

The 26 patients in Cluster C demonstrated large deficits in both the hot and cold cognition domains, with particularly pronounced guilt and shame scores.

The three clusters didn’t differ in terms of age or sex. However, patients in Cluster C had significantly more severe core depressive symptoms as measured by Hamilton scores than in Clusters A and B.

This analysis from the NeuroPharm study was cross-sectional. Dr. Knudsen cited a recent large Chinese longitudinal study to underscore how the prevalence of patient-reported cognitive deficits in major depressive disorder is high. And while those deficits decrease over time, they nonetheless remain substantial after 6 months on antidepressant therapy.

That study included 598 Chinese outpatients with major depressive disorder. At baseline, 77% had cognitive symptoms as evidenced by a total score of 21 or more on the self-rated Perceived Deficits Questionnaire–Depression (PDQ-D). One month after going on antidepressant monotherapy, the prevalence of cognitive symptoms had dropped to 59%. At 2 months, the rate was 45%. And at month 6, a PDQ-D score of 21 or greater was still present in 32.4% of patients. High baseline PDQ-D scores were associated with worse clinical outcomes, including a lower treatment response rate at 1 month and a lower remission rate at 2 months. Moreover, high PDQ-D scores at 2 months were associated with lower remission and higher relapse rates at 6 months.

Dr. Knudsen reported having no financial conflicts regarding the NeuroPharm study, which was conducted free of commercial support. She serves as an adviser to Sage Therapeutics and Sanos.

[email protected]

Objective neuropsychological tests can be used to subclassify the cognitive symptoms present in patients with major depression into three patterns having implications for treatment responsiveness, Gitte Moos Knudsen, MD, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

“Our data highlight the importance of assessing and targeting cognitive symptoms,” said Dr. Knudsen, the ECNP president and professor of neurology at the University of Copenhagen.

She was a coauthor of the Danish NeuroPharm study, in which 92 antidepressant-free patients with moderate or severe major depressive disorder and 103 healthy controls completed a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. The testing included a validation study of the EMOTICOM test battery, a novel neuropsychological test battery developed specifically to assess what has been called “hot” cognition, such as emotion processing, social cognition, and affective verbal memory.

Overall, the depressed patients collectively showed moderate increases in measures of guilt and shame, moderate deficits in working and verbal memory, moderately slowed reaction time, and mild to moderate negative affective bias, compared with controls. No correlation was found between performance on any of the individual cognitive domains and depression severity as measured using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, underscoring the concept that cognitive impairment is a distinct component of depressive pathology rather than an extension of the classic mood and somatic symptoms of major depression.

Cluster analysis revealed three distinct patterns of cognitive impairment in the study population. Unlike the individual cognitive domains, these cognitive clusters did correlate with depression severity. The implication is that neuropsychological testing may identify large subgroups of patients with major depression who may benefit from augmentation of antidepressant medication with treatments targeting impaired cognition, as they become available.

Investigators classified 38 of the 92 patients with major depressive disorder as falling within Cluster A. That is, they exhibited marked deficits in hot cognition expressed in a greatly impaired ability to accurately identify facial emotions on photographs, with resultant high scores for emotion recognition bias and emotion misattribution bias. This impairment in hot cognition was accompanied by minimal guilt and shame and little or no deficits in the cold cognitive domains of verbal and working memory.

Cluster B, composed of 28 patients, was characterized by generally good cognitive function, with positive biases in emotion processing, near-normal guilt and shame ratings, but moderate deficits across the cold cognition domains, making for a mirror image of Cluster A.

The 26 patients in Cluster C demonstrated large deficits in both the hot and cold cognition domains, with particularly pronounced guilt and shame scores.

The three clusters didn’t differ in terms of age or sex. However, patients in Cluster C had significantly more severe core depressive symptoms as measured by Hamilton scores than in Clusters A and B.

This analysis from the NeuroPharm study was cross-sectional. Dr. Knudsen cited a recent large Chinese longitudinal study to underscore how the prevalence of patient-reported cognitive deficits in major depressive disorder is high. And while those deficits decrease over time, they nonetheless remain substantial after 6 months on antidepressant therapy.

That study included 598 Chinese outpatients with major depressive disorder. At baseline, 77% had cognitive symptoms as evidenced by a total score of 21 or more on the self-rated Perceived Deficits Questionnaire–Depression (PDQ-D). One month after going on antidepressant monotherapy, the prevalence of cognitive symptoms had dropped to 59%. At 2 months, the rate was 45%. And at month 6, a PDQ-D score of 21 or greater was still present in 32.4% of patients. High baseline PDQ-D scores were associated with worse clinical outcomes, including a lower treatment response rate at 1 month and a lower remission rate at 2 months. Moreover, high PDQ-D scores at 2 months were associated with lower remission and higher relapse rates at 6 months.

Dr. Knudsen reported having no financial conflicts regarding the NeuroPharm study, which was conducted free of commercial support. She serves as an adviser to Sage Therapeutics and Sanos.

[email protected]

Payment cuts to nearly all of medicine, including gastroenterology, could be in store beginning Jan. 1, 2021. Physicians may also face elimination of some services the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services granted temporary access to during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic according to CMS’s recently released policy and payment recommendations. These proposals could be implemented as physician practices are still recovering financially from states’ temporary ban on elective surgeries from March through May 2020 in response to the public health emergency (PHE) and continuing to deal with the clinical and financial challenges of the pandemic.

In early August, CMS proposed a number of changes for 2021 that affect physicians. There’s plenty of good, bad, and ugly in this proposed rule.
 

Let’s start with two positives (The good):

Medicare proposes to maintain the current values for colonoscopy with biopsy (45385) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with biopsy (43239). Despite a recent reevaluation of these codes in 2016 and 2014, respectively, Medicare conceded to Anthem’s suggestion that the procedures were not overvalued and needed another evaluation. The AGA and our sister societies’ data affirmed the current values and Medicare proposed to maintain them in 2021.

Medicare proposes to increase the price for scope video system equipment (ES031) from $36,306 to $70,673.38 and the suction machine (Gomco) (EQ235) from $1,981.66 to $3,195.85, phased in over 2 years. This will provide a small increase in the practice expense value for all GI endoscopy procedures. Since CMS began conducting a review of scope systems in 2017, the AGA and our sister societies have successfully worked to convince the Agency to increase its payment for GI endoscopes and associated equipment by providing invoices. We are pleased Medicare is updating these items to reflect more accurate costs.

Now onto items that could negatively affect the practice of gastroenterology.
 

The bad

Medicare proposes to stop covering and paying for telephone evaluation and management (E/M) visits as soon as the COVID-19 PHE expires. After originally denying that Medicare beneficiaries had trouble accessing video E/M visits and refusing to cover existing telephone (audio only) E/M codes 99441-99443, the agency responded to enormous pressure from AGA and other specialties and added the codes to its covered telehealth services list, setting the payment equal to office/outpatient established patient E/M codes 99212-99214 during the PHE. Telephone E/M has been a vital lifeline, allowing Medicare beneficiaries who don’t have a smart phone or reliable internet connection to access needed E/M services, while allowing them to stay safe at home during the PHE. There is evidence that our most vulnerable patients have the greatest need for telephone visits to advance their care.¹

Medicare’s proposal to stop covering and paying for telephone E/M visits as soon as the COVID-19 PHE expires, while disappointing, is not surprising because of the agency’s reluctance to admit they were needed in the first place. The agency believes that creating a new code for audio-only patient interactions similar to the virtual check-in code G2012 but for a longer unit of time and with an accordingly higher value will suffice. Physicians appreciate that E/M delivered via telephone is not the same as a check-in call to a patient, and the care provided requires similar time, effort, and cognitive load as video visits. The AGA and our sister societies plan to object to Medicare’s proposal to treat these services as “check-ins” with slightly higher payment and will continue to advocate for permanent coverage of the telephone E/M CPT codes and payment parity with in-person E/M visits.

The ugly

The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) conversion factor, the basis of Medicare payments, is proposed to be cut almost 11% percent from $36.09 in 2020 to $32.26 in 2021.

How it happened

Medicare agreed to implement coding and valuation changes to office and outpatient E/M codes (99202-99205, 99211-99215) in 2021 as recommended by the American Medical Association and widely supported by specialty societies. E/M services account for about 40% of all Medicare spending annually, which magnifies the impact of any changes to their relative value units (RVUs). By law, payment increases that occur from new work RVUs must be offset by a reduction, referred to as a budget-neutral adjustment, applied to offset the increase in total spending on the MPFS.²

CMS explained in the 2021 MPFS proposed rule, “If revisions to the RVUs cause expenditures for the year to change by more than $20 million, we make adjustments to ensure that expenditures do not increase or decrease by more than $20 million.” Medicare calculated that the corresponding adjustment to the conversion factor for 2021 needed to fall by nearly 11% to achieve budget neutrality. Because gastroenterologists report a significant portion of E/M in addition to performing procedures, the overall estimated impact is –5% of all reimbursement from Medicare.
 

What you can do

Visit the AGA Advocacy Action Center at https://gastro.quorum.us/AGAactioncenter/ and select “Fight back against CMS’s cuts to specialty care payments” to tell your lawmakers to stop these cuts and preserve care for patients by waiving Medicare’s budget neutrality requirements for E/M adjustments.

You can also use the AGA’s Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Calculator tool to determine the effect of the proposed cuts.³ By contacting AGA staff, Leslie Narramore, at [email protected] with the overall effect on your practice, you can help AGA use these data as we work with the physician community to urge Congress to prevent these payment cuts.
 

What AGA is doing

The AGA and our sister societies have joined the AMA and others in urging Congress and CMS to waive budget-neutrality rules for the implementation of the changes in E/M services effective 2021. We also joined with AMA and over 100 specialty societies in a letter asking Secretary of Health & Human Services Alex Azar that the agency use its authority under the public health emergency declaration to waive budget neutrality for the changes, given these difficult times for practices across the country.

What next steps to take

The AGA and our sister societies are developing comment letters in response to the proposals in the 2021 MPFS proposed rule. Medicare plans to publish its final decisions for 2021 in December. Please do your part by visiting the AGA Advocacy Action Center at https://gastro.quorum.us/AGAactioncenter/ to tell your lawmakers to stop the proposed 2021 payment cuts and preserve care for patients by waiving Medicare’s budget-neutrality requirements for E/M adjustments.

References

1. Serper M et al. Positive early patient and clinician experience with telemedicine in an academic gastroenterology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jun 18]. Gastroenterology. 2020;S0016-5085(20)34834-4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.034.

2. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Value-Based-Programs/MACRA-MIPS-and-APMs/MACRA-MIPS-and-APMs.

3. https://gastro.org/news/prepare-for-and-help-prevent-2021-medicare-cuts-to-gi/.

Dr. Gangarosa is professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, and chair of the AGA Government Affairs Committee; Dr. Mehta is associate chief innovation officer at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, a gastroenterologist, assistant professor of medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine, senior fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, affiliated faculty member at the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, and AGA RUC Adviser. They have no conflicts of interest.

Payment cuts to nearly all of medicine, including gastroenterology, could be in store beginning Jan. 1, 2021. Physicians may also face elimination of some services the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services granted temporary access to during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic according to CMS’s recently released policy and payment recommendations. These proposals could be implemented as physician practices are still recovering financially from states’ temporary ban on elective surgeries from March through May 2020 in response to the public health emergency (PHE) and continuing to deal with the clinical and financial challenges of the pandemic.

In early August, CMS proposed a number of changes for 2021 that affect physicians. There’s plenty of good, bad, and ugly in this proposed rule.
 

Let’s start with two positives (The good):

Medicare proposes to maintain the current values for colonoscopy with biopsy (45385) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with biopsy (43239). Despite a recent reevaluation of these codes in 2016 and 2014, respectively, Medicare conceded to Anthem’s suggestion that the procedures were not overvalued and needed another evaluation. The AGA and our sister societies’ data affirmed the current values and Medicare proposed to maintain them in 2021.

Medicare proposes to increase the price for scope video system equipment (ES031) from $36,306 to $70,673.38 and the suction machine (Gomco) (EQ235) from $1,981.66 to $3,195.85, phased in over 2 years. This will provide a small increase in the practice expense value for all GI endoscopy procedures. Since CMS began conducting a review of scope systems in 2017, the AGA and our sister societies have successfully worked to convince the Agency to increase its payment for GI endoscopes and associated equipment by providing invoices. We are pleased Medicare is updating these items to reflect more accurate costs.

Now onto items that could negatively affect the practice of gastroenterology.
 

The bad

Medicare proposes to stop covering and paying for telephone evaluation and management (E/M) visits as soon as the COVID-19 PHE expires. After originally denying that Medicare beneficiaries had trouble accessing video E/M visits and refusing to cover existing telephone (audio only) E/M codes 99441-99443, the agency responded to enormous pressure from AGA and other specialties and added the codes to its covered telehealth services list, setting the payment equal to office/outpatient established patient E/M codes 99212-99214 during the PHE. Telephone E/M has been a vital lifeline, allowing Medicare beneficiaries who don’t have a smart phone or reliable internet connection to access needed E/M services, while allowing them to stay safe at home during the PHE. There is evidence that our most vulnerable patients have the greatest need for telephone visits to advance their care.¹

Medicare’s proposal to stop covering and paying for telephone E/M visits as soon as the COVID-19 PHE expires, while disappointing, is not surprising because of the agency’s reluctance to admit they were needed in the first place. The agency believes that creating a new code for audio-only patient interactions similar to the virtual check-in code G2012 but for a longer unit of time and with an accordingly higher value will suffice. Physicians appreciate that E/M delivered via telephone is not the same as a check-in call to a patient, and the care provided requires similar time, effort, and cognitive load as video visits. The AGA and our sister societies plan to object to Medicare’s proposal to treat these services as “check-ins” with slightly higher payment and will continue to advocate for permanent coverage of the telephone E/M CPT codes and payment parity with in-person E/M visits.

The ugly

The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) conversion factor, the basis of Medicare payments, is proposed to be cut almost 11% percent from $36.09 in 2020 to $32.26 in 2021.

How it happened

Medicare agreed to implement coding and valuation changes to office and outpatient E/M codes (99202-99205, 99211-99215) in 2021 as recommended by the American Medical Association and widely supported by specialty societies. E/M services account for about 40% of all Medicare spending annually, which magnifies the impact of any changes to their relative value units (RVUs). By law, payment increases that occur from new work RVUs must be offset by a reduction, referred to as a budget-neutral adjustment, applied to offset the increase in total spending on the MPFS.²

CMS explained in the 2021 MPFS proposed rule, “If revisions to the RVUs cause expenditures for the year to change by more than $20 million, we make adjustments to ensure that expenditures do not increase or decrease by more than $20 million.” Medicare calculated that the corresponding adjustment to the conversion factor for 2021 needed to fall by nearly 11% to achieve budget neutrality. Because gastroenterologists report a significant portion of E/M in addition to performing procedures, the overall estimated impact is –5% of all reimbursement from Medicare.
 

What you can do

Visit the AGA Advocacy Action Center at https://gastro.quorum.us/AGAactioncenter/ and select “Fight back against CMS’s cuts to specialty care payments” to tell your lawmakers to stop these cuts and preserve care for patients by waiving Medicare’s budget neutrality requirements for E/M adjustments.

You can also use the AGA’s Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Calculator tool to determine the effect of the proposed cuts.³ By contacting AGA staff, Leslie Narramore, at [email protected] with the overall effect on your practice, you can help AGA use these data as we work with the physician community to urge Congress to prevent these payment cuts.
 

What AGA is doing

The AGA and our sister societies have joined the AMA and others in urging Congress and CMS to waive budget-neutrality rules for the implementation of the changes in E/M services effective 2021. We also joined with AMA and over 100 specialty societies in a letter asking Secretary of Health & Human Services Alex Azar that the agency use its authority under the public health emergency declaration to waive budget neutrality for the changes, given these difficult times for practices across the country.

What next steps to take

The AGA and our sister societies are developing comment letters in response to the proposals in the 2021 MPFS proposed rule. Medicare plans to publish its final decisions for 2021 in December. Please do your part by visiting the AGA Advocacy Action Center at https://gastro.quorum.us/AGAactioncenter/ to tell your lawmakers to stop the proposed 2021 payment cuts and preserve care for patients by waiving Medicare’s budget-neutrality requirements for E/M adjustments.

References

1. Serper M et al. Positive early patient and clinician experience with telemedicine in an academic gastroenterology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jun 18]. Gastroenterology. 2020;S0016-5085(20)34834-4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.034.

2. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Value-Based-Programs/MACRA-MIPS-and-APMs/MACRA-MIPS-and-APMs.

3. https://gastro.org/news/prepare-for-and-help-prevent-2021-medicare-cuts-to-gi/.

Dr. Gangarosa is professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, and chair of the AGA Government Affairs Committee; Dr. Mehta is associate chief innovation officer at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, a gastroenterologist, assistant professor of medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine, senior fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, affiliated faculty member at the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, and AGA RUC Adviser. They have no conflicts of interest.

Payment cuts to nearly all of medicine, including gastroenterology, could be in store beginning Jan. 1, 2021. Physicians may also face elimination of some services the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services granted temporary access to during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic according to CMS’s recently released policy and payment recommendations. These proposals could be implemented as physician practices are still recovering financially from states’ temporary ban on elective surgeries from March through May 2020 in response to the public health emergency (PHE) and continuing to deal with the clinical and financial challenges of the pandemic.

In early August, CMS proposed a number of changes for 2021 that affect physicians. There’s plenty of good, bad, and ugly in this proposed rule.
 

Let’s start with two positives (The good):

Medicare proposes to maintain the current values for colonoscopy with biopsy (45385) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with biopsy (43239). Despite a recent reevaluation of these codes in 2016 and 2014, respectively, Medicare conceded to Anthem’s suggestion that the procedures were not overvalued and needed another evaluation. The AGA and our sister societies’ data affirmed the current values and Medicare proposed to maintain them in 2021.

Medicare proposes to increase the price for scope video system equipment (ES031) from $36,306 to $70,673.38 and the suction machine (Gomco) (EQ235) from $1,981.66 to $3,195.85, phased in over 2 years. This will provide a small increase in the practice expense value for all GI endoscopy procedures. Since CMS began conducting a review of scope systems in 2017, the AGA and our sister societies have successfully worked to convince the Agency to increase its payment for GI endoscopes and associated equipment by providing invoices. We are pleased Medicare is updating these items to reflect more accurate costs.

Now onto items that could negatively affect the practice of gastroenterology.
 

The bad

Medicare proposes to stop covering and paying for telephone evaluation and management (E/M) visits as soon as the COVID-19 PHE expires. After originally denying that Medicare beneficiaries had trouble accessing video E/M visits and refusing to cover existing telephone (audio only) E/M codes 99441-99443, the agency responded to enormous pressure from AGA and other specialties and added the codes to its covered telehealth services list, setting the payment equal to office/outpatient established patient E/M codes 99212-99214 during the PHE. Telephone E/M has been a vital lifeline, allowing Medicare beneficiaries who don’t have a smart phone or reliable internet connection to access needed E/M services, while allowing them to stay safe at home during the PHE. There is evidence that our most vulnerable patients have the greatest need for telephone visits to advance their care.¹

Medicare’s proposal to stop covering and paying for telephone E/M visits as soon as the COVID-19 PHE expires, while disappointing, is not surprising because of the agency’s reluctance to admit they were needed in the first place. The agency believes that creating a new code for audio-only patient interactions similar to the virtual check-in code G2012 but for a longer unit of time and with an accordingly higher value will suffice. Physicians appreciate that E/M delivered via telephone is not the same as a check-in call to a patient, and the care provided requires similar time, effort, and cognitive load as video visits. The AGA and our sister societies plan to object to Medicare’s proposal to treat these services as “check-ins” with slightly higher payment and will continue to advocate for permanent coverage of the telephone E/M CPT codes and payment parity with in-person E/M visits.

The ugly

The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) conversion factor, the basis of Medicare payments, is proposed to be cut almost 11% percent from $36.09 in 2020 to $32.26 in 2021.

How it happened

Medicare agreed to implement coding and valuation changes to office and outpatient E/M codes (99202-99205, 99211-99215) in 2021 as recommended by the American Medical Association and widely supported by specialty societies. E/M services account for about 40% of all Medicare spending annually, which magnifies the impact of any changes to their relative value units (RVUs). By law, payment increases that occur from new work RVUs must be offset by a reduction, referred to as a budget-neutral adjustment, applied to offset the increase in total spending on the MPFS.²

CMS explained in the 2021 MPFS proposed rule, “If revisions to the RVUs cause expenditures for the year to change by more than $20 million, we make adjustments to ensure that expenditures do not increase or decrease by more than $20 million.” Medicare calculated that the corresponding adjustment to the conversion factor for 2021 needed to fall by nearly 11% to achieve budget neutrality. Because gastroenterologists report a significant portion of E/M in addition to performing procedures, the overall estimated impact is –5% of all reimbursement from Medicare.
 

What you can do

Visit the AGA Advocacy Action Center at https://gastro.quorum.us/AGAactioncenter/ and select “Fight back against CMS’s cuts to specialty care payments” to tell your lawmakers to stop these cuts and preserve care for patients by waiving Medicare’s budget neutrality requirements for E/M adjustments.

You can also use the AGA’s Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Calculator tool to determine the effect of the proposed cuts.³ By contacting AGA staff, Leslie Narramore, at [email protected] with the overall effect on your practice, you can help AGA use these data as we work with the physician community to urge Congress to prevent these payment cuts.
 

What AGA is doing

The AGA and our sister societies have joined the AMA and others in urging Congress and CMS to waive budget-neutrality rules for the implementation of the changes in E/M services effective 2021. We also joined with AMA and over 100 specialty societies in a letter asking Secretary of Health & Human Services Alex Azar that the agency use its authority under the public health emergency declaration to waive budget neutrality for the changes, given these difficult times for practices across the country.

What next steps to take

The AGA and our sister societies are developing comment letters in response to the proposals in the 2021 MPFS proposed rule. Medicare plans to publish its final decisions for 2021 in December. Please do your part by visiting the AGA Advocacy Action Center at https://gastro.quorum.us/AGAactioncenter/ to tell your lawmakers to stop the proposed 2021 payment cuts and preserve care for patients by waiving Medicare’s budget-neutrality requirements for E/M adjustments.

References

1. Serper M et al. Positive early patient and clinician experience with telemedicine in an academic gastroenterology practice during the COVID-19 pandemic [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jun 18]. Gastroenterology. 2020;S0016-5085(20)34834-4. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.034.

2. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Value-Based-Programs/MACRA-MIPS-and-APMs/MACRA-MIPS-and-APMs.

3. https://gastro.org/news/prepare-for-and-help-prevent-2021-medicare-cuts-to-gi/.

Dr. Gangarosa is professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, and chair of the AGA Government Affairs Committee; Dr. Mehta is associate chief innovation officer at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, a gastroenterologist, assistant professor of medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine, senior fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, affiliated faculty member at the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, and AGA RUC Adviser. They have no conflicts of interest.

Americans sharply increased their alcohol intake last spring as many areas of the country shutdown because of the coronavirus pandemic, results of a national survey show.

Thinkstockphotos.com

The overall frequency of alcohol consumption increased by 14% among adults over age 30 in the spring of 2020 versus the same period a year earlier.

The increase was most evident in adults aged 30-59, women, and non-Hispanic Whites.

“Alcohol consumption can have significant negative health consequences, so this information suggests another way that the pandemic may be affecting the physical and mental health of Americans,” Michael Pollard, PhD, lead investigator and sociologist at Rand, said in a news release.

The results were published online as a research letter Sept. 29 in JAMA Network Open.

Booming business

After some U.S. states issued stay-at-home orders to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2, one study noted a 54% increase in national sales of alcohol for the week ending March 21, 2020, relative to 1 year earlier and a 262% increase in online alcohol sales.

“We’ve had anecdotal information about people buying and consuming more alcohol,” Dr. Pollard said, but the Rand study provides the first survey-based information that shows how much alcohol consumption has increased during the pandemic.

The findings are based on 1,540 adults (mean age, 56.6 years; 57% women) from the Rand American Life Panel, a nationally representative sample of Americans who were surveyed about their alcohol consumption before the pandemic in the spring of 2019, and again in the spring of 2020 during the early months of the shutdown.

Overall, in spring 2020, respondents reported drinking alcohol 6.22 days in the prior month on average, a 14% increase from the monthly average of 5.48 days reported in spring 2019.

Among adults aged 30 to 59 years, the frequency of alcohol consumption increased from 4.98 days prepandemic to 5.91 days during the pandemic, a 19% increase.

Women reported drinking an average of 5.36 days in the prior month in the early pandemic period, a 17% increase from 4.58 monthly drinking days before the pandemic. 

In addition, compared with spring 2019, in spring 2020 women reported a 41% increase in heavy drinking days – four or more drinks in a couple of hours.

Independent of consumption level, nearly 1 in 10 women had an increase in alcohol-related problems in the pandemic period, based on responses to the Short Inventory of Problems scale.

For non-Hispanic White individuals, the overall frequency of alcohol intake rose 10% during the early pandemic period. 

“The population level changes for women, younger, and non-Hispanic White individuals highlight that health systems may need to educate consumers through print or online media about increased alcohol use during the pandemic and identify factors associated with susceptibility and resilience to the impacts of COVID-19,” write Dr. Pollard and colleagues.

The authors note it will be important to determine whether increases in alcohol use persist as the pandemic continues, and whether psychological and physical well-being are subsequently affected.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Americans sharply increased their alcohol intake last spring as many areas of the country shutdown because of the coronavirus pandemic, results of a national survey show.

Thinkstockphotos.com

The overall frequency of alcohol consumption increased by 14% among adults over age 30 in the spring of 2020 versus the same period a year earlier.

The increase was most evident in adults aged 30-59, women, and non-Hispanic Whites.

“Alcohol consumption can have significant negative health consequences, so this information suggests another way that the pandemic may be affecting the physical and mental health of Americans,” Michael Pollard, PhD, lead investigator and sociologist at Rand, said in a news release.

The results were published online as a research letter Sept. 29 in JAMA Network Open.

Booming business

After some U.S. states issued stay-at-home orders to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2, one study noted a 54% increase in national sales of alcohol for the week ending March 21, 2020, relative to 1 year earlier and a 262% increase in online alcohol sales.

“We’ve had anecdotal information about people buying and consuming more alcohol,” Dr. Pollard said, but the Rand study provides the first survey-based information that shows how much alcohol consumption has increased during the pandemic.

The findings are based on 1,540 adults (mean age, 56.6 years; 57% women) from the Rand American Life Panel, a nationally representative sample of Americans who were surveyed about their alcohol consumption before the pandemic in the spring of 2019, and again in the spring of 2020 during the early months of the shutdown.

Overall, in spring 2020, respondents reported drinking alcohol 6.22 days in the prior month on average, a 14% increase from the monthly average of 5.48 days reported in spring 2019.

Among adults aged 30 to 59 years, the frequency of alcohol consumption increased from 4.98 days prepandemic to 5.91 days during the pandemic, a 19% increase.

Women reported drinking an average of 5.36 days in the prior month in the early pandemic period, a 17% increase from 4.58 monthly drinking days before the pandemic. 

In addition, compared with spring 2019, in spring 2020 women reported a 41% increase in heavy drinking days – four or more drinks in a couple of hours.

Independent of consumption level, nearly 1 in 10 women had an increase in alcohol-related problems in the pandemic period, based on responses to the Short Inventory of Problems scale.

For non-Hispanic White individuals, the overall frequency of alcohol intake rose 10% during the early pandemic period. 

“The population level changes for women, younger, and non-Hispanic White individuals highlight that health systems may need to educate consumers through print or online media about increased alcohol use during the pandemic and identify factors associated with susceptibility and resilience to the impacts of COVID-19,” write Dr. Pollard and colleagues.

The authors note it will be important to determine whether increases in alcohol use persist as the pandemic continues, and whether psychological and physical well-being are subsequently affected.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Americans sharply increased their alcohol intake last spring as many areas of the country shutdown because of the coronavirus pandemic, results of a national survey show.

Thinkstockphotos.com

The overall frequency of alcohol consumption increased by 14% among adults over age 30 in the spring of 2020 versus the same period a year earlier.

The increase was most evident in adults aged 30-59, women, and non-Hispanic Whites.

“Alcohol consumption can have significant negative health consequences, so this information suggests another way that the pandemic may be affecting the physical and mental health of Americans,” Michael Pollard, PhD, lead investigator and sociologist at Rand, said in a news release.

The results were published online as a research letter Sept. 29 in JAMA Network Open.

Booming business

After some U.S. states issued stay-at-home orders to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2, one study noted a 54% increase in national sales of alcohol for the week ending March 21, 2020, relative to 1 year earlier and a 262% increase in online alcohol sales.

“We’ve had anecdotal information about people buying and consuming more alcohol,” Dr. Pollard said, but the Rand study provides the first survey-based information that shows how much alcohol consumption has increased during the pandemic.

The findings are based on 1,540 adults (mean age, 56.6 years; 57% women) from the Rand American Life Panel, a nationally representative sample of Americans who were surveyed about their alcohol consumption before the pandemic in the spring of 2019, and again in the spring of 2020 during the early months of the shutdown.

Overall, in spring 2020, respondents reported drinking alcohol 6.22 days in the prior month on average, a 14% increase from the monthly average of 5.48 days reported in spring 2019.

Among adults aged 30 to 59 years, the frequency of alcohol consumption increased from 4.98 days prepandemic to 5.91 days during the pandemic, a 19% increase.

Women reported drinking an average of 5.36 days in the prior month in the early pandemic period, a 17% increase from 4.58 monthly drinking days before the pandemic. 

In addition, compared with spring 2019, in spring 2020 women reported a 41% increase in heavy drinking days – four or more drinks in a couple of hours.

Independent of consumption level, nearly 1 in 10 women had an increase in alcohol-related problems in the pandemic period, based on responses to the Short Inventory of Problems scale.

For non-Hispanic White individuals, the overall frequency of alcohol intake rose 10% during the early pandemic period. 

“The population level changes for women, younger, and non-Hispanic White individuals highlight that health systems may need to educate consumers through print or online media about increased alcohol use during the pandemic and identify factors associated with susceptibility and resilience to the impacts of COVID-19,” write Dr. Pollard and colleagues.

The authors note it will be important to determine whether increases in alcohol use persist as the pandemic continues, and whether psychological and physical well-being are subsequently affected.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Join us for our new GI Forging Forward virtual symposia series, a practical educational training program covering timely topics for GIs through the lens of COVID-19. Experts in the field will present the latest COVID-19 findings, share proven strategies to communicate and manage disaster and crisis situations, and educate participants on evidence-based recommendations to meet today’s evolving needs. Upcoming topics will cover keeping you, your staff and patients safe, new approaches and training in research, leading in times of crisis, and rapid-response guideline development.

Registration for this month’s virtual webinars are now open:

• Meet NIH Leadership: Minorities health disparities, research and career development: Oct. 15, 2020, 5:30 p.m. EDT
• Effective leadership in times of crisis: Oct. 22, 2020, 5:30 p.m. EDT

For more information, visit www.gastro.org/GIForgingForward.

[email protected]

Join us for our new GI Forging Forward virtual symposia series, a practical educational training program covering timely topics for GIs through the lens of COVID-19. Experts in the field will present the latest COVID-19 findings, share proven strategies to communicate and manage disaster and crisis situations, and educate participants on evidence-based recommendations to meet today’s evolving needs. Upcoming topics will cover keeping you, your staff and patients safe, new approaches and training in research, leading in times of crisis, and rapid-response guideline development.

Registration for this month’s virtual webinars are now open:

• Meet NIH Leadership: Minorities health disparities, research and career development: Oct. 15, 2020, 5:30 p.m. EDT
• Effective leadership in times of crisis: Oct. 22, 2020, 5:30 p.m. EDT

For more information, visit www.gastro.org/GIForgingForward.

[email protected]

Join us for our new GI Forging Forward virtual symposia series, a practical educational training program covering timely topics for GIs through the lens of COVID-19. Experts in the field will present the latest COVID-19 findings, share proven strategies to communicate and manage disaster and crisis situations, and educate participants on evidence-based recommendations to meet today’s evolving needs. Upcoming topics will cover keeping you, your staff and patients safe, new approaches and training in research, leading in times of crisis, and rapid-response guideline development.

Registration for this month’s virtual webinars are now open:

• Meet NIH Leadership: Minorities health disparities, research and career development: Oct. 15, 2020, 5:30 p.m. EDT
• Effective leadership in times of crisis: Oct. 22, 2020, 5:30 p.m. EDT

For more information, visit www.gastro.org/GIForgingForward.

[email protected]

Pancreatitis remains the third most common gastroenterological cause of hospital admission, and staying on top of the latest quality indicators is important for the care and safety of patients, said Jamie S. Barkin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Miami, in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances conference jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.

The basics of treatment have changed, said Dr. Barkin. “A large volume of ringers lactate intravenous fluids given within the first 24 hours of admission, as opposed to normal saline, may decrease the inflammatory response in patients with acute pancreatitis.” The preferred diagnostic method remains clinical evaluation along with use of serum lipase, which is more sensitive than serum amylase (97%) but with similar specificity (99%), and current wisdom does not support the need for an early CT for diagnosis unless there is a diagnostic dilemma.

Early establishment of disease etiology and its therapy is imperative to attempt to prevent recurrent episodes and progression to chronic pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin said. Genetic testing studies suggest that approximately 10% of acute pancreatitis cases are the result of genetic factors, and Dr. Barkin recommended performing genetic testing after a first attack of idiopathic acute pancreatitis, especially in younger patients.

There is an extensive list of medications that may cause acute pancreatitis, according to a recent study published in PLOS One, the most common of which include acetaminophen, amiodarone, azathioprine, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, acute pancreatitis can be caused by isonicotinic acid hydrazide (INH), cannabis, L-asparaginase, metronidazole, mesalamine, simvastatin, sulindac, sitagliptin, thiazides, tigecycline, trans-retinoic acid, and valproic acid, among others.

Current recommendations for hospital treatment of acute pancreatitis include early large volume fluid replacement and initiation of per-oral nutrition as soon as able to be tolerated, as well as pain control, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, management includes strict glycemic and triglyceride control and performance of cholecystectomy for mild and or moderate biliary pancreatitis or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) if the patient is not an operative candidate during the same hospital stay.

Current recommendations for the prevention of acute pancreatitis include avoidance of irritants such as alcohol, nicotine, and drugs known to cause acute pancreatitis, including marijuana, said Dr. Barkin. In addition, controlling metabolic factors such as obesity, diabetes, and triglycerides can help reduce risk of recurrent episodes in susceptible patients. Several of these factors are also linked to increased risk for progression of acute pancreatitis to chronic pancreatitis.

For patients with biliary pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin noted that cholecystectomy should be performed prior to discharge during the index hospitalization. “In patients who cannot undergo surgery, endoscopic sphincterotomy should be performed to allow spontaneous passage of any stones still in the gallbladder,” he noted.

In addition, patients who have experienced an attack of acute pancreatitis should be screened long-term for development of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, which may be present in approximately one-quarter of patients following an acute pancreatitis episode, and diabetes, Dr. Barkin said. He cited a population-based study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2019 in which individuals with postpancreatitis diabetes had significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality, as well as hospitalization for conditions including chronic pulmonary disease, severe renal disease, and infectious disease.

Finally, at the time of discharge, it is essential to evaluate acute pancreatitis patients for risk of readmission, Dr. Barkin said. In addition to severe disease and systemic inflammatory response syndrome at the time of patient discharge, several factors increase the likelihood of readmission including ongoing abdominal pain requiring use of pain medicine, obesity, and inability to tolerate solid food, he noted.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Barkin had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Share AGA GI Patient Center education on pancreatitis to help your patients understand testing and treatment options and possible complications at http://ow.ly/nsdn30rcz5A.

Pancreatitis remains the third most common gastroenterological cause of hospital admission, and staying on top of the latest quality indicators is important for the care and safety of patients, said Jamie S. Barkin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Miami, in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances conference jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.

The basics of treatment have changed, said Dr. Barkin. “A large volume of ringers lactate intravenous fluids given within the first 24 hours of admission, as opposed to normal saline, may decrease the inflammatory response in patients with acute pancreatitis.” The preferred diagnostic method remains clinical evaluation along with use of serum lipase, which is more sensitive than serum amylase (97%) but with similar specificity (99%), and current wisdom does not support the need for an early CT for diagnosis unless there is a diagnostic dilemma.

Early establishment of disease etiology and its therapy is imperative to attempt to prevent recurrent episodes and progression to chronic pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin said. Genetic testing studies suggest that approximately 10% of acute pancreatitis cases are the result of genetic factors, and Dr. Barkin recommended performing genetic testing after a first attack of idiopathic acute pancreatitis, especially in younger patients.

There is an extensive list of medications that may cause acute pancreatitis, according to a recent study published in PLOS One, the most common of which include acetaminophen, amiodarone, azathioprine, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, acute pancreatitis can be caused by isonicotinic acid hydrazide (INH), cannabis, L-asparaginase, metronidazole, mesalamine, simvastatin, sulindac, sitagliptin, thiazides, tigecycline, trans-retinoic acid, and valproic acid, among others.

Current recommendations for hospital treatment of acute pancreatitis include early large volume fluid replacement and initiation of per-oral nutrition as soon as able to be tolerated, as well as pain control, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, management includes strict glycemic and triglyceride control and performance of cholecystectomy for mild and or moderate biliary pancreatitis or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) if the patient is not an operative candidate during the same hospital stay.

Current recommendations for the prevention of acute pancreatitis include avoidance of irritants such as alcohol, nicotine, and drugs known to cause acute pancreatitis, including marijuana, said Dr. Barkin. In addition, controlling metabolic factors such as obesity, diabetes, and triglycerides can help reduce risk of recurrent episodes in susceptible patients. Several of these factors are also linked to increased risk for progression of acute pancreatitis to chronic pancreatitis.

For patients with biliary pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin noted that cholecystectomy should be performed prior to discharge during the index hospitalization. “In patients who cannot undergo surgery, endoscopic sphincterotomy should be performed to allow spontaneous passage of any stones still in the gallbladder,” he noted.

In addition, patients who have experienced an attack of acute pancreatitis should be screened long-term for development of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, which may be present in approximately one-quarter of patients following an acute pancreatitis episode, and diabetes, Dr. Barkin said. He cited a population-based study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2019 in which individuals with postpancreatitis diabetes had significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality, as well as hospitalization for conditions including chronic pulmonary disease, severe renal disease, and infectious disease.

Finally, at the time of discharge, it is essential to evaluate acute pancreatitis patients for risk of readmission, Dr. Barkin said. In addition to severe disease and systemic inflammatory response syndrome at the time of patient discharge, several factors increase the likelihood of readmission including ongoing abdominal pain requiring use of pain medicine, obesity, and inability to tolerate solid food, he noted.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Barkin had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Share AGA GI Patient Center education on pancreatitis to help your patients understand testing and treatment options and possible complications at http://ow.ly/nsdn30rcz5A.

Pancreatitis remains the third most common gastroenterological cause of hospital admission, and staying on top of the latest quality indicators is important for the care and safety of patients, said Jamie S. Barkin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Miami, in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances conference jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.

The basics of treatment have changed, said Dr. Barkin. “A large volume of ringers lactate intravenous fluids given within the first 24 hours of admission, as opposed to normal saline, may decrease the inflammatory response in patients with acute pancreatitis.” The preferred diagnostic method remains clinical evaluation along with use of serum lipase, which is more sensitive than serum amylase (97%) but with similar specificity (99%), and current wisdom does not support the need for an early CT for diagnosis unless there is a diagnostic dilemma.

Early establishment of disease etiology and its therapy is imperative to attempt to prevent recurrent episodes and progression to chronic pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin said. Genetic testing studies suggest that approximately 10% of acute pancreatitis cases are the result of genetic factors, and Dr. Barkin recommended performing genetic testing after a first attack of idiopathic acute pancreatitis, especially in younger patients.

There is an extensive list of medications that may cause acute pancreatitis, according to a recent study published in PLOS One, the most common of which include acetaminophen, amiodarone, azathioprine, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, acute pancreatitis can be caused by isonicotinic acid hydrazide (INH), cannabis, L-asparaginase, metronidazole, mesalamine, simvastatin, sulindac, sitagliptin, thiazides, tigecycline, trans-retinoic acid, and valproic acid, among others.

Current recommendations for hospital treatment of acute pancreatitis include early large volume fluid replacement and initiation of per-oral nutrition as soon as able to be tolerated, as well as pain control, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, management includes strict glycemic and triglyceride control and performance of cholecystectomy for mild and or moderate biliary pancreatitis or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) if the patient is not an operative candidate during the same hospital stay.

Current recommendations for the prevention of acute pancreatitis include avoidance of irritants such as alcohol, nicotine, and drugs known to cause acute pancreatitis, including marijuana, said Dr. Barkin. In addition, controlling metabolic factors such as obesity, diabetes, and triglycerides can help reduce risk of recurrent episodes in susceptible patients. Several of these factors are also linked to increased risk for progression of acute pancreatitis to chronic pancreatitis.

For patients with biliary pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin noted that cholecystectomy should be performed prior to discharge during the index hospitalization. “In patients who cannot undergo surgery, endoscopic sphincterotomy should be performed to allow spontaneous passage of any stones still in the gallbladder,” he noted.

In addition, patients who have experienced an attack of acute pancreatitis should be screened long-term for development of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, which may be present in approximately one-quarter of patients following an acute pancreatitis episode, and diabetes, Dr. Barkin said. He cited a population-based study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2019 in which individuals with postpancreatitis diabetes had significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality, as well as hospitalization for conditions including chronic pulmonary disease, severe renal disease, and infectious disease.

Finally, at the time of discharge, it is essential to evaluate acute pancreatitis patients for risk of readmission, Dr. Barkin said. In addition to severe disease and systemic inflammatory response syndrome at the time of patient discharge, several factors increase the likelihood of readmission including ongoing abdominal pain requiring use of pain medicine, obesity, and inability to tolerate solid food, he noted.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Barkin had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Share AGA GI Patient Center education on pancreatitis to help your patients understand testing and treatment options and possible complications at http://ow.ly/nsdn30rcz5A.

When COVID-19 hit, the AGA Research Foundation quickly announced the AGA-Takeda COVID-19 Rapid Response Research Awards to provide funding to kick-start research into the virus’ impact on the digestive tract. We’re excited to share our three award recipients with you. Read about their research projects below.

David A. Drew, PhD, and Long H. Nguyen, MD, MS, from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School will test their hypothesis that gut microbial communities mediate the relationship between GI symptoms and the varied clinical presentations and outcomes in patients with COVID-19. To accomplish this goal, they will jointly develop and rapidly deploy a multinational digital infrastructure for large-scale epidemiologic studies during the current global pandemic. By characterizing the GI symptoms most predictive of COVID-19 infection risk and severity, their work will offer timely insights into the ongoing pandemic and offer a foundation for further study on the effects of COVID-19 on human gut microbial communities.

Jeffrey Wade Brown from Washington University is evaluating the infective potential of the metaplastic GI foregut. For this project Dr. Brown and his team will use a novel, unique, and unpublished organoid system that propagates the features of upper GI human metaplasia in vitro to study a potential role for metaplasia in the predisposition to COVID-19. Dr. Brown hopes this research will directly help by making a previously naive population know that they are potentially at higher risk. Further, the high-throughput screening technology they are developing will not only be useful here but also could quickly be adapted to other pandemics.

Congratulations to Drs. David A. Drew, Long H. Nguyen, and Jeffrey Wade Brown — recipients of our AGA-Takeda COVID-19 Rapid Response Research Awards from the AGA Research Foundation.

[email protected]

When COVID-19 hit, the AGA Research Foundation quickly announced the AGA-Takeda COVID-19 Rapid Response Research Awards to provide funding to kick-start research into the virus’ impact on the digestive tract. We’re excited to share our three award recipients with you. Read about their research projects below.

David A. Drew, PhD, and Long H. Nguyen, MD, MS, from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School will test their hypothesis that gut microbial communities mediate the relationship between GI symptoms and the varied clinical presentations and outcomes in patients with COVID-19. To accomplish this goal, they will jointly develop and rapidly deploy a multinational digital infrastructure for large-scale epidemiologic studies during the current global pandemic. By characterizing the GI symptoms most predictive of COVID-19 infection risk and severity, their work will offer timely insights into the ongoing pandemic and offer a foundation for further study on the effects of COVID-19 on human gut microbial communities.

Jeffrey Wade Brown from Washington University is evaluating the infective potential of the metaplastic GI foregut. For this project Dr. Brown and his team will use a novel, unique, and unpublished organoid system that propagates the features of upper GI human metaplasia in vitro to study a potential role for metaplasia in the predisposition to COVID-19. Dr. Brown hopes this research will directly help by making a previously naive population know that they are potentially at higher risk. Further, the high-throughput screening technology they are developing will not only be useful here but also could quickly be adapted to other pandemics.

Congratulations to Drs. David A. Drew, Long H. Nguyen, and Jeffrey Wade Brown — recipients of our AGA-Takeda COVID-19 Rapid Response Research Awards from the AGA Research Foundation.

[email protected]

When COVID-19 hit, the AGA Research Foundation quickly announced the AGA-Takeda COVID-19 Rapid Response Research Awards to provide funding to kick-start research into the virus’ impact on the digestive tract. We’re excited to share our three award recipients with you. Read about their research projects below.

David A. Drew, PhD, and Long H. Nguyen, MD, MS, from Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School will test their hypothesis that gut microbial communities mediate the relationship between GI symptoms and the varied clinical presentations and outcomes in patients with COVID-19. To accomplish this goal, they will jointly develop and rapidly deploy a multinational digital infrastructure for large-scale epidemiologic studies during the current global pandemic. By characterizing the GI symptoms most predictive of COVID-19 infection risk and severity, their work will offer timely insights into the ongoing pandemic and offer a foundation for further study on the effects of COVID-19 on human gut microbial communities.

Jeffrey Wade Brown from Washington University is evaluating the infective potential of the metaplastic GI foregut. For this project Dr. Brown and his team will use a novel, unique, and unpublished organoid system that propagates the features of upper GI human metaplasia in vitro to study a potential role for metaplasia in the predisposition to COVID-19. Dr. Brown hopes this research will directly help by making a previously naive population know that they are potentially at higher risk. Further, the high-throughput screening technology they are developing will not only be useful here but also could quickly be adapted to other pandemics.

Congratulations to Drs. David A. Drew, Long H. Nguyen, and Jeffrey Wade Brown — recipients of our AGA-Takeda COVID-19 Rapid Response Research Awards from the AGA Research Foundation.

[email protected]

Adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy to standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer more than doubled the pathologic complete response rate and significantly improved 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in a multicenter, phase 3 trial.

The pathologic complete response rate was 12.1% in the standard therapy arm and 27.8% with the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy – modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, folinic acid, and 5-fluorouracil). The 3-year DFS rates were 68.5% and 75.7%, respectively.

It’s not clear if the response and DFS benefits of modified FOLFIRINOX will translate to improved overall survival (OS). Nevertheless, neoadjuvant therapy with modified FOLFIRINOX “should now be considered as a new option” for T3-T4 rectal cancer, said investigator Christophe Borg, MD, PhD, of the University of Besancon (France).

Dr. Borg presented this research at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Study discussant David Sebag-Montefiore, MBBS, of the University of Leeds (England), was more cautious about these findings. Although the results were “clear” in this trial, “we have not seen any overall survival data,” Dr. Sebag-Montefiore stressed.
 

Study details

In explaining the trial, dubbed PRODIGE 23, Dr. Borg noted that local recurrence is minimal with modern standard treatment – chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) – but distant metastases occur in up to 30% of patients and remain a significant problem despite years of research. Adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery might help, but it “is still not proven” to reduce the risk, so compliance is poor, Dr. Borg said.

He and his colleagues conducted the PRODIGE 23 trial to see if neoadjuvant chemotherapy could reduce the risk of metastases.

The study enrolled 461 patients, 18-75 years old, with cT3-4 rectal cancer. Patients were randomized to receive:

• Standard therapy, consisting of chemoradiation (50.4 gy/5 weeks plus capecitabine), followed 7 weeks later by TME, then 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or XELOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin, also known as CAPOX).
• Six cycles of modified FOLFIRINOX, followed by chemoradiation (50.4 gy/5 weeks plus capecitabine), TME, and FOLFOX/XELOX adjuvant therapy for 3 months instead of 6 months.

Overall, 119 patients in the standard therapy arm and 130 in the neoadjuvant arm completed their assigned protocol.
 

Results

The median follow-up was 46.5 months. The 3-year DFS, the primary endpoint, was significantly higher in the neoadjuvant arm than in the standard therapy arm (75.7% vs. 68.5%; hazard ratio = 0.69; P = .034). This correlated with a significant improvement in 3-year metastasis-free survival (78.8% vs. 71.7%; HR = 0.64; P < .02).

The rate of palliative surgery was significantly higher in the standard therapy arm (3.7% vs. 0%; P = .007), but there were no significant differences in other surgical outcomes.

A difference in 60-day postoperative mortality favored neoadjuvant therapy (0% vs. 2.8%, P = .03).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were less common when subjects had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (44.4% vs. 74.1%, P < .001).

Quality of life outcomes were similar between the treatment arms, except that men in the neoadjuvant arm were significantly less likely to suffer from impotence (P = .03).

Dr. Sebag-Montefiore said these findings are “very important,” but PRODIGE 23 is not “a practice-defining or practice-changing study,” especially without OS data.

He noted that the RAPIDO trial had similar outcomes with a different neoadjuvant regimen.

RAPIDO had a standard treatment arm with capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by TME and optional CAPOX/FOLFOX, and the experimental arm consisted of short-course radiotherapy followed by CAPOX/FOLFOX then TME. The experimental arm had superior 3-year disease-related treatment failure (30.4% vs. 23.7%, P = .019) but no better OS (89.1% vs. 88.8%, P = .59).

PRODIGE 23 was funded by the French National Cancer Institute and the French National League Against Cancer. Dr. Borg disclosed relationships with Roche, Servier, Pierre Fabre, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Sebag-Montefiore didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Borg C et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract LBA21.

Adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy to standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer more than doubled the pathologic complete response rate and significantly improved 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in a multicenter, phase 3 trial.

The pathologic complete response rate was 12.1% in the standard therapy arm and 27.8% with the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy – modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, folinic acid, and 5-fluorouracil). The 3-year DFS rates were 68.5% and 75.7%, respectively.

It’s not clear if the response and DFS benefits of modified FOLFIRINOX will translate to improved overall survival (OS). Nevertheless, neoadjuvant therapy with modified FOLFIRINOX “should now be considered as a new option” for T3-T4 rectal cancer, said investigator Christophe Borg, MD, PhD, of the University of Besancon (France).

Dr. Borg presented this research at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Study discussant David Sebag-Montefiore, MBBS, of the University of Leeds (England), was more cautious about these findings. Although the results were “clear” in this trial, “we have not seen any overall survival data,” Dr. Sebag-Montefiore stressed.
 

Study details

In explaining the trial, dubbed PRODIGE 23, Dr. Borg noted that local recurrence is minimal with modern standard treatment – chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) – but distant metastases occur in up to 30% of patients and remain a significant problem despite years of research. Adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery might help, but it “is still not proven” to reduce the risk, so compliance is poor, Dr. Borg said.

He and his colleagues conducted the PRODIGE 23 trial to see if neoadjuvant chemotherapy could reduce the risk of metastases.

The study enrolled 461 patients, 18-75 years old, with cT3-4 rectal cancer. Patients were randomized to receive:

• Standard therapy, consisting of chemoradiation (50.4 gy/5 weeks plus capecitabine), followed 7 weeks later by TME, then 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or XELOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin, also known as CAPOX).
• Six cycles of modified FOLFIRINOX, followed by chemoradiation (50.4 gy/5 weeks plus capecitabine), TME, and FOLFOX/XELOX adjuvant therapy for 3 months instead of 6 months.

Overall, 119 patients in the standard therapy arm and 130 in the neoadjuvant arm completed their assigned protocol.
 

Results

The median follow-up was 46.5 months. The 3-year DFS, the primary endpoint, was significantly higher in the neoadjuvant arm than in the standard therapy arm (75.7% vs. 68.5%; hazard ratio = 0.69; P = .034). This correlated with a significant improvement in 3-year metastasis-free survival (78.8% vs. 71.7%; HR = 0.64; P < .02).

The rate of palliative surgery was significantly higher in the standard therapy arm (3.7% vs. 0%; P = .007), but there were no significant differences in other surgical outcomes.

A difference in 60-day postoperative mortality favored neoadjuvant therapy (0% vs. 2.8%, P = .03).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were less common when subjects had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (44.4% vs. 74.1%, P < .001).

Quality of life outcomes were similar between the treatment arms, except that men in the neoadjuvant arm were significantly less likely to suffer from impotence (P = .03).

Dr. Sebag-Montefiore said these findings are “very important,” but PRODIGE 23 is not “a practice-defining or practice-changing study,” especially without OS data.

He noted that the RAPIDO trial had similar outcomes with a different neoadjuvant regimen.

RAPIDO had a standard treatment arm with capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by TME and optional CAPOX/FOLFOX, and the experimental arm consisted of short-course radiotherapy followed by CAPOX/FOLFOX then TME. The experimental arm had superior 3-year disease-related treatment failure (30.4% vs. 23.7%, P = .019) but no better OS (89.1% vs. 88.8%, P = .59).

PRODIGE 23 was funded by the French National Cancer Institute and the French National League Against Cancer. Dr. Borg disclosed relationships with Roche, Servier, Pierre Fabre, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Sebag-Montefiore didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Borg C et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract LBA21.

Adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy to standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer more than doubled the pathologic complete response rate and significantly improved 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) in a multicenter, phase 3 trial.

The pathologic complete response rate was 12.1% in the standard therapy arm and 27.8% with the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy – modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, folinic acid, and 5-fluorouracil). The 3-year DFS rates were 68.5% and 75.7%, respectively.

It’s not clear if the response and DFS benefits of modified FOLFIRINOX will translate to improved overall survival (OS). Nevertheless, neoadjuvant therapy with modified FOLFIRINOX “should now be considered as a new option” for T3-T4 rectal cancer, said investigator Christophe Borg, MD, PhD, of the University of Besancon (France).

Dr. Borg presented this research at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020.

Study discussant David Sebag-Montefiore, MBBS, of the University of Leeds (England), was more cautious about these findings. Although the results were “clear” in this trial, “we have not seen any overall survival data,” Dr. Sebag-Montefiore stressed.
 

Study details

In explaining the trial, dubbed PRODIGE 23, Dr. Borg noted that local recurrence is minimal with modern standard treatment – chemoradiation followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) – but distant metastases occur in up to 30% of patients and remain a significant problem despite years of research. Adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery might help, but it “is still not proven” to reduce the risk, so compliance is poor, Dr. Borg said.

He and his colleagues conducted the PRODIGE 23 trial to see if neoadjuvant chemotherapy could reduce the risk of metastases.

The study enrolled 461 patients, 18-75 years old, with cT3-4 rectal cancer. Patients were randomized to receive:

• Standard therapy, consisting of chemoradiation (50.4 gy/5 weeks plus capecitabine), followed 7 weeks later by TME, then 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or XELOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin, also known as CAPOX).
• Six cycles of modified FOLFIRINOX, followed by chemoradiation (50.4 gy/5 weeks plus capecitabine), TME, and FOLFOX/XELOX adjuvant therapy for 3 months instead of 6 months.

Overall, 119 patients in the standard therapy arm and 130 in the neoadjuvant arm completed their assigned protocol.
 

Results

The median follow-up was 46.5 months. The 3-year DFS, the primary endpoint, was significantly higher in the neoadjuvant arm than in the standard therapy arm (75.7% vs. 68.5%; hazard ratio = 0.69; P = .034). This correlated with a significant improvement in 3-year metastasis-free survival (78.8% vs. 71.7%; HR = 0.64; P < .02).

The rate of palliative surgery was significantly higher in the standard therapy arm (3.7% vs. 0%; P = .007), but there were no significant differences in other surgical outcomes.

A difference in 60-day postoperative mortality favored neoadjuvant therapy (0% vs. 2.8%, P = .03).

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events during adjuvant therapy were less common when subjects had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (44.4% vs. 74.1%, P < .001).

Quality of life outcomes were similar between the treatment arms, except that men in the neoadjuvant arm were significantly less likely to suffer from impotence (P = .03).

Dr. Sebag-Montefiore said these findings are “very important,” but PRODIGE 23 is not “a practice-defining or practice-changing study,” especially without OS data.

He noted that the RAPIDO trial had similar outcomes with a different neoadjuvant regimen.

RAPIDO had a standard treatment arm with capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy followed by TME and optional CAPOX/FOLFOX, and the experimental arm consisted of short-course radiotherapy followed by CAPOX/FOLFOX then TME. The experimental arm had superior 3-year disease-related treatment failure (30.4% vs. 23.7%, P = .019) but no better OS (89.1% vs. 88.8%, P = .59).

PRODIGE 23 was funded by the French National Cancer Institute and the French National League Against Cancer. Dr. Borg disclosed relationships with Roche, Servier, Pierre Fabre, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Sebag-Montefiore didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Borg C et al. ESMO 2020. Abstract LBA21.

Machine-based learning of genetic and epigenetic characteristics of patients with rheumatoid arthritis could help to predict who is likely to benefit from the biologic drugs adalimumab and etanercept, according to results from a longitudinal, observational cohort study.

In the study, machine learning models created by researchers from Utrecht University in the Netherlands using different parameters predicted true-positive rates for response to adalimumab ranging from 76% to 90% and true-negative rates ranging from 70% to 89%, while for etanercept true-positive rates ranged from about 60% to 80% and true-negative rates ranged from about 82% to 98%.

“These results suggest that we can accurately predict the clinical response before adalimumab and etanercept treatment using molecular signatures-based machine learning models, although the prediction accuracy of these molecular signatures differs between cell types and treatments, underlining the need to study more than one drug, cell type, or epigenetic layers,” first author Weiyang Tao and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The ability to predict which tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the first choice for treatment would be highly beneficial in reducing the time to effective treatment, which has been extensively proven to be a paramount factor for achieving long-sustained disease remission, they noted.

The researchers analyzed gene expression and epigenetic signatures in 80 patients with rheumatoid arthritis prior to treatment with adalimumab or etanercept and then examined patients’ response to treatment at 6 months. They then used that information to build a machine learning model to try to predict treatment response.

Overall, 47.5% of patients were treated with adalimumab, and 52.5% were treated with etanercept. Among the adalimumab group, 53% had a good or moderate response to treatment at 6 months, and among those treated with etanercept, 45% had a good or moderate response.

While there were no differences in baseline clinical parameters between responders and nonresponders, the study found significant genetic and epigenetic differences between patients.

They identified 549 genes that showed significantly different levels of expression between responders and nonresponders treated with adalimumab – in particular, genes involved in DNA and nucleotide binding – and 460 genes that were differentially expressed between etanercept responders and nonresponders, including genes involved in TNF-receptor signaling. However, only 2% of these differentially expressed genes were common in both the adalimumab and etanercept groups, suggesting treatment responses for these two medications have distinct gene signatures.

Looking at DNA methylation, researchers found 16,141 CpG positions – sites of DNA methylation – that were differentially methylated between adalimumab responders and nonresponders, 46% of which were hypermethylated among responders but not nonresponders. In the etanercept group, there were 17,026 differentially methylated sites in responders and nonresponders, 76.3% of which were hypermethylated among responders.

The researchers also noted that among the adalimumab responders, the hypermethylated sites were more likely to be found in the upstream and promoter regions of genes, and on CpG islands.

“Thus, on epigenetic level, we observed a distinct hypermethylation pattern between adalimumab and etanercept responders, suggesting the role of epigenetics in defining response towards adalimumab and to etanercept in PBMCs [peripheral blood mononuclear cells],” the authors wrote.

Given the differences in gene signatures seen in the adalimumab responders and etanercept responders, researchers speculated that different cell types might be involved in the responses to these two treatments. They undertook RNA sequencing on the variety of immune cell types known to be involved in rheumatoid arthritis, which revealed gene-expression differences between adalimumab responders and nonresponders in their CD4+ T cells but not in monocytes. However, the gene-expression differences between etanercept responders and nonresponders were seen in both CD4+ T cells and monocytes.

The study was supported by AbbVie, which manufactures adalimumab, and two authors were supported by the China Scholarship Council and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Tao W et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41516.

Machine-based learning of genetic and epigenetic characteristics of patients with rheumatoid arthritis could help to predict who is likely to benefit from the biologic drugs adalimumab and etanercept, according to results from a longitudinal, observational cohort study.

In the study, machine learning models created by researchers from Utrecht University in the Netherlands using different parameters predicted true-positive rates for response to adalimumab ranging from 76% to 90% and true-negative rates ranging from 70% to 89%, while for etanercept true-positive rates ranged from about 60% to 80% and true-negative rates ranged from about 82% to 98%.

“These results suggest that we can accurately predict the clinical response before adalimumab and etanercept treatment using molecular signatures-based machine learning models, although the prediction accuracy of these molecular signatures differs between cell types and treatments, underlining the need to study more than one drug, cell type, or epigenetic layers,” first author Weiyang Tao and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The ability to predict which tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the first choice for treatment would be highly beneficial in reducing the time to effective treatment, which has been extensively proven to be a paramount factor for achieving long-sustained disease remission, they noted.

The researchers analyzed gene expression and epigenetic signatures in 80 patients with rheumatoid arthritis prior to treatment with adalimumab or etanercept and then examined patients’ response to treatment at 6 months. They then used that information to build a machine learning model to try to predict treatment response.

Overall, 47.5% of patients were treated with adalimumab, and 52.5% were treated with etanercept. Among the adalimumab group, 53% had a good or moderate response to treatment at 6 months, and among those treated with etanercept, 45% had a good or moderate response.

While there were no differences in baseline clinical parameters between responders and nonresponders, the study found significant genetic and epigenetic differences between patients.

They identified 549 genes that showed significantly different levels of expression between responders and nonresponders treated with adalimumab – in particular, genes involved in DNA and nucleotide binding – and 460 genes that were differentially expressed between etanercept responders and nonresponders, including genes involved in TNF-receptor signaling. However, only 2% of these differentially expressed genes were common in both the adalimumab and etanercept groups, suggesting treatment responses for these two medications have distinct gene signatures.

Looking at DNA methylation, researchers found 16,141 CpG positions – sites of DNA methylation – that were differentially methylated between adalimumab responders and nonresponders, 46% of which were hypermethylated among responders but not nonresponders. In the etanercept group, there were 17,026 differentially methylated sites in responders and nonresponders, 76.3% of which were hypermethylated among responders.

The researchers also noted that among the adalimumab responders, the hypermethylated sites were more likely to be found in the upstream and promoter regions of genes, and on CpG islands.

“Thus, on epigenetic level, we observed a distinct hypermethylation pattern between adalimumab and etanercept responders, suggesting the role of epigenetics in defining response towards adalimumab and to etanercept in PBMCs [peripheral blood mononuclear cells],” the authors wrote.

Given the differences in gene signatures seen in the adalimumab responders and etanercept responders, researchers speculated that different cell types might be involved in the responses to these two treatments. They undertook RNA sequencing on the variety of immune cell types known to be involved in rheumatoid arthritis, which revealed gene-expression differences between adalimumab responders and nonresponders in their CD4+ T cells but not in monocytes. However, the gene-expression differences between etanercept responders and nonresponders were seen in both CD4+ T cells and monocytes.

The study was supported by AbbVie, which manufactures adalimumab, and two authors were supported by the China Scholarship Council and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Tao W et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41516.

Machine-based learning of genetic and epigenetic characteristics of patients with rheumatoid arthritis could help to predict who is likely to benefit from the biologic drugs adalimumab and etanercept, according to results from a longitudinal, observational cohort study.

In the study, machine learning models created by researchers from Utrecht University in the Netherlands using different parameters predicted true-positive rates for response to adalimumab ranging from 76% to 90% and true-negative rates ranging from 70% to 89%, while for etanercept true-positive rates ranged from about 60% to 80% and true-negative rates ranged from about 82% to 98%.

“These results suggest that we can accurately predict the clinical response before adalimumab and etanercept treatment using molecular signatures-based machine learning models, although the prediction accuracy of these molecular signatures differs between cell types and treatments, underlining the need to study more than one drug, cell type, or epigenetic layers,” first author Weiyang Tao and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The ability to predict which tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the first choice for treatment would be highly beneficial in reducing the time to effective treatment, which has been extensively proven to be a paramount factor for achieving long-sustained disease remission, they noted.

The researchers analyzed gene expression and epigenetic signatures in 80 patients with rheumatoid arthritis prior to treatment with adalimumab or etanercept and then examined patients’ response to treatment at 6 months. They then used that information to build a machine learning model to try to predict treatment response.

Overall, 47.5% of patients were treated with adalimumab, and 52.5% were treated with etanercept. Among the adalimumab group, 53% had a good or moderate response to treatment at 6 months, and among those treated with etanercept, 45% had a good or moderate response.

While there were no differences in baseline clinical parameters between responders and nonresponders, the study found significant genetic and epigenetic differences between patients.

They identified 549 genes that showed significantly different levels of expression between responders and nonresponders treated with adalimumab – in particular, genes involved in DNA and nucleotide binding – and 460 genes that were differentially expressed between etanercept responders and nonresponders, including genes involved in TNF-receptor signaling. However, only 2% of these differentially expressed genes were common in both the adalimumab and etanercept groups, suggesting treatment responses for these two medications have distinct gene signatures.

Looking at DNA methylation, researchers found 16,141 CpG positions – sites of DNA methylation – that were differentially methylated between adalimumab responders and nonresponders, 46% of which were hypermethylated among responders but not nonresponders. In the etanercept group, there were 17,026 differentially methylated sites in responders and nonresponders, 76.3% of which were hypermethylated among responders.

The researchers also noted that among the adalimumab responders, the hypermethylated sites were more likely to be found in the upstream and promoter regions of genes, and on CpG islands.

“Thus, on epigenetic level, we observed a distinct hypermethylation pattern between adalimumab and etanercept responders, suggesting the role of epigenetics in defining response towards adalimumab and to etanercept in PBMCs [peripheral blood mononuclear cells],” the authors wrote.

Given the differences in gene signatures seen in the adalimumab responders and etanercept responders, researchers speculated that different cell types might be involved in the responses to these two treatments. They undertook RNA sequencing on the variety of immune cell types known to be involved in rheumatoid arthritis, which revealed gene-expression differences between adalimumab responders and nonresponders in their CD4+ T cells but not in monocytes. However, the gene-expression differences between etanercept responders and nonresponders were seen in both CD4+ T cells and monocytes.

The study was supported by AbbVie, which manufactures adalimumab, and two authors were supported by the China Scholarship Council and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Tao W et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41516.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tablet and oral solution formulations of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofactinib (Xeljanz) for the treatment of children and adolescents 2 years and older with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA).

The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.

The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.

While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.

Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tablet and oral solution formulations of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofactinib (Xeljanz) for the treatment of children and adolescents 2 years and older with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA).

The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.

The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.

While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.

Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tablet and oral solution formulations of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofactinib (Xeljanz) for the treatment of children and adolescents 2 years and older with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA).

The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.

The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.

While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.

Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Recently I was in a minor car accident. No injuries, just some bent metal and scratched paint from a low-speed parking lot mishap.

The other driver and I got out of our cars, made sure we were both okay, and then I said “Let’s exchange insurance information.” We got our insurance cards out; I took a picture of her card, and she wrote down my info. Then we drove off and went on with our days. The whole thing took a few minutes.

Why am I writing about this?

Because it was all handled very politely. There were no angry words, name calling, or heated exchanges. We checked the damage, made sure the other was okay, and exchanged insurance cards ... without a single impolite phrase or gesture.

To me this is a good thing. In a world in which people yell (and sometimes brandish weapons) over imagined and minor offenses, in which political candidates exchange crude insults rather then debate policy, and in which an opposing viewpoint is treated as blasphemy rather than an honest difference of opinion, it was nice to have a polite, adult, exchange under unpleasant circumstances.

Perhaps it’s sad to find relief in such a minor event, but it’s also reassuring. In medicine (especially hospital work) we often see people at their very worst, and dealing with them can be a challenge. We live in a world of at-times seemingly endless rudeness, one-upping, and “problem-solving” with yelling, threats, and intimidation.

So I was glad the minor incident resulted in nothing more serious at the time than a brief, polite, conversation. It’s nice to know many people out there still subscribe to civil ideas and polite behavior, even when the circumstances are difficult.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona. He has nothing to disclose.

Recently I was in a minor car accident. No injuries, just some bent metal and scratched paint from a low-speed parking lot mishap.

The other driver and I got out of our cars, made sure we were both okay, and then I said “Let’s exchange insurance information.” We got our insurance cards out; I took a picture of her card, and she wrote down my info. Then we drove off and went on with our days. The whole thing took a few minutes.

Why am I writing about this?

Because it was all handled very politely. There were no angry words, name calling, or heated exchanges. We checked the damage, made sure the other was okay, and exchanged insurance cards ... without a single impolite phrase or gesture.

To me this is a good thing. In a world in which people yell (and sometimes brandish weapons) over imagined and minor offenses, in which political candidates exchange crude insults rather then debate policy, and in which an opposing viewpoint is treated as blasphemy rather than an honest difference of opinion, it was nice to have a polite, adult, exchange under unpleasant circumstances.

Perhaps it’s sad to find relief in such a minor event, but it’s also reassuring. In medicine (especially hospital work) we often see people at their very worst, and dealing with them can be a challenge. We live in a world of at-times seemingly endless rudeness, one-upping, and “problem-solving” with yelling, threats, and intimidation.

So I was glad the minor incident resulted in nothing more serious at the time than a brief, polite, conversation. It’s nice to know many people out there still subscribe to civil ideas and polite behavior, even when the circumstances are difficult.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona. He has nothing to disclose.

Recently I was in a minor car accident. No injuries, just some bent metal and scratched paint from a low-speed parking lot mishap.

The other driver and I got out of our cars, made sure we were both okay, and then I said “Let’s exchange insurance information.” We got our insurance cards out; I took a picture of her card, and she wrote down my info. Then we drove off and went on with our days. The whole thing took a few minutes.

Why am I writing about this?

Because it was all handled very politely. There were no angry words, name calling, or heated exchanges. We checked the damage, made sure the other was okay, and exchanged insurance cards ... without a single impolite phrase or gesture.

To me this is a good thing. In a world in which people yell (and sometimes brandish weapons) over imagined and minor offenses, in which political candidates exchange crude insults rather then debate policy, and in which an opposing viewpoint is treated as blasphemy rather than an honest difference of opinion, it was nice to have a polite, adult, exchange under unpleasant circumstances.

Perhaps it’s sad to find relief in such a minor event, but it’s also reassuring. In medicine (especially hospital work) we often see people at their very worst, and dealing with them can be a challenge. We live in a world of at-times seemingly endless rudeness, one-upping, and “problem-solving” with yelling, threats, and intimidation.

So I was glad the minor incident resulted in nothing more serious at the time than a brief, polite, conversation. It’s nice to know many people out there still subscribe to civil ideas and polite behavior, even when the circumstances are difficult.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona. He has nothing to disclose.