When I started at the Society of Hospital Medicine – known then as the National Association of Inpatient Physicians (NAIP) – in January 2000, Bill Clinton was still president. There were probably 500 hospitalists in the United States, and SHM had about 200-250 members.

It was so long ago that the iPhone hadn’t been invented, Twitter wasn’t even an idea, and Amazon was an online book store. SHM’s national offices were a cubicle at the American College of Physicians headquarters in Philadelphia, and our entire staff was me and a part-time assistant.

We have certainly come a long way in my 20 years as CEO of SHM.

When I first became involved with NAIP, it was to help the board with their strategic planning in 1998. At that time, the national thought leaders for the hospitalist movement (the term hospital medicine had not been invented yet) predicted that hospitalists would eventually do the inpatient work for about 25% of family doctors and for 15% of internists. Hospitalists were considered to be a form of “general medicine” without an office-based practice.

One of the first things we set about doing was to define the new specialty of hospital medicine before anyone else (e.g., American Medical Association, ACP, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, the government) defined us.

Most specialties were defined by a body organ (e.g., cardiology, renal), a population (e.g., pediatrics, geriatrics), or a disease (e.g., oncology), and there were a few other site-specific specialties (e.g., ED medicine, critical care). We felt that, to be a specialty, we needed certain key elements:

• Separate group consciousness
• Professional society
• Distinct residency and fellowship programs
• Separate CME
• Distinct educational materials (e.g., textbooks)
• Definable and distinct competencies
• Separate credentials – certification and/or hospital insurance driven

Early on, SHM defined the Core Competencies for Hospital Medicine for adults in patient care and, eventually, for pediatric patients. We rebranded our specialty as hospital medicine to be more than just inpatient physicians, and to broadly encompass the growing “big tent” of SHM that included those trained in internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, med-peds, as well as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, and others.

We were the first and only specialty society to set the standard for hospitalist compensation (how much you are paid) and productivity (what you are expected to do) with our unique State of Hospital Medicine (SOHM) Report. Other specialties left this work to the Medical Group Management Association, the AMA, or commercial companies.

Our specialty was soon being asked to do things that no other group of clinicians was ever asked to do.

Hospitalists were expected to Save Money by reducing length of stay and the use of resources on the sickest patients. Hospitalists were asked to Improve Measurable Quality at a time when most other physicians or even hospitals weren’t even being measured.

We were expected to form and Lead Teams of other clinicians when health care was still seen as a solo enterprise. Hospitalists were expected to Improve Efficiency and to create a Seamless Continuity, both during the hospital stay and in the transitions out of the hospital.

Hospitalists were asked to do things no one else wanted to do, such as taking on the uncompensated patients and extra hospital committee work and just about any new project their hospital wanted to be involved in. Along the way, we were expected to Make Other Physicians’ Lives Better by taking on their inpatients, inpatient calls, comanagement with specialists, and unloading the ED.

And both at medical schools and in the community, hospitalists became the Major Educators of medical students, residents, nurses, and other hospital staff.

At the same time, SHM was focusing on becoming a very unique medical professional society.

SHM built on the energy of our young and innovative hospitalists to forge a different path. We had no reputation to protect. We were not bound like most other specialty societies to over 100 years of “the way it’s always been done.”

While other professional societies thought their role in quality improvement was to pontificate and publish clinical guidelines that often were little used, SHM embarked on an aggressive, hands-on, frontline approach by starting SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement. Over the last 15 years, the center has raised millions of dollars to deliver real change and improvement at hundreds of hospitals nationwide, many times bringing work plans and mentors to support and train local clinicians in quality improvement skills and data collection. This approach was recognized by the National Quality Forum and the Joint Commission with their prestigious John Eisenberg Award for Quality Improvement.

When we went to Washington to help shape the future of health care, we did not ask for more money for hospitalists. We did not ask for more power or to use regulations to protect our new specialty. Instead, we went with ideas of how to make acute medical care more effective and efficient. We could show the politicians and the regulators how we could reduce incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli, how we could make the hospital discharge process work better, how we could help chart a smoother medication reconciliation process, and so many other ways the system could be improved.

And even the way SHM generated our new ideas was uniquely different than other specialties. Way back in 2000 – long before Twitter and other social media were able to crowdsource and use the Internet to percolate new ideas – SHM relied on our members’ conversations on the SHM electronic mail discussion list to see what hospitalists were worried about, and what everyone was being asked to do, and SHM provided the resources and initiatives to support our nation’s hospitalists.

From these early conversations, SHM heard that hospitalists were being asked to Lead Change without much of an idea of the skills they would need. And so, the SHM leadership academies were born, which have now educated more than 2,700 hospitalist leaders.

Early on, we learned that hospitalists and even their bosses had no idea of how to start or run a successful hospital medicine group. SHM started our practice management courses and webinars and we developed the groundbreaking document, Key Characteristics of Effective Hospital Medicine Groups. In a typical SHM manner, we challenged most of our members to improve and get better rather trying to defend the status quo. At SHM, we have constantly felt that hospital medicine was a “work in progress.” We may not be perfect today, but we will be better in 90 days and even better in a year.

I have more to say about how we got this far and even more to say about where we might go. So, stay tuned and keep contributing to the future and success of SHM and hospital medicine.

Dr. Wellikson is the CEO of SHM. He has announced his plan to retire from SHM in late 2020. This article is the first in a series celebrating Dr. Wellikson’s tenure as CEO.

When I started at the Society of Hospital Medicine – known then as the National Association of Inpatient Physicians (NAIP) – in January 2000, Bill Clinton was still president. There were probably 500 hospitalists in the United States, and SHM had about 200-250 members.

It was so long ago that the iPhone hadn’t been invented, Twitter wasn’t even an idea, and Amazon was an online book store. SHM’s national offices were a cubicle at the American College of Physicians headquarters in Philadelphia, and our entire staff was me and a part-time assistant.

We have certainly come a long way in my 20 years as CEO of SHM.

When I first became involved with NAIP, it was to help the board with their strategic planning in 1998. At that time, the national thought leaders for the hospitalist movement (the term hospital medicine had not been invented yet) predicted that hospitalists would eventually do the inpatient work for about 25% of family doctors and for 15% of internists. Hospitalists were considered to be a form of “general medicine” without an office-based practice.

One of the first things we set about doing was to define the new specialty of hospital medicine before anyone else (e.g., American Medical Association, ACP, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, the government) defined us.

Most specialties were defined by a body organ (e.g., cardiology, renal), a population (e.g., pediatrics, geriatrics), or a disease (e.g., oncology), and there were a few other site-specific specialties (e.g., ED medicine, critical care). We felt that, to be a specialty, we needed certain key elements:

• Separate group consciousness
• Professional society
• Distinct residency and fellowship programs
• Separate CME
• Distinct educational materials (e.g., textbooks)
• Definable and distinct competencies
• Separate credentials – certification and/or hospital insurance driven

Early on, SHM defined the Core Competencies for Hospital Medicine for adults in patient care and, eventually, for pediatric patients. We rebranded our specialty as hospital medicine to be more than just inpatient physicians, and to broadly encompass the growing “big tent” of SHM that included those trained in internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, med-peds, as well as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, and others.

We were the first and only specialty society to set the standard for hospitalist compensation (how much you are paid) and productivity (what you are expected to do) with our unique State of Hospital Medicine (SOHM) Report. Other specialties left this work to the Medical Group Management Association, the AMA, or commercial companies.

Our specialty was soon being asked to do things that no other group of clinicians was ever asked to do.

Hospitalists were expected to Save Money by reducing length of stay and the use of resources on the sickest patients. Hospitalists were asked to Improve Measurable Quality at a time when most other physicians or even hospitals weren’t even being measured.

We were expected to form and Lead Teams of other clinicians when health care was still seen as a solo enterprise. Hospitalists were expected to Improve Efficiency and to create a Seamless Continuity, both during the hospital stay and in the transitions out of the hospital.

Hospitalists were asked to do things no one else wanted to do, such as taking on the uncompensated patients and extra hospital committee work and just about any new project their hospital wanted to be involved in. Along the way, we were expected to Make Other Physicians’ Lives Better by taking on their inpatients, inpatient calls, comanagement with specialists, and unloading the ED.

And both at medical schools and in the community, hospitalists became the Major Educators of medical students, residents, nurses, and other hospital staff.

At the same time, SHM was focusing on becoming a very unique medical professional society.

SHM built on the energy of our young and innovative hospitalists to forge a different path. We had no reputation to protect. We were not bound like most other specialty societies to over 100 years of “the way it’s always been done.”

While other professional societies thought their role in quality improvement was to pontificate and publish clinical guidelines that often were little used, SHM embarked on an aggressive, hands-on, frontline approach by starting SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement. Over the last 15 years, the center has raised millions of dollars to deliver real change and improvement at hundreds of hospitals nationwide, many times bringing work plans and mentors to support and train local clinicians in quality improvement skills and data collection. This approach was recognized by the National Quality Forum and the Joint Commission with their prestigious John Eisenberg Award for Quality Improvement.

When we went to Washington to help shape the future of health care, we did not ask for more money for hospitalists. We did not ask for more power or to use regulations to protect our new specialty. Instead, we went with ideas of how to make acute medical care more effective and efficient. We could show the politicians and the regulators how we could reduce incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli, how we could make the hospital discharge process work better, how we could help chart a smoother medication reconciliation process, and so many other ways the system could be improved.

And even the way SHM generated our new ideas was uniquely different than other specialties. Way back in 2000 – long before Twitter and other social media were able to crowdsource and use the Internet to percolate new ideas – SHM relied on our members’ conversations on the SHM electronic mail discussion list to see what hospitalists were worried about, and what everyone was being asked to do, and SHM provided the resources and initiatives to support our nation’s hospitalists.

From these early conversations, SHM heard that hospitalists were being asked to Lead Change without much of an idea of the skills they would need. And so, the SHM leadership academies were born, which have now educated more than 2,700 hospitalist leaders.

Early on, we learned that hospitalists and even their bosses had no idea of how to start or run a successful hospital medicine group. SHM started our practice management courses and webinars and we developed the groundbreaking document, Key Characteristics of Effective Hospital Medicine Groups. In a typical SHM manner, we challenged most of our members to improve and get better rather trying to defend the status quo. At SHM, we have constantly felt that hospital medicine was a “work in progress.” We may not be perfect today, but we will be better in 90 days and even better in a year.

I have more to say about how we got this far and even more to say about where we might go. So, stay tuned and keep contributing to the future and success of SHM and hospital medicine.

Dr. Wellikson is the CEO of SHM. He has announced his plan to retire from SHM in late 2020. This article is the first in a series celebrating Dr. Wellikson’s tenure as CEO.

When I started at the Society of Hospital Medicine – known then as the National Association of Inpatient Physicians (NAIP) – in January 2000, Bill Clinton was still president. There were probably 500 hospitalists in the United States, and SHM had about 200-250 members.

It was so long ago that the iPhone hadn’t been invented, Twitter wasn’t even an idea, and Amazon was an online book store. SHM’s national offices were a cubicle at the American College of Physicians headquarters in Philadelphia, and our entire staff was me and a part-time assistant.

We have certainly come a long way in my 20 years as CEO of SHM.

When I first became involved with NAIP, it was to help the board with their strategic planning in 1998. At that time, the national thought leaders for the hospitalist movement (the term hospital medicine had not been invented yet) predicted that hospitalists would eventually do the inpatient work for about 25% of family doctors and for 15% of internists. Hospitalists were considered to be a form of “general medicine” without an office-based practice.

One of the first things we set about doing was to define the new specialty of hospital medicine before anyone else (e.g., American Medical Association, ACP, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, the government) defined us.

Most specialties were defined by a body organ (e.g., cardiology, renal), a population (e.g., pediatrics, geriatrics), or a disease (e.g., oncology), and there were a few other site-specific specialties (e.g., ED medicine, critical care). We felt that, to be a specialty, we needed certain key elements:

• Separate group consciousness
• Professional society
• Distinct residency and fellowship programs
• Separate CME
• Distinct educational materials (e.g., textbooks)
• Definable and distinct competencies
• Separate credentials – certification and/or hospital insurance driven

Early on, SHM defined the Core Competencies for Hospital Medicine for adults in patient care and, eventually, for pediatric patients. We rebranded our specialty as hospital medicine to be more than just inpatient physicians, and to broadly encompass the growing “big tent” of SHM that included those trained in internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, med-peds, as well as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, and others.

We were the first and only specialty society to set the standard for hospitalist compensation (how much you are paid) and productivity (what you are expected to do) with our unique State of Hospital Medicine (SOHM) Report. Other specialties left this work to the Medical Group Management Association, the AMA, or commercial companies.

Our specialty was soon being asked to do things that no other group of clinicians was ever asked to do.

Hospitalists were expected to Save Money by reducing length of stay and the use of resources on the sickest patients. Hospitalists were asked to Improve Measurable Quality at a time when most other physicians or even hospitals weren’t even being measured.

We were expected to form and Lead Teams of other clinicians when health care was still seen as a solo enterprise. Hospitalists were expected to Improve Efficiency and to create a Seamless Continuity, both during the hospital stay and in the transitions out of the hospital.

Hospitalists were asked to do things no one else wanted to do, such as taking on the uncompensated patients and extra hospital committee work and just about any new project their hospital wanted to be involved in. Along the way, we were expected to Make Other Physicians’ Lives Better by taking on their inpatients, inpatient calls, comanagement with specialists, and unloading the ED.

And both at medical schools and in the community, hospitalists became the Major Educators of medical students, residents, nurses, and other hospital staff.

At the same time, SHM was focusing on becoming a very unique medical professional society.

SHM built on the energy of our young and innovative hospitalists to forge a different path. We had no reputation to protect. We were not bound like most other specialty societies to over 100 years of “the way it’s always been done.”

While other professional societies thought their role in quality improvement was to pontificate and publish clinical guidelines that often were little used, SHM embarked on an aggressive, hands-on, frontline approach by starting SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement. Over the last 15 years, the center has raised millions of dollars to deliver real change and improvement at hundreds of hospitals nationwide, many times bringing work plans and mentors to support and train local clinicians in quality improvement skills and data collection. This approach was recognized by the National Quality Forum and the Joint Commission with their prestigious John Eisenberg Award for Quality Improvement.

When we went to Washington to help shape the future of health care, we did not ask for more money for hospitalists. We did not ask for more power or to use regulations to protect our new specialty. Instead, we went with ideas of how to make acute medical care more effective and efficient. We could show the politicians and the regulators how we could reduce incidence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli, how we could make the hospital discharge process work better, how we could help chart a smoother medication reconciliation process, and so many other ways the system could be improved.

And even the way SHM generated our new ideas was uniquely different than other specialties. Way back in 2000 – long before Twitter and other social media were able to crowdsource and use the Internet to percolate new ideas – SHM relied on our members’ conversations on the SHM electronic mail discussion list to see what hospitalists were worried about, and what everyone was being asked to do, and SHM provided the resources and initiatives to support our nation’s hospitalists.

From these early conversations, SHM heard that hospitalists were being asked to Lead Change without much of an idea of the skills they would need. And so, the SHM leadership academies were born, which have now educated more than 2,700 hospitalist leaders.

Early on, we learned that hospitalists and even their bosses had no idea of how to start or run a successful hospital medicine group. SHM started our practice management courses and webinars and we developed the groundbreaking document, Key Characteristics of Effective Hospital Medicine Groups. In a typical SHM manner, we challenged most of our members to improve and get better rather trying to defend the status quo. At SHM, we have constantly felt that hospital medicine was a “work in progress.” We may not be perfect today, but we will be better in 90 days and even better in a year.

I have more to say about how we got this far and even more to say about where we might go. So, stay tuned and keep contributing to the future and success of SHM and hospital medicine.

Dr. Wellikson is the CEO of SHM. He has announced his plan to retire from SHM in late 2020. This article is the first in a series celebrating Dr. Wellikson’s tenure as CEO.

ORLANDO – Cumulative evidence over the years has shown that bisphosphonates reduce distant metastases in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer but that effect does not seem to extend to younger, premenopausal women who may experience adverse effects with bisphosphonates, nor has it been replicated in other types of cancer, such as lung or prostate, Robert Coleman MBBS, MD, said in a presentation marking the 50th anniversary of the publication of the first papers describing the then-new class of drugs.

“We have some science – at least in postmenopausal breast cancer – [showing] that we’re really making a difference, but we don’t understand why it’s not working in the other patients or in the other diseases,” said Dr. Coleman of the University of Sheffield (England) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
 

Mixed findings in early studies

Early studies showing the metastases-prevention effects of bisphosphonates were with clodronate. In one study, Dr. Coleman said, researchers found that oral clodronate at a dose of 1,600 mg/day as a supplementary treatment to standard treatment for primary, operable breast cancer reduced the risk of bone metastases in a cohort of 1,069 patients with stage 1-3 breast cancer (hazard ratio, 0.692; P = .043) over 5 years (Breast Cancer Res. 2006 Mar 15. doi: 10.1186/bcr1384). Another trial, of 302 patients with breast cancer who received oral clodronate at 1,600 mg/day for 2 years, found that 20.4% of patients who received oral clodronate had died by 8.5 years of follow-up, compared with 40.7% of those who did not receive the intervention (Ann Oncol. 2008;19[12]:2007-11).

However, those results were in conflict with findings from an earlier study in which researchers followed patients with breast cancer who received 1,600 mg/day of oral clodronate or placebo for 3 years. They found a similar number of bone metastases in the clodronate and placebo groups (32% and 29%, respectively), as well as a lower overall disease-free survival rate at 10 years for the clodronate group, compared with the placebo group (45% vs. 58%; Acta Oncol. 2004;43[7]:650-6).“For various other reasons, clodronate did not gain traction as a therapeutic strategy in early-stage breast cancer,” said Dr. Coleman, although emerging evidence showed that other bisphosphonate agents were effective in some patients with breast cancer.

In a 2009 article, Gnant et al. reported that premenopausal patients, who underwent primary surgery for stage 1 or stage 2 breast cancer and received standard goserelin therapy for induced menopause and endocrine therapy (either tamoxifen or anastrozole) in addition to treatment with zoledronic acid, had a disease-free survival rate of 94.0% at a median 47.8 months of follow-up (N Eng J Med. 2009;360:679-91). After a median 94.4 months of follow-up, the investigators reported a lower risk of disease progression (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.99; P = .042) and death (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43-1.02; P = .064; Ann Oncol. 2015;26[2]:313-20).

In his own group, Dr. Coleman and colleagues recruited patients with early-stage breast cancer in the AZURE trial, a phase 3 study of 3,360 patients who received standard therapy with or without zoledronic acid 4 mg every 3-4 weeks for 6 doses, followed by 8 doses every 3 months then 5 doses every 6 months (N Eng J Med. 2011;365:1396-405). “We saw no effect,” said Dr. Coleman. “[That was] very different from what was shown by [Dr.] Gnant.”

For a subgroup of postmenopausal patients, Dr. Coleman and colleagues found that the adjusted HR for disease-free survival was 0.82 for women who were more than 5 years postmenopausal (95% CI, 0.67-1.00) at the time of breast cancer and bisphosphonate treatment, but women younger than 40 years had worse survival outcomes at 10 years (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.09-2.22) and had a significantly higher risk of death from breast cancer (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.16-2.40; J Bone Oncol. 2018 Sep 27. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.09.008).
 

Trying to reconcile disparate findings

Those findings left his group with a dilemma, said Dr. Coleman. “Do we start again and run trials, and wait another 10 years, or is there a shortcut to [understanding] what’s going on?” he asked.

In a meta-analysis of all trials from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group in 2015 examining adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment and placebo in patients with early-stage breast cancer, intent-to-treat analyses did not show significant benefit after therapy, but postmenopausal women (11,767 women in 36 trials) saw a clear benefit in all recurrence (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94), bone recurrence (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86), and breast cancer–related mortality (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; Lancet. 2015 Jul 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[15]60908-4). The effect seemed to be similar, regardless of bisphosphonate type, with other results seen across trials that used clodronate, zoledronic acid, pamidronate, or ibandronate.

“Although those outcome differences might look quite small for a common disease, that’s a really big effect. Reducing one-sixth of breast cancer deaths at 10 years is the equivalent of saving 10,000 lives across the [European Union], and about half that in the United States,” said Dr. Coleman, noting that guidelines in North America from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology now support adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer.

However, bisphosphonates’ effect on breast cancer does not extend to other cancers, such as non–small cell lung cancer or prostate cancer. In other absorption inhibitors such as denosumab, there also seems to be no benefit for patients with breast cancer, including in postmenopausal patient subgroups, said Dr. Coleman. “In my view, osteoclast inhibition is only part of the story,” he noted.

In the AZURE trial, secondary outcomes examined how the transcription factor MAF interacted with menopausal status and treatment with zoledronic acid. The 79% of patients with tumors that were negative for MAF fluorescence in situ hybridization had improved overall survival (0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.94), regardless of menopause status (J Bone Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.09.008). “There’s probably a need to merge the treatment: in this case, the bisphosphonate, the biology of the cancer, and the environment the cancer finds itself in,” noted Dr. Coleman.

“From the cancer perspective, bisphosphonates have transformed the experience for many of our patients with advanced disease, and now we’re working to see great improvements, at least in common diseases such as postmenopausal breast cancer,” he concluded.

Dr. Coleman reports being a paid employee of prIME Oncology (until March 2019); is a consultant for Amgen, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Scandell, and Biocon; is on the speakers bureau for Amgen and Eisai; holds intellectual property rights for a biomarker being developed by Inbiomotion; and is on the scientific advisory board for Inbiomotion.

ORLANDO – Cumulative evidence over the years has shown that bisphosphonates reduce distant metastases in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer but that effect does not seem to extend to younger, premenopausal women who may experience adverse effects with bisphosphonates, nor has it been replicated in other types of cancer, such as lung or prostate, Robert Coleman MBBS, MD, said in a presentation marking the 50th anniversary of the publication of the first papers describing the then-new class of drugs.

“We have some science – at least in postmenopausal breast cancer – [showing] that we’re really making a difference, but we don’t understand why it’s not working in the other patients or in the other diseases,” said Dr. Coleman of the University of Sheffield (England) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
 

Mixed findings in early studies

Early studies showing the metastases-prevention effects of bisphosphonates were with clodronate. In one study, Dr. Coleman said, researchers found that oral clodronate at a dose of 1,600 mg/day as a supplementary treatment to standard treatment for primary, operable breast cancer reduced the risk of bone metastases in a cohort of 1,069 patients with stage 1-3 breast cancer (hazard ratio, 0.692; P = .043) over 5 years (Breast Cancer Res. 2006 Mar 15. doi: 10.1186/bcr1384). Another trial, of 302 patients with breast cancer who received oral clodronate at 1,600 mg/day for 2 years, found that 20.4% of patients who received oral clodronate had died by 8.5 years of follow-up, compared with 40.7% of those who did not receive the intervention (Ann Oncol. 2008;19[12]:2007-11).

However, those results were in conflict with findings from an earlier study in which researchers followed patients with breast cancer who received 1,600 mg/day of oral clodronate or placebo for 3 years. They found a similar number of bone metastases in the clodronate and placebo groups (32% and 29%, respectively), as well as a lower overall disease-free survival rate at 10 years for the clodronate group, compared with the placebo group (45% vs. 58%; Acta Oncol. 2004;43[7]:650-6).“For various other reasons, clodronate did not gain traction as a therapeutic strategy in early-stage breast cancer,” said Dr. Coleman, although emerging evidence showed that other bisphosphonate agents were effective in some patients with breast cancer.

In a 2009 article, Gnant et al. reported that premenopausal patients, who underwent primary surgery for stage 1 or stage 2 breast cancer and received standard goserelin therapy for induced menopause and endocrine therapy (either tamoxifen or anastrozole) in addition to treatment with zoledronic acid, had a disease-free survival rate of 94.0% at a median 47.8 months of follow-up (N Eng J Med. 2009;360:679-91). After a median 94.4 months of follow-up, the investigators reported a lower risk of disease progression (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.99; P = .042) and death (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43-1.02; P = .064; Ann Oncol. 2015;26[2]:313-20).

In his own group, Dr. Coleman and colleagues recruited patients with early-stage breast cancer in the AZURE trial, a phase 3 study of 3,360 patients who received standard therapy with or without zoledronic acid 4 mg every 3-4 weeks for 6 doses, followed by 8 doses every 3 months then 5 doses every 6 months (N Eng J Med. 2011;365:1396-405). “We saw no effect,” said Dr. Coleman. “[That was] very different from what was shown by [Dr.] Gnant.”

For a subgroup of postmenopausal patients, Dr. Coleman and colleagues found that the adjusted HR for disease-free survival was 0.82 for women who were more than 5 years postmenopausal (95% CI, 0.67-1.00) at the time of breast cancer and bisphosphonate treatment, but women younger than 40 years had worse survival outcomes at 10 years (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.09-2.22) and had a significantly higher risk of death from breast cancer (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.16-2.40; J Bone Oncol. 2018 Sep 27. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.09.008).
 

Trying to reconcile disparate findings

Those findings left his group with a dilemma, said Dr. Coleman. “Do we start again and run trials, and wait another 10 years, or is there a shortcut to [understanding] what’s going on?” he asked.

In a meta-analysis of all trials from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group in 2015 examining adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment and placebo in patients with early-stage breast cancer, intent-to-treat analyses did not show significant benefit after therapy, but postmenopausal women (11,767 women in 36 trials) saw a clear benefit in all recurrence (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94), bone recurrence (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86), and breast cancer–related mortality (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; Lancet. 2015 Jul 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[15]60908-4). The effect seemed to be similar, regardless of bisphosphonate type, with other results seen across trials that used clodronate, zoledronic acid, pamidronate, or ibandronate.

“Although those outcome differences might look quite small for a common disease, that’s a really big effect. Reducing one-sixth of breast cancer deaths at 10 years is the equivalent of saving 10,000 lives across the [European Union], and about half that in the United States,” said Dr. Coleman, noting that guidelines in North America from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology now support adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer.

However, bisphosphonates’ effect on breast cancer does not extend to other cancers, such as non–small cell lung cancer or prostate cancer. In other absorption inhibitors such as denosumab, there also seems to be no benefit for patients with breast cancer, including in postmenopausal patient subgroups, said Dr. Coleman. “In my view, osteoclast inhibition is only part of the story,” he noted.

In the AZURE trial, secondary outcomes examined how the transcription factor MAF interacted with menopausal status and treatment with zoledronic acid. The 79% of patients with tumors that were negative for MAF fluorescence in situ hybridization had improved overall survival (0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.94), regardless of menopause status (J Bone Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.09.008). “There’s probably a need to merge the treatment: in this case, the bisphosphonate, the biology of the cancer, and the environment the cancer finds itself in,” noted Dr. Coleman.

“From the cancer perspective, bisphosphonates have transformed the experience for many of our patients with advanced disease, and now we’re working to see great improvements, at least in common diseases such as postmenopausal breast cancer,” he concluded.

Dr. Coleman reports being a paid employee of prIME Oncology (until March 2019); is a consultant for Amgen, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Scandell, and Biocon; is on the speakers bureau for Amgen and Eisai; holds intellectual property rights for a biomarker being developed by Inbiomotion; and is on the scientific advisory board for Inbiomotion.

ORLANDO – Cumulative evidence over the years has shown that bisphosphonates reduce distant metastases in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer but that effect does not seem to extend to younger, premenopausal women who may experience adverse effects with bisphosphonates, nor has it been replicated in other types of cancer, such as lung or prostate, Robert Coleman MBBS, MD, said in a presentation marking the 50th anniversary of the publication of the first papers describing the then-new class of drugs.

“We have some science – at least in postmenopausal breast cancer – [showing] that we’re really making a difference, but we don’t understand why it’s not working in the other patients or in the other diseases,” said Dr. Coleman of the University of Sheffield (England) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
 

Mixed findings in early studies

Early studies showing the metastases-prevention effects of bisphosphonates were with clodronate. In one study, Dr. Coleman said, researchers found that oral clodronate at a dose of 1,600 mg/day as a supplementary treatment to standard treatment for primary, operable breast cancer reduced the risk of bone metastases in a cohort of 1,069 patients with stage 1-3 breast cancer (hazard ratio, 0.692; P = .043) over 5 years (Breast Cancer Res. 2006 Mar 15. doi: 10.1186/bcr1384). Another trial, of 302 patients with breast cancer who received oral clodronate at 1,600 mg/day for 2 years, found that 20.4% of patients who received oral clodronate had died by 8.5 years of follow-up, compared with 40.7% of those who did not receive the intervention (Ann Oncol. 2008;19[12]:2007-11).

However, those results were in conflict with findings from an earlier study in which researchers followed patients with breast cancer who received 1,600 mg/day of oral clodronate or placebo for 3 years. They found a similar number of bone metastases in the clodronate and placebo groups (32% and 29%, respectively), as well as a lower overall disease-free survival rate at 10 years for the clodronate group, compared with the placebo group (45% vs. 58%; Acta Oncol. 2004;43[7]:650-6).“For various other reasons, clodronate did not gain traction as a therapeutic strategy in early-stage breast cancer,” said Dr. Coleman, although emerging evidence showed that other bisphosphonate agents were effective in some patients with breast cancer.

In a 2009 article, Gnant et al. reported that premenopausal patients, who underwent primary surgery for stage 1 or stage 2 breast cancer and received standard goserelin therapy for induced menopause and endocrine therapy (either tamoxifen or anastrozole) in addition to treatment with zoledronic acid, had a disease-free survival rate of 94.0% at a median 47.8 months of follow-up (N Eng J Med. 2009;360:679-91). After a median 94.4 months of follow-up, the investigators reported a lower risk of disease progression (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.99; P = .042) and death (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43-1.02; P = .064; Ann Oncol. 2015;26[2]:313-20).

In his own group, Dr. Coleman and colleagues recruited patients with early-stage breast cancer in the AZURE trial, a phase 3 study of 3,360 patients who received standard therapy with or without zoledronic acid 4 mg every 3-4 weeks for 6 doses, followed by 8 doses every 3 months then 5 doses every 6 months (N Eng J Med. 2011;365:1396-405). “We saw no effect,” said Dr. Coleman. “[That was] very different from what was shown by [Dr.] Gnant.”

For a subgroup of postmenopausal patients, Dr. Coleman and colleagues found that the adjusted HR for disease-free survival was 0.82 for women who were more than 5 years postmenopausal (95% CI, 0.67-1.00) at the time of breast cancer and bisphosphonate treatment, but women younger than 40 years had worse survival outcomes at 10 years (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.09-2.22) and had a significantly higher risk of death from breast cancer (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.16-2.40; J Bone Oncol. 2018 Sep 27. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.09.008).
 

Trying to reconcile disparate findings

Those findings left his group with a dilemma, said Dr. Coleman. “Do we start again and run trials, and wait another 10 years, or is there a shortcut to [understanding] what’s going on?” he asked.

In a meta-analysis of all trials from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group in 2015 examining adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment and placebo in patients with early-stage breast cancer, intent-to-treat analyses did not show significant benefit after therapy, but postmenopausal women (11,767 women in 36 trials) saw a clear benefit in all recurrence (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94), bone recurrence (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86), and breast cancer–related mortality (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; Lancet. 2015 Jul 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[15]60908-4). The effect seemed to be similar, regardless of bisphosphonate type, with other results seen across trials that used clodronate, zoledronic acid, pamidronate, or ibandronate.

“Although those outcome differences might look quite small for a common disease, that’s a really big effect. Reducing one-sixth of breast cancer deaths at 10 years is the equivalent of saving 10,000 lives across the [European Union], and about half that in the United States,” said Dr. Coleman, noting that guidelines in North America from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology now support adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer.

However, bisphosphonates’ effect on breast cancer does not extend to other cancers, such as non–small cell lung cancer or prostate cancer. In other absorption inhibitors such as denosumab, there also seems to be no benefit for patients with breast cancer, including in postmenopausal patient subgroups, said Dr. Coleman. “In my view, osteoclast inhibition is only part of the story,” he noted.

In the AZURE trial, secondary outcomes examined how the transcription factor MAF interacted with menopausal status and treatment with zoledronic acid. The 79% of patients with tumors that were negative for MAF fluorescence in situ hybridization had improved overall survival (0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.94), regardless of menopause status (J Bone Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.09.008). “There’s probably a need to merge the treatment: in this case, the bisphosphonate, the biology of the cancer, and the environment the cancer finds itself in,” noted Dr. Coleman.

“From the cancer perspective, bisphosphonates have transformed the experience for many of our patients with advanced disease, and now we’re working to see great improvements, at least in common diseases such as postmenopausal breast cancer,” he concluded.

Dr. Coleman reports being a paid employee of prIME Oncology (until March 2019); is a consultant for Amgen, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Scandell, and Biocon; is on the speakers bureau for Amgen and Eisai; holds intellectual property rights for a biomarker being developed by Inbiomotion; and is on the scientific advisory board for Inbiomotion.

LAS VEGAS – The way Neal Bhatia, MD, sees it, there is no such thing as a classical presentation of onychomycosis.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This is where proving your diagnosis is half the battle, even though we are sometimes using empiric therapy in suspected cases,” he said at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “Prove the diagnosis and get the extra tests necessary.”

According to Dr. Bhatia, director of clinical dermatology research at San Diego-based Therapeutics Clinical Research, tinea unguium, tinea corporis, tinea cruris, and tinea pedis account for more than half of all visits for dermatophytosis. With onychomycosis, the ultimate treatment goal from the standpoint of clinicians is no more fungus, he noted, while the desired endpoint from the standpoint of some patients is normal-looking nails.

“Endpoint failures in a research trial are not the same as what we tell patients in the clinic,” Dr. Bhatia said. “If you have a patient using something topical for 52 weeks and they see two-thirds of their nail improve, you’re not going to say, ‘Stop; you’re a failure now.’ You tell them, ‘Keep going and we’ll keep watching.’ But in the research world, it’s very different when you look at all of the different endpoints that have to be met at the finish line. It’s very important to measure success based on what that patient’s experiencing.”

According to Dr. Bhatia, diagnosing onychomycosis by visual assessment has a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 47%, while KOH has a sensitivity between 67% and 93% and specificity between 38% and 78%. PCR, meanwhile, “is quick, but it’s expensive and it has a high false-positive rate. So, in those difficult patients who aren’t responding [to treatment], maybe we can’t just trust our eyes alone [to make a diagnosis].”

Tests such as a KOH stain have low sensitivity, with high costs of more sensitive tests such as the periodic acid–Schiff (PAS) stain. In a recent study, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 600 patients with toenail clippings sent for PAS stain during January 2000–December 2013 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 May; 72(5):AB116). They reviewed records to determine which PAS stains were performed to confirm probable clinical diagnosis of onychomycosis.

The researchers found that 30% of toenail clippings were sent for confirmatory PAS staining by dermatologists, compared with 37% by podiatrists and 34% by other clinicians. Of these tests, 75% ordered by dermatologists were positive for fungus, compared with 81% ordered by podiatrists, and 66% ordered by other physicians. “The positive predictive value of clinical suspicion for true onychomycosis was high, and the findings question whether or not a confirmatory test is really necessary,” Dr. Bhatia said.

Preventative strategies to control recurrence of onychomycosis include using maintenance regimens of the recommended antifungal agent, discarding old shoes, alternating wearing different pairs of shoes, periodically disinfecting shoes, washing feet regularly, and alerting the physician to the first sign of infection.

In an effort to investigate strategies to minimize recurrence of onychomycosis, Dr. Bhatia and colleagues evaluated 73 patients over the course of 7 years who were taking either terbinafine or itraconazole (J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15[3]:279-82). Thirty-six months later, the overall mean recurrence rate among patients was 14%. Prognostic factors influencing recurrence included patient’s family history; lifestyle; underlying physiology (presence of a very thick nail, extensive involvement of the entire nail unit, lateral nail disease and yellow spikes); physical trauma, especially in the elderly; concomitant disease, such as peripheral artery disease and/or diabetes; immunocompromised or immunosuppressed patients, and the presence of tinea pedis.

Based on their analysis, they recommended the following strategies to prevent or limit recurrence: prophylactic use of a topical antifungal twice-weekly for 2-3 years; periodic application of a topical antifungal to plantar surface and/or interdigital spaces; treatment of any coexisting tinea pedis; treating immediate family members; footwear and sock decontamination with antifungal powder; ultraviolet light or ozone; avoidance of activities known to risk spread of disease, such as communal swimming pools.

Dr. Bhatia concluded his presentation by noting that the ideal treatment for onychomycosis would not pose a systemic risk to the liver, heart, or other organs; would not require monitoring of labs; would not require debridement; and would not interact with other drugs. It would also penetrate the nail plate – especially the diseased nail – and would be quick drying.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Bhatia disclosed having affiliations with Actavis, Allergan, Anacor, Aqua, Bayer, Biofrontera, BiopharmX, Cipher, Dermira, Dusa, Exeltis, Ferndale, Foamix, Galderma, Intraderm, ISDIN, LaRoche-Posay, Leo, Novan, Novartis, PharmaDerm, Promius, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and Valeant.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – The way Neal Bhatia, MD, sees it, there is no such thing as a classical presentation of onychomycosis.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This is where proving your diagnosis is half the battle, even though we are sometimes using empiric therapy in suspected cases,” he said at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “Prove the diagnosis and get the extra tests necessary.”

According to Dr. Bhatia, director of clinical dermatology research at San Diego-based Therapeutics Clinical Research, tinea unguium, tinea corporis, tinea cruris, and tinea pedis account for more than half of all visits for dermatophytosis. With onychomycosis, the ultimate treatment goal from the standpoint of clinicians is no more fungus, he noted, while the desired endpoint from the standpoint of some patients is normal-looking nails.

“Endpoint failures in a research trial are not the same as what we tell patients in the clinic,” Dr. Bhatia said. “If you have a patient using something topical for 52 weeks and they see two-thirds of their nail improve, you’re not going to say, ‘Stop; you’re a failure now.’ You tell them, ‘Keep going and we’ll keep watching.’ But in the research world, it’s very different when you look at all of the different endpoints that have to be met at the finish line. It’s very important to measure success based on what that patient’s experiencing.”

According to Dr. Bhatia, diagnosing onychomycosis by visual assessment has a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 47%, while KOH has a sensitivity between 67% and 93% and specificity between 38% and 78%. PCR, meanwhile, “is quick, but it’s expensive and it has a high false-positive rate. So, in those difficult patients who aren’t responding [to treatment], maybe we can’t just trust our eyes alone [to make a diagnosis].”

Tests such as a KOH stain have low sensitivity, with high costs of more sensitive tests such as the periodic acid–Schiff (PAS) stain. In a recent study, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 600 patients with toenail clippings sent for PAS stain during January 2000–December 2013 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 May; 72(5):AB116). They reviewed records to determine which PAS stains were performed to confirm probable clinical diagnosis of onychomycosis.

The researchers found that 30% of toenail clippings were sent for confirmatory PAS staining by dermatologists, compared with 37% by podiatrists and 34% by other clinicians. Of these tests, 75% ordered by dermatologists were positive for fungus, compared with 81% ordered by podiatrists, and 66% ordered by other physicians. “The positive predictive value of clinical suspicion for true onychomycosis was high, and the findings question whether or not a confirmatory test is really necessary,” Dr. Bhatia said.

Preventative strategies to control recurrence of onychomycosis include using maintenance regimens of the recommended antifungal agent, discarding old shoes, alternating wearing different pairs of shoes, periodically disinfecting shoes, washing feet regularly, and alerting the physician to the first sign of infection.

In an effort to investigate strategies to minimize recurrence of onychomycosis, Dr. Bhatia and colleagues evaluated 73 patients over the course of 7 years who were taking either terbinafine or itraconazole (J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15[3]:279-82). Thirty-six months later, the overall mean recurrence rate among patients was 14%. Prognostic factors influencing recurrence included patient’s family history; lifestyle; underlying physiology (presence of a very thick nail, extensive involvement of the entire nail unit, lateral nail disease and yellow spikes); physical trauma, especially in the elderly; concomitant disease, such as peripheral artery disease and/or diabetes; immunocompromised or immunosuppressed patients, and the presence of tinea pedis.

Based on their analysis, they recommended the following strategies to prevent or limit recurrence: prophylactic use of a topical antifungal twice-weekly for 2-3 years; periodic application of a topical antifungal to plantar surface and/or interdigital spaces; treatment of any coexisting tinea pedis; treating immediate family members; footwear and sock decontamination with antifungal powder; ultraviolet light or ozone; avoidance of activities known to risk spread of disease, such as communal swimming pools.

Dr. Bhatia concluded his presentation by noting that the ideal treatment for onychomycosis would not pose a systemic risk to the liver, heart, or other organs; would not require monitoring of labs; would not require debridement; and would not interact with other drugs. It would also penetrate the nail plate – especially the diseased nail – and would be quick drying.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Bhatia disclosed having affiliations with Actavis, Allergan, Anacor, Aqua, Bayer, Biofrontera, BiopharmX, Cipher, Dermira, Dusa, Exeltis, Ferndale, Foamix, Galderma, Intraderm, ISDIN, LaRoche-Posay, Leo, Novan, Novartis, PharmaDerm, Promius, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and Valeant.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – The way Neal Bhatia, MD, sees it, there is no such thing as a classical presentation of onychomycosis.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“This is where proving your diagnosis is half the battle, even though we are sometimes using empiric therapy in suspected cases,” he said at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “Prove the diagnosis and get the extra tests necessary.”

According to Dr. Bhatia, director of clinical dermatology research at San Diego-based Therapeutics Clinical Research, tinea unguium, tinea corporis, tinea cruris, and tinea pedis account for more than half of all visits for dermatophytosis. With onychomycosis, the ultimate treatment goal from the standpoint of clinicians is no more fungus, he noted, while the desired endpoint from the standpoint of some patients is normal-looking nails.

“Endpoint failures in a research trial are not the same as what we tell patients in the clinic,” Dr. Bhatia said. “If you have a patient using something topical for 52 weeks and they see two-thirds of their nail improve, you’re not going to say, ‘Stop; you’re a failure now.’ You tell them, ‘Keep going and we’ll keep watching.’ But in the research world, it’s very different when you look at all of the different endpoints that have to be met at the finish line. It’s very important to measure success based on what that patient’s experiencing.”

According to Dr. Bhatia, diagnosing onychomycosis by visual assessment has a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 47%, while KOH has a sensitivity between 67% and 93% and specificity between 38% and 78%. PCR, meanwhile, “is quick, but it’s expensive and it has a high false-positive rate. So, in those difficult patients who aren’t responding [to treatment], maybe we can’t just trust our eyes alone [to make a diagnosis].”

Tests such as a KOH stain have low sensitivity, with high costs of more sensitive tests such as the periodic acid–Schiff (PAS) stain. In a recent study, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 600 patients with toenail clippings sent for PAS stain during January 2000–December 2013 (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 May; 72(5):AB116). They reviewed records to determine which PAS stains were performed to confirm probable clinical diagnosis of onychomycosis.

The researchers found that 30% of toenail clippings were sent for confirmatory PAS staining by dermatologists, compared with 37% by podiatrists and 34% by other clinicians. Of these tests, 75% ordered by dermatologists were positive for fungus, compared with 81% ordered by podiatrists, and 66% ordered by other physicians. “The positive predictive value of clinical suspicion for true onychomycosis was high, and the findings question whether or not a confirmatory test is really necessary,” Dr. Bhatia said.

Preventative strategies to control recurrence of onychomycosis include using maintenance regimens of the recommended antifungal agent, discarding old shoes, alternating wearing different pairs of shoes, periodically disinfecting shoes, washing feet regularly, and alerting the physician to the first sign of infection.

In an effort to investigate strategies to minimize recurrence of onychomycosis, Dr. Bhatia and colleagues evaluated 73 patients over the course of 7 years who were taking either terbinafine or itraconazole (J Drugs Dermatol. 2016;15[3]:279-82). Thirty-six months later, the overall mean recurrence rate among patients was 14%. Prognostic factors influencing recurrence included patient’s family history; lifestyle; underlying physiology (presence of a very thick nail, extensive involvement of the entire nail unit, lateral nail disease and yellow spikes); physical trauma, especially in the elderly; concomitant disease, such as peripheral artery disease and/or diabetes; immunocompromised or immunosuppressed patients, and the presence of tinea pedis.

Based on their analysis, they recommended the following strategies to prevent or limit recurrence: prophylactic use of a topical antifungal twice-weekly for 2-3 years; periodic application of a topical antifungal to plantar surface and/or interdigital spaces; treatment of any coexisting tinea pedis; treating immediate family members; footwear and sock decontamination with antifungal powder; ultraviolet light or ozone; avoidance of activities known to risk spread of disease, such as communal swimming pools.

Dr. Bhatia concluded his presentation by noting that the ideal treatment for onychomycosis would not pose a systemic risk to the liver, heart, or other organs; would not require monitoring of labs; would not require debridement; and would not interact with other drugs. It would also penetrate the nail plate – especially the diseased nail – and would be quick drying.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Dr. Bhatia disclosed having affiliations with Actavis, Allergan, Anacor, Aqua, Bayer, Biofrontera, BiopharmX, Cipher, Dermira, Dusa, Exeltis, Ferndale, Foamix, Galderma, Intraderm, ISDIN, LaRoche-Posay, Leo, Novan, Novartis, PharmaDerm, Promius, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and Valeant.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first treatment for anemia in adults with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Luspatercept-aamt (Reblozyl) is an erythroid maturation agent that reduced the transfusion burden for patients with beta thalassemia in the BELIEVE trial of 336 patients. In total, 21% of patients who received luspatercept-aamt achieved at least a 33% reduction in red blood cell transfusions, compared with 4.5% of patients who received placebo, according to the FDA.

Common side effects associated with luspatercept-aamt were headache, bone pain, arthralgia, fatigue, cough, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and dizziness. Patients taking the agent should be monitored for thrombosis, the FDA advised.

Celgene, which makes luspatercept-aamt, said the agent would be available about 1 week following the FDA approval.

The FDA is also evaluating luspatercept-aamt as an anemia treatment in adults with very-low– to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndromes who have ring sideroblasts and require red blood cell transfusions. The agency is expected to take action on that application in April 2020.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first treatment for anemia in adults with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Luspatercept-aamt (Reblozyl) is an erythroid maturation agent that reduced the transfusion burden for patients with beta thalassemia in the BELIEVE trial of 336 patients. In total, 21% of patients who received luspatercept-aamt achieved at least a 33% reduction in red blood cell transfusions, compared with 4.5% of patients who received placebo, according to the FDA.

Common side effects associated with luspatercept-aamt were headache, bone pain, arthralgia, fatigue, cough, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and dizziness. Patients taking the agent should be monitored for thrombosis, the FDA advised.

Celgene, which makes luspatercept-aamt, said the agent would be available about 1 week following the FDA approval.

The FDA is also evaluating luspatercept-aamt as an anemia treatment in adults with very-low– to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndromes who have ring sideroblasts and require red blood cell transfusions. The agency is expected to take action on that application in April 2020.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first treatment for anemia in adults with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Luspatercept-aamt (Reblozyl) is an erythroid maturation agent that reduced the transfusion burden for patients with beta thalassemia in the BELIEVE trial of 336 patients. In total, 21% of patients who received luspatercept-aamt achieved at least a 33% reduction in red blood cell transfusions, compared with 4.5% of patients who received placebo, according to the FDA.

Common side effects associated with luspatercept-aamt were headache, bone pain, arthralgia, fatigue, cough, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and dizziness. Patients taking the agent should be monitored for thrombosis, the FDA advised.

Celgene, which makes luspatercept-aamt, said the agent would be available about 1 week following the FDA approval.

The FDA is also evaluating luspatercept-aamt as an anemia treatment in adults with very-low– to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndromes who have ring sideroblasts and require red blood cell transfusions. The agency is expected to take action on that application in April 2020.

[email protected]

BARCELONA – A supervised and adapted exercise program improved quality of life, physical functioning, and strength in breast cancer survivors participating in the MAMA MOVE Gaia study.

Of 19 women who initiated participation in the program, which included a 16-week control phase followed by a 16-week exercise training intervention phase, 15 completed the program, and, after the training intervention, they experienced a significant increase in handgrip strength and sit-to-stand repetitions, Ana Joaquim, MD, of Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Portugal, and colleagues reported in a poster at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

During the control phase of the prospective nonrandomized study, participants experienced no significant changes over time in any domain of quality of life as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, although a trend toward improved physical functioning was noted at an evaluation performed 8 weeks after the control phase, compared with one performed just prior to the intervention phase (77.3 to 85.3 points, P = .051), the investigators said.

After the intervention phase, however, handgrip strength improved significantly at both the limb where surgery was performed and at the nonoperated limb (from 22.2 to 25.6 kg.f and from 22.6 to 26.9 kg.f). Similar results were observed for a sit-to-stand test (improvement from 12 to 17 repetitions).

Participants in the single-arm clinical trial were assessed after 8 weeks of the control phase, immediately prior to the intervention period, 8 weeks after the control phase, and 16 weeks into the invention phase.

The intervention phase consisted of 3 60-minute sessions per week of combined moderate to vigorous aerobic and strength exercise, defined as exercise at 65%-85% of maximum heart rate or at 6-8 points on the OMNI scale. Mean compliance among the participants was 63.6%.

The participants had a median age of 59 and 15 of the 19 were diagnosed with invasive carcinoma. Following surgery, 13 underwent radiotherapy, 15 received chemotherapy, and 18 received hormone therapy.

“Treatments for early breast cancer have side effects that affect quality of life and cause deconditioning,” the investigators wrote, adding that “physical exercise might have a supportive and coadjuvant role in the rehabilitation of breast cancer survivors.”

The MAMA MOVE trial aimed to assess the potential benefits of a community-based supervised exercise training program, and the findings suggest such programs could help improve quality of life, particularly with respect to physical functioning, they concluded.

The MAMA MOVE Gaia study was funded by Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. The investigators reported having no disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Joaquim A et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract 234P.

BARCELONA – A supervised and adapted exercise program improved quality of life, physical functioning, and strength in breast cancer survivors participating in the MAMA MOVE Gaia study.

Of 19 women who initiated participation in the program, which included a 16-week control phase followed by a 16-week exercise training intervention phase, 15 completed the program, and, after the training intervention, they experienced a significant increase in handgrip strength and sit-to-stand repetitions, Ana Joaquim, MD, of Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Portugal, and colleagues reported in a poster at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

During the control phase of the prospective nonrandomized study, participants experienced no significant changes over time in any domain of quality of life as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, although a trend toward improved physical functioning was noted at an evaluation performed 8 weeks after the control phase, compared with one performed just prior to the intervention phase (77.3 to 85.3 points, P = .051), the investigators said.

After the intervention phase, however, handgrip strength improved significantly at both the limb where surgery was performed and at the nonoperated limb (from 22.2 to 25.6 kg.f and from 22.6 to 26.9 kg.f). Similar results were observed for a sit-to-stand test (improvement from 12 to 17 repetitions).

Participants in the single-arm clinical trial were assessed after 8 weeks of the control phase, immediately prior to the intervention period, 8 weeks after the control phase, and 16 weeks into the invention phase.

The intervention phase consisted of 3 60-minute sessions per week of combined moderate to vigorous aerobic and strength exercise, defined as exercise at 65%-85% of maximum heart rate or at 6-8 points on the OMNI scale. Mean compliance among the participants was 63.6%.

The participants had a median age of 59 and 15 of the 19 were diagnosed with invasive carcinoma. Following surgery, 13 underwent radiotherapy, 15 received chemotherapy, and 18 received hormone therapy.

“Treatments for early breast cancer have side effects that affect quality of life and cause deconditioning,” the investigators wrote, adding that “physical exercise might have a supportive and coadjuvant role in the rehabilitation of breast cancer survivors.”

The MAMA MOVE trial aimed to assess the potential benefits of a community-based supervised exercise training program, and the findings suggest such programs could help improve quality of life, particularly with respect to physical functioning, they concluded.

The MAMA MOVE Gaia study was funded by Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. The investigators reported having no disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Joaquim A et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract 234P.

BARCELONA – A supervised and adapted exercise program improved quality of life, physical functioning, and strength in breast cancer survivors participating in the MAMA MOVE Gaia study.

Of 19 women who initiated participation in the program, which included a 16-week control phase followed by a 16-week exercise training intervention phase, 15 completed the program, and, after the training intervention, they experienced a significant increase in handgrip strength and sit-to-stand repetitions, Ana Joaquim, MD, of Centro Hospitalar de Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Portugal, and colleagues reported in a poster at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

During the control phase of the prospective nonrandomized study, participants experienced no significant changes over time in any domain of quality of life as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, although a trend toward improved physical functioning was noted at an evaluation performed 8 weeks after the control phase, compared with one performed just prior to the intervention phase (77.3 to 85.3 points, P = .051), the investigators said.

After the intervention phase, however, handgrip strength improved significantly at both the limb where surgery was performed and at the nonoperated limb (from 22.2 to 25.6 kg.f and from 22.6 to 26.9 kg.f). Similar results were observed for a sit-to-stand test (improvement from 12 to 17 repetitions).

Participants in the single-arm clinical trial were assessed after 8 weeks of the control phase, immediately prior to the intervention period, 8 weeks after the control phase, and 16 weeks into the invention phase.

The intervention phase consisted of 3 60-minute sessions per week of combined moderate to vigorous aerobic and strength exercise, defined as exercise at 65%-85% of maximum heart rate or at 6-8 points on the OMNI scale. Mean compliance among the participants was 63.6%.

The participants had a median age of 59 and 15 of the 19 were diagnosed with invasive carcinoma. Following surgery, 13 underwent radiotherapy, 15 received chemotherapy, and 18 received hormone therapy.

“Treatments for early breast cancer have side effects that affect quality of life and cause deconditioning,” the investigators wrote, adding that “physical exercise might have a supportive and coadjuvant role in the rehabilitation of breast cancer survivors.”

The MAMA MOVE trial aimed to assess the potential benefits of a community-based supervised exercise training program, and the findings suggest such programs could help improve quality of life, particularly with respect to physical functioning, they concluded.

The MAMA MOVE Gaia study was funded by Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. The investigators reported having no disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Joaquim A et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract 234P.

Data from more than 5 million individuals has been used to develop an equation for predicting the risk of incident chronic kidney disease (CKD) in people with or without diabetes, according to a presentation at Kidney Week 2019, sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology.

In a paper published simultaneously online in JAMA, researchers reported the outcome of an individual-level data analysis of 34 multinational cohorts involving 5,222,711 individuals – including 781,627 with diabetes – from 28 countries as part of the Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium.

“An equation for kidney failure risk may help improve care for patients with established CKD, but relatively little work has been performed to develop predictive tools to identify those at increased risk of developing CKD – defined by reduced eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate], despite the high lifetime risk of CKD – which is estimated to be 59.1% in the United States,” wrote Robert G. Nelson, MD, PhD, from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases in Phoenix and colleagues.

Over a mean follow-up of 4 years, 15% of individuals without diabetes and 40% of individuals with diabetes developed incident chronic kidney disease, defined as an eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73m².

The key risk factors were older age, female sex, black race, hypertension, history of cardiovascular disease, lower eGFR values, and higher urine albumin to creatinine ratio. Smoking was also significantly associated with reduced eGFR but only in cohorts without diabetes. In cohorts with diabetes, elevated hemoglobin A_1c and the presence and type of diabetes medication were also significantly associated with reduced eGFR.

Using this information, the researchers developed a prediction model built from weighted-average hazard ratios and validated it in nine external validation cohorts of 18 study populations involving a total of 2,253,540 individuals. They found that in 16 of the 18 study populations, the slope of observed to predicted risk ranged from 0.80 to 1.25.

Moreover, in the cohorts without diabetes, the risk equations had a median C-statistic for the 5-year predicted probability of 0.845 (interquartile range, 0.789-0.890) and of 0.801 (IQR, 0.750-0.819) in the cohorts with diabetes, the investigators reported.

“Several models have been developed for estimating the risk of prevalent and incident CKD and end-stage kidney disease, but even those with good discriminative performance have not always performed well for cohorts of people outside the original derivation cohort,” the authors wrote. They argued that their model “demonstrated high discrimination and variable calibration in diverse populations.”

However, they stressed that further study was needed to determine if use of the equations would actually lead to improvements in clinical care and patient outcomes. In an accompanying editorial, Sri Lekha Tummalapalli, MD, and Michelle M. Estrella, MD, of the Kidney Health Research Collaborative at the University of California, San Francisco, said the study and its focus on primary, rather than secondary, prevention of kidney disease is a critical step toward reducing the burden of that disease, especially given that an estimated 37 million people in the United States have chronic kidney disease.

It is also important, they added, that primary prevention of kidney disease is tailored to the individual patient’s risk because risk prediction and screening strategies are unlikely to improve outcomes if they are not paired with effective individualized interventions, such as lifestyle modification or management of blood pressure.

These risk equations could be more holistic by integrating the prediction of both elevated albuminuria and reduced eGFR because more than 40% of individuals with chronic kidney disease have increased albuminuria without reduced eGFR, they noted (JAMA. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17378).

The study and CKD Prognosis Consortium were supported by the U.S. National Kidney Foundation and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One author was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation. Nine authors declared grants, consultancies, and other support from the private sector and research organizations. No other conflicts of interest were declared. Dr. Tummalapalli and Dr. Estrella reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Nelson R et al. JAMA. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17379.

Data from more than 5 million individuals has been used to develop an equation for predicting the risk of incident chronic kidney disease (CKD) in people with or without diabetes, according to a presentation at Kidney Week 2019, sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology.

In a paper published simultaneously online in JAMA, researchers reported the outcome of an individual-level data analysis of 34 multinational cohorts involving 5,222,711 individuals – including 781,627 with diabetes – from 28 countries as part of the Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium.

“An equation for kidney failure risk may help improve care for patients with established CKD, but relatively little work has been performed to develop predictive tools to identify those at increased risk of developing CKD – defined by reduced eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate], despite the high lifetime risk of CKD – which is estimated to be 59.1% in the United States,” wrote Robert G. Nelson, MD, PhD, from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases in Phoenix and colleagues.

Over a mean follow-up of 4 years, 15% of individuals without diabetes and 40% of individuals with diabetes developed incident chronic kidney disease, defined as an eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73m².

The key risk factors were older age, female sex, black race, hypertension, history of cardiovascular disease, lower eGFR values, and higher urine albumin to creatinine ratio. Smoking was also significantly associated with reduced eGFR but only in cohorts without diabetes. In cohorts with diabetes, elevated hemoglobin A_1c and the presence and type of diabetes medication were also significantly associated with reduced eGFR.

Using this information, the researchers developed a prediction model built from weighted-average hazard ratios and validated it in nine external validation cohorts of 18 study populations involving a total of 2,253,540 individuals. They found that in 16 of the 18 study populations, the slope of observed to predicted risk ranged from 0.80 to 1.25.

Moreover, in the cohorts without diabetes, the risk equations had a median C-statistic for the 5-year predicted probability of 0.845 (interquartile range, 0.789-0.890) and of 0.801 (IQR, 0.750-0.819) in the cohorts with diabetes, the investigators reported.

“Several models have been developed for estimating the risk of prevalent and incident CKD and end-stage kidney disease, but even those with good discriminative performance have not always performed well for cohorts of people outside the original derivation cohort,” the authors wrote. They argued that their model “demonstrated high discrimination and variable calibration in diverse populations.”

However, they stressed that further study was needed to determine if use of the equations would actually lead to improvements in clinical care and patient outcomes. In an accompanying editorial, Sri Lekha Tummalapalli, MD, and Michelle M. Estrella, MD, of the Kidney Health Research Collaborative at the University of California, San Francisco, said the study and its focus on primary, rather than secondary, prevention of kidney disease is a critical step toward reducing the burden of that disease, especially given that an estimated 37 million people in the United States have chronic kidney disease.

It is also important, they added, that primary prevention of kidney disease is tailored to the individual patient’s risk because risk prediction and screening strategies are unlikely to improve outcomes if they are not paired with effective individualized interventions, such as lifestyle modification or management of blood pressure.

These risk equations could be more holistic by integrating the prediction of both elevated albuminuria and reduced eGFR because more than 40% of individuals with chronic kidney disease have increased albuminuria without reduced eGFR, they noted (JAMA. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17378).

The study and CKD Prognosis Consortium were supported by the U.S. National Kidney Foundation and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One author was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation. Nine authors declared grants, consultancies, and other support from the private sector and research organizations. No other conflicts of interest were declared. Dr. Tummalapalli and Dr. Estrella reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Nelson R et al. JAMA. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17379.

Data from more than 5 million individuals has been used to develop an equation for predicting the risk of incident chronic kidney disease (CKD) in people with or without diabetes, according to a presentation at Kidney Week 2019, sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology.

In a paper published simultaneously online in JAMA, researchers reported the outcome of an individual-level data analysis of 34 multinational cohorts involving 5,222,711 individuals – including 781,627 with diabetes – from 28 countries as part of the Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium.

“An equation for kidney failure risk may help improve care for patients with established CKD, but relatively little work has been performed to develop predictive tools to identify those at increased risk of developing CKD – defined by reduced eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate], despite the high lifetime risk of CKD – which is estimated to be 59.1% in the United States,” wrote Robert G. Nelson, MD, PhD, from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases in Phoenix and colleagues.

Over a mean follow-up of 4 years, 15% of individuals without diabetes and 40% of individuals with diabetes developed incident chronic kidney disease, defined as an eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73m².

The key risk factors were older age, female sex, black race, hypertension, history of cardiovascular disease, lower eGFR values, and higher urine albumin to creatinine ratio. Smoking was also significantly associated with reduced eGFR but only in cohorts without diabetes. In cohorts with diabetes, elevated hemoglobin A_1c and the presence and type of diabetes medication were also significantly associated with reduced eGFR.

Using this information, the researchers developed a prediction model built from weighted-average hazard ratios and validated it in nine external validation cohorts of 18 study populations involving a total of 2,253,540 individuals. They found that in 16 of the 18 study populations, the slope of observed to predicted risk ranged from 0.80 to 1.25.

Moreover, in the cohorts without diabetes, the risk equations had a median C-statistic for the 5-year predicted probability of 0.845 (interquartile range, 0.789-0.890) and of 0.801 (IQR, 0.750-0.819) in the cohorts with diabetes, the investigators reported.

“Several models have been developed for estimating the risk of prevalent and incident CKD and end-stage kidney disease, but even those with good discriminative performance have not always performed well for cohorts of people outside the original derivation cohort,” the authors wrote. They argued that their model “demonstrated high discrimination and variable calibration in diverse populations.”

However, they stressed that further study was needed to determine if use of the equations would actually lead to improvements in clinical care and patient outcomes. In an accompanying editorial, Sri Lekha Tummalapalli, MD, and Michelle M. Estrella, MD, of the Kidney Health Research Collaborative at the University of California, San Francisco, said the study and its focus on primary, rather than secondary, prevention of kidney disease is a critical step toward reducing the burden of that disease, especially given that an estimated 37 million people in the United States have chronic kidney disease.

It is also important, they added, that primary prevention of kidney disease is tailored to the individual patient’s risk because risk prediction and screening strategies are unlikely to improve outcomes if they are not paired with effective individualized interventions, such as lifestyle modification or management of blood pressure.

These risk equations could be more holistic by integrating the prediction of both elevated albuminuria and reduced eGFR because more than 40% of individuals with chronic kidney disease have increased albuminuria without reduced eGFR, they noted (JAMA. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17378).

The study and CKD Prognosis Consortium were supported by the U.S. National Kidney Foundation and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. One author was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation. Nine authors declared grants, consultancies, and other support from the private sector and research organizations. No other conflicts of interest were declared. Dr. Tummalapalli and Dr. Estrella reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Nelson R et al. JAMA. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17379.

A new study has found that neither vitamin D nor omega-3 fatty acids are significantly more beneficial than placebo for prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to Ian H. de Boer, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coauthors.

Findings of the study were presented at Kidney Week 2019, sponsored the American Society of Nephrology, and published simultaneously in JAMA.

To determine the benefits of either vitamin D or omega-3 fatty acids in regard to kidney function, the researchers conducted a randomized clinical trial of 1,312 patients with type 2 diabetes. The trial was designed to accompany the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which enrolled 25,871 patients to test the two supplements in the prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

Participants in this study – known as VITAL–Diabetic Kidney Disease, designed as an ancillary to VITAL – were assigned to one of four groups: vitamin D plus omega-3 fatty acids (n = 370), vitamin D plus placebo (n = 333), omega-3 fatty acids plus placebo (n = 289), or both placebos (n = 320). The goal was to assess changes in in glomerular filtration rate estimated from serum creatinine and cystatin C (eGFR) after 5 years.

Of the initial 1,312 participants, 934 (71%) finished the study. At 5-year follow-up, patients taking vitamin D had a mean change in eGFR of −12.3 mL/min per 1.73 m² (95% confidence interval, −13.4 to −11.2), compared with −13.1 mL/min per 1.73 m² (95% CI, −14.2 to −11.9) with placebo. Patients taking omega-3 fatty acids had a mean eGFR change of −12.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² (95% CI, −13.3 to −11.1), compared with −13.1 mL/min per 1.73 m² (95% CI, −14.2 to −12.0) with placebo.

The authors noted that the modest number of measurements collected per participant limited the evaluation and analyses. In addition, the study focused broadly on the type 2 diabetes population and not on subgroups, “who may derive more benefit from the study interventions.”

In an accompanying editorial, authors Anika Lucas, MD and Myles Wolf, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., said multiple clinical trials, including this latest study from de Boer and colleagues on kidney function, have failed to reinforce the previously reported benefits of vitamin D.

“The VITAL-DKD study population had nearly normal mean 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at baseline, leaving open the question of whether the results would have differed had recruitment been restricted to patients with moderate or severe vitamin D deficiency,” they wrote (JAMA. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17302).

Nevertheless, it seems safe to conclude that the previous associations between vitamin D deficiency and adverse health were “driven by unmeasured residual confounding or reverse causality.

“Without certainty about the ideal approach to vitamin D treatment in advanced CKD, a randomized trial that compared cholecalciferol, exogenous 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and an activated vitamin D analogue vs. placebo could definitively lay to rest multiple remaining questions in the area,” they suggested.

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases funded the study. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, consulting fees, and equipment and supplies from various pharmaceutical companies and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wolf reported having served as a consultant for Akebia, AMAG, Amgen, Ardelyx, Diasorin, and Pharmacosmos. No other disclosures were reported.

SOURCE: de Boer IH et al. JAMA. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17380.

A new study has found that neither vitamin D nor omega-3 fatty acids are significantly more beneficial than placebo for prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to Ian H. de Boer, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coauthors.

Findings of the study were presented at Kidney Week 2019, sponsored the American Society of Nephrology, and published simultaneously in JAMA.

To determine the benefits of either vitamin D or omega-3 fatty acids in regard to kidney function, the researchers conducted a randomized clinical trial of 1,312 patients with type 2 diabetes. The trial was designed to accompany the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which enrolled 25,871 patients to test the two supplements in the prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

Participants in this study – known as VITAL–Diabetic Kidney Disease, designed as an ancillary to VITAL – were assigned to one of four groups: vitamin D plus omega-3 fatty acids (n = 370), vitamin D plus placebo (n = 333), omega-3 fatty acids plus placebo (n = 289), or both placebos (n = 320). The goal was to assess changes in in glomerular filtration rate estimated from serum creatinine and cystatin C (eGFR) after 5 years.

Of the initial 1,312 participants, 934 (71%) finished the study. At 5-year follow-up, patients taking vitamin D had a mean change in eGFR of −12.3 mL/min per 1.73 m² (95% confidence interval, −13.4 to −11.2), compared with −13.1 mL/min per 1.73 m² (95% CI, −14.2 to −11.9) with placebo. Patients taking omega-3 fatty acids had a mean eGFR change of −12.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² (95% CI, −13.3 to −11.1), compared with −13.1 mL/min per 1.73 m² (95% CI, −14.2 to −12.0) with placebo.

The authors noted that the modest number of measurements collected per participant limited the evaluation and analyses. In addition, the study focused broadly on the type 2 diabetes population and not on subgroups, “who may derive more benefit from the study interventions.”

In an accompanying editorial, authors Anika Lucas, MD and Myles Wolf, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., said multiple clinical trials, including this latest study from de Boer and colleagues on kidney function, have failed to reinforce the previously reported benefits of vitamin D.

“The VITAL-DKD study population had nearly normal mean 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at baseline, leaving open the question of whether the results would have differed had recruitment been restricted to patients with moderate or severe vitamin D deficiency,” they wrote (JAMA. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17302).

Nevertheless, it seems safe to conclude that the previous associations between vitamin D deficiency and adverse health were “driven by unmeasured residual confounding or reverse causality.

“Without certainty about the ideal approach to vitamin D treatment in advanced CKD, a randomized trial that compared cholecalciferol, exogenous 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and an activated vitamin D analogue vs. placebo could definitively lay to rest multiple remaining questions in the area,” they suggested.

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases funded the study. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, consulting fees, and equipment and supplies from various pharmaceutical companies and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wolf reported having served as a consultant for Akebia, AMAG, Amgen, Ardelyx, Diasorin, and Pharmacosmos. No other disclosures were reported.

SOURCE: de Boer IH et al. JAMA. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17380.

A new study has found that neither vitamin D nor omega-3 fatty acids are significantly more beneficial than placebo for prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to Ian H. de Boer, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coauthors.

Findings of the study were presented at Kidney Week 2019, sponsored the American Society of Nephrology, and published simultaneously in JAMA.

To determine the benefits of either vitamin D or omega-3 fatty acids in regard to kidney function, the researchers conducted a randomized clinical trial of 1,312 patients with type 2 diabetes. The trial was designed to accompany the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which enrolled 25,871 patients to test the two supplements in the prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

Participants in this study – known as VITAL–Diabetic Kidney Disease, designed as an ancillary to VITAL – were assigned to one of four groups: vitamin D plus omega-3 fatty acids (n = 370), vitamin D plus placebo (n = 333), omega-3 fatty acids plus placebo (n = 289), or both placebos (n = 320). The goal was to assess changes in in glomerular filtration rate estimated from serum creatinine and cystatin C (eGFR) after 5 years.

Of the initial 1,312 participants, 934 (71%) finished the study. At 5-year follow-up, patients taking vitamin D had a mean change in eGFR of −12.3 mL/min per 1.73 m² (95% confidence interval, −13.4 to −11.2), compared with −13.1 mL/min per 1.73 m² (95% CI, −14.2 to −11.9) with placebo. Patients taking omega-3 fatty acids had a mean eGFR change of −12.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² (95% CI, −13.3 to −11.1), compared with −13.1 mL/min per 1.73 m² (95% CI, −14.2 to −12.0) with placebo.

The authors noted that the modest number of measurements collected per participant limited the evaluation and analyses. In addition, the study focused broadly on the type 2 diabetes population and not on subgroups, “who may derive more benefit from the study interventions.”

In an accompanying editorial, authors Anika Lucas, MD and Myles Wolf, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., said multiple clinical trials, including this latest study from de Boer and colleagues on kidney function, have failed to reinforce the previously reported benefits of vitamin D.

“The VITAL-DKD study population had nearly normal mean 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at baseline, leaving open the question of whether the results would have differed had recruitment been restricted to patients with moderate or severe vitamin D deficiency,” they wrote (JAMA. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17302).

Nevertheless, it seems safe to conclude that the previous associations between vitamin D deficiency and adverse health were “driven by unmeasured residual confounding or reverse causality.

“Without certainty about the ideal approach to vitamin D treatment in advanced CKD, a randomized trial that compared cholecalciferol, exogenous 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and an activated vitamin D analogue vs. placebo could definitively lay to rest multiple remaining questions in the area,” they suggested.

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases funded the study. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants, consulting fees, and equipment and supplies from various pharmaceutical companies and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wolf reported having served as a consultant for Akebia, AMAG, Amgen, Ardelyx, Diasorin, and Pharmacosmos. No other disclosures were reported.

SOURCE: de Boer IH et al. JAMA. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.17380.

LAS VEGAS – Cases of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) are on the rise and are associated with mortality rates similar to melanoma. But even as cSCC draws more attention, two popular staging systems still need refinement, a hematologist-oncologist told dermatologist colleagues.

Both staging systems can be helpful, however, Guilherme Rabinowits, MD, said at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “The best thing to do is combine both,” he noted, referring to the staging system developed by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and staging systems released in the 7th and 8th editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual (AJCC 7 and AJCC 8; the latter focuses on head and neck only).

Cutaneous SCC has become a “huge health care burden,” said Dr. Rabinowits of the Miami Cancer Institute/Baptist Health South Florida and Florida International University, Miami. He referred to Medicare data suggesting that cSCC has become as common as basal cell carcinoma (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151[10]:1081-6).

While most patients with cSCC have a positive prognosis, he added, the 5-year survival rate among those with the most aggressive disease is only 25%.

As he pointed out, staging systems provide insight into prognosis and treatment, guide appropriate monitoring, and give a common language to clinicians around the world. “When I talk about stage 3, we all understand who we’re talking about,” he said.

Dr. Rabinowits said he formerly worked at BWH so he is especially comfortable with its staging system. It can be appropriate to use both the BWH and AJCC systems at once, he said, noting, however, that studies suggest that the BWH system is superior.

An analysis released in 2014, for example, found that most poor outcomes occurred in patients whose tumors had been rated at lower stages – suggesting less risk – in the AJCC 7 system (J Clin Oncol 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:327-4).

In contrast, the 5% of tumors that were rated at the highest stages in the BWH system – with the highest level of perceived risk – accounted for 70% of nodal metastases and 83% of disease-specific deaths. This group may deserve extra attention in terms of staging and adjuvant treatment in order to improve outcomes, he said.

A study published this year, which compared the BWH and AJCC 8 staging systems, found that they had the same negative predictive value (0.99), while the BWH system showed higher positive predictive value (0.30 vs. 0.17). “Use of BWH tumor classification may minimize the number of patients recommended for radiologic evaluation, close surveillance, and possible adjuvant therapy while still identifying most patients at risk for recurrence, metastasis, and death,” the authors wrote (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Jul 1;155[7]: 819-25).

As for treatment of localized disease in high-risk patients, Dr. Rabinowits advised turning to a multidisciplinary team for guidance because there are limited prospective randomized data.

Dr. Rabinowits discloses scientific advisory board/consultant relationships (Merck, Regeneron, Sanofi, EMD Serono, Pfizer, and Castle) and shares in Regeneron and Syros Pharmaceuticals. He spoke during a forum on cutaneous malignancies at the meeting.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Cases of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) are on the rise and are associated with mortality rates similar to melanoma. But even as cSCC draws more attention, two popular staging systems still need refinement, a hematologist-oncologist told dermatologist colleagues.

Both staging systems can be helpful, however, Guilherme Rabinowits, MD, said at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “The best thing to do is combine both,” he noted, referring to the staging system developed by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and staging systems released in the 7th and 8th editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual (AJCC 7 and AJCC 8; the latter focuses on head and neck only).

Cutaneous SCC has become a “huge health care burden,” said Dr. Rabinowits of the Miami Cancer Institute/Baptist Health South Florida and Florida International University, Miami. He referred to Medicare data suggesting that cSCC has become as common as basal cell carcinoma (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151[10]:1081-6).

While most patients with cSCC have a positive prognosis, he added, the 5-year survival rate among those with the most aggressive disease is only 25%.

As he pointed out, staging systems provide insight into prognosis and treatment, guide appropriate monitoring, and give a common language to clinicians around the world. “When I talk about stage 3, we all understand who we’re talking about,” he said.

Dr. Rabinowits said he formerly worked at BWH so he is especially comfortable with its staging system. It can be appropriate to use both the BWH and AJCC systems at once, he said, noting, however, that studies suggest that the BWH system is superior.

An analysis released in 2014, for example, found that most poor outcomes occurred in patients whose tumors had been rated at lower stages – suggesting less risk – in the AJCC 7 system (J Clin Oncol 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:327-4).

In contrast, the 5% of tumors that were rated at the highest stages in the BWH system – with the highest level of perceived risk – accounted for 70% of nodal metastases and 83% of disease-specific deaths. This group may deserve extra attention in terms of staging and adjuvant treatment in order to improve outcomes, he said.

A study published this year, which compared the BWH and AJCC 8 staging systems, found that they had the same negative predictive value (0.99), while the BWH system showed higher positive predictive value (0.30 vs. 0.17). “Use of BWH tumor classification may minimize the number of patients recommended for radiologic evaluation, close surveillance, and possible adjuvant therapy while still identifying most patients at risk for recurrence, metastasis, and death,” the authors wrote (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Jul 1;155[7]: 819-25).

As for treatment of localized disease in high-risk patients, Dr. Rabinowits advised turning to a multidisciplinary team for guidance because there are limited prospective randomized data.

Dr. Rabinowits discloses scientific advisory board/consultant relationships (Merck, Regeneron, Sanofi, EMD Serono, Pfizer, and Castle) and shares in Regeneron and Syros Pharmaceuticals. He spoke during a forum on cutaneous malignancies at the meeting.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Cases of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) are on the rise and are associated with mortality rates similar to melanoma. But even as cSCC draws more attention, two popular staging systems still need refinement, a hematologist-oncologist told dermatologist colleagues.

Both staging systems can be helpful, however, Guilherme Rabinowits, MD, said at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “The best thing to do is combine both,” he noted, referring to the staging system developed by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and staging systems released in the 7th and 8th editions of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual (AJCC 7 and AJCC 8; the latter focuses on head and neck only).

Cutaneous SCC has become a “huge health care burden,” said Dr. Rabinowits of the Miami Cancer Institute/Baptist Health South Florida and Florida International University, Miami. He referred to Medicare data suggesting that cSCC has become as common as basal cell carcinoma (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151[10]:1081-6).

While most patients with cSCC have a positive prognosis, he added, the 5-year survival rate among those with the most aggressive disease is only 25%.

As he pointed out, staging systems provide insight into prognosis and treatment, guide appropriate monitoring, and give a common language to clinicians around the world. “When I talk about stage 3, we all understand who we’re talking about,” he said.

Dr. Rabinowits said he formerly worked at BWH so he is especially comfortable with its staging system. It can be appropriate to use both the BWH and AJCC systems at once, he said, noting, however, that studies suggest that the BWH system is superior.

An analysis released in 2014, for example, found that most poor outcomes occurred in patients whose tumors had been rated at lower stages – suggesting less risk – in the AJCC 7 system (J Clin Oncol 2014 Feb 1;32[4]:327-4).

In contrast, the 5% of tumors that were rated at the highest stages in the BWH system – with the highest level of perceived risk – accounted for 70% of nodal metastases and 83% of disease-specific deaths. This group may deserve extra attention in terms of staging and adjuvant treatment in order to improve outcomes, he said.

A study published this year, which compared the BWH and AJCC 8 staging systems, found that they had the same negative predictive value (0.99), while the BWH system showed higher positive predictive value (0.30 vs. 0.17). “Use of BWH tumor classification may minimize the number of patients recommended for radiologic evaluation, close surveillance, and possible adjuvant therapy while still identifying most patients at risk for recurrence, metastasis, and death,” the authors wrote (JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Jul 1;155[7]: 819-25).

As for treatment of localized disease in high-risk patients, Dr. Rabinowits advised turning to a multidisciplinary team for guidance because there are limited prospective randomized data.

Dr. Rabinowits discloses scientific advisory board/consultant relationships (Merck, Regeneron, Sanofi, EMD Serono, Pfizer, and Castle) and shares in Regeneron and Syros Pharmaceuticals. He spoke during a forum on cutaneous malignancies at the meeting.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

While lung cancer is generally on the decline among both sexes, men have a ways to go to catch up with women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

From 2007 to 2016, rates dropped among both sexes in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, according to Mary Elizabeth O’Neil, MPH, and colleagues. Their report is in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8;68[44];993-8). But lung cancer incidence in 2016 was still 40% higher among men than among women, said Ms. O’Neil, an epidemiologist at the CDC.

Rather than narrowly focusing on the “just stop smoking” message, “a comprehensive approach to lung cancer prevention and control includes such population-based strategies as screening for tobacco dependence, promoting tobacco cessation, implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws, testing all homes for radon and using proven methods to lower high radon levels, and reducing exposure to lung carcinogens such as asbestos.” According to the authors of the report, “increasing the implementation of these strategies, particularly among persons living in nonmetropolitan counties, might help to reduce disparities in the decline of lung cancer incidence.”

The recommendation is based on data extracted from the U.S. Cancer Statistics Database for 2007-2016. The data cover 97% of the population.

In nonmetropolitan counties in 2007, incidence rates among men were 60% higher (99 vs. 61 per 100,000). Although rates decreased in both sexes, they were still elevated compared with women in 2016 (82 vs. 58 per 100,000; 40%).

Over the 10-year period, the rate declined more among men than among women (–2.9% vs. –1.5%) in metropolitan areas. The pattern repeated in nonmetropolitan areas (–2.1% and –0.5%, respectively).

There were different declines in different age groups by region, the authors noted.

Men aged 45-54 years in metropolitan areas experienced the largest decline (–5.2%).

Among women, the largest decline occurred in metropolitan areas among those aged 35-44 years (–5%). In nonmetropolitan areas, women in this age group experienced a 3.6% decline and women aged 65-74 years, a 1.3% decline.

Among persons aged 35-54 years, incidence rates in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties did not differ by sex but were higher in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties.

There were also overall changes in smoking patterns. According to 2017 data from the National Health Interview Survey data, more adults in metropolitan areas than nonmetropolitan areas smoked (23% versus 13%) but fewer had tried to quit (50% vs. 56%). Successful quitting attempts also were lower (5% vs. 9%).

Although it is a large contributing factor, smoking is not the only risk factor for lung cancer, the authors wrote. About 10%-15% of lung cancer patients have never smoked tobacco. Nonsmoked tobacco products and second-hand exposure to cigarette smoke are risks, as are indoor radon and asbestos exposure.

Clinicians can help improve this scenario by screening at each office visit, the authors said. The recommendation is based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidance.

“Lung cancer screening is recommended for adults at high risk for developing lung cancer because of their age and cigarette smoking history. Screening efforts can identify lung cancer in its early stages and provide an important opportunity to promote tobacco smoking cessation.”

However, lack of insurance among residents of nonmetropolitan areas may hamper access to these services, they said. In those regions, “a higher percentage of residents aged less than 65 years report being uninsured compared with those in metropolitan areas.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: O’Neil ME et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8: 68(44);993-8.

While lung cancer is generally on the decline among both sexes, men have a ways to go to catch up with women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

From 2007 to 2016, rates dropped among both sexes in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, according to Mary Elizabeth O’Neil, MPH, and colleagues. Their report is in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8;68[44];993-8). But lung cancer incidence in 2016 was still 40% higher among men than among women, said Ms. O’Neil, an epidemiologist at the CDC.

Rather than narrowly focusing on the “just stop smoking” message, “a comprehensive approach to lung cancer prevention and control includes such population-based strategies as screening for tobacco dependence, promoting tobacco cessation, implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws, testing all homes for radon and using proven methods to lower high radon levels, and reducing exposure to lung carcinogens such as asbestos.” According to the authors of the report, “increasing the implementation of these strategies, particularly among persons living in nonmetropolitan counties, might help to reduce disparities in the decline of lung cancer incidence.”

The recommendation is based on data extracted from the U.S. Cancer Statistics Database for 2007-2016. The data cover 97% of the population.

In nonmetropolitan counties in 2007, incidence rates among men were 60% higher (99 vs. 61 per 100,000). Although rates decreased in both sexes, they were still elevated compared with women in 2016 (82 vs. 58 per 100,000; 40%).

Over the 10-year period, the rate declined more among men than among women (–2.9% vs. –1.5%) in metropolitan areas. The pattern repeated in nonmetropolitan areas (–2.1% and –0.5%, respectively).

There were different declines in different age groups by region, the authors noted.

Men aged 45-54 years in metropolitan areas experienced the largest decline (–5.2%).

Among women, the largest decline occurred in metropolitan areas among those aged 35-44 years (–5%). In nonmetropolitan areas, women in this age group experienced a 3.6% decline and women aged 65-74 years, a 1.3% decline.

Among persons aged 35-54 years, incidence rates in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties did not differ by sex but were higher in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties.

There were also overall changes in smoking patterns. According to 2017 data from the National Health Interview Survey data, more adults in metropolitan areas than nonmetropolitan areas smoked (23% versus 13%) but fewer had tried to quit (50% vs. 56%). Successful quitting attempts also were lower (5% vs. 9%).

Although it is a large contributing factor, smoking is not the only risk factor for lung cancer, the authors wrote. About 10%-15% of lung cancer patients have never smoked tobacco. Nonsmoked tobacco products and second-hand exposure to cigarette smoke are risks, as are indoor radon and asbestos exposure.

Clinicians can help improve this scenario by screening at each office visit, the authors said. The recommendation is based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidance.

“Lung cancer screening is recommended for adults at high risk for developing lung cancer because of their age and cigarette smoking history. Screening efforts can identify lung cancer in its early stages and provide an important opportunity to promote tobacco smoking cessation.”

However, lack of insurance among residents of nonmetropolitan areas may hamper access to these services, they said. In those regions, “a higher percentage of residents aged less than 65 years report being uninsured compared with those in metropolitan areas.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: O’Neil ME et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8: 68(44);993-8.

While lung cancer is generally on the decline among both sexes, men have a ways to go to catch up with women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

From 2007 to 2016, rates dropped among both sexes in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, according to Mary Elizabeth O’Neil, MPH, and colleagues. Their report is in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8;68[44];993-8). But lung cancer incidence in 2016 was still 40% higher among men than among women, said Ms. O’Neil, an epidemiologist at the CDC.

Rather than narrowly focusing on the “just stop smoking” message, “a comprehensive approach to lung cancer prevention and control includes such population-based strategies as screening for tobacco dependence, promoting tobacco cessation, implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws, testing all homes for radon and using proven methods to lower high radon levels, and reducing exposure to lung carcinogens such as asbestos.” According to the authors of the report, “increasing the implementation of these strategies, particularly among persons living in nonmetropolitan counties, might help to reduce disparities in the decline of lung cancer incidence.”

The recommendation is based on data extracted from the U.S. Cancer Statistics Database for 2007-2016. The data cover 97% of the population.

In nonmetropolitan counties in 2007, incidence rates among men were 60% higher (99 vs. 61 per 100,000). Although rates decreased in both sexes, they were still elevated compared with women in 2016 (82 vs. 58 per 100,000; 40%).

Over the 10-year period, the rate declined more among men than among women (–2.9% vs. –1.5%) in metropolitan areas. The pattern repeated in nonmetropolitan areas (–2.1% and –0.5%, respectively).

There were different declines in different age groups by region, the authors noted.

Men aged 45-54 years in metropolitan areas experienced the largest decline (–5.2%).

Among women, the largest decline occurred in metropolitan areas among those aged 35-44 years (–5%). In nonmetropolitan areas, women in this age group experienced a 3.6% decline and women aged 65-74 years, a 1.3% decline.

Among persons aged 35-54 years, incidence rates in nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties did not differ by sex but were higher in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties.

There were also overall changes in smoking patterns. According to 2017 data from the National Health Interview Survey data, more adults in metropolitan areas than nonmetropolitan areas smoked (23% versus 13%) but fewer had tried to quit (50% vs. 56%). Successful quitting attempts also were lower (5% vs. 9%).

Although it is a large contributing factor, smoking is not the only risk factor for lung cancer, the authors wrote. About 10%-15% of lung cancer patients have never smoked tobacco. Nonsmoked tobacco products and second-hand exposure to cigarette smoke are risks, as are indoor radon and asbestos exposure.

Clinicians can help improve this scenario by screening at each office visit, the authors said. The recommendation is based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidance.

“Lung cancer screening is recommended for adults at high risk for developing lung cancer because of their age and cigarette smoking history. Screening efforts can identify lung cancer in its early stages and provide an important opportunity to promote tobacco smoking cessation.”

However, lack of insurance among residents of nonmetropolitan areas may hamper access to these services, they said. In those regions, “a higher percentage of residents aged less than 65 years report being uninsured compared with those in metropolitan areas.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: O’Neil ME et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Nov 8: 68(44);993-8.

The European League Against Rheumatism has released its first recommendations for the management of Sjögren’s syndrome with topical and systemic treatments.

First author Manuel Ramos-Casals, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinic de Barcelona Institut Clinic de Medicina i Dermatologia and colleagues on the multinational, multispecialty EULAR Sjögren Syndrome Task Force Group said the EULAR recommendations “synthesize current thinking” of management for Sjögren’s syndrome, which is complicated by individualized treatment that does not address the systemic disease and for which therapeutic decisions are often made based on expert opinion and personal experience because of a lack of data.

“Sjögren’s syndrome is generally treated through symptom management,” noted Sara McCoy, MD, who is director of the University of Wisconsin Health Sjögren’s Syndrome Clinic and was not involved in the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “Although we have measures to address these symptoms, we do not have any approved therapy that ameliorates the driving cause.”

There is limited high-quality evidence for many of the therapies discussed in the recommendations: In total, 9 randomized controlled trials, 18 prospective studies, and 5 case-control studies were included as evidence in the recommendations, and many involved a small number of patients.

The first overarching recommendation says that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome should be managed at centers of expertise using a multidisciplinary approach, the authors wrote. Two other overarching recommendations focus on how to manage certain patient cases. In cases of dryness, first-line therapy should include topical therapies for symptomatic relief, while clinicians should consider systemic therapies for patients with active systemic disease. All three overarching recommendations had a high level of agreement among task force members.

The task force also offered 12 specific recommendations on disease management, which take an “algorithmic approach” to Sjögren’s syndrome management that is guided by the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI), Dr. McCoy said in an interview.

“The EULAR recommendations structure a clear approach to treatment of Sjögren’s manifestations, ranging from oral and ocular sicca management, to treatment of uncommon but severe systemic involvement of Sjögren’s,” she said.

Before treating patients for oral dryness symptoms, clinicians should evaluate salivary function at baseline using unstimulated whole salivary flows. First-line therapeutic approaches for oral dryness can include nonpharmacologic stimulation in cases of mild salivary gland dysfunction, pharmacologic stimulation in cases of moderate dysfunction, and substitution of saliva in cases of severe dysfunction, the authors said.

Ocular dryness should be assessed using ocular staining score followed by ocular surface–disease index, and once identified, it can be managed with artificial tears and ocular gels or ointments as first-line therapy. Topical immunosuppressive-containing drops and autologous serum eye drops are options for more severe or refractory ocular dryness.

Patients who have fatigue or pain associated with Sjögren’s syndrome should have their fatigue or pain scored with the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI), and any concomitant disease should also be evaluated. Clinicians should consider acetaminophen and NSAIDs for treatment of acute musculoskeletal pain and other pain-modifying agents, such as hydroxychloroquine in cases of articular pain, despite a lack of evidence showing its efficacy in trials.

For systemic disease, the task force advised matching treatment to the organ(s) involved and using the ESSDAI to evaluate disease severity., They said that “patients presenting with at least moderate activity in one clinical domain, or with a global moderate disease activity score” of 5 or higher can be considered for systemic therapy.

Although many clinicians use glucocorticoids (GCs) for managing Sjögren’s syndrome, there is no evidence of the treatment’s efficacy in systemic disease. The task force recommended using glucocorticoids such as methylprednisolone at the minimum dose and withdrawing use “as soon as possible” in patients with inactive disease. “Based on the potential development of chronic damage in patients with uncontrolled systemic disease, some patients may require long-term therapy with GCs, especially those with severe organ impairments,” Dr. Ramos-Casals and colleagues wrote. “In these patients, the addition of immunosuppressive agents as GC-sparing agents is justified, always weighing the potential benefits and risks.” Because of a lack of head-to-head studies of different immunosuppressive agents, the task force did not recommend one particular agent over another.

One recommendation that contained a high level of evidence was for the use of B-cell targeted therapies for patients with severe, refractory systemic disease. Efficacy of rituximab was mixed in studies totaling more than 400 patients, but generally showed a positive outcome in at least one of the following areas: global response, organ-specific response, ESSDAI reduction, and prednisone reduction. The task force recommended that rituximab “may be considered” in “patients with severe, refractory systemic disease” and may be best for those with symptoms linked to cryoglobulinemic-associated vasculitis, with the potential of using belimumab (Benlysta) as rescue therapy. While systemic organ-specific therapeutic approaches vary, the general rule should be to treat with GCs first, followed by immunosuppressive agents and biologics as second-line therapy in cases refractory to GCs, either sequentially or in combination, the authors said.

For patients with B-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use individualized treatment based on the World Health Organization 2016 histologic subtype and the stage of the disease. While some clinicians employ a “watchful waiting” approach to treating low-grade hematologic neoplasia, “the decision to treat low-grade lymphomas or not must be discussed in a multidisciplinary committee, taking into account the fact that they are linked to the disease activity and are the ultimate stage of autoimmune B-cell activation,” the authors wrote.

The task force also defined a number of future research agenda goals for Sjögren’s syndrome treatment management, including developing personalized therapeutic approaches, finding predictors of biological response to agents used in treatment, and identifying biomarkers of poor outcomes.

In addition, EULAR acknowledged some research gaps exist in the guidelines for particular symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, such as in the case of fatigue. “The EULAR recommendations mention the common association of fatigue with Sjögren’s syndrome, though acknowledge that fatigue is more commonly seen in the same demographic cohort as Sjögren’s,” Dr. McCoy said. “Aside from exercise, there remains little available to address this common and burdensome symptom amongst Sjögren’s patients. Overall, this is a pertinent gap in knowledge in our Sjögren’s patients.”

The Sjögren’s syndrome recommendations were funded by EULAR. Many task force members reported relationships with industry in the form of advisory board and speaker’s bureau memberships, consultancies, and grants. Dr. McCoy reported serving on a data monitoring committee for Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the data in the EULAR recommendations.

SOURCE: Ramos-Casals M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 31. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216114

The European League Against Rheumatism has released its first recommendations for the management of Sjögren’s syndrome with topical and systemic treatments.

First author Manuel Ramos-Casals, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinic de Barcelona Institut Clinic de Medicina i Dermatologia and colleagues on the multinational, multispecialty EULAR Sjögren Syndrome Task Force Group said the EULAR recommendations “synthesize current thinking” of management for Sjögren’s syndrome, which is complicated by individualized treatment that does not address the systemic disease and for which therapeutic decisions are often made based on expert opinion and personal experience because of a lack of data.

“Sjögren’s syndrome is generally treated through symptom management,” noted Sara McCoy, MD, who is director of the University of Wisconsin Health Sjögren’s Syndrome Clinic and was not involved in the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “Although we have measures to address these symptoms, we do not have any approved therapy that ameliorates the driving cause.”

There is limited high-quality evidence for many of the therapies discussed in the recommendations: In total, 9 randomized controlled trials, 18 prospective studies, and 5 case-control studies were included as evidence in the recommendations, and many involved a small number of patients.

The first overarching recommendation says that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome should be managed at centers of expertise using a multidisciplinary approach, the authors wrote. Two other overarching recommendations focus on how to manage certain patient cases. In cases of dryness, first-line therapy should include topical therapies for symptomatic relief, while clinicians should consider systemic therapies for patients with active systemic disease. All three overarching recommendations had a high level of agreement among task force members.

The task force also offered 12 specific recommendations on disease management, which take an “algorithmic approach” to Sjögren’s syndrome management that is guided by the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI), Dr. McCoy said in an interview.

“The EULAR recommendations structure a clear approach to treatment of Sjögren’s manifestations, ranging from oral and ocular sicca management, to treatment of uncommon but severe systemic involvement of Sjögren’s,” she said.

Before treating patients for oral dryness symptoms, clinicians should evaluate salivary function at baseline using unstimulated whole salivary flows. First-line therapeutic approaches for oral dryness can include nonpharmacologic stimulation in cases of mild salivary gland dysfunction, pharmacologic stimulation in cases of moderate dysfunction, and substitution of saliva in cases of severe dysfunction, the authors said.

Ocular dryness should be assessed using ocular staining score followed by ocular surface–disease index, and once identified, it can be managed with artificial tears and ocular gels or ointments as first-line therapy. Topical immunosuppressive-containing drops and autologous serum eye drops are options for more severe or refractory ocular dryness.

Patients who have fatigue or pain associated with Sjögren’s syndrome should have their fatigue or pain scored with the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI), and any concomitant disease should also be evaluated. Clinicians should consider acetaminophen and NSAIDs for treatment of acute musculoskeletal pain and other pain-modifying agents, such as hydroxychloroquine in cases of articular pain, despite a lack of evidence showing its efficacy in trials.

For systemic disease, the task force advised matching treatment to the organ(s) involved and using the ESSDAI to evaluate disease severity., They said that “patients presenting with at least moderate activity in one clinical domain, or with a global moderate disease activity score” of 5 or higher can be considered for systemic therapy.

Although many clinicians use glucocorticoids (GCs) for managing Sjögren’s syndrome, there is no evidence of the treatment’s efficacy in systemic disease. The task force recommended using glucocorticoids such as methylprednisolone at the minimum dose and withdrawing use “as soon as possible” in patients with inactive disease. “Based on the potential development of chronic damage in patients with uncontrolled systemic disease, some patients may require long-term therapy with GCs, especially those with severe organ impairments,” Dr. Ramos-Casals and colleagues wrote. “In these patients, the addition of immunosuppressive agents as GC-sparing agents is justified, always weighing the potential benefits and risks.” Because of a lack of head-to-head studies of different immunosuppressive agents, the task force did not recommend one particular agent over another.

One recommendation that contained a high level of evidence was for the use of B-cell targeted therapies for patients with severe, refractory systemic disease. Efficacy of rituximab was mixed in studies totaling more than 400 patients, but generally showed a positive outcome in at least one of the following areas: global response, organ-specific response, ESSDAI reduction, and prednisone reduction. The task force recommended that rituximab “may be considered” in “patients with severe, refractory systemic disease” and may be best for those with symptoms linked to cryoglobulinemic-associated vasculitis, with the potential of using belimumab (Benlysta) as rescue therapy. While systemic organ-specific therapeutic approaches vary, the general rule should be to treat with GCs first, followed by immunosuppressive agents and biologics as second-line therapy in cases refractory to GCs, either sequentially or in combination, the authors said.

For patients with B-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use individualized treatment based on the World Health Organization 2016 histologic subtype and the stage of the disease. While some clinicians employ a “watchful waiting” approach to treating low-grade hematologic neoplasia, “the decision to treat low-grade lymphomas or not must be discussed in a multidisciplinary committee, taking into account the fact that they are linked to the disease activity and are the ultimate stage of autoimmune B-cell activation,” the authors wrote.

The task force also defined a number of future research agenda goals for Sjögren’s syndrome treatment management, including developing personalized therapeutic approaches, finding predictors of biological response to agents used in treatment, and identifying biomarkers of poor outcomes.

In addition, EULAR acknowledged some research gaps exist in the guidelines for particular symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, such as in the case of fatigue. “The EULAR recommendations mention the common association of fatigue with Sjögren’s syndrome, though acknowledge that fatigue is more commonly seen in the same demographic cohort as Sjögren’s,” Dr. McCoy said. “Aside from exercise, there remains little available to address this common and burdensome symptom amongst Sjögren’s patients. Overall, this is a pertinent gap in knowledge in our Sjögren’s patients.”

The Sjögren’s syndrome recommendations were funded by EULAR. Many task force members reported relationships with industry in the form of advisory board and speaker’s bureau memberships, consultancies, and grants. Dr. McCoy reported serving on a data monitoring committee for Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the data in the EULAR recommendations.

SOURCE: Ramos-Casals M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 31. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216114

The European League Against Rheumatism has released its first recommendations for the management of Sjögren’s syndrome with topical and systemic treatments.

First author Manuel Ramos-Casals, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinic de Barcelona Institut Clinic de Medicina i Dermatologia and colleagues on the multinational, multispecialty EULAR Sjögren Syndrome Task Force Group said the EULAR recommendations “synthesize current thinking” of management for Sjögren’s syndrome, which is complicated by individualized treatment that does not address the systemic disease and for which therapeutic decisions are often made based on expert opinion and personal experience because of a lack of data.

“Sjögren’s syndrome is generally treated through symptom management,” noted Sara McCoy, MD, who is director of the University of Wisconsin Health Sjögren’s Syndrome Clinic and was not involved in the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “Although we have measures to address these symptoms, we do not have any approved therapy that ameliorates the driving cause.”

There is limited high-quality evidence for many of the therapies discussed in the recommendations: In total, 9 randomized controlled trials, 18 prospective studies, and 5 case-control studies were included as evidence in the recommendations, and many involved a small number of patients.

The first overarching recommendation says that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome should be managed at centers of expertise using a multidisciplinary approach, the authors wrote. Two other overarching recommendations focus on how to manage certain patient cases. In cases of dryness, first-line therapy should include topical therapies for symptomatic relief, while clinicians should consider systemic therapies for patients with active systemic disease. All three overarching recommendations had a high level of agreement among task force members.

The task force also offered 12 specific recommendations on disease management, which take an “algorithmic approach” to Sjögren’s syndrome management that is guided by the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI), Dr. McCoy said in an interview.

“The EULAR recommendations structure a clear approach to treatment of Sjögren’s manifestations, ranging from oral and ocular sicca management, to treatment of uncommon but severe systemic involvement of Sjögren’s,” she said.

Before treating patients for oral dryness symptoms, clinicians should evaluate salivary function at baseline using unstimulated whole salivary flows. First-line therapeutic approaches for oral dryness can include nonpharmacologic stimulation in cases of mild salivary gland dysfunction, pharmacologic stimulation in cases of moderate dysfunction, and substitution of saliva in cases of severe dysfunction, the authors said.

Ocular dryness should be assessed using ocular staining score followed by ocular surface–disease index, and once identified, it can be managed with artificial tears and ocular gels or ointments as first-line therapy. Topical immunosuppressive-containing drops and autologous serum eye drops are options for more severe or refractory ocular dryness.

Patients who have fatigue or pain associated with Sjögren’s syndrome should have their fatigue or pain scored with the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI), and any concomitant disease should also be evaluated. Clinicians should consider acetaminophen and NSAIDs for treatment of acute musculoskeletal pain and other pain-modifying agents, such as hydroxychloroquine in cases of articular pain, despite a lack of evidence showing its efficacy in trials.

For systemic disease, the task force advised matching treatment to the organ(s) involved and using the ESSDAI to evaluate disease severity., They said that “patients presenting with at least moderate activity in one clinical domain, or with a global moderate disease activity score” of 5 or higher can be considered for systemic therapy.

Although many clinicians use glucocorticoids (GCs) for managing Sjögren’s syndrome, there is no evidence of the treatment’s efficacy in systemic disease. The task force recommended using glucocorticoids such as methylprednisolone at the minimum dose and withdrawing use “as soon as possible” in patients with inactive disease. “Based on the potential development of chronic damage in patients with uncontrolled systemic disease, some patients may require long-term therapy with GCs, especially those with severe organ impairments,” Dr. Ramos-Casals and colleagues wrote. “In these patients, the addition of immunosuppressive agents as GC-sparing agents is justified, always weighing the potential benefits and risks.” Because of a lack of head-to-head studies of different immunosuppressive agents, the task force did not recommend one particular agent over another.

One recommendation that contained a high level of evidence was for the use of B-cell targeted therapies for patients with severe, refractory systemic disease. Efficacy of rituximab was mixed in studies totaling more than 400 patients, but generally showed a positive outcome in at least one of the following areas: global response, organ-specific response, ESSDAI reduction, and prednisone reduction. The task force recommended that rituximab “may be considered” in “patients with severe, refractory systemic disease” and may be best for those with symptoms linked to cryoglobulinemic-associated vasculitis, with the potential of using belimumab (Benlysta) as rescue therapy. While systemic organ-specific therapeutic approaches vary, the general rule should be to treat with GCs first, followed by immunosuppressive agents and biologics as second-line therapy in cases refractory to GCs, either sequentially or in combination, the authors said.

For patients with B-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use individualized treatment based on the World Health Organization 2016 histologic subtype and the stage of the disease. While some clinicians employ a “watchful waiting” approach to treating low-grade hematologic neoplasia, “the decision to treat low-grade lymphomas or not must be discussed in a multidisciplinary committee, taking into account the fact that they are linked to the disease activity and are the ultimate stage of autoimmune B-cell activation,” the authors wrote.

The task force also defined a number of future research agenda goals for Sjögren’s syndrome treatment management, including developing personalized therapeutic approaches, finding predictors of biological response to agents used in treatment, and identifying biomarkers of poor outcomes.

In addition, EULAR acknowledged some research gaps exist in the guidelines for particular symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, such as in the case of fatigue. “The EULAR recommendations mention the common association of fatigue with Sjögren’s syndrome, though acknowledge that fatigue is more commonly seen in the same demographic cohort as Sjögren’s,” Dr. McCoy said. “Aside from exercise, there remains little available to address this common and burdensome symptom amongst Sjögren’s patients. Overall, this is a pertinent gap in knowledge in our Sjögren’s patients.”

The Sjögren’s syndrome recommendations were funded by EULAR. Many task force members reported relationships with industry in the form of advisory board and speaker’s bureau memberships, consultancies, and grants. Dr. McCoy reported serving on a data monitoring committee for Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the data in the EULAR recommendations.

SOURCE: Ramos-Casals M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 31. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216114