Dear Colleagues,

Forty years ago, dermatology practice was different. No patient came to the office for a “full-body check,” nor did anyone show up for hair removal or questions about cosmetic procedures or skin care advice.

Needle nippers were around, but no elaborate, molded-plastic contraptions like the sharps containers now in wide use. You sent pathology specimens in plastic cylinders by U.S. mail; then you called the lab 2 weeks later to ask, “Where’s the report on Jane Smith, with the rule out melanoma,” and the lab said, “Jane who?”

Of course, some things about practice have not changed. Patients with atopic dermatitis still ask why eczema comes back and why we can’t give them something to make it go away once and for all. Some referring physicians still treat scaly rashes with ketoconazole cream (and when that fails, oral fluconazole, which doesn’t work either).

Of course the biggest change between then and now, coincident with the rise of computers and technology, is the advent and ubiquity of that great swindle foisted upon the profession and the public – electronic health records – with their unfulfilled promises of cost-savings and efficiency and unconceded consequences: turning healers into harried data-entry drudges too busy clicking mice to make eye contact with humans. Yes, the Emperor has clothes. The Emperor is wearing Depends.

I wrote my first column for this periodical 22 years ago; this will be my last. My wonderful editor, Elizabeth Mechcatie, has agreed to take under advisement a proposal that I go on sending occasional dispatches under the heading “Pruritus Emeritus.” My family used to refer to those in the anomalous state of being emeritus – it means, roughly, “Forgotten, but not gone” – by rhyming emeritus with sinusitis.

There is no way to remember 40 years of patients. Many came just once, others several times. Some moved away, some passed away, changed primary doctors, changed insurances. Some grew too old to visit, sent regretful notes apologizing for finding the drive too long, the parking too hard. Some returned after an absence of a decade or 3, having forgotten that they had once come for the same problem, or come at all.

But there have been other patients who formed a real bond, whose names and faces still come readily to mind, who visited over long periods, sent their spouses, family members, even children and grandchildren. The stories of their lives became part of mine, and sometimes mine part of theirs.

Though hardly an old-movie buff, I know the famous scene in Casablanca in which a radiant Ingrid Bergman (that skin!) asks Dooley Wilson – the piano player, Sam – to play the song Humphrey Bogart does not want to hear:

“You must remember this

A kiss is just a kiss

A sigh is just a sigh

The fundamental things apply

As time goes by.”

Over the last 40 years there have been substantial advances in the way we treat patients, though perhaps not enough to justify the endless noisy hype about imminent breakthroughs and looming disruptions, therapies, and apps that are sure to change practice and civilization as we know them. Altogether too much noise, at least for my taste. But not inside the examining room.

Outside the room rages the din of demographic updates, of online checks of insurance eligibility, referral status, prior authorizations, the blare of marketing and promotion, the cacophony of metrics and algorithms.

Inside the room, however, quiet reigns. A patient presents with a symptom or a sign, or the fear of a symptom or anxiety over the meaning of a sign, filtered through a jumble of ideas – misremembered, half understood, at times mutually contradictory – that amplify fears common to anyone who visits a practitioner, however minor the presenting complaint: pain, debility, decline, isolation, solitude, death.

And the practitioner attends, considers, contextualizes, counsels, consoles, and conveys a response to the patient’s questions, whether in so many words or by body language or tone of voice, offers answers not just to what the patient has asked but the ones the patient meant to ask but did not know how.

“Yes, sir, death waits for all of us in the end, but for you, perhaps, not today.”

“Yes, madam, illness can be a frightening affair, but your case is not as bad as you think it is and won’t move as fast as you imagine. And as to your being limited and alone – well, not yet. There are those you can rely on, people with a bit of knowledge and a little experience, who are committed to doing what can be done to bend the arc of illness in your favor.”

That fundamental role will, it seems to me, always apply as long people practice medicine.

With all good wishes for personal happiness and professional success,

Alan Rockoff
 

Dear Colleagues,

Forty years ago, dermatology practice was different. No patient came to the office for a “full-body check,” nor did anyone show up for hair removal or questions about cosmetic procedures or skin care advice.

Needle nippers were around, but no elaborate, molded-plastic contraptions like the sharps containers now in wide use. You sent pathology specimens in plastic cylinders by U.S. mail; then you called the lab 2 weeks later to ask, “Where’s the report on Jane Smith, with the rule out melanoma,” and the lab said, “Jane who?”

Of course, some things about practice have not changed. Patients with atopic dermatitis still ask why eczema comes back and why we can’t give them something to make it go away once and for all. Some referring physicians still treat scaly rashes with ketoconazole cream (and when that fails, oral fluconazole, which doesn’t work either).

Of course the biggest change between then and now, coincident with the rise of computers and technology, is the advent and ubiquity of that great swindle foisted upon the profession and the public – electronic health records – with their unfulfilled promises of cost-savings and efficiency and unconceded consequences: turning healers into harried data-entry drudges too busy clicking mice to make eye contact with humans. Yes, the Emperor has clothes. The Emperor is wearing Depends.

I wrote my first column for this periodical 22 years ago; this will be my last. My wonderful editor, Elizabeth Mechcatie, has agreed to take under advisement a proposal that I go on sending occasional dispatches under the heading “Pruritus Emeritus.” My family used to refer to those in the anomalous state of being emeritus – it means, roughly, “Forgotten, but not gone” – by rhyming emeritus with sinusitis.

There is no way to remember 40 years of patients. Many came just once, others several times. Some moved away, some passed away, changed primary doctors, changed insurances. Some grew too old to visit, sent regretful notes apologizing for finding the drive too long, the parking too hard. Some returned after an absence of a decade or 3, having forgotten that they had once come for the same problem, or come at all.

But there have been other patients who formed a real bond, whose names and faces still come readily to mind, who visited over long periods, sent their spouses, family members, even children and grandchildren. The stories of their lives became part of mine, and sometimes mine part of theirs.

Though hardly an old-movie buff, I know the famous scene in Casablanca in which a radiant Ingrid Bergman (that skin!) asks Dooley Wilson – the piano player, Sam – to play the song Humphrey Bogart does not want to hear:

“You must remember this

A kiss is just a kiss

A sigh is just a sigh

The fundamental things apply

As time goes by.”

Over the last 40 years there have been substantial advances in the way we treat patients, though perhaps not enough to justify the endless noisy hype about imminent breakthroughs and looming disruptions, therapies, and apps that are sure to change practice and civilization as we know them. Altogether too much noise, at least for my taste. But not inside the examining room.

Outside the room rages the din of demographic updates, of online checks of insurance eligibility, referral status, prior authorizations, the blare of marketing and promotion, the cacophony of metrics and algorithms.

Inside the room, however, quiet reigns. A patient presents with a symptom or a sign, or the fear of a symptom or anxiety over the meaning of a sign, filtered through a jumble of ideas – misremembered, half understood, at times mutually contradictory – that amplify fears common to anyone who visits a practitioner, however minor the presenting complaint: pain, debility, decline, isolation, solitude, death.

And the practitioner attends, considers, contextualizes, counsels, consoles, and conveys a response to the patient’s questions, whether in so many words or by body language or tone of voice, offers answers not just to what the patient has asked but the ones the patient meant to ask but did not know how.

“Yes, sir, death waits for all of us in the end, but for you, perhaps, not today.”

“Yes, madam, illness can be a frightening affair, but your case is not as bad as you think it is and won’t move as fast as you imagine. And as to your being limited and alone – well, not yet. There are those you can rely on, people with a bit of knowledge and a little experience, who are committed to doing what can be done to bend the arc of illness in your favor.”

That fundamental role will, it seems to me, always apply as long people practice medicine.

With all good wishes for personal happiness and professional success,

Alan Rockoff
 

Dear Colleagues,

Forty years ago, dermatology practice was different. No patient came to the office for a “full-body check,” nor did anyone show up for hair removal or questions about cosmetic procedures or skin care advice.

Needle nippers were around, but no elaborate, molded-plastic contraptions like the sharps containers now in wide use. You sent pathology specimens in plastic cylinders by U.S. mail; then you called the lab 2 weeks later to ask, “Where’s the report on Jane Smith, with the rule out melanoma,” and the lab said, “Jane who?”

Of course, some things about practice have not changed. Patients with atopic dermatitis still ask why eczema comes back and why we can’t give them something to make it go away once and for all. Some referring physicians still treat scaly rashes with ketoconazole cream (and when that fails, oral fluconazole, which doesn’t work either).

Of course the biggest change between then and now, coincident with the rise of computers and technology, is the advent and ubiquity of that great swindle foisted upon the profession and the public – electronic health records – with their unfulfilled promises of cost-savings and efficiency and unconceded consequences: turning healers into harried data-entry drudges too busy clicking mice to make eye contact with humans. Yes, the Emperor has clothes. The Emperor is wearing Depends.

I wrote my first column for this periodical 22 years ago; this will be my last. My wonderful editor, Elizabeth Mechcatie, has agreed to take under advisement a proposal that I go on sending occasional dispatches under the heading “Pruritus Emeritus.” My family used to refer to those in the anomalous state of being emeritus – it means, roughly, “Forgotten, but not gone” – by rhyming emeritus with sinusitis.

There is no way to remember 40 years of patients. Many came just once, others several times. Some moved away, some passed away, changed primary doctors, changed insurances. Some grew too old to visit, sent regretful notes apologizing for finding the drive too long, the parking too hard. Some returned after an absence of a decade or 3, having forgotten that they had once come for the same problem, or come at all.

But there have been other patients who formed a real bond, whose names and faces still come readily to mind, who visited over long periods, sent their spouses, family members, even children and grandchildren. The stories of their lives became part of mine, and sometimes mine part of theirs.

Though hardly an old-movie buff, I know the famous scene in Casablanca in which a radiant Ingrid Bergman (that skin!) asks Dooley Wilson – the piano player, Sam – to play the song Humphrey Bogart does not want to hear:

“You must remember this

A kiss is just a kiss

A sigh is just a sigh

The fundamental things apply

As time goes by.”

Over the last 40 years there have been substantial advances in the way we treat patients, though perhaps not enough to justify the endless noisy hype about imminent breakthroughs and looming disruptions, therapies, and apps that are sure to change practice and civilization as we know them. Altogether too much noise, at least for my taste. But not inside the examining room.

Outside the room rages the din of demographic updates, of online checks of insurance eligibility, referral status, prior authorizations, the blare of marketing and promotion, the cacophony of metrics and algorithms.

Inside the room, however, quiet reigns. A patient presents with a symptom or a sign, or the fear of a symptom or anxiety over the meaning of a sign, filtered through a jumble of ideas – misremembered, half understood, at times mutually contradictory – that amplify fears common to anyone who visits a practitioner, however minor the presenting complaint: pain, debility, decline, isolation, solitude, death.

And the practitioner attends, considers, contextualizes, counsels, consoles, and conveys a response to the patient’s questions, whether in so many words or by body language or tone of voice, offers answers not just to what the patient has asked but the ones the patient meant to ask but did not know how.

“Yes, sir, death waits for all of us in the end, but for you, perhaps, not today.”

“Yes, madam, illness can be a frightening affair, but your case is not as bad as you think it is and won’t move as fast as you imagine. And as to your being limited and alone – well, not yet. There are those you can rely on, people with a bit of knowledge and a little experience, who are committed to doing what can be done to bend the arc of illness in your favor.”

That fundamental role will, it seems to me, always apply as long people practice medicine.

With all good wishes for personal happiness and professional success,

Alan Rockoff
 

When it comes to repairing knee cartilage, a new study found no significant differences between autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) and autologous chondrocyte implantation with a collagen membrane (ACI-C) as treatment options.

“If the conclusion of the present study stands and is confirmed by further clinical trials, AMIC could be considered an equal alternative to techniques based on chondrocyte transplantation for treatment of cartilage defects of the knee,” wrote Vegard Fossum, MD, of University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, and coauthors, adding that cost and comparative ease might actually make AMIC the preferred choice. The study was published in the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine.

To evaluate outcomes of the two procedures, the researchers initiated a clinical trial of 41 patients with at least one chondral or osteochondral defect of the distal femur or patella. They were split into two groups: those treated with ACI-C (n = 21) and those treated with AMIC (n = 20). At 1- and 2-year follow-up, patients were assessed via improvements in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), compared with baseline, along with Lysholm and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores.

After 1 and 2 years, both groups saw improvements from baseline. At 2 years, the AMIC group had an 18.1 change in KOOS, compared with 10.3 in the ACI-C group (P = .17). Two-year improvements on the Lysholm score (19.7 in AMIC, compared with 17.0 in ACI-C, P = .66) and VAS pain score (30.6 in AMIC versus 19.6 in ACI-C, P = .19) were not significantly different. Two patients in the AMIC group had undergone total knee replacement after 2 years, compared with zero in the ACI-C group.

The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including the small number of patients in each group – the initial plan was to include 80 total – and its broad inclusion criteria. However, since the aim was to compare treatment results and not evaluate effectiveness, they did not consider the broad criteria “a major limitation.”

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Fossum V et al. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Sept 17. doi: 10.1177/2325967119868212.

When it comes to repairing knee cartilage, a new study found no significant differences between autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) and autologous chondrocyte implantation with a collagen membrane (ACI-C) as treatment options.

“If the conclusion of the present study stands and is confirmed by further clinical trials, AMIC could be considered an equal alternative to techniques based on chondrocyte transplantation for treatment of cartilage defects of the knee,” wrote Vegard Fossum, MD, of University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, and coauthors, adding that cost and comparative ease might actually make AMIC the preferred choice. The study was published in the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine.

To evaluate outcomes of the two procedures, the researchers initiated a clinical trial of 41 patients with at least one chondral or osteochondral defect of the distal femur or patella. They were split into two groups: those treated with ACI-C (n = 21) and those treated with AMIC (n = 20). At 1- and 2-year follow-up, patients were assessed via improvements in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), compared with baseline, along with Lysholm and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores.

After 1 and 2 years, both groups saw improvements from baseline. At 2 years, the AMIC group had an 18.1 change in KOOS, compared with 10.3 in the ACI-C group (P = .17). Two-year improvements on the Lysholm score (19.7 in AMIC, compared with 17.0 in ACI-C, P = .66) and VAS pain score (30.6 in AMIC versus 19.6 in ACI-C, P = .19) were not significantly different. Two patients in the AMIC group had undergone total knee replacement after 2 years, compared with zero in the ACI-C group.

The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including the small number of patients in each group – the initial plan was to include 80 total – and its broad inclusion criteria. However, since the aim was to compare treatment results and not evaluate effectiveness, they did not consider the broad criteria “a major limitation.”

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Fossum V et al. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Sept 17. doi: 10.1177/2325967119868212.

When it comes to repairing knee cartilage, a new study found no significant differences between autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) and autologous chondrocyte implantation with a collagen membrane (ACI-C) as treatment options.

“If the conclusion of the present study stands and is confirmed by further clinical trials, AMIC could be considered an equal alternative to techniques based on chondrocyte transplantation for treatment of cartilage defects of the knee,” wrote Vegard Fossum, MD, of University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, and coauthors, adding that cost and comparative ease might actually make AMIC the preferred choice. The study was published in the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine.

To evaluate outcomes of the two procedures, the researchers initiated a clinical trial of 41 patients with at least one chondral or osteochondral defect of the distal femur or patella. They were split into two groups: those treated with ACI-C (n = 21) and those treated with AMIC (n = 20). At 1- and 2-year follow-up, patients were assessed via improvements in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), compared with baseline, along with Lysholm and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores.

After 1 and 2 years, both groups saw improvements from baseline. At 2 years, the AMIC group had an 18.1 change in KOOS, compared with 10.3 in the ACI-C group (P = .17). Two-year improvements on the Lysholm score (19.7 in AMIC, compared with 17.0 in ACI-C, P = .66) and VAS pain score (30.6 in AMIC versus 19.6 in ACI-C, P = .19) were not significantly different. Two patients in the AMIC group had undergone total knee replacement after 2 years, compared with zero in the ACI-C group.

The authors noted their study’s potential limitations, including the small number of patients in each group – the initial plan was to include 80 total – and its broad inclusion criteria. However, since the aim was to compare treatment results and not evaluate effectiveness, they did not consider the broad criteria “a major limitation.”

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Fossum V et al. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Sept 17. doi: 10.1177/2325967119868212.

The combination of rituximab and bendamustine (RB) provided “excellent” survival with less toxicity, compared with a cytarabine-based induction regimen, in transplant-eligible patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to a long-term follow-up report from randomized phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

The 5-year survival rates for RB were “provocatively similar” to what was achieved with the standard, intensive R-hyperCVAD regimen, investigators said in this update on the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) S1106 study.

By contrast, the R-hyperCVAD regimen was associated with more toxicity and higher failure rates for stem cell mobilization, according to the report’s lead author, Manali Kamdar, MD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and coauthors.

“Overall, S1106 demonstrated that an outpatient-based, less intensive induction therapy of bendamustine plus rituximab is highly effective, safe, and durable in untreated transplant-eligible MCL patients,” Dr. Kamdar and her colleagues reported in Blood Advances.

The results have guided the design of an upcoming study, EA4181, in which patients with mantle cell lymphoma will be treated with an RB backbone plus cytarabine, the BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib, or both, according to the authors.

In the present study, S1106, patients with mantle cell lymphoma were randomized to receive RB or the R-hyperCVAD regimen, which consisted of rituximab with hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone, alternating with high-dose cytarabine and methotrexate. Both regimens were followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The stem cell mobilization failure rate was 29% in the R-hyperCVAD arm in an interim analysis conducted after 53 of a planned 160 patients had been enrolled, including 35 in the RB arm and 17 in the R-hyperCVAD arm, according to a report published in the British Journal of Haematology (2016 Dec 19. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14480). That analysis triggered a shutdown of the study, based on a rule stating that either arm would be deemed “unacceptably toxic” if the mobilization rate exceeded 10%.

Accordingly, R-hyperCVAD is “not an ideal platform” for future trials, the investigators said. At that time, the estimated 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 81% versus 82% for RB and R-hyperCVAD, respectively, while overall survival (OS) was 87% versus 88%.

With additional follow-up, the 5-year PFS is 66% and 62% in the RB and R-hyperCVAD arms, respectively, while 5-year OS is 80% and 74%, according to the investigators.

The RB regimen also results in “excellent” minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, they added.

MRD status was evaluated in 12 paired pre- and postinduction therapy specimens, of which 2 pairs were from patients in the R-hyperCVAD arm, and 10 pairs were from patients in the RB arm.

In the R-hyperCVAD arm, both patients were MRD positive at baseline, and MRD negative after induction, according to the investigators. Similarly, 9 of 10 patients in the RB arm were MRD positive at baseline, and of those, 7 converted to MRD negative following induction.

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, and in part by Sequenta (Adaptive Biotechnologies). Dr. Kamdar reported being on the speakers bureau of Seattle Genetics and receiving consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Genentech. Co-authors of the study provided disclosures related to Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Affimed, Seattle Genetics, Pharmacyclics, and Merck, among others.

SOURCE: Kamdar M et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Oct 22;3(20):3132-5.

The combination of rituximab and bendamustine (RB) provided “excellent” survival with less toxicity, compared with a cytarabine-based induction regimen, in transplant-eligible patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to a long-term follow-up report from randomized phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

The 5-year survival rates for RB were “provocatively similar” to what was achieved with the standard, intensive R-hyperCVAD regimen, investigators said in this update on the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) S1106 study.

By contrast, the R-hyperCVAD regimen was associated with more toxicity and higher failure rates for stem cell mobilization, according to the report’s lead author, Manali Kamdar, MD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and coauthors.

“Overall, S1106 demonstrated that an outpatient-based, less intensive induction therapy of bendamustine plus rituximab is highly effective, safe, and durable in untreated transplant-eligible MCL patients,” Dr. Kamdar and her colleagues reported in Blood Advances.

The results have guided the design of an upcoming study, EA4181, in which patients with mantle cell lymphoma will be treated with an RB backbone plus cytarabine, the BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib, or both, according to the authors.

In the present study, S1106, patients with mantle cell lymphoma were randomized to receive RB or the R-hyperCVAD regimen, which consisted of rituximab with hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone, alternating with high-dose cytarabine and methotrexate. Both regimens were followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The stem cell mobilization failure rate was 29% in the R-hyperCVAD arm in an interim analysis conducted after 53 of a planned 160 patients had been enrolled, including 35 in the RB arm and 17 in the R-hyperCVAD arm, according to a report published in the British Journal of Haematology (2016 Dec 19. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14480). That analysis triggered a shutdown of the study, based on a rule stating that either arm would be deemed “unacceptably toxic” if the mobilization rate exceeded 10%.

Accordingly, R-hyperCVAD is “not an ideal platform” for future trials, the investigators said. At that time, the estimated 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 81% versus 82% for RB and R-hyperCVAD, respectively, while overall survival (OS) was 87% versus 88%.

With additional follow-up, the 5-year PFS is 66% and 62% in the RB and R-hyperCVAD arms, respectively, while 5-year OS is 80% and 74%, according to the investigators.

The RB regimen also results in “excellent” minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, they added.

MRD status was evaluated in 12 paired pre- and postinduction therapy specimens, of which 2 pairs were from patients in the R-hyperCVAD arm, and 10 pairs were from patients in the RB arm.

In the R-hyperCVAD arm, both patients were MRD positive at baseline, and MRD negative after induction, according to the investigators. Similarly, 9 of 10 patients in the RB arm were MRD positive at baseline, and of those, 7 converted to MRD negative following induction.

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, and in part by Sequenta (Adaptive Biotechnologies). Dr. Kamdar reported being on the speakers bureau of Seattle Genetics and receiving consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Genentech. Co-authors of the study provided disclosures related to Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Affimed, Seattle Genetics, Pharmacyclics, and Merck, among others.

SOURCE: Kamdar M et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Oct 22;3(20):3132-5.

The combination of rituximab and bendamustine (RB) provided “excellent” survival with less toxicity, compared with a cytarabine-based induction regimen, in transplant-eligible patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to a long-term follow-up report from randomized phase 2 trial.

Wikimedia Commons/TexasPathologistMSW/CC-ASA 4.0 International

The 5-year survival rates for RB were “provocatively similar” to what was achieved with the standard, intensive R-hyperCVAD regimen, investigators said in this update on the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) S1106 study.

By contrast, the R-hyperCVAD regimen was associated with more toxicity and higher failure rates for stem cell mobilization, according to the report’s lead author, Manali Kamdar, MD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and coauthors.

“Overall, S1106 demonstrated that an outpatient-based, less intensive induction therapy of bendamustine plus rituximab is highly effective, safe, and durable in untreated transplant-eligible MCL patients,” Dr. Kamdar and her colleagues reported in Blood Advances.

The results have guided the design of an upcoming study, EA4181, in which patients with mantle cell lymphoma will be treated with an RB backbone plus cytarabine, the BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib, or both, according to the authors.

In the present study, S1106, patients with mantle cell lymphoma were randomized to receive RB or the R-hyperCVAD regimen, which consisted of rituximab with hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone, alternating with high-dose cytarabine and methotrexate. Both regimens were followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The stem cell mobilization failure rate was 29% in the R-hyperCVAD arm in an interim analysis conducted after 53 of a planned 160 patients had been enrolled, including 35 in the RB arm and 17 in the R-hyperCVAD arm, according to a report published in the British Journal of Haematology (2016 Dec 19. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14480). That analysis triggered a shutdown of the study, based on a rule stating that either arm would be deemed “unacceptably toxic” if the mobilization rate exceeded 10%.

Accordingly, R-hyperCVAD is “not an ideal platform” for future trials, the investigators said. At that time, the estimated 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 81% versus 82% for RB and R-hyperCVAD, respectively, while overall survival (OS) was 87% versus 88%.

With additional follow-up, the 5-year PFS is 66% and 62% in the RB and R-hyperCVAD arms, respectively, while 5-year OS is 80% and 74%, according to the investigators.

The RB regimen also results in “excellent” minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, they added.

MRD status was evaluated in 12 paired pre- and postinduction therapy specimens, of which 2 pairs were from patients in the R-hyperCVAD arm, and 10 pairs were from patients in the RB arm.

In the R-hyperCVAD arm, both patients were MRD positive at baseline, and MRD negative after induction, according to the investigators. Similarly, 9 of 10 patients in the RB arm were MRD positive at baseline, and of those, 7 converted to MRD negative following induction.

The research was supported by the National Cancer Institute, and in part by Sequenta (Adaptive Biotechnologies). Dr. Kamdar reported being on the speakers bureau of Seattle Genetics and receiving consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Genentech. Co-authors of the study provided disclosures related to Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Affimed, Seattle Genetics, Pharmacyclics, and Merck, among others.

SOURCE: Kamdar M et al. Blood Adv. 2019 Oct 22;3(20):3132-5.

MADRID – Nemolizumab, an investigational humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-31 receptor alpha subunit, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in both itch and skin lesions of severe prurigo nodularis in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Sonja Stander, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We saw onset of pruritus improvement in week 1 and onset of lesion healing at week 4,” reported Dr. Stander, professor of dermatology and neurodermatology and head of the Center for Chronic Pruritus at the University of Münster (Germany).

The study results confirm IL-31 signaling as an important therapeutic target in prurigo nodularis and herald the arrival of nemolizumab as a promising potential therapy for severely affected patients, she added.

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic, highly pruritic disease that is difficult to treat and carries a high disease burden. While the disease’s pathogenesis is not completely understood, IL-31 is up-regulated in affected patients. And IL-31, a proinflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokine, is known to have a broad range of actions, including serving as a link between the immune and neural systems, as well as induction of itch and skin lesions.

Dr. Stander presented the results of a 20-center, double-blind, phase 2b clinical trial in which 70 patients with prurigo nodularis were randomized to subcutaneous nemolizumab at 0.5 mg/kg or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 8, then followed off therapy out to week 18. These were severely affected patients: their mean weekly peak pruritus score on a 0-10 numeric rating scale was 8.4, with 7 being the accepted threshold for severe itch. The group had a mean Dermatologic Life Quality Index score of 16.4; 40% of patients had more than 100 nodules on their body, and the rest had 20-100.

The primary endpoint was the percentage decrease in the peak pruritus score from baseline to week 4, at which point they had only received one dose. The nemolizumab group averaged a 53.4% reduction, compared with 15.3% in placebo-treated controls. At week 12, a full month after the final injection, the split was 63.2% versus 20.2%. And at week 18, the nemolizumab group maintained a mean 58.2% reduction from baseline versus 20.9% in controls.

“The effect starts at week 1, with a 26% reduction in itch intensity in the nemolizumab group, compared to 6.7% with placebo,” the dermatologist observed.

The absolute decrease in weekly peak pruritus score at week 12 was 5.2 points with nemolizumab and 1.7 points with placebo.

Among the secondary endpoints was achievement of an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0-1, meaning clear or almost clear of skin lesions. The rate in the nemolizumab group climbed steadily from week 4 on, reaching 38.2% and still rising without a plateau at week 18, versus 5.6% in controls.

Another secondary endpoint was 75% or greater healing on the 7-item Prurigo Activity Scale. By week 4 there was already a statistically significant between-group difference: 23.5% versus 11.2%. Once again, in the nemolizumab group, this rate climbed without a plateau through the study’s end at week 18, by which point it was 44.1%, compared with 8.4% among those on placebo.

Scores on the Dermatologic Life Quality Index improved by an average of 10.2 points at week 4 in patients on nemolizumab, compared with 6 points among controls.

Self-reported sleep disturbance scores improved by 56% at week 4 in the nemolizumab group and 22.9% with placebo.

The safety profile of nemolizumab was similar to that of placebo, with roughly 5.7% of patients in each study arm withdrawing because of treatment-emergent adverse events. Unlike in the positive studies of the IL-31 inhibitor in patients with atopic dermatitis – another potential indication under active investigation – there was no signal of an increased risk of staphylococcal skin infections, conjunctivitis, or head and neck dermatitis in patients on nemolizumab for prurigo nodularis. Patients with comorbid atopic dermatitis were excluded from the prurigo nodularis trial in order to get a clearer picture of the biologic’s efficacy and safety specifically for that condition.

Dr. Stander reported serving as a consultant to Galderma, the study sponsor, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Nemolizumab, an investigational humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-31 receptor alpha subunit, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in both itch and skin lesions of severe prurigo nodularis in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Sonja Stander, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We saw onset of pruritus improvement in week 1 and onset of lesion healing at week 4,” reported Dr. Stander, professor of dermatology and neurodermatology and head of the Center for Chronic Pruritus at the University of Münster (Germany).

The study results confirm IL-31 signaling as an important therapeutic target in prurigo nodularis and herald the arrival of nemolizumab as a promising potential therapy for severely affected patients, she added.

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic, highly pruritic disease that is difficult to treat and carries a high disease burden. While the disease’s pathogenesis is not completely understood, IL-31 is up-regulated in affected patients. And IL-31, a proinflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokine, is known to have a broad range of actions, including serving as a link between the immune and neural systems, as well as induction of itch and skin lesions.

Dr. Stander presented the results of a 20-center, double-blind, phase 2b clinical trial in which 70 patients with prurigo nodularis were randomized to subcutaneous nemolizumab at 0.5 mg/kg or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 8, then followed off therapy out to week 18. These were severely affected patients: their mean weekly peak pruritus score on a 0-10 numeric rating scale was 8.4, with 7 being the accepted threshold for severe itch. The group had a mean Dermatologic Life Quality Index score of 16.4; 40% of patients had more than 100 nodules on their body, and the rest had 20-100.

The primary endpoint was the percentage decrease in the peak pruritus score from baseline to week 4, at which point they had only received one dose. The nemolizumab group averaged a 53.4% reduction, compared with 15.3% in placebo-treated controls. At week 12, a full month after the final injection, the split was 63.2% versus 20.2%. And at week 18, the nemolizumab group maintained a mean 58.2% reduction from baseline versus 20.9% in controls.

“The effect starts at week 1, with a 26% reduction in itch intensity in the nemolizumab group, compared to 6.7% with placebo,” the dermatologist observed.

The absolute decrease in weekly peak pruritus score at week 12 was 5.2 points with nemolizumab and 1.7 points with placebo.

Among the secondary endpoints was achievement of an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0-1, meaning clear or almost clear of skin lesions. The rate in the nemolizumab group climbed steadily from week 4 on, reaching 38.2% and still rising without a plateau at week 18, versus 5.6% in controls.

Another secondary endpoint was 75% or greater healing on the 7-item Prurigo Activity Scale. By week 4 there was already a statistically significant between-group difference: 23.5% versus 11.2%. Once again, in the nemolizumab group, this rate climbed without a plateau through the study’s end at week 18, by which point it was 44.1%, compared with 8.4% among those on placebo.

Scores on the Dermatologic Life Quality Index improved by an average of 10.2 points at week 4 in patients on nemolizumab, compared with 6 points among controls.

Self-reported sleep disturbance scores improved by 56% at week 4 in the nemolizumab group and 22.9% with placebo.

The safety profile of nemolizumab was similar to that of placebo, with roughly 5.7% of patients in each study arm withdrawing because of treatment-emergent adverse events. Unlike in the positive studies of the IL-31 inhibitor in patients with atopic dermatitis – another potential indication under active investigation – there was no signal of an increased risk of staphylococcal skin infections, conjunctivitis, or head and neck dermatitis in patients on nemolizumab for prurigo nodularis. Patients with comorbid atopic dermatitis were excluded from the prurigo nodularis trial in order to get a clearer picture of the biologic’s efficacy and safety specifically for that condition.

Dr. Stander reported serving as a consultant to Galderma, the study sponsor, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Nemolizumab, an investigational humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-31 receptor alpha subunit, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in both itch and skin lesions of severe prurigo nodularis in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Sonja Stander, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We saw onset of pruritus improvement in week 1 and onset of lesion healing at week 4,” reported Dr. Stander, professor of dermatology and neurodermatology and head of the Center for Chronic Pruritus at the University of Münster (Germany).

The study results confirm IL-31 signaling as an important therapeutic target in prurigo nodularis and herald the arrival of nemolizumab as a promising potential therapy for severely affected patients, she added.

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic, highly pruritic disease that is difficult to treat and carries a high disease burden. While the disease’s pathogenesis is not completely understood, IL-31 is up-regulated in affected patients. And IL-31, a proinflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokine, is known to have a broad range of actions, including serving as a link between the immune and neural systems, as well as induction of itch and skin lesions.

Dr. Stander presented the results of a 20-center, double-blind, phase 2b clinical trial in which 70 patients with prurigo nodularis were randomized to subcutaneous nemolizumab at 0.5 mg/kg or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 8, then followed off therapy out to week 18. These were severely affected patients: their mean weekly peak pruritus score on a 0-10 numeric rating scale was 8.4, with 7 being the accepted threshold for severe itch. The group had a mean Dermatologic Life Quality Index score of 16.4; 40% of patients had more than 100 nodules on their body, and the rest had 20-100.

The primary endpoint was the percentage decrease in the peak pruritus score from baseline to week 4, at which point they had only received one dose. The nemolizumab group averaged a 53.4% reduction, compared with 15.3% in placebo-treated controls. At week 12, a full month after the final injection, the split was 63.2% versus 20.2%. And at week 18, the nemolizumab group maintained a mean 58.2% reduction from baseline versus 20.9% in controls.

“The effect starts at week 1, with a 26% reduction in itch intensity in the nemolizumab group, compared to 6.7% with placebo,” the dermatologist observed.

The absolute decrease in weekly peak pruritus score at week 12 was 5.2 points with nemolizumab and 1.7 points with placebo.

Among the secondary endpoints was achievement of an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0-1, meaning clear or almost clear of skin lesions. The rate in the nemolizumab group climbed steadily from week 4 on, reaching 38.2% and still rising without a plateau at week 18, versus 5.6% in controls.

Another secondary endpoint was 75% or greater healing on the 7-item Prurigo Activity Scale. By week 4 there was already a statistically significant between-group difference: 23.5% versus 11.2%. Once again, in the nemolizumab group, this rate climbed without a plateau through the study’s end at week 18, by which point it was 44.1%, compared with 8.4% among those on placebo.

Scores on the Dermatologic Life Quality Index improved by an average of 10.2 points at week 4 in patients on nemolizumab, compared with 6 points among controls.

Self-reported sleep disturbance scores improved by 56% at week 4 in the nemolizumab group and 22.9% with placebo.

The safety profile of nemolizumab was similar to that of placebo, with roughly 5.7% of patients in each study arm withdrawing because of treatment-emergent adverse events. Unlike in the positive studies of the IL-31 inhibitor in patients with atopic dermatitis – another potential indication under active investigation – there was no signal of an increased risk of staphylococcal skin infections, conjunctivitis, or head and neck dermatitis in patients on nemolizumab for prurigo nodularis. Patients with comorbid atopic dermatitis were excluded from the prurigo nodularis trial in order to get a clearer picture of the biologic’s efficacy and safety specifically for that condition.

Dr. Stander reported serving as a consultant to Galderma, the study sponsor, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis had a lower risk of serious infection with interleukin-12/23 (IL-12/23) inhibitors than they did with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, but this difference disappeared in patients with previous exposure to biologics, according to data from a retrospective study of nearly 10,000 adults.

Biologics, though effective, can increase the risk for serious infection in psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis patients, and comparison data on the safety of various biologics are limited, wrote Xintong Li of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers identified 11,560 treatment episodes for 9,305 adults during January 1, 2015, through May 1, 2018, which included 6,043 episodes of psoriasis only, 1,869 episodes of psoriatic arthritis only, and 3,648 episodes of both conditions. The average age of the patients was 46 years, and 53% were men. The investigators studied the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara), the IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz), and TNF inhibitors adalimumab (Humira), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), etanercept (Enbrel), golimumab (Simponi), and infliximab (Remicade). They did not study the interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor brodalumab (Siliq) or IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab (Tremfya), risankizumab (Skyrizi), or tildrakizumab (Ilumya) since they were FDA approved after or toward the end of the study period.

The primary outcome of serious infection, defined as hospitalization with infection as part of the diagnostic codes, occurred in 190 cases (2% of all treatment episodes); the most common serious infections were sepsis and pneumonia.

Overall, new biologics users had similar infection risks with IL-17 and TNF inhibitors, with incidence rates per 100 person-years of 3.4 and 2.2, respectively. By contrast, the incidence rate per 100 person-years was 0.9 with IL-12/23 inhibitors. Incidence rates were similar across all three biologic types for experienced biologics users.

The researchers also grouped patients by condition, including both treatment-naive and -experienced patients. Of the 156 serious infections in psoriasis patients, 26 occurred with IL-17 inhibitors, 29 with IL-12/23 inhibitors, and 101 with TNF inhibitors. Of 105 serious infections in the psoriatic arthritis group, 14 occurred with IL-17, 13 with IL-12/23, and 78 with TNF.

After adjusting for propensity scores, researchers found no evidence of increased serious infection risk for treatment with IL-17 inhibitors, compared with IL-12/23 (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.03) or TNF inhibitors (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.48-1.66).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of ICD diagnostic codes that were not fully validated in the patient population, a short follow-up period, and inclusion of only insured patients in the United States, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that serious infection risk may vary between patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and between biologic-naive and -experienced patients, and that, despite the relatively small difference in absolute effect, “this potentially clinically relevant signal for reduced infections among the IL-12/23 inhibitors warrants further investigation and surveillance efforts,” they concluded. In addition, they said, the findings might guide clinicians and patients in choosing appropriate biologics for a particular condition.

The study was supported by the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Li conducted the research while she was at Johns Hopkins, but is now with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
 

SOURCE: Li X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 31. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216102.

Biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis had a lower risk of serious infection with interleukin-12/23 (IL-12/23) inhibitors than they did with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, but this difference disappeared in patients with previous exposure to biologics, according to data from a retrospective study of nearly 10,000 adults.

Biologics, though effective, can increase the risk for serious infection in psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis patients, and comparison data on the safety of various biologics are limited, wrote Xintong Li of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers identified 11,560 treatment episodes for 9,305 adults during January 1, 2015, through May 1, 2018, which included 6,043 episodes of psoriasis only, 1,869 episodes of psoriatic arthritis only, and 3,648 episodes of both conditions. The average age of the patients was 46 years, and 53% were men. The investigators studied the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara), the IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz), and TNF inhibitors adalimumab (Humira), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), etanercept (Enbrel), golimumab (Simponi), and infliximab (Remicade). They did not study the interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor brodalumab (Siliq) or IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab (Tremfya), risankizumab (Skyrizi), or tildrakizumab (Ilumya) since they were FDA approved after or toward the end of the study period.

The primary outcome of serious infection, defined as hospitalization with infection as part of the diagnostic codes, occurred in 190 cases (2% of all treatment episodes); the most common serious infections were sepsis and pneumonia.

Overall, new biologics users had similar infection risks with IL-17 and TNF inhibitors, with incidence rates per 100 person-years of 3.4 and 2.2, respectively. By contrast, the incidence rate per 100 person-years was 0.9 with IL-12/23 inhibitors. Incidence rates were similar across all three biologic types for experienced biologics users.

The researchers also grouped patients by condition, including both treatment-naive and -experienced patients. Of the 156 serious infections in psoriasis patients, 26 occurred with IL-17 inhibitors, 29 with IL-12/23 inhibitors, and 101 with TNF inhibitors. Of 105 serious infections in the psoriatic arthritis group, 14 occurred with IL-17, 13 with IL-12/23, and 78 with TNF.

After adjusting for propensity scores, researchers found no evidence of increased serious infection risk for treatment with IL-17 inhibitors, compared with IL-12/23 (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.03) or TNF inhibitors (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.48-1.66).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of ICD diagnostic codes that were not fully validated in the patient population, a short follow-up period, and inclusion of only insured patients in the United States, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that serious infection risk may vary between patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and between biologic-naive and -experienced patients, and that, despite the relatively small difference in absolute effect, “this potentially clinically relevant signal for reduced infections among the IL-12/23 inhibitors warrants further investigation and surveillance efforts,” they concluded. In addition, they said, the findings might guide clinicians and patients in choosing appropriate biologics for a particular condition.

The study was supported by the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Li conducted the research while she was at Johns Hopkins, but is now with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
 

SOURCE: Li X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 31. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216102.

Biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis had a lower risk of serious infection with interleukin-12/23 (IL-12/23) inhibitors than they did with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, but this difference disappeared in patients with previous exposure to biologics, according to data from a retrospective study of nearly 10,000 adults.

Biologics, though effective, can increase the risk for serious infection in psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis patients, and comparison data on the safety of various biologics are limited, wrote Xintong Li of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers identified 11,560 treatment episodes for 9,305 adults during January 1, 2015, through May 1, 2018, which included 6,043 episodes of psoriasis only, 1,869 episodes of psoriatic arthritis only, and 3,648 episodes of both conditions. The average age of the patients was 46 years, and 53% were men. The investigators studied the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara), the IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab (Cosentyx) and ixekizumab (Taltz), and TNF inhibitors adalimumab (Humira), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), etanercept (Enbrel), golimumab (Simponi), and infliximab (Remicade). They did not study the interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor brodalumab (Siliq) or IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab (Tremfya), risankizumab (Skyrizi), or tildrakizumab (Ilumya) since they were FDA approved after or toward the end of the study period.

The primary outcome of serious infection, defined as hospitalization with infection as part of the diagnostic codes, occurred in 190 cases (2% of all treatment episodes); the most common serious infections were sepsis and pneumonia.

Overall, new biologics users had similar infection risks with IL-17 and TNF inhibitors, with incidence rates per 100 person-years of 3.4 and 2.2, respectively. By contrast, the incidence rate per 100 person-years was 0.9 with IL-12/23 inhibitors. Incidence rates were similar across all three biologic types for experienced biologics users.

The researchers also grouped patients by condition, including both treatment-naive and -experienced patients. Of the 156 serious infections in psoriasis patients, 26 occurred with IL-17 inhibitors, 29 with IL-12/23 inhibitors, and 101 with TNF inhibitors. Of 105 serious infections in the psoriatic arthritis group, 14 occurred with IL-17, 13 with IL-12/23, and 78 with TNF.

After adjusting for propensity scores, researchers found no evidence of increased serious infection risk for treatment with IL-17 inhibitors, compared with IL-12/23 (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.03) or TNF inhibitors (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.48-1.66).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of ICD diagnostic codes that were not fully validated in the patient population, a short follow-up period, and inclusion of only insured patients in the United States, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that serious infection risk may vary between patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and between biologic-naive and -experienced patients, and that, despite the relatively small difference in absolute effect, “this potentially clinically relevant signal for reduced infections among the IL-12/23 inhibitors warrants further investigation and surveillance efforts,” they concluded. In addition, they said, the findings might guide clinicians and patients in choosing appropriate biologics for a particular condition.

The study was supported by the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Ms. Li conducted the research while she was at Johns Hopkins, but is now with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
 

SOURCE: Li X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 31. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216102.

Reducing childhood exposure to adverse events such as violence, abuse, and parental jail time could reap immense improvements in long-term health and societal outcomes, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

zdravinjo/Thinkstock

“Our analysis suggests that preventing or reducing these adverse childhood experiences [ACEs] could potentially reduce the annual number of coronary heart disease cases by up to 13%,” said Ann Schuchat, MD, the CDC’s principal deputy director. “If we apply this analysis to other national disease estimates, preventing ACEs could prevent 1.9 million cases of heart disease, 2.5 million cases of overweight or obesity, 21 million cases of depression, and 1.5 million high-school incompletions.”

The analysis, conducted by Melissa T. Merrick, PhD, and colleagues at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta, is based on data acquired from more than 144,000 adults in 27 states.

It’s the first time the CDC has waded into this territory, Dr. Schuchat said during a press briefing. But a hard look into the data is long overdue. ACEs have been linked to at least 5 of the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States: heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, diabetes, and suicide.

“It’s been proven that exposure to abuse, violence, and familial substance abuse and mental health problems can lead to health and social problems during the entire lifespan. Multiple exposures can produce toxic stress and chronic activation of the stress response system,” Dr. Schuchat continued. “Our report found that more than half of adults have experienced at least one type of ACE, and one in six adults has been exposed to four or more. The effects add up – the more types of ACE encountered, the higher the risk for negative outcomes that limit their entire lives.”

Dr. Merrick, a behavioral scientist with the CDC, and her team reviewed data collected from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults administered every year within each state. During the 2015-2017 data collection years, 27 states included questions about ACEs. The experiences included childhood exposure to three types of abuse (physical, emotional, and sexual) and five types of household challenges (household member substance misuse, incarceration, mental illness, parental divorce, or witnessing intimate partner violence) before age 18 years.

In all, 61% of respondents reported experiencing at least one of the events; 16% reported experiencing four or more. Women, Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and blacks were more likely to have these experiences than were men and whites.

A multivariate regression analysis found that adults with the highest level of ACE exposure had significantly elevated risks of several chronic health issues and social challenges, compared with nonexposed subjects. These included increased risk of overweight or obesity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 2.8), depression (aOR 5.3), smoking (aOR 3.1), heavy drinking (aOR 1.8), and underemployment (aOR 1.7), compared with adults reporting no ACEs.

Reducing ACE exposures could in turn reduce many of these challenges, especially among people with the highest number of exposures. Among this group, preventing all ACE exposure could cut overweight and obesity by up to 1.7%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by up to 27%, depression by up to 44%, smoking by up to 33%, and heavy drinking by 24%. Preventing ACE exposure also could reduce lack of health insurance by 4% and unemployment by 15%, the researchers said.

The good news, Dr. Merrick and associates said, is that ACE exposure can be at least partially offset by positive interactions with adults and in social and community settings.

“Prevention of adverse childhood experiences is possible with state and community efforts to build resilient families and communities, provide parental support to develop positive parenting and coping skills, and increase access to, and use of, comprehensive health services,” they said.

The CDC recommends a comprehensive approach to preventing ACEs and mitigating their impact. The data-driven suggestions include:

• Promoting family economic health, including tax credits and family-focused work policy.
• Endorsing programs to mitigate violence and adversity, including public education programs that support parents.
• Promoting early childhood development with high-quality child care and preschool programs.
• Recommending stress reduction skills for parents and young people, and programs that teach safe dating and healthy relationship skills.
• Supporting youth development by connecting youth to adult mentors and after-school programs.
• Encouraging clinicians to identify and address ACE exposure with screening, referral, and support.

“This is important for reducing the consequences of adverse childhood experiences and for helping to protect the next generation of children from exposure to violence and other adverse experiences, such as witnessing substance misuse in their household,” Dr. Merrick and associates said.

The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Merrick M et al. MMWR. 2019 Nov 5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6844e1.

Reducing childhood exposure to adverse events such as violence, abuse, and parental jail time could reap immense improvements in long-term health and societal outcomes, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

zdravinjo/Thinkstock

“Our analysis suggests that preventing or reducing these adverse childhood experiences [ACEs] could potentially reduce the annual number of coronary heart disease cases by up to 13%,” said Ann Schuchat, MD, the CDC’s principal deputy director. “If we apply this analysis to other national disease estimates, preventing ACEs could prevent 1.9 million cases of heart disease, 2.5 million cases of overweight or obesity, 21 million cases of depression, and 1.5 million high-school incompletions.”

The analysis, conducted by Melissa T. Merrick, PhD, and colleagues at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta, is based on data acquired from more than 144,000 adults in 27 states.

It’s the first time the CDC has waded into this territory, Dr. Schuchat said during a press briefing. But a hard look into the data is long overdue. ACEs have been linked to at least 5 of the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States: heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, diabetes, and suicide.

“It’s been proven that exposure to abuse, violence, and familial substance abuse and mental health problems can lead to health and social problems during the entire lifespan. Multiple exposures can produce toxic stress and chronic activation of the stress response system,” Dr. Schuchat continued. “Our report found that more than half of adults have experienced at least one type of ACE, and one in six adults has been exposed to four or more. The effects add up – the more types of ACE encountered, the higher the risk for negative outcomes that limit their entire lives.”

Dr. Merrick, a behavioral scientist with the CDC, and her team reviewed data collected from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults administered every year within each state. During the 2015-2017 data collection years, 27 states included questions about ACEs. The experiences included childhood exposure to three types of abuse (physical, emotional, and sexual) and five types of household challenges (household member substance misuse, incarceration, mental illness, parental divorce, or witnessing intimate partner violence) before age 18 years.

In all, 61% of respondents reported experiencing at least one of the events; 16% reported experiencing four or more. Women, Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and blacks were more likely to have these experiences than were men and whites.

A multivariate regression analysis found that adults with the highest level of ACE exposure had significantly elevated risks of several chronic health issues and social challenges, compared with nonexposed subjects. These included increased risk of overweight or obesity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 2.8), depression (aOR 5.3), smoking (aOR 3.1), heavy drinking (aOR 1.8), and underemployment (aOR 1.7), compared with adults reporting no ACEs.

Reducing ACE exposures could in turn reduce many of these challenges, especially among people with the highest number of exposures. Among this group, preventing all ACE exposure could cut overweight and obesity by up to 1.7%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by up to 27%, depression by up to 44%, smoking by up to 33%, and heavy drinking by 24%. Preventing ACE exposure also could reduce lack of health insurance by 4% and unemployment by 15%, the researchers said.

The good news, Dr. Merrick and associates said, is that ACE exposure can be at least partially offset by positive interactions with adults and in social and community settings.

“Prevention of adverse childhood experiences is possible with state and community efforts to build resilient families and communities, provide parental support to develop positive parenting and coping skills, and increase access to, and use of, comprehensive health services,” they said.

The CDC recommends a comprehensive approach to preventing ACEs and mitigating their impact. The data-driven suggestions include:

• Promoting family economic health, including tax credits and family-focused work policy.
• Endorsing programs to mitigate violence and adversity, including public education programs that support parents.
• Promoting early childhood development with high-quality child care and preschool programs.
• Recommending stress reduction skills for parents and young people, and programs that teach safe dating and healthy relationship skills.
• Supporting youth development by connecting youth to adult mentors and after-school programs.
• Encouraging clinicians to identify and address ACE exposure with screening, referral, and support.

“This is important for reducing the consequences of adverse childhood experiences and for helping to protect the next generation of children from exposure to violence and other adverse experiences, such as witnessing substance misuse in their household,” Dr. Merrick and associates said.

The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Merrick M et al. MMWR. 2019 Nov 5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6844e1.

Reducing childhood exposure to adverse events such as violence, abuse, and parental jail time could reap immense improvements in long-term health and societal outcomes, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

zdravinjo/Thinkstock

“Our analysis suggests that preventing or reducing these adverse childhood experiences [ACEs] could potentially reduce the annual number of coronary heart disease cases by up to 13%,” said Ann Schuchat, MD, the CDC’s principal deputy director. “If we apply this analysis to other national disease estimates, preventing ACEs could prevent 1.9 million cases of heart disease, 2.5 million cases of overweight or obesity, 21 million cases of depression, and 1.5 million high-school incompletions.”

The analysis, conducted by Melissa T. Merrick, PhD, and colleagues at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, Atlanta, is based on data acquired from more than 144,000 adults in 27 states.

It’s the first time the CDC has waded into this territory, Dr. Schuchat said during a press briefing. But a hard look into the data is long overdue. ACEs have been linked to at least 5 of the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States: heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, diabetes, and suicide.

“It’s been proven that exposure to abuse, violence, and familial substance abuse and mental health problems can lead to health and social problems during the entire lifespan. Multiple exposures can produce toxic stress and chronic activation of the stress response system,” Dr. Schuchat continued. “Our report found that more than half of adults have experienced at least one type of ACE, and one in six adults has been exposed to four or more. The effects add up – the more types of ACE encountered, the higher the risk for negative outcomes that limit their entire lives.”

Dr. Merrick, a behavioral scientist with the CDC, and her team reviewed data collected from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults administered every year within each state. During the 2015-2017 data collection years, 27 states included questions about ACEs. The experiences included childhood exposure to three types of abuse (physical, emotional, and sexual) and five types of household challenges (household member substance misuse, incarceration, mental illness, parental divorce, or witnessing intimate partner violence) before age 18 years.

In all, 61% of respondents reported experiencing at least one of the events; 16% reported experiencing four or more. Women, Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and blacks were more likely to have these experiences than were men and whites.

A multivariate regression analysis found that adults with the highest level of ACE exposure had significantly elevated risks of several chronic health issues and social challenges, compared with nonexposed subjects. These included increased risk of overweight or obesity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.2), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR, 2.8), depression (aOR 5.3), smoking (aOR 3.1), heavy drinking (aOR 1.8), and underemployment (aOR 1.7), compared with adults reporting no ACEs.

Reducing ACE exposures could in turn reduce many of these challenges, especially among people with the highest number of exposures. Among this group, preventing all ACE exposure could cut overweight and obesity by up to 1.7%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by up to 27%, depression by up to 44%, smoking by up to 33%, and heavy drinking by 24%. Preventing ACE exposure also could reduce lack of health insurance by 4% and unemployment by 15%, the researchers said.

The good news, Dr. Merrick and associates said, is that ACE exposure can be at least partially offset by positive interactions with adults and in social and community settings.

“Prevention of adverse childhood experiences is possible with state and community efforts to build resilient families and communities, provide parental support to develop positive parenting and coping skills, and increase access to, and use of, comprehensive health services,” they said.

The CDC recommends a comprehensive approach to preventing ACEs and mitigating their impact. The data-driven suggestions include:

• Promoting family economic health, including tax credits and family-focused work policy.
• Endorsing programs to mitigate violence and adversity, including public education programs that support parents.
• Promoting early childhood development with high-quality child care and preschool programs.
• Recommending stress reduction skills for parents and young people, and programs that teach safe dating and healthy relationship skills.
• Supporting youth development by connecting youth to adult mentors and after-school programs.
• Encouraging clinicians to identify and address ACE exposure with screening, referral, and support.

“This is important for reducing the consequences of adverse childhood experiences and for helping to protect the next generation of children from exposure to violence and other adverse experiences, such as witnessing substance misuse in their household,” Dr. Merrick and associates said.

The researchers had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Merrick M et al. MMWR. 2019 Nov 5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6844e1.

Regular colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings are indicated for asymptomatic patients aged 50-75 years, according to a new evidence-based guidance statement issued by the American College of Physicians.

Regular screening can be discontinued after age 75 years, Amir Qaseem, MD, president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the American College of Physicians, and colleagues wrote in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

No one test is preferred over another, according to the guidance statement. Patients and physicians can select the test type together, based on individual needs and preferences, and each test carries its own screening interval. But regular testing has been proven time and again to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer mortality, and more people should have it, according to the guidance.

“Not enough people in the United States get screened for colorectal cancer,” ACP President Robert M. McLean, MD, said in a press statement. “Physicians should perform an individualized risk assessment for colorectal cancer in all adults. Doctors and patients should select the screening test based on a discussion of the benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient preferences.”

The guidance is an attempt to balance existing guidelines authored by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), but it also was developed following critical review of those from the American Cancer Society and other organizations.

The ACP guidance is for adults at average risk for colorectal cancer who do not have symptoms; it does not apply to adults with a family history of colorectal cancer, a long-standing history of inflammatory bowel disease, genetic syndromes such as familial cancerous polyps, a personal history of previous colorectal cancer or benign polyps, or other risk factors.

The guidance was based on evaluations of stool-based tests, including the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), also called the immunochemical-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and direct visualization with endoscopic and radiologic tests, including flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and CT colonography. The guidance includes the following recommendations:
 

Clinicians should regularly screen for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults between the ages of 50 and 75 years.

This recommendation is in line with those made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the CTFPHC. Data suggest that regular screening reduces colorectal cancer–specific mortality in this age group, with those aged 65-75 years likely to garner the most benefit.

The absolute risk reduction increases with age and varies with test type. For every-other-year FOBT, it rises from 0.037% in those younger than 60 years to 0.20% in those aged 60 years or older. For flexible sigmoidoscopy, the risk reduction rises from 0.05% in the younger group to 0.29% in the older group.

Data from the CTFPHC show that the net benefit in those aged 50-59 years is small, however. This may influence the decision about when to start screening.


 

Clinicians should select the colorectal cancer screening test with the patient based on a discussion of benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient preferences.

The FIT or FOBT should be performed every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years, plus FIT every 2 years.

No data suggest a benefit of one test over another; however, “all screening tests are associated with potential benefits as well as harms,” the document states. “Clinical decisions need to be individualized using patient clinical characteristics, patient preferences, and screening test frequency and availability. Because many eligible patients have never been screened and some may not adhere to recommendations about subsequent screening or follow-up of positive findings on screening tests (such as colonoscopy after a positive result on a stool-based screening test), patient informed decision making and adherence are important factors in selection of a [colorectal cancer] screening test.”

Discussions with patients should include topics like the recommended frequency of each test, bowel preparation, anesthesia, transportation to and from testing site, time commitments, and the necessary steps if a test result is positive.
 

Clinicians should discontinue screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults older than 75 years or in adults with a life expectancy of 10 years or less.

While the benefit from screening increases with age, so do the risks for harm, especially serious harm. Data show the balance of harms and benefits reaching a tipping point at around 75 years of age. But again, this isn’t a universal recommendation, the statement says.

“Persons with no history of [colorectal cancer] screening may benefit from screening after age 75 years, whereas those who have received regular screening with negative results may not.”

Cessation of testing considers life expectancy after age 75 years. The average life expectancy for healthy 75-year-old men and women in the United States is 9.9 and 12 years, respectively. But among men and women with serious medical comorbidities, average life expectancy after age 70 years drops to 8.9 and 10.8 years, respectively.

“Therefore, most persons aged 75 years or older, as well as most adults who are younger than 75 years but have serious comorbid conditions [such as chronic renal failure], are unlikely to benefit from screening but would undergo unnecessary, burdensome, potentially harmful, and costly screening tests.”

As in any testing discussion, personal preferences are important, but not just to make patients feel comfortable about their choice. Mindset about colorectal cancer testing has a very big effect on compliance, the statement noted.

“For example, a biennial stool test is not a good screening strategy for patients who may be unwilling or unlikely to follow up every other year. In addition, given the tradeoffs between benefits and harms, some patients may want less intensive screening, such as screening that begins at a later age, stops at an earlier age, or recurs less frequently regardless of modality selected.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Qassam A et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:643-54.

Regular colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings are indicated for asymptomatic patients aged 50-75 years, according to a new evidence-based guidance statement issued by the American College of Physicians.

Regular screening can be discontinued after age 75 years, Amir Qaseem, MD, president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the American College of Physicians, and colleagues wrote in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

No one test is preferred over another, according to the guidance statement. Patients and physicians can select the test type together, based on individual needs and preferences, and each test carries its own screening interval. But regular testing has been proven time and again to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer mortality, and more people should have it, according to the guidance.

“Not enough people in the United States get screened for colorectal cancer,” ACP President Robert M. McLean, MD, said in a press statement. “Physicians should perform an individualized risk assessment for colorectal cancer in all adults. Doctors and patients should select the screening test based on a discussion of the benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient preferences.”

The guidance is an attempt to balance existing guidelines authored by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), but it also was developed following critical review of those from the American Cancer Society and other organizations.

The ACP guidance is for adults at average risk for colorectal cancer who do not have symptoms; it does not apply to adults with a family history of colorectal cancer, a long-standing history of inflammatory bowel disease, genetic syndromes such as familial cancerous polyps, a personal history of previous colorectal cancer or benign polyps, or other risk factors.

The guidance was based on evaluations of stool-based tests, including the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), also called the immunochemical-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and direct visualization with endoscopic and radiologic tests, including flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and CT colonography. The guidance includes the following recommendations:
 

Clinicians should regularly screen for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults between the ages of 50 and 75 years.

This recommendation is in line with those made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the CTFPHC. Data suggest that regular screening reduces colorectal cancer–specific mortality in this age group, with those aged 65-75 years likely to garner the most benefit.

The absolute risk reduction increases with age and varies with test type. For every-other-year FOBT, it rises from 0.037% in those younger than 60 years to 0.20% in those aged 60 years or older. For flexible sigmoidoscopy, the risk reduction rises from 0.05% in the younger group to 0.29% in the older group.

Data from the CTFPHC show that the net benefit in those aged 50-59 years is small, however. This may influence the decision about when to start screening.


 

Clinicians should select the colorectal cancer screening test with the patient based on a discussion of benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient preferences.

The FIT or FOBT should be performed every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years, plus FIT every 2 years.

No data suggest a benefit of one test over another; however, “all screening tests are associated with potential benefits as well as harms,” the document states. “Clinical decisions need to be individualized using patient clinical characteristics, patient preferences, and screening test frequency and availability. Because many eligible patients have never been screened and some may not adhere to recommendations about subsequent screening or follow-up of positive findings on screening tests (such as colonoscopy after a positive result on a stool-based screening test), patient informed decision making and adherence are important factors in selection of a [colorectal cancer] screening test.”

Discussions with patients should include topics like the recommended frequency of each test, bowel preparation, anesthesia, transportation to and from testing site, time commitments, and the necessary steps if a test result is positive.
 

Clinicians should discontinue screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults older than 75 years or in adults with a life expectancy of 10 years or less.

While the benefit from screening increases with age, so do the risks for harm, especially serious harm. Data show the balance of harms and benefits reaching a tipping point at around 75 years of age. But again, this isn’t a universal recommendation, the statement says.

“Persons with no history of [colorectal cancer] screening may benefit from screening after age 75 years, whereas those who have received regular screening with negative results may not.”

Cessation of testing considers life expectancy after age 75 years. The average life expectancy for healthy 75-year-old men and women in the United States is 9.9 and 12 years, respectively. But among men and women with serious medical comorbidities, average life expectancy after age 70 years drops to 8.9 and 10.8 years, respectively.

“Therefore, most persons aged 75 years or older, as well as most adults who are younger than 75 years but have serious comorbid conditions [such as chronic renal failure], are unlikely to benefit from screening but would undergo unnecessary, burdensome, potentially harmful, and costly screening tests.”

As in any testing discussion, personal preferences are important, but not just to make patients feel comfortable about their choice. Mindset about colorectal cancer testing has a very big effect on compliance, the statement noted.

“For example, a biennial stool test is not a good screening strategy for patients who may be unwilling or unlikely to follow up every other year. In addition, given the tradeoffs between benefits and harms, some patients may want less intensive screening, such as screening that begins at a later age, stops at an earlier age, or recurs less frequently regardless of modality selected.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Qassam A et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:643-54.

Regular colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings are indicated for asymptomatic patients aged 50-75 years, according to a new evidence-based guidance statement issued by the American College of Physicians.

Regular screening can be discontinued after age 75 years, Amir Qaseem, MD, president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the American College of Physicians, and colleagues wrote in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

No one test is preferred over another, according to the guidance statement. Patients and physicians can select the test type together, based on individual needs and preferences, and each test carries its own screening interval. But regular testing has been proven time and again to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer mortality, and more people should have it, according to the guidance.

“Not enough people in the United States get screened for colorectal cancer,” ACP President Robert M. McLean, MD, said in a press statement. “Physicians should perform an individualized risk assessment for colorectal cancer in all adults. Doctors and patients should select the screening test based on a discussion of the benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient preferences.”

The guidance is an attempt to balance existing guidelines authored by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), but it also was developed following critical review of those from the American Cancer Society and other organizations.

The ACP guidance is for adults at average risk for colorectal cancer who do not have symptoms; it does not apply to adults with a family history of colorectal cancer, a long-standing history of inflammatory bowel disease, genetic syndromes such as familial cancerous polyps, a personal history of previous colorectal cancer or benign polyps, or other risk factors.

The guidance was based on evaluations of stool-based tests, including the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), also called the immunochemical-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and direct visualization with endoscopic and radiologic tests, including flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and CT colonography. The guidance includes the following recommendations:
 

Clinicians should regularly screen for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults between the ages of 50 and 75 years.

This recommendation is in line with those made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the CTFPHC. Data suggest that regular screening reduces colorectal cancer–specific mortality in this age group, with those aged 65-75 years likely to garner the most benefit.

The absolute risk reduction increases with age and varies with test type. For every-other-year FOBT, it rises from 0.037% in those younger than 60 years to 0.20% in those aged 60 years or older. For flexible sigmoidoscopy, the risk reduction rises from 0.05% in the younger group to 0.29% in the older group.

Data from the CTFPHC show that the net benefit in those aged 50-59 years is small, however. This may influence the decision about when to start screening.


 

Clinicians should select the colorectal cancer screening test with the patient based on a discussion of benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient preferences.

The FIT or FOBT should be performed every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years, plus FIT every 2 years.

No data suggest a benefit of one test over another; however, “all screening tests are associated with potential benefits as well as harms,” the document states. “Clinical decisions need to be individualized using patient clinical characteristics, patient preferences, and screening test frequency and availability. Because many eligible patients have never been screened and some may not adhere to recommendations about subsequent screening or follow-up of positive findings on screening tests (such as colonoscopy after a positive result on a stool-based screening test), patient informed decision making and adherence are important factors in selection of a [colorectal cancer] screening test.”

Discussions with patients should include topics like the recommended frequency of each test, bowel preparation, anesthesia, transportation to and from testing site, time commitments, and the necessary steps if a test result is positive.
 

Clinicians should discontinue screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults older than 75 years or in adults with a life expectancy of 10 years or less.

While the benefit from screening increases with age, so do the risks for harm, especially serious harm. Data show the balance of harms and benefits reaching a tipping point at around 75 years of age. But again, this isn’t a universal recommendation, the statement says.

“Persons with no history of [colorectal cancer] screening may benefit from screening after age 75 years, whereas those who have received regular screening with negative results may not.”

Cessation of testing considers life expectancy after age 75 years. The average life expectancy for healthy 75-year-old men and women in the United States is 9.9 and 12 years, respectively. But among men and women with serious medical comorbidities, average life expectancy after age 70 years drops to 8.9 and 10.8 years, respectively.

“Therefore, most persons aged 75 years or older, as well as most adults who are younger than 75 years but have serious comorbid conditions [such as chronic renal failure], are unlikely to benefit from screening but would undergo unnecessary, burdensome, potentially harmful, and costly screening tests.”

As in any testing discussion, personal preferences are important, but not just to make patients feel comfortable about their choice. Mindset about colorectal cancer testing has a very big effect on compliance, the statement noted.

“For example, a biennial stool test is not a good screening strategy for patients who may be unwilling or unlikely to follow up every other year. In addition, given the tradeoffs between benefits and harms, some patients may want less intensive screening, such as screening that begins at a later age, stops at an earlier age, or recurs less frequently regardless of modality selected.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Qassam A et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:643-54.

SAN ANTONIO – The evidence that statin therapy reduces the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma, while not rising to the highest-level 1A strata, is nonetheless sufficiently persuasive at this point that consideration should be given to prescribing a statin in all patients with risk factors for the malignancy, regardless of their cardiovascular risk profile, Muhammad Talal Sarmini, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This includes individuals with hepatitis B or C virus infection as well as those with cirrhosis. The jury is still out as to whether nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), observed Dr. Sarmini of the Cleveland Clinic.

He presented a new meta-analysis, which concluded that patients on statin therapy had a 43% lower risk of new-onset HCC than persons not taking a statin. This meta-analysis – the largest ever addressing the issue – included 20 studies totaling more than 2.6 million patients and 24,341 cases of new-onset HCC. There were 11 retrospective case-control studies, 6 cohort studies, and 3 randomized trials. Five studies were from the United States, nine from Asia, and six were European.

In subgroup analyses aimed at assessing the consistency of the study results across various domains, there was a 45% reduction in the risk of HCC in association with statin therapy in the three studies of patients with hepatitis B virus, and significant reductions as well in Asia, Europe, and the United States when those participants were evaluated separately. The reduction was significant in both the case-control and cohort studies, but not when the three randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed collectively. However, Dr. Sarmini shrugged off the neutral RCT results.

“It’s worth noting that the RCTs reported data from patients who were on statins with 4-5 years of follow-up. They were not at high risk for HCC. Given the nature of the disease and the relatively short period of follow-up, these studies only reported 81 cases of HCC. So they were very limited,” he said.

Audience members were eager to learn if Dr. Sarmini had found a differential preventive effect for lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin, versus hydrophilic statins. He replied that, unfortunately, the published study results don’t allow for such an analysis. However, a large, propensity-matched cohort study published too recently for inclusion in his meta-analysis shed light on this matter. This Swedish national registry study included 16,668 propensity score–matched adults with chronic hepatitis B or C infection, of whom 6,554 initiated lipophilic statin therapy, 1,780 began treatment with a hydrophilic statin, and the rest were statin nonusers. The lipophilic statin users had an adjusted 44% reduction in 10-year HCC risk, compared with nonusers, while hydrophilic statins weren’t associated with a significant preventive effect (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Sep 3;171[5]:318-27).

Dr. Sarmini said that the meta-analysis results, together with the Swedish registry findings, highlight the need for additional well-designed cohort studies and RCTs of statins in populations at high risk for HCC in order to verify the existence of an HCC preventive effect and pinpoint which statins are effective at what dosages.

HCC is the fourth-leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally, accounting for 800,000 deaths annually. And the incidence is rising on a year-by-year basis.

Dr. Sarmini reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, which was conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – The evidence that statin therapy reduces the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma, while not rising to the highest-level 1A strata, is nonetheless sufficiently persuasive at this point that consideration should be given to prescribing a statin in all patients with risk factors for the malignancy, regardless of their cardiovascular risk profile, Muhammad Talal Sarmini, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This includes individuals with hepatitis B or C virus infection as well as those with cirrhosis. The jury is still out as to whether nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), observed Dr. Sarmini of the Cleveland Clinic.

He presented a new meta-analysis, which concluded that patients on statin therapy had a 43% lower risk of new-onset HCC than persons not taking a statin. This meta-analysis – the largest ever addressing the issue – included 20 studies totaling more than 2.6 million patients and 24,341 cases of new-onset HCC. There were 11 retrospective case-control studies, 6 cohort studies, and 3 randomized trials. Five studies were from the United States, nine from Asia, and six were European.

In subgroup analyses aimed at assessing the consistency of the study results across various domains, there was a 45% reduction in the risk of HCC in association with statin therapy in the three studies of patients with hepatitis B virus, and significant reductions as well in Asia, Europe, and the United States when those participants were evaluated separately. The reduction was significant in both the case-control and cohort studies, but not when the three randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed collectively. However, Dr. Sarmini shrugged off the neutral RCT results.

“It’s worth noting that the RCTs reported data from patients who were on statins with 4-5 years of follow-up. They were not at high risk for HCC. Given the nature of the disease and the relatively short period of follow-up, these studies only reported 81 cases of HCC. So they were very limited,” he said.

Audience members were eager to learn if Dr. Sarmini had found a differential preventive effect for lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin, versus hydrophilic statins. He replied that, unfortunately, the published study results don’t allow for such an analysis. However, a large, propensity-matched cohort study published too recently for inclusion in his meta-analysis shed light on this matter. This Swedish national registry study included 16,668 propensity score–matched adults with chronic hepatitis B or C infection, of whom 6,554 initiated lipophilic statin therapy, 1,780 began treatment with a hydrophilic statin, and the rest were statin nonusers. The lipophilic statin users had an adjusted 44% reduction in 10-year HCC risk, compared with nonusers, while hydrophilic statins weren’t associated with a significant preventive effect (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Sep 3;171[5]:318-27).

Dr. Sarmini said that the meta-analysis results, together with the Swedish registry findings, highlight the need for additional well-designed cohort studies and RCTs of statins in populations at high risk for HCC in order to verify the existence of an HCC preventive effect and pinpoint which statins are effective at what dosages.

HCC is the fourth-leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally, accounting for 800,000 deaths annually. And the incidence is rising on a year-by-year basis.

Dr. Sarmini reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, which was conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SAN ANTONIO – The evidence that statin therapy reduces the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma, while not rising to the highest-level 1A strata, is nonetheless sufficiently persuasive at this point that consideration should be given to prescribing a statin in all patients with risk factors for the malignancy, regardless of their cardiovascular risk profile, Muhammad Talal Sarmini, MD, asserted at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This includes individuals with hepatitis B or C virus infection as well as those with cirrhosis. The jury is still out as to whether nonalcoholic steatohepatitis is a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), observed Dr. Sarmini of the Cleveland Clinic.

He presented a new meta-analysis, which concluded that patients on statin therapy had a 43% lower risk of new-onset HCC than persons not taking a statin. This meta-analysis – the largest ever addressing the issue – included 20 studies totaling more than 2.6 million patients and 24,341 cases of new-onset HCC. There were 11 retrospective case-control studies, 6 cohort studies, and 3 randomized trials. Five studies were from the United States, nine from Asia, and six were European.

In subgroup analyses aimed at assessing the consistency of the study results across various domains, there was a 45% reduction in the risk of HCC in association with statin therapy in the three studies of patients with hepatitis B virus, and significant reductions as well in Asia, Europe, and the United States when those participants were evaluated separately. The reduction was significant in both the case-control and cohort studies, but not when the three randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed collectively. However, Dr. Sarmini shrugged off the neutral RCT results.

“It’s worth noting that the RCTs reported data from patients who were on statins with 4-5 years of follow-up. They were not at high risk for HCC. Given the nature of the disease and the relatively short period of follow-up, these studies only reported 81 cases of HCC. So they were very limited,” he said.

Audience members were eager to learn if Dr. Sarmini had found a differential preventive effect for lipophilic statins, such as atorvastatin or simvastatin, versus hydrophilic statins. He replied that, unfortunately, the published study results don’t allow for such an analysis. However, a large, propensity-matched cohort study published too recently for inclusion in his meta-analysis shed light on this matter. This Swedish national registry study included 16,668 propensity score–matched adults with chronic hepatitis B or C infection, of whom 6,554 initiated lipophilic statin therapy, 1,780 began treatment with a hydrophilic statin, and the rest were statin nonusers. The lipophilic statin users had an adjusted 44% reduction in 10-year HCC risk, compared with nonusers, while hydrophilic statins weren’t associated with a significant preventive effect (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Sep 3;171[5]:318-27).

Dr. Sarmini said that the meta-analysis results, together with the Swedish registry findings, highlight the need for additional well-designed cohort studies and RCTs of statins in populations at high risk for HCC in order to verify the existence of an HCC preventive effect and pinpoint which statins are effective at what dosages.

HCC is the fourth-leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally, accounting for 800,000 deaths annually. And the incidence is rising on a year-by-year basis.

Dr. Sarmini reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, which was conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

Background: Patients with left-sided infective endocarditis often are treated with prolonged courses of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. The safety of switching from IV to oral antibiotics is unknown.

Dr. Phillips is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Background: Patients with left-sided infective endocarditis often are treated with prolonged courses of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. The safety of switching from IV to oral antibiotics is unknown.

Dr. Phillips is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Background: Patients with left-sided infective endocarditis often are treated with prolonged courses of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. The safety of switching from IV to oral antibiotics is unknown.

Dr. Phillips is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Postmenopausal women who received a probiotic treatment of three Lactobacillus strains had significantly less lumbar spine bone loss, compared with women in a placebo group, according to recent research published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

CharlieAJA/Thinkstock

“The menopausal and early postmenopausal lumbar spine bone loss is substantial in women, and by using a prevention therapy with bacteria naturally occurring in the human gut microbiota we observed a close to complete protection against lumbar spine bone loss in healthy postmenopausal women,” Per-Anders Jansson, MD, chief physician at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Jansson and colleagues performed a double-blind trial at four centers in Sweden in which 249 postmenopausal women were randomized during April-November 2016 to receive probiotics consisting of three Lactobacillus strains or placebo once per day for 12 months. Participants were healthy women, neither underweight nor overweight, and were postmenopausal, which was defined as being 2-12 years or less from last menstruation. The Lactobacillus strains, L. paracasei 8700:2 (DSM 13434), L. plantarum Heal 9 (DSM 15312), and L. plantarum Heal 19 (DSM 15313), were equally represented in a capsule at a dose of 1 x 10¹⁰ colony-forming unit per capsule. The researchers measured the lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS-BMD) at baseline and at 12 months, and also evaluated the safety profile of participants in both the probiotic and placebo groups.

Overall, 234 participants (94%) had data available for analysis at the end of the study. There was a significant reduction in LS-BMD loss for participants who received the probiotic treatment, compared with women in the control group (mean difference, 0.71%; 95% confidence interval, 0.06%-1.35%), while there was a significant loss in LS-BMD for participants in the placebo group (percentage change, –0.72%; 95% CI, –1.22% to –0.22%) compared with loss in the probiotic group (percentage change, –0.01%; 95% CI, –0.50% to 0.48%). Using analysis of covariance, the researchers found the probiotic group had reduced LS-BMD loss after adjustment for factors such as study site, age at baseline, BMD at baseline, and number of years from menopause (mean difference, 7.44 mg/cm²; 95% CI, 0.38 to 14.50).

In a subgroup analysis of women above and below the median time since menopause at baseline (6 years), participants in the probiotic group who were below the median time saw a significant protective effect of Lactobacillus treatment (mean difference, 1.08%; 95% CI, 0.20%-1.96%), compared with women above the median time (mean difference, 0.31%; 95% CI, –0.62% to 1.23%).

Researchers also examined the effects of probiotic treatment on total hip and femoral neck BMD as secondary endpoints. Lactobacillus treatment did not appear to affect total hip (–1.01%; 95% CI, –1.65% to –0.37%) or trochanter BMD (–1.13%; 95% CI, –2.27% to 0.20%), but femoral neck BMD was reduced in the probiotic group (–1.34%; 95% CI, –2.09% to –0.58%), compared with the placebo group (–0.88%; 95% CI, –1.64% to –0.13%).

Limitations of the study included examining only one dose of Lactobacillus treatment and no analysis of the effect of short-chain fatty acids on LS-BMD. The researchers noted that “recent studies have shown that short-chain fatty acids, which are generated by fermentation of complex carbohydrates by the gut microbiota, are important regulators of both bone formation and resorption.”

The researchers also acknowledged that the LS-BMD effect size for the probiotic treatment over the 12 months was a lower magnitude, compared with first-line treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women using bisphosphonates. “Further long-term studies should be done to evaluate if the bone-protective effect becomes more pronounced with prolonged treatment with the Lactobacillus strains used in the present study,” they said.

In a related editorial, Shivani Sahni, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Connie M. Weaver, PhD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., reiterated that the effect size of probiotics is “of far less magnitude” than such treatments as bisphosphonates and expressed concern about the reduction of femoral neck BMD in the probiotic group, which was not explained in the study (Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1[3]:e135-e137. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30073-6). There is a need to learn the optimum dose of probiotics as well as which Lactobacillus strains should be used in future studies, as the strains chosen by Jansson et al. were based on results in mice.

In the meantime, patients might be better off choosing dietary interventions with proven bone protection and no documented negative effects on the hip, such as prebiotics like soluble corn fiber and dried prunes, in tandem with drug therapies, Dr. Sahni and Dr. Weaver said.

“Although Jansson and colleagues’ results are important, more work is needed before such probiotics are ready for consumers,” they concluded.

This study was funded by Probi, which employs two of the study’s authors. Three authors reported being coinventors of a patent involving the effects of probiotics in osteoporosis treatment, and one author is listed as an inventor on a pending patent application on probiotic compositions and uses. Dr. Sahni reported receiving grants from Dairy Management. Dr. Weaver reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jansson P-A et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1(3):e154-e162. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30068-2

Postmenopausal women who received a probiotic treatment of three Lactobacillus strains had significantly less lumbar spine bone loss, compared with women in a placebo group, according to recent research published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

CharlieAJA/Thinkstock

“The menopausal and early postmenopausal lumbar spine bone loss is substantial in women, and by using a prevention therapy with bacteria naturally occurring in the human gut microbiota we observed a close to complete protection against lumbar spine bone loss in healthy postmenopausal women,” Per-Anders Jansson, MD, chief physician at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Jansson and colleagues performed a double-blind trial at four centers in Sweden in which 249 postmenopausal women were randomized during April-November 2016 to receive probiotics consisting of three Lactobacillus strains or placebo once per day for 12 months. Participants were healthy women, neither underweight nor overweight, and were postmenopausal, which was defined as being 2-12 years or less from last menstruation. The Lactobacillus strains, L. paracasei 8700:2 (DSM 13434), L. plantarum Heal 9 (DSM 15312), and L. plantarum Heal 19 (DSM 15313), were equally represented in a capsule at a dose of 1 x 10¹⁰ colony-forming unit per capsule. The researchers measured the lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS-BMD) at baseline and at 12 months, and also evaluated the safety profile of participants in both the probiotic and placebo groups.

Overall, 234 participants (94%) had data available for analysis at the end of the study. There was a significant reduction in LS-BMD loss for participants who received the probiotic treatment, compared with women in the control group (mean difference, 0.71%; 95% confidence interval, 0.06%-1.35%), while there was a significant loss in LS-BMD for participants in the placebo group (percentage change, –0.72%; 95% CI, –1.22% to –0.22%) compared with loss in the probiotic group (percentage change, –0.01%; 95% CI, –0.50% to 0.48%). Using analysis of covariance, the researchers found the probiotic group had reduced LS-BMD loss after adjustment for factors such as study site, age at baseline, BMD at baseline, and number of years from menopause (mean difference, 7.44 mg/cm²; 95% CI, 0.38 to 14.50).

In a subgroup analysis of women above and below the median time since menopause at baseline (6 years), participants in the probiotic group who were below the median time saw a significant protective effect of Lactobacillus treatment (mean difference, 1.08%; 95% CI, 0.20%-1.96%), compared with women above the median time (mean difference, 0.31%; 95% CI, –0.62% to 1.23%).

Researchers also examined the effects of probiotic treatment on total hip and femoral neck BMD as secondary endpoints. Lactobacillus treatment did not appear to affect total hip (–1.01%; 95% CI, –1.65% to –0.37%) or trochanter BMD (–1.13%; 95% CI, –2.27% to 0.20%), but femoral neck BMD was reduced in the probiotic group (–1.34%; 95% CI, –2.09% to –0.58%), compared with the placebo group (–0.88%; 95% CI, –1.64% to –0.13%).

Limitations of the study included examining only one dose of Lactobacillus treatment and no analysis of the effect of short-chain fatty acids on LS-BMD. The researchers noted that “recent studies have shown that short-chain fatty acids, which are generated by fermentation of complex carbohydrates by the gut microbiota, are important regulators of both bone formation and resorption.”

The researchers also acknowledged that the LS-BMD effect size for the probiotic treatment over the 12 months was a lower magnitude, compared with first-line treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women using bisphosphonates. “Further long-term studies should be done to evaluate if the bone-protective effect becomes more pronounced with prolonged treatment with the Lactobacillus strains used in the present study,” they said.

In a related editorial, Shivani Sahni, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Connie M. Weaver, PhD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., reiterated that the effect size of probiotics is “of far less magnitude” than such treatments as bisphosphonates and expressed concern about the reduction of femoral neck BMD in the probiotic group, which was not explained in the study (Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1[3]:e135-e137. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30073-6). There is a need to learn the optimum dose of probiotics as well as which Lactobacillus strains should be used in future studies, as the strains chosen by Jansson et al. were based on results in mice.

In the meantime, patients might be better off choosing dietary interventions with proven bone protection and no documented negative effects on the hip, such as prebiotics like soluble corn fiber and dried prunes, in tandem with drug therapies, Dr. Sahni and Dr. Weaver said.

“Although Jansson and colleagues’ results are important, more work is needed before such probiotics are ready for consumers,” they concluded.

This study was funded by Probi, which employs two of the study’s authors. Three authors reported being coinventors of a patent involving the effects of probiotics in osteoporosis treatment, and one author is listed as an inventor on a pending patent application on probiotic compositions and uses. Dr. Sahni reported receiving grants from Dairy Management. Dr. Weaver reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jansson P-A et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1(3):e154-e162. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30068-2

Postmenopausal women who received a probiotic treatment of three Lactobacillus strains had significantly less lumbar spine bone loss, compared with women in a placebo group, according to recent research published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

CharlieAJA/Thinkstock

“The menopausal and early postmenopausal lumbar spine bone loss is substantial in women, and by using a prevention therapy with bacteria naturally occurring in the human gut microbiota we observed a close to complete protection against lumbar spine bone loss in healthy postmenopausal women,” Per-Anders Jansson, MD, chief physician at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Jansson and colleagues performed a double-blind trial at four centers in Sweden in which 249 postmenopausal women were randomized during April-November 2016 to receive probiotics consisting of three Lactobacillus strains or placebo once per day for 12 months. Participants were healthy women, neither underweight nor overweight, and were postmenopausal, which was defined as being 2-12 years or less from last menstruation. The Lactobacillus strains, L. paracasei 8700:2 (DSM 13434), L. plantarum Heal 9 (DSM 15312), and L. plantarum Heal 19 (DSM 15313), were equally represented in a capsule at a dose of 1 x 10¹⁰ colony-forming unit per capsule. The researchers measured the lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS-BMD) at baseline and at 12 months, and also evaluated the safety profile of participants in both the probiotic and placebo groups.

Overall, 234 participants (94%) had data available for analysis at the end of the study. There was a significant reduction in LS-BMD loss for participants who received the probiotic treatment, compared with women in the control group (mean difference, 0.71%; 95% confidence interval, 0.06%-1.35%), while there was a significant loss in LS-BMD for participants in the placebo group (percentage change, –0.72%; 95% CI, –1.22% to –0.22%) compared with loss in the probiotic group (percentage change, –0.01%; 95% CI, –0.50% to 0.48%). Using analysis of covariance, the researchers found the probiotic group had reduced LS-BMD loss after adjustment for factors such as study site, age at baseline, BMD at baseline, and number of years from menopause (mean difference, 7.44 mg/cm²; 95% CI, 0.38 to 14.50).

In a subgroup analysis of women above and below the median time since menopause at baseline (6 years), participants in the probiotic group who were below the median time saw a significant protective effect of Lactobacillus treatment (mean difference, 1.08%; 95% CI, 0.20%-1.96%), compared with women above the median time (mean difference, 0.31%; 95% CI, –0.62% to 1.23%).

Researchers also examined the effects of probiotic treatment on total hip and femoral neck BMD as secondary endpoints. Lactobacillus treatment did not appear to affect total hip (–1.01%; 95% CI, –1.65% to –0.37%) or trochanter BMD (–1.13%; 95% CI, –2.27% to 0.20%), but femoral neck BMD was reduced in the probiotic group (–1.34%; 95% CI, –2.09% to –0.58%), compared with the placebo group (–0.88%; 95% CI, –1.64% to –0.13%).

Limitations of the study included examining only one dose of Lactobacillus treatment and no analysis of the effect of short-chain fatty acids on LS-BMD. The researchers noted that “recent studies have shown that short-chain fatty acids, which are generated by fermentation of complex carbohydrates by the gut microbiota, are important regulators of both bone formation and resorption.”

The researchers also acknowledged that the LS-BMD effect size for the probiotic treatment over the 12 months was a lower magnitude, compared with first-line treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women using bisphosphonates. “Further long-term studies should be done to evaluate if the bone-protective effect becomes more pronounced with prolonged treatment with the Lactobacillus strains used in the present study,” they said.

In a related editorial, Shivani Sahni, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Connie M. Weaver, PhD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., reiterated that the effect size of probiotics is “of far less magnitude” than such treatments as bisphosphonates and expressed concern about the reduction of femoral neck BMD in the probiotic group, which was not explained in the study (Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1[3]:e135-e137. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30073-6). There is a need to learn the optimum dose of probiotics as well as which Lactobacillus strains should be used in future studies, as the strains chosen by Jansson et al. were based on results in mice.

In the meantime, patients might be better off choosing dietary interventions with proven bone protection and no documented negative effects on the hip, such as prebiotics like soluble corn fiber and dried prunes, in tandem with drug therapies, Dr. Sahni and Dr. Weaver said.

“Although Jansson and colleagues’ results are important, more work is needed before such probiotics are ready for consumers,” they concluded.

This study was funded by Probi, which employs two of the study’s authors. Three authors reported being coinventors of a patent involving the effects of probiotics in osteoporosis treatment, and one author is listed as an inventor on a pending patent application on probiotic compositions and uses. Dr. Sahni reported receiving grants from Dairy Management. Dr. Weaver reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jansson P-A et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1(3):e154-e162. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30068-2