Uncontrolled hypertension among individuals aged 45-65 years of age is associated with an increased risk of subsequent dementia, according to a relatively large prospective population-based cohort study that followed patients for almost 30 years.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

Even though previously published studies have not conclusively linked blood pressure control with a reduction in dementia risk, a second study, published simultaneously, did link blood pressure control with a smaller increase in white matter lesions, which are a marker of dementia risk. However, a reduction in total brain volume that accompanied this protection raised concern.

In the first of the two reports published Aug. 13 in JAMA, individuals 45-65 years of age participating in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study were followed for cognitive function in relation to blood pressure. The baseline visit took place in 1987-1989. Cognitive function was also evaluated at the fifth visit, which took place in 2011-2013, and the sixth visit, which took place in 2016-2017.

At the sixth visit, the incidence of dementia among patients who were normotensive at baseline and also normotensive at the fifth visit was 1.31 per 100 person-years. For those with hypertension (greater than 140/90 mm Hg) at the fifth visit but normotensive at baseline, the incidence was 1.99 per 100 patient-years. For those with hypertension at both time points, the incidence was 4.26 per 100 patient-years.

When translated into hazard ratios, those with midlife and late-life hypertension were nearly 50% more likely to develop dementia (HR, 1.49) relative to those who remained normotensive. For those who had only midlife hypertension, the risk was also significantly increased (HR, 1.41) relative to those who remained normotensive at both time points.

Those with midlife hypertension but late-life hypotension were also found to be at greater risk of dementia (HR, 1.62) relative to those who remained normotensive.

These data support the premise that uncontrolled midlife hypertension increases risk of dementia but do not touch on whether blood pressure reductions reduce this risk. However, a second study published simultaneously provided at least some evidence that blood pressure control might offer some protection.

In this report, which is a substudy of the previously published Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) MIND trial, brain volume changes were evaluated via MRI in 449 of the more than 2,000 patients included in the previously published trial (Williamson JD et al. JAMA. 2019;321[6]:553-61).

After a median 3.4 years of follow-up, mean white matter lesion volume increased only 0.92 cm³ in patients receiving intensive systolic blood pressure control, defined as less than 120 mm Hg, versus 1.45 cm³ in those with higher systolic blood pressures.

These substudy data are encouraging, but it is important to recognize that the previously published and larger SPRINT MIND trial did not achieve its endpoint. In that study, the protection against dementia was nonsignificant (HR, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.04).

In addition, the lower loss in white matter volume with intensive blood pressure lowering in the MRI substudy was accompanied with a greater loss in total brain volume (–30.6 vs. –26.9 cm³), which is considered a potentially negative effect.

As a result, the picture for risk management remains unclear, according to an editorial that accompanied publication of both studies.

“The important clinical question is whether changes of a few cubic millimeters in white matter hyperintensity volume or brain make a difference on brain function,” observed the author of the editorial, Shyam Prabhakaran, MD, of the department of neurology at the University of Chicago.

He believes that there are several findings from both studies that are “encouraging” in regard to blood pressure control for the prevention of dementia, but he also listed many unanswered questions, including why benefits observed to date have been so modest. He speculated that meaningful clinical benefits might depend on a multimodal approach that includes modification of other vascular risk factors, such as elevated lipids.

He also suggested that many issues regarding intensive blood pressure control for preventing dementia are unresolved, suggesting the need for more studies.

Not least, “later blood-pressure lowering interventions require careful monitoring for the potential cognitive harm associated with late-life hypotension,” Dr. Prabhakaran noted. Calling the effects of blood pressure control on brain health “nuanced,” he concluded that there is an opportunity for blood pressure modifications to prevent dementia, but stressed that optimal blood pressure targets for the purposes of preventing dementia are unknown.

The ARIC and SPRINT studies are supported by the National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported relationships with industry but no conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

SOURCES: Walker KA et al. JAMA. 2019;322(6):535-45; SPRINT MIND investigators. JAMA. 2019;322(6):524-34; Prabhakaran S. JAMA. 2019;322(6):512-3

Uncontrolled hypertension among individuals aged 45-65 years of age is associated with an increased risk of subsequent dementia, according to a relatively large prospective population-based cohort study that followed patients for almost 30 years.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

Even though previously published studies have not conclusively linked blood pressure control with a reduction in dementia risk, a second study, published simultaneously, did link blood pressure control with a smaller increase in white matter lesions, which are a marker of dementia risk. However, a reduction in total brain volume that accompanied this protection raised concern.

In the first of the two reports published Aug. 13 in JAMA, individuals 45-65 years of age participating in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study were followed for cognitive function in relation to blood pressure. The baseline visit took place in 1987-1989. Cognitive function was also evaluated at the fifth visit, which took place in 2011-2013, and the sixth visit, which took place in 2016-2017.

At the sixth visit, the incidence of dementia among patients who were normotensive at baseline and also normotensive at the fifth visit was 1.31 per 100 person-years. For those with hypertension (greater than 140/90 mm Hg) at the fifth visit but normotensive at baseline, the incidence was 1.99 per 100 patient-years. For those with hypertension at both time points, the incidence was 4.26 per 100 patient-years.

When translated into hazard ratios, those with midlife and late-life hypertension were nearly 50% more likely to develop dementia (HR, 1.49) relative to those who remained normotensive. For those who had only midlife hypertension, the risk was also significantly increased (HR, 1.41) relative to those who remained normotensive at both time points.

Those with midlife hypertension but late-life hypotension were also found to be at greater risk of dementia (HR, 1.62) relative to those who remained normotensive.

These data support the premise that uncontrolled midlife hypertension increases risk of dementia but do not touch on whether blood pressure reductions reduce this risk. However, a second study published simultaneously provided at least some evidence that blood pressure control might offer some protection.

In this report, which is a substudy of the previously published Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) MIND trial, brain volume changes were evaluated via MRI in 449 of the more than 2,000 patients included in the previously published trial (Williamson JD et al. JAMA. 2019;321[6]:553-61).

After a median 3.4 years of follow-up, mean white matter lesion volume increased only 0.92 cm³ in patients receiving intensive systolic blood pressure control, defined as less than 120 mm Hg, versus 1.45 cm³ in those with higher systolic blood pressures.

These substudy data are encouraging, but it is important to recognize that the previously published and larger SPRINT MIND trial did not achieve its endpoint. In that study, the protection against dementia was nonsignificant (HR, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.04).

In addition, the lower loss in white matter volume with intensive blood pressure lowering in the MRI substudy was accompanied with a greater loss in total brain volume (–30.6 vs. –26.9 cm³), which is considered a potentially negative effect.

As a result, the picture for risk management remains unclear, according to an editorial that accompanied publication of both studies.

“The important clinical question is whether changes of a few cubic millimeters in white matter hyperintensity volume or brain make a difference on brain function,” observed the author of the editorial, Shyam Prabhakaran, MD, of the department of neurology at the University of Chicago.

He believes that there are several findings from both studies that are “encouraging” in regard to blood pressure control for the prevention of dementia, but he also listed many unanswered questions, including why benefits observed to date have been so modest. He speculated that meaningful clinical benefits might depend on a multimodal approach that includes modification of other vascular risk factors, such as elevated lipids.

He also suggested that many issues regarding intensive blood pressure control for preventing dementia are unresolved, suggesting the need for more studies.

Not least, “later blood-pressure lowering interventions require careful monitoring for the potential cognitive harm associated with late-life hypotension,” Dr. Prabhakaran noted. Calling the effects of blood pressure control on brain health “nuanced,” he concluded that there is an opportunity for blood pressure modifications to prevent dementia, but stressed that optimal blood pressure targets for the purposes of preventing dementia are unknown.

The ARIC and SPRINT studies are supported by the National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported relationships with industry but no conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

SOURCES: Walker KA et al. JAMA. 2019;322(6):535-45; SPRINT MIND investigators. JAMA. 2019;322(6):524-34; Prabhakaran S. JAMA. 2019;322(6):512-3

Uncontrolled hypertension among individuals aged 45-65 years of age is associated with an increased risk of subsequent dementia, according to a relatively large prospective population-based cohort study that followed patients for almost 30 years.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

Even though previously published studies have not conclusively linked blood pressure control with a reduction in dementia risk, a second study, published simultaneously, did link blood pressure control with a smaller increase in white matter lesions, which are a marker of dementia risk. However, a reduction in total brain volume that accompanied this protection raised concern.

In the first of the two reports published Aug. 13 in JAMA, individuals 45-65 years of age participating in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study were followed for cognitive function in relation to blood pressure. The baseline visit took place in 1987-1989. Cognitive function was also evaluated at the fifth visit, which took place in 2011-2013, and the sixth visit, which took place in 2016-2017.

At the sixth visit, the incidence of dementia among patients who were normotensive at baseline and also normotensive at the fifth visit was 1.31 per 100 person-years. For those with hypertension (greater than 140/90 mm Hg) at the fifth visit but normotensive at baseline, the incidence was 1.99 per 100 patient-years. For those with hypertension at both time points, the incidence was 4.26 per 100 patient-years.

When translated into hazard ratios, those with midlife and late-life hypertension were nearly 50% more likely to develop dementia (HR, 1.49) relative to those who remained normotensive. For those who had only midlife hypertension, the risk was also significantly increased (HR, 1.41) relative to those who remained normotensive at both time points.

Those with midlife hypertension but late-life hypotension were also found to be at greater risk of dementia (HR, 1.62) relative to those who remained normotensive.

These data support the premise that uncontrolled midlife hypertension increases risk of dementia but do not touch on whether blood pressure reductions reduce this risk. However, a second study published simultaneously provided at least some evidence that blood pressure control might offer some protection.

In this report, which is a substudy of the previously published Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) MIND trial, brain volume changes were evaluated via MRI in 449 of the more than 2,000 patients included in the previously published trial (Williamson JD et al. JAMA. 2019;321[6]:553-61).

After a median 3.4 years of follow-up, mean white matter lesion volume increased only 0.92 cm³ in patients receiving intensive systolic blood pressure control, defined as less than 120 mm Hg, versus 1.45 cm³ in those with higher systolic blood pressures.

These substudy data are encouraging, but it is important to recognize that the previously published and larger SPRINT MIND trial did not achieve its endpoint. In that study, the protection against dementia was nonsignificant (HR, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.04).

In addition, the lower loss in white matter volume with intensive blood pressure lowering in the MRI substudy was accompanied with a greater loss in total brain volume (–30.6 vs. –26.9 cm³), which is considered a potentially negative effect.

As a result, the picture for risk management remains unclear, according to an editorial that accompanied publication of both studies.

“The important clinical question is whether changes of a few cubic millimeters in white matter hyperintensity volume or brain make a difference on brain function,” observed the author of the editorial, Shyam Prabhakaran, MD, of the department of neurology at the University of Chicago.

He believes that there are several findings from both studies that are “encouraging” in regard to blood pressure control for the prevention of dementia, but he also listed many unanswered questions, including why benefits observed to date have been so modest. He speculated that meaningful clinical benefits might depend on a multimodal approach that includes modification of other vascular risk factors, such as elevated lipids.

He also suggested that many issues regarding intensive blood pressure control for preventing dementia are unresolved, suggesting the need for more studies.

Not least, “later blood-pressure lowering interventions require careful monitoring for the potential cognitive harm associated with late-life hypotension,” Dr. Prabhakaran noted. Calling the effects of blood pressure control on brain health “nuanced,” he concluded that there is an opportunity for blood pressure modifications to prevent dementia, but stressed that optimal blood pressure targets for the purposes of preventing dementia are unknown.

The ARIC and SPRINT studies are supported by the National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported relationships with industry but no conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

SOURCES: Walker KA et al. JAMA. 2019;322(6):535-45; SPRINT MIND investigators. JAMA. 2019;322(6):524-34; Prabhakaran S. JAMA. 2019;322(6):512-3

Prophylactic treatment with bisphosphonates could significantly improve bone mineral density (BMD) in children and adolescents receiving steroids for chronic rheumatic disease, a study has found.

A paper published in EClinicalMedicine reported the outcomes of a multicenter, double-dummy, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 217 patients who were receiving steroid therapy for juvenile idiopathic arthritis, juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus, juvenile dermatomyositis, or juvenile vasculitis. The patients were randomized to risedronate, alfacalcidol, or placebo, and all of the participants received 500 mg calcium and 400 IU vitamin D daily.

Lumbar spine and total body (less head) BMD increased in all groups, but the greatest increase was seen in patients treated with risedronate.

After 1 year, lumbar spine and total body (less head) BMD had increased in all groups, compared with baseline, but the greatest increase was seen in patients who had been treated with risedronate.

The lumbar spine areal BMD z score remained the same in the placebo group (−1.15 to −1.13), decreased from −0.96 to −1.00 in the alfacalcidol group, and increased from −0.99 to −0.75 in the risedronate group.

The change in z scores was significantly different between placebo and risedronate groups, and between risedronate and alfacalcidol groups, but not between placebo and alfacalcidol.

“The acquisition of adequate peak bone mass is not only important for the young person in reducing fracture risk but also has significant implications for the development of osteoporosis in later life, if peak bone mass is suboptimal,” wrote Madeleine Rooney, MBBCH, from the Queens University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, and associates.

There were no significant differences between the three groups in fracture rates. However, researchers were also able to compare Genant scores for vertebral fractures in 187 patients with pre- and posttreatment lateral spinal x-rays. That showed that the 54 patients in the placebo arm and 52 patients in the alfacalcidol arm had no change in their baseline Genant score of 0 (normal). However, although all 53 patients in the risedronate group had a Genant score of 0 at baseline, at 1-year follow-up, 2 patients had a Genant score of 1 (mild fracture), and 1 patient had a score of 3 (severe fracture).

In biochemical parameters, researchers saw a drop in parathyroid hormone in the placebo and alfacalcidol groups, but a rise in the risedronate group. However, the authors were not able to see any changes in bone markers that might have indicated which patients responded better to treatment.

Around 90% of participants in each group were also being treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The rates of biologic use were 10.5% in the placebo group, 23.9% in the alfacalcidol group, and 10.1% in the risedronate group.

The researchers also noted a 7% higher rate of serious adverse events in the risedronate group, but emphasized that there were no differences in events related to the treatment.

In an accompanying editorial, Ian R. Reid, MBBCH, of the department of medicine, University of Auckland (New Zealand) noted that the study was an important step toward finding interventions for the prevention of steroid-induced bone loss in children. “The present study indicates that risedronate, and probably other potent bisphosphonates, can provide bone preservation in children and young people receiving therapeutic doses of glucocorticoid drugs, whereas alfacalcidol is without benefit. The targeted use of bisphosphonates in children and young people judged to be at significant fracture risk is appropriate. However, whether preventing loss of bone density will reduce fracture incidence remains to be established.”

The study was funded by Arthritis Research UK. No conflicts of interest were declared.
 

SOURCE: Rooney M et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Jul 3. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.06.004.

Prophylactic treatment with bisphosphonates could significantly improve bone mineral density (BMD) in children and adolescents receiving steroids for chronic rheumatic disease, a study has found.

A paper published in EClinicalMedicine reported the outcomes of a multicenter, double-dummy, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 217 patients who were receiving steroid therapy for juvenile idiopathic arthritis, juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus, juvenile dermatomyositis, or juvenile vasculitis. The patients were randomized to risedronate, alfacalcidol, or placebo, and all of the participants received 500 mg calcium and 400 IU vitamin D daily.

Lumbar spine and total body (less head) BMD increased in all groups, but the greatest increase was seen in patients treated with risedronate.

After 1 year, lumbar spine and total body (less head) BMD had increased in all groups, compared with baseline, but the greatest increase was seen in patients who had been treated with risedronate.

The lumbar spine areal BMD z score remained the same in the placebo group (−1.15 to −1.13), decreased from −0.96 to −1.00 in the alfacalcidol group, and increased from −0.99 to −0.75 in the risedronate group.

The change in z scores was significantly different between placebo and risedronate groups, and between risedronate and alfacalcidol groups, but not between placebo and alfacalcidol.

“The acquisition of adequate peak bone mass is not only important for the young person in reducing fracture risk but also has significant implications for the development of osteoporosis in later life, if peak bone mass is suboptimal,” wrote Madeleine Rooney, MBBCH, from the Queens University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, and associates.

There were no significant differences between the three groups in fracture rates. However, researchers were also able to compare Genant scores for vertebral fractures in 187 patients with pre- and posttreatment lateral spinal x-rays. That showed that the 54 patients in the placebo arm and 52 patients in the alfacalcidol arm had no change in their baseline Genant score of 0 (normal). However, although all 53 patients in the risedronate group had a Genant score of 0 at baseline, at 1-year follow-up, 2 patients had a Genant score of 1 (mild fracture), and 1 patient had a score of 3 (severe fracture).

In biochemical parameters, researchers saw a drop in parathyroid hormone in the placebo and alfacalcidol groups, but a rise in the risedronate group. However, the authors were not able to see any changes in bone markers that might have indicated which patients responded better to treatment.

Around 90% of participants in each group were also being treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The rates of biologic use were 10.5% in the placebo group, 23.9% in the alfacalcidol group, and 10.1% in the risedronate group.

The researchers also noted a 7% higher rate of serious adverse events in the risedronate group, but emphasized that there were no differences in events related to the treatment.

In an accompanying editorial, Ian R. Reid, MBBCH, of the department of medicine, University of Auckland (New Zealand) noted that the study was an important step toward finding interventions for the prevention of steroid-induced bone loss in children. “The present study indicates that risedronate, and probably other potent bisphosphonates, can provide bone preservation in children and young people receiving therapeutic doses of glucocorticoid drugs, whereas alfacalcidol is without benefit. The targeted use of bisphosphonates in children and young people judged to be at significant fracture risk is appropriate. However, whether preventing loss of bone density will reduce fracture incidence remains to be established.”

The study was funded by Arthritis Research UK. No conflicts of interest were declared.
 

SOURCE: Rooney M et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Jul 3. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.06.004.

Prophylactic treatment with bisphosphonates could significantly improve bone mineral density (BMD) in children and adolescents receiving steroids for chronic rheumatic disease, a study has found.

A paper published in EClinicalMedicine reported the outcomes of a multicenter, double-dummy, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 217 patients who were receiving steroid therapy for juvenile idiopathic arthritis, juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus, juvenile dermatomyositis, or juvenile vasculitis. The patients were randomized to risedronate, alfacalcidol, or placebo, and all of the participants received 500 mg calcium and 400 IU vitamin D daily.

Lumbar spine and total body (less head) BMD increased in all groups, but the greatest increase was seen in patients treated with risedronate.

After 1 year, lumbar spine and total body (less head) BMD had increased in all groups, compared with baseline, but the greatest increase was seen in patients who had been treated with risedronate.

The lumbar spine areal BMD z score remained the same in the placebo group (−1.15 to −1.13), decreased from −0.96 to −1.00 in the alfacalcidol group, and increased from −0.99 to −0.75 in the risedronate group.

The change in z scores was significantly different between placebo and risedronate groups, and between risedronate and alfacalcidol groups, but not between placebo and alfacalcidol.

“The acquisition of adequate peak bone mass is not only important for the young person in reducing fracture risk but also has significant implications for the development of osteoporosis in later life, if peak bone mass is suboptimal,” wrote Madeleine Rooney, MBBCH, from the Queens University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, and associates.

There were no significant differences between the three groups in fracture rates. However, researchers were also able to compare Genant scores for vertebral fractures in 187 patients with pre- and posttreatment lateral spinal x-rays. That showed that the 54 patients in the placebo arm and 52 patients in the alfacalcidol arm had no change in their baseline Genant score of 0 (normal). However, although all 53 patients in the risedronate group had a Genant score of 0 at baseline, at 1-year follow-up, 2 patients had a Genant score of 1 (mild fracture), and 1 patient had a score of 3 (severe fracture).

In biochemical parameters, researchers saw a drop in parathyroid hormone in the placebo and alfacalcidol groups, but a rise in the risedronate group. However, the authors were not able to see any changes in bone markers that might have indicated which patients responded better to treatment.

Around 90% of participants in each group were also being treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The rates of biologic use were 10.5% in the placebo group, 23.9% in the alfacalcidol group, and 10.1% in the risedronate group.

The researchers also noted a 7% higher rate of serious adverse events in the risedronate group, but emphasized that there were no differences in events related to the treatment.

In an accompanying editorial, Ian R. Reid, MBBCH, of the department of medicine, University of Auckland (New Zealand) noted that the study was an important step toward finding interventions for the prevention of steroid-induced bone loss in children. “The present study indicates that risedronate, and probably other potent bisphosphonates, can provide bone preservation in children and young people receiving therapeutic doses of glucocorticoid drugs, whereas alfacalcidol is without benefit. The targeted use of bisphosphonates in children and young people judged to be at significant fracture risk is appropriate. However, whether preventing loss of bone density will reduce fracture incidence remains to be established.”

The study was funded by Arthritis Research UK. No conflicts of interest were declared.
 

SOURCE: Rooney M et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Jul 3. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.06.004.

During the last year, the field of psoriasis has continued to expand, with new therapies, new guidelines, and further understanding of the impact of treatment on associated comorbidities. 

One of the most exciting prospects of the treatment of psoriasis with biologics is the potential for the reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). It has been well established that psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk.^1,2 Ahlehoff et al¹ conducted a cohort study of the entire Danish population 18 years and older followed from 1997 to 2006 by individual-level linkage of nationwide registers. They concluded that psoriasis is associated with increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Young age, severe skin affection, and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) carry the most risk. They suggested that patients with psoriasis may be candidates for early cardiovascular risk factor modification.¹  

Ogdie et al² endeavored to quantify the risk for MACE among patients with PsA, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and psoriasis without known PsA compared to the general population after adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with PsA (N=8706), RA (N=41,752), psoriasis (N=138,424), and unexposed controls (N=81,573) were identified. After adjustment for traditional risk factors, the risk for MACE was higher in patients with PsA not prescribed a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)(hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.49), patients with RA (no DMARD: HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.28-1.50; DMARD: HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.46-1.70), patients with psoriasis not prescribed a DMARD (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15), and patients with severe psoriasis (DMARD: HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73).² These data are one aspect of our increasing insight into the management of psoriasis. 

To expand on the new guidelines and new therapies presented in 2019, this issue includes review articles looking at these facets. Wu and Weinberg3 review the impact of diet on psoriasis. Pithadia et al⁴ explain the American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis with biologics for the prescribing dermatologist, with an emphasis on the most clinically significant considerations during each step of treatment with biologic therapies (ie, choosing a biologic, initiating therapy, assessing treatment response, switching biologics). Havnaer et al⁵ provide an update on the newly approved and pipeline systemic agents for psoriasis.  

We hope that you find this issue enjoyable and informative. 

During the last year, the field of psoriasis has continued to expand, with new therapies, new guidelines, and further understanding of the impact of treatment on associated comorbidities. 

One of the most exciting prospects of the treatment of psoriasis with biologics is the potential for the reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). It has been well established that psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk.^1,2 Ahlehoff et al¹ conducted a cohort study of the entire Danish population 18 years and older followed from 1997 to 2006 by individual-level linkage of nationwide registers. They concluded that psoriasis is associated with increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Young age, severe skin affection, and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) carry the most risk. They suggested that patients with psoriasis may be candidates for early cardiovascular risk factor modification.¹  

Ogdie et al² endeavored to quantify the risk for MACE among patients with PsA, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and psoriasis without known PsA compared to the general population after adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with PsA (N=8706), RA (N=41,752), psoriasis (N=138,424), and unexposed controls (N=81,573) were identified. After adjustment for traditional risk factors, the risk for MACE was higher in patients with PsA not prescribed a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)(hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.49), patients with RA (no DMARD: HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.28-1.50; DMARD: HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.46-1.70), patients with psoriasis not prescribed a DMARD (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15), and patients with severe psoriasis (DMARD: HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73).² These data are one aspect of our increasing insight into the management of psoriasis. 

To expand on the new guidelines and new therapies presented in 2019, this issue includes review articles looking at these facets. Wu and Weinberg3 review the impact of diet on psoriasis. Pithadia et al⁴ explain the American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis with biologics for the prescribing dermatologist, with an emphasis on the most clinically significant considerations during each step of treatment with biologic therapies (ie, choosing a biologic, initiating therapy, assessing treatment response, switching biologics). Havnaer et al⁵ provide an update on the newly approved and pipeline systemic agents for psoriasis.  

We hope that you find this issue enjoyable and informative. 

During the last year, the field of psoriasis has continued to expand, with new therapies, new guidelines, and further understanding of the impact of treatment on associated comorbidities. 

One of the most exciting prospects of the treatment of psoriasis with biologics is the potential for the reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). It has been well established that psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk.^1,2 Ahlehoff et al¹ conducted a cohort study of the entire Danish population 18 years and older followed from 1997 to 2006 by individual-level linkage of nationwide registers. They concluded that psoriasis is associated with increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Young age, severe skin affection, and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) carry the most risk. They suggested that patients with psoriasis may be candidates for early cardiovascular risk factor modification.¹  

Ogdie et al² endeavored to quantify the risk for MACE among patients with PsA, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and psoriasis without known PsA compared to the general population after adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with PsA (N=8706), RA (N=41,752), psoriasis (N=138,424), and unexposed controls (N=81,573) were identified. After adjustment for traditional risk factors, the risk for MACE was higher in patients with PsA not prescribed a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)(hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.49), patients with RA (no DMARD: HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.28-1.50; DMARD: HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.46-1.70), patients with psoriasis not prescribed a DMARD (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15), and patients with severe psoriasis (DMARD: HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73).² These data are one aspect of our increasing insight into the management of psoriasis. 

To expand on the new guidelines and new therapies presented in 2019, this issue includes review articles looking at these facets. Wu and Weinberg3 review the impact of diet on psoriasis. Pithadia et al⁴ explain the American Academy of Dermatology and National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis with biologics for the prescribing dermatologist, with an emphasis on the most clinically significant considerations during each step of treatment with biologic therapies (ie, choosing a biologic, initiating therapy, assessing treatment response, switching biologics). Havnaer et al⁵ provide an update on the newly approved and pipeline systemic agents for psoriasis.  

We hope that you find this issue enjoyable and informative. 

A nationwide survey of radiation oncologists showed a decline in the use of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) after the release of phase 3 study results by Takahashi et al.

The recent study by Toshiaki Takahashi, MD, and colleagues (Lancet Oncol. 2017;18[5]:663-71) demonstrated no overall survival benefit when comparing active magnetic resonance imaging surveillance with PCI in patients with ES-SCLC. The results challenged the formerly accepted belief of the benefit of PCI for patients with ES-SCLC.

“We conducted a nationwide survey study of radiation oncologists to assess changes in the use of PCI for patients with ES-SCLC following publication of the trial by Takahashi et al.,” wrote Olsi Gjyshi, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues. The findings were reported in a research letter published in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Gjyshi and colleagues distributed the anonymous survey to 3,851 United States–based radiation oncologists registered with the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO). In total, 487 members (12.6%) completed the survey.

After analysis, the researchers found that 72% of respondents regularly offered PCI to patients before the publication of the study by Takahashi et al., while only 44% do so currently (difference, 28%; 95% confidence interval, 25%-31%; P less than .001).

With respect to radiation oncologists in private versus academic settings, no significant difference in practice patterns was observed (P = .71).

“Regression analysis showed no difference in likelihood of offering PCI based on practice setting, location, or size; volume of patients treated for lung cancer; or years in practice,” the researchers wrote.

In respondents unaware of the Takahashi et al. study, 85% continued to propose PCI, which was greater than those aware of the trial (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.32; P less than .001).

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the study was that radiation oncologists familiar with the study by Dr. Takahashi and colleagues may have been more apt to respond to the survey. As a result, participation bias could have influenced the results.

“These results highlight the continued lack of consensus for PCI in SCLC and support ongoing investigations,” they concluded.

No funding sources were reported. One co-author reported financial affiliations with Novocure, Inc. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gjyshi O et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9135.

A nationwide survey of radiation oncologists showed a decline in the use of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) after the release of phase 3 study results by Takahashi et al.

The recent study by Toshiaki Takahashi, MD, and colleagues (Lancet Oncol. 2017;18[5]:663-71) demonstrated no overall survival benefit when comparing active magnetic resonance imaging surveillance with PCI in patients with ES-SCLC. The results challenged the formerly accepted belief of the benefit of PCI for patients with ES-SCLC.

“We conducted a nationwide survey study of radiation oncologists to assess changes in the use of PCI for patients with ES-SCLC following publication of the trial by Takahashi et al.,” wrote Olsi Gjyshi, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues. The findings were reported in a research letter published in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Gjyshi and colleagues distributed the anonymous survey to 3,851 United States–based radiation oncologists registered with the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO). In total, 487 members (12.6%) completed the survey.

After analysis, the researchers found that 72% of respondents regularly offered PCI to patients before the publication of the study by Takahashi et al., while only 44% do so currently (difference, 28%; 95% confidence interval, 25%-31%; P less than .001).

With respect to radiation oncologists in private versus academic settings, no significant difference in practice patterns was observed (P = .71).

“Regression analysis showed no difference in likelihood of offering PCI based on practice setting, location, or size; volume of patients treated for lung cancer; or years in practice,” the researchers wrote.

In respondents unaware of the Takahashi et al. study, 85% continued to propose PCI, which was greater than those aware of the trial (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.32; P less than .001).

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the study was that radiation oncologists familiar with the study by Dr. Takahashi and colleagues may have been more apt to respond to the survey. As a result, participation bias could have influenced the results.

“These results highlight the continued lack of consensus for PCI in SCLC and support ongoing investigations,” they concluded.

No funding sources were reported. One co-author reported financial affiliations with Novocure, Inc. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gjyshi O et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9135.

A nationwide survey of radiation oncologists showed a decline in the use of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) after the release of phase 3 study results by Takahashi et al.

The recent study by Toshiaki Takahashi, MD, and colleagues (Lancet Oncol. 2017;18[5]:663-71) demonstrated no overall survival benefit when comparing active magnetic resonance imaging surveillance with PCI in patients with ES-SCLC. The results challenged the formerly accepted belief of the benefit of PCI for patients with ES-SCLC.

“We conducted a nationwide survey study of radiation oncologists to assess changes in the use of PCI for patients with ES-SCLC following publication of the trial by Takahashi et al.,” wrote Olsi Gjyshi, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues. The findings were reported in a research letter published in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Gjyshi and colleagues distributed the anonymous survey to 3,851 United States–based radiation oncologists registered with the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO). In total, 487 members (12.6%) completed the survey.

After analysis, the researchers found that 72% of respondents regularly offered PCI to patients before the publication of the study by Takahashi et al., while only 44% do so currently (difference, 28%; 95% confidence interval, 25%-31%; P less than .001).

With respect to radiation oncologists in private versus academic settings, no significant difference in practice patterns was observed (P = .71).

“Regression analysis showed no difference in likelihood of offering PCI based on practice setting, location, or size; volume of patients treated for lung cancer; or years in practice,” the researchers wrote.

In respondents unaware of the Takahashi et al. study, 85% continued to propose PCI, which was greater than those aware of the trial (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.32; P less than .001).

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the study was that radiation oncologists familiar with the study by Dr. Takahashi and colleagues may have been more apt to respond to the survey. As a result, participation bias could have influenced the results.

“These results highlight the continued lack of consensus for PCI in SCLC and support ongoing investigations,” they concluded.

No funding sources were reported. One co-author reported financial affiliations with Novocure, Inc. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gjyshi O et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9135.

Key clinical point: Data do not support an association between vaccination and increased risk of MS.

Major finding: The odds of MS were lower in participants who received vaccination, compared with participants without autoimmune disease (odds ratio, 0.870).

Study details: A systematic retrospective analysis of claims data for 12,262 patients with MS and 210,773 controls.

Disclosures: A grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Competence Network MS supported the study. The authors had no relevant conflicts.

Citation: Hapfelmeier A et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008012.

Key clinical point: Data do not support an association between vaccination and increased risk of MS.

Major finding: The odds of MS were lower in participants who received vaccination, compared with participants without autoimmune disease (odds ratio, 0.870).

Study details: A systematic retrospective analysis of claims data for 12,262 patients with MS and 210,773 controls.

Disclosures: A grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Competence Network MS supported the study. The authors had no relevant conflicts.

Citation: Hapfelmeier A et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008012.

Key clinical point: Data do not support an association between vaccination and increased risk of MS.

Major finding: The odds of MS were lower in participants who received vaccination, compared with participants without autoimmune disease (odds ratio, 0.870).

Study details: A systematic retrospective analysis of claims data for 12,262 patients with MS and 210,773 controls.

Disclosures: A grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research Competence Network MS supported the study. The authors had no relevant conflicts.

Citation: Hapfelmeier A et al. Neurology. 2019 Jul 30. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008012.

Key clinical point: Evaluating black holes as part of routine clinical practice could be a quick method for screening people with MS for referral to a comprehensive cognitive assessment.

Major finding: Mean Symbol Digit Modalities Test score was 49.0 in patients without a black hole and 42.9 in patients with at least one black hole.

Study details: A prospective study of 226 patients with MS.

Disclosures: The investigators had no disclosures and conducted their study without financial support.

Citation: Özakbas S et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract IMG02.

Key clinical point: Evaluating black holes as part of routine clinical practice could be a quick method for screening people with MS for referral to a comprehensive cognitive assessment.

Major finding: Mean Symbol Digit Modalities Test score was 49.0 in patients without a black hole and 42.9 in patients with at least one black hole.

Study details: A prospective study of 226 patients with MS.

Disclosures: The investigators had no disclosures and conducted their study without financial support.

Citation: Özakbas S et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract IMG02.

Key clinical point: Evaluating black holes as part of routine clinical practice could be a quick method for screening people with MS for referral to a comprehensive cognitive assessment.

Major finding: Mean Symbol Digit Modalities Test score was 49.0 in patients without a black hole and 42.9 in patients with at least one black hole.

Study details: A prospective study of 226 patients with MS.

Disclosures: The investigators had no disclosures and conducted their study without financial support.

Citation: Özakbas S et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract IMG02.

Key clinical point: Neutrophil levels may decline in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who have been on fingolimod for 2 or more years.

Major finding: In a cohort of patients continuously treated with fingolimod for at least 2 years, neutrophils declined over 6 months by about 9%, from an average of 3,698.56 cells per microliter to 3,336.13 cells per microliter.

Study details: Analysis of interim, 6-month data from the ongoing, open-label, phase 4 FLUENT study, which is a 12-month, prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study to assess changes in the immune cell profiles of patients with relapsing MS who receive fingolimod. The interim results include data from 216 treatment-experienced patients and 166 treatment-naive patients.

Disclosures: Novartis funded the study, and four of the authors are Novartis employees. Dr. Cree disclosed consulting fees from Novartis and other pharmaceutical companies. His coauthors disclosed consulting fees, speaking fees, research support, and serving on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Citation: Mao-Draayer Y et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract DXM03.

Key clinical point: Neutrophil levels may decline in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who have been on fingolimod for 2 or more years.

Major finding: In a cohort of patients continuously treated with fingolimod for at least 2 years, neutrophils declined over 6 months by about 9%, from an average of 3,698.56 cells per microliter to 3,336.13 cells per microliter.

Study details: Analysis of interim, 6-month data from the ongoing, open-label, phase 4 FLUENT study, which is a 12-month, prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study to assess changes in the immune cell profiles of patients with relapsing MS who receive fingolimod. The interim results include data from 216 treatment-experienced patients and 166 treatment-naive patients.

Disclosures: Novartis funded the study, and four of the authors are Novartis employees. Dr. Cree disclosed consulting fees from Novartis and other pharmaceutical companies. His coauthors disclosed consulting fees, speaking fees, research support, and serving on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Citation: Mao-Draayer Y et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract DXM03.

Key clinical point: Neutrophil levels may decline in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) who have been on fingolimod for 2 or more years.

Major finding: In a cohort of patients continuously treated with fingolimod for at least 2 years, neutrophils declined over 6 months by about 9%, from an average of 3,698.56 cells per microliter to 3,336.13 cells per microliter.

Study details: Analysis of interim, 6-month data from the ongoing, open-label, phase 4 FLUENT study, which is a 12-month, prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study to assess changes in the immune cell profiles of patients with relapsing MS who receive fingolimod. The interim results include data from 216 treatment-experienced patients and 166 treatment-naive patients.

Disclosures: Novartis funded the study, and four of the authors are Novartis employees. Dr. Cree disclosed consulting fees from Novartis and other pharmaceutical companies. His coauthors disclosed consulting fees, speaking fees, research support, and serving on advisory boards for pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Citation: Mao-Draayer Y et al. CMSC 2019, Abstract DXM03.

The timing for adjuvant treatment following surgery for pancreatic cancer appears to have a sweet spot associated with the best survival outcomes, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers analyzed data from the National Cancer Database for 7,548 patients with stage I-II resected pancreatic cancer, 5,453 of whom had received adjuvant therapy and 2,095 who did not.

“While the benefit of adjuvant therapy to patients with resected pancreatic cancer is accepted, its optimal timing after surgery remains under investigation,” wrote Sung Jun Ma, MD, from the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., and coauthors.

After a median overall follow-up of 38.6 months, they found the lowest mortality risk was in the reference cohort of patients who started adjuvant therapy 28-59 days after surgery. In comparison, patients who received early adjuvant therapy – within 28 days of surgery – had a 17% higher mortality (P = .03), and those who received adjuvant therapy late – 59 days or more after surgery – had a 9% higher mortality (P = .008)

The overall survival rate at 2 years was 45.2% for the early adjuvant therapy cohort and 52.5% for the reference cohort.

Despite the higher mortality among the early adjuvant therapy cohort, patients treated with adjuvant therapy more than 12 weeks after surgery still showed improved survival, compared with patient treated with surgery alone, particular those with node-positive disease.

“To our knowledge, it is the first study to suggest that patients who commence adjuvant therapy within 28-59 days after primary surgical resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma have improved survival outcomes compared with those who waited for more than 59 days,” the authors wrote. “However, patients who recover slowly from surgery may still benefit from delayed adjuvant therapy initiated more than 12 weeks after surgery.”

No treatment interactions were seen for other variables such as age, comorbidity score, tumor size, pathologic T stages, surgical margin, duration of postoperative inpatient admission, unplanned readmission within 30 days after surgery, and time from diagnosis to surgery.

The analysis also revealed that patients with a primary tumor at the pancreatic body and tail and those receiving multiagent chemotherapy or radiation therapy were less likely to receive delayed adjuvant therapy, However, older or black patients, those with lower income, with postoperative inpatient admission longer than 1 week or with unplanned readmission within 30 days after surgery were more likely to have delayed initiation of adjuvant therapy.

No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Ma SJ et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9126.

The timing for adjuvant treatment following surgery for pancreatic cancer appears to have a sweet spot associated with the best survival outcomes, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers analyzed data from the National Cancer Database for 7,548 patients with stage I-II resected pancreatic cancer, 5,453 of whom had received adjuvant therapy and 2,095 who did not.

“While the benefit of adjuvant therapy to patients with resected pancreatic cancer is accepted, its optimal timing after surgery remains under investigation,” wrote Sung Jun Ma, MD, from the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., and coauthors.

After a median overall follow-up of 38.6 months, they found the lowest mortality risk was in the reference cohort of patients who started adjuvant therapy 28-59 days after surgery. In comparison, patients who received early adjuvant therapy – within 28 days of surgery – had a 17% higher mortality (P = .03), and those who received adjuvant therapy late – 59 days or more after surgery – had a 9% higher mortality (P = .008)

The overall survival rate at 2 years was 45.2% for the early adjuvant therapy cohort and 52.5% for the reference cohort.

Despite the higher mortality among the early adjuvant therapy cohort, patients treated with adjuvant therapy more than 12 weeks after surgery still showed improved survival, compared with patient treated with surgery alone, particular those with node-positive disease.

“To our knowledge, it is the first study to suggest that patients who commence adjuvant therapy within 28-59 days after primary surgical resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma have improved survival outcomes compared with those who waited for more than 59 days,” the authors wrote. “However, patients who recover slowly from surgery may still benefit from delayed adjuvant therapy initiated more than 12 weeks after surgery.”

No treatment interactions were seen for other variables such as age, comorbidity score, tumor size, pathologic T stages, surgical margin, duration of postoperative inpatient admission, unplanned readmission within 30 days after surgery, and time from diagnosis to surgery.

The analysis also revealed that patients with a primary tumor at the pancreatic body and tail and those receiving multiagent chemotherapy or radiation therapy were less likely to receive delayed adjuvant therapy, However, older or black patients, those with lower income, with postoperative inpatient admission longer than 1 week or with unplanned readmission within 30 days after surgery were more likely to have delayed initiation of adjuvant therapy.

No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Ma SJ et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9126.

The timing for adjuvant treatment following surgery for pancreatic cancer appears to have a sweet spot associated with the best survival outcomes, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers analyzed data from the National Cancer Database for 7,548 patients with stage I-II resected pancreatic cancer, 5,453 of whom had received adjuvant therapy and 2,095 who did not.

“While the benefit of adjuvant therapy to patients with resected pancreatic cancer is accepted, its optimal timing after surgery remains under investigation,” wrote Sung Jun Ma, MD, from the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., and coauthors.

After a median overall follow-up of 38.6 months, they found the lowest mortality risk was in the reference cohort of patients who started adjuvant therapy 28-59 days after surgery. In comparison, patients who received early adjuvant therapy – within 28 days of surgery – had a 17% higher mortality (P = .03), and those who received adjuvant therapy late – 59 days or more after surgery – had a 9% higher mortality (P = .008)

The overall survival rate at 2 years was 45.2% for the early adjuvant therapy cohort and 52.5% for the reference cohort.

Despite the higher mortality among the early adjuvant therapy cohort, patients treated with adjuvant therapy more than 12 weeks after surgery still showed improved survival, compared with patient treated with surgery alone, particular those with node-positive disease.

“To our knowledge, it is the first study to suggest that patients who commence adjuvant therapy within 28-59 days after primary surgical resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma have improved survival outcomes compared with those who waited for more than 59 days,” the authors wrote. “However, patients who recover slowly from surgery may still benefit from delayed adjuvant therapy initiated more than 12 weeks after surgery.”

No treatment interactions were seen for other variables such as age, comorbidity score, tumor size, pathologic T stages, surgical margin, duration of postoperative inpatient admission, unplanned readmission within 30 days after surgery, and time from diagnosis to surgery.

The analysis also revealed that patients with a primary tumor at the pancreatic body and tail and those receiving multiagent chemotherapy or radiation therapy were less likely to receive delayed adjuvant therapy, However, older or black patients, those with lower income, with postoperative inpatient admission longer than 1 week or with unplanned readmission within 30 days after surgery were more likely to have delayed initiation of adjuvant therapy.

No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Ma SJ et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9126.

The long-term benefit of adjuvant tamoxifen in lower-risk early breast cancer hinges on intrinsic molecular subtype, finds a secondary analysis of the Stockholm Tamoxifen (STO-3) trial.

“Patients with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer have a long-term risk for fatal disease. However, the tumor biological factors that influence the long-term risk and the benefit associated with endocrine therapy are not well understood,” noted the investigators, who conducted the research under senior investigator Linda Lindström, MSc, PhD, department of biosciences and nutrition, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

The STO-3 trial spanned 1976 to 1990 and randomized postmenopausal patients with lymph node–negative breast cancer to receive at least 2 years of adjuvant tamoxifen or no endocrine therapy.

Dr. Lindström and coinvestigators used immunohistochemistry and Agilent microarrays to define tumor molecular subtype. Analyses were based on 462 patients with ER-positive disease: 336 with luminal A subtype tumors and 126 with luminal B subtype tumors.

Results reported in JAMA Oncology showed that the distant recurrence–free interval (DRFI) was significantly better with tamoxifen than with no endocrine therapy in both the luminal A group (P less than .001) and the luminal B group (P = .04).

Among patients given tamoxifen, the 25-year DRFI rate was 87% (95% confidence interval, 82%-93%) for those with luminal A tumors vs. 67% (95% CI, 56%-82%) for those with luminal B tumors. Among patients not given any endocrine therapy, it was 70% (95% CI, 62%-79%) vs. 54% (95% CI, 42%-70%), respectively.

Tamoxifen had a significant DRFI benefit for 15 years after diagnosis in the luminal A group (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35-0.94). In contrast, the benefit was significant for only 5 years in the luminal B group (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24-0.59).

“We conclude that tamoxifen appears to confer a long-term benefit for patients with lymph node–negative, ER-positive, luminal A subtype tumors, and a short-term benefit for patients with luminal B subtype tumors. Given that the risk of distant metastatic disease is low for patients with the luminal A subtype but persists in the long term, whereas the risk for patients with luminal B subtype is higher initially but decreases after 5 years, tamoxifen treatment is beneficial for patients with luminal A or luminal B subtype tumors,” Dr. Lindström and coinvestigators maintained.

“In patients with luminal B subtype, up-front chemotherapy should be discussed and endocrine therapy potentially extended for up to 10 years, particularly in those in the higher risk strata according to other tumor characteristics,” they recommended.

Dr. Lindström disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, FORTE, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, the California Breast Cancer Research Program, The Iris, Stig och Gerry Castenbäcks Stiftelse för Cancerforskning, and Konung Gustaf V:s Jubileumsfond from Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder.

SOURCE: Yu NY et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1856.

The long-term benefit of adjuvant tamoxifen in lower-risk early breast cancer hinges on intrinsic molecular subtype, finds a secondary analysis of the Stockholm Tamoxifen (STO-3) trial.

“Patients with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer have a long-term risk for fatal disease. However, the tumor biological factors that influence the long-term risk and the benefit associated with endocrine therapy are not well understood,” noted the investigators, who conducted the research under senior investigator Linda Lindström, MSc, PhD, department of biosciences and nutrition, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

The STO-3 trial spanned 1976 to 1990 and randomized postmenopausal patients with lymph node–negative breast cancer to receive at least 2 years of adjuvant tamoxifen or no endocrine therapy.

Dr. Lindström and coinvestigators used immunohistochemistry and Agilent microarrays to define tumor molecular subtype. Analyses were based on 462 patients with ER-positive disease: 336 with luminal A subtype tumors and 126 with luminal B subtype tumors.

Results reported in JAMA Oncology showed that the distant recurrence–free interval (DRFI) was significantly better with tamoxifen than with no endocrine therapy in both the luminal A group (P less than .001) and the luminal B group (P = .04).

Among patients given tamoxifen, the 25-year DRFI rate was 87% (95% confidence interval, 82%-93%) for those with luminal A tumors vs. 67% (95% CI, 56%-82%) for those with luminal B tumors. Among patients not given any endocrine therapy, it was 70% (95% CI, 62%-79%) vs. 54% (95% CI, 42%-70%), respectively.

Tamoxifen had a significant DRFI benefit for 15 years after diagnosis in the luminal A group (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35-0.94). In contrast, the benefit was significant for only 5 years in the luminal B group (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24-0.59).

“We conclude that tamoxifen appears to confer a long-term benefit for patients with lymph node–negative, ER-positive, luminal A subtype tumors, and a short-term benefit for patients with luminal B subtype tumors. Given that the risk of distant metastatic disease is low for patients with the luminal A subtype but persists in the long term, whereas the risk for patients with luminal B subtype is higher initially but decreases after 5 years, tamoxifen treatment is beneficial for patients with luminal A or luminal B subtype tumors,” Dr. Lindström and coinvestigators maintained.

“In patients with luminal B subtype, up-front chemotherapy should be discussed and endocrine therapy potentially extended for up to 10 years, particularly in those in the higher risk strata according to other tumor characteristics,” they recommended.

Dr. Lindström disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, FORTE, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, the California Breast Cancer Research Program, The Iris, Stig och Gerry Castenbäcks Stiftelse för Cancerforskning, and Konung Gustaf V:s Jubileumsfond from Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder.

SOURCE: Yu NY et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1856.

The long-term benefit of adjuvant tamoxifen in lower-risk early breast cancer hinges on intrinsic molecular subtype, finds a secondary analysis of the Stockholm Tamoxifen (STO-3) trial.

“Patients with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer have a long-term risk for fatal disease. However, the tumor biological factors that influence the long-term risk and the benefit associated with endocrine therapy are not well understood,” noted the investigators, who conducted the research under senior investigator Linda Lindström, MSc, PhD, department of biosciences and nutrition, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

The STO-3 trial spanned 1976 to 1990 and randomized postmenopausal patients with lymph node–negative breast cancer to receive at least 2 years of adjuvant tamoxifen or no endocrine therapy.

Dr. Lindström and coinvestigators used immunohistochemistry and Agilent microarrays to define tumor molecular subtype. Analyses were based on 462 patients with ER-positive disease: 336 with luminal A subtype tumors and 126 with luminal B subtype tumors.

Results reported in JAMA Oncology showed that the distant recurrence–free interval (DRFI) was significantly better with tamoxifen than with no endocrine therapy in both the luminal A group (P less than .001) and the luminal B group (P = .04).

Among patients given tamoxifen, the 25-year DRFI rate was 87% (95% confidence interval, 82%-93%) for those with luminal A tumors vs. 67% (95% CI, 56%-82%) for those with luminal B tumors. Among patients not given any endocrine therapy, it was 70% (95% CI, 62%-79%) vs. 54% (95% CI, 42%-70%), respectively.

Tamoxifen had a significant DRFI benefit for 15 years after diagnosis in the luminal A group (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35-0.94). In contrast, the benefit was significant for only 5 years in the luminal B group (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24-0.59).

“We conclude that tamoxifen appears to confer a long-term benefit for patients with lymph node–negative, ER-positive, luminal A subtype tumors, and a short-term benefit for patients with luminal B subtype tumors. Given that the risk of distant metastatic disease is low for patients with the luminal A subtype but persists in the long term, whereas the risk for patients with luminal B subtype is higher initially but decreases after 5 years, tamoxifen treatment is beneficial for patients with luminal A or luminal B subtype tumors,” Dr. Lindström and coinvestigators maintained.

“In patients with luminal B subtype, up-front chemotherapy should be discussed and endocrine therapy potentially extended for up to 10 years, particularly in those in the higher risk strata according to other tumor characteristics,” they recommended.

Dr. Lindström disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, FORTE, The Gösta Milton Donation Fund, the California Breast Cancer Research Program, The Iris, Stig och Gerry Castenbäcks Stiftelse för Cancerforskning, and Konung Gustaf V:s Jubileumsfond from Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder.

SOURCE: Yu NY et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1856.

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) affects up to 80% of pregnant women, most commonly between 5 and 18 weeks of gestation. In addition, its extreme form, hyperemesis gravidarum, affects less than 3% of pregnancies.¹ Certainly with hyperemesis gravidarum, and oftentimes with less severe NVP, pharmacologic treatment is desired or required. One of the choices for such treatment has been ondansetron, a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, which has been used off label for NVP and is now available in generic form. However, there have been concerns raised regarding the fetal safety of this medication, last reviewed in Ob.Gyn. News by Gideon Koren, MD, in a commentary published in 2013.

Since then, the escalating use of ondansetron in the United States has been described using a large dataset covering 2.3 million, predominantly commercially insured, pregnancies that resulted in live births from 2001 to 2015.¹ Over that period of time, any outpatient pharmacy dispensing of an antiemetic in pregnancy increased from 17.0% in 2001 to 27.2% in 2014. That increase was entirely accounted for by a dramatic rise in oral ondansetron use beginning in 2006. By 2014, 22.4% of pregnancies in the database had received a prescription for ondansetron.

There have been two studies that have suggested an increased risk in specific major birth defects with first-trimester ondansetron use. The first, published in 2012, used data from the National Birth Defects Prevention case control study from 1997 to 2004 to examine risks with NVP and its treatments for the most common noncardiac defects in the dataset. These included cleft lip with or without cleft palate, cleft palate alone, neural tube defects, and hypospadias. NVP itself was not associated with any increased risks for the selected defects. In contrast, ondansetron was associated with an increased risk for cleft palate alone based on seven exposed cases (adjusted odds ratio, 2.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-4.76).²

A second study published in 2014 used data from the Swedish Medical Birth Register from 1998 to 2012 to identify 1,349 infants whose mothers reported taking ondansetron in early pregnancy. While no overall increased risk of major birth defects was found with early pregnancy ondansetron use, compared with no such use, there was a significant increased risk noted for cardiovascular defects, particularly cardiac septum defects (any cardiac defect OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.04-2.14; cardiac septum defects risk ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.19-3.28).³ No cases of cleft palate were reported among exposed cases in that study.

In contrast, in another study, Danish National Birth Cohort data on 608,385 pregnancies from 2004 to 2011 were used to compare major birth defect outcomes among 1,233 women exposed to ondansetron in the first trimester with those of 4,392 unexposed women.⁴ The birth prevalence of any major birth defect was identical (2.9%) in both exposed and unexposed groups (adjusted prevalence OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.69-1.82). No cases of cleft palate were reported among exposed cases and the crude OR for any cardiac defect approximated the null (1.04; 95% CI, 0.52-1.95). Two other smaller or less well-designed studies did not support an increased risk for major birth defects overall (Fejzo et al. 2016 Jul;62:87-91; Einarson et al. 2004Aug 23. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00236.x).

Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, a past president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society. She has no conflicts of interest to disclose related to this column.

References:

1. Taylor LG et al. Antiemetic use among pregnant women in the United States: the escalating use of ondansetron. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017 May;26(5):592-6.

2. Anderka M et al. Medications used to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and the risk of selected birth defects. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2012 Jan;94(1):22-30.

3. Danielsson B et al. Use of ondansetron during pregnancy and congenital malformations in the infant. Reprod Toxicol. 2014 Dec;50:134-7.

4. Pasternak B et al. Ondansetron in pregnancy and risk of adverse fetal outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2013 Feb 28;368(9):814-23.

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) affects up to 80% of pregnant women, most commonly between 5 and 18 weeks of gestation. In addition, its extreme form, hyperemesis gravidarum, affects less than 3% of pregnancies.¹ Certainly with hyperemesis gravidarum, and oftentimes with less severe NVP, pharmacologic treatment is desired or required. One of the choices for such treatment has been ondansetron, a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, which has been used off label for NVP and is now available in generic form. However, there have been concerns raised regarding the fetal safety of this medication, last reviewed in Ob.Gyn. News by Gideon Koren, MD, in a commentary published in 2013.

Since then, the escalating use of ondansetron in the United States has been described using a large dataset covering 2.3 million, predominantly commercially insured, pregnancies that resulted in live births from 2001 to 2015.¹ Over that period of time, any outpatient pharmacy dispensing of an antiemetic in pregnancy increased from 17.0% in 2001 to 27.2% in 2014. That increase was entirely accounted for by a dramatic rise in oral ondansetron use beginning in 2006. By 2014, 22.4% of pregnancies in the database had received a prescription for ondansetron.

There have been two studies that have suggested an increased risk in specific major birth defects with first-trimester ondansetron use. The first, published in 2012, used data from the National Birth Defects Prevention case control study from 1997 to 2004 to examine risks with NVP and its treatments for the most common noncardiac defects in the dataset. These included cleft lip with or without cleft palate, cleft palate alone, neural tube defects, and hypospadias. NVP itself was not associated with any increased risks for the selected defects. In contrast, ondansetron was associated with an increased risk for cleft palate alone based on seven exposed cases (adjusted odds ratio, 2.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-4.76).²

A second study published in 2014 used data from the Swedish Medical Birth Register from 1998 to 2012 to identify 1,349 infants whose mothers reported taking ondansetron in early pregnancy. While no overall increased risk of major birth defects was found with early pregnancy ondansetron use, compared with no such use, there was a significant increased risk noted for cardiovascular defects, particularly cardiac septum defects (any cardiac defect OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.04-2.14; cardiac septum defects risk ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.19-3.28).³ No cases of cleft palate were reported among exposed cases in that study.

In contrast, in another study, Danish National Birth Cohort data on 608,385 pregnancies from 2004 to 2011 were used to compare major birth defect outcomes among 1,233 women exposed to ondansetron in the first trimester with those of 4,392 unexposed women.⁴ The birth prevalence of any major birth defect was identical (2.9%) in both exposed and unexposed groups (adjusted prevalence OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.69-1.82). No cases of cleft palate were reported among exposed cases and the crude OR for any cardiac defect approximated the null (1.04; 95% CI, 0.52-1.95). Two other smaller or less well-designed studies did not support an increased risk for major birth defects overall (Fejzo et al. 2016 Jul;62:87-91; Einarson et al. 2004Aug 23. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00236.x).

Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, a past president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society. She has no conflicts of interest to disclose related to this column.

References:

1. Taylor LG et al. Antiemetic use among pregnant women in the United States: the escalating use of ondansetron. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017 May;26(5):592-6.

2. Anderka M et al. Medications used to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and the risk of selected birth defects. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2012 Jan;94(1):22-30.

3. Danielsson B et al. Use of ondansetron during pregnancy and congenital malformations in the infant. Reprod Toxicol. 2014 Dec;50:134-7.

4. Pasternak B et al. Ondansetron in pregnancy and risk of adverse fetal outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2013 Feb 28;368(9):814-23.

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) affects up to 80% of pregnant women, most commonly between 5 and 18 weeks of gestation. In addition, its extreme form, hyperemesis gravidarum, affects less than 3% of pregnancies.¹ Certainly with hyperemesis gravidarum, and oftentimes with less severe NVP, pharmacologic treatment is desired or required. One of the choices for such treatment has been ondansetron, a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, which has been used off label for NVP and is now available in generic form. However, there have been concerns raised regarding the fetal safety of this medication, last reviewed in Ob.Gyn. News by Gideon Koren, MD, in a commentary published in 2013.

Since then, the escalating use of ondansetron in the United States has been described using a large dataset covering 2.3 million, predominantly commercially insured, pregnancies that resulted in live births from 2001 to 2015.¹ Over that period of time, any outpatient pharmacy dispensing of an antiemetic in pregnancy increased from 17.0% in 2001 to 27.2% in 2014. That increase was entirely accounted for by a dramatic rise in oral ondansetron use beginning in 2006. By 2014, 22.4% of pregnancies in the database had received a prescription for ondansetron.

There have been two studies that have suggested an increased risk in specific major birth defects with first-trimester ondansetron use. The first, published in 2012, used data from the National Birth Defects Prevention case control study from 1997 to 2004 to examine risks with NVP and its treatments for the most common noncardiac defects in the dataset. These included cleft lip with or without cleft palate, cleft palate alone, neural tube defects, and hypospadias. NVP itself was not associated with any increased risks for the selected defects. In contrast, ondansetron was associated with an increased risk for cleft palate alone based on seven exposed cases (adjusted odds ratio, 2.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-4.76).²

A second study published in 2014 used data from the Swedish Medical Birth Register from 1998 to 2012 to identify 1,349 infants whose mothers reported taking ondansetron in early pregnancy. While no overall increased risk of major birth defects was found with early pregnancy ondansetron use, compared with no such use, there was a significant increased risk noted for cardiovascular defects, particularly cardiac septum defects (any cardiac defect OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.04-2.14; cardiac septum defects risk ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.19-3.28).³ No cases of cleft palate were reported among exposed cases in that study.

In contrast, in another study, Danish National Birth Cohort data on 608,385 pregnancies from 2004 to 2011 were used to compare major birth defect outcomes among 1,233 women exposed to ondansetron in the first trimester with those of 4,392 unexposed women.⁴ The birth prevalence of any major birth defect was identical (2.9%) in both exposed and unexposed groups (adjusted prevalence OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.69-1.82). No cases of cleft palate were reported among exposed cases and the crude OR for any cardiac defect approximated the null (1.04; 95% CI, 0.52-1.95). Two other smaller or less well-designed studies did not support an increased risk for major birth defects overall (Fejzo et al. 2016 Jul;62:87-91; Einarson et al. 2004Aug 23. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00236.x).

Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, a past president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society. She has no conflicts of interest to disclose related to this column.

References:

1. Taylor LG et al. Antiemetic use among pregnant women in the United States: the escalating use of ondansetron. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017 May;26(5):592-6.

2. Anderka M et al. Medications used to treat nausea and vomiting of pregnancy and the risk of selected birth defects. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2012 Jan;94(1):22-30.

3. Danielsson B et al. Use of ondansetron during pregnancy and congenital malformations in the infant. Reprod Toxicol. 2014 Dec;50:134-7.

4. Pasternak B et al. Ondansetron in pregnancy and risk of adverse fetal outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2013 Feb 28;368(9):814-23.