User login
FDA gives green light to freeze-dried plasma in combat
The Department of Defense has received emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration to use pathogen-reduced, leukocyte-depleted, freeze-dried plasma for the emergency treatment of hemorrhage and coagulopathy in combat situations.
Hemorrhage and coagulopathy are the leading causes of preventable deaths among combat trauma casualties. While plasma contains proteins that help clot blood and thus can treat these conditions, it isn’t feasible to keep it on hand for combat emergencies in the field because of logistical and operational requirements, such as refrigeration or thawing periods. This freeze-dried plasma product, on the other hand, can be easily reconstituted in situations in which refrigeration isn’t possible.
The FDA authorization allows for the use of a French-made, powdered, freeze-dried product. This emergency use authorization came about in part because of a joint program established between the FDA and the Department of Defense in January 2018.
“Earlier this year, we reaffirmed our commitment to the Department of Defense and to the dedicated men and women protecting our country, by expediting the development and availability of safe and effective, priority medical products that are essential to the health of our military service members,” said FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD. “This is especially true when it comes to products used to treat injuries in a potential battlefield setting.”
More information about this emergency use authorization can be found in the FDA’s full press announcement.
The Department of Defense has received emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration to use pathogen-reduced, leukocyte-depleted, freeze-dried plasma for the emergency treatment of hemorrhage and coagulopathy in combat situations.
Hemorrhage and coagulopathy are the leading causes of preventable deaths among combat trauma casualties. While plasma contains proteins that help clot blood and thus can treat these conditions, it isn’t feasible to keep it on hand for combat emergencies in the field because of logistical and operational requirements, such as refrigeration or thawing periods. This freeze-dried plasma product, on the other hand, can be easily reconstituted in situations in which refrigeration isn’t possible.
The FDA authorization allows for the use of a French-made, powdered, freeze-dried product. This emergency use authorization came about in part because of a joint program established between the FDA and the Department of Defense in January 2018.
“Earlier this year, we reaffirmed our commitment to the Department of Defense and to the dedicated men and women protecting our country, by expediting the development and availability of safe and effective, priority medical products that are essential to the health of our military service members,” said FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD. “This is especially true when it comes to products used to treat injuries in a potential battlefield setting.”
More information about this emergency use authorization can be found in the FDA’s full press announcement.
The Department of Defense has received emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration to use pathogen-reduced, leukocyte-depleted, freeze-dried plasma for the emergency treatment of hemorrhage and coagulopathy in combat situations.
Hemorrhage and coagulopathy are the leading causes of preventable deaths among combat trauma casualties. While plasma contains proteins that help clot blood and thus can treat these conditions, it isn’t feasible to keep it on hand for combat emergencies in the field because of logistical and operational requirements, such as refrigeration or thawing periods. This freeze-dried plasma product, on the other hand, can be easily reconstituted in situations in which refrigeration isn’t possible.
The FDA authorization allows for the use of a French-made, powdered, freeze-dried product. This emergency use authorization came about in part because of a joint program established between the FDA and the Department of Defense in January 2018.
“Earlier this year, we reaffirmed our commitment to the Department of Defense and to the dedicated men and women protecting our country, by expediting the development and availability of safe and effective, priority medical products that are essential to the health of our military service members,” said FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD. “This is especially true when it comes to products used to treat injuries in a potential battlefield setting.”
More information about this emergency use authorization can be found in the FDA’s full press announcement.
A multimodal treatment for vestibulodynia: TENS plus diazepam
and with placebo in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
In the TENS/diazepam and TENS/placebo groups, participants reported significant improvements from baseline in pain and sexual functioning by questionnaire and visual analog scale. They also improved in measurements of pelvic floor muscle tone and vestibular nerve fiber current perception threshold.
The study had two groups of 21 women each, all aged 18 years or older and diagnosed (by physical exam) with moderate or severe pelvic floor hypertonic dysfunction. The diazepam was a tablet inserted vaginally daily before bed.
The TENS therapy was also self-administered (after six or seven supervised trial sessions), a recommended three times per week. The device is a 20-mm diameter plastic vaginal probe with gold metallic transversal rings as electrodes, inserted 20 mm, with 30 minutes of electrical stimulation increased slowly until sensation “reached a level described as the maximum tolerable without experiencing pain.” Vulvar pain was assessed on a on a 10-cm visual analog scale and dyspareunia on the Marinoff dyspareunia scale.
At the primary endpoint, the mean change from baseline to 60 days, the diazepam combination improved from 7.5 on the visual scale to 4.7, while the placebo combination improved from 7.2 to 4.3 (P not significant between the groups). Marinoff dyspareunia scores, however, improved from 2.5 to 1.6 and from 2.0 to 1.3, respectively (P less than .01).
Though “very few statistically significant differences in outcomes between the two groups were observed ... our results indicate that diazepam is able to positively change the functions of the pelvic floor muscle often highlighted” in women with vestibulodynia, reported Filippo Murina, MD, of the University of Milan and his coauthors. This conclusion followed from the Marinoff scores and from vaginal surface electromyography. In the latter measure, the diazepam group showed a significantly greater ability to relax the pelvic floor muscle after contraction (3.8 vs. 2.4 microvolts; P = .01), compared with the placebo group.
“We also observed that TENS itself is essential in reducing vulvar pain and the action of diazepam is useful but not decisive. ... It is possible that vaginal diazepam alone is insufficient to resolve the symptoms related to pelvic floor muscle dysfunction, while vaginal diazepam and TENS together provide a synergistic benefit in vestibulodynia patients,” wrote Dr. Murina and his coauthors.
This study was supported by the Associazione Italiana Vulvodinia. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Murina F et al. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 Jun;228:148-53.
and with placebo in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
In the TENS/diazepam and TENS/placebo groups, participants reported significant improvements from baseline in pain and sexual functioning by questionnaire and visual analog scale. They also improved in measurements of pelvic floor muscle tone and vestibular nerve fiber current perception threshold.
The study had two groups of 21 women each, all aged 18 years or older and diagnosed (by physical exam) with moderate or severe pelvic floor hypertonic dysfunction. The diazepam was a tablet inserted vaginally daily before bed.
The TENS therapy was also self-administered (after six or seven supervised trial sessions), a recommended three times per week. The device is a 20-mm diameter plastic vaginal probe with gold metallic transversal rings as electrodes, inserted 20 mm, with 30 minutes of electrical stimulation increased slowly until sensation “reached a level described as the maximum tolerable without experiencing pain.” Vulvar pain was assessed on a on a 10-cm visual analog scale and dyspareunia on the Marinoff dyspareunia scale.
At the primary endpoint, the mean change from baseline to 60 days, the diazepam combination improved from 7.5 on the visual scale to 4.7, while the placebo combination improved from 7.2 to 4.3 (P not significant between the groups). Marinoff dyspareunia scores, however, improved from 2.5 to 1.6 and from 2.0 to 1.3, respectively (P less than .01).
Though “very few statistically significant differences in outcomes between the two groups were observed ... our results indicate that diazepam is able to positively change the functions of the pelvic floor muscle often highlighted” in women with vestibulodynia, reported Filippo Murina, MD, of the University of Milan and his coauthors. This conclusion followed from the Marinoff scores and from vaginal surface electromyography. In the latter measure, the diazepam group showed a significantly greater ability to relax the pelvic floor muscle after contraction (3.8 vs. 2.4 microvolts; P = .01), compared with the placebo group.
“We also observed that TENS itself is essential in reducing vulvar pain and the action of diazepam is useful but not decisive. ... It is possible that vaginal diazepam alone is insufficient to resolve the symptoms related to pelvic floor muscle dysfunction, while vaginal diazepam and TENS together provide a synergistic benefit in vestibulodynia patients,” wrote Dr. Murina and his coauthors.
This study was supported by the Associazione Italiana Vulvodinia. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Murina F et al. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 Jun;228:148-53.
and with placebo in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
In the TENS/diazepam and TENS/placebo groups, participants reported significant improvements from baseline in pain and sexual functioning by questionnaire and visual analog scale. They also improved in measurements of pelvic floor muscle tone and vestibular nerve fiber current perception threshold.
The study had two groups of 21 women each, all aged 18 years or older and diagnosed (by physical exam) with moderate or severe pelvic floor hypertonic dysfunction. The diazepam was a tablet inserted vaginally daily before bed.
The TENS therapy was also self-administered (after six or seven supervised trial sessions), a recommended three times per week. The device is a 20-mm diameter plastic vaginal probe with gold metallic transversal rings as electrodes, inserted 20 mm, with 30 minutes of electrical stimulation increased slowly until sensation “reached a level described as the maximum tolerable without experiencing pain.” Vulvar pain was assessed on a on a 10-cm visual analog scale and dyspareunia on the Marinoff dyspareunia scale.
At the primary endpoint, the mean change from baseline to 60 days, the diazepam combination improved from 7.5 on the visual scale to 4.7, while the placebo combination improved from 7.2 to 4.3 (P not significant between the groups). Marinoff dyspareunia scores, however, improved from 2.5 to 1.6 and from 2.0 to 1.3, respectively (P less than .01).
Though “very few statistically significant differences in outcomes between the two groups were observed ... our results indicate that diazepam is able to positively change the functions of the pelvic floor muscle often highlighted” in women with vestibulodynia, reported Filippo Murina, MD, of the University of Milan and his coauthors. This conclusion followed from the Marinoff scores and from vaginal surface electromyography. In the latter measure, the diazepam group showed a significantly greater ability to relax the pelvic floor muscle after contraction (3.8 vs. 2.4 microvolts; P = .01), compared with the placebo group.
“We also observed that TENS itself is essential in reducing vulvar pain and the action of diazepam is useful but not decisive. ... It is possible that vaginal diazepam alone is insufficient to resolve the symptoms related to pelvic floor muscle dysfunction, while vaginal diazepam and TENS together provide a synergistic benefit in vestibulodynia patients,” wrote Dr. Murina and his coauthors.
This study was supported by the Associazione Italiana Vulvodinia. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Murina F et al. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 Jun;228:148-53.
FROM THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY
Innovation in GI: From AGA Tech Summit to your practice
After a successful and invigorating 2018 AGA Tech Summit, we can confidently say that innovation continues to be alive and well in the GI space. As you’ll see in the pages of this comprehensive AGA Tech Summit report, there is no shortage of novel ideas or potentially disruptive technologies poised to improve how we care for our patients.
What’s most special about the AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, is the camaraderie and shared commitment to innovation from physicians, innovators, industry, regulators, and investors. By coming together for this important dialogue, we can continue to move the pendulum forward and work toward new innovations that ultimately will improve patient outcomes. As the chair and vice chair of the center, we’re committed to continuing the conversations from the AGA Tech Summit year-round to help bring promising new technologies to our practices.
In this report, you’ll find summaries of select AGA Tech Summit presentations and key takeaways that will help you as a practicing gastroenterologist. Our recap of the annual AGA Tech Summit Shark Tank will give you insight into five new technologies making a splash in GI – flip to page 9 to see which device won this year’s Shark Tank. We also discuss physician barriers to incorporating new technologies, with tips for overcoming these challenges. You’ll also find articles on areas ripe for innovation in GI, including digital health, tissue resection techniques, and obesity treatment. Finally, for our physician innovators, we have advice and guidance throughout on how to take your idea from concept to product.
We’re looking ahead to the 2019 AGA Tech Summit, taking place April 10-12 at the Mark Hopkins Intercontinental in San Francisco, CA. This will be our 10th annual meeting of stakeholders in GI innovation – it’s amazing to reflect on all we’ve accomplished in the last 10 years. If you read this report with great interest, we hope you’ll join us for this unique and lively dialogue on advancing innovation in GI.
If you’d like to connect with us about innovation in GI – send us an email at [email protected] or visit www.gastro.org/CGIT.
Sincerely,
V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, FACG, FASGE
Chair, AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology
Sri Komanduri, MD, AGAF
Vice Chair, AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology
After a successful and invigorating 2018 AGA Tech Summit, we can confidently say that innovation continues to be alive and well in the GI space. As you’ll see in the pages of this comprehensive AGA Tech Summit report, there is no shortage of novel ideas or potentially disruptive technologies poised to improve how we care for our patients.
What’s most special about the AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, is the camaraderie and shared commitment to innovation from physicians, innovators, industry, regulators, and investors. By coming together for this important dialogue, we can continue to move the pendulum forward and work toward new innovations that ultimately will improve patient outcomes. As the chair and vice chair of the center, we’re committed to continuing the conversations from the AGA Tech Summit year-round to help bring promising new technologies to our practices.
In this report, you’ll find summaries of select AGA Tech Summit presentations and key takeaways that will help you as a practicing gastroenterologist. Our recap of the annual AGA Tech Summit Shark Tank will give you insight into five new technologies making a splash in GI – flip to page 9 to see which device won this year’s Shark Tank. We also discuss physician barriers to incorporating new technologies, with tips for overcoming these challenges. You’ll also find articles on areas ripe for innovation in GI, including digital health, tissue resection techniques, and obesity treatment. Finally, for our physician innovators, we have advice and guidance throughout on how to take your idea from concept to product.
We’re looking ahead to the 2019 AGA Tech Summit, taking place April 10-12 at the Mark Hopkins Intercontinental in San Francisco, CA. This will be our 10th annual meeting of stakeholders in GI innovation – it’s amazing to reflect on all we’ve accomplished in the last 10 years. If you read this report with great interest, we hope you’ll join us for this unique and lively dialogue on advancing innovation in GI.
If you’d like to connect with us about innovation in GI – send us an email at [email protected] or visit www.gastro.org/CGIT.
Sincerely,
V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, FACG, FASGE
Chair, AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology
Sri Komanduri, MD, AGAF
Vice Chair, AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology
After a successful and invigorating 2018 AGA Tech Summit, we can confidently say that innovation continues to be alive and well in the GI space. As you’ll see in the pages of this comprehensive AGA Tech Summit report, there is no shortage of novel ideas or potentially disruptive technologies poised to improve how we care for our patients.
What’s most special about the AGA Tech Summit, sponsored by the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, is the camaraderie and shared commitment to innovation from physicians, innovators, industry, regulators, and investors. By coming together for this important dialogue, we can continue to move the pendulum forward and work toward new innovations that ultimately will improve patient outcomes. As the chair and vice chair of the center, we’re committed to continuing the conversations from the AGA Tech Summit year-round to help bring promising new technologies to our practices.
In this report, you’ll find summaries of select AGA Tech Summit presentations and key takeaways that will help you as a practicing gastroenterologist. Our recap of the annual AGA Tech Summit Shark Tank will give you insight into five new technologies making a splash in GI – flip to page 9 to see which device won this year’s Shark Tank. We also discuss physician barriers to incorporating new technologies, with tips for overcoming these challenges. You’ll also find articles on areas ripe for innovation in GI, including digital health, tissue resection techniques, and obesity treatment. Finally, for our physician innovators, we have advice and guidance throughout on how to take your idea from concept to product.
We’re looking ahead to the 2019 AGA Tech Summit, taking place April 10-12 at the Mark Hopkins Intercontinental in San Francisco, CA. This will be our 10th annual meeting of stakeholders in GI innovation – it’s amazing to reflect on all we’ve accomplished in the last 10 years. If you read this report with great interest, we hope you’ll join us for this unique and lively dialogue on advancing innovation in GI.
If you’d like to connect with us about innovation in GI – send us an email at [email protected] or visit www.gastro.org/CGIT.
Sincerely,
V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, AGAF, FACG, FASGE
Chair, AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology
Sri Komanduri, MD, AGAF
Vice Chair, AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology
CRISS hailed as transforming systemic sclerosis drug development
AMSTERDAM – A new way to assess clinically meaningful, multiorgan changes in patients receiving treatment for systemic sclerosis has transformed the way new drugs for this disease are judged.
The Combined Response Index for Systemic Sclerosis (CRISS) “will change how we look at drugs” for systemic sclerosis, Daniel E. Furst, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The CRISS was close to 10 years in the making. “First we had to decide what measures were important, then we had to run a prospective study entering all the data, and then we had to do a very sophisticated statistical analysis and put the results in front of experts and ask: Does this make sense?” Dr. Furst recalled in an interview. Now the combined endpoint measure has been “fully validated,” and is under consideration by the Food and Drug Administration as an endpoint for drug trials, he noted.
“I think that now, after 10 years, we finally came up with what will be the equivalent” of the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR 20) in core-set measures of rheumatoid arthritis (Arthritis Res Ther. 2014 Jan 3;16[1]:101). “I think CRISS will make a huge difference because when you do a combined measure, like the ACR 20, it becomes more clinically and statistically powerful,” said Dr. Furst, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, an adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy). He is also in part-time practice in Los Angeles and Seattle.
In a talk he gave at the meeting on recent clinical studies of new drugs for treating patients with systemic sclerosis, many of the reports included CRISS as a measure of patient response to treatment.
The CRISS involves a two-step assessment of how a patient has responded to therapy. First, patients are considered not improved by their treatment if they develop any one of these four outcomes following treatment if it appears linked to the disease process:
- A new scleroderma renal crisis.
- A decline in forced vital capacity of 15% or more of predicted.
- A new decline of left ventricular ejection fraction to 45% or less.
- New onset of pulmonary arterial hypertension that requires treatment.
If none of these apply, the next step is to assess treatment response by measuring changes in five parameters and then integrating them into a single number using a mathematical formula. The five elements in the equation are:
- Modified Rodnan skin score.
- Percent of predicted forced vital capacity.
- Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index.
- Patient’s global assessment.
- Physician’s global assessment.
When factored together, changes in these five measures determine the probability that the patient responded to the intervention.
One limitation of the CRISS is that it only measures change from baseline, which makes it similar to the ACR 20, Dr. Furst noted. Another useful score would be one that reflects the status of a patient with systemic sclerosis at a specific point in time, a type of disease activity score. Dr. Furst said that he and others active in the systemic sclerosis field would like to develop a method that provides this type of patient assessment. Another addition would be to develop a “minimally clinically important change” in the score, which would make the CRISS more intuitive to understand.
Dr. Furst has received research support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corbus, Genentech-Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Novartis.
SOURCE: Furst DE. EULAR 2018. Abstract SP0012.
AMSTERDAM – A new way to assess clinically meaningful, multiorgan changes in patients receiving treatment for systemic sclerosis has transformed the way new drugs for this disease are judged.
The Combined Response Index for Systemic Sclerosis (CRISS) “will change how we look at drugs” for systemic sclerosis, Daniel E. Furst, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The CRISS was close to 10 years in the making. “First we had to decide what measures were important, then we had to run a prospective study entering all the data, and then we had to do a very sophisticated statistical analysis and put the results in front of experts and ask: Does this make sense?” Dr. Furst recalled in an interview. Now the combined endpoint measure has been “fully validated,” and is under consideration by the Food and Drug Administration as an endpoint for drug trials, he noted.
“I think that now, after 10 years, we finally came up with what will be the equivalent” of the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR 20) in core-set measures of rheumatoid arthritis (Arthritis Res Ther. 2014 Jan 3;16[1]:101). “I think CRISS will make a huge difference because when you do a combined measure, like the ACR 20, it becomes more clinically and statistically powerful,” said Dr. Furst, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, an adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy). He is also in part-time practice in Los Angeles and Seattle.
In a talk he gave at the meeting on recent clinical studies of new drugs for treating patients with systemic sclerosis, many of the reports included CRISS as a measure of patient response to treatment.
The CRISS involves a two-step assessment of how a patient has responded to therapy. First, patients are considered not improved by their treatment if they develop any one of these four outcomes following treatment if it appears linked to the disease process:
- A new scleroderma renal crisis.
- A decline in forced vital capacity of 15% or more of predicted.
- A new decline of left ventricular ejection fraction to 45% or less.
- New onset of pulmonary arterial hypertension that requires treatment.
If none of these apply, the next step is to assess treatment response by measuring changes in five parameters and then integrating them into a single number using a mathematical formula. The five elements in the equation are:
- Modified Rodnan skin score.
- Percent of predicted forced vital capacity.
- Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index.
- Patient’s global assessment.
- Physician’s global assessment.
When factored together, changes in these five measures determine the probability that the patient responded to the intervention.
One limitation of the CRISS is that it only measures change from baseline, which makes it similar to the ACR 20, Dr. Furst noted. Another useful score would be one that reflects the status of a patient with systemic sclerosis at a specific point in time, a type of disease activity score. Dr. Furst said that he and others active in the systemic sclerosis field would like to develop a method that provides this type of patient assessment. Another addition would be to develop a “minimally clinically important change” in the score, which would make the CRISS more intuitive to understand.
Dr. Furst has received research support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corbus, Genentech-Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Novartis.
SOURCE: Furst DE. EULAR 2018. Abstract SP0012.
AMSTERDAM – A new way to assess clinically meaningful, multiorgan changes in patients receiving treatment for systemic sclerosis has transformed the way new drugs for this disease are judged.
The Combined Response Index for Systemic Sclerosis (CRISS) “will change how we look at drugs” for systemic sclerosis, Daniel E. Furst, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The CRISS was close to 10 years in the making. “First we had to decide what measures were important, then we had to run a prospective study entering all the data, and then we had to do a very sophisticated statistical analysis and put the results in front of experts and ask: Does this make sense?” Dr. Furst recalled in an interview. Now the combined endpoint measure has been “fully validated,” and is under consideration by the Food and Drug Administration as an endpoint for drug trials, he noted.
“I think that now, after 10 years, we finally came up with what will be the equivalent” of the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR 20) in core-set measures of rheumatoid arthritis (Arthritis Res Ther. 2014 Jan 3;16[1]:101). “I think CRISS will make a huge difference because when you do a combined measure, like the ACR 20, it becomes more clinically and statistically powerful,” said Dr. Furst, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, an adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy). He is also in part-time practice in Los Angeles and Seattle.
In a talk he gave at the meeting on recent clinical studies of new drugs for treating patients with systemic sclerosis, many of the reports included CRISS as a measure of patient response to treatment.
The CRISS involves a two-step assessment of how a patient has responded to therapy. First, patients are considered not improved by their treatment if they develop any one of these four outcomes following treatment if it appears linked to the disease process:
- A new scleroderma renal crisis.
- A decline in forced vital capacity of 15% or more of predicted.
- A new decline of left ventricular ejection fraction to 45% or less.
- New onset of pulmonary arterial hypertension that requires treatment.
If none of these apply, the next step is to assess treatment response by measuring changes in five parameters and then integrating them into a single number using a mathematical formula. The five elements in the equation are:
- Modified Rodnan skin score.
- Percent of predicted forced vital capacity.
- Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index.
- Patient’s global assessment.
- Physician’s global assessment.
When factored together, changes in these five measures determine the probability that the patient responded to the intervention.
One limitation of the CRISS is that it only measures change from baseline, which makes it similar to the ACR 20, Dr. Furst noted. Another useful score would be one that reflects the status of a patient with systemic sclerosis at a specific point in time, a type of disease activity score. Dr. Furst said that he and others active in the systemic sclerosis field would like to develop a method that provides this type of patient assessment. Another addition would be to develop a “minimally clinically important change” in the score, which would make the CRISS more intuitive to understand.
Dr. Furst has received research support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corbus, Genentech-Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Novartis.
SOURCE: Furst DE. EULAR 2018. Abstract SP0012.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2018 CONGRESS
CANVAS data: Canagliflozin generally well tolerated up to 6.5 years
ORLANDO – according to the latest safety data from the CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) program.
CANVAS included two studies (CANVAS and CANVAS-R) involving a total of 10,142 patients, which established the superiority of canagliflozin (Invokana) over placebo for reducing the risk of a three-point major adverse cardiac event endpoint, including cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke. The sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor also improved other cardiovascular outcomes.
For the current analysis, outcomes in the CANVAS participants were compared with those from a general population of 8,114 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who participated in 12 non-CANVAS studies of canagliflozin. As previously reported, the risks for fracture or amputation were novel safety findings associated with canagliflozin in the CANVAS program and, in the current analysis, the incidence of fractures per 1,000 patient-years in CANVAS was 15.4 vs. 11.9 with treatment vs. placebo, whereas no significant difference was seen in the non-CANVAS studies (incidence rate of 11.8 vs. 10.8 per 1,000 patient-years for treatment vs. placebo), Priscilla Hollander, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association.
Of note, when the CANVAS and CANVAS-R studies were compared, the imbalance was seen only in CANVAS (incidence rates of 16.9 vs. 10.9 for treatment vs. placebo [hazard ratio, 1.55], compared with incidence rates of 11.3 and 13.2 , respectively, in CANVAS-R [HR, 0.86]), said Dr. Hollander, Baylor Scott & White Endocrine Center in Dallas.
“Ongoing analyses are trying to determine why there is a difference between the two studies,” she noted.
For the novel safety finding of increased amputation risk with canagliflozin, an excess of three events per 1,000 patient years was seen in both CANVAS (incidence of 6.3 vs. 3.4; HR, 1.97) and CANVAS-R (incidence of 5.9 vs. 2.8; HR, 2.12). No difference in risk was seen among the non-CANVAS population (incidence of 0.5 and 2.2 with treatment vs. placebo; HR, 0.23).
“Amputations were primarily at the level of the toe or the metatarsal. Patients with a history of amputation or peripheral vascular disease had the highest risk of amputation,” she said, adding that this was true in both treatment and placebo groups.
“Again, ongoing analyses are being done to look at the mechanism in this regard,” she said.
For safety outcomes known to be related to the mechanism of SGLT2 inhibition, including osmotic diuresis, volume depletion, and genital mycotic infection (GMI), similar differences between canagliflozin and placebo groups were seen in the CANVAS and non-CANVAS studies at 6.5 years, Dr. Hollander said.
Hazard ratios in the canagliflozin vs. placebo groups for the CANVAS and non-CANVAS studies, respectively, were 2.80 and 2.66 for osmotic diuresis, 1.44 and 1.35 for volume depletion, 4.37 and 4.32 for female GMI, and 3.76 and 6.26 for male GMI.
No imbalances were observed in other AEs of interest – including hypoglycemia, urinary tract infections, or hypersensitivity reactions – in either the CANVAS or the non-CANVAS studies.
“The point estimate for [diabetic ketoacidosis] was 2.3, but with very wide confidence intervals due to a very low number of events, so it really did not reach significance,” Dr. Hollander noted. “Again, due to the mechanism of action of canagliflozin, and the warning for acute kidney injury on the label, renal adverse events were also of interest, but there was no imbalance observed in the renal-related AEs between the CANVAS program and the non-CANVAS program.”
A closer look at renal-related adverse events (AEs) of interest in the CANVAS program only (not in comparison with the non-CANVAS findings) also showed no significant difference with canagliflozin vs. placebo in blood creatinine increase, blood urea increase, glomerular filtration rate decrease, acute kidney injury, renal impairment, renal failure, oliguria, acute prerenal failure, hypercreatininemia, nephritis, or prerenal failure, she said.
Furthermore, although hyperkalemia is noted as a risk with canagliflozin in patients with moderate renal impairment who are taking medications that interfere with potassium excretion, no significant differences were observed between the treatment and placebo groups over 6.5 years in the CANVAS program, she added, noting that “this was also supported by the lack of imbalance between the laboratory changes for serum potassium in the two groups.”
There also were no differences seen between the treatment and placebo groups in the rates of all serious AEs or in the rates of AEs leading to discontinuation, she said.
Canagliflozin has been generally well tolerated in both placebo-controlled trials and trials in which the SGLT2 inhibitor was compared with other active treatments. The non-CANVAS studies used for comparison in the current analysis included phase 3/4 canagliflozin clinical development program studies lasting up to 104 weeks and involving a general T2DM patient population, Dr. Hollander noted.
The CANVAS program, which was launched in 2009, included patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease or high cardiovascular disease risk who received a 2-week placebo run-in followed by placebo or either 100- or 300-mg doses of canagliflozin. CANVAS participants had hemoglobin A1c of 7%-10.5%; estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30 mL/min per 1.72m2 or greater; age of 30 years or greater plus a history of a prior cardiovascular event, or age of 50 years or greater with at least 2 cardiovascular risk factors, including diabetes for 10 years or more; systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg on at least one medication; current smoking status; micro- or macroalbuminuria; and an HDL cholesterol level less than 1 mmol/L.
The current analysis provides the longest-term safety data to date for the program, Dr. Hollander said.
The CANVAS Program is sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Hollander is an advisory panel member for Eli Lilly, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.
SOURCE: Hollander P et al. ADA 2018, Abstract 259-OR.
ORLANDO – according to the latest safety data from the CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) program.
CANVAS included two studies (CANVAS and CANVAS-R) involving a total of 10,142 patients, which established the superiority of canagliflozin (Invokana) over placebo for reducing the risk of a three-point major adverse cardiac event endpoint, including cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke. The sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor also improved other cardiovascular outcomes.
For the current analysis, outcomes in the CANVAS participants were compared with those from a general population of 8,114 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who participated in 12 non-CANVAS studies of canagliflozin. As previously reported, the risks for fracture or amputation were novel safety findings associated with canagliflozin in the CANVAS program and, in the current analysis, the incidence of fractures per 1,000 patient-years in CANVAS was 15.4 vs. 11.9 with treatment vs. placebo, whereas no significant difference was seen in the non-CANVAS studies (incidence rate of 11.8 vs. 10.8 per 1,000 patient-years for treatment vs. placebo), Priscilla Hollander, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association.
Of note, when the CANVAS and CANVAS-R studies were compared, the imbalance was seen only in CANVAS (incidence rates of 16.9 vs. 10.9 for treatment vs. placebo [hazard ratio, 1.55], compared with incidence rates of 11.3 and 13.2 , respectively, in CANVAS-R [HR, 0.86]), said Dr. Hollander, Baylor Scott & White Endocrine Center in Dallas.
“Ongoing analyses are trying to determine why there is a difference between the two studies,” she noted.
For the novel safety finding of increased amputation risk with canagliflozin, an excess of three events per 1,000 patient years was seen in both CANVAS (incidence of 6.3 vs. 3.4; HR, 1.97) and CANVAS-R (incidence of 5.9 vs. 2.8; HR, 2.12). No difference in risk was seen among the non-CANVAS population (incidence of 0.5 and 2.2 with treatment vs. placebo; HR, 0.23).
“Amputations were primarily at the level of the toe or the metatarsal. Patients with a history of amputation or peripheral vascular disease had the highest risk of amputation,” she said, adding that this was true in both treatment and placebo groups.
“Again, ongoing analyses are being done to look at the mechanism in this regard,” she said.
For safety outcomes known to be related to the mechanism of SGLT2 inhibition, including osmotic diuresis, volume depletion, and genital mycotic infection (GMI), similar differences between canagliflozin and placebo groups were seen in the CANVAS and non-CANVAS studies at 6.5 years, Dr. Hollander said.
Hazard ratios in the canagliflozin vs. placebo groups for the CANVAS and non-CANVAS studies, respectively, were 2.80 and 2.66 for osmotic diuresis, 1.44 and 1.35 for volume depletion, 4.37 and 4.32 for female GMI, and 3.76 and 6.26 for male GMI.
No imbalances were observed in other AEs of interest – including hypoglycemia, urinary tract infections, or hypersensitivity reactions – in either the CANVAS or the non-CANVAS studies.
“The point estimate for [diabetic ketoacidosis] was 2.3, but with very wide confidence intervals due to a very low number of events, so it really did not reach significance,” Dr. Hollander noted. “Again, due to the mechanism of action of canagliflozin, and the warning for acute kidney injury on the label, renal adverse events were also of interest, but there was no imbalance observed in the renal-related AEs between the CANVAS program and the non-CANVAS program.”
A closer look at renal-related adverse events (AEs) of interest in the CANVAS program only (not in comparison with the non-CANVAS findings) also showed no significant difference with canagliflozin vs. placebo in blood creatinine increase, blood urea increase, glomerular filtration rate decrease, acute kidney injury, renal impairment, renal failure, oliguria, acute prerenal failure, hypercreatininemia, nephritis, or prerenal failure, she said.
Furthermore, although hyperkalemia is noted as a risk with canagliflozin in patients with moderate renal impairment who are taking medications that interfere with potassium excretion, no significant differences were observed between the treatment and placebo groups over 6.5 years in the CANVAS program, she added, noting that “this was also supported by the lack of imbalance between the laboratory changes for serum potassium in the two groups.”
There also were no differences seen between the treatment and placebo groups in the rates of all serious AEs or in the rates of AEs leading to discontinuation, she said.
Canagliflozin has been generally well tolerated in both placebo-controlled trials and trials in which the SGLT2 inhibitor was compared with other active treatments. The non-CANVAS studies used for comparison in the current analysis included phase 3/4 canagliflozin clinical development program studies lasting up to 104 weeks and involving a general T2DM patient population, Dr. Hollander noted.
The CANVAS program, which was launched in 2009, included patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease or high cardiovascular disease risk who received a 2-week placebo run-in followed by placebo or either 100- or 300-mg doses of canagliflozin. CANVAS participants had hemoglobin A1c of 7%-10.5%; estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30 mL/min per 1.72m2 or greater; age of 30 years or greater plus a history of a prior cardiovascular event, or age of 50 years or greater with at least 2 cardiovascular risk factors, including diabetes for 10 years or more; systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg on at least one medication; current smoking status; micro- or macroalbuminuria; and an HDL cholesterol level less than 1 mmol/L.
The current analysis provides the longest-term safety data to date for the program, Dr. Hollander said.
The CANVAS Program is sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Hollander is an advisory panel member for Eli Lilly, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.
SOURCE: Hollander P et al. ADA 2018, Abstract 259-OR.
ORLANDO – according to the latest safety data from the CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) program.
CANVAS included two studies (CANVAS and CANVAS-R) involving a total of 10,142 patients, which established the superiority of canagliflozin (Invokana) over placebo for reducing the risk of a three-point major adverse cardiac event endpoint, including cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke. The sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor also improved other cardiovascular outcomes.
For the current analysis, outcomes in the CANVAS participants were compared with those from a general population of 8,114 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who participated in 12 non-CANVAS studies of canagliflozin. As previously reported, the risks for fracture or amputation were novel safety findings associated with canagliflozin in the CANVAS program and, in the current analysis, the incidence of fractures per 1,000 patient-years in CANVAS was 15.4 vs. 11.9 with treatment vs. placebo, whereas no significant difference was seen in the non-CANVAS studies (incidence rate of 11.8 vs. 10.8 per 1,000 patient-years for treatment vs. placebo), Priscilla Hollander, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Diabetes Association.
Of note, when the CANVAS and CANVAS-R studies were compared, the imbalance was seen only in CANVAS (incidence rates of 16.9 vs. 10.9 for treatment vs. placebo [hazard ratio, 1.55], compared with incidence rates of 11.3 and 13.2 , respectively, in CANVAS-R [HR, 0.86]), said Dr. Hollander, Baylor Scott & White Endocrine Center in Dallas.
“Ongoing analyses are trying to determine why there is a difference between the two studies,” she noted.
For the novel safety finding of increased amputation risk with canagliflozin, an excess of three events per 1,000 patient years was seen in both CANVAS (incidence of 6.3 vs. 3.4; HR, 1.97) and CANVAS-R (incidence of 5.9 vs. 2.8; HR, 2.12). No difference in risk was seen among the non-CANVAS population (incidence of 0.5 and 2.2 with treatment vs. placebo; HR, 0.23).
“Amputations were primarily at the level of the toe or the metatarsal. Patients with a history of amputation or peripheral vascular disease had the highest risk of amputation,” she said, adding that this was true in both treatment and placebo groups.
“Again, ongoing analyses are being done to look at the mechanism in this regard,” she said.
For safety outcomes known to be related to the mechanism of SGLT2 inhibition, including osmotic diuresis, volume depletion, and genital mycotic infection (GMI), similar differences between canagliflozin and placebo groups were seen in the CANVAS and non-CANVAS studies at 6.5 years, Dr. Hollander said.
Hazard ratios in the canagliflozin vs. placebo groups for the CANVAS and non-CANVAS studies, respectively, were 2.80 and 2.66 for osmotic diuresis, 1.44 and 1.35 for volume depletion, 4.37 and 4.32 for female GMI, and 3.76 and 6.26 for male GMI.
No imbalances were observed in other AEs of interest – including hypoglycemia, urinary tract infections, or hypersensitivity reactions – in either the CANVAS or the non-CANVAS studies.
“The point estimate for [diabetic ketoacidosis] was 2.3, but with very wide confidence intervals due to a very low number of events, so it really did not reach significance,” Dr. Hollander noted. “Again, due to the mechanism of action of canagliflozin, and the warning for acute kidney injury on the label, renal adverse events were also of interest, but there was no imbalance observed in the renal-related AEs between the CANVAS program and the non-CANVAS program.”
A closer look at renal-related adverse events (AEs) of interest in the CANVAS program only (not in comparison with the non-CANVAS findings) also showed no significant difference with canagliflozin vs. placebo in blood creatinine increase, blood urea increase, glomerular filtration rate decrease, acute kidney injury, renal impairment, renal failure, oliguria, acute prerenal failure, hypercreatininemia, nephritis, or prerenal failure, she said.
Furthermore, although hyperkalemia is noted as a risk with canagliflozin in patients with moderate renal impairment who are taking medications that interfere with potassium excretion, no significant differences were observed between the treatment and placebo groups over 6.5 years in the CANVAS program, she added, noting that “this was also supported by the lack of imbalance between the laboratory changes for serum potassium in the two groups.”
There also were no differences seen between the treatment and placebo groups in the rates of all serious AEs or in the rates of AEs leading to discontinuation, she said.
Canagliflozin has been generally well tolerated in both placebo-controlled trials and trials in which the SGLT2 inhibitor was compared with other active treatments. The non-CANVAS studies used for comparison in the current analysis included phase 3/4 canagliflozin clinical development program studies lasting up to 104 weeks and involving a general T2DM patient population, Dr. Hollander noted.
The CANVAS program, which was launched in 2009, included patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease or high cardiovascular disease risk who received a 2-week placebo run-in followed by placebo or either 100- or 300-mg doses of canagliflozin. CANVAS participants had hemoglobin A1c of 7%-10.5%; estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30 mL/min per 1.72m2 or greater; age of 30 years or greater plus a history of a prior cardiovascular event, or age of 50 years or greater with at least 2 cardiovascular risk factors, including diabetes for 10 years or more; systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg on at least one medication; current smoking status; micro- or macroalbuminuria; and an HDL cholesterol level less than 1 mmol/L.
The current analysis provides the longest-term safety data to date for the program, Dr. Hollander said.
The CANVAS Program is sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Hollander is an advisory panel member for Eli Lilly, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.
SOURCE: Hollander P et al. ADA 2018, Abstract 259-OR.
REPORTING FROM ADA 2018
Key clinical point: Canagliflozin is generally well tolerated for up to 6.5 years in patients with T2DM and high CV risk.
Major finding: Similar differences between canagliflozin and placebo groups for outcomes related to the mechanism of SGLT2 inhibition were seen in the CANVAS and non-CANVAS studies at 6.5 years.
Study details: A comparison of safety outcomes in 10,142 patients in CANVAS and 8,114 patients in non-CANVAS studies.
Disclosures: The CANVAS Program is sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Hollander is an advisory panel member for Eli Lilly, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.
Source: Hollander P et al. ADA 2018 Abstract 259-OR.
OnabotulinumtoxinA crushes topiramate in chronic migraine PRO benefits
SAN FRANCISCO – The odds of at least a 50% reduction in headache days per month in chronic migraine patients 32 weeks after randomization to onabotulinumtoxinA for prophylaxis were 394% greater than with topiramate in the multicenter, open-label FORWARD trial, Andrew M. Blumenfeld, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
“Impressively, onabotulinumtoxinA showed a more favorable effect on depressive symptoms,” he added. “The overall results suggest that the beneficial effects of onabotulinumtoxinA on a range of PROs may lead to improved adherence.”
The FORWARD trial was a multicenter, open-label, prospective, 36-week study which randomized 282 adult chronic migraine patients to fixed-dose onabotulinumtoxinA at the approved dose of 155 U every 12 weeks or to topiramate (Topamax) titrated over the course of 12 weeks to the approved dose of 50-100 mg/day. However, after 12 weeks on topiramate, patients could elect to discontinue the drug and switch to onabotulinumtoxinA.
This was a trial designed to evaluate effectiveness, which Dr. Blumenfeld defined as the combination of efficacy plus treatment adherence. And treatment adherence with topiramate was poor: 63% of patients discontinued that medication, mainly because of adverse events or lack of efficacy, compared with just 7.9% of the onabotulinumtoxinA group.
The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 50% reduction in headache days per month beginning at week 32, compared with their rate during 4 weeks at baseline. Of 142 patients randomized to topiramate, 25 completed 36 weeks of therapy, and 17 of those 25 (68%) achieved at least a 50% reduction in headache days per month. That’s one way to look at it. The other is to examine effectiveness: 17 of 142 topiramate-treated patients (12%) met the primary endpoint. In contrast, 99 of 140 patients assigned to onabotulinumtoxinA completed treatment, and 56 of those 99 (57%) met the primary endpoint. Thus, the neurotoxin therapy had a 40% effectiveness rate. The odds of being at least a 50% responder were 394% greater in the onabotulinumtoxinA group, according to Dr. Blumenfeld.
Secondary endpoints consisted of four PROs: the Headache Impact Test of migraine-related disability (HIT-6), the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem (WPAI-SHP), the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), and a cutting edge, not yet fully validated instrument known as the Functional Impact of Migraine Questionnaire, or FIMQ.
The onabotulinumtoxinA group fared significantly better than the topiramate group on all four PROs. But Dr. Blumenfeld singled out the PHQ-9 results as of particular clinical importance. A score of 5 or more is considered evidence of at least mild depression; on average, both groups were depressed at baseline, with a mean score of 6.5 in the onabotulinumtoxinA group and 7.6 in the topiramate group. At week 12, the scores were 5.2 and 6.7, respectively. At week 24, 4.5 versus 7.2. At week 36, the average PHQ-9 score in the onabotulinumtoxinA group was 4.4 – meaning no depression – compared with 7.1 in the topiramate group.
A reduction in HIT-6 scores of more than 2.5 points is considered to represent clinically significant improvement in migraine-related disability. At week 6, the HIT-6 score had fallen by an average of 4.0 points from baseline in the onabotulinumtoxinA group, compared with –2.2 points with topiramate. At week 18, the margin of improvement was –5.1 versus –1.6 points, while at week 36 the average improvement was –5.6 points in the onabotulinumtoxinA group, compared with –1.4 points in the topiramate arm in a last-observation-carried-forward analysis.
Mean baseline scores on the WPAI-SHP were 4.8 in the onabotulinumtoxinA group and 5.1 in those on topiramate. At week 12, the scores had improved to 3.3 and 4.4, respectively, and at week 36, to 3.5 and 4.4, respectively, a significant and clinically meaningful difference.
Mean baseline scores on the FIMQ were 59.8 and 53.9 in the onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate groups. By week 30, the scores were 37.1 and 47.5, respectively.
The main reasons half of the topiramate patients discontinued were the adverse events classically associated with the drug: paresthesia, cognitive impairment, nausea, and fatigue. None of these were reported by more than 0.5% of onabotulinumtoxinA recipients.
This is not the first study to show superior outcomes with neurotoxin therapy for the prevention of chronic migraine.
“There is a disconnect between the published data and what happens in the community,” Dr. Blumenfeld observed. “In clinical practice, topiramate is listed as first-line therapy for chronic migraine, while onabotulinumtoxinA is third or fourth line.”
Insurers normally balk at covering neurotoxin therapy because it is relatively expensive. But in an era when PROs have taken on new weight with regulatory agencies and payers, the ground may be soon be shifting.
One audience member noted that in the relatively small subgroup of patients who could tolerate topiramate sufficiently to stay on the drug, the outcomes were quite good. Dr. Blumenfeld concurred.
“It’s something that we all see in clinical practice: Those patients who can stay on topiramate, who can tolerate it, do very well. So for the 17 of 25 who stayed on it and had a 50% reduction in headache days, that 68% is a good number, and I think it matches our clinical experience,” he said. “But the key message of this study – and I think this is a different way of looking at the way we assess medications – is to look at efficacy, but also at tolerability and long-term adherence. And the problem with topiramate-treated patients, particularly in chronic migraine, is they have a difficult time staying on the medication long enough to see that good effect.”
The FORWARD trial was sponsored by Allergan. Dr. Blumenfeld serves as a consultant to that company and a half-dozen others.
SOURCE: Blumenfeld AM et al. Headache. 2018 Jun;58(52):75. Abstract IOR06.
SAN FRANCISCO – The odds of at least a 50% reduction in headache days per month in chronic migraine patients 32 weeks after randomization to onabotulinumtoxinA for prophylaxis were 394% greater than with topiramate in the multicenter, open-label FORWARD trial, Andrew M. Blumenfeld, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
“Impressively, onabotulinumtoxinA showed a more favorable effect on depressive symptoms,” he added. “The overall results suggest that the beneficial effects of onabotulinumtoxinA on a range of PROs may lead to improved adherence.”
The FORWARD trial was a multicenter, open-label, prospective, 36-week study which randomized 282 adult chronic migraine patients to fixed-dose onabotulinumtoxinA at the approved dose of 155 U every 12 weeks or to topiramate (Topamax) titrated over the course of 12 weeks to the approved dose of 50-100 mg/day. However, after 12 weeks on topiramate, patients could elect to discontinue the drug and switch to onabotulinumtoxinA.
This was a trial designed to evaluate effectiveness, which Dr. Blumenfeld defined as the combination of efficacy plus treatment adherence. And treatment adherence with topiramate was poor: 63% of patients discontinued that medication, mainly because of adverse events or lack of efficacy, compared with just 7.9% of the onabotulinumtoxinA group.
The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 50% reduction in headache days per month beginning at week 32, compared with their rate during 4 weeks at baseline. Of 142 patients randomized to topiramate, 25 completed 36 weeks of therapy, and 17 of those 25 (68%) achieved at least a 50% reduction in headache days per month. That’s one way to look at it. The other is to examine effectiveness: 17 of 142 topiramate-treated patients (12%) met the primary endpoint. In contrast, 99 of 140 patients assigned to onabotulinumtoxinA completed treatment, and 56 of those 99 (57%) met the primary endpoint. Thus, the neurotoxin therapy had a 40% effectiveness rate. The odds of being at least a 50% responder were 394% greater in the onabotulinumtoxinA group, according to Dr. Blumenfeld.
Secondary endpoints consisted of four PROs: the Headache Impact Test of migraine-related disability (HIT-6), the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem (WPAI-SHP), the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), and a cutting edge, not yet fully validated instrument known as the Functional Impact of Migraine Questionnaire, or FIMQ.
The onabotulinumtoxinA group fared significantly better than the topiramate group on all four PROs. But Dr. Blumenfeld singled out the PHQ-9 results as of particular clinical importance. A score of 5 or more is considered evidence of at least mild depression; on average, both groups were depressed at baseline, with a mean score of 6.5 in the onabotulinumtoxinA group and 7.6 in the topiramate group. At week 12, the scores were 5.2 and 6.7, respectively. At week 24, 4.5 versus 7.2. At week 36, the average PHQ-9 score in the onabotulinumtoxinA group was 4.4 – meaning no depression – compared with 7.1 in the topiramate group.
A reduction in HIT-6 scores of more than 2.5 points is considered to represent clinically significant improvement in migraine-related disability. At week 6, the HIT-6 score had fallen by an average of 4.0 points from baseline in the onabotulinumtoxinA group, compared with –2.2 points with topiramate. At week 18, the margin of improvement was –5.1 versus –1.6 points, while at week 36 the average improvement was –5.6 points in the onabotulinumtoxinA group, compared with –1.4 points in the topiramate arm in a last-observation-carried-forward analysis.
Mean baseline scores on the WPAI-SHP were 4.8 in the onabotulinumtoxinA group and 5.1 in those on topiramate. At week 12, the scores had improved to 3.3 and 4.4, respectively, and at week 36, to 3.5 and 4.4, respectively, a significant and clinically meaningful difference.
Mean baseline scores on the FIMQ were 59.8 and 53.9 in the onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate groups. By week 30, the scores were 37.1 and 47.5, respectively.
The main reasons half of the topiramate patients discontinued were the adverse events classically associated with the drug: paresthesia, cognitive impairment, nausea, and fatigue. None of these were reported by more than 0.5% of onabotulinumtoxinA recipients.
This is not the first study to show superior outcomes with neurotoxin therapy for the prevention of chronic migraine.
“There is a disconnect between the published data and what happens in the community,” Dr. Blumenfeld observed. “In clinical practice, topiramate is listed as first-line therapy for chronic migraine, while onabotulinumtoxinA is third or fourth line.”
Insurers normally balk at covering neurotoxin therapy because it is relatively expensive. But in an era when PROs have taken on new weight with regulatory agencies and payers, the ground may be soon be shifting.
One audience member noted that in the relatively small subgroup of patients who could tolerate topiramate sufficiently to stay on the drug, the outcomes were quite good. Dr. Blumenfeld concurred.
“It’s something that we all see in clinical practice: Those patients who can stay on topiramate, who can tolerate it, do very well. So for the 17 of 25 who stayed on it and had a 50% reduction in headache days, that 68% is a good number, and I think it matches our clinical experience,” he said. “But the key message of this study – and I think this is a different way of looking at the way we assess medications – is to look at efficacy, but also at tolerability and long-term adherence. And the problem with topiramate-treated patients, particularly in chronic migraine, is they have a difficult time staying on the medication long enough to see that good effect.”
The FORWARD trial was sponsored by Allergan. Dr. Blumenfeld serves as a consultant to that company and a half-dozen others.
SOURCE: Blumenfeld AM et al. Headache. 2018 Jun;58(52):75. Abstract IOR06.
SAN FRANCISCO – The odds of at least a 50% reduction in headache days per month in chronic migraine patients 32 weeks after randomization to onabotulinumtoxinA for prophylaxis were 394% greater than with topiramate in the multicenter, open-label FORWARD trial, Andrew M. Blumenfeld, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
“Impressively, onabotulinumtoxinA showed a more favorable effect on depressive symptoms,” he added. “The overall results suggest that the beneficial effects of onabotulinumtoxinA on a range of PROs may lead to improved adherence.”
The FORWARD trial was a multicenter, open-label, prospective, 36-week study which randomized 282 adult chronic migraine patients to fixed-dose onabotulinumtoxinA at the approved dose of 155 U every 12 weeks or to topiramate (Topamax) titrated over the course of 12 weeks to the approved dose of 50-100 mg/day. However, after 12 weeks on topiramate, patients could elect to discontinue the drug and switch to onabotulinumtoxinA.
This was a trial designed to evaluate effectiveness, which Dr. Blumenfeld defined as the combination of efficacy plus treatment adherence. And treatment adherence with topiramate was poor: 63% of patients discontinued that medication, mainly because of adverse events or lack of efficacy, compared with just 7.9% of the onabotulinumtoxinA group.
The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 50% reduction in headache days per month beginning at week 32, compared with their rate during 4 weeks at baseline. Of 142 patients randomized to topiramate, 25 completed 36 weeks of therapy, and 17 of those 25 (68%) achieved at least a 50% reduction in headache days per month. That’s one way to look at it. The other is to examine effectiveness: 17 of 142 topiramate-treated patients (12%) met the primary endpoint. In contrast, 99 of 140 patients assigned to onabotulinumtoxinA completed treatment, and 56 of those 99 (57%) met the primary endpoint. Thus, the neurotoxin therapy had a 40% effectiveness rate. The odds of being at least a 50% responder were 394% greater in the onabotulinumtoxinA group, according to Dr. Blumenfeld.
Secondary endpoints consisted of four PROs: the Headache Impact Test of migraine-related disability (HIT-6), the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem (WPAI-SHP), the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), and a cutting edge, not yet fully validated instrument known as the Functional Impact of Migraine Questionnaire, or FIMQ.
The onabotulinumtoxinA group fared significantly better than the topiramate group on all four PROs. But Dr. Blumenfeld singled out the PHQ-9 results as of particular clinical importance. A score of 5 or more is considered evidence of at least mild depression; on average, both groups were depressed at baseline, with a mean score of 6.5 in the onabotulinumtoxinA group and 7.6 in the topiramate group. At week 12, the scores were 5.2 and 6.7, respectively. At week 24, 4.5 versus 7.2. At week 36, the average PHQ-9 score in the onabotulinumtoxinA group was 4.4 – meaning no depression – compared with 7.1 in the topiramate group.
A reduction in HIT-6 scores of more than 2.5 points is considered to represent clinically significant improvement in migraine-related disability. At week 6, the HIT-6 score had fallen by an average of 4.0 points from baseline in the onabotulinumtoxinA group, compared with –2.2 points with topiramate. At week 18, the margin of improvement was –5.1 versus –1.6 points, while at week 36 the average improvement was –5.6 points in the onabotulinumtoxinA group, compared with –1.4 points in the topiramate arm in a last-observation-carried-forward analysis.
Mean baseline scores on the WPAI-SHP were 4.8 in the onabotulinumtoxinA group and 5.1 in those on topiramate. At week 12, the scores had improved to 3.3 and 4.4, respectively, and at week 36, to 3.5 and 4.4, respectively, a significant and clinically meaningful difference.
Mean baseline scores on the FIMQ were 59.8 and 53.9 in the onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate groups. By week 30, the scores were 37.1 and 47.5, respectively.
The main reasons half of the topiramate patients discontinued were the adverse events classically associated with the drug: paresthesia, cognitive impairment, nausea, and fatigue. None of these were reported by more than 0.5% of onabotulinumtoxinA recipients.
This is not the first study to show superior outcomes with neurotoxin therapy for the prevention of chronic migraine.
“There is a disconnect between the published data and what happens in the community,” Dr. Blumenfeld observed. “In clinical practice, topiramate is listed as first-line therapy for chronic migraine, while onabotulinumtoxinA is third or fourth line.”
Insurers normally balk at covering neurotoxin therapy because it is relatively expensive. But in an era when PROs have taken on new weight with regulatory agencies and payers, the ground may be soon be shifting.
One audience member noted that in the relatively small subgroup of patients who could tolerate topiramate sufficiently to stay on the drug, the outcomes were quite good. Dr. Blumenfeld concurred.
“It’s something that we all see in clinical practice: Those patients who can stay on topiramate, who can tolerate it, do very well. So for the 17 of 25 who stayed on it and had a 50% reduction in headache days, that 68% is a good number, and I think it matches our clinical experience,” he said. “But the key message of this study – and I think this is a different way of looking at the way we assess medications – is to look at efficacy, but also at tolerability and long-term adherence. And the problem with topiramate-treated patients, particularly in chronic migraine, is they have a difficult time staying on the medication long enough to see that good effect.”
The FORWARD trial was sponsored by Allergan. Dr. Blumenfeld serves as a consultant to that company and a half-dozen others.
SOURCE: Blumenfeld AM et al. Headache. 2018 Jun;58(52):75. Abstract IOR06.
REPORTING FROM THE AHS ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The likelihood of at least a 50% reduction in headache days per month in chronic migraine patients during weeks 29-32 versus baseline was nearly 400% greater in those randomized to onabotulinumtoxinA than to topiramate.
Study details: The FORWARD trial was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, 36-week study in 282 chronic migraine patients.
Disclosures: FORWARD was sponsored by Allergan. The presenter serves as a consultant to that company and a half-dozen others.
Source: Blumenfeld AM et al. Headache. 2018 Jun;58(52):75. Abstract IOR06.
Treat chronic endometritis to improve implantation rates
In a meta-analysis of five studies of chronic endometritis (CE), women cured of the condition had significantly higher rates of pregnancies, live births, and successful implantations compared with women who had persistent CE.
“These findings potentially suggest that CE is a reversible factor of infertility, whose recognition and therapy may provide better chances at subsequent [in vitro fertilization] attempts,” wrote Amerigo Vitagliano, MD, of the University of Padua (Italy), and his coauthors.
They sought to examine the effect of CE treatment on implantation for women with recurrent implantation failure. While CE is correlated with infertility, prior studies have not resolved the question of whether curing CE would restore fertility. The condition is cured in as many of 80% of cases with a single cycle of antibiotics. 
The systematic review found five studies with a total of 796 patients with recurrent implantation failure in Argentina, China, Italy, Japan, and the United States. Two studies compared cured CE with persistent CE, and three studies compared cured CE with patients not affected by CE.
Only one of the studies evaluated CE patients receiving antibiotics with CE patients not receiving antibiotics. The study showed that there was no difference between those two groups in clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing (12 or more weeks’ gestation) pregnancy rate/live birth rate, or implantation rate.
The significant result was the difference between cured and persistent CE. Those numbers worked out to a higher ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (odds ratio, 6.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-22.24; P = .001), clinical pregnancy rate (OR, 4.98; 95% CI, 1.72-14.43; P = .003), and implantation rate (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.33-7.88; P = .01), with no difference in the miscarriage rate (P = .30).
The authors recommend further research in the form of randomized controlled trials to confirm whether completed CE treatment will improve in vitro fertilization success, and whether routine CE screening is advisable for all patients with recurrent implantation failure. At present, they recommend that diagnosed cases of CE be resolved before continuing with fertility treatment.
“If our results are confirmed, CE may represent a new therapeutic target for women suffering from [recurrent implantation failure], with affordable access (diagnosed through a simple endometrial biopsy and treated by oral antibiotics),” they wrote.
The authors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Vitagliano A et al. Fertil Steril. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.017.
In a meta-analysis of five studies of chronic endometritis (CE), women cured of the condition had significantly higher rates of pregnancies, live births, and successful implantations compared with women who had persistent CE.
“These findings potentially suggest that CE is a reversible factor of infertility, whose recognition and therapy may provide better chances at subsequent [in vitro fertilization] attempts,” wrote Amerigo Vitagliano, MD, of the University of Padua (Italy), and his coauthors.
They sought to examine the effect of CE treatment on implantation for women with recurrent implantation failure. While CE is correlated with infertility, prior studies have not resolved the question of whether curing CE would restore fertility. The condition is cured in as many of 80% of cases with a single cycle of antibiotics.
The systematic review found five studies with a total of 796 patients with recurrent implantation failure in Argentina, China, Italy, Japan, and the United States. Two studies compared cured CE with persistent CE, and three studies compared cured CE with patients not affected by CE.
Only one of the studies evaluated CE patients receiving antibiotics with CE patients not receiving antibiotics. The study showed that there was no difference between those two groups in clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing (12 or more weeks’ gestation) pregnancy rate/live birth rate, or implantation rate.
The significant result was the difference between cured and persistent CE. Those numbers worked out to a higher ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (odds ratio, 6.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-22.24; P = .001), clinical pregnancy rate (OR, 4.98; 95% CI, 1.72-14.43; P = .003), and implantation rate (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.33-7.88; P = .01), with no difference in the miscarriage rate (P = .30).
The authors recommend further research in the form of randomized controlled trials to confirm whether completed CE treatment will improve in vitro fertilization success, and whether routine CE screening is advisable for all patients with recurrent implantation failure. At present, they recommend that diagnosed cases of CE be resolved before continuing with fertility treatment.
“If our results are confirmed, CE may represent a new therapeutic target for women suffering from [recurrent implantation failure], with affordable access (diagnosed through a simple endometrial biopsy and treated by oral antibiotics),” they wrote.
The authors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Vitagliano A et al. Fertil Steril. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.017.
In a meta-analysis of five studies of chronic endometritis (CE), women cured of the condition had significantly higher rates of pregnancies, live births, and successful implantations compared with women who had persistent CE.
“These findings potentially suggest that CE is a reversible factor of infertility, whose recognition and therapy may provide better chances at subsequent [in vitro fertilization] attempts,” wrote Amerigo Vitagliano, MD, of the University of Padua (Italy), and his coauthors.
They sought to examine the effect of CE treatment on implantation for women with recurrent implantation failure. While CE is correlated with infertility, prior studies have not resolved the question of whether curing CE would restore fertility. The condition is cured in as many of 80% of cases with a single cycle of antibiotics.
The systematic review found five studies with a total of 796 patients with recurrent implantation failure in Argentina, China, Italy, Japan, and the United States. Two studies compared cured CE with persistent CE, and three studies compared cured CE with patients not affected by CE.
Only one of the studies evaluated CE patients receiving antibiotics with CE patients not receiving antibiotics. The study showed that there was no difference between those two groups in clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing (12 or more weeks’ gestation) pregnancy rate/live birth rate, or implantation rate.
The significant result was the difference between cured and persistent CE. Those numbers worked out to a higher ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (odds ratio, 6.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-22.24; P = .001), clinical pregnancy rate (OR, 4.98; 95% CI, 1.72-14.43; P = .003), and implantation rate (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.33-7.88; P = .01), with no difference in the miscarriage rate (P = .30).
The authors recommend further research in the form of randomized controlled trials to confirm whether completed CE treatment will improve in vitro fertilization success, and whether routine CE screening is advisable for all patients with recurrent implantation failure. At present, they recommend that diagnosed cases of CE be resolved before continuing with fertility treatment.
“If our results are confirmed, CE may represent a new therapeutic target for women suffering from [recurrent implantation failure], with affordable access (diagnosed through a simple endometrial biopsy and treated by oral antibiotics),” they wrote.
The authors reported having no financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Vitagliano A et al. Fertil Steril. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.017.
FROM FERTILITY & STERILITY
USPSTF: Nontraditional CVD risk factors not ready for prime time
Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance harms and benefits of adding ankle-brachial index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, or coronary artery calcium burden to traditional cardiovascular disease risk scores for asymptomatic adults, according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force.
USPSTF did note that many of the comments to its draft document “provided evidence that risk assessment with CAC [coronary artery calcium] was strong enough to warrant a separate, more positive recommendation” and “is useful for patients whose risk stratification is unclear or for those who fall into intermediate-risk groups.” However, evidence is inadequate that this would translate into improved health outcomes in asymptomatic patients.
Meanwhile, treatment decisions guided by the markers have not been shown to reduce cardiovascular events or mortality. There are no trials evaluating the additional benefit of adding the ankle-brachial index (ABI), high-sensitivity C-reactive level (hsCRP), or CAC score to traditional risk assessment models.
The USPSTF recommended “that clinicians use the Pooled Cohort Equations to assess CVD risk and to guide treatment decisions until further evidence is available,” noting that these equations, introduced in 2013, were developed using more contemporary and diverse cohort data than were the older Framingham Risk Score. Traditional CVD risk factors include age, sex, high blood pressure, current smoking, abnormal cholesterol levels, diabetes, obesity, and physical inactivity.
The work replaces the group’s 2009 statement on nontraditional risk factors, which also was considered an I statement, for inadequate evidence. Unlike that document, the new work focused on ABI, hsCRP level, and CAC because these offer the most promising evidence base and are independently associated with CVD events.
The group noted that testing for hsCRP level and ABI is noninvasive, with little direct harm. Harms of testing for CAC score include exposure to radiation and incidental findings on CT of the chest, such as pulmonary nodules, that may lead to further invasive testing and procedures, among other problems.
The ABI is the ratio of the systolic blood pressure at the ankle to the systolic blood pressure in the arm while the patient is lying down; a value less than 1 is abnormal. High-sensitivity CRP is a serum protein involved in inflammatory and immune responses. Coronary artery calcium score is a measure of calcium content in the coronary arteries.
Good-quality studies that compare traditional risk assessment with ABI, hsCRP level, or CAC scores “are needed to measure the effect of adding nontraditional risk factors on clinical decision thresholds and patient outcomes, especially in more diverse populations (women, racial/ethnic minorities, persons of lower socioeconomic status), in whom assessment of nontraditional risk factors may help address the shortcomings of traditional risk models,” USPSTF said.
The group is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
These conclusions are understandable from the policy perspective but do not fully address the issues faced by individual patients and clinicians in decisions about the relative merits of primary preventive therapies.
In middle-aged and older U.S. adults whose estimated absolute risks of developing CVD events are near a treatment threshold (e.g., 7.5%), the presence of CAC scores greater than 100, or higher than the 75th percentile for a given age, accurately reclassifies individuals to a higher category of risk. Even individuals with low estimated 10-year risks and high CAC scores (more than 100 Agatston units) have substantially greater observed risks than do those with CAC scores of 0. Thus, the presence of CAC in these patients effectively identifies those at higher risk who may benefit from statin therapy. Avoidance of statin therapy in the majority of intermediate-risk patients who have a CAC score of 0 also is desirable.
Meanwhile, a low ABI represents an advanced form of atherosclerosis. Clinicians should be aware of PAD and, if it is present, should strongly consider statin therapy. Use of the ABI in routine clinical practice to screen for PAD in at-risk patients is reasonable, but its routine use in estimation of CVD risk is limited. Measurement of subclinical inflammation with hsCRP has been shown to reclassify some individuals at intermediate levels of risk. However, the utility of hsCRP measurement in routine assessment of CVD risk for primary prevention is limited.
John Wilkins, MD, is an assistant professor of cardiology and preventive medicine and Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, is the chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. They had no disclosures, and made their comments in an editorial (JAMA. 2018 Jul 10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.9346 ).
These conclusions are understandable from the policy perspective but do not fully address the issues faced by individual patients and clinicians in decisions about the relative merits of primary preventive therapies.
In middle-aged and older U.S. adults whose estimated absolute risks of developing CVD events are near a treatment threshold (e.g., 7.5%), the presence of CAC scores greater than 100, or higher than the 75th percentile for a given age, accurately reclassifies individuals to a higher category of risk. Even individuals with low estimated 10-year risks and high CAC scores (more than 100 Agatston units) have substantially greater observed risks than do those with CAC scores of 0. Thus, the presence of CAC in these patients effectively identifies those at higher risk who may benefit from statin therapy. Avoidance of statin therapy in the majority of intermediate-risk patients who have a CAC score of 0 also is desirable.
Meanwhile, a low ABI represents an advanced form of atherosclerosis. Clinicians should be aware of PAD and, if it is present, should strongly consider statin therapy. Use of the ABI in routine clinical practice to screen for PAD in at-risk patients is reasonable, but its routine use in estimation of CVD risk is limited. Measurement of subclinical inflammation with hsCRP has been shown to reclassify some individuals at intermediate levels of risk. However, the utility of hsCRP measurement in routine assessment of CVD risk for primary prevention is limited.
John Wilkins, MD, is an assistant professor of cardiology and preventive medicine and Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, is the chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. They had no disclosures, and made their comments in an editorial (JAMA. 2018 Jul 10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.9346 ).
These conclusions are understandable from the policy perspective but do not fully address the issues faced by individual patients and clinicians in decisions about the relative merits of primary preventive therapies.
In middle-aged and older U.S. adults whose estimated absolute risks of developing CVD events are near a treatment threshold (e.g., 7.5%), the presence of CAC scores greater than 100, or higher than the 75th percentile for a given age, accurately reclassifies individuals to a higher category of risk. Even individuals with low estimated 10-year risks and high CAC scores (more than 100 Agatston units) have substantially greater observed risks than do those with CAC scores of 0. Thus, the presence of CAC in these patients effectively identifies those at higher risk who may benefit from statin therapy. Avoidance of statin therapy in the majority of intermediate-risk patients who have a CAC score of 0 also is desirable.
Meanwhile, a low ABI represents an advanced form of atherosclerosis. Clinicians should be aware of PAD and, if it is present, should strongly consider statin therapy. Use of the ABI in routine clinical practice to screen for PAD in at-risk patients is reasonable, but its routine use in estimation of CVD risk is limited. Measurement of subclinical inflammation with hsCRP has been shown to reclassify some individuals at intermediate levels of risk. However, the utility of hsCRP measurement in routine assessment of CVD risk for primary prevention is limited.
John Wilkins, MD, is an assistant professor of cardiology and preventive medicine and Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, is the chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. They had no disclosures, and made their comments in an editorial (JAMA. 2018 Jul 10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.9346 ).
Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance harms and benefits of adding ankle-brachial index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, or coronary artery calcium burden to traditional cardiovascular disease risk scores for asymptomatic adults, according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force.
USPSTF did note that many of the comments to its draft document “provided evidence that risk assessment with CAC [coronary artery calcium] was strong enough to warrant a separate, more positive recommendation” and “is useful for patients whose risk stratification is unclear or for those who fall into intermediate-risk groups.” However, evidence is inadequate that this would translate into improved health outcomes in asymptomatic patients.
Meanwhile, treatment decisions guided by the markers have not been shown to reduce cardiovascular events or mortality. There are no trials evaluating the additional benefit of adding the ankle-brachial index (ABI), high-sensitivity C-reactive level (hsCRP), or CAC score to traditional risk assessment models.
The USPSTF recommended “that clinicians use the Pooled Cohort Equations to assess CVD risk and to guide treatment decisions until further evidence is available,” noting that these equations, introduced in 2013, were developed using more contemporary and diverse cohort data than were the older Framingham Risk Score. Traditional CVD risk factors include age, sex, high blood pressure, current smoking, abnormal cholesterol levels, diabetes, obesity, and physical inactivity.
The work replaces the group’s 2009 statement on nontraditional risk factors, which also was considered an I statement, for inadequate evidence. Unlike that document, the new work focused on ABI, hsCRP level, and CAC because these offer the most promising evidence base and are independently associated with CVD events.
The group noted that testing for hsCRP level and ABI is noninvasive, with little direct harm. Harms of testing for CAC score include exposure to radiation and incidental findings on CT of the chest, such as pulmonary nodules, that may lead to further invasive testing and procedures, among other problems.
The ABI is the ratio of the systolic blood pressure at the ankle to the systolic blood pressure in the arm while the patient is lying down; a value less than 1 is abnormal. High-sensitivity CRP is a serum protein involved in inflammatory and immune responses. Coronary artery calcium score is a measure of calcium content in the coronary arteries.
Good-quality studies that compare traditional risk assessment with ABI, hsCRP level, or CAC scores “are needed to measure the effect of adding nontraditional risk factors on clinical decision thresholds and patient outcomes, especially in more diverse populations (women, racial/ethnic minorities, persons of lower socioeconomic status), in whom assessment of nontraditional risk factors may help address the shortcomings of traditional risk models,” USPSTF said.
The group is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance harms and benefits of adding ankle-brachial index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, or coronary artery calcium burden to traditional cardiovascular disease risk scores for asymptomatic adults, according to the United States Preventive Services Task Force.
USPSTF did note that many of the comments to its draft document “provided evidence that risk assessment with CAC [coronary artery calcium] was strong enough to warrant a separate, more positive recommendation” and “is useful for patients whose risk stratification is unclear or for those who fall into intermediate-risk groups.” However, evidence is inadequate that this would translate into improved health outcomes in asymptomatic patients.
Meanwhile, treatment decisions guided by the markers have not been shown to reduce cardiovascular events or mortality. There are no trials evaluating the additional benefit of adding the ankle-brachial index (ABI), high-sensitivity C-reactive level (hsCRP), or CAC score to traditional risk assessment models.
The USPSTF recommended “that clinicians use the Pooled Cohort Equations to assess CVD risk and to guide treatment decisions until further evidence is available,” noting that these equations, introduced in 2013, were developed using more contemporary and diverse cohort data than were the older Framingham Risk Score. Traditional CVD risk factors include age, sex, high blood pressure, current smoking, abnormal cholesterol levels, diabetes, obesity, and physical inactivity.
The work replaces the group’s 2009 statement on nontraditional risk factors, which also was considered an I statement, for inadequate evidence. Unlike that document, the new work focused on ABI, hsCRP level, and CAC because these offer the most promising evidence base and are independently associated with CVD events.
The group noted that testing for hsCRP level and ABI is noninvasive, with little direct harm. Harms of testing for CAC score include exposure to radiation and incidental findings on CT of the chest, such as pulmonary nodules, that may lead to further invasive testing and procedures, among other problems.
The ABI is the ratio of the systolic blood pressure at the ankle to the systolic blood pressure in the arm while the patient is lying down; a value less than 1 is abnormal. High-sensitivity CRP is a serum protein involved in inflammatory and immune responses. Coronary artery calcium score is a measure of calcium content in the coronary arteries.
Good-quality studies that compare traditional risk assessment with ABI, hsCRP level, or CAC scores “are needed to measure the effect of adding nontraditional risk factors on clinical decision thresholds and patient outcomes, especially in more diverse populations (women, racial/ethnic minorities, persons of lower socioeconomic status), in whom assessment of nontraditional risk factors may help address the shortcomings of traditional risk models,” USPSTF said.
The group is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
FROM JAMA
Alteplase, aspirin provide similar functional outcomes after nondisabling stroke
Treatment with alteplase vs. aspirin did not improve functional outcomes at 90 days in patients with minor nondisabling acute ischemic stroke in the randomized phase 3b PRISMS trial.
At 90 days following a minor stroke judged to be nondisabling, a favorable functional outcome – defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 or 1 – occurred in 122 (78.2%) of 156 patients who received alteplase and in 128 (81.5%) of 157 who received aspirin (adjusted risk difference, –1.1%), wrote Pooja Khatri, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and her colleagues. The report was published in the July 10 issue of JAMA.
The PRISMS (Potential of rtPA for Ischemic Strokes with Mild Symptoms) trial was intended as a 948-patient, double-blind, placebo-controlled U.S. trial comparing alteplase and aspirin for emergent stroke in patients with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores of 0-5 at presentation whose stroke-related neurologic deficits were not clearly disabling and in whom the study treatment could be initiated within 3 hours. However, the trial was terminated early by the sponsor – prior to unblinding or interim analyses – because of below-target enrollment. An original plan to measure the difference in favorable functional outcome in the treatment and placebo groups by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel hypothesis test with stratification by pretreatment NIHSS score, age, and time from onset to treatment was therefore revised to examine the risk difference of the primary outcome by a linear model adjusted for those factors, the authors explained.
Patients in the study had a mean age of 62 years and mean NIHSS score of 2, and were enrolled between May 30, 2014, and Dec. 20, 2016. They received either intravenous alteplase at a standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg with oral placebo, or oral aspirin at a dose of 325 mg with intravenous placebo, and were followed until March 22, 2017.
The primary safety endpoint of the analysis was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) within 36 hours of intravenous alteplase; this occurred in 5 (3.2%) of the alteplase-treated patients and in none of aspirin-treated patients (risk difference, 3.3%).
“Secondary outcomes, including the ordinal analysis of mRS scores (odds ratio, 0.81) and global favorable recovery (OR, 0.86), did not significantly favor either group,” the investigators added.
The findings are noteworthy because more than half of all patients with acute ischemic stroke have minor neurologic deficits, the investigators said, and while prior studies of alteplase included patients with low NIHSS score, few included patients who had no clearly disabling deficits. They added that while “alteplase is the standard of care for patients with ischemic stroke and disabling deficits regardless of severity judged by NIHSS scores, the optimal management of patients with not clearly disabling deficits is unclear.
“The study results raise the hypothesis that even a 6% treatment effect might be unlikely. However, the very early study termination precludes any definitive conclusions,” they wrote, noting that the study has several other limitations, including possible selection bias, relatively high loss to follow-up, and the subjective nature of the definition of “not clearly disabling.”
Additional research may be warranted, they said.
In an editorial, William J. Powers, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote that despite the limitations of the PRISMS trial, the findings help define the role for intravenous alteplase in the management of acute ischemic stroke.
“Even with early study termination and resultant wide 95% confidence intervals, the excellent outcome in the aspirin group and the numerically similar outcomes between the two groups render it unlikely that intravenous alteplase treatment meaningfully improves functional outcome in patients with initial NIHSS scores of 5 or lower with nondisabling deficits,” he wrote.
He noted, however – as did the study authors – that these conclusions do not apply to all patients with mild stroke. Rather, the findings provide “more certain, but not definitive, evidence” of a lack of benefit with alteplase over aspirin in this patient population (JAMA. 2018;320[2]:141-3).
The findings do suggest that “for these patients, treatment with aspirin along with close monitoring may be an appropriate course of action.”
The PRISMS trial was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Khatri and many of her colleagues reported receiving personal fees from Genentech, some of which were for serving on the steering committee of the trial. Many investigators reported various financial ties to companies involved in cerebrovascular disease treatment.
Dr. Powers reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Khatri P et al. JAMA. 2018;320[2]:156-66.
Treatment with alteplase vs. aspirin did not improve functional outcomes at 90 days in patients with minor nondisabling acute ischemic stroke in the randomized phase 3b PRISMS trial.
At 90 days following a minor stroke judged to be nondisabling, a favorable functional outcome – defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 or 1 – occurred in 122 (78.2%) of 156 patients who received alteplase and in 128 (81.5%) of 157 who received aspirin (adjusted risk difference, –1.1%), wrote Pooja Khatri, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and her colleagues. The report was published in the July 10 issue of JAMA.
The PRISMS (Potential of rtPA for Ischemic Strokes with Mild Symptoms) trial was intended as a 948-patient, double-blind, placebo-controlled U.S. trial comparing alteplase and aspirin for emergent stroke in patients with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores of 0-5 at presentation whose stroke-related neurologic deficits were not clearly disabling and in whom the study treatment could be initiated within 3 hours. However, the trial was terminated early by the sponsor – prior to unblinding or interim analyses – because of below-target enrollment. An original plan to measure the difference in favorable functional outcome in the treatment and placebo groups by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel hypothesis test with stratification by pretreatment NIHSS score, age, and time from onset to treatment was therefore revised to examine the risk difference of the primary outcome by a linear model adjusted for those factors, the authors explained.
Patients in the study had a mean age of 62 years and mean NIHSS score of 2, and were enrolled between May 30, 2014, and Dec. 20, 2016. They received either intravenous alteplase at a standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg with oral placebo, or oral aspirin at a dose of 325 mg with intravenous placebo, and were followed until March 22, 2017.
The primary safety endpoint of the analysis was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) within 36 hours of intravenous alteplase; this occurred in 5 (3.2%) of the alteplase-treated patients and in none of aspirin-treated patients (risk difference, 3.3%).
“Secondary outcomes, including the ordinal analysis of mRS scores (odds ratio, 0.81) and global favorable recovery (OR, 0.86), did not significantly favor either group,” the investigators added.
The findings are noteworthy because more than half of all patients with acute ischemic stroke have minor neurologic deficits, the investigators said, and while prior studies of alteplase included patients with low NIHSS score, few included patients who had no clearly disabling deficits. They added that while “alteplase is the standard of care for patients with ischemic stroke and disabling deficits regardless of severity judged by NIHSS scores, the optimal management of patients with not clearly disabling deficits is unclear.
“The study results raise the hypothesis that even a 6% treatment effect might be unlikely. However, the very early study termination precludes any definitive conclusions,” they wrote, noting that the study has several other limitations, including possible selection bias, relatively high loss to follow-up, and the subjective nature of the definition of “not clearly disabling.”
Additional research may be warranted, they said.
In an editorial, William J. Powers, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote that despite the limitations of the PRISMS trial, the findings help define the role for intravenous alteplase in the management of acute ischemic stroke.
“Even with early study termination and resultant wide 95% confidence intervals, the excellent outcome in the aspirin group and the numerically similar outcomes between the two groups render it unlikely that intravenous alteplase treatment meaningfully improves functional outcome in patients with initial NIHSS scores of 5 or lower with nondisabling deficits,” he wrote.
He noted, however – as did the study authors – that these conclusions do not apply to all patients with mild stroke. Rather, the findings provide “more certain, but not definitive, evidence” of a lack of benefit with alteplase over aspirin in this patient population (JAMA. 2018;320[2]:141-3).
The findings do suggest that “for these patients, treatment with aspirin along with close monitoring may be an appropriate course of action.”
The PRISMS trial was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Khatri and many of her colleagues reported receiving personal fees from Genentech, some of which were for serving on the steering committee of the trial. Many investigators reported various financial ties to companies involved in cerebrovascular disease treatment.
Dr. Powers reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Khatri P et al. JAMA. 2018;320[2]:156-66.
Treatment with alteplase vs. aspirin did not improve functional outcomes at 90 days in patients with minor nondisabling acute ischemic stroke in the randomized phase 3b PRISMS trial.
At 90 days following a minor stroke judged to be nondisabling, a favorable functional outcome – defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 or 1 – occurred in 122 (78.2%) of 156 patients who received alteplase and in 128 (81.5%) of 157 who received aspirin (adjusted risk difference, –1.1%), wrote Pooja Khatri, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, and her colleagues. The report was published in the July 10 issue of JAMA.
The PRISMS (Potential of rtPA for Ischemic Strokes with Mild Symptoms) trial was intended as a 948-patient, double-blind, placebo-controlled U.S. trial comparing alteplase and aspirin for emergent stroke in patients with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores of 0-5 at presentation whose stroke-related neurologic deficits were not clearly disabling and in whom the study treatment could be initiated within 3 hours. However, the trial was terminated early by the sponsor – prior to unblinding or interim analyses – because of below-target enrollment. An original plan to measure the difference in favorable functional outcome in the treatment and placebo groups by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel hypothesis test with stratification by pretreatment NIHSS score, age, and time from onset to treatment was therefore revised to examine the risk difference of the primary outcome by a linear model adjusted for those factors, the authors explained.
Patients in the study had a mean age of 62 years and mean NIHSS score of 2, and were enrolled between May 30, 2014, and Dec. 20, 2016. They received either intravenous alteplase at a standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg with oral placebo, or oral aspirin at a dose of 325 mg with intravenous placebo, and were followed until March 22, 2017.
The primary safety endpoint of the analysis was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) within 36 hours of intravenous alteplase; this occurred in 5 (3.2%) of the alteplase-treated patients and in none of aspirin-treated patients (risk difference, 3.3%).
“Secondary outcomes, including the ordinal analysis of mRS scores (odds ratio, 0.81) and global favorable recovery (OR, 0.86), did not significantly favor either group,” the investigators added.
The findings are noteworthy because more than half of all patients with acute ischemic stroke have minor neurologic deficits, the investigators said, and while prior studies of alteplase included patients with low NIHSS score, few included patients who had no clearly disabling deficits. They added that while “alteplase is the standard of care for patients with ischemic stroke and disabling deficits regardless of severity judged by NIHSS scores, the optimal management of patients with not clearly disabling deficits is unclear.
“The study results raise the hypothesis that even a 6% treatment effect might be unlikely. However, the very early study termination precludes any definitive conclusions,” they wrote, noting that the study has several other limitations, including possible selection bias, relatively high loss to follow-up, and the subjective nature of the definition of “not clearly disabling.”
Additional research may be warranted, they said.
In an editorial, William J. Powers, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, wrote that despite the limitations of the PRISMS trial, the findings help define the role for intravenous alteplase in the management of acute ischemic stroke.
“Even with early study termination and resultant wide 95% confidence intervals, the excellent outcome in the aspirin group and the numerically similar outcomes between the two groups render it unlikely that intravenous alteplase treatment meaningfully improves functional outcome in patients with initial NIHSS scores of 5 or lower with nondisabling deficits,” he wrote.
He noted, however – as did the study authors – that these conclusions do not apply to all patients with mild stroke. Rather, the findings provide “more certain, but not definitive, evidence” of a lack of benefit with alteplase over aspirin in this patient population (JAMA. 2018;320[2]:141-3).
The findings do suggest that “for these patients, treatment with aspirin along with close monitoring may be an appropriate course of action.”
The PRISMS trial was sponsored by Genentech. Dr. Khatri and many of her colleagues reported receiving personal fees from Genentech, some of which were for serving on the steering committee of the trial. Many investigators reported various financial ties to companies involved in cerebrovascular disease treatment.
Dr. Powers reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Khatri P et al. JAMA. 2018;320[2]:156-66.
FROM JAMA
Key clinical point: Alteplase does not appear to offer benefit over aspirin in terms of functional outcomes after nondisabling acute ischemic stroke.
Major finding: No significant difference was seen in functional outcomes with alteplase vs. aspirin at 90 days (adjusted risk difference, –1.1%).
Study details: The phase 3b PRISMS trial, involving 313 patients.
Disclosures: Genentech sponsored the trial. Dr. Khatri and many of her colleagues reported receiving personal fees from Genentech, some of which were for serving on the steering committee of the trial. Many investigators reported various financial ties to companies involved in cerebrovascular disease treatment. Dr. Powers reported having no disclosures.
Source: Khatri P et al. JAMA. 2018; 320[2]:156-66.
ACR and EULAR to review new criteria for classifying vasculitis
AMSTERDAM – New classification criteria for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitides have been drafted and now need formal review by the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism before they can be put into practice.
According to Joanna Robson, MBBS, PhD, the chair of the DCVAS steering committee, these new criteria better “reflect current practice by incorporating, but not relying on, ANCA testing and advanced imaging.”
“The old criteria were actually produced in the early 1990s and since then we’ve had further thinking about the different subtypes of systemic vasculitis,” explained Dr. Robson of the University of the West of England in Bristol. There has also been a consensus conference held at Chapel Hill (Arthritis Rheum 2013;65[1]:1-11) which identified MPA as a separate entity, and ANCA testing has become routine practice. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging are also now used to help differentiate between the different vasculitides.
“This really has been a collaborative, multinational effort,” Dr. Robson said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. To develop the draft criteria, data collated from 135 sites in 32 countries on more than 2,000 patients were used. These had been collected as part of the ACR/EULAR–run DCVAS study, which has been coordinated at the University of Oxford since 2011.
Three phases were used to develop these criteria: first an expert panel reviewed all cases in the DCVAS to identify those that they felt were attributable to small vessel vasculitis. Second, variables that might be appropriate to use in the models were examined, with more than 8,000 individual DVCAS items considered and then whittled down to 91 items and then sifted again to form a clear set of 10 or fewer items. Third, statistical analyses combined with expert review were used to develop the criteria and then validate these.
Dr. Robson reported that of 2,871 cases identified as ANCA-associated vasculitis, 2,072 (72%) were agreed upon by the expert review panel. Of these, there were 724 cases of GPA, 291 of MPA, 226 of EGPA, and around 300 cases of other small vessel vasculitis or polyarteritis nodosa. To develop the criteria the GPA cases were used as the “cases” and the other types of vasculitis as the comparators, Dr. Robson explained.
For GPA, MPA, and EGPA a set of items (10, 6, and 7, respectively) were derived and scored, positively or negatively, and a cutoff determined at which a classification of the particular vasculitis could be made. During discussion, Dr. Robson noted that the threshold score for a classification of EGPA (greater than or equal to 6) had been set slightly higher than for GPA or MPA (both greater than or equal to 5) “because of the clinical problem of there being very close comparators which can actually mimic EGPA.” This is where the negative scoring of some items used in these criteria are very important, she said.
The 10-item GPA criteria included three clinical (such as the presence of bloody nasal discharge upon examination) and seven investigational (such as cANCA positivity) items. These criteria were found to have a high sensitivity (92%) and specificity (94%) for identifying GPA.
The six-item MPA criteria included one clinical item (bloody nasal discharge, which was this time attributed a negative score) and five investigational items (with ANCA testing given a higher positive score than for GPA). The sensitivity and specificity of these criteria were a respective 91% and 94%.
Finally, the seven-item EGPA criteria included three clinical items (including obstructive airways disease and nasal polyps) and four investigational items (with ANCA positivity given a negative score). These criteria had an 85% sensitivity and 99% specificity for EGPA.
Dr. Robson emphasized that all of these classification criteria were to be used only after exclusion of other possible causes of vasculitis, such as infection, malignancy, or other autoimmune diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, and a “diagnosis of small- or medium-vessel vasculitis has been made.”
These criteria are to help classify into the subtypes of vasculitis “primarily for the purpose of clinical trials,” she said. “The next steps are review by the EULAR and ACR committee, and only on final approval will these criteria be ready to use.”
DCVAS is sponsored by the University of Oxford (England) with funding from the European League Against Rheumatism, the American College of Rheumatology, and the Vasculitis Foundation. Dr. Robson had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Robson JC et al. EULAR 2018. Abstract OP0021.
AMSTERDAM – New classification criteria for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitides have been drafted and now need formal review by the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism before they can be put into practice.
According to Joanna Robson, MBBS, PhD, the chair of the DCVAS steering committee, these new criteria better “reflect current practice by incorporating, but not relying on, ANCA testing and advanced imaging.”
“The old criteria were actually produced in the early 1990s and since then we’ve had further thinking about the different subtypes of systemic vasculitis,” explained Dr. Robson of the University of the West of England in Bristol. There has also been a consensus conference held at Chapel Hill (Arthritis Rheum 2013;65[1]:1-11) which identified MPA as a separate entity, and ANCA testing has become routine practice. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging are also now used to help differentiate between the different vasculitides.
“This really has been a collaborative, multinational effort,” Dr. Robson said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. To develop the draft criteria, data collated from 135 sites in 32 countries on more than 2,000 patients were used. These had been collected as part of the ACR/EULAR–run DCVAS study, which has been coordinated at the University of Oxford since 2011.
Three phases were used to develop these criteria: first an expert panel reviewed all cases in the DCVAS to identify those that they felt were attributable to small vessel vasculitis. Second, variables that might be appropriate to use in the models were examined, with more than 8,000 individual DVCAS items considered and then whittled down to 91 items and then sifted again to form a clear set of 10 or fewer items. Third, statistical analyses combined with expert review were used to develop the criteria and then validate these.
Dr. Robson reported that of 2,871 cases identified as ANCA-associated vasculitis, 2,072 (72%) were agreed upon by the expert review panel. Of these, there were 724 cases of GPA, 291 of MPA, 226 of EGPA, and around 300 cases of other small vessel vasculitis or polyarteritis nodosa. To develop the criteria the GPA cases were used as the “cases” and the other types of vasculitis as the comparators, Dr. Robson explained.
For GPA, MPA, and EGPA a set of items (10, 6, and 7, respectively) were derived and scored, positively or negatively, and a cutoff determined at which a classification of the particular vasculitis could be made. During discussion, Dr. Robson noted that the threshold score for a classification of EGPA (greater than or equal to 6) had been set slightly higher than for GPA or MPA (both greater than or equal to 5) “because of the clinical problem of there being very close comparators which can actually mimic EGPA.” This is where the negative scoring of some items used in these criteria are very important, she said.
The 10-item GPA criteria included three clinical (such as the presence of bloody nasal discharge upon examination) and seven investigational (such as cANCA positivity) items. These criteria were found to have a high sensitivity (92%) and specificity (94%) for identifying GPA.
The six-item MPA criteria included one clinical item (bloody nasal discharge, which was this time attributed a negative score) and five investigational items (with ANCA testing given a higher positive score than for GPA). The sensitivity and specificity of these criteria were a respective 91% and 94%.
Finally, the seven-item EGPA criteria included three clinical items (including obstructive airways disease and nasal polyps) and four investigational items (with ANCA positivity given a negative score). These criteria had an 85% sensitivity and 99% specificity for EGPA.
Dr. Robson emphasized that all of these classification criteria were to be used only after exclusion of other possible causes of vasculitis, such as infection, malignancy, or other autoimmune diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, and a “diagnosis of small- or medium-vessel vasculitis has been made.”
These criteria are to help classify into the subtypes of vasculitis “primarily for the purpose of clinical trials,” she said. “The next steps are review by the EULAR and ACR committee, and only on final approval will these criteria be ready to use.”
DCVAS is sponsored by the University of Oxford (England) with funding from the European League Against Rheumatism, the American College of Rheumatology, and the Vasculitis Foundation. Dr. Robson had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Robson JC et al. EULAR 2018. Abstract OP0021.
AMSTERDAM – New classification criteria for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitides have been drafted and now need formal review by the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism before they can be put into practice.
According to Joanna Robson, MBBS, PhD, the chair of the DCVAS steering committee, these new criteria better “reflect current practice by incorporating, but not relying on, ANCA testing and advanced imaging.”
“The old criteria were actually produced in the early 1990s and since then we’ve had further thinking about the different subtypes of systemic vasculitis,” explained Dr. Robson of the University of the West of England in Bristol. There has also been a consensus conference held at Chapel Hill (Arthritis Rheum 2013;65[1]:1-11) which identified MPA as a separate entity, and ANCA testing has become routine practice. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging are also now used to help differentiate between the different vasculitides.
“This really has been a collaborative, multinational effort,” Dr. Robson said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. To develop the draft criteria, data collated from 135 sites in 32 countries on more than 2,000 patients were used. These had been collected as part of the ACR/EULAR–run DCVAS study, which has been coordinated at the University of Oxford since 2011.
Three phases were used to develop these criteria: first an expert panel reviewed all cases in the DCVAS to identify those that they felt were attributable to small vessel vasculitis. Second, variables that might be appropriate to use in the models were examined, with more than 8,000 individual DVCAS items considered and then whittled down to 91 items and then sifted again to form a clear set of 10 or fewer items. Third, statistical analyses combined with expert review were used to develop the criteria and then validate these.
Dr. Robson reported that of 2,871 cases identified as ANCA-associated vasculitis, 2,072 (72%) were agreed upon by the expert review panel. Of these, there were 724 cases of GPA, 291 of MPA, 226 of EGPA, and around 300 cases of other small vessel vasculitis or polyarteritis nodosa. To develop the criteria the GPA cases were used as the “cases” and the other types of vasculitis as the comparators, Dr. Robson explained.
For GPA, MPA, and EGPA a set of items (10, 6, and 7, respectively) were derived and scored, positively or negatively, and a cutoff determined at which a classification of the particular vasculitis could be made. During discussion, Dr. Robson noted that the threshold score for a classification of EGPA (greater than or equal to 6) had been set slightly higher than for GPA or MPA (both greater than or equal to 5) “because of the clinical problem of there being very close comparators which can actually mimic EGPA.” This is where the negative scoring of some items used in these criteria are very important, she said.
The 10-item GPA criteria included three clinical (such as the presence of bloody nasal discharge upon examination) and seven investigational (such as cANCA positivity) items. These criteria were found to have a high sensitivity (92%) and specificity (94%) for identifying GPA.
The six-item MPA criteria included one clinical item (bloody nasal discharge, which was this time attributed a negative score) and five investigational items (with ANCA testing given a higher positive score than for GPA). The sensitivity and specificity of these criteria were a respective 91% and 94%.
Finally, the seven-item EGPA criteria included three clinical items (including obstructive airways disease and nasal polyps) and four investigational items (with ANCA positivity given a negative score). These criteria had an 85% sensitivity and 99% specificity for EGPA.
Dr. Robson emphasized that all of these classification criteria were to be used only after exclusion of other possible causes of vasculitis, such as infection, malignancy, or other autoimmune diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, and a “diagnosis of small- or medium-vessel vasculitis has been made.”
These criteria are to help classify into the subtypes of vasculitis “primarily for the purpose of clinical trials,” she said. “The next steps are review by the EULAR and ACR committee, and only on final approval will these criteria be ready to use.”
DCVAS is sponsored by the University of Oxford (England) with funding from the European League Against Rheumatism, the American College of Rheumatology, and the Vasculitis Foundation. Dr. Robson had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Robson JC et al. EULAR 2018. Abstract OP0021.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2018 CONGRESS
Key clinical point: New classification criteria for ANCA-associated vasculitides have been drafted and now need formal review before they are ready to use.
Major finding: Analysis of the 10-, 6-, and 7-item GPA, MPA, and EGPA criteria showed a respective 92%, 94%, and 91% sensitivity and 94%, 85%, and 99% specificity.
Study details: The Diagnostic and Classification Criteria in Vasculitis (DCVAS) observational study of more than 6,000 cases of vasculitides and comparators.
Disclosures: DCVAS is sponsored by the University of Oxford (England) with funding from the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, and the Vasculitis Foundation. Dr. Robson had no relevant financial disclosures.
Source: Robson JC et al. EULAR 2018. Abstract OP0021.