In our current healthcare system, pressure to provide cost- and time-efficient care is immense. Inpatient care often focuses on assessing the patient’s presenting illness or injury and treating that condition in a manner that gets the patient on their feet and out of the hospital quickly. Because depression is not an indication for hospitalization so long as active suicidality is absent, inpatient physicians may view it as a problem best managed in the outpatient setting. Yet both psychosocial and physical factors associated with depression put patients at risk for rehospitalization.¹ Furthermore, hospitalization represents an unrecognized opportunity to optimize both mental and physical health outcomes.²

Indeed, poor physical and mental health often occur together. Depressed inpatients have poorer outcomes, increased length of stay, and greater vulnerability to hospital readmission.^3,4 Among elderly hospitalized patients, depression is particularly common, especially in those with poor physical health, alcoholism,⁵ hip fracture, and stroke.⁶ Yet little is known about how often depression goes unrecognized, undiagnosed, and, therefore, untreated.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening for depression in the general adult population, including pregnant and postpartum women, and further suggests that screening should be implemented “with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.”² The USPSTF guidelines do not distinguish between inpatient and outpatient settings. However, the preponderance of evidence for screening comes from outpatient care settings, and little is known about screening among inpatient populations.⁷

This study had 2 objectives. First, we sought to examine the performance of depression screening tools in inpatient settings. If depression screening were to become routine in hospital settings, screening tools would need to be sensitive and specific as well as brief and suitable for self-administration by patients or for administration by nurses, resident physicians, or hospitalists. It is also important to consider administration by mental health professionals, who may be best trained to administer such tests. We, therefore, examined 3 types of studies: (1) studies that tested a self-administered screening instrument, (2) studies that tested screening by individuals without formal training, and (3) studies that compared screening tools administered by mental health professionals. Second, we sought to describe associations between depression and clinical or utilization outcomes among hospitalized patients.

We adhered to recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement,^8,9 including designing the analysis before performing the review. However, we did not post a protocol in an online registry, formally assess study quality, or perform a meta-analysis.

Data Sources and Searches

We searched PsycINFO and PubMed databases for articles published between 1990 and 2016 (as of July 31, 2016). In PubMed, 2 search term strings were used to capture studies of depression screening tools in inpatient settings. The first used the advanced search option to exclude studies related to primary care settings or children and adolescents, and the second used MeSH terms to ensure that a wide variety of studies were included. Specific search terms are included in the Appendix. A similar search was conducted in the PsycINFO database and these search terms are also included in the Appendix.

Study Selection

Articles were eligible if they were published in English in peer-reviewed journals, included at least 20 adults hospitalized for nonpsychiatric reasons, and described the use of at least 1 measure of depression. The studies must have either tested the validity of a depression screening tool or examined the association between depression screening and clinical or utilization outcomes. Two investigators reviewed each title, abstract, and full-text article to determine eligibility, then reached a consensus on which studies to include in this review.

Data Extraction

Two investigators reviewed each full-text article to extract information related to study design, population, and outcomes regarding screening tool analysis or clinical results. From articles that assessed the performance of depression screening tools, we extracted information related to the nature and application of the index test, the nature and application of the reference test, the prevalence of depression, and the sensitivity and specificity of the index test compared with the reference test. For articles that focused on the association between depression screening and clinical or utilization outcomes, the data on relevant clinical outcomes included symptom severity, quality of life, and daily functioning, whereas the data on utilization outcomes included length of stay, readmission, and the cost of care.

Altogether, the search identified 3226 records. After eliminating duplicates and abstracts not suitable for inclusion (Figure), 101 articles underwent full-text review and 32 were found to be eligible. Of these, 12 focused on the association between depression and clinical or utilization outcomes, while 20 assessed the performance of depression screening tools.

Depression Screening Tools

Table 1 describes the index and reference instruments as well as methods of administration, the prevalence of depression, and the sensitivity and specificity of the index instruments relative to the reference instruments. Across the 20 studies, the prevalence of depression ranged from 15% to 60%, with a median of 34%.^10–29 This finding may reflect different methods of screening or variation among diverse hospitalized populations. Many of the studies excluded patients with cognitive impairment or communication barriers.

The included studies tested a wide range of unique instruments, and compared them with diverse reference standards. Five studies examined instruments that were self-administered by patients^10–14; 9 studies assessed instruments administered by nurses, physicians, or research staff members without formal psychiatric training^15–23; and 6 studies evaluated instruments administered by mental health professionals.^24–29 Four studies compared different instruments that were administered in the same manner (eg, both self-administered by patients).^12–14,22 In the remaining studies, both instruments and methods of administration differed between the index and reference conditions.

Eight studies tested brief instruments with 5 or fewer items, most of which exhibited good sensitivity (range 38%–91%) and specificity (range 68%–86%) relative to longer instruments.^{12,14–19,22} In 2 of these studies, instruments were self-administered. In 1 case, a single self-administered item from the STOP-D instrument (“Over the past 2 weeks, how much have you been bothered by feeling sad, down, or uninterested in life?”) performed nearly as well as the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.¹⁴ In the other 6 studies testing brief instruments, the instruments were administered by individuals without formal training.^15–19,22 In 1 such study, geriatricians asking 2 questions about depressed mood and anhedonia performed well compared with a formal psychiatric interview.¹⁷

Four studies tested variations of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS).^12,18,21,23 In 3 of these studies, abbreviated versions of the GDS exhibited relatively high sensitivity and specificity.^12,18,21 However, a study comparing the 15-item GDS (GDS-15) with the GDS-4 found that GDS-15 correctly classified 10% more patients with suspected depression.¹² Two studies examined variations of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). One study found that both the PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 obtained by staff nurses performed well relative to a comprehensive assessment by a trained advanced practice nurse.^13,19

When reported, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver-operator curve were generally high.

Depression and Clinical or Utilization Outcomes

Of the 12 studies that reported either clinical or utilization outcomes for depression screening in an inpatient setting,^4,30–40 3 measured rates of rehospitalization.^4,31,39 The other 9 studies tested for associations between symptoms of depression and either health or treatment outcomes. Table 2 provides a more detailed description of the study designs and results.

Other studies found that depression was associated with reduced functional abilities such as mobility and self-care,^30,32–34 and increased hospital readmission³¹ as well as physical and mental health deficits.³⁷ Interestingly, although 1 study did not find that depression and hospital readmission were closely linked (frequency at 19%), it found that comorbid illness and previous hospitalizations predicted readmission.⁴

We also evaluated the associations between depression diagnosed in the inpatient studies and 2 types of outcomes. The first type includes clinical outcomes including symptom severity, quality of life, and daily functioning. Most studies we identified assessed clinical outcomes, and all detected an association between depression and worse clinical outcomes. The second type includes healthcare utilization, which can be measured with the patients’ length of hospital stay, readmission and cost of care. In 1 such study, Mitchell aet al.³¹ reported a 54% increase in readmission within 30 days of discharge among patients who screened positive for depression.³¹ Additionally, Cully et al.³⁰ found that depression may impinge on the recovery process of acute rehabilitation patients.

In our current healthcare system, pressure to provide cost- and time-efficient care is immense. Inpatient care often focuses on assessing the patient’s presenting illness or injury and treating that condition in a manner that gets the patient on their feet and out of the hospital quickly. Because depression is not an indication for hospitalization so long as active suicidality is absent, inpatient physicians may view it as a problem best managed in the outpatient setting. Yet both psychosocial and physical factors associated with depression put patients at risk for rehospitalization.¹ Furthermore, hospitalization represents an unrecognized opportunity to optimize both mental and physical health outcomes.²

Indeed, poor physical and mental health often occur together. Depressed inpatients have poorer outcomes, increased length of stay, and greater vulnerability to hospital readmission.^3,4 Among elderly hospitalized patients, depression is particularly common, especially in those with poor physical health, alcoholism,⁵ hip fracture, and stroke.⁶ Yet little is known about how often depression goes unrecognized, undiagnosed, and, therefore, untreated.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening for depression in the general adult population, including pregnant and postpartum women, and further suggests that screening should be implemented “with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.”² The USPSTF guidelines do not distinguish between inpatient and outpatient settings. However, the preponderance of evidence for screening comes from outpatient care settings, and little is known about screening among inpatient populations.⁷

This study had 2 objectives. First, we sought to examine the performance of depression screening tools in inpatient settings. If depression screening were to become routine in hospital settings, screening tools would need to be sensitive and specific as well as brief and suitable for self-administration by patients or for administration by nurses, resident physicians, or hospitalists. It is also important to consider administration by mental health professionals, who may be best trained to administer such tests. We, therefore, examined 3 types of studies: (1) studies that tested a self-administered screening instrument, (2) studies that tested screening by individuals without formal training, and (3) studies that compared screening tools administered by mental health professionals. Second, we sought to describe associations between depression and clinical or utilization outcomes among hospitalized patients.

We adhered to recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement,^8,9 including designing the analysis before performing the review. However, we did not post a protocol in an online registry, formally assess study quality, or perform a meta-analysis.

Data Sources and Searches

We searched PsycINFO and PubMed databases for articles published between 1990 and 2016 (as of July 31, 2016). In PubMed, 2 search term strings were used to capture studies of depression screening tools in inpatient settings. The first used the advanced search option to exclude studies related to primary care settings or children and adolescents, and the second used MeSH terms to ensure that a wide variety of studies were included. Specific search terms are included in the Appendix. A similar search was conducted in the PsycINFO database and these search terms are also included in the Appendix.

Study Selection

Articles were eligible if they were published in English in peer-reviewed journals, included at least 20 adults hospitalized for nonpsychiatric reasons, and described the use of at least 1 measure of depression. The studies must have either tested the validity of a depression screening tool or examined the association between depression screening and clinical or utilization outcomes. Two investigators reviewed each title, abstract, and full-text article to determine eligibility, then reached a consensus on which studies to include in this review.

Data Extraction

Two investigators reviewed each full-text article to extract information related to study design, population, and outcomes regarding screening tool analysis or clinical results. From articles that assessed the performance of depression screening tools, we extracted information related to the nature and application of the index test, the nature and application of the reference test, the prevalence of depression, and the sensitivity and specificity of the index test compared with the reference test. For articles that focused on the association between depression screening and clinical or utilization outcomes, the data on relevant clinical outcomes included symptom severity, quality of life, and daily functioning, whereas the data on utilization outcomes included length of stay, readmission, and the cost of care.

Altogether, the search identified 3226 records. After eliminating duplicates and abstracts not suitable for inclusion (Figure), 101 articles underwent full-text review and 32 were found to be eligible. Of these, 12 focused on the association between depression and clinical or utilization outcomes, while 20 assessed the performance of depression screening tools.

Depression Screening Tools

Table 1 describes the index and reference instruments as well as methods of administration, the prevalence of depression, and the sensitivity and specificity of the index instruments relative to the reference instruments. Across the 20 studies, the prevalence of depression ranged from 15% to 60%, with a median of 34%.^10–29 This finding may reflect different methods of screening or variation among diverse hospitalized populations. Many of the studies excluded patients with cognitive impairment or communication barriers.

The included studies tested a wide range of unique instruments, and compared them with diverse reference standards. Five studies examined instruments that were self-administered by patients^10–14; 9 studies assessed instruments administered by nurses, physicians, or research staff members without formal psychiatric training^15–23; and 6 studies evaluated instruments administered by mental health professionals.^24–29 Four studies compared different instruments that were administered in the same manner (eg, both self-administered by patients).^12–14,22 In the remaining studies, both instruments and methods of administration differed between the index and reference conditions.

Eight studies tested brief instruments with 5 or fewer items, most of which exhibited good sensitivity (range 38%–91%) and specificity (range 68%–86%) relative to longer instruments.^{12,14–19,22} In 2 of these studies, instruments were self-administered. In 1 case, a single self-administered item from the STOP-D instrument (“Over the past 2 weeks, how much have you been bothered by feeling sad, down, or uninterested in life?”) performed nearly as well as the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.¹⁴ In the other 6 studies testing brief instruments, the instruments were administered by individuals without formal training.^15–19,22 In 1 such study, geriatricians asking 2 questions about depressed mood and anhedonia performed well compared with a formal psychiatric interview.¹⁷

Four studies tested variations of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS).^12,18,21,23 In 3 of these studies, abbreviated versions of the GDS exhibited relatively high sensitivity and specificity.^12,18,21 However, a study comparing the 15-item GDS (GDS-15) with the GDS-4 found that GDS-15 correctly classified 10% more patients with suspected depression.¹² Two studies examined variations of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). One study found that both the PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 obtained by staff nurses performed well relative to a comprehensive assessment by a trained advanced practice nurse.^13,19

When reported, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver-operator curve were generally high.

Depression and Clinical or Utilization Outcomes

Of the 12 studies that reported either clinical or utilization outcomes for depression screening in an inpatient setting,^4,30–40 3 measured rates of rehospitalization.^4,31,39 The other 9 studies tested for associations between symptoms of depression and either health or treatment outcomes. Table 2 provides a more detailed description of the study designs and results.

Other studies found that depression was associated with reduced functional abilities such as mobility and self-care,^30,32–34 and increased hospital readmission³¹ as well as physical and mental health deficits.³⁷ Interestingly, although 1 study did not find that depression and hospital readmission were closely linked (frequency at 19%), it found that comorbid illness and previous hospitalizations predicted readmission.⁴

We also evaluated the associations between depression diagnosed in the inpatient studies and 2 types of outcomes. The first type includes clinical outcomes including symptom severity, quality of life, and daily functioning. Most studies we identified assessed clinical outcomes, and all detected an association between depression and worse clinical outcomes. The second type includes healthcare utilization, which can be measured with the patients’ length of hospital stay, readmission and cost of care. In 1 such study, Mitchell aet al.³¹ reported a 54% increase in readmission within 30 days of discharge among patients who screened positive for depression.³¹ Additionally, Cully et al.³⁰ found that depression may impinge on the recovery process of acute rehabilitation patients.

In our current healthcare system, pressure to provide cost- and time-efficient care is immense. Inpatient care often focuses on assessing the patient’s presenting illness or injury and treating that condition in a manner that gets the patient on their feet and out of the hospital quickly. Because depression is not an indication for hospitalization so long as active suicidality is absent, inpatient physicians may view it as a problem best managed in the outpatient setting. Yet both psychosocial and physical factors associated with depression put patients at risk for rehospitalization.¹ Furthermore, hospitalization represents an unrecognized opportunity to optimize both mental and physical health outcomes.²

Indeed, poor physical and mental health often occur together. Depressed inpatients have poorer outcomes, increased length of stay, and greater vulnerability to hospital readmission.^3,4 Among elderly hospitalized patients, depression is particularly common, especially in those with poor physical health, alcoholism,⁵ hip fracture, and stroke.⁶ Yet little is known about how often depression goes unrecognized, undiagnosed, and, therefore, untreated.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening for depression in the general adult population, including pregnant and postpartum women, and further suggests that screening should be implemented “with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up.”² The USPSTF guidelines do not distinguish between inpatient and outpatient settings. However, the preponderance of evidence for screening comes from outpatient care settings, and little is known about screening among inpatient populations.⁷

This study had 2 objectives. First, we sought to examine the performance of depression screening tools in inpatient settings. If depression screening were to become routine in hospital settings, screening tools would need to be sensitive and specific as well as brief and suitable for self-administration by patients or for administration by nurses, resident physicians, or hospitalists. It is also important to consider administration by mental health professionals, who may be best trained to administer such tests. We, therefore, examined 3 types of studies: (1) studies that tested a self-administered screening instrument, (2) studies that tested screening by individuals without formal training, and (3) studies that compared screening tools administered by mental health professionals. Second, we sought to describe associations between depression and clinical or utilization outcomes among hospitalized patients.

We adhered to recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement,^8,9 including designing the analysis before performing the review. However, we did not post a protocol in an online registry, formally assess study quality, or perform a meta-analysis.

Data Sources and Searches

We searched PsycINFO and PubMed databases for articles published between 1990 and 2016 (as of July 31, 2016). In PubMed, 2 search term strings were used to capture studies of depression screening tools in inpatient settings. The first used the advanced search option to exclude studies related to primary care settings or children and adolescents, and the second used MeSH terms to ensure that a wide variety of studies were included. Specific search terms are included in the Appendix. A similar search was conducted in the PsycINFO database and these search terms are also included in the Appendix.

Study Selection

Articles were eligible if they were published in English in peer-reviewed journals, included at least 20 adults hospitalized for nonpsychiatric reasons, and described the use of at least 1 measure of depression. The studies must have either tested the validity of a depression screening tool or examined the association between depression screening and clinical or utilization outcomes. Two investigators reviewed each title, abstract, and full-text article to determine eligibility, then reached a consensus on which studies to include in this review.

Data Extraction

Two investigators reviewed each full-text article to extract information related to study design, population, and outcomes regarding screening tool analysis or clinical results. From articles that assessed the performance of depression screening tools, we extracted information related to the nature and application of the index test, the nature and application of the reference test, the prevalence of depression, and the sensitivity and specificity of the index test compared with the reference test. For articles that focused on the association between depression screening and clinical or utilization outcomes, the data on relevant clinical outcomes included symptom severity, quality of life, and daily functioning, whereas the data on utilization outcomes included length of stay, readmission, and the cost of care.

Altogether, the search identified 3226 records. After eliminating duplicates and abstracts not suitable for inclusion (Figure), 101 articles underwent full-text review and 32 were found to be eligible. Of these, 12 focused on the association between depression and clinical or utilization outcomes, while 20 assessed the performance of depression screening tools.

Depression Screening Tools

Table 1 describes the index and reference instruments as well as methods of administration, the prevalence of depression, and the sensitivity and specificity of the index instruments relative to the reference instruments. Across the 20 studies, the prevalence of depression ranged from 15% to 60%, with a median of 34%.^10–29 This finding may reflect different methods of screening or variation among diverse hospitalized populations. Many of the studies excluded patients with cognitive impairment or communication barriers.

The included studies tested a wide range of unique instruments, and compared them with diverse reference standards. Five studies examined instruments that were self-administered by patients^10–14; 9 studies assessed instruments administered by nurses, physicians, or research staff members without formal psychiatric training^15–23; and 6 studies evaluated instruments administered by mental health professionals.^24–29 Four studies compared different instruments that were administered in the same manner (eg, both self-administered by patients).^12–14,22 In the remaining studies, both instruments and methods of administration differed between the index and reference conditions.

Eight studies tested brief instruments with 5 or fewer items, most of which exhibited good sensitivity (range 38%–91%) and specificity (range 68%–86%) relative to longer instruments.^{12,14–19,22} In 2 of these studies, instruments were self-administered. In 1 case, a single self-administered item from the STOP-D instrument (“Over the past 2 weeks, how much have you been bothered by feeling sad, down, or uninterested in life?”) performed nearly as well as the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.¹⁴ In the other 6 studies testing brief instruments, the instruments were administered by individuals without formal training.^15–19,22 In 1 such study, geriatricians asking 2 questions about depressed mood and anhedonia performed well compared with a formal psychiatric interview.¹⁷

Four studies tested variations of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS).^12,18,21,23 In 3 of these studies, abbreviated versions of the GDS exhibited relatively high sensitivity and specificity.^12,18,21 However, a study comparing the 15-item GDS (GDS-15) with the GDS-4 found that GDS-15 correctly classified 10% more patients with suspected depression.¹² Two studies examined variations of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). One study found that both the PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 obtained by staff nurses performed well relative to a comprehensive assessment by a trained advanced practice nurse.^13,19

When reported, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver-operator curve were generally high.

Depression and Clinical or Utilization Outcomes

Of the 12 studies that reported either clinical or utilization outcomes for depression screening in an inpatient setting,^4,30–40 3 measured rates of rehospitalization.^4,31,39 The other 9 studies tested for associations between symptoms of depression and either health or treatment outcomes. Table 2 provides a more detailed description of the study designs and results.

Other studies found that depression was associated with reduced functional abilities such as mobility and self-care,^30,32–34 and increased hospital readmission³¹ as well as physical and mental health deficits.³⁷ Interestingly, although 1 study did not find that depression and hospital readmission were closely linked (frequency at 19%), it found that comorbid illness and previous hospitalizations predicted readmission.⁴

We also evaluated the associations between depression diagnosed in the inpatient studies and 2 types of outcomes. The first type includes clinical outcomes including symptom severity, quality of life, and daily functioning. Most studies we identified assessed clinical outcomes, and all detected an association between depression and worse clinical outcomes. The second type includes healthcare utilization, which can be measured with the patients’ length of hospital stay, readmission and cost of care. In 1 such study, Mitchell aet al.³¹ reported a 54% increase in readmission within 30 days of discharge among patients who screened positive for depression.³¹ Additionally, Cully et al.³⁰ found that depression may impinge on the recovery process of acute rehabilitation patients.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients across the world.¹ Affecting up to 20% of all admissions (depending on which definition of AKI is used),² AKI is the most common reason for new-inpatient nephrology consultation. Recent data suggest that AKI incidence has risen rapidly, by up to 10% per year.^3,4

AKI is associated with a variety of serious short- and long-term complications. Approximately 33% to 60% of critically ill patients who develop dialysis-requiring AKI do not survive to hospital discharge, and mortality associated with dialysis-requiring AKI is greater than that associated with other serious conditions such as myocardial infarction or acute respiratory distress syndrome.⁵ Even relatively mild AKI in the acute inpatient setting appears to be an independent risk factor for mortality.⁶

For several decades, many physicians believed that AKI was a self-limited process followed by complete recovery of renal function to pre-AKI levels among survivors. (Numerous trainees have been taught some variant of the old adage: “If the patients survive, so will their kidneys.”) But studies linking AKI with the development of new-onset chronic kidney disease (CKD) or the accelerated progression of pre-existing CKD have changed this view.⁷ One important reason the long-term impact of AKI hasn’t been appreciated is that, traditionally, clinical studies of AKI examined inhospital outcomes such as short-term mortality and resource usage and did not consider what transpired months to years after discharge. More recently, epidemiologic studies linking inpatient events with outpatient outcomes have filled this knowledge gap.⁸ Contemporary animal models of AKI have shed light on potential mechanisms of maladaptive repair after AKI, characterized by fibrosis, vascular rarefaction, tubular loss, glomerulosclerosis, and chronic interstitial inflammation, all of which result in renal function decline. So over the last decade there has been a paradigm shift in how we think about AKI and CKD. Rather than distinct entities, AKI and CKD are now viewed as interconnected syndromes since AKI is a risk factor for CKD progression and CKD is a risk factor for new episodes of AKI.⁹

Two studies published in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine augment our understanding of AKI and its clinical impact in hospitalized patients. Analyzing data from the National Inpatient Sample, Silver et al.¹⁰ found that hospitalizations that include AKI are substantially costlier and associated with longer lengths of stay than hospitalizations without AKI. The authors also highlight that the additional economic costs of AKI exceeded those of many other higher-profile yet less-common acute medical conditions, such as myocardial infarction and gastrointestinal bleeding. These results re-emphasize the important economic burden of AKI at a national level and expand on prior literature by confirming findings previously limited to single-center and regional studies. Better defining the impact AKI has on our healthcare system could help ensure that adequate resources are invested to combat AKI.

The second study, by Rutter et al.,¹¹ found that among hospitalized patients with normal baseline renal function, use of vancomycin in combination with piperacillin-tazobactam is associated with a higher incidence of AKI after antibiotic exposure than use of either agent as monotherapy. This association persisted even after adjusting for potential confounders such as underlying comorbidities, exposure to nephrotoxic agents, documented hypotension, and baseline renal impairment. This study adds to a growing body of literature that suggests synergistic nephrotoxicity between vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam. It underscores that any medical intervention—even treatments typically envisioned as non-hazardous and frequently life-saving—involve inherent risks and should prompt the medical community to promote proper antimicrobial stewardship. Whether such exposures to vancomycin or beta-lactam derivatives cause AKI via direct tubular damage, interstitial nephritis, or some other novel mechanism remains to be elucidated. Better delineation of the contemporary causes of AKI, including increased antibiotic exposure, is the first step toward identifying ways to reduce AKI incidence.

Both of these papers serve to highlight the clinical importance of AKI among hospitalized patients. Their findings re-emphasize the need for vigilance in detecting AKI and intervening early to achieve the best clinical outcomes.

Given recent understanding that survivors of AKI are at greater risk for more rapid loss of renal function long after hospital discharge, one goal the US Department of Health and Human Services put forth for Healthy People 2020 is to “increase the proportion of hospital patients who incurred AKI who have follow-up renal evaluation in 6 months post-discharge” (10% improvement targeted).¹² Transitions of care after hospitalizations complicated by AKI require special attention to ensure that patients’ needs are optimally monitored and managed during the critical post-discharge period. One recent study analyzing discharge documentation for hospitalizations including AKI found that fewer than half of the discharge summaries and patient instructions commented on the presence, cause, or course of AKI, indicating clear room for improvement.¹³ And currently, it appears that only a minority of patients with AKI—even AKI severe enough to require dialysis—are seen by a nephrologist within 90 days of discharge.¹⁴

Hospitalists play a crucial role in coordinating care as vulnerable patients transition from the inpatient to outpatient setting. We suggest that AKI should be properly documented in the discharge summary. In addition, patients should be informed that they experienced AKI so they can discuss with future caregivers potential strategies to avoid additional renal insults. Discharge referrals to nephrology should be arranged for high-risk patients, including those whose renal function remains decreased at discharge or those who had recurrent AKI episodes during prior hospitalizations. For patients with pre-hospitalization baseline CKD, nephrology should be consulted before indefinitely discontinuing medications like angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. These medications are indispensable in retarding the progression of proteinuric CKD, even though they may predispose patients to AKI under certain circumstances (eg, in states of decreased renal perfusion). Adopting these simple steps may substantially improve the long-term outcomes of patients who experience AKI during hospitalization.

Acknowledgments

The authors are supported by NIH-NIDDK Grants T32DK007219 (BJL) and K24DK92291 (CYH).

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients across the world.¹ Affecting up to 20% of all admissions (depending on which definition of AKI is used),² AKI is the most common reason for new-inpatient nephrology consultation. Recent data suggest that AKI incidence has risen rapidly, by up to 10% per year.^3,4

AKI is associated with a variety of serious short- and long-term complications. Approximately 33% to 60% of critically ill patients who develop dialysis-requiring AKI do not survive to hospital discharge, and mortality associated with dialysis-requiring AKI is greater than that associated with other serious conditions such as myocardial infarction or acute respiratory distress syndrome.⁵ Even relatively mild AKI in the acute inpatient setting appears to be an independent risk factor for mortality.⁶

For several decades, many physicians believed that AKI was a self-limited process followed by complete recovery of renal function to pre-AKI levels among survivors. (Numerous trainees have been taught some variant of the old adage: “If the patients survive, so will their kidneys.”) But studies linking AKI with the development of new-onset chronic kidney disease (CKD) or the accelerated progression of pre-existing CKD have changed this view.⁷ One important reason the long-term impact of AKI hasn’t been appreciated is that, traditionally, clinical studies of AKI examined inhospital outcomes such as short-term mortality and resource usage and did not consider what transpired months to years after discharge. More recently, epidemiologic studies linking inpatient events with outpatient outcomes have filled this knowledge gap.⁸ Contemporary animal models of AKI have shed light on potential mechanisms of maladaptive repair after AKI, characterized by fibrosis, vascular rarefaction, tubular loss, glomerulosclerosis, and chronic interstitial inflammation, all of which result in renal function decline. So over the last decade there has been a paradigm shift in how we think about AKI and CKD. Rather than distinct entities, AKI and CKD are now viewed as interconnected syndromes since AKI is a risk factor for CKD progression and CKD is a risk factor for new episodes of AKI.⁹

Two studies published in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine augment our understanding of AKI and its clinical impact in hospitalized patients. Analyzing data from the National Inpatient Sample, Silver et al.¹⁰ found that hospitalizations that include AKI are substantially costlier and associated with longer lengths of stay than hospitalizations without AKI. The authors also highlight that the additional economic costs of AKI exceeded those of many other higher-profile yet less-common acute medical conditions, such as myocardial infarction and gastrointestinal bleeding. These results re-emphasize the important economic burden of AKI at a national level and expand on prior literature by confirming findings previously limited to single-center and regional studies. Better defining the impact AKI has on our healthcare system could help ensure that adequate resources are invested to combat AKI.

The second study, by Rutter et al.,¹¹ found that among hospitalized patients with normal baseline renal function, use of vancomycin in combination with piperacillin-tazobactam is associated with a higher incidence of AKI after antibiotic exposure than use of either agent as monotherapy. This association persisted even after adjusting for potential confounders such as underlying comorbidities, exposure to nephrotoxic agents, documented hypotension, and baseline renal impairment. This study adds to a growing body of literature that suggests synergistic nephrotoxicity between vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam. It underscores that any medical intervention—even treatments typically envisioned as non-hazardous and frequently life-saving—involve inherent risks and should prompt the medical community to promote proper antimicrobial stewardship. Whether such exposures to vancomycin or beta-lactam derivatives cause AKI via direct tubular damage, interstitial nephritis, or some other novel mechanism remains to be elucidated. Better delineation of the contemporary causes of AKI, including increased antibiotic exposure, is the first step toward identifying ways to reduce AKI incidence.

Both of these papers serve to highlight the clinical importance of AKI among hospitalized patients. Their findings re-emphasize the need for vigilance in detecting AKI and intervening early to achieve the best clinical outcomes.

Given recent understanding that survivors of AKI are at greater risk for more rapid loss of renal function long after hospital discharge, one goal the US Department of Health and Human Services put forth for Healthy People 2020 is to “increase the proportion of hospital patients who incurred AKI who have follow-up renal evaluation in 6 months post-discharge” (10% improvement targeted).¹² Transitions of care after hospitalizations complicated by AKI require special attention to ensure that patients’ needs are optimally monitored and managed during the critical post-discharge period. One recent study analyzing discharge documentation for hospitalizations including AKI found that fewer than half of the discharge summaries and patient instructions commented on the presence, cause, or course of AKI, indicating clear room for improvement.¹³ And currently, it appears that only a minority of patients with AKI—even AKI severe enough to require dialysis—are seen by a nephrologist within 90 days of discharge.¹⁴

Hospitalists play a crucial role in coordinating care as vulnerable patients transition from the inpatient to outpatient setting. We suggest that AKI should be properly documented in the discharge summary. In addition, patients should be informed that they experienced AKI so they can discuss with future caregivers potential strategies to avoid additional renal insults. Discharge referrals to nephrology should be arranged for high-risk patients, including those whose renal function remains decreased at discharge or those who had recurrent AKI episodes during prior hospitalizations. For patients with pre-hospitalization baseline CKD, nephrology should be consulted before indefinitely discontinuing medications like angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. These medications are indispensable in retarding the progression of proteinuric CKD, even though they may predispose patients to AKI under certain circumstances (eg, in states of decreased renal perfusion). Adopting these simple steps may substantially improve the long-term outcomes of patients who experience AKI during hospitalization.

Acknowledgments

The authors are supported by NIH-NIDDK Grants T32DK007219 (BJL) and K24DK92291 (CYH).

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients across the world.¹ Affecting up to 20% of all admissions (depending on which definition of AKI is used),² AKI is the most common reason for new-inpatient nephrology consultation. Recent data suggest that AKI incidence has risen rapidly, by up to 10% per year.^3,4

AKI is associated with a variety of serious short- and long-term complications. Approximately 33% to 60% of critically ill patients who develop dialysis-requiring AKI do not survive to hospital discharge, and mortality associated with dialysis-requiring AKI is greater than that associated with other serious conditions such as myocardial infarction or acute respiratory distress syndrome.⁵ Even relatively mild AKI in the acute inpatient setting appears to be an independent risk factor for mortality.⁶

For several decades, many physicians believed that AKI was a self-limited process followed by complete recovery of renal function to pre-AKI levels among survivors. (Numerous trainees have been taught some variant of the old adage: “If the patients survive, so will their kidneys.”) But studies linking AKI with the development of new-onset chronic kidney disease (CKD) or the accelerated progression of pre-existing CKD have changed this view.⁷ One important reason the long-term impact of AKI hasn’t been appreciated is that, traditionally, clinical studies of AKI examined inhospital outcomes such as short-term mortality and resource usage and did not consider what transpired months to years after discharge. More recently, epidemiologic studies linking inpatient events with outpatient outcomes have filled this knowledge gap.⁸ Contemporary animal models of AKI have shed light on potential mechanisms of maladaptive repair after AKI, characterized by fibrosis, vascular rarefaction, tubular loss, glomerulosclerosis, and chronic interstitial inflammation, all of which result in renal function decline. So over the last decade there has been a paradigm shift in how we think about AKI and CKD. Rather than distinct entities, AKI and CKD are now viewed as interconnected syndromes since AKI is a risk factor for CKD progression and CKD is a risk factor for new episodes of AKI.⁹

Two studies published in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine augment our understanding of AKI and its clinical impact in hospitalized patients. Analyzing data from the National Inpatient Sample, Silver et al.¹⁰ found that hospitalizations that include AKI are substantially costlier and associated with longer lengths of stay than hospitalizations without AKI. The authors also highlight that the additional economic costs of AKI exceeded those of many other higher-profile yet less-common acute medical conditions, such as myocardial infarction and gastrointestinal bleeding. These results re-emphasize the important economic burden of AKI at a national level and expand on prior literature by confirming findings previously limited to single-center and regional studies. Better defining the impact AKI has on our healthcare system could help ensure that adequate resources are invested to combat AKI.

The second study, by Rutter et al.,¹¹ found that among hospitalized patients with normal baseline renal function, use of vancomycin in combination with piperacillin-tazobactam is associated with a higher incidence of AKI after antibiotic exposure than use of either agent as monotherapy. This association persisted even after adjusting for potential confounders such as underlying comorbidities, exposure to nephrotoxic agents, documented hypotension, and baseline renal impairment. This study adds to a growing body of literature that suggests synergistic nephrotoxicity between vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam. It underscores that any medical intervention—even treatments typically envisioned as non-hazardous and frequently life-saving—involve inherent risks and should prompt the medical community to promote proper antimicrobial stewardship. Whether such exposures to vancomycin or beta-lactam derivatives cause AKI via direct tubular damage, interstitial nephritis, or some other novel mechanism remains to be elucidated. Better delineation of the contemporary causes of AKI, including increased antibiotic exposure, is the first step toward identifying ways to reduce AKI incidence.

Both of these papers serve to highlight the clinical importance of AKI among hospitalized patients. Their findings re-emphasize the need for vigilance in detecting AKI and intervening early to achieve the best clinical outcomes.

Given recent understanding that survivors of AKI are at greater risk for more rapid loss of renal function long after hospital discharge, one goal the US Department of Health and Human Services put forth for Healthy People 2020 is to “increase the proportion of hospital patients who incurred AKI who have follow-up renal evaluation in 6 months post-discharge” (10% improvement targeted).¹² Transitions of care after hospitalizations complicated by AKI require special attention to ensure that patients’ needs are optimally monitored and managed during the critical post-discharge period. One recent study analyzing discharge documentation for hospitalizations including AKI found that fewer than half of the discharge summaries and patient instructions commented on the presence, cause, or course of AKI, indicating clear room for improvement.¹³ And currently, it appears that only a minority of patients with AKI—even AKI severe enough to require dialysis—are seen by a nephrologist within 90 days of discharge.¹⁴

Hospitalists play a crucial role in coordinating care as vulnerable patients transition from the inpatient to outpatient setting. We suggest that AKI should be properly documented in the discharge summary. In addition, patients should be informed that they experienced AKI so they can discuss with future caregivers potential strategies to avoid additional renal insults. Discharge referrals to nephrology should be arranged for high-risk patients, including those whose renal function remains decreased at discharge or those who had recurrent AKI episodes during prior hospitalizations. For patients with pre-hospitalization baseline CKD, nephrology should be consulted before indefinitely discontinuing medications like angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. These medications are indispensable in retarding the progression of proteinuric CKD, even though they may predispose patients to AKI under certain circumstances (eg, in states of decreased renal perfusion). Adopting these simple steps may substantially improve the long-term outcomes of patients who experience AKI during hospitalization.

Acknowledgments

The authors are supported by NIH-NIDDK Grants T32DK007219 (BJL) and K24DK92291 (CYH).

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

HOUSTON – Surgical aortic valve replacement can be performed in intermediate-risk elderly patients with an operative mortality rate of 4.1%, which is better than expected, according to results from a large multicenter analysis. However, the rate of in-hospital stroke was 5.4% – twice what was expected.

“This is most likely secondary to neurologic assessment [that was conducted] for all patients postoperatively,” Vinod H. Thourani, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

HOUSTON – Surgical aortic valve replacement can be performed in intermediate-risk elderly patients with an operative mortality rate of 4.1%, which is better than expected, according to results from a large multicenter analysis. However, the rate of in-hospital stroke was 5.4% – twice what was expected.

“This is most likely secondary to neurologic assessment [that was conducted] for all patients postoperatively,” Vinod H. Thourani, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

HOUSTON – Surgical aortic valve replacement can be performed in intermediate-risk elderly patients with an operative mortality rate of 4.1%, which is better than expected, according to results from a large multicenter analysis. However, the rate of in-hospital stroke was 5.4% – twice what was expected.

“This is most likely secondary to neurologic assessment [that was conducted] for all patients postoperatively,” Vinod H. Thourani, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

The Diagnosis

Carcinosarcoma is a rare malignant entity, representing less than 2% of all esophageal neoplasms. It usually shows a bulky appearance of an intraluminal polypoid lesion owing to predominant sarcomatous development with little stromal proliferation.

References

1. Hung J.J., Li A.F., Liu J.S., et al. Esophageal carcinosarcoma with basaloid squamous cell carcinoma and osteosarcoma. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85[3]:1102-4.

2. Madan A.K., Long A.E., Weldon C.B., et al. Esophageal carcinosarcoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2001;5[4]:414-7.

The Diagnosis

Carcinosarcoma is a rare malignant entity, representing less than 2% of all esophageal neoplasms. It usually shows a bulky appearance of an intraluminal polypoid lesion owing to predominant sarcomatous development with little stromal proliferation.

References

1. Hung J.J., Li A.F., Liu J.S., et al. Esophageal carcinosarcoma with basaloid squamous cell carcinoma and osteosarcoma. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85[3]:1102-4.

2. Madan A.K., Long A.E., Weldon C.B., et al. Esophageal carcinosarcoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2001;5[4]:414-7.

The Diagnosis

Carcinosarcoma is a rare malignant entity, representing less than 2% of all esophageal neoplasms. It usually shows a bulky appearance of an intraluminal polypoid lesion owing to predominant sarcomatous development with little stromal proliferation.

References

1. Hung J.J., Li A.F., Liu J.S., et al. Esophageal carcinosarcoma with basaloid squamous cell carcinoma and osteosarcoma. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85[3]:1102-4.

2. Madan A.K., Long A.E., Weldon C.B., et al. Esophageal carcinosarcoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2001;5[4]:414-7.

Research with mice and rats in Germany may have found a new way to treat high blood pressure.

Using epifluorescence intravital video microscopy imaging, researchers examined mice to whom they had given angiotensin II hormones to induce arterial hypertension.

They determined that the mice with low levels of thrombin-driven factor XI (FXI) – either naturally or inhibited by antisense oligonucleotides – had healthier endothelium.

“Specificity of the effects of FXI depletion was confirmed by continuous in vivo supplementation with human FXI,” wrote Sabine Kossmann, PhD, of the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis, University Medical Center, Mainz (Germany), and her coauthors (Sci Transl Med. 2017 Feb 1. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aah4923).

Targeting the “feedback loop” between the FXI and a receptor that helps thrombin propagate on platelets reduced both vascular inflammation and blood pressure.

“Our findings suggest that inhibiting the ... thrombin-FXI–amplifying loop may provide added cardiovascular benefits that are synergistic with those of established platelet inhibitors,” the authors wrote.

This work was supported by grants from the Stiftung Pathobiochemie und Molekulare Diagnostik and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The authors disclosed funding and grants from the German Research Society, the European Research Council, NIH, and other sources. One of the researchers is inventor of five patents related to the FXI inhibitor and equity holder in Aronora, and may have financial interest in the findings of the research.

[email protected]

Research with mice and rats in Germany may have found a new way to treat high blood pressure.

Using epifluorescence intravital video microscopy imaging, researchers examined mice to whom they had given angiotensin II hormones to induce arterial hypertension.

They determined that the mice with low levels of thrombin-driven factor XI (FXI) – either naturally or inhibited by antisense oligonucleotides – had healthier endothelium.

“Specificity of the effects of FXI depletion was confirmed by continuous in vivo supplementation with human FXI,” wrote Sabine Kossmann, PhD, of the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis, University Medical Center, Mainz (Germany), and her coauthors (Sci Transl Med. 2017 Feb 1. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aah4923).

Targeting the “feedback loop” between the FXI and a receptor that helps thrombin propagate on platelets reduced both vascular inflammation and blood pressure.

“Our findings suggest that inhibiting the ... thrombin-FXI–amplifying loop may provide added cardiovascular benefits that are synergistic with those of established platelet inhibitors,” the authors wrote.

This work was supported by grants from the Stiftung Pathobiochemie und Molekulare Diagnostik and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The authors disclosed funding and grants from the German Research Society, the European Research Council, NIH, and other sources. One of the researchers is inventor of five patents related to the FXI inhibitor and equity holder in Aronora, and may have financial interest in the findings of the research.

[email protected]

Research with mice and rats in Germany may have found a new way to treat high blood pressure.

Using epifluorescence intravital video microscopy imaging, researchers examined mice to whom they had given angiotensin II hormones to induce arterial hypertension.

They determined that the mice with low levels of thrombin-driven factor XI (FXI) – either naturally or inhibited by antisense oligonucleotides – had healthier endothelium.

“Specificity of the effects of FXI depletion was confirmed by continuous in vivo supplementation with human FXI,” wrote Sabine Kossmann, PhD, of the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis, University Medical Center, Mainz (Germany), and her coauthors (Sci Transl Med. 2017 Feb 1. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aah4923).

Targeting the “feedback loop” between the FXI and a receptor that helps thrombin propagate on platelets reduced both vascular inflammation and blood pressure.

“Our findings suggest that inhibiting the ... thrombin-FXI–amplifying loop may provide added cardiovascular benefits that are synergistic with those of established platelet inhibitors,” the authors wrote.

This work was supported by grants from the Stiftung Pathobiochemie und Molekulare Diagnostik and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The authors disclosed funding and grants from the German Research Society, the European Research Council, NIH, and other sources. One of the researchers is inventor of five patents related to the FXI inhibitor and equity holder in Aronora, and may have financial interest in the findings of the research.

[email protected]

Doubt is being cast on the efficacy of Diclegis – the only prescription drug approved in the United States for treating nausea and vomiting in pregnancy – after researchers exposed flaws in previously unpublished data that served as the basis for the drug’s approval.

But the larger point, according to the researcher who brought the unpublished study to light, is the danger of relying too heavily on hidden data.

“It’s not like there’s some special concern over the safety of Diclegis. It’s that there is this commonly prescribed medication that hasn’t been proven to be effective,” Navindra Persaud, MD, a family physician and researcher at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, said in an interview.

©monkeybusinessimages/thinkstockphotos.com

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

Doubt is being cast on the efficacy of Diclegis – the only prescription drug approved in the United States for treating nausea and vomiting in pregnancy – after researchers exposed flaws in previously unpublished data that served as the basis for the drug’s approval.

But the larger point, according to the researcher who brought the unpublished study to light, is the danger of relying too heavily on hidden data.

“It’s not like there’s some special concern over the safety of Diclegis. It’s that there is this commonly prescribed medication that hasn’t been proven to be effective,” Navindra Persaud, MD, a family physician and researcher at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, said in an interview.

©monkeybusinessimages/thinkstockphotos.com

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

Doubt is being cast on the efficacy of Diclegis – the only prescription drug approved in the United States for treating nausea and vomiting in pregnancy – after researchers exposed flaws in previously unpublished data that served as the basis for the drug’s approval.

But the larger point, according to the researcher who brought the unpublished study to light, is the danger of relying too heavily on hidden data.

“It’s not like there’s some special concern over the safety of Diclegis. It’s that there is this commonly prescribed medication that hasn’t been proven to be effective,” Navindra Persaud, MD, a family physician and researcher at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, said in an interview.

©monkeybusinessimages/thinkstockphotos.com

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

CHICAGO – More than 53,000 people will develop pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the United States this year, and upwards of 41,000 will die from the disease, many of them with tumors considered unresectable because they involve adjacent vessels. However, researchers at the University of California, Irvine, have found that careful removal of the tumor around involved veins and arteries, even in borderline cases, can improve outcomes for these patients.

Roy M. Fujitani, MD, updated previously published data on a single-center study he coauthored in 2015 of 270 patients who had undergone a Whipple operation, 183 for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:475-80) at a symposium on vascular surgery sponsored by Northwestern University.

Courtesy Dr. Roy M. Fujitani

CHICAGO – More than 53,000 people will develop pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the United States this year, and upwards of 41,000 will die from the disease, many of them with tumors considered unresectable because they involve adjacent vessels. However, researchers at the University of California, Irvine, have found that careful removal of the tumor around involved veins and arteries, even in borderline cases, can improve outcomes for these patients.

Roy M. Fujitani, MD, updated previously published data on a single-center study he coauthored in 2015 of 270 patients who had undergone a Whipple operation, 183 for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:475-80) at a symposium on vascular surgery sponsored by Northwestern University.

Courtesy Dr. Roy M. Fujitani

CHICAGO – More than 53,000 people will develop pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the United States this year, and upwards of 41,000 will die from the disease, many of them with tumors considered unresectable because they involve adjacent vessels. However, researchers at the University of California, Irvine, have found that careful removal of the tumor around involved veins and arteries, even in borderline cases, can improve outcomes for these patients.

Roy M. Fujitani, MD, updated previously published data on a single-center study he coauthored in 2015 of 270 patients who had undergone a Whipple operation, 183 for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:475-80) at a symposium on vascular surgery sponsored by Northwestern University.

Courtesy Dr. Roy M. Fujitani

Study Overview

Objective. To determine if evolocumab, a PCSK9 inhibitor, affects the progression of coronary artery disease in patients treated with statins.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants. 197 community and academic hospitals worldwide enrolled 978 participants who underwent serial intravascular ultrasounds (IVUS) to measure their burden of coronary atherosclerosis. A total of 2628 patients were screened. Patients were considered for inclusion if they were 18 years of age or older and had at least 1 coronary artery stenosis of at least 20% on a clinically indicated catheterization. Additionally, the target vessel had to meet IVUS imaging quality and visibility standards. Participants were required to have been on stable statin therapy for at least 4 weeks with an LDL level of > 80 mg/dL or between 60–80 mg/dL with either 1 major or 3 minor cardiovascular risk factors. Major risk factors were noncoronary atherosclerotic disease, myocardial infarction (MI) or hospitalization for unstable angina within the past 2 years, or type 2 diabetes. Minor risk factors included current tobacco use, hypertension, low HDL-C levels, family history of early coronary disease, hsCRP level of 2 mg/L or greater, and age older than 50 years for men and 55 years for women. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled diabetes, heart failure, renal insufficiency, or liver disease were excluded.

Intervention. Patients were randomized to either treatment with monthly subcutaneous injections of 420 mg evolocumab or placebo injections for 76 weeks. Participants attended 7 follow-up visits during the study period and then underwent repeat IVUS imaging at the 78th week. Research staff, who were blinded to both treatment status and imaging sequence, collected and assessed target vessel measurements, including the vessel lumen and external elastic membrane dimensions. IVUS imaging has been used in numerous clinical studies and has been shown to be accurate and reliable [1].

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the target artery change in percent atheroma volume (PAV) from baseline to week 78. PAV was calculated from IVUS measurements. Nominal change in PAV was then determined by calculating the difference of the PAV at baseline and at week 78.

The secondary measure was the normalized total atheroma volume (TAV). TAV addresses variability in the length of vessel segments and the number of images collected during IVUS catheter pullback. The nominal change in TAV was then determined by the difference at baseline and at week 78.

Additional secondary efficacy endpoints included number of patients with regression of plaque and change in lipid parameters. Safety outcomes were investigated through evaluation of the incidence of adjudicated clinical events, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, MI, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, coronary revascularization, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and heart failure requiring hospitalization. Post-hoc analysis compared baseline LDL-C level and change in PAV and regression of PAV. The association between LDL lowering and plaque progression was also assessed post hoc.

IVUS measurements were evaluated as least squares means. Comparison of treatment groups was conducted using analysis of covariance on rank transformed data that accounted for baseline value and geographic location. Investigators used a step-down statistical procedure to evaluate primary and secondary endpoints. The statistical model accounted for confounders such as baseline LDL-C, baseline PAV, intensity of statin therapy, geographic region, age, and sex.

Main results. 484 participants were randomized to the evolocumab group and 484 to the placebo group, and 423 participants in both groups completed both baseline and follow-up IVUS imaging. Treatment and control groups contained participants matched for age, gender, ethnicity, cardiovascular risk factors, and baseline medication use, including lipid-lowering agents, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, and antiplatelet therapies. Both groups consisted of a majority of white (93.4% in placebo and 94.2% in treatment) males (72.3% in placebo and 72.1% in treatment). Approximately 80% of participants had hypertension (83.7% in placebo and 82.2% in treatment), about 35% had prior MIs (35.3% in placebo and 34.9% in treatment), and roughly a fifth of participants had diabetes (21.5% in placebo and 20.2% in treatment). At baseline 98.6% of participants were treated with statins, with 58.9% on high-intensity therapy and 39.4% on moderate-intensity. Mean LDL-C level at baseline was 92.5 (SD, 27.2) mg/dL.

After 76 weeks of treatment, mean LDL-C level in the placebo group was 93.0 mg/dL and 36.6 mg/dL in the treatment group, which corresponds to a 0.2 mg/dL increase in the placebo group and a 56.3 mg/dL reduction in the treatment group. The change in LDL-C level was statistically significant (P < 0.001).

Placebo group participants had no significant change in PAV (0.05%, P = 0.78), but the evolocumab group experienced a 0.95% decrease from baseline (P < 0.001). Similarly, the placebo group had no change in TAV from baseline (–0.9 mm³, P = 0.45), but the treatment group had a 5.8 mm³ reduction in TAV from baseline (P < 0.001). The treatment group had a greater proportion of patients who experienced PAV regression (64.3% vs. 47.3%, P < 0.001) and TAV regression (61.5% vs. 48.9%, P < 0.001).

Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between change in PAV and specific study participant characteristics (eg, age, gender, ethnicity).

Post-hoc analysis using local regression (LOESS) curve revealed a linear relationship between achieved LDL-C level and change in PAV for LDL-C levels from 110 mg/dL to 20 mg/dL.

The treatment group did not exhibit a significant increase in adverse drug events, which included injection site reactions, myalgias, neurocognitive events, and incidence of diabetes. There was no significant difference in adverse cardiovascular outcomes between groups; however, there were numerically fewer nonfatal MIs and coronary revascularizations in the treatment group.

Conclusion. The use of evolocumab in statin-treated patients resulted in greater reduction of PAV than use of statins alone.

Commentary

Evolocumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits pro-protein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9), which is involved in LDL-C receptor recycling. By reducing removal of LDL-C receptors, evolocumab amplifies LDL-C clearance and has been shown to reduce LDL-C levels by approximately 61% from baseline with 12 weeks oftreatment [2]. Studies have shown that the lipid-lowering potential of evolocumab is superior to statins alone and to combination therapy with statins and ezetimibe [2]. Furthermore, PCSK9 inhibitors have been effective at LDL-lowering in patients who failed or could not tolerate standard of care therapy with statins and ezetimibe [3,4]. PCSK9 inhibitors hold great promise for reducing morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular disease; however, LDL-lowering is not equivalent to improved clinical outcomes.

The GLAGOV study moves toward demonstration of the clinical benefit of evolocumab. The study shows that combined therapy with statins and evolocumab, versus statins alone, not only achieves better stability of atherosclerotic plaque dimensions but actually results in regression of plaque size. In the study, plaque burden is extrapolated from vessel measurements obtained through IVUS, and nominal changes in PAV and TAV serve as markers for atherosclerosis, but these surrogates cannot be equated to a reduction in cardiovascular events. The GLAGOV trial does explore clinical outcomes such as MI, stroke, unstable angina, coronary revascularization, and death; however, the study is not powered to evaluate the statistical significance of these events. We await sufficiently powered phase 3 clinical trials to determine the clinical benefits of PCSK9 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease.

The GLAGOV trial has several strengths, including its design as an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. The intervention is simple and the outcomes are clearly defined. The statistical assessment yields significant results. Nonetheless, there are multiple limitations to the study. The lead author has received research support from Amgen, the maker of evolocumab. Amgen also participated in study design and maintenance of trial databases; however, data analysis was conducted by an independent statistician. Additionally, the majority of study participants were white males with very few minority patients despite inclusion of study sites around the globe. The homogeneity of the study cohort makes the data difficult to generalize to a larger population. Similarly, patients who lacked a clinical indication for coronary catheterization and those with uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure were excluded, which further limits application of this study to many patients with atherosclerosis. Another limitation is study attrition; only 87% of participants completed the 78-week IVUS and were included in the data analysis, and results may have differed if those lost to follow-up had completed the trial. Furthermore, study duration was limited to 76 weeks and the magnitude and durability of study outcomes after this time point remain unknown.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Reduction in PAV and TAV are surrogate endpoints and are not indicative of a clinical benefit. Nonetheless, the GLAGOV study demonstrates that evolocumab, when used in conjunction with statins, can promote regression of atherosclerosis greater than treatment with statins alone. More studies are needed to evaluate a clinical benefit of adding evolocumab to the regularly used arsenal of lipid-lowering therapies for the treatment of atherosclerosis. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness of evolocumab has not been shown. In 2015 the yearly wholesale price of evolcumab was $14,350. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on this price estimates that treatment of atherosclerotic coronary vascular disease with evolocumab has a cost of $414,000 per quality-adjusted life year [5]. Evolocumab is well tolerated, but additional studies for cardiovascular and mortality outcomes are needed before it can be considered part of the standard of treatment for coronary artery disease.

—Lauren Brooks, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To determine if evolocumab, a PCSK9 inhibitor, affects the progression of coronary artery disease in patients treated with statins.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants. 197 community and academic hospitals worldwide enrolled 978 participants who underwent serial intravascular ultrasounds (IVUS) to measure their burden of coronary atherosclerosis. A total of 2628 patients were screened. Patients were considered for inclusion if they were 18 years of age or older and had at least 1 coronary artery stenosis of at least 20% on a clinically indicated catheterization. Additionally, the target vessel had to meet IVUS imaging quality and visibility standards. Participants were required to have been on stable statin therapy for at least 4 weeks with an LDL level of > 80 mg/dL or between 60–80 mg/dL with either 1 major or 3 minor cardiovascular risk factors. Major risk factors were noncoronary atherosclerotic disease, myocardial infarction (MI) or hospitalization for unstable angina within the past 2 years, or type 2 diabetes. Minor risk factors included current tobacco use, hypertension, low HDL-C levels, family history of early coronary disease, hsCRP level of 2 mg/L or greater, and age older than 50 years for men and 55 years for women. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled diabetes, heart failure, renal insufficiency, or liver disease were excluded.

Intervention. Patients were randomized to either treatment with monthly subcutaneous injections of 420 mg evolocumab or placebo injections for 76 weeks. Participants attended 7 follow-up visits during the study period and then underwent repeat IVUS imaging at the 78th week. Research staff, who were blinded to both treatment status and imaging sequence, collected and assessed target vessel measurements, including the vessel lumen and external elastic membrane dimensions. IVUS imaging has been used in numerous clinical studies and has been shown to be accurate and reliable [1].

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the target artery change in percent atheroma volume (PAV) from baseline to week 78. PAV was calculated from IVUS measurements. Nominal change in PAV was then determined by calculating the difference of the PAV at baseline and at week 78.

The secondary measure was the normalized total atheroma volume (TAV). TAV addresses variability in the length of vessel segments and the number of images collected during IVUS catheter pullback. The nominal change in TAV was then determined by the difference at baseline and at week 78.

Additional secondary efficacy endpoints included number of patients with regression of plaque and change in lipid parameters. Safety outcomes were investigated through evaluation of the incidence of adjudicated clinical events, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, MI, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, coronary revascularization, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and heart failure requiring hospitalization. Post-hoc analysis compared baseline LDL-C level and change in PAV and regression of PAV. The association between LDL lowering and plaque progression was also assessed post hoc.

IVUS measurements were evaluated as least squares means. Comparison of treatment groups was conducted using analysis of covariance on rank transformed data that accounted for baseline value and geographic location. Investigators used a step-down statistical procedure to evaluate primary and secondary endpoints. The statistical model accounted for confounders such as baseline LDL-C, baseline PAV, intensity of statin therapy, geographic region, age, and sex.

Main results. 484 participants were randomized to the evolocumab group and 484 to the placebo group, and 423 participants in both groups completed both baseline and follow-up IVUS imaging. Treatment and control groups contained participants matched for age, gender, ethnicity, cardiovascular risk factors, and baseline medication use, including lipid-lowering agents, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, and antiplatelet therapies. Both groups consisted of a majority of white (93.4% in placebo and 94.2% in treatment) males (72.3% in placebo and 72.1% in treatment). Approximately 80% of participants had hypertension (83.7% in placebo and 82.2% in treatment), about 35% had prior MIs (35.3% in placebo and 34.9% in treatment), and roughly a fifth of participants had diabetes (21.5% in placebo and 20.2% in treatment). At baseline 98.6% of participants were treated with statins, with 58.9% on high-intensity therapy and 39.4% on moderate-intensity. Mean LDL-C level at baseline was 92.5 (SD, 27.2) mg/dL.

After 76 weeks of treatment, mean LDL-C level in the placebo group was 93.0 mg/dL and 36.6 mg/dL in the treatment group, which corresponds to a 0.2 mg/dL increase in the placebo group and a 56.3 mg/dL reduction in the treatment group. The change in LDL-C level was statistically significant (P < 0.001).

Placebo group participants had no significant change in PAV (0.05%, P = 0.78), but the evolocumab group experienced a 0.95% decrease from baseline (P < 0.001). Similarly, the placebo group had no change in TAV from baseline (–0.9 mm³, P = 0.45), but the treatment group had a 5.8 mm³ reduction in TAV from baseline (P < 0.001). The treatment group had a greater proportion of patients who experienced PAV regression (64.3% vs. 47.3%, P < 0.001) and TAV regression (61.5% vs. 48.9%, P < 0.001).

Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between change in PAV and specific study participant characteristics (eg, age, gender, ethnicity).

Post-hoc analysis using local regression (LOESS) curve revealed a linear relationship between achieved LDL-C level and change in PAV for LDL-C levels from 110 mg/dL to 20 mg/dL.

The treatment group did not exhibit a significant increase in adverse drug events, which included injection site reactions, myalgias, neurocognitive events, and incidence of diabetes. There was no significant difference in adverse cardiovascular outcomes between groups; however, there were numerically fewer nonfatal MIs and coronary revascularizations in the treatment group.

Conclusion. The use of evolocumab in statin-treated patients resulted in greater reduction of PAV than use of statins alone.

Commentary

Evolocumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits pro-protein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9), which is involved in LDL-C receptor recycling. By reducing removal of LDL-C receptors, evolocumab amplifies LDL-C clearance and has been shown to reduce LDL-C levels by approximately 61% from baseline with 12 weeks oftreatment [2]. Studies have shown that the lipid-lowering potential of evolocumab is superior to statins alone and to combination therapy with statins and ezetimibe [2]. Furthermore, PCSK9 inhibitors have been effective at LDL-lowering in patients who failed or could not tolerate standard of care therapy with statins and ezetimibe [3,4]. PCSK9 inhibitors hold great promise for reducing morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular disease; however, LDL-lowering is not equivalent to improved clinical outcomes.

The GLAGOV study moves toward demonstration of the clinical benefit of evolocumab. The study shows that combined therapy with statins and evolocumab, versus statins alone, not only achieves better stability of atherosclerotic plaque dimensions but actually results in regression of plaque size. In the study, plaque burden is extrapolated from vessel measurements obtained through IVUS, and nominal changes in PAV and TAV serve as markers for atherosclerosis, but these surrogates cannot be equated to a reduction in cardiovascular events. The GLAGOV trial does explore clinical outcomes such as MI, stroke, unstable angina, coronary revascularization, and death; however, the study is not powered to evaluate the statistical significance of these events. We await sufficiently powered phase 3 clinical trials to determine the clinical benefits of PCSK9 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease.

The GLAGOV trial has several strengths, including its design as an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. The intervention is simple and the outcomes are clearly defined. The statistical assessment yields significant results. Nonetheless, there are multiple limitations to the study. The lead author has received research support from Amgen, the maker of evolocumab. Amgen also participated in study design and maintenance of trial databases; however, data analysis was conducted by an independent statistician. Additionally, the majority of study participants were white males with very few minority patients despite inclusion of study sites around the globe. The homogeneity of the study cohort makes the data difficult to generalize to a larger population. Similarly, patients who lacked a clinical indication for coronary catheterization and those with uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure were excluded, which further limits application of this study to many patients with atherosclerosis. Another limitation is study attrition; only 87% of participants completed the 78-week IVUS and were included in the data analysis, and results may have differed if those lost to follow-up had completed the trial. Furthermore, study duration was limited to 76 weeks and the magnitude and durability of study outcomes after this time point remain unknown.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Reduction in PAV and TAV are surrogate endpoints and are not indicative of a clinical benefit. Nonetheless, the GLAGOV study demonstrates that evolocumab, when used in conjunction with statins, can promote regression of atherosclerosis greater than treatment with statins alone. More studies are needed to evaluate a clinical benefit of adding evolocumab to the regularly used arsenal of lipid-lowering therapies for the treatment of atherosclerosis. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness of evolocumab has not been shown. In 2015 the yearly wholesale price of evolcumab was $14,350. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on this price estimates that treatment of atherosclerotic coronary vascular disease with evolocumab has a cost of $414,000 per quality-adjusted life year [5]. Evolocumab is well tolerated, but additional studies for cardiovascular and mortality outcomes are needed before it can be considered part of the standard of treatment for coronary artery disease.

—Lauren Brooks, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD

Study Overview

Objective. To determine if evolocumab, a PCSK9 inhibitor, affects the progression of coronary artery disease in patients treated with statins.

Design. Multicenter, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants. 197 community and academic hospitals worldwide enrolled 978 participants who underwent serial intravascular ultrasounds (IVUS) to measure their burden of coronary atherosclerosis. A total of 2628 patients were screened. Patients were considered for inclusion if they were 18 years of age or older and had at least 1 coronary artery stenosis of at least 20% on a clinically indicated catheterization. Additionally, the target vessel had to meet IVUS imaging quality and visibility standards. Participants were required to have been on stable statin therapy for at least 4 weeks with an LDL level of > 80 mg/dL or between 60–80 mg/dL with either 1 major or 3 minor cardiovascular risk factors. Major risk factors were noncoronary atherosclerotic disease, myocardial infarction (MI) or hospitalization for unstable angina within the past 2 years, or type 2 diabetes. Minor risk factors included current tobacco use, hypertension, low HDL-C levels, family history of early coronary disease, hsCRP level of 2 mg/L or greater, and age older than 50 years for men and 55 years for women. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled diabetes, heart failure, renal insufficiency, or liver disease were excluded.

Intervention. Patients were randomized to either treatment with monthly subcutaneous injections of 420 mg evolocumab or placebo injections for 76 weeks. Participants attended 7 follow-up visits during the study period and then underwent repeat IVUS imaging at the 78th week. Research staff, who were blinded to both treatment status and imaging sequence, collected and assessed target vessel measurements, including the vessel lumen and external elastic membrane dimensions. IVUS imaging has been used in numerous clinical studies and has been shown to be accurate and reliable [1].

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was the target artery change in percent atheroma volume (PAV) from baseline to week 78. PAV was calculated from IVUS measurements. Nominal change in PAV was then determined by calculating the difference of the PAV at baseline and at week 78.

The secondary measure was the normalized total atheroma volume (TAV). TAV addresses variability in the length of vessel segments and the number of images collected during IVUS catheter pullback. The nominal change in TAV was then determined by the difference at baseline and at week 78.

Additional secondary efficacy endpoints included number of patients with regression of plaque and change in lipid parameters. Safety outcomes were investigated through evaluation of the incidence of adjudicated clinical events, including all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, MI, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, coronary revascularization, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and heart failure requiring hospitalization. Post-hoc analysis compared baseline LDL-C level and change in PAV and regression of PAV. The association between LDL lowering and plaque progression was also assessed post hoc.

IVUS measurements were evaluated as least squares means. Comparison of treatment groups was conducted using analysis of covariance on rank transformed data that accounted for baseline value and geographic location. Investigators used a step-down statistical procedure to evaluate primary and secondary endpoints. The statistical model accounted for confounders such as baseline LDL-C, baseline PAV, intensity of statin therapy, geographic region, age, and sex.

Main results. 484 participants were randomized to the evolocumab group and 484 to the placebo group, and 423 participants in both groups completed both baseline and follow-up IVUS imaging. Treatment and control groups contained participants matched for age, gender, ethnicity, cardiovascular risk factors, and baseline medication use, including lipid-lowering agents, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta-blockers, and antiplatelet therapies. Both groups consisted of a majority of white (93.4% in placebo and 94.2% in treatment) males (72.3% in placebo and 72.1% in treatment). Approximately 80% of participants had hypertension (83.7% in placebo and 82.2% in treatment), about 35% had prior MIs (35.3% in placebo and 34.9% in treatment), and roughly a fifth of participants had diabetes (21.5% in placebo and 20.2% in treatment). At baseline 98.6% of participants were treated with statins, with 58.9% on high-intensity therapy and 39.4% on moderate-intensity. Mean LDL-C level at baseline was 92.5 (SD, 27.2) mg/dL.

After 76 weeks of treatment, mean LDL-C level in the placebo group was 93.0 mg/dL and 36.6 mg/dL in the treatment group, which corresponds to a 0.2 mg/dL increase in the placebo group and a 56.3 mg/dL reduction in the treatment group. The change in LDL-C level was statistically significant (P < 0.001).

Placebo group participants had no significant change in PAV (0.05%, P = 0.78), but the evolocumab group experienced a 0.95% decrease from baseline (P < 0.001). Similarly, the placebo group had no change in TAV from baseline (–0.9 mm³, P = 0.45), but the treatment group had a 5.8 mm³ reduction in TAV from baseline (P < 0.001). The treatment group had a greater proportion of patients who experienced PAV regression (64.3% vs. 47.3%, P < 0.001) and TAV regression (61.5% vs. 48.9%, P < 0.001).

Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between change in PAV and specific study participant characteristics (eg, age, gender, ethnicity).

Post-hoc analysis using local regression (LOESS) curve revealed a linear relationship between achieved LDL-C level and change in PAV for LDL-C levels from 110 mg/dL to 20 mg/dL.

The treatment group did not exhibit a significant increase in adverse drug events, which included injection site reactions, myalgias, neurocognitive events, and incidence of diabetes. There was no significant difference in adverse cardiovascular outcomes between groups; however, there were numerically fewer nonfatal MIs and coronary revascularizations in the treatment group.

Conclusion. The use of evolocumab in statin-treated patients resulted in greater reduction of PAV than use of statins alone.

Commentary

Evolocumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits pro-protein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9), which is involved in LDL-C receptor recycling. By reducing removal of LDL-C receptors, evolocumab amplifies LDL-C clearance and has been shown to reduce LDL-C levels by approximately 61% from baseline with 12 weeks oftreatment [2]. Studies have shown that the lipid-lowering potential of evolocumab is superior to statins alone and to combination therapy with statins and ezetimibe [2]. Furthermore, PCSK9 inhibitors have been effective at LDL-lowering in patients who failed or could not tolerate standard of care therapy with statins and ezetimibe [3,4]. PCSK9 inhibitors hold great promise for reducing morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular disease; however, LDL-lowering is not equivalent to improved clinical outcomes.

The GLAGOV study moves toward demonstration of the clinical benefit of evolocumab. The study shows that combined therapy with statins and evolocumab, versus statins alone, not only achieves better stability of atherosclerotic plaque dimensions but actually results in regression of plaque size. In the study, plaque burden is extrapolated from vessel measurements obtained through IVUS, and nominal changes in PAV and TAV serve as markers for atherosclerosis, but these surrogates cannot be equated to a reduction in cardiovascular events. The GLAGOV trial does explore clinical outcomes such as MI, stroke, unstable angina, coronary revascularization, and death; however, the study is not powered to evaluate the statistical significance of these events. We await sufficiently powered phase 3 clinical trials to determine the clinical benefits of PCSK9 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease.

The GLAGOV trial has several strengths, including its design as an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. The intervention is simple and the outcomes are clearly defined. The statistical assessment yields significant results. Nonetheless, there are multiple limitations to the study. The lead author has received research support from Amgen, the maker of evolocumab. Amgen also participated in study design and maintenance of trial databases; however, data analysis was conducted by an independent statistician. Additionally, the majority of study participants were white males with very few minority patients despite inclusion of study sites around the globe. The homogeneity of the study cohort makes the data difficult to generalize to a larger population. Similarly, patients who lacked a clinical indication for coronary catheterization and those with uncontrolled diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure were excluded, which further limits application of this study to many patients with atherosclerosis. Another limitation is study attrition; only 87% of participants completed the 78-week IVUS and were included in the data analysis, and results may have differed if those lost to follow-up had completed the trial. Furthermore, study duration was limited to 76 weeks and the magnitude and durability of study outcomes after this time point remain unknown.

Applications for Clinical Practice

Reduction in PAV and TAV are surrogate endpoints and are not indicative of a clinical benefit. Nonetheless, the GLAGOV study demonstrates that evolocumab, when used in conjunction with statins, can promote regression of atherosclerosis greater than treatment with statins alone. More studies are needed to evaluate a clinical benefit of adding evolocumab to the regularly used arsenal of lipid-lowering therapies for the treatment of atherosclerosis. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness of evolocumab has not been shown. In 2015 the yearly wholesale price of evolcumab was $14,350. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on this price estimates that treatment of atherosclerotic coronary vascular disease with evolocumab has a cost of $414,000 per quality-adjusted life year [5]. Evolocumab is well tolerated, but additional studies for cardiovascular and mortality outcomes are needed before it can be considered part of the standard of treatment for coronary artery disease.

—Lauren Brooks, MD, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD

SAN FRANCISCO – Post-surgery adjuvant treatment with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) was feasible, but failed to significantly improve relapse-free survival when compared with surveillance among patients with localized biliary tract cancer in the randomized phase III PRODIGE 12-ACCORD 18 (UNICANCER GI) trial.

Relapse-free survival at a median of 44.3 months in 196 patients who were randomized within 3 months of R0 or R1 resection of a localized biliary tract cancer to receive either GEMOX for 12 cycles or surveillance was 30.4 months vs. 22.0 months in the groups, respectively. At 4 years, relapse-free survival was 39.3% and 33.2%, respectively, Julien Edeline, MD, of Oncology Medical Eugene Marquis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Rennes, France, reported at the symposium, sponsored by ASCO, ASTRO, the American Gastroenterological Association, and Society of Surgical Oncology.

No difference was seen between the groups with respect to the co-primary endpoint of 12- and 24-month global health-related quality of life scores (70.8 vs. 83.3, and 75.0 vs. 83.3, respectively), he said.

Study subjects had localized intra-hepatic, perihilar, or extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma, or gallbladder cancer and were enrolled from 33 centers between July 2009 and February 2014. They had ECOG performance status of 0-2, and adequate liver function. The treatment and surveillance arms were well balanced, with similar primary disease sites, Dr. Edeline said.

Those in the GEMOX arm received 12 cycles (6 months) of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² on day 1 and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² on day 2. Those in the surveillance arm underwent ACE, CA19.9 testing, and CT scans every 3 months for 2 years then every 6 months for 3 years.

In the treatment and surveillance arms, respectively, R0 resection rates were 86.2% and 87.9%, and lymph node invasion was present in 37.2% and 36.4%.

The maximal grade of adverse events was 3 in 57.5% vs. 22.2% of patients in the groups, respectively, and grade 4 in 17.0% vs. 9.1%. One patient in each arm died during treatment.

The main grade 3 or greater adverse events were peripheral neuropathy in 50.0% vs. 1.1% and neutropenia in 22.3% vs. 0% for GEMOX vs. surveillance group patients.

“As you know, there is a high risk of relapse following surgery for localized biliary tract cancer. There is currently no proven adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment,” Dr. Edeline said. “In the palliative setting, we know that the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin improves overall survival. GEMOX is considered an active regimen based on data from phase II trials. At the time of the design of our study, GEMOX was considered the standard first line treatment for biliary tract cancer.”

Based on this background, the aim of the current phase III trial was to assess whether GEMOX would increase relapse-free survival while maintaining health-related quality of life in patients with localized disease.

“We showed that adjuvant GEMOX was feasible. Toxicities were as expected and manageable, and we didn’t see detrimental effects on quality of life. However, adjuvant GEMOX was not associated in the PRODIGE 12 trial with an improvement in relapse-free survival,” he said, noting that this was also true in subgroup analyses, which showed no benefit of GEMOX with respect to relapse-free survival in any predefined subgroups.

“Clearly, further research through international collaboration is required to improve outcomes in these patients,” he concluded.

Dr. Edeline reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Post-surgery adjuvant treatment with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) was feasible, but failed to significantly improve relapse-free survival when compared with surveillance among patients with localized biliary tract cancer in the randomized phase III PRODIGE 12-ACCORD 18 (UNICANCER GI) trial.

Relapse-free survival at a median of 44.3 months in 196 patients who were randomized within 3 months of R0 or R1 resection of a localized biliary tract cancer to receive either GEMOX for 12 cycles or surveillance was 30.4 months vs. 22.0 months in the groups, respectively. At 4 years, relapse-free survival was 39.3% and 33.2%, respectively, Julien Edeline, MD, of Oncology Medical Eugene Marquis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Rennes, France, reported at the symposium, sponsored by ASCO, ASTRO, the American Gastroenterological Association, and Society of Surgical Oncology.

No difference was seen between the groups with respect to the co-primary endpoint of 12- and 24-month global health-related quality of life scores (70.8 vs. 83.3, and 75.0 vs. 83.3, respectively), he said.

Study subjects had localized intra-hepatic, perihilar, or extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma, or gallbladder cancer and were enrolled from 33 centers between July 2009 and February 2014. They had ECOG performance status of 0-2, and adequate liver function. The treatment and surveillance arms were well balanced, with similar primary disease sites, Dr. Edeline said.

Those in the GEMOX arm received 12 cycles (6 months) of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² on day 1 and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² on day 2. Those in the surveillance arm underwent ACE, CA19.9 testing, and CT scans every 3 months for 2 years then every 6 months for 3 years.

In the treatment and surveillance arms, respectively, R0 resection rates were 86.2% and 87.9%, and lymph node invasion was present in 37.2% and 36.4%.

The maximal grade of adverse events was 3 in 57.5% vs. 22.2% of patients in the groups, respectively, and grade 4 in 17.0% vs. 9.1%. One patient in each arm died during treatment.

The main grade 3 or greater adverse events were peripheral neuropathy in 50.0% vs. 1.1% and neutropenia in 22.3% vs. 0% for GEMOX vs. surveillance group patients.

“As you know, there is a high risk of relapse following surgery for localized biliary tract cancer. There is currently no proven adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment,” Dr. Edeline said. “In the palliative setting, we know that the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin improves overall survival. GEMOX is considered an active regimen based on data from phase II trials. At the time of the design of our study, GEMOX was considered the standard first line treatment for biliary tract cancer.”

Based on this background, the aim of the current phase III trial was to assess whether GEMOX would increase relapse-free survival while maintaining health-related quality of life in patients with localized disease.

“We showed that adjuvant GEMOX was feasible. Toxicities were as expected and manageable, and we didn’t see detrimental effects on quality of life. However, adjuvant GEMOX was not associated in the PRODIGE 12 trial with an improvement in relapse-free survival,” he said, noting that this was also true in subgroup analyses, which showed no benefit of GEMOX with respect to relapse-free survival in any predefined subgroups.

“Clearly, further research through international collaboration is required to improve outcomes in these patients,” he concluded.

Dr. Edeline reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – Post-surgery adjuvant treatment with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) was feasible, but failed to significantly improve relapse-free survival when compared with surveillance among patients with localized biliary tract cancer in the randomized phase III PRODIGE 12-ACCORD 18 (UNICANCER GI) trial.

Relapse-free survival at a median of 44.3 months in 196 patients who were randomized within 3 months of R0 or R1 resection of a localized biliary tract cancer to receive either GEMOX for 12 cycles or surveillance was 30.4 months vs. 22.0 months in the groups, respectively. At 4 years, relapse-free survival was 39.3% and 33.2%, respectively, Julien Edeline, MD, of Oncology Medical Eugene Marquis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Rennes, France, reported at the symposium, sponsored by ASCO, ASTRO, the American Gastroenterological Association, and Society of Surgical Oncology.

No difference was seen between the groups with respect to the co-primary endpoint of 12- and 24-month global health-related quality of life scores (70.8 vs. 83.3, and 75.0 vs. 83.3, respectively), he said.

Study subjects had localized intra-hepatic, perihilar, or extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma, or gallbladder cancer and were enrolled from 33 centers between July 2009 and February 2014. They had ECOG performance status of 0-2, and adequate liver function. The treatment and surveillance arms were well balanced, with similar primary disease sites, Dr. Edeline said.

Those in the GEMOX arm received 12 cycles (6 months) of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² on day 1 and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² on day 2. Those in the surveillance arm underwent ACE, CA19.9 testing, and CT scans every 3 months for 2 years then every 6 months for 3 years.

In the treatment and surveillance arms, respectively, R0 resection rates were 86.2% and 87.9%, and lymph node invasion was present in 37.2% and 36.4%.

The maximal grade of adverse events was 3 in 57.5% vs. 22.2% of patients in the groups, respectively, and grade 4 in 17.0% vs. 9.1%. One patient in each arm died during treatment.

The main grade 3 or greater adverse events were peripheral neuropathy in 50.0% vs. 1.1% and neutropenia in 22.3% vs. 0% for GEMOX vs. surveillance group patients.

“As you know, there is a high risk of relapse following surgery for localized biliary tract cancer. There is currently no proven adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment,” Dr. Edeline said. “In the palliative setting, we know that the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin improves overall survival. GEMOX is considered an active regimen based on data from phase II trials. At the time of the design of our study, GEMOX was considered the standard first line treatment for biliary tract cancer.”

Based on this background, the aim of the current phase III trial was to assess whether GEMOX would increase relapse-free survival while maintaining health-related quality of life in patients with localized disease.

“We showed that adjuvant GEMOX was feasible. Toxicities were as expected and manageable, and we didn’t see detrimental effects on quality of life. However, adjuvant GEMOX was not associated in the PRODIGE 12 trial with an improvement in relapse-free survival,” he said, noting that this was also true in subgroup analyses, which showed no benefit of GEMOX with respect to relapse-free survival in any predefined subgroups.

“Clearly, further research through international collaboration is required to improve outcomes in these patients,” he concluded.

Dr. Edeline reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – It’s not uncommon for children to arrive at the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic in Pittsburgh with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor activation that was misdiagnosed as bipolar disorder, according to Boris Birmaher, MD.

“We get many kids into our clinic with a diagnosis of bipolar because of this, and they are not bipolar. You have to be careful,” he said during a talk about pediatric depression at a psychopharmacology update held by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

SSRIs activate about 5%-10% of children. There might be sleep problems, fast speech, hyperactivity, agitation, aggression, and even suicidality, he said.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – It’s not uncommon for children to arrive at the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic in Pittsburgh with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor activation that was misdiagnosed as bipolar disorder, according to Boris Birmaher, MD.

“We get many kids into our clinic with a diagnosis of bipolar because of this, and they are not bipolar. You have to be careful,” he said during a talk about pediatric depression at a psychopharmacology update held by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

SSRIs activate about 5%-10% of children. There might be sleep problems, fast speech, hyperactivity, agitation, aggression, and even suicidality, he said.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – It’s not uncommon for children to arrive at the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic in Pittsburgh with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor activation that was misdiagnosed as bipolar disorder, according to Boris Birmaher, MD.

“We get many kids into our clinic with a diagnosis of bipolar because of this, and they are not bipolar. You have to be careful,” he said during a talk about pediatric depression at a psychopharmacology update held by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

SSRIs activate about 5%-10% of children. There might be sleep problems, fast speech, hyperactivity, agitation, aggression, and even suicidality, he said.

[email protected]