User login
Robotic Technology Produces More Conservative Tibial Resection Than Conventional Techniques in UKA
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is considered a less invasive approach for the treatment of unicompartmental knee arthritis when compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with optimal preservation of kinematics.1 Despite excellent functional outcomes, conversion to TKA may be necessary if the UKA fails, or in patients with progressive knee arthritis. Some studies have found UKA conversion to TKA to be comparable with primary TKA,2,3 whereas others have found that conversion often requires bone graft, augments, and stemmed components and has increased complications and inferior results compared to primary TKA.4-7 While some studies report that <10% of UKA conversions to TKA require augments,2 others have found that as many as 76% require augments.4-8
Schwarzkopf and colleagues9 recently demonstrated that UKA conversion to TKA is comparable with primary TKA when a conservative tibial resection is performed during the index procedure. However, they reported increased complexity when greater tibial resection was performed and thicker polyethylene inserts were used at the time of the index UKA. The odds ratio of needing an augment or stem during the conversion to TKA was 26.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.71-194) when an aggressive tibial resection was performed during the UKA.9 Tibial resection thickness may thus be predictive of anticipated complexity of UKA revision to TKA and may aid in preoperative planning.
Robotic assistance has been shown to enhance the accuracy of bone preparation, implant component alignment, and soft tissue balance in UKA.10-15 It has yet to be determined whether this improved accuracy translates to improved clinical performance or longevity of the UKA implant. However, the enhanced accuracy of robotic technology may result in more conservative tibial resection when compared to conventional UKA and may be advantageous if conversion to TKA becomes necessary.
The purpose of this study was to compare the distribution of polyethylene insert sizes implanted during conventional and robotic-assisted UKA. We hypothesized that robotic assistance would demonstrate more conservative tibial resection compared to conventional methods of bone preparation.
Methods
We retrospectively compared the distribution of polyethylene insert sizes implanted during consecutive conventional and robotic-assisted UKA procedures. Several manufacturers were queried to provide a listing of the polyethylene insert sizes utilized, ranging from 8 mm to 14 mm. The analysis included 8421 robotic-assisted UKA cases and 27,989 conventional UKA cases. Data were provided by Zimmer Biomet and Smith & Nephew regarding conventional cases, as well as Blue Belt Technologies (now part of Smith & Nephew) and MAKO Surgical (now part of Stryker) regarding robotic-assisted cases. (Dr. Lonner has an ongoing relationship as a consultant with Blue Belt Technologies, whose data was utilized in this study.) Using tibial insert thickness as a surrogate measure of the extent of tibial resection, an insert size of ≥10 mm was defined as aggressive while <10 mm was considered conservative. This cutoff was established based on its corresponding resection level with primary TKA and the anticipated need for augments. Statistical analysis was performed using a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. Significance was set at P < .05.
Results
Tibial resection thickness was found to be most commonly conservative in nature, with sizes 8-mm and 9-mm polyethylene inserts utilized in the majority of both robotic-assisted and conventional UKA cases. However, statistically more 8-mm and 9-mm polyethylene inserts were used in the robotic group (93.6%) than in the conventional group (84.5%) (P < .0001; Figure). Aggressive tibial resection, requiring tibial inserts ≥10 mm, was performed in 6.4% of robotic-assisted cases and 15.5% of conventional cases.
Discussion
Robotic assistance enhances the accuracy of bone preparation, implant component alignment, and soft tissue balance in UKA.10-15 It has yet to be determined whether this improved accuracy translates to improved clinical performance or longevity of the UKA implant. However, we demonstrate that the enhanced accuracy of robotic technology results in more conservative tibial resection when compared to conventional techniques with a potential benefit suggested in the literature upon conversion to TKA.
The findings of this study have important implications for patients undergoing conversion of UKA to TKA, potentially optimizing the ease of revision and clinical outcomes. The outcomes of UKA conversion to TKA are often considered inferior to those of primary TKA, compromised by bone loss, need for augmentation, and challenges of restoring the joint line and rotation.9,16-22 Barrett and Scott18 reported only 66% of patients had good or excellent results at an average of 4.6 years of follow-up after UKA conversion to TKA. Over 50% required stemmed implants and bone graft or bone cement augmentation to address osseous insufficiency. The authors suggested that the primary determinant of the complexity of the conversion to TKA was the surgical technique used in the index procedure. They concluded that UKA conversion to TKA can be as successful as a primary TKA and primary TKA implants can be used without bone augmentation or stems during the revision procedure if minimal tibial bone is resected at the time of the index UKA.18 Schwarzkopf and colleagues9 supported this conclusion when they found that aggressive tibial resection during UKA resulted in the need for bone graft, stem, wedge, or augment in 70% of cases when converted to TKA. Similarly, Khan and colleagues23 found that 26% of patients required bone grafting and 26% required some form of augmentation, and Springer and colleagues3 reported that 68% required a graft, augment, or stem.3,22 Using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry, Pearse and colleagues5 reported that revision TKA components were necessary in 28% of patients and concluded that converting a UKA to TKA gives a less reliable result than primary TKA, and with functional results that are not significantly better than a revision from a TKA.
Conservative tibial resection during UKA minimizes the complexity and concerns of bone loss upon conversion to TKA. Schwarzkopf and colleagues9 found 96.6% of patients with conservative tibial resection received a primary TKA implant, without augments or stems. Furthermore, patients with a primary TKA implant showed improved tibial survivorship, with revision as an end point, compared with patients who received a TKA implant that required stems and augments or bone graft for support.9 Also emphasizing the importance of minimal tibial resection, O’Donnell and colleagues8 compared a cohort of patients undergoing conversion of a minimal resection resurfacing onlay-type UKA to TKA with a cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. They found that 40% of patients required bone grafting for contained defects, 3.6% required metal augments, and 1.8% required stems.8 There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of range of motion, functional outcome, or radiologic outcomes. The authors concluded that revision of minimal resection resurfacing implants to TKA is associated with similar results to primary TKA and is superior to revision of UKA with greater bone loss. Prior studies have shown that one of the advantages of robotic-assisted UKA is the accuracy and precision of bone resection. The present study supports this premise by showing that tibial resection is significantly more conservative using robotic-assisted techniques when using tibial component thickness as a surrogate for extent of bone resection. While our study did not address implant durability or the impact of conservative resection on conversion to TKA, studies referenced above suggest that the conservative nature of bone preparation would have a relevant impact on the revision of the implant to TKA.
Our study is a retrospective case series that reports tibial component thickness as a surrogate for volume of tibial resection during UKA. While the implication is that more conservative tibial resection may optimize durability and ease of conversion to TKA, future study will be needed to compare robotic-assisted and conventional cases of UKA upon conversion to TKA in order to ascertain whether the more conventional resections of robotic-assisted UKA in fact lead to revision that is comparable with primary TKA in terms of bone loss at the time of revision, components utilized, the need for bone graft, augments, or stems, and clinical outcomes. Given the method of data collection in this study, we could not control for clinical deformity, selection bias, surgeon experience, or medial vs lateral knee compartments. These potential confounders represent weaknesses of this study.
In conclusion, conversion of UKA to TKA may be associated with significant osseous insufficiency, which may compromise patient outcomes in comparison to primary TKA. Studies have shown that UKA conversion to TKA is comparable to primary TKA when minimal tibial resection is performed during the UKA, and the need for augmentation, grafting or stems is increased with more aggressive tibial resection. This study has shown that when robotic assistance is utilized, tibial resection is more precise, less variable, and more conservative compared to conventional techniques.
Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E465-E468. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.
1. Patil S, Colwell CW Jr, Ezzet KA, D’Lima DD. Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(2):332-338.
2. Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH. The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee. 2007;14(2):154-157.
3. Springer BD, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:214-220.
4. Järvenpää J, Kettunen J, Miettinen H, Kröger H. The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8-17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop. 2010;34(5):649-653.
5. Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Frampton C. Osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty converted to total knee arthroplasty: data from the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(10):1827-1831.
6. Rancourt MF, Kemp KA, Plamondon SM, Kim PR, Dervin GF. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties revised to total knee arthroplasties compared with primary total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(8 Suppl):106-110.
7. Sierra RJ, Kassel CA, Wetters NG, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ, Lombardi AV. Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: not always a slam dunk! J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(8 Suppl):128-132.
8. O’Donnell TM, Abouazza O, Neil MJ. Revision of minimal resection resurfacing unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: results compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(1):33-39.
9. Schwarzkopf R, Mikhael B, Li L, Josephs L, Scott RD. Effect of initial tibial resection thickness on outcomes of revision UKA. Orthopedics. 2013;36(4):e409-e414.
10. Conditt MA, Roche MW. Minimally invasive robotic-arm-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91 Suppl 1:63-68.
11. Dunbar NJ, Roche MW, Park BH, Branch SH, Conditt MA, Banks SA. Accuracy of dynamic tactile-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(5):803-808.e1.
12. Karia M, Masjedi M, Andrews B, Jaffry Z, Cobb J. Robotic assistance enables inexperienced surgeons to perform unicompartmental knee arthroplasties on dry bone models with accuracy superior to conventional methods. Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:481039.
13. Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):141-146.
14. Lonner JH, Smith JR, Picard F, Hamlin B, Rowe PJ, Riches PE. High degree of accuracy of a novel image-free handheld robot for unicondylar knee arthroplasty in a cadaveric study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):206-212.
15. Smith JR, Picard F, Rowe PJ, Deakin A, Riches PE. The accuracy of a robotically-controlled freehand sculpting tool for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(suppl 28):68.
16. Chakrabarty G, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE. Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Clinical and technical considerations. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13(2):191-196.
17. Levine WN, Ozuna RM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11(7):797-801.
18. Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(9):1328-1335.
19. Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN. Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(2):186-190.
20. Aleto TJ, Berend ME, Ritter MA, Faris PM, Meneghini RM. Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leading to revision. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(2):159-163.
21. McAuley JP, Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(392):279-282.22. Böhm I, Landsiedl F. Revision surgery after failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 35 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15(8):982-989.
23. Khan Z, Nawaz SZ, Kahane S, Ester C, Chatterji U. Conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: the challenges and need for augments. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013;79(6):699-705.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is considered a less invasive approach for the treatment of unicompartmental knee arthritis when compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with optimal preservation of kinematics.1 Despite excellent functional outcomes, conversion to TKA may be necessary if the UKA fails, or in patients with progressive knee arthritis. Some studies have found UKA conversion to TKA to be comparable with primary TKA,2,3 whereas others have found that conversion often requires bone graft, augments, and stemmed components and has increased complications and inferior results compared to primary TKA.4-7 While some studies report that <10% of UKA conversions to TKA require augments,2 others have found that as many as 76% require augments.4-8
Schwarzkopf and colleagues9 recently demonstrated that UKA conversion to TKA is comparable with primary TKA when a conservative tibial resection is performed during the index procedure. However, they reported increased complexity when greater tibial resection was performed and thicker polyethylene inserts were used at the time of the index UKA. The odds ratio of needing an augment or stem during the conversion to TKA was 26.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.71-194) when an aggressive tibial resection was performed during the UKA.9 Tibial resection thickness may thus be predictive of anticipated complexity of UKA revision to TKA and may aid in preoperative planning.
Robotic assistance has been shown to enhance the accuracy of bone preparation, implant component alignment, and soft tissue balance in UKA.10-15 It has yet to be determined whether this improved accuracy translates to improved clinical performance or longevity of the UKA implant. However, the enhanced accuracy of robotic technology may result in more conservative tibial resection when compared to conventional UKA and may be advantageous if conversion to TKA becomes necessary.
The purpose of this study was to compare the distribution of polyethylene insert sizes implanted during conventional and robotic-assisted UKA. We hypothesized that robotic assistance would demonstrate more conservative tibial resection compared to conventional methods of bone preparation.
Methods
We retrospectively compared the distribution of polyethylene insert sizes implanted during consecutive conventional and robotic-assisted UKA procedures. Several manufacturers were queried to provide a listing of the polyethylene insert sizes utilized, ranging from 8 mm to 14 mm. The analysis included 8421 robotic-assisted UKA cases and 27,989 conventional UKA cases. Data were provided by Zimmer Biomet and Smith & Nephew regarding conventional cases, as well as Blue Belt Technologies (now part of Smith & Nephew) and MAKO Surgical (now part of Stryker) regarding robotic-assisted cases. (Dr. Lonner has an ongoing relationship as a consultant with Blue Belt Technologies, whose data was utilized in this study.) Using tibial insert thickness as a surrogate measure of the extent of tibial resection, an insert size of ≥10 mm was defined as aggressive while <10 mm was considered conservative. This cutoff was established based on its corresponding resection level with primary TKA and the anticipated need for augments. Statistical analysis was performed using a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. Significance was set at P < .05.
Results
Tibial resection thickness was found to be most commonly conservative in nature, with sizes 8-mm and 9-mm polyethylene inserts utilized in the majority of both robotic-assisted and conventional UKA cases. However, statistically more 8-mm and 9-mm polyethylene inserts were used in the robotic group (93.6%) than in the conventional group (84.5%) (P < .0001; Figure). Aggressive tibial resection, requiring tibial inserts ≥10 mm, was performed in 6.4% of robotic-assisted cases and 15.5% of conventional cases.
Discussion
Robotic assistance enhances the accuracy of bone preparation, implant component alignment, and soft tissue balance in UKA.10-15 It has yet to be determined whether this improved accuracy translates to improved clinical performance or longevity of the UKA implant. However, we demonstrate that the enhanced accuracy of robotic technology results in more conservative tibial resection when compared to conventional techniques with a potential benefit suggested in the literature upon conversion to TKA.
The findings of this study have important implications for patients undergoing conversion of UKA to TKA, potentially optimizing the ease of revision and clinical outcomes. The outcomes of UKA conversion to TKA are often considered inferior to those of primary TKA, compromised by bone loss, need for augmentation, and challenges of restoring the joint line and rotation.9,16-22 Barrett and Scott18 reported only 66% of patients had good or excellent results at an average of 4.6 years of follow-up after UKA conversion to TKA. Over 50% required stemmed implants and bone graft or bone cement augmentation to address osseous insufficiency. The authors suggested that the primary determinant of the complexity of the conversion to TKA was the surgical technique used in the index procedure. They concluded that UKA conversion to TKA can be as successful as a primary TKA and primary TKA implants can be used without bone augmentation or stems during the revision procedure if minimal tibial bone is resected at the time of the index UKA.18 Schwarzkopf and colleagues9 supported this conclusion when they found that aggressive tibial resection during UKA resulted in the need for bone graft, stem, wedge, or augment in 70% of cases when converted to TKA. Similarly, Khan and colleagues23 found that 26% of patients required bone grafting and 26% required some form of augmentation, and Springer and colleagues3 reported that 68% required a graft, augment, or stem.3,22 Using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry, Pearse and colleagues5 reported that revision TKA components were necessary in 28% of patients and concluded that converting a UKA to TKA gives a less reliable result than primary TKA, and with functional results that are not significantly better than a revision from a TKA.
Conservative tibial resection during UKA minimizes the complexity and concerns of bone loss upon conversion to TKA. Schwarzkopf and colleagues9 found 96.6% of patients with conservative tibial resection received a primary TKA implant, without augments or stems. Furthermore, patients with a primary TKA implant showed improved tibial survivorship, with revision as an end point, compared with patients who received a TKA implant that required stems and augments or bone graft for support.9 Also emphasizing the importance of minimal tibial resection, O’Donnell and colleagues8 compared a cohort of patients undergoing conversion of a minimal resection resurfacing onlay-type UKA to TKA with a cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. They found that 40% of patients required bone grafting for contained defects, 3.6% required metal augments, and 1.8% required stems.8 There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of range of motion, functional outcome, or radiologic outcomes. The authors concluded that revision of minimal resection resurfacing implants to TKA is associated with similar results to primary TKA and is superior to revision of UKA with greater bone loss. Prior studies have shown that one of the advantages of robotic-assisted UKA is the accuracy and precision of bone resection. The present study supports this premise by showing that tibial resection is significantly more conservative using robotic-assisted techniques when using tibial component thickness as a surrogate for extent of bone resection. While our study did not address implant durability or the impact of conservative resection on conversion to TKA, studies referenced above suggest that the conservative nature of bone preparation would have a relevant impact on the revision of the implant to TKA.
Our study is a retrospective case series that reports tibial component thickness as a surrogate for volume of tibial resection during UKA. While the implication is that more conservative tibial resection may optimize durability and ease of conversion to TKA, future study will be needed to compare robotic-assisted and conventional cases of UKA upon conversion to TKA in order to ascertain whether the more conventional resections of robotic-assisted UKA in fact lead to revision that is comparable with primary TKA in terms of bone loss at the time of revision, components utilized, the need for bone graft, augments, or stems, and clinical outcomes. Given the method of data collection in this study, we could not control for clinical deformity, selection bias, surgeon experience, or medial vs lateral knee compartments. These potential confounders represent weaknesses of this study.
In conclusion, conversion of UKA to TKA may be associated with significant osseous insufficiency, which may compromise patient outcomes in comparison to primary TKA. Studies have shown that UKA conversion to TKA is comparable to primary TKA when minimal tibial resection is performed during the UKA, and the need for augmentation, grafting or stems is increased with more aggressive tibial resection. This study has shown that when robotic assistance is utilized, tibial resection is more precise, less variable, and more conservative compared to conventional techniques.
Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E465-E468. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is considered a less invasive approach for the treatment of unicompartmental knee arthritis when compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with optimal preservation of kinematics.1 Despite excellent functional outcomes, conversion to TKA may be necessary if the UKA fails, or in patients with progressive knee arthritis. Some studies have found UKA conversion to TKA to be comparable with primary TKA,2,3 whereas others have found that conversion often requires bone graft, augments, and stemmed components and has increased complications and inferior results compared to primary TKA.4-7 While some studies report that <10% of UKA conversions to TKA require augments,2 others have found that as many as 76% require augments.4-8
Schwarzkopf and colleagues9 recently demonstrated that UKA conversion to TKA is comparable with primary TKA when a conservative tibial resection is performed during the index procedure. However, they reported increased complexity when greater tibial resection was performed and thicker polyethylene inserts were used at the time of the index UKA. The odds ratio of needing an augment or stem during the conversion to TKA was 26.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.71-194) when an aggressive tibial resection was performed during the UKA.9 Tibial resection thickness may thus be predictive of anticipated complexity of UKA revision to TKA and may aid in preoperative planning.
Robotic assistance has been shown to enhance the accuracy of bone preparation, implant component alignment, and soft tissue balance in UKA.10-15 It has yet to be determined whether this improved accuracy translates to improved clinical performance or longevity of the UKA implant. However, the enhanced accuracy of robotic technology may result in more conservative tibial resection when compared to conventional UKA and may be advantageous if conversion to TKA becomes necessary.
The purpose of this study was to compare the distribution of polyethylene insert sizes implanted during conventional and robotic-assisted UKA. We hypothesized that robotic assistance would demonstrate more conservative tibial resection compared to conventional methods of bone preparation.
Methods
We retrospectively compared the distribution of polyethylene insert sizes implanted during consecutive conventional and robotic-assisted UKA procedures. Several manufacturers were queried to provide a listing of the polyethylene insert sizes utilized, ranging from 8 mm to 14 mm. The analysis included 8421 robotic-assisted UKA cases and 27,989 conventional UKA cases. Data were provided by Zimmer Biomet and Smith & Nephew regarding conventional cases, as well as Blue Belt Technologies (now part of Smith & Nephew) and MAKO Surgical (now part of Stryker) regarding robotic-assisted cases. (Dr. Lonner has an ongoing relationship as a consultant with Blue Belt Technologies, whose data was utilized in this study.) Using tibial insert thickness as a surrogate measure of the extent of tibial resection, an insert size of ≥10 mm was defined as aggressive while <10 mm was considered conservative. This cutoff was established based on its corresponding resection level with primary TKA and the anticipated need for augments. Statistical analysis was performed using a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. Significance was set at P < .05.
Results
Tibial resection thickness was found to be most commonly conservative in nature, with sizes 8-mm and 9-mm polyethylene inserts utilized in the majority of both robotic-assisted and conventional UKA cases. However, statistically more 8-mm and 9-mm polyethylene inserts were used in the robotic group (93.6%) than in the conventional group (84.5%) (P < .0001; Figure). Aggressive tibial resection, requiring tibial inserts ≥10 mm, was performed in 6.4% of robotic-assisted cases and 15.5% of conventional cases.
Discussion
Robotic assistance enhances the accuracy of bone preparation, implant component alignment, and soft tissue balance in UKA.10-15 It has yet to be determined whether this improved accuracy translates to improved clinical performance or longevity of the UKA implant. However, we demonstrate that the enhanced accuracy of robotic technology results in more conservative tibial resection when compared to conventional techniques with a potential benefit suggested in the literature upon conversion to TKA.
The findings of this study have important implications for patients undergoing conversion of UKA to TKA, potentially optimizing the ease of revision and clinical outcomes. The outcomes of UKA conversion to TKA are often considered inferior to those of primary TKA, compromised by bone loss, need for augmentation, and challenges of restoring the joint line and rotation.9,16-22 Barrett and Scott18 reported only 66% of patients had good or excellent results at an average of 4.6 years of follow-up after UKA conversion to TKA. Over 50% required stemmed implants and bone graft or bone cement augmentation to address osseous insufficiency. The authors suggested that the primary determinant of the complexity of the conversion to TKA was the surgical technique used in the index procedure. They concluded that UKA conversion to TKA can be as successful as a primary TKA and primary TKA implants can be used without bone augmentation or stems during the revision procedure if minimal tibial bone is resected at the time of the index UKA.18 Schwarzkopf and colleagues9 supported this conclusion when they found that aggressive tibial resection during UKA resulted in the need for bone graft, stem, wedge, or augment in 70% of cases when converted to TKA. Similarly, Khan and colleagues23 found that 26% of patients required bone grafting and 26% required some form of augmentation, and Springer and colleagues3 reported that 68% required a graft, augment, or stem.3,22 Using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry, Pearse and colleagues5 reported that revision TKA components were necessary in 28% of patients and concluded that converting a UKA to TKA gives a less reliable result than primary TKA, and with functional results that are not significantly better than a revision from a TKA.
Conservative tibial resection during UKA minimizes the complexity and concerns of bone loss upon conversion to TKA. Schwarzkopf and colleagues9 found 96.6% of patients with conservative tibial resection received a primary TKA implant, without augments or stems. Furthermore, patients with a primary TKA implant showed improved tibial survivorship, with revision as an end point, compared with patients who received a TKA implant that required stems and augments or bone graft for support.9 Also emphasizing the importance of minimal tibial resection, O’Donnell and colleagues8 compared a cohort of patients undergoing conversion of a minimal resection resurfacing onlay-type UKA to TKA with a cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. They found that 40% of patients required bone grafting for contained defects, 3.6% required metal augments, and 1.8% required stems.8 There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of range of motion, functional outcome, or radiologic outcomes. The authors concluded that revision of minimal resection resurfacing implants to TKA is associated with similar results to primary TKA and is superior to revision of UKA with greater bone loss. Prior studies have shown that one of the advantages of robotic-assisted UKA is the accuracy and precision of bone resection. The present study supports this premise by showing that tibial resection is significantly more conservative using robotic-assisted techniques when using tibial component thickness as a surrogate for extent of bone resection. While our study did not address implant durability or the impact of conservative resection on conversion to TKA, studies referenced above suggest that the conservative nature of bone preparation would have a relevant impact on the revision of the implant to TKA.
Our study is a retrospective case series that reports tibial component thickness as a surrogate for volume of tibial resection during UKA. While the implication is that more conservative tibial resection may optimize durability and ease of conversion to TKA, future study will be needed to compare robotic-assisted and conventional cases of UKA upon conversion to TKA in order to ascertain whether the more conventional resections of robotic-assisted UKA in fact lead to revision that is comparable with primary TKA in terms of bone loss at the time of revision, components utilized, the need for bone graft, augments, or stems, and clinical outcomes. Given the method of data collection in this study, we could not control for clinical deformity, selection bias, surgeon experience, or medial vs lateral knee compartments. These potential confounders represent weaknesses of this study.
In conclusion, conversion of UKA to TKA may be associated with significant osseous insufficiency, which may compromise patient outcomes in comparison to primary TKA. Studies have shown that UKA conversion to TKA is comparable to primary TKA when minimal tibial resection is performed during the UKA, and the need for augmentation, grafting or stems is increased with more aggressive tibial resection. This study has shown that when robotic assistance is utilized, tibial resection is more precise, less variable, and more conservative compared to conventional techniques.
Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E465-E468. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.
1. Patil S, Colwell CW Jr, Ezzet KA, D’Lima DD. Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(2):332-338.
2. Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH. The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee. 2007;14(2):154-157.
3. Springer BD, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:214-220.
4. Järvenpää J, Kettunen J, Miettinen H, Kröger H. The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8-17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop. 2010;34(5):649-653.
5. Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Frampton C. Osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty converted to total knee arthroplasty: data from the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(10):1827-1831.
6. Rancourt MF, Kemp KA, Plamondon SM, Kim PR, Dervin GF. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties revised to total knee arthroplasties compared with primary total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(8 Suppl):106-110.
7. Sierra RJ, Kassel CA, Wetters NG, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ, Lombardi AV. Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: not always a slam dunk! J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(8 Suppl):128-132.
8. O’Donnell TM, Abouazza O, Neil MJ. Revision of minimal resection resurfacing unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: results compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(1):33-39.
9. Schwarzkopf R, Mikhael B, Li L, Josephs L, Scott RD. Effect of initial tibial resection thickness on outcomes of revision UKA. Orthopedics. 2013;36(4):e409-e414.
10. Conditt MA, Roche MW. Minimally invasive robotic-arm-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91 Suppl 1:63-68.
11. Dunbar NJ, Roche MW, Park BH, Branch SH, Conditt MA, Banks SA. Accuracy of dynamic tactile-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(5):803-808.e1.
12. Karia M, Masjedi M, Andrews B, Jaffry Z, Cobb J. Robotic assistance enables inexperienced surgeons to perform unicompartmental knee arthroplasties on dry bone models with accuracy superior to conventional methods. Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:481039.
13. Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):141-146.
14. Lonner JH, Smith JR, Picard F, Hamlin B, Rowe PJ, Riches PE. High degree of accuracy of a novel image-free handheld robot for unicondylar knee arthroplasty in a cadaveric study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):206-212.
15. Smith JR, Picard F, Rowe PJ, Deakin A, Riches PE. The accuracy of a robotically-controlled freehand sculpting tool for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(suppl 28):68.
16. Chakrabarty G, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE. Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Clinical and technical considerations. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13(2):191-196.
17. Levine WN, Ozuna RM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11(7):797-801.
18. Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(9):1328-1335.
19. Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN. Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(2):186-190.
20. Aleto TJ, Berend ME, Ritter MA, Faris PM, Meneghini RM. Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leading to revision. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(2):159-163.
21. McAuley JP, Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(392):279-282.22. Böhm I, Landsiedl F. Revision surgery after failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 35 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15(8):982-989.
23. Khan Z, Nawaz SZ, Kahane S, Ester C, Chatterji U. Conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: the challenges and need for augments. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013;79(6):699-705.
1. Patil S, Colwell CW Jr, Ezzet KA, D’Lima DD. Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(2):332-338.
2. Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH. The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee. 2007;14(2):154-157.
3. Springer BD, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:214-220.
4. Järvenpää J, Kettunen J, Miettinen H, Kröger H. The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8-17 years follow-up study of 49 patients. Int Orthop. 2010;34(5):649-653.
5. Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Frampton C. Osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty converted to total knee arthroplasty: data from the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(10):1827-1831.
6. Rancourt MF, Kemp KA, Plamondon SM, Kim PR, Dervin GF. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties revised to total knee arthroplasties compared with primary total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(8 Suppl):106-110.
7. Sierra RJ, Kassel CA, Wetters NG, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ, Lombardi AV. Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: not always a slam dunk! J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(8 Suppl):128-132.
8. O’Donnell TM, Abouazza O, Neil MJ. Revision of minimal resection resurfacing unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: results compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(1):33-39.
9. Schwarzkopf R, Mikhael B, Li L, Josephs L, Scott RD. Effect of initial tibial resection thickness on outcomes of revision UKA. Orthopedics. 2013;36(4):e409-e414.
10. Conditt MA, Roche MW. Minimally invasive robotic-arm-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91 Suppl 1:63-68.
11. Dunbar NJ, Roche MW, Park BH, Branch SH, Conditt MA, Banks SA. Accuracy of dynamic tactile-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(5):803-808.e1.
12. Karia M, Masjedi M, Andrews B, Jaffry Z, Cobb J. Robotic assistance enables inexperienced surgeons to perform unicompartmental knee arthroplasties on dry bone models with accuracy superior to conventional methods. Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:481039.
13. Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):141-146.
14. Lonner JH, Smith JR, Picard F, Hamlin B, Rowe PJ, Riches PE. High degree of accuracy of a novel image-free handheld robot for unicondylar knee arthroplasty in a cadaveric study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):206-212.
15. Smith JR, Picard F, Rowe PJ, Deakin A, Riches PE. The accuracy of a robotically-controlled freehand sculpting tool for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(suppl 28):68.
16. Chakrabarty G, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE. Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Clinical and technical considerations. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13(2):191-196.
17. Levine WN, Ozuna RM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11(7):797-801.
18. Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(9):1328-1335.
19. Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN. Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(2):186-190.
20. Aleto TJ, Berend ME, Ritter MA, Faris PM, Meneghini RM. Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leading to revision. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(2):159-163.
21. McAuley JP, Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(392):279-282.22. Böhm I, Landsiedl F. Revision surgery after failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 35 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15(8):982-989.
23. Khan Z, Nawaz SZ, Kahane S, Ester C, Chatterji U. Conversion of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: the challenges and need for augments. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013;79(6):699-705.
Hospitalist Tracy Gulling-Leftwich, DO, Spends Her Free Time Caring for Rescue Animals
Tracy Gulling-Leftwich, DO, remembers Chewy very well. He was a 70-pound English bulldog she was caring for last year on behalf of the Rescue Ohio English Bulldogs, an English bulldog rescue group.
She soon learned that Chewy was anemic and suffered from bone cancer of the jaw. Ironically, considering his name, he could barely chew, so Dr. Gulling-Leftwich and her husband, Samuel Leftwich, pureed his food, spoon-fed the animal, and administered around-the-clock pain medications for roughly two weeks. But his pain grew too intense, and Chewy had to be euthanized.
For many people, that would end their experience with an animal organization. People typically compare the heartbreaking experience to losing a beloved family member or friend. But as an animal lover and hospitalist at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich has no intentions of looking the other way whenever an animal—or human—is in need. Ever since she was in college, she has been rescuing lab rats and dogs, trying to keep them happy, healthy, and loved throughout their relatively short lives.
Underground Railroad
Dr. Gulling-Leftwich graduated from the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine in Erie, Penn., in 2007. The following year, she pursued an osteopathic rotating internship at the University of Connecticut. While attending the same university from 2008 to 2010, she completed a traditional, categorical, allopathic medicine residency.
After completing her medical education, she held several positions. She worked as a teaching hospitalist at the Hartford Hospital for one year, served as a primary-care physician for the next three years at The Hospital of Central Connecticut, and then joined the Cleveland Clinic as a hospitalist in 2014.
Her involvement in animal rescue began many years earlier while attending undergraduate school at Westminster College in New Wilmington, Penn. She tells the story how one student at the college kidnapped a rat from the school’s neuroscience lab just before Christmas break.
Since the student’s mother would not allow her to bring a rat home over the six-week holiday, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich babysat him until she returned. However, the student intended on releasing him into the wild. Fearing the worst, that the rat could not fend for itself since it had been caged and fed for many months, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich convinced the student to relinquish custody of the rat to her.
That’s how it all began. Dr. Gulling-Leftwich named the rat Templeton. She suspects he died of a pituitary tumor four years later; still, that’s a long life for a rat. Most live just two years. Just shows what a little love can do.
Since then, she has rescued approximately 21 rats from Kentucky and Connecticut. Years ago, she says, there were multiple Yahoo chat groups of people involved in an underground railroad of sorts for rescued lab rats. People would often drive the rats to different cities, even across state borders, so these rats could enjoy a permanent home.
While she has never broken into a research lab, her opinion is torn on animal research. She believes it is not necessary for consumer products, such as makeup, but can see its value in other fields of science like the development of new medications.
“What I can hope for is that we work toward finding a way of not requiring animals for research in the future,” she says.
Full House
After getting married in 2013, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich told her husband she wanted a dog. But because of their hectic schedules, no one would be home to care for the animal, so the couple waited another two years to adopt a rescue animal.
In 2015, they had purchased a house in Cleveland when they adopted Boomer, a pug and beagle designer breed, as their family pet.
“I had really wanted an English bulldog. They’re just cute, their face is squishy,” she says, adding she had been monitoring English bulldog rescue websites. “I won’t buy a puppy. I will only get a dog that needs a home.”
In September that year, the rescue organization emailed a desperate plea to its followers. Can anyone rescue an English bulldog named Chewy? Dr. Gulling-Leftwich immediately filled out the paperwork and adopted him. But Chewy only stayed with them for two weeks before he was euthanized. She brought him to the vet after he attacked Boomer.
“Chewy wasn’t being a jerk,” she says. “His attacking behavior had to do with his pain and discomfort. He had blood everywhere around his mouth. We had a hard time letting him go.”
One month later, another English bulldog named Olive joined their family. She’s roughly two years old and weighs only 30 pounds mainly because of her disease: congenital cardiomyopathy. They plan to care for Olive until she dies.
She says Olive takes six pills a day for her condition and occasionally receives nitroglycerin when she overexerts herself and passes out.
Meanwhile, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich and her husband care for one rat named Harvey and a cat called Lily in addition to the two dogs. Boomer doesn’t like Olive. Olive doesn’t like the cat. And both dogs and the cat pay no attention to the rat.
“My husband says rescuing animals and taking care of people is one of my more endearing qualities,” she says. “Then he follows it up with, ‘No, you can’t have that bunny that needs a home.’”
She believes caring for these animals balances her work in hospital medicine. While hospital patients often are in pain, act grouchy, and appear unappreciative, she says her four-legged family members are always excited to see her and routinely demonstrate unconditional love.
“You definitely have to be open-minded because you never know what you’ll be walking into when you rescue an animal,” she says, adding that rescue groups tend to pay for vet bills and medicine. “You have to be prepared for what potentially could be the worst.”
Carol Patton is a freelance writer in Las Vegas.
Tracy Gulling-Leftwich, DO, remembers Chewy very well. He was a 70-pound English bulldog she was caring for last year on behalf of the Rescue Ohio English Bulldogs, an English bulldog rescue group.
She soon learned that Chewy was anemic and suffered from bone cancer of the jaw. Ironically, considering his name, he could barely chew, so Dr. Gulling-Leftwich and her husband, Samuel Leftwich, pureed his food, spoon-fed the animal, and administered around-the-clock pain medications for roughly two weeks. But his pain grew too intense, and Chewy had to be euthanized.
For many people, that would end their experience with an animal organization. People typically compare the heartbreaking experience to losing a beloved family member or friend. But as an animal lover and hospitalist at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich has no intentions of looking the other way whenever an animal—or human—is in need. Ever since she was in college, she has been rescuing lab rats and dogs, trying to keep them happy, healthy, and loved throughout their relatively short lives.
Underground Railroad
Dr. Gulling-Leftwich graduated from the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine in Erie, Penn., in 2007. The following year, she pursued an osteopathic rotating internship at the University of Connecticut. While attending the same university from 2008 to 2010, she completed a traditional, categorical, allopathic medicine residency.
After completing her medical education, she held several positions. She worked as a teaching hospitalist at the Hartford Hospital for one year, served as a primary-care physician for the next three years at The Hospital of Central Connecticut, and then joined the Cleveland Clinic as a hospitalist in 2014.
Her involvement in animal rescue began many years earlier while attending undergraduate school at Westminster College in New Wilmington, Penn. She tells the story how one student at the college kidnapped a rat from the school’s neuroscience lab just before Christmas break.
Since the student’s mother would not allow her to bring a rat home over the six-week holiday, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich babysat him until she returned. However, the student intended on releasing him into the wild. Fearing the worst, that the rat could not fend for itself since it had been caged and fed for many months, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich convinced the student to relinquish custody of the rat to her.
That’s how it all began. Dr. Gulling-Leftwich named the rat Templeton. She suspects he died of a pituitary tumor four years later; still, that’s a long life for a rat. Most live just two years. Just shows what a little love can do.
Since then, she has rescued approximately 21 rats from Kentucky and Connecticut. Years ago, she says, there were multiple Yahoo chat groups of people involved in an underground railroad of sorts for rescued lab rats. People would often drive the rats to different cities, even across state borders, so these rats could enjoy a permanent home.
While she has never broken into a research lab, her opinion is torn on animal research. She believes it is not necessary for consumer products, such as makeup, but can see its value in other fields of science like the development of new medications.
“What I can hope for is that we work toward finding a way of not requiring animals for research in the future,” she says.
Full House
After getting married in 2013, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich told her husband she wanted a dog. But because of their hectic schedules, no one would be home to care for the animal, so the couple waited another two years to adopt a rescue animal.
In 2015, they had purchased a house in Cleveland when they adopted Boomer, a pug and beagle designer breed, as their family pet.
“I had really wanted an English bulldog. They’re just cute, their face is squishy,” she says, adding she had been monitoring English bulldog rescue websites. “I won’t buy a puppy. I will only get a dog that needs a home.”
In September that year, the rescue organization emailed a desperate plea to its followers. Can anyone rescue an English bulldog named Chewy? Dr. Gulling-Leftwich immediately filled out the paperwork and adopted him. But Chewy only stayed with them for two weeks before he was euthanized. She brought him to the vet after he attacked Boomer.
“Chewy wasn’t being a jerk,” she says. “His attacking behavior had to do with his pain and discomfort. He had blood everywhere around his mouth. We had a hard time letting him go.”
One month later, another English bulldog named Olive joined their family. She’s roughly two years old and weighs only 30 pounds mainly because of her disease: congenital cardiomyopathy. They plan to care for Olive until she dies.
She says Olive takes six pills a day for her condition and occasionally receives nitroglycerin when she overexerts herself and passes out.
Meanwhile, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich and her husband care for one rat named Harvey and a cat called Lily in addition to the two dogs. Boomer doesn’t like Olive. Olive doesn’t like the cat. And both dogs and the cat pay no attention to the rat.
“My husband says rescuing animals and taking care of people is one of my more endearing qualities,” she says. “Then he follows it up with, ‘No, you can’t have that bunny that needs a home.’”
She believes caring for these animals balances her work in hospital medicine. While hospital patients often are in pain, act grouchy, and appear unappreciative, she says her four-legged family members are always excited to see her and routinely demonstrate unconditional love.
“You definitely have to be open-minded because you never know what you’ll be walking into when you rescue an animal,” she says, adding that rescue groups tend to pay for vet bills and medicine. “You have to be prepared for what potentially could be the worst.”
Carol Patton is a freelance writer in Las Vegas.
Tracy Gulling-Leftwich, DO, remembers Chewy very well. He was a 70-pound English bulldog she was caring for last year on behalf of the Rescue Ohio English Bulldogs, an English bulldog rescue group.
She soon learned that Chewy was anemic and suffered from bone cancer of the jaw. Ironically, considering his name, he could barely chew, so Dr. Gulling-Leftwich and her husband, Samuel Leftwich, pureed his food, spoon-fed the animal, and administered around-the-clock pain medications for roughly two weeks. But his pain grew too intense, and Chewy had to be euthanized.
For many people, that would end their experience with an animal organization. People typically compare the heartbreaking experience to losing a beloved family member or friend. But as an animal lover and hospitalist at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich has no intentions of looking the other way whenever an animal—or human—is in need. Ever since she was in college, she has been rescuing lab rats and dogs, trying to keep them happy, healthy, and loved throughout their relatively short lives.
Underground Railroad
Dr. Gulling-Leftwich graduated from the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine in Erie, Penn., in 2007. The following year, she pursued an osteopathic rotating internship at the University of Connecticut. While attending the same university from 2008 to 2010, she completed a traditional, categorical, allopathic medicine residency.
After completing her medical education, she held several positions. She worked as a teaching hospitalist at the Hartford Hospital for one year, served as a primary-care physician for the next three years at The Hospital of Central Connecticut, and then joined the Cleveland Clinic as a hospitalist in 2014.
Her involvement in animal rescue began many years earlier while attending undergraduate school at Westminster College in New Wilmington, Penn. She tells the story how one student at the college kidnapped a rat from the school’s neuroscience lab just before Christmas break.
Since the student’s mother would not allow her to bring a rat home over the six-week holiday, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich babysat him until she returned. However, the student intended on releasing him into the wild. Fearing the worst, that the rat could not fend for itself since it had been caged and fed for many months, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich convinced the student to relinquish custody of the rat to her.
That’s how it all began. Dr. Gulling-Leftwich named the rat Templeton. She suspects he died of a pituitary tumor four years later; still, that’s a long life for a rat. Most live just two years. Just shows what a little love can do.
Since then, she has rescued approximately 21 rats from Kentucky and Connecticut. Years ago, she says, there were multiple Yahoo chat groups of people involved in an underground railroad of sorts for rescued lab rats. People would often drive the rats to different cities, even across state borders, so these rats could enjoy a permanent home.
While she has never broken into a research lab, her opinion is torn on animal research. She believes it is not necessary for consumer products, such as makeup, but can see its value in other fields of science like the development of new medications.
“What I can hope for is that we work toward finding a way of not requiring animals for research in the future,” she says.
Full House
After getting married in 2013, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich told her husband she wanted a dog. But because of their hectic schedules, no one would be home to care for the animal, so the couple waited another two years to adopt a rescue animal.
In 2015, they had purchased a house in Cleveland when they adopted Boomer, a pug and beagle designer breed, as their family pet.
“I had really wanted an English bulldog. They’re just cute, their face is squishy,” she says, adding she had been monitoring English bulldog rescue websites. “I won’t buy a puppy. I will only get a dog that needs a home.”
In September that year, the rescue organization emailed a desperate plea to its followers. Can anyone rescue an English bulldog named Chewy? Dr. Gulling-Leftwich immediately filled out the paperwork and adopted him. But Chewy only stayed with them for two weeks before he was euthanized. She brought him to the vet after he attacked Boomer.
“Chewy wasn’t being a jerk,” she says. “His attacking behavior had to do with his pain and discomfort. He had blood everywhere around his mouth. We had a hard time letting him go.”
One month later, another English bulldog named Olive joined their family. She’s roughly two years old and weighs only 30 pounds mainly because of her disease: congenital cardiomyopathy. They plan to care for Olive until she dies.
She says Olive takes six pills a day for her condition and occasionally receives nitroglycerin when she overexerts herself and passes out.
Meanwhile, Dr. Gulling-Leftwich and her husband care for one rat named Harvey and a cat called Lily in addition to the two dogs. Boomer doesn’t like Olive. Olive doesn’t like the cat. And both dogs and the cat pay no attention to the rat.
“My husband says rescuing animals and taking care of people is one of my more endearing qualities,” she says. “Then he follows it up with, ‘No, you can’t have that bunny that needs a home.’”
She believes caring for these animals balances her work in hospital medicine. While hospital patients often are in pain, act grouchy, and appear unappreciative, she says her four-legged family members are always excited to see her and routinely demonstrate unconditional love.
“You definitely have to be open-minded because you never know what you’ll be walking into when you rescue an animal,” she says, adding that rescue groups tend to pay for vet bills and medicine. “You have to be prepared for what potentially could be the worst.”
Carol Patton is a freelance writer in Las Vegas.
CAR T-cell trial placed on hold again
Once again, the phase 2 ROCKET trial has been placed on clinical hold due to patient deaths.
In this trial, researchers are testing the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy JCAR015 in adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Juno Therapeutics, Inc. voluntarily put the trial on hold after 2 more patients suffered cerebral edema and died.
A total of 5 patients have died of cerebral edema in this trial.
Juno has notified the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the latest clinical hold on the ROCKET trial and is working with the agency and the company’s data and safety monitoring board to determine next steps.
The ROCKET trial was previously placed on clinical hold in July, after 3 patients died of cerebral edema. The FDA lifted the hold less than a week later, allowing the trial to continue with a revised protocol.
Juno had theorized the deaths were likely a result of adding fludarabine to the conditioning regimen.
Patients enrolled in ROCKET initially received conditioning with cyclophosphamide alone, but researchers later decided to add fludarabine in the hopes of increasing efficacy. Previous trials of 2 other CAR T-cell therapies, JCAR014 and JCAR017, had suggested that adding fludarabine to conditioning could increase efficacy.
However, in the ROCKET trial, the addition of fludarabine was associated with an increase in the incidence of severe neurotoxicity and the 3 deaths from cerebral edema.
Juno said that, although other factors may have contributed to the deaths, fludarabine was the most likely culprit. So the company revised the trial protocol, and the FDA allowed ROCKET to continue with a conditioning regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide alone.
Since that time, 12 patients have been treated on the ROCKET trial. Two patients who were treated the week of November 14 developed cerebral edema and died on November 22 and 23, respectively.
In a conference call, Juno’s Chief Medical Officer Mark Gilbert, MD, said the etiology of cerebral edema is multi-factorial, and Juno will need more time to draw even preliminary conclusions about what factors contributed to the cases of cerebral edema in ROCKET.
Right now, the company is assessing data from the cases and the trial and is evaluating its options regarding the JCAR015 program.
Juno’s President and CEO Hans Bishop said the options for JCAR015 going forward include continuing the ROCKET trial with a modified protocol, beginning a new study of JCAR015, and terminating the JCAR015 development program.
Bishop said the company expects to provide an update on the status of ROCKET and JCAR015 in the next few weeks.
Juno’s other trials and plans for its other CD19-directed CAR T-cell product candidates are not affected by the issues with ROCKET and JCAR015.
ROCKET is not the first trial of JCAR015 to be placed on hold. The phase 1 trial of the therapy was placed on clinical hold in 2014, after 2 patients died of cytokine release syndrome.
That hold was lifted following changes to enrollment criteria and dosing. Results from this trial were presented at ASCO 2015 and ASCO 2016.
Once again, the phase 2 ROCKET trial has been placed on clinical hold due to patient deaths.
In this trial, researchers are testing the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy JCAR015 in adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Juno Therapeutics, Inc. voluntarily put the trial on hold after 2 more patients suffered cerebral edema and died.
A total of 5 patients have died of cerebral edema in this trial.
Juno has notified the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the latest clinical hold on the ROCKET trial and is working with the agency and the company’s data and safety monitoring board to determine next steps.
The ROCKET trial was previously placed on clinical hold in July, after 3 patients died of cerebral edema. The FDA lifted the hold less than a week later, allowing the trial to continue with a revised protocol.
Juno had theorized the deaths were likely a result of adding fludarabine to the conditioning regimen.
Patients enrolled in ROCKET initially received conditioning with cyclophosphamide alone, but researchers later decided to add fludarabine in the hopes of increasing efficacy. Previous trials of 2 other CAR T-cell therapies, JCAR014 and JCAR017, had suggested that adding fludarabine to conditioning could increase efficacy.
However, in the ROCKET trial, the addition of fludarabine was associated with an increase in the incidence of severe neurotoxicity and the 3 deaths from cerebral edema.
Juno said that, although other factors may have contributed to the deaths, fludarabine was the most likely culprit. So the company revised the trial protocol, and the FDA allowed ROCKET to continue with a conditioning regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide alone.
Since that time, 12 patients have been treated on the ROCKET trial. Two patients who were treated the week of November 14 developed cerebral edema and died on November 22 and 23, respectively.
In a conference call, Juno’s Chief Medical Officer Mark Gilbert, MD, said the etiology of cerebral edema is multi-factorial, and Juno will need more time to draw even preliminary conclusions about what factors contributed to the cases of cerebral edema in ROCKET.
Right now, the company is assessing data from the cases and the trial and is evaluating its options regarding the JCAR015 program.
Juno’s President and CEO Hans Bishop said the options for JCAR015 going forward include continuing the ROCKET trial with a modified protocol, beginning a new study of JCAR015, and terminating the JCAR015 development program.
Bishop said the company expects to provide an update on the status of ROCKET and JCAR015 in the next few weeks.
Juno’s other trials and plans for its other CD19-directed CAR T-cell product candidates are not affected by the issues with ROCKET and JCAR015.
ROCKET is not the first trial of JCAR015 to be placed on hold. The phase 1 trial of the therapy was placed on clinical hold in 2014, after 2 patients died of cytokine release syndrome.
That hold was lifted following changes to enrollment criteria and dosing. Results from this trial were presented at ASCO 2015 and ASCO 2016.
Once again, the phase 2 ROCKET trial has been placed on clinical hold due to patient deaths.
In this trial, researchers are testing the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy JCAR015 in adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Juno Therapeutics, Inc. voluntarily put the trial on hold after 2 more patients suffered cerebral edema and died.
A total of 5 patients have died of cerebral edema in this trial.
Juno has notified the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the latest clinical hold on the ROCKET trial and is working with the agency and the company’s data and safety monitoring board to determine next steps.
The ROCKET trial was previously placed on clinical hold in July, after 3 patients died of cerebral edema. The FDA lifted the hold less than a week later, allowing the trial to continue with a revised protocol.
Juno had theorized the deaths were likely a result of adding fludarabine to the conditioning regimen.
Patients enrolled in ROCKET initially received conditioning with cyclophosphamide alone, but researchers later decided to add fludarabine in the hopes of increasing efficacy. Previous trials of 2 other CAR T-cell therapies, JCAR014 and JCAR017, had suggested that adding fludarabine to conditioning could increase efficacy.
However, in the ROCKET trial, the addition of fludarabine was associated with an increase in the incidence of severe neurotoxicity and the 3 deaths from cerebral edema.
Juno said that, although other factors may have contributed to the deaths, fludarabine was the most likely culprit. So the company revised the trial protocol, and the FDA allowed ROCKET to continue with a conditioning regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide alone.
Since that time, 12 patients have been treated on the ROCKET trial. Two patients who were treated the week of November 14 developed cerebral edema and died on November 22 and 23, respectively.
In a conference call, Juno’s Chief Medical Officer Mark Gilbert, MD, said the etiology of cerebral edema is multi-factorial, and Juno will need more time to draw even preliminary conclusions about what factors contributed to the cases of cerebral edema in ROCKET.
Right now, the company is assessing data from the cases and the trial and is evaluating its options regarding the JCAR015 program.
Juno’s President and CEO Hans Bishop said the options for JCAR015 going forward include continuing the ROCKET trial with a modified protocol, beginning a new study of JCAR015, and terminating the JCAR015 development program.
Bishop said the company expects to provide an update on the status of ROCKET and JCAR015 in the next few weeks.
Juno’s other trials and plans for its other CD19-directed CAR T-cell product candidates are not affected by the issues with ROCKET and JCAR015.
ROCKET is not the first trial of JCAR015 to be placed on hold. The phase 1 trial of the therapy was placed on clinical hold in 2014, after 2 patients died of cytokine release syndrome.
That hold was lifted following changes to enrollment criteria and dosing. Results from this trial were presented at ASCO 2015 and ASCO 2016.
EC grants drug orphan status for AML, sarcoma
The European Commission (EC) has granted orphan drug designation to crenolanib for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and soft tissue sarcoma.
Crenolanib is a benzimidazole type I kinase inhibitor that selectively inhibits signaling of wild-type and mutant isoforms of FLT3 and PDGFRα/β.
The drug is under investigation as a treatment for multiple cancers. It is being developed by Arog Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Results from a phase 2 trial of crenolanib in relapsed/refractory, FLT3+ AML were presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting.
About orphan designation
The EC grants orphan designation to therapies intended to treat life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting no more than 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union, and where no satisfactory treatment is available.
Orphan designation provides companies developing such drugs with regulatory and financial incentives, including protocol assistance, 10 years of market exclusivity once the drug is approved, and, in some cases, reductions in fees.
The European Commission (EC) has granted orphan drug designation to crenolanib for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and soft tissue sarcoma.
Crenolanib is a benzimidazole type I kinase inhibitor that selectively inhibits signaling of wild-type and mutant isoforms of FLT3 and PDGFRα/β.
The drug is under investigation as a treatment for multiple cancers. It is being developed by Arog Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Results from a phase 2 trial of crenolanib in relapsed/refractory, FLT3+ AML were presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting.
About orphan designation
The EC grants orphan designation to therapies intended to treat life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting no more than 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union, and where no satisfactory treatment is available.
Orphan designation provides companies developing such drugs with regulatory and financial incentives, including protocol assistance, 10 years of market exclusivity once the drug is approved, and, in some cases, reductions in fees.
The European Commission (EC) has granted orphan drug designation to crenolanib for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and soft tissue sarcoma.
Crenolanib is a benzimidazole type I kinase inhibitor that selectively inhibits signaling of wild-type and mutant isoforms of FLT3 and PDGFRα/β.
The drug is under investigation as a treatment for multiple cancers. It is being developed by Arog Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Results from a phase 2 trial of crenolanib in relapsed/refractory, FLT3+ AML were presented at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting.
About orphan designation
The EC grants orphan designation to therapies intended to treat life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting no more than 5 in 10,000 people in the European Union, and where no satisfactory treatment is available.
Orphan designation provides companies developing such drugs with regulatory and financial incentives, including protocol assistance, 10 years of market exclusivity once the drug is approved, and, in some cases, reductions in fees.
Implementation and Evaluation of an APRN-Led Opioid Monitoring Clinic
Chronic pain, defined as pain lasting longer than 3 to 6 months in duration, affects about 100 million Americans.1 The use of opioids in the management of chronic nonmalignant pain is common in primary care. The U.S., with only 5% of the global population, nevertheless is the world’s leading opioid consumer.2 For example, it is estimated that the U.S. consumes 56% of the global supply of morphine, 99% of hydrocodone, and 83% of oxycodone; this consumption is a growing problem in the use of chronic opioid therapy in managing chronic nonmalignant pain.2,3 The high rates of use of opioids continues, despite a lack of solid evidence on the long-term effectiveness of opioids for managing chronic nonmalignant pain and on the associated risks of opioid addiction, abuse, and misuse.3,4 Among veterans, the prevalence of opioid abuse and misuse has been reported to be about 30%, a nearly 7-fold occurrence compared with that in the general population.5,6
Due to the pervasiveness of opioid abuse and misuse among veterans, a project was initiated to develop, implement, and evaluate an Opioid Monitoring Clinic (OMC) as a clinical referral system within the primary care service of the VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System (VASNHS) in North Las Vegas. A health care provider (HCP) needs assessment was conducted at the facility, resulting in recommendations to improve adherence to evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in opioid management and regular monitoring of veterans on chronic opioid therapy for the identification of opioid abuse and misuse. Based on the results, an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) in consultation with the chief of primary care at VASNHS and teamlet support (a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and medical support assistant) started the OMC. The OMC was developed consistent with the 2010 VA/DoD clinical practice guidelines for managing opioid therapy for chronic pain.7
After 6 months of OMC operation, the project also was evaluated for efficacy. First, a retrospective chart review of participants was conducted to identify the use of opioid pain agreements, prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) for controlled substance use review, and urine drug screens (UDSs). The chart review also included the average daily morphine equivalent dose (MED) for patients and OMC retention rates. Second, an online survey of primary care providers (PCPs) assessed their adherence to evidence-based guidelines in opioid management and satisfaction of the OMC services.
Background
In 1997, the average sales and distribution of opioids in the U.S. was 96 mg MED per individual, which increased to 710 mg per individual in 2010.8,9 The MED is a standardized daily dose measure for all opioids.10 At VASNHS North Las Vegas, there were 5,881 patients on opioid therapy in 2013 with about 13% of patients on opioid therapy using about 100 mg MED/d. The potential for abuse and misuse was great. Almost 30% of patients on chronic opioid therapy for chronic nonmalignant pain abuse their opioid prescriptions.5,7 Subsequently, opioid analgesics were responsible for nearly 60% of overdose deaths in 2010.11
In 2010, there were about 12 million people in the U.S. who abused or misused prescription opioids, using them for nonmedical reasons; annually, the prevalence rate of Americans who abuse and misuse opioids is about 2 million people.12 The 5-year prevalence rate of opioid abuse among veterans is at least 3%.6 This results in health care expenditures with an average excess medical cost of $20,546 per year for patients who misuse opioids compared with those who do not.13 The economic burden among veterans is even higher. Baser and colleagues reported that the annual economic cost for veterans who abused their opioid prescriptions was nearly $29,000.6
Unfortunately, injudicious opioid prescribing by HCPs is often cited as a contributor to the growing problem of opioid abuse and misuse in the U.S.14 Health care provider education on the proper and judicious use of opioids and adherence to clinical practice guidelines in the management of chronic pain is a crucial factor in reducing the complications of chron
Method
This project evaluated the APRN-led OMC with both quantitative and qualitative data from patients and PCPs. The OMC was implemented at VASNHS North Las Vegas, which serves almost 60,000 veterans. Patients referred to the OMC who were eligible for admission were veterans aged ≥ 18 years, who had chronic nonmalignant pain for at least 3 months, were receiving chronic opioid therapy, and were considered high risk for abuse or misuse of opioids. Patients were considered high risk if they had documented aberrant behaviors, such as multiple early refill requests, history of lost medications, drug screens not showing prescribed opioid(s), positive drug screens for controlled substance not prescribed, nonadherence with plan of care, or a history of substance abuse, including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. Veterans found to be suicidal or homicidal were excluded from the OMC and instead were referred to appropriate specialty care for further evaluation. A total of 61 veteran participants were successfully recruited.
Primary care physicians, physician assistants, and APRNs working at VASNHS on a full-time and part-time basis were eligible for participation as PCPs in this project. Thirty of 42 eligible PCPs participated and responded to the secure online provider survey (71% response rate).
Risks and benefits were discussed, and a written informed consent was obtained for each participant. There were no apparent risks or adverse effects encountered during project implementation and evaluation. Prior to data collection, permission for the study was obtained from the VA facility. An institutional review board application through the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’ Office of Research Integrity-Human Subjects was also submitted and approved through an expedited review.
Results
Table 1 details patient data, including demographics on the veteran participants. The av
Review of PDMPs revealed that 20% of the participants received controlled substances from other HCPs. Consequently, all OMC patients completed and had reinforced OPAs that served 2 purposes. First, the content in the agreement provided patient education regarding the potential hazards of opioid use. Second, the content provided specific expectations from the patient if opioid therapy is continued, including opioid risk reduction strategies (ie, random UDSs and pill counts, PDMP for controlled substance utilization review), and the consequences of lack of adherence to opioid management.
The majority of patients remained as patients and continued to be monitored after 6 months at the OMC (Table 2). However, only 64% were retained in the OMC, in large part because 36% had their opioids discontinued due to discovery of active illicit substance use, opioi
The mean MED/d among OMC participants was 54 mg/d before admission, which decreased gradually to 22 mg/d after 6 months of OMC care; this represented a 59% MED reduction (Table 3). Using the exact single-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank
Primary Care Providers
Based on the survey of PCPs, 40% of respondents referred at least 1 patient to the OMC. The majority (90%) acknowledged following the VA/DoD guidelines for opioid management, with 80% using an OPA more than usual since the implementation of the OMC, and 54% routinely accessing a PDMP for controlled substance utilization review. Moreover, 93% of PCPs routinely ordered a UDS when indicated.
For 3 months prior to opening the OMC in 2013, 1,606 UDSs were ordered at VASNHS. The UDS number steadily increased, and 6 months after opening the OMC, UDSs increased to 2,293 from months 4 to 6, representing a 30% increase. This was an expected outcome from the OMC—more PCPs now were following the VA/DoD clinical practice guidelines regarding the monitoring of patients on chronic opioid therapy.
A survey assessed the level of satisfaction among PCPs who had referred their patients to the OMC. Although only 11 PCPs responded to this question, a large majority found the OMC to have a positive effect on primary care services; many noted receiving fewer complaints regarding pain medications and fewer walk-ins. The majority recognized the advantage of the OMC in facilitating more PCP time for managing other medical problems beyond opioid use, which tends to be challenging and time consuming. Overall, 100% were satisfied with the OMC service.
Finally, 82% of PCPs reported that the OMC referral process did not need improvement. Two PCPs (18%) left positive feedback, reporting that the OMC was “simple, easy and accessible” and that the referral process “so far, it is great.” Another PCP noted, “I want patients who are suicidal but still need pain control with narcotics to be addressed.”
Discussion
The OMC has shown great promise in identifying abuse and misuse of opioids through evidence-based guidelines and risk-mitigation strategies. In the past, VA clinics specifically focused on opioid renewal have been implemented. In 2002, the Philadelphia VAMC opened an opioid renewal clinic (ORC) to assist PCPs in the management of patients with chronic pain on chronic opioid therapy.15 The Philadelphia VAMC ORC was operated collaboratively by PCPs and Pharmacy Service. They reported that 51% of their patients initially had documented aberrant behaviors, and 45% of these patients resolved their aberrant behaviors through intensive opioid monitoring using random UDSs.14 Thirteen percent of their patients were found to have an opioid addiction disorder and eventually were referred to addiction treatment; and 4% were weaned off opioids due to consistently negative UDSs.14
In the same manner, the OMC has effectively identified patients who abused and misused their opioids and consequently referred these patients for pain interventional management or to the VASNHS alcohol and drug treatment program as appropriate, which falls under the VASNHS Mental Health Care line, a service that is vital for veterans who are suicidal and homicidal. The importance of mental health care cannot be understated, as many patients with chronic pain also experience mental health challenges.
The Malcom Randall VAMC in Gainesville, Florida, structured a nurse-led, multidisciplinary ORC in 2003.16 A retrospective review of their program showed that 33% of patients had a positive UDS for marijuana, cocaine, or alcohol. The ORC had increased patient involvement in substance abuse treatment, resulting in some patients taking lower opioid dosages than before.
The New York Harbor VAMC reduced opioid cost by effectively switching veterans on expensive long-acting opioids, such as oxycodone and fentanyl, to less expensive alternatives, such a long-acting morphine.17 A secondary purpose of the New York initiative was to reduce the potential for inappropriate use of expensive long-acting opioids. Accordingly, the initiative reduced the number of expensive long-acting and potentially inappropriate opioids from 165 to 69 prescriptions in less than 6 months (November 2007 through March 2008). Similarly, after 6 months of operation, the OMC significantly reduced opioid prescription from 54 mg to 22 MED/d. This reduction represents a significant pharmacy cost savings. The combination of the discontinuation of opioids for patients found to be abusing and misusing opioids coupled with the decrease in pill burden resulting from changes from short-acting to long-acting opioids also resulted in significant savings for VA facilities.
The impact of the OMC on PCP adherence to opioid management guidelines as well as PCP satisfaction with the OMC services was significant. Similarly, Wiedemer and colleagues found significant PCP satisfaction with the ORC.15 The ability to spend more time with patients on other medical problems while allowing the OMC to focus on opioid and pain management was found to be beneficial. Buy-in among PCPs coupled with their concerns for chronic opioid therapy for high-risk patients facilitated the success of the OMC. The commitment of the VASNHS leadership to the OMC and their support for the APRN in leading this initiative were important facilitators in the success of the OMC.
Limitations
Long-term evaluation of the OMC with a larger sample is needed to fully evaluate its impact on decreasing opioid misuse and abuse. This project was limited by a small sample size, although the results are promising. Pharmacy costs, emergency department visits, as well as patient satisfaction, physical and emotional function, and pain levels are outcomes that need to be considered over the long term. Incorporating mental health counseling, cognitive behavior therapy, self-management programs, and group educational sessions have the potential to be important OMC services. The continued success and cost-effectiveness of the OMC can be a potentially significant model for this type of service that can be applied to clinics outside the VA system.
Implications
Possible implications to practice settings that are considering an OMC or ORC include the chance that patients will want to be discharged from such a clinic and return to the PCP for opioid management. Collaborative relationships and communication between PCPs and OMC providers are important to facilitate adherence and consistency with pain care. Collaboration and effective communication can be facilitated by electronic recording and reporting. For example, the VA Computerized Patient Record System can alert PCPs to patient discharges from the OMC along with OMC provider recommendations for patient care. Another challenge for the OMC would be a lack of referrals for patients who are at high risk for opioid abuse or misuse. These challenges can be mitigated by providing in-services, educational flyers, and advertisement promotions regarding OMC services. With the high prevalence of opioid abuse and misuse as well as the subsequent exorbitant health-related costs and deaths associated with opioids, OMCs and ORCs are viable options for improving opioid management in the treatment of patients with nonmalignant chronic pain.
Conclusion
The OMC effectively reduced the MED of patients referred to the clinic by 59%. The significant reduction in the opioid dose of patients referred to the OMC resulted from the implementation of evidence-based strategies that were used to identify abuse of prescription opioids, the use of illicit substances that can cause opioid-related complications, and the discovery of doctor shopping, coupled with gradual dose reductions for patients when appropriate. Provider satisfaction and increased use of evidence-based guidelines in opioid management and risk mitigation strategies, such as OPAs, PDMP databases, and UDS were evident. These results suggest that an OMC can be an effective program to help identify abuse and misuse of prescription opioids among high-risk patients and can improve patient safety and provider satisfaction.
Acknowledgments
This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System.
1. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Relieving pain in America: a blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research. http://iom.nationalacademies.org/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Relieving-Pain-in-America-A-Blueprint-for-Transforming-Prevention-Care-Education-Research/Pain%20Research%202011%20Report%20Brief.pdf. Published June 2011. Accessed August 25, 2016.
2. International Narcotics Control Board. Report of the International Narcotics Control Board on the availability of internationally controlled drugs. https://www.incb.org/documents/Publications/AnnualReports/AR2010/Supplement-AR10_availability_English.pdf. Published January 2011. Accessed August 25, 2016.
3. Manchikanti L, Helm S II, Fellows B, et al. Opioid epidemic in the United States. Pain Physician. 2012;15(3)(suppl):ES9-ES38.
4. Krebs EE, Ramsey DC, Miloshoff JM, Bair MJ. Primary care monitoring of long-term opioid therapy among veterans with chronic pain. Pain Med. 2011;12(5):740-746.
5. Von Korff M, Kolodny A, Deyo RA, Chou R. Long-term opioid therapy reconsidered. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(5):325-328.
6. Baser O, Xie L, Mardekian J, Schaaf D, Wang L, Joshi AV. Prevalence of diagnosed opioid abuse and its economic burden in the Veterans’ Health Administration. Pain Pract. 2014;14(5):437-445.
7. Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense. VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain. Guideline summary. http://www.va.gov/painmanagement/docs/cpg_opioidtherapy_summary.pdf. Published May 2010. Accessed August 25, 2016.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC grand rounds: prescription drug overdoses—a U.S. epidemic. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(1):10-13.
9. Hansen H, Noe CE, Racz GB. The evolving role of opioid treatment in chronic pain management. In: Hansen H, Racz GB, Noe CE, eds. Pain and Treatment. http://www.intechopen.com/books/pain-and-treatment/the-evolving-role-of-opioid-treatment-in-chronic-pain-management. Published July 10, 2014. Accessed October 5, 2016.
10. McAuley D. Opioids—equianalgesic dosages. http://www.globalrph.com/narcotic.htm. Updated August 5, 2016. Accessed October 5, 2016.
11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Addressing prescription drug abuse in the United States: current activities and future opportunities. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/hhs_prescription_drug_abuse_report_09.2013.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2016.
12. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, RTI International. Results from the 2010 National survey on drug use and health: summary of national findings. http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.htm. Published September 2011. Accessed October 5, 2016.
13. Birnbaum HG, White AG, Schiller M, Waldman T, Cleveland JM, Roland CL. Societal costs of prescription opioid abuse, dependence, and misuse in the United States. Pain Med. 2011;12(4):657-667.
14. Federation of State Medical Boards. Model policy on the use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of chronic pain. http://www.fsmb.org/Media/Default/PDF/FSMB/Advocacy/pain_policy_july2013.pdf.Published July 2013. Accessed October 5, 2016.
15. Wiedemer NL, Harden PS, Arndt IO, Gallagher RM. The opioid renewal clinic: a primary care, managed approach to opioid therapy in chronic pain patients at risk for substance abuse. Pain Med. 2007;8(7):573-584.
16. Sampson JM, Havens S, Marsh B, Murrhee R. Managing chronic, nonmalignant pain in patients with a substance use disorder. Fed Pract. 2005;22(11):10, 16, 18, 25-26, 29.
17. Kharlamb V. (2008). VISN Opioid cost avoidance plan. New York Harbor VA, New York. Unpublished raw data.
Chronic pain, defined as pain lasting longer than 3 to 6 months in duration, affects about 100 million Americans.1 The use of opioids in the management of chronic nonmalignant pain is common in primary care. The U.S., with only 5% of the global population, nevertheless is the world’s leading opioid consumer.2 For example, it is estimated that the U.S. consumes 56% of the global supply of morphine, 99% of hydrocodone, and 83% of oxycodone; this consumption is a growing problem in the use of chronic opioid therapy in managing chronic nonmalignant pain.2,3 The high rates of use of opioids continues, despite a lack of solid evidence on the long-term effectiveness of opioids for managing chronic nonmalignant pain and on the associated risks of opioid addiction, abuse, and misuse.3,4 Among veterans, the prevalence of opioid abuse and misuse has been reported to be about 30%, a nearly 7-fold occurrence compared with that in the general population.5,6
Due to the pervasiveness of opioid abuse and misuse among veterans, a project was initiated to develop, implement, and evaluate an Opioid Monitoring Clinic (OMC) as a clinical referral system within the primary care service of the VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System (VASNHS) in North Las Vegas. A health care provider (HCP) needs assessment was conducted at the facility, resulting in recommendations to improve adherence to evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in opioid management and regular monitoring of veterans on chronic opioid therapy for the identification of opioid abuse and misuse. Based on the results, an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) in consultation with the chief of primary care at VASNHS and teamlet support (a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and medical support assistant) started the OMC. The OMC was developed consistent with the 2010 VA/DoD clinical practice guidelines for managing opioid therapy for chronic pain.7
After 6 months of OMC operation, the project also was evaluated for efficacy. First, a retrospective chart review of participants was conducted to identify the use of opioid pain agreements, prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) for controlled substance use review, and urine drug screens (UDSs). The chart review also included the average daily morphine equivalent dose (MED) for patients and OMC retention rates. Second, an online survey of primary care providers (PCPs) assessed their adherence to evidence-based guidelines in opioid management and satisfaction of the OMC services.
Background
In 1997, the average sales and distribution of opioids in the U.S. was 96 mg MED per individual, which increased to 710 mg per individual in 2010.8,9 The MED is a standardized daily dose measure for all opioids.10 At VASNHS North Las Vegas, there were 5,881 patients on opioid therapy in 2013 with about 13% of patients on opioid therapy using about 100 mg MED/d. The potential for abuse and misuse was great. Almost 30% of patients on chronic opioid therapy for chronic nonmalignant pain abuse their opioid prescriptions.5,7 Subsequently, opioid analgesics were responsible for nearly 60% of overdose deaths in 2010.11
In 2010, there were about 12 million people in the U.S. who abused or misused prescription opioids, using them for nonmedical reasons; annually, the prevalence rate of Americans who abuse and misuse opioids is about 2 million people.12 The 5-year prevalence rate of opioid abuse among veterans is at least 3%.6 This results in health care expenditures with an average excess medical cost of $20,546 per year for patients who misuse opioids compared with those who do not.13 The economic burden among veterans is even higher. Baser and colleagues reported that the annual economic cost for veterans who abused their opioid prescriptions was nearly $29,000.6
Unfortunately, injudicious opioid prescribing by HCPs is often cited as a contributor to the growing problem of opioid abuse and misuse in the U.S.14 Health care provider education on the proper and judicious use of opioids and adherence to clinical practice guidelines in the management of chronic pain is a crucial factor in reducing the complications of chron
Method
This project evaluated the APRN-led OMC with both quantitative and qualitative data from patients and PCPs. The OMC was implemented at VASNHS North Las Vegas, which serves almost 60,000 veterans. Patients referred to the OMC who were eligible for admission were veterans aged ≥ 18 years, who had chronic nonmalignant pain for at least 3 months, were receiving chronic opioid therapy, and were considered high risk for abuse or misuse of opioids. Patients were considered high risk if they had documented aberrant behaviors, such as multiple early refill requests, history of lost medications, drug screens not showing prescribed opioid(s), positive drug screens for controlled substance not prescribed, nonadherence with plan of care, or a history of substance abuse, including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. Veterans found to be suicidal or homicidal were excluded from the OMC and instead were referred to appropriate specialty care for further evaluation. A total of 61 veteran participants were successfully recruited.
Primary care physicians, physician assistants, and APRNs working at VASNHS on a full-time and part-time basis were eligible for participation as PCPs in this project. Thirty of 42 eligible PCPs participated and responded to the secure online provider survey (71% response rate).
Risks and benefits were discussed, and a written informed consent was obtained for each participant. There were no apparent risks or adverse effects encountered during project implementation and evaluation. Prior to data collection, permission for the study was obtained from the VA facility. An institutional review board application through the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’ Office of Research Integrity-Human Subjects was also submitted and approved through an expedited review.
Results
Table 1 details patient data, including demographics on the veteran participants. The av
Review of PDMPs revealed that 20% of the participants received controlled substances from other HCPs. Consequently, all OMC patients completed and had reinforced OPAs that served 2 purposes. First, the content in the agreement provided patient education regarding the potential hazards of opioid use. Second, the content provided specific expectations from the patient if opioid therapy is continued, including opioid risk reduction strategies (ie, random UDSs and pill counts, PDMP for controlled substance utilization review), and the consequences of lack of adherence to opioid management.
The majority of patients remained as patients and continued to be monitored after 6 months at the OMC (Table 2). However, only 64% were retained in the OMC, in large part because 36% had their opioids discontinued due to discovery of active illicit substance use, opioi
The mean MED/d among OMC participants was 54 mg/d before admission, which decreased gradually to 22 mg/d after 6 months of OMC care; this represented a 59% MED reduction (Table 3). Using the exact single-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank
Primary Care Providers
Based on the survey of PCPs, 40% of respondents referred at least 1 patient to the OMC. The majority (90%) acknowledged following the VA/DoD guidelines for opioid management, with 80% using an OPA more than usual since the implementation of the OMC, and 54% routinely accessing a PDMP for controlled substance utilization review. Moreover, 93% of PCPs routinely ordered a UDS when indicated.
For 3 months prior to opening the OMC in 2013, 1,606 UDSs were ordered at VASNHS. The UDS number steadily increased, and 6 months after opening the OMC, UDSs increased to 2,293 from months 4 to 6, representing a 30% increase. This was an expected outcome from the OMC—more PCPs now were following the VA/DoD clinical practice guidelines regarding the monitoring of patients on chronic opioid therapy.
A survey assessed the level of satisfaction among PCPs who had referred their patients to the OMC. Although only 11 PCPs responded to this question, a large majority found the OMC to have a positive effect on primary care services; many noted receiving fewer complaints regarding pain medications and fewer walk-ins. The majority recognized the advantage of the OMC in facilitating more PCP time for managing other medical problems beyond opioid use, which tends to be challenging and time consuming. Overall, 100% were satisfied with the OMC service.
Finally, 82% of PCPs reported that the OMC referral process did not need improvement. Two PCPs (18%) left positive feedback, reporting that the OMC was “simple, easy and accessible” and that the referral process “so far, it is great.” Another PCP noted, “I want patients who are suicidal but still need pain control with narcotics to be addressed.”
Discussion
The OMC has shown great promise in identifying abuse and misuse of opioids through evidence-based guidelines and risk-mitigation strategies. In the past, VA clinics specifically focused on opioid renewal have been implemented. In 2002, the Philadelphia VAMC opened an opioid renewal clinic (ORC) to assist PCPs in the management of patients with chronic pain on chronic opioid therapy.15 The Philadelphia VAMC ORC was operated collaboratively by PCPs and Pharmacy Service. They reported that 51% of their patients initially had documented aberrant behaviors, and 45% of these patients resolved their aberrant behaviors through intensive opioid monitoring using random UDSs.14 Thirteen percent of their patients were found to have an opioid addiction disorder and eventually were referred to addiction treatment; and 4% were weaned off opioids due to consistently negative UDSs.14
In the same manner, the OMC has effectively identified patients who abused and misused their opioids and consequently referred these patients for pain interventional management or to the VASNHS alcohol and drug treatment program as appropriate, which falls under the VASNHS Mental Health Care line, a service that is vital for veterans who are suicidal and homicidal. The importance of mental health care cannot be understated, as many patients with chronic pain also experience mental health challenges.
The Malcom Randall VAMC in Gainesville, Florida, structured a nurse-led, multidisciplinary ORC in 2003.16 A retrospective review of their program showed that 33% of patients had a positive UDS for marijuana, cocaine, or alcohol. The ORC had increased patient involvement in substance abuse treatment, resulting in some patients taking lower opioid dosages than before.
The New York Harbor VAMC reduced opioid cost by effectively switching veterans on expensive long-acting opioids, such as oxycodone and fentanyl, to less expensive alternatives, such a long-acting morphine.17 A secondary purpose of the New York initiative was to reduce the potential for inappropriate use of expensive long-acting opioids. Accordingly, the initiative reduced the number of expensive long-acting and potentially inappropriate opioids from 165 to 69 prescriptions in less than 6 months (November 2007 through March 2008). Similarly, after 6 months of operation, the OMC significantly reduced opioid prescription from 54 mg to 22 MED/d. This reduction represents a significant pharmacy cost savings. The combination of the discontinuation of opioids for patients found to be abusing and misusing opioids coupled with the decrease in pill burden resulting from changes from short-acting to long-acting opioids also resulted in significant savings for VA facilities.
The impact of the OMC on PCP adherence to opioid management guidelines as well as PCP satisfaction with the OMC services was significant. Similarly, Wiedemer and colleagues found significant PCP satisfaction with the ORC.15 The ability to spend more time with patients on other medical problems while allowing the OMC to focus on opioid and pain management was found to be beneficial. Buy-in among PCPs coupled with their concerns for chronic opioid therapy for high-risk patients facilitated the success of the OMC. The commitment of the VASNHS leadership to the OMC and their support for the APRN in leading this initiative were important facilitators in the success of the OMC.
Limitations
Long-term evaluation of the OMC with a larger sample is needed to fully evaluate its impact on decreasing opioid misuse and abuse. This project was limited by a small sample size, although the results are promising. Pharmacy costs, emergency department visits, as well as patient satisfaction, physical and emotional function, and pain levels are outcomes that need to be considered over the long term. Incorporating mental health counseling, cognitive behavior therapy, self-management programs, and group educational sessions have the potential to be important OMC services. The continued success and cost-effectiveness of the OMC can be a potentially significant model for this type of service that can be applied to clinics outside the VA system.
Implications
Possible implications to practice settings that are considering an OMC or ORC include the chance that patients will want to be discharged from such a clinic and return to the PCP for opioid management. Collaborative relationships and communication between PCPs and OMC providers are important to facilitate adherence and consistency with pain care. Collaboration and effective communication can be facilitated by electronic recording and reporting. For example, the VA Computerized Patient Record System can alert PCPs to patient discharges from the OMC along with OMC provider recommendations for patient care. Another challenge for the OMC would be a lack of referrals for patients who are at high risk for opioid abuse or misuse. These challenges can be mitigated by providing in-services, educational flyers, and advertisement promotions regarding OMC services. With the high prevalence of opioid abuse and misuse as well as the subsequent exorbitant health-related costs and deaths associated with opioids, OMCs and ORCs are viable options for improving opioid management in the treatment of patients with nonmalignant chronic pain.
Conclusion
The OMC effectively reduced the MED of patients referred to the clinic by 59%. The significant reduction in the opioid dose of patients referred to the OMC resulted from the implementation of evidence-based strategies that were used to identify abuse of prescription opioids, the use of illicit substances that can cause opioid-related complications, and the discovery of doctor shopping, coupled with gradual dose reductions for patients when appropriate. Provider satisfaction and increased use of evidence-based guidelines in opioid management and risk mitigation strategies, such as OPAs, PDMP databases, and UDS were evident. These results suggest that an OMC can be an effective program to help identify abuse and misuse of prescription opioids among high-risk patients and can improve patient safety and provider satisfaction.
Acknowledgments
This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System.
Chronic pain, defined as pain lasting longer than 3 to 6 months in duration, affects about 100 million Americans.1 The use of opioids in the management of chronic nonmalignant pain is common in primary care. The U.S., with only 5% of the global population, nevertheless is the world’s leading opioid consumer.2 For example, it is estimated that the U.S. consumes 56% of the global supply of morphine, 99% of hydrocodone, and 83% of oxycodone; this consumption is a growing problem in the use of chronic opioid therapy in managing chronic nonmalignant pain.2,3 The high rates of use of opioids continues, despite a lack of solid evidence on the long-term effectiveness of opioids for managing chronic nonmalignant pain and on the associated risks of opioid addiction, abuse, and misuse.3,4 Among veterans, the prevalence of opioid abuse and misuse has been reported to be about 30%, a nearly 7-fold occurrence compared with that in the general population.5,6
Due to the pervasiveness of opioid abuse and misuse among veterans, a project was initiated to develop, implement, and evaluate an Opioid Monitoring Clinic (OMC) as a clinical referral system within the primary care service of the VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System (VASNHS) in North Las Vegas. A health care provider (HCP) needs assessment was conducted at the facility, resulting in recommendations to improve adherence to evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in opioid management and regular monitoring of veterans on chronic opioid therapy for the identification of opioid abuse and misuse. Based on the results, an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) in consultation with the chief of primary care at VASNHS and teamlet support (a registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, and medical support assistant) started the OMC. The OMC was developed consistent with the 2010 VA/DoD clinical practice guidelines for managing opioid therapy for chronic pain.7
After 6 months of OMC operation, the project also was evaluated for efficacy. First, a retrospective chart review of participants was conducted to identify the use of opioid pain agreements, prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) for controlled substance use review, and urine drug screens (UDSs). The chart review also included the average daily morphine equivalent dose (MED) for patients and OMC retention rates. Second, an online survey of primary care providers (PCPs) assessed their adherence to evidence-based guidelines in opioid management and satisfaction of the OMC services.
Background
In 1997, the average sales and distribution of opioids in the U.S. was 96 mg MED per individual, which increased to 710 mg per individual in 2010.8,9 The MED is a standardized daily dose measure for all opioids.10 At VASNHS North Las Vegas, there were 5,881 patients on opioid therapy in 2013 with about 13% of patients on opioid therapy using about 100 mg MED/d. The potential for abuse and misuse was great. Almost 30% of patients on chronic opioid therapy for chronic nonmalignant pain abuse their opioid prescriptions.5,7 Subsequently, opioid analgesics were responsible for nearly 60% of overdose deaths in 2010.11
In 2010, there were about 12 million people in the U.S. who abused or misused prescription opioids, using them for nonmedical reasons; annually, the prevalence rate of Americans who abuse and misuse opioids is about 2 million people.12 The 5-year prevalence rate of opioid abuse among veterans is at least 3%.6 This results in health care expenditures with an average excess medical cost of $20,546 per year for patients who misuse opioids compared with those who do not.13 The economic burden among veterans is even higher. Baser and colleagues reported that the annual economic cost for veterans who abused their opioid prescriptions was nearly $29,000.6
Unfortunately, injudicious opioid prescribing by HCPs is often cited as a contributor to the growing problem of opioid abuse and misuse in the U.S.14 Health care provider education on the proper and judicious use of opioids and adherence to clinical practice guidelines in the management of chronic pain is a crucial factor in reducing the complications of chron
Method
This project evaluated the APRN-led OMC with both quantitative and qualitative data from patients and PCPs. The OMC was implemented at VASNHS North Las Vegas, which serves almost 60,000 veterans. Patients referred to the OMC who were eligible for admission were veterans aged ≥ 18 years, who had chronic nonmalignant pain for at least 3 months, were receiving chronic opioid therapy, and were considered high risk for abuse or misuse of opioids. Patients were considered high risk if they had documented aberrant behaviors, such as multiple early refill requests, history of lost medications, drug screens not showing prescribed opioid(s), positive drug screens for controlled substance not prescribed, nonadherence with plan of care, or a history of substance abuse, including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. Veterans found to be suicidal or homicidal were excluded from the OMC and instead were referred to appropriate specialty care for further evaluation. A total of 61 veteran participants were successfully recruited.
Primary care physicians, physician assistants, and APRNs working at VASNHS on a full-time and part-time basis were eligible for participation as PCPs in this project. Thirty of 42 eligible PCPs participated and responded to the secure online provider survey (71% response rate).
Risks and benefits were discussed, and a written informed consent was obtained for each participant. There were no apparent risks or adverse effects encountered during project implementation and evaluation. Prior to data collection, permission for the study was obtained from the VA facility. An institutional review board application through the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’ Office of Research Integrity-Human Subjects was also submitted and approved through an expedited review.
Results
Table 1 details patient data, including demographics on the veteran participants. The av
Review of PDMPs revealed that 20% of the participants received controlled substances from other HCPs. Consequently, all OMC patients completed and had reinforced OPAs that served 2 purposes. First, the content in the agreement provided patient education regarding the potential hazards of opioid use. Second, the content provided specific expectations from the patient if opioid therapy is continued, including opioid risk reduction strategies (ie, random UDSs and pill counts, PDMP for controlled substance utilization review), and the consequences of lack of adherence to opioid management.
The majority of patients remained as patients and continued to be monitored after 6 months at the OMC (Table 2). However, only 64% were retained in the OMC, in large part because 36% had their opioids discontinued due to discovery of active illicit substance use, opioi
The mean MED/d among OMC participants was 54 mg/d before admission, which decreased gradually to 22 mg/d after 6 months of OMC care; this represented a 59% MED reduction (Table 3). Using the exact single-tailed Wilcoxon signed rank
Primary Care Providers
Based on the survey of PCPs, 40% of respondents referred at least 1 patient to the OMC. The majority (90%) acknowledged following the VA/DoD guidelines for opioid management, with 80% using an OPA more than usual since the implementation of the OMC, and 54% routinely accessing a PDMP for controlled substance utilization review. Moreover, 93% of PCPs routinely ordered a UDS when indicated.
For 3 months prior to opening the OMC in 2013, 1,606 UDSs were ordered at VASNHS. The UDS number steadily increased, and 6 months after opening the OMC, UDSs increased to 2,293 from months 4 to 6, representing a 30% increase. This was an expected outcome from the OMC—more PCPs now were following the VA/DoD clinical practice guidelines regarding the monitoring of patients on chronic opioid therapy.
A survey assessed the level of satisfaction among PCPs who had referred their patients to the OMC. Although only 11 PCPs responded to this question, a large majority found the OMC to have a positive effect on primary care services; many noted receiving fewer complaints regarding pain medications and fewer walk-ins. The majority recognized the advantage of the OMC in facilitating more PCP time for managing other medical problems beyond opioid use, which tends to be challenging and time consuming. Overall, 100% were satisfied with the OMC service.
Finally, 82% of PCPs reported that the OMC referral process did not need improvement. Two PCPs (18%) left positive feedback, reporting that the OMC was “simple, easy and accessible” and that the referral process “so far, it is great.” Another PCP noted, “I want patients who are suicidal but still need pain control with narcotics to be addressed.”
Discussion
The OMC has shown great promise in identifying abuse and misuse of opioids through evidence-based guidelines and risk-mitigation strategies. In the past, VA clinics specifically focused on opioid renewal have been implemented. In 2002, the Philadelphia VAMC opened an opioid renewal clinic (ORC) to assist PCPs in the management of patients with chronic pain on chronic opioid therapy.15 The Philadelphia VAMC ORC was operated collaboratively by PCPs and Pharmacy Service. They reported that 51% of their patients initially had documented aberrant behaviors, and 45% of these patients resolved their aberrant behaviors through intensive opioid monitoring using random UDSs.14 Thirteen percent of their patients were found to have an opioid addiction disorder and eventually were referred to addiction treatment; and 4% were weaned off opioids due to consistently negative UDSs.14
In the same manner, the OMC has effectively identified patients who abused and misused their opioids and consequently referred these patients for pain interventional management or to the VASNHS alcohol and drug treatment program as appropriate, which falls under the VASNHS Mental Health Care line, a service that is vital for veterans who are suicidal and homicidal. The importance of mental health care cannot be understated, as many patients with chronic pain also experience mental health challenges.
The Malcom Randall VAMC in Gainesville, Florida, structured a nurse-led, multidisciplinary ORC in 2003.16 A retrospective review of their program showed that 33% of patients had a positive UDS for marijuana, cocaine, or alcohol. The ORC had increased patient involvement in substance abuse treatment, resulting in some patients taking lower opioid dosages than before.
The New York Harbor VAMC reduced opioid cost by effectively switching veterans on expensive long-acting opioids, such as oxycodone and fentanyl, to less expensive alternatives, such a long-acting morphine.17 A secondary purpose of the New York initiative was to reduce the potential for inappropriate use of expensive long-acting opioids. Accordingly, the initiative reduced the number of expensive long-acting and potentially inappropriate opioids from 165 to 69 prescriptions in less than 6 months (November 2007 through March 2008). Similarly, after 6 months of operation, the OMC significantly reduced opioid prescription from 54 mg to 22 MED/d. This reduction represents a significant pharmacy cost savings. The combination of the discontinuation of opioids for patients found to be abusing and misusing opioids coupled with the decrease in pill burden resulting from changes from short-acting to long-acting opioids also resulted in significant savings for VA facilities.
The impact of the OMC on PCP adherence to opioid management guidelines as well as PCP satisfaction with the OMC services was significant. Similarly, Wiedemer and colleagues found significant PCP satisfaction with the ORC.15 The ability to spend more time with patients on other medical problems while allowing the OMC to focus on opioid and pain management was found to be beneficial. Buy-in among PCPs coupled with their concerns for chronic opioid therapy for high-risk patients facilitated the success of the OMC. The commitment of the VASNHS leadership to the OMC and their support for the APRN in leading this initiative were important facilitators in the success of the OMC.
Limitations
Long-term evaluation of the OMC with a larger sample is needed to fully evaluate its impact on decreasing opioid misuse and abuse. This project was limited by a small sample size, although the results are promising. Pharmacy costs, emergency department visits, as well as patient satisfaction, physical and emotional function, and pain levels are outcomes that need to be considered over the long term. Incorporating mental health counseling, cognitive behavior therapy, self-management programs, and group educational sessions have the potential to be important OMC services. The continued success and cost-effectiveness of the OMC can be a potentially significant model for this type of service that can be applied to clinics outside the VA system.
Implications
Possible implications to practice settings that are considering an OMC or ORC include the chance that patients will want to be discharged from such a clinic and return to the PCP for opioid management. Collaborative relationships and communication between PCPs and OMC providers are important to facilitate adherence and consistency with pain care. Collaboration and effective communication can be facilitated by electronic recording and reporting. For example, the VA Computerized Patient Record System can alert PCPs to patient discharges from the OMC along with OMC provider recommendations for patient care. Another challenge for the OMC would be a lack of referrals for patients who are at high risk for opioid abuse or misuse. These challenges can be mitigated by providing in-services, educational flyers, and advertisement promotions regarding OMC services. With the high prevalence of opioid abuse and misuse as well as the subsequent exorbitant health-related costs and deaths associated with opioids, OMCs and ORCs are viable options for improving opioid management in the treatment of patients with nonmalignant chronic pain.
Conclusion
The OMC effectively reduced the MED of patients referred to the clinic by 59%. The significant reduction in the opioid dose of patients referred to the OMC resulted from the implementation of evidence-based strategies that were used to identify abuse of prescription opioids, the use of illicit substances that can cause opioid-related complications, and the discovery of doctor shopping, coupled with gradual dose reductions for patients when appropriate. Provider satisfaction and increased use of evidence-based guidelines in opioid management and risk mitigation strategies, such as OPAs, PDMP databases, and UDS were evident. These results suggest that an OMC can be an effective program to help identify abuse and misuse of prescription opioids among high-risk patients and can improve patient safety and provider satisfaction.
Acknowledgments
This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the VA Southern Nevada Healthcare System.
1. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Relieving pain in America: a blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research. http://iom.nationalacademies.org/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Relieving-Pain-in-America-A-Blueprint-for-Transforming-Prevention-Care-Education-Research/Pain%20Research%202011%20Report%20Brief.pdf. Published June 2011. Accessed August 25, 2016.
2. International Narcotics Control Board. Report of the International Narcotics Control Board on the availability of internationally controlled drugs. https://www.incb.org/documents/Publications/AnnualReports/AR2010/Supplement-AR10_availability_English.pdf. Published January 2011. Accessed August 25, 2016.
3. Manchikanti L, Helm S II, Fellows B, et al. Opioid epidemic in the United States. Pain Physician. 2012;15(3)(suppl):ES9-ES38.
4. Krebs EE, Ramsey DC, Miloshoff JM, Bair MJ. Primary care monitoring of long-term opioid therapy among veterans with chronic pain. Pain Med. 2011;12(5):740-746.
5. Von Korff M, Kolodny A, Deyo RA, Chou R. Long-term opioid therapy reconsidered. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(5):325-328.
6. Baser O, Xie L, Mardekian J, Schaaf D, Wang L, Joshi AV. Prevalence of diagnosed opioid abuse and its economic burden in the Veterans’ Health Administration. Pain Pract. 2014;14(5):437-445.
7. Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense. VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain. Guideline summary. http://www.va.gov/painmanagement/docs/cpg_opioidtherapy_summary.pdf. Published May 2010. Accessed August 25, 2016.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC grand rounds: prescription drug overdoses—a U.S. epidemic. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(1):10-13.
9. Hansen H, Noe CE, Racz GB. The evolving role of opioid treatment in chronic pain management. In: Hansen H, Racz GB, Noe CE, eds. Pain and Treatment. http://www.intechopen.com/books/pain-and-treatment/the-evolving-role-of-opioid-treatment-in-chronic-pain-management. Published July 10, 2014. Accessed October 5, 2016.
10. McAuley D. Opioids—equianalgesic dosages. http://www.globalrph.com/narcotic.htm. Updated August 5, 2016. Accessed October 5, 2016.
11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Addressing prescription drug abuse in the United States: current activities and future opportunities. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/hhs_prescription_drug_abuse_report_09.2013.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2016.
12. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, RTI International. Results from the 2010 National survey on drug use and health: summary of national findings. http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.htm. Published September 2011. Accessed October 5, 2016.
13. Birnbaum HG, White AG, Schiller M, Waldman T, Cleveland JM, Roland CL. Societal costs of prescription opioid abuse, dependence, and misuse in the United States. Pain Med. 2011;12(4):657-667.
14. Federation of State Medical Boards. Model policy on the use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of chronic pain. http://www.fsmb.org/Media/Default/PDF/FSMB/Advocacy/pain_policy_july2013.pdf.Published July 2013. Accessed October 5, 2016.
15. Wiedemer NL, Harden PS, Arndt IO, Gallagher RM. The opioid renewal clinic: a primary care, managed approach to opioid therapy in chronic pain patients at risk for substance abuse. Pain Med. 2007;8(7):573-584.
16. Sampson JM, Havens S, Marsh B, Murrhee R. Managing chronic, nonmalignant pain in patients with a substance use disorder. Fed Pract. 2005;22(11):10, 16, 18, 25-26, 29.
17. Kharlamb V. (2008). VISN Opioid cost avoidance plan. New York Harbor VA, New York. Unpublished raw data.
1. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Relieving pain in America: a blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research. http://iom.nationalacademies.org/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Relieving-Pain-in-America-A-Blueprint-for-Transforming-Prevention-Care-Education-Research/Pain%20Research%202011%20Report%20Brief.pdf. Published June 2011. Accessed August 25, 2016.
2. International Narcotics Control Board. Report of the International Narcotics Control Board on the availability of internationally controlled drugs. https://www.incb.org/documents/Publications/AnnualReports/AR2010/Supplement-AR10_availability_English.pdf. Published January 2011. Accessed August 25, 2016.
3. Manchikanti L, Helm S II, Fellows B, et al. Opioid epidemic in the United States. Pain Physician. 2012;15(3)(suppl):ES9-ES38.
4. Krebs EE, Ramsey DC, Miloshoff JM, Bair MJ. Primary care monitoring of long-term opioid therapy among veterans with chronic pain. Pain Med. 2011;12(5):740-746.
5. Von Korff M, Kolodny A, Deyo RA, Chou R. Long-term opioid therapy reconsidered. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(5):325-328.
6. Baser O, Xie L, Mardekian J, Schaaf D, Wang L, Joshi AV. Prevalence of diagnosed opioid abuse and its economic burden in the Veterans’ Health Administration. Pain Pract. 2014;14(5):437-445.
7. Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense. VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain. Guideline summary. http://www.va.gov/painmanagement/docs/cpg_opioidtherapy_summary.pdf. Published May 2010. Accessed August 25, 2016.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC grand rounds: prescription drug overdoses—a U.S. epidemic. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(1):10-13.
9. Hansen H, Noe CE, Racz GB. The evolving role of opioid treatment in chronic pain management. In: Hansen H, Racz GB, Noe CE, eds. Pain and Treatment. http://www.intechopen.com/books/pain-and-treatment/the-evolving-role-of-opioid-treatment-in-chronic-pain-management. Published July 10, 2014. Accessed October 5, 2016.
10. McAuley D. Opioids—equianalgesic dosages. http://www.globalrph.com/narcotic.htm. Updated August 5, 2016. Accessed October 5, 2016.
11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Addressing prescription drug abuse in the United States: current activities and future opportunities. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/hhs_prescription_drug_abuse_report_09.2013.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2016.
12. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, RTI International. Results from the 2010 National survey on drug use and health: summary of national findings. http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.htm. Published September 2011. Accessed October 5, 2016.
13. Birnbaum HG, White AG, Schiller M, Waldman T, Cleveland JM, Roland CL. Societal costs of prescription opioid abuse, dependence, and misuse in the United States. Pain Med. 2011;12(4):657-667.
14. Federation of State Medical Boards. Model policy on the use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of chronic pain. http://www.fsmb.org/Media/Default/PDF/FSMB/Advocacy/pain_policy_july2013.pdf.Published July 2013. Accessed October 5, 2016.
15. Wiedemer NL, Harden PS, Arndt IO, Gallagher RM. The opioid renewal clinic: a primary care, managed approach to opioid therapy in chronic pain patients at risk for substance abuse. Pain Med. 2007;8(7):573-584.
16. Sampson JM, Havens S, Marsh B, Murrhee R. Managing chronic, nonmalignant pain in patients with a substance use disorder. Fed Pract. 2005;22(11):10, 16, 18, 25-26, 29.
17. Kharlamb V. (2008). VISN Opioid cost avoidance plan. New York Harbor VA, New York. Unpublished raw data.
Decitabine elicits favorable response in high-risk AML/MDS
Single-agent therapy with decitabine elicited favorable responses in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) who had cytogenetic abnormalities associated with an unfavorable risk profile, a study showed.
Even though the responses were not long lasting, the overall survival rates were similar to those of AML patients who had an intermediate-risk cytogenetic profile and who had received the same treatment regimen.
Adult AML patients with karyotypes associated with unfavorable risk and older patients with AML (aged 60 or older) generally have poor outcomes, with a median survival in the range of 1 year. Those with AML and TP53 mutations tend to be older (median age, 61-67 years), and nearly all patients have karyotypes associated with unfavorable risk. These patients have particularly dismal outcomes, with median survival in the range of 4-6 months, if they receive cytotoxic chemotherapy.
In their study, John S Welch, MD, of Washington University, St Louis, and his colleagues evaluated somatic mutations and their relationships to clinical responses in 84 adult patients with AML or MDS who received treatment with decitabine as monotherapy.
Decitabine was administered at a dose of 20 mg/m2 of body surface area per day for 10 consecutive days in monthly cycles. An extension cohort that included 32 additional patients also were treated with decitabine but in different protocols.
Of the entire cohort of 116 patients, 15 patients (13%) achieved a complete remission, and 38 patients had bone marrow blast clearance with less than 5% blasts (complete remission with incomplete count recovery or morphologic complete remission). The overall response rate was 46%. In addition, 9 patients (8%), achieved a partial response, stable disease was observed in 23 patients (20%), and progressive disease was seen in 19 patients (16%).
Clinical responses were strongly correlated with karyotypes associated with unfavorable risk and the presence of TP53 mutations. Bone marrow blast clearance (complete remission, complete remission with incomplete count recovery, or morphologic complete remission) occurred in 29 of 43 patients with karyotypes associated with unfavorable risk (67%), compared with 24 of 71 patients with karyotypes associated with intermediate or favorable risk (34%). The same pattern was observed in all patients with TP53 mutations (100%) versus 32 of 78 patients with wildtype TP53 mutations (41%).
“Additional studies will be required to determine whether these differences in survival are truly due to improved responses associated with decitabine or whether conventional chemotherapy with an anthracycline and cytarabine actually decreases the rate of survival among patients with unfavorable-risk cytogenetic profiles,” wrote Dr. Welch and his colleagues.
The study was supported by the Specialized Program of Research Excellence in AML of the National Cancer Institute and the Genomics of AML Program Project. Dr. Welch had no disclosures, and several of his coauthors reported relationships with industry.
The current study raises the important question of the definition of a response. Complete remission conventionally entails bone marrow with less than 5% blasts and normalization of blood counts; absent these, remission is considered incomplete. After various confounding factors are taken into account, a complete response with cytotoxic therapy is associated with longer remissions and longer survival than is complete remission with incomplete count recovery.
The authors of this paper considered a response to be blast clearance to less than 5%, but complete remission was seen in only 4 of the 21 patients with TP53 mutations who fulfilled this criterion. The mutant allele burden was also similar in patients who had a response, regardless of blood count recovery.
In contrast, measurable residual disease is considerably more frequent in patients with complete remission with incomplete count recovery than in patients with complete remission who have received cytotoxic therapy, indicating that more data are needed on subsequent clinical outcomes according to whether clearance of blasts is accompanied by count recovery in patients with AML and TP53 mutations who have received decitabine.
AML “targeted-therapy” trials typically involve one drug, and this policy is called into question by the diverse molecular architecture (and brief remissions) observed in this trial. The trial by Welch et al. points to inevitable, rational replacement of large trials in which homogeneous therapy is administered for a heterogeneous disease by smaller, subgroup-specific trials.
The article also suggests questions that are likely to complicate this future.
Dr. Elihu Estey is with the division of hematology, University of Washington Medical Center, and the clinical research division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle. He had no disclosures. These remarks were taken from an editorial accompanying Dr. Welch’s paper (N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2023-36).
The current study raises the important question of the definition of a response. Complete remission conventionally entails bone marrow with less than 5% blasts and normalization of blood counts; absent these, remission is considered incomplete. After various confounding factors are taken into account, a complete response with cytotoxic therapy is associated with longer remissions and longer survival than is complete remission with incomplete count recovery.
The authors of this paper considered a response to be blast clearance to less than 5%, but complete remission was seen in only 4 of the 21 patients with TP53 mutations who fulfilled this criterion. The mutant allele burden was also similar in patients who had a response, regardless of blood count recovery.
In contrast, measurable residual disease is considerably more frequent in patients with complete remission with incomplete count recovery than in patients with complete remission who have received cytotoxic therapy, indicating that more data are needed on subsequent clinical outcomes according to whether clearance of blasts is accompanied by count recovery in patients with AML and TP53 mutations who have received decitabine.
AML “targeted-therapy” trials typically involve one drug, and this policy is called into question by the diverse molecular architecture (and brief remissions) observed in this trial. The trial by Welch et al. points to inevitable, rational replacement of large trials in which homogeneous therapy is administered for a heterogeneous disease by smaller, subgroup-specific trials.
The article also suggests questions that are likely to complicate this future.
Dr. Elihu Estey is with the division of hematology, University of Washington Medical Center, and the clinical research division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle. He had no disclosures. These remarks were taken from an editorial accompanying Dr. Welch’s paper (N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2023-36).
The current study raises the important question of the definition of a response. Complete remission conventionally entails bone marrow with less than 5% blasts and normalization of blood counts; absent these, remission is considered incomplete. After various confounding factors are taken into account, a complete response with cytotoxic therapy is associated with longer remissions and longer survival than is complete remission with incomplete count recovery.
The authors of this paper considered a response to be blast clearance to less than 5%, but complete remission was seen in only 4 of the 21 patients with TP53 mutations who fulfilled this criterion. The mutant allele burden was also similar in patients who had a response, regardless of blood count recovery.
In contrast, measurable residual disease is considerably more frequent in patients with complete remission with incomplete count recovery than in patients with complete remission who have received cytotoxic therapy, indicating that more data are needed on subsequent clinical outcomes according to whether clearance of blasts is accompanied by count recovery in patients with AML and TP53 mutations who have received decitabine.
AML “targeted-therapy” trials typically involve one drug, and this policy is called into question by the diverse molecular architecture (and brief remissions) observed in this trial. The trial by Welch et al. points to inevitable, rational replacement of large trials in which homogeneous therapy is administered for a heterogeneous disease by smaller, subgroup-specific trials.
The article also suggests questions that are likely to complicate this future.
Dr. Elihu Estey is with the division of hematology, University of Washington Medical Center, and the clinical research division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle. He had no disclosures. These remarks were taken from an editorial accompanying Dr. Welch’s paper (N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2023-36).
Single-agent therapy with decitabine elicited favorable responses in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) who had cytogenetic abnormalities associated with an unfavorable risk profile, a study showed.
Even though the responses were not long lasting, the overall survival rates were similar to those of AML patients who had an intermediate-risk cytogenetic profile and who had received the same treatment regimen.
Adult AML patients with karyotypes associated with unfavorable risk and older patients with AML (aged 60 or older) generally have poor outcomes, with a median survival in the range of 1 year. Those with AML and TP53 mutations tend to be older (median age, 61-67 years), and nearly all patients have karyotypes associated with unfavorable risk. These patients have particularly dismal outcomes, with median survival in the range of 4-6 months, if they receive cytotoxic chemotherapy.
In their study, John S Welch, MD, of Washington University, St Louis, and his colleagues evaluated somatic mutations and their relationships to clinical responses in 84 adult patients with AML or MDS who received treatment with decitabine as monotherapy.
Decitabine was administered at a dose of 20 mg/m2 of body surface area per day for 10 consecutive days in monthly cycles. An extension cohort that included 32 additional patients also were treated with decitabine but in different protocols.
Of the entire cohort of 116 patients, 15 patients (13%) achieved a complete remission, and 38 patients had bone marrow blast clearance with less than 5% blasts (complete remission with incomplete count recovery or morphologic complete remission). The overall response rate was 46%. In addition, 9 patients (8%), achieved a partial response, stable disease was observed in 23 patients (20%), and progressive disease was seen in 19 patients (16%).
Clinical responses were strongly correlated with karyotypes associated with unfavorable risk and the presence of TP53 mutations. Bone marrow blast clearance (complete remission, complete remission with incomplete count recovery, or morphologic complete remission) occurred in 29 of 43 patients with karyotypes associated with unfavorable risk (67%), compared with 24 of 71 patients with karyotypes associated with intermediate or favorable risk (34%). The same pattern was observed in all patients with TP53 mutations (100%) versus 32 of 78 patients with wildtype TP53 mutations (41%).
“Additional studies will be required to determine whether these differences in survival are truly due to improved responses associated with decitabine or whether conventional chemotherapy with an anthracycline and cytarabine actually decreases the rate of survival among patients with unfavorable-risk cytogenetic profiles,” wrote Dr. Welch and his colleagues.
The study was supported by the Specialized Program of Research Excellence in AML of the National Cancer Institute and the Genomics of AML Program Project. Dr. Welch had no disclosures, and several of his coauthors reported relationships with industry.
Single-agent therapy with decitabine elicited favorable responses in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) who had cytogenetic abnormalities associated with an unfavorable risk profile, a study showed.
Even though the responses were not long lasting, the overall survival rates were similar to those of AML patients who had an intermediate-risk cytogenetic profile and who had received the same treatment regimen.
Adult AML patients with karyotypes associated with unfavorable risk and older patients with AML (aged 60 or older) generally have poor outcomes, with a median survival in the range of 1 year. Those with AML and TP53 mutations tend to be older (median age, 61-67 years), and nearly all patients have karyotypes associated with unfavorable risk. These patients have particularly dismal outcomes, with median survival in the range of 4-6 months, if they receive cytotoxic chemotherapy.
In their study, John S Welch, MD, of Washington University, St Louis, and his colleagues evaluated somatic mutations and their relationships to clinical responses in 84 adult patients with AML or MDS who received treatment with decitabine as monotherapy.
Decitabine was administered at a dose of 20 mg/m2 of body surface area per day for 10 consecutive days in monthly cycles. An extension cohort that included 32 additional patients also were treated with decitabine but in different protocols.
Of the entire cohort of 116 patients, 15 patients (13%) achieved a complete remission, and 38 patients had bone marrow blast clearance with less than 5% blasts (complete remission with incomplete count recovery or morphologic complete remission). The overall response rate was 46%. In addition, 9 patients (8%), achieved a partial response, stable disease was observed in 23 patients (20%), and progressive disease was seen in 19 patients (16%).
Clinical responses were strongly correlated with karyotypes associated with unfavorable risk and the presence of TP53 mutations. Bone marrow blast clearance (complete remission, complete remission with incomplete count recovery, or morphologic complete remission) occurred in 29 of 43 patients with karyotypes associated with unfavorable risk (67%), compared with 24 of 71 patients with karyotypes associated with intermediate or favorable risk (34%). The same pattern was observed in all patients with TP53 mutations (100%) versus 32 of 78 patients with wildtype TP53 mutations (41%).
“Additional studies will be required to determine whether these differences in survival are truly due to improved responses associated with decitabine or whether conventional chemotherapy with an anthracycline and cytarabine actually decreases the rate of survival among patients with unfavorable-risk cytogenetic profiles,” wrote Dr. Welch and his colleagues.
The study was supported by the Specialized Program of Research Excellence in AML of the National Cancer Institute and the Genomics of AML Program Project. Dr. Welch had no disclosures, and several of his coauthors reported relationships with industry.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Of 116 patients, 53 (46%) experienced bone marrow blast clearance (less than 5% blasts), and response rates were higher among those with an unfavorable cytogenetic risk profile.
Data source: A prospective single-center clinical trial that evaluated single-agent decitabine in 84 adult patients with AML or MDS, with an extension cohort.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Specialized Program of Research Excellence in AML of the National Cancer Institute and the Genomics of AML Program Project. Dr. Welch had no disclosures, and several of his coauthors reported relationships with industry.
What are the modern cardiovascular risk indicators and how should ObGyns be using them in their practice?
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
- Visit NAMS
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
- Visit NAMS
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
- Visit NAMS
Antiamyloid solanezumab fails to slow decline in mild Alzheimer’s
Solanezumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets amyloid plaques, did not slow cognitive decline in patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease.
Although the drug did reduce soluble amyloid beta by 40%, compared with placebo, that change did not translate into a clinically meaningful cognitive benefit, Eric Siemers, MD, said in a press briefing called by Eli Lilly & Co., which manufactures solanezumab. The company did not release specific cognitive data from the highly anticipated Expedition 3 trial, except to say that changes on the ADAS-Cog14 (Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale-14), the main cognitive endpoint, had a nonsignificant P value of 0.095 [Corection: Changed from 0.95 in original posting]. Functional data were also withheld.
The entire clinical picture won’t emerge until Dec. 8, when Lilly presents full data at the annual Clinical Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease meeting in San Diego. But, in the meantime, Dr. Siemers did say that Lilly won’t be pursuing a Food and Drug Administration New Drug Application for solanezumab as a disease-modifying therapy for mild Alzheimer’s. However, it’s not the end of the road for solanezumab. Lilly is still investigating it in ExpeditionPro, a trial which will employ the antibody in patients with prodromal AD.
Solanezumab is also part of two very important public/private partnership studies: The Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s study (A4 study), investigating its effect in cognitively healthy elders with Alzheimer’s risk factors, and the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer’s Network (DIAN) study of patients with autosomal dominant mutations in Alzheimer’s genes.
It’s unclear what impact the failed Expedition 3 could have on those, Dr. Siemers said. “These studies are also funded by the National Institute on Aging in collaboration with academic institutions, so we will need to sort through the data very carefully and speak with our academic colleagues before making any decisions on this.”
If solanezumab was successful in either one of those trials – if they continue – Lilly could still apply for approval in those patient groups, Dr. Siemers noted.
The results are disappointing, but not entirely unexpected in the research community. Many felt that Expedition 3 was founded on shaky clinical ground from the start. The study was based on subgroup analyses of Expedition 1 and Expedition 2, both of which failed to meet their primary endpoints in patients with mild-moderate AD. But when researchers pooled both groups of mild patients, they found that solanezumab conferred a 34% slowing of cognitive decline in one cognitive measure, the ADAS-Cog14. This translated to a clinical change of less than 2 points on the scale, however.
Lilly very carefully drafted Expedition 3 to come as close to recreating those findings as possible, said Lon Schneider, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“By taking the ideal patients from two studies and combining them as if they were from one study, Lilly predicted that they could find a 1.5-2.0 point [Correction: Changed from 1.5 in original posting] difference in one particular outcome, the ADAS-Cog14, [Correction: the ADAS-Cog14 not included in previous posting] in a study of more than 2,000 patients,” Dr. Schneider said in an interview.
This is the research equivalent of Heraclitus’ adage that one can never step in the same river twice: These could never be the same patients, from the same places, at the same time, with the same clinical picture, Dr. Schneider said – especially since Expedition 3 had a purified cohort of only amyloid-positive patients, while close to 25% of patients in the earlier studies probably had no brain amyloid at all.
“This is what happens when we rely on subanalysis to create drug trials. We slice it and dice it until we find some patients for whom the drug is better than placebo, and then say, ‘We have a winner.’ ” Even in the best-case scenario, he said, Expedition 3 would have found only the same modest benefit as its predecessors. “Then we would be in the difficult situation of saying we have a disease-modifying therapy that is associated with only very small clinical changes.”
Dr. Siemers rejected the idea that Expedition 3’s failure is another nail in the coffin of the amyloid hypothesis, or at least in the idea that taming amyloid can prevent dementia or rescue cognition. “You can’t disprove a hypothesis based on one study done in patients with mild dementia,” he said.
Dennis Selkoe, PhD, the Vincent and Stella Coates Professor of Neurologic Diseases at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said Expedition’s failure does not negate the amyloid hypothesis or the appropriateness of amyloid as a therapeutic target.
“Like others, I am disappointed for our patients that solanezumab failed to meet its clinical endpoint by just a little bit. But it is not truly surprising, as this drug was always known to be a ‘weak’ antibody in terms of its ability to mobilize amyloid from the brain,” he said in an interview.
Research into antiamyloid therapies should continue, he said.
“This outcome does nothing to alter the overwhelming genetic, neuropathological and biomarker evidence that amyloid beta protein buildup acts to precipitate the AD process, and it also does not alter the potential promise of current agents in trials: Merck’s beta secretase inhibitor and Biogen’s aducanumab antibody, which appears to be much more effective in mobilizing amyloid beta. Other approaches, in addition to antiamyloid agents, are very much desired and are gradually moving forward, which is good news. But for the time being, antiamyloid treatments will be those most examined in trials, for scientifically and technically sound reasons.”
Dr. Schneider has served as a consultant for Eli Lilly & Co in the past. Dr. Selkoe is a founding scientist and director of Elan Pharmaceuticals.
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
Solenezumab’s failure in patients with mild-stage Alzheimer’s disease is disappointing, but is it really surprising?
Post hoc analyses of subsets in clinical trials have been notoriously misleading, and this, sadly, is one more example. Overinterpretation of ongoing trials should likewise be kept in check until phase III data are in.
The signals from every putative disease-modifying therapy to date have been weak at best, and one might worry more if such a weak signal actually hit the magical statistical P value of .05. Then we might launch an expensive new phase of AD therapy that not only falls short of halting disease progression, but simply prolongs the course, adds to the cost, further burdens an already overburdened system, and leads family members to ask providers whether the drug is “still working” (a common question I hear in patients taking any one of the current symptomatic medications).
We need a major breakthrough, and reducing disease progression a little bit is not a major breakthrough. It may even be something worse.
Dr. Richard J. Caselli is associate director and clinical core director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Center at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz.
Solenezumab’s failure in patients with mild-stage Alzheimer’s disease is disappointing, but is it really surprising?
Post hoc analyses of subsets in clinical trials have been notoriously misleading, and this, sadly, is one more example. Overinterpretation of ongoing trials should likewise be kept in check until phase III data are in.
The signals from every putative disease-modifying therapy to date have been weak at best, and one might worry more if such a weak signal actually hit the magical statistical P value of .05. Then we might launch an expensive new phase of AD therapy that not only falls short of halting disease progression, but simply prolongs the course, adds to the cost, further burdens an already overburdened system, and leads family members to ask providers whether the drug is “still working” (a common question I hear in patients taking any one of the current symptomatic medications).
We need a major breakthrough, and reducing disease progression a little bit is not a major breakthrough. It may even be something worse.
Dr. Richard J. Caselli is associate director and clinical core director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Center at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz.
Solenezumab’s failure in patients with mild-stage Alzheimer’s disease is disappointing, but is it really surprising?
Post hoc analyses of subsets in clinical trials have been notoriously misleading, and this, sadly, is one more example. Overinterpretation of ongoing trials should likewise be kept in check until phase III data are in.
The signals from every putative disease-modifying therapy to date have been weak at best, and one might worry more if such a weak signal actually hit the magical statistical P value of .05. Then we might launch an expensive new phase of AD therapy that not only falls short of halting disease progression, but simply prolongs the course, adds to the cost, further burdens an already overburdened system, and leads family members to ask providers whether the drug is “still working” (a common question I hear in patients taking any one of the current symptomatic medications).
We need a major breakthrough, and reducing disease progression a little bit is not a major breakthrough. It may even be something worse.
Dr. Richard J. Caselli is associate director and clinical core director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Center at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz.
Solanezumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets amyloid plaques, did not slow cognitive decline in patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease.
Although the drug did reduce soluble amyloid beta by 40%, compared with placebo, that change did not translate into a clinically meaningful cognitive benefit, Eric Siemers, MD, said in a press briefing called by Eli Lilly & Co., which manufactures solanezumab. The company did not release specific cognitive data from the highly anticipated Expedition 3 trial, except to say that changes on the ADAS-Cog14 (Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale-14), the main cognitive endpoint, had a nonsignificant P value of 0.095 [Corection: Changed from 0.95 in original posting]. Functional data were also withheld.
The entire clinical picture won’t emerge until Dec. 8, when Lilly presents full data at the annual Clinical Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease meeting in San Diego. But, in the meantime, Dr. Siemers did say that Lilly won’t be pursuing a Food and Drug Administration New Drug Application for solanezumab as a disease-modifying therapy for mild Alzheimer’s. However, it’s not the end of the road for solanezumab. Lilly is still investigating it in ExpeditionPro, a trial which will employ the antibody in patients with prodromal AD.
Solanezumab is also part of two very important public/private partnership studies: The Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s study (A4 study), investigating its effect in cognitively healthy elders with Alzheimer’s risk factors, and the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer’s Network (DIAN) study of patients with autosomal dominant mutations in Alzheimer’s genes.
It’s unclear what impact the failed Expedition 3 could have on those, Dr. Siemers said. “These studies are also funded by the National Institute on Aging in collaboration with academic institutions, so we will need to sort through the data very carefully and speak with our academic colleagues before making any decisions on this.”
If solanezumab was successful in either one of those trials – if they continue – Lilly could still apply for approval in those patient groups, Dr. Siemers noted.
The results are disappointing, but not entirely unexpected in the research community. Many felt that Expedition 3 was founded on shaky clinical ground from the start. The study was based on subgroup analyses of Expedition 1 and Expedition 2, both of which failed to meet their primary endpoints in patients with mild-moderate AD. But when researchers pooled both groups of mild patients, they found that solanezumab conferred a 34% slowing of cognitive decline in one cognitive measure, the ADAS-Cog14. This translated to a clinical change of less than 2 points on the scale, however.
Lilly very carefully drafted Expedition 3 to come as close to recreating those findings as possible, said Lon Schneider, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“By taking the ideal patients from two studies and combining them as if they were from one study, Lilly predicted that they could find a 1.5-2.0 point [Correction: Changed from 1.5 in original posting] difference in one particular outcome, the ADAS-Cog14, [Correction: the ADAS-Cog14 not included in previous posting] in a study of more than 2,000 patients,” Dr. Schneider said in an interview.
This is the research equivalent of Heraclitus’ adage that one can never step in the same river twice: These could never be the same patients, from the same places, at the same time, with the same clinical picture, Dr. Schneider said – especially since Expedition 3 had a purified cohort of only amyloid-positive patients, while close to 25% of patients in the earlier studies probably had no brain amyloid at all.
“This is what happens when we rely on subanalysis to create drug trials. We slice it and dice it until we find some patients for whom the drug is better than placebo, and then say, ‘We have a winner.’ ” Even in the best-case scenario, he said, Expedition 3 would have found only the same modest benefit as its predecessors. “Then we would be in the difficult situation of saying we have a disease-modifying therapy that is associated with only very small clinical changes.”
Dr. Siemers rejected the idea that Expedition 3’s failure is another nail in the coffin of the amyloid hypothesis, or at least in the idea that taming amyloid can prevent dementia or rescue cognition. “You can’t disprove a hypothesis based on one study done in patients with mild dementia,” he said.
Dennis Selkoe, PhD, the Vincent and Stella Coates Professor of Neurologic Diseases at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said Expedition’s failure does not negate the amyloid hypothesis or the appropriateness of amyloid as a therapeutic target.
“Like others, I am disappointed for our patients that solanezumab failed to meet its clinical endpoint by just a little bit. But it is not truly surprising, as this drug was always known to be a ‘weak’ antibody in terms of its ability to mobilize amyloid from the brain,” he said in an interview.
Research into antiamyloid therapies should continue, he said.
“This outcome does nothing to alter the overwhelming genetic, neuropathological and biomarker evidence that amyloid beta protein buildup acts to precipitate the AD process, and it also does not alter the potential promise of current agents in trials: Merck’s beta secretase inhibitor and Biogen’s aducanumab antibody, which appears to be much more effective in mobilizing amyloid beta. Other approaches, in addition to antiamyloid agents, are very much desired and are gradually moving forward, which is good news. But for the time being, antiamyloid treatments will be those most examined in trials, for scientifically and technically sound reasons.”
Dr. Schneider has served as a consultant for Eli Lilly & Co in the past. Dr. Selkoe is a founding scientist and director of Elan Pharmaceuticals.
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
Solanezumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets amyloid plaques, did not slow cognitive decline in patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease.
Although the drug did reduce soluble amyloid beta by 40%, compared with placebo, that change did not translate into a clinically meaningful cognitive benefit, Eric Siemers, MD, said in a press briefing called by Eli Lilly & Co., which manufactures solanezumab. The company did not release specific cognitive data from the highly anticipated Expedition 3 trial, except to say that changes on the ADAS-Cog14 (Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale-14), the main cognitive endpoint, had a nonsignificant P value of 0.095 [Corection: Changed from 0.95 in original posting]. Functional data were also withheld.
The entire clinical picture won’t emerge until Dec. 8, when Lilly presents full data at the annual Clinical Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease meeting in San Diego. But, in the meantime, Dr. Siemers did say that Lilly won’t be pursuing a Food and Drug Administration New Drug Application for solanezumab as a disease-modifying therapy for mild Alzheimer’s. However, it’s not the end of the road for solanezumab. Lilly is still investigating it in ExpeditionPro, a trial which will employ the antibody in patients with prodromal AD.
Solanezumab is also part of two very important public/private partnership studies: The Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s study (A4 study), investigating its effect in cognitively healthy elders with Alzheimer’s risk factors, and the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer’s Network (DIAN) study of patients with autosomal dominant mutations in Alzheimer’s genes.
It’s unclear what impact the failed Expedition 3 could have on those, Dr. Siemers said. “These studies are also funded by the National Institute on Aging in collaboration with academic institutions, so we will need to sort through the data very carefully and speak with our academic colleagues before making any decisions on this.”
If solanezumab was successful in either one of those trials – if they continue – Lilly could still apply for approval in those patient groups, Dr. Siemers noted.
The results are disappointing, but not entirely unexpected in the research community. Many felt that Expedition 3 was founded on shaky clinical ground from the start. The study was based on subgroup analyses of Expedition 1 and Expedition 2, both of which failed to meet their primary endpoints in patients with mild-moderate AD. But when researchers pooled both groups of mild patients, they found that solanezumab conferred a 34% slowing of cognitive decline in one cognitive measure, the ADAS-Cog14. This translated to a clinical change of less than 2 points on the scale, however.
Lilly very carefully drafted Expedition 3 to come as close to recreating those findings as possible, said Lon Schneider, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“By taking the ideal patients from two studies and combining them as if they were from one study, Lilly predicted that they could find a 1.5-2.0 point [Correction: Changed from 1.5 in original posting] difference in one particular outcome, the ADAS-Cog14, [Correction: the ADAS-Cog14 not included in previous posting] in a study of more than 2,000 patients,” Dr. Schneider said in an interview.
This is the research equivalent of Heraclitus’ adage that one can never step in the same river twice: These could never be the same patients, from the same places, at the same time, with the same clinical picture, Dr. Schneider said – especially since Expedition 3 had a purified cohort of only amyloid-positive patients, while close to 25% of patients in the earlier studies probably had no brain amyloid at all.
“This is what happens when we rely on subanalysis to create drug trials. We slice it and dice it until we find some patients for whom the drug is better than placebo, and then say, ‘We have a winner.’ ” Even in the best-case scenario, he said, Expedition 3 would have found only the same modest benefit as its predecessors. “Then we would be in the difficult situation of saying we have a disease-modifying therapy that is associated with only very small clinical changes.”
Dr. Siemers rejected the idea that Expedition 3’s failure is another nail in the coffin of the amyloid hypothesis, or at least in the idea that taming amyloid can prevent dementia or rescue cognition. “You can’t disprove a hypothesis based on one study done in patients with mild dementia,” he said.
Dennis Selkoe, PhD, the Vincent and Stella Coates Professor of Neurologic Diseases at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said Expedition’s failure does not negate the amyloid hypothesis or the appropriateness of amyloid as a therapeutic target.
“Like others, I am disappointed for our patients that solanezumab failed to meet its clinical endpoint by just a little bit. But it is not truly surprising, as this drug was always known to be a ‘weak’ antibody in terms of its ability to mobilize amyloid from the brain,” he said in an interview.
Research into antiamyloid therapies should continue, he said.
“This outcome does nothing to alter the overwhelming genetic, neuropathological and biomarker evidence that amyloid beta protein buildup acts to precipitate the AD process, and it also does not alter the potential promise of current agents in trials: Merck’s beta secretase inhibitor and Biogen’s aducanumab antibody, which appears to be much more effective in mobilizing amyloid beta. Other approaches, in addition to antiamyloid agents, are very much desired and are gradually moving forward, which is good news. But for the time being, antiamyloid treatments will be those most examined in trials, for scientifically and technically sound reasons.”
Dr. Schneider has served as a consultant for Eli Lilly & Co in the past. Dr. Selkoe is a founding scientist and director of Elan Pharmaceuticals.
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Specific clinical data were not released.
Data source: The 18-month–long Expedition 3 study randomized 2,100 patients with imaging-proven amyloid plaques to either placebo or 400-mg solanezumab every 4 weeks.
Disclosures: Eli Lilly & Co. manufactures solanezumab. Dr. Siemers is an employee of the company.
Conference News Roundup—American Heart Association
Childhood Adversity Is Linked to Blood Pressure Dysfunction
A difficult childhood may be associated with a risk of poor blood pressure regulation, researchers reported. In some studies, blood pressure variability has been associated with an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease and complications from hypertension.
Researchers at the Augusta University Medical College of Georgia investigated the effect of adverse childhood experiences (eg, childhood abuse or neglect, dysfunctional homes, or low socioeconomic status) during the transition from childhood to adulthood. Earlier research has linked adverse childhood experiences to faster increase of blood pressure in adulthood.
The investigators conducted periodic around-the-clock blood pressure monitoring to capture daytime and nighttime readings in 373 participants between the ages of 7 and 38 during a 23-year period. Participants who reported childhood adversity were 17% more likely to have blood pressure that was higher than the clinical definition of hypertension during the daytime.
"Adverse environments in early life have been consistently associated with the increased risk of hypertension in later life," said Shaoyong Su, PhD, lead author and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Augusta University Medical College of Georgia. "We found that children who experienced childhood abuse or neglect, dysfunctional homes, and low socioeconomic status were far more likely to have higher blood pressure at night, as well as blood pressure variability over 24 hours, in addition to more rapid onset of hypertension at an earlier age."
Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure is considered a better predictor of organ damage and cardiovascular events because it can assess not only nighttime blood pressure levels, but also the blood pressure variability in real life. Blood pressure was monitored as many as 15 times during the study.
Researchers said that there was no difference in blood pressure regulation at various ages, thus suggesting that the patterns of adverse events in childhood are similar through young adulthood.
Most physicians focus on average blood pressure readings, but the new findings suggest that they should also ask younger patients about childhood adversity and watch for high blood pressure variability, noted Dr. Su. "This is not something most clinicians currently address, but it is a simple step that could identify many individuals at risk of adult hypertension and help them achieve control at an earlier age. This could avoid problems as they age," he added.
Blood pressure variability has been linked to various problems in adults, including decreased brain function in older adults, increased risk of stroke, and poorer post-stroke recovery. Likewise, early-onset hypertension and prehypertension have been linked to adverse preclinical cardiovascular disease, including left ventricular hypertrophy and evidence of increased arterial stiffness.
The current study was funded by the NIH and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute.
Poor Sleep May Increase Risk for Irregular Heart Rhythms
Disruptions in sleep may increase the risk of atrial fibrillation, according to preliminary research. Obstructive sleep apnea, sleep interrupted by pauses in breathing, is a known risk factor for atrial fibrillation, which can lead to stroke, heart failure, and other heart-related complications. But whether there is a relationship between disrupted sleep and atrial fibrillation in the absence of sleep apnea is unclear.
Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco examined three sources of data, each using a different approach, to isolate and confirm the effects of poor sleep on atrial fibrillation. Their analyses of these studies showed that disrupted sleep, including insomnia, may be independently associated with atrial fibrillation. People who reported frequent nighttime awakening had an approximately 26% higher risk of developing atrial fibrillation, compared with those who did not wake up many times. In addition, people diagnosed with insomnia had a 29% higher risk of developing atrial fibrillation, compared with those without insomnia.
"The idea that these three studies gave us consistent results was exciting," said lead study author Matt Christensen, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Past research has shown a link between poor sleep among people with atrial fibrillation. This study, however, focused on people whose pre-existing sleep disruptions were associated with developing atrial fibrillation later in life.
The data sources included the Health eHeart Study, an Internet-based cross-sectional study of more than 4,600 people; the Cardiovascular Health Study, an 11-year longitudinal study of more than 5,700 people, of whom almost 1,600 (28%) developed atrial fibrillation; and the California Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, a hospital-based database spanning five years and covering almost 14 million patients.
In all three studies, researchers adjusted for the effects of obstructive sleep apnea and atrial fibrillation risk factors that might also be related to sleep. Some of those factors were age, sex, race, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart failure, and smoking.
In a separate analysis, the same researchers reviewed a subset of participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study to understand the effect of sleep disruptions during different sleep phases on the risk of atrial fibrillation in patients without obstructive sleep apnea. The analysis showed that having less REM sleep than other sleep phases during the night is linked to a higher likelihood of developing atrial fibrillation.
"By examining the actual characteristics of sleep, such as how much REM sleep you get, it points us toward a more plausible mechanism. There could be something particular about how sleep impacts the autonomic nervous system," said Mr. Christensen.
Another possible explanation for the link between sleep disruptions and atrial fibrillation is that frequent waking puts extra stress on the heart's chambers, said Mr. Christensen. Participants in this analysis were also enrolled in the Sleep Heart Health Study. They had a formal sleep study to objectively measure sleep quality. That element strengthened the study's conclusions because it did not rely on self-reported data, said Mr. Christensen.
In this analysis, 1,131 people (average age, 77) participated in a study with almost 10 years of follow-up. Researchers measured how long participants slept, how well they slept, how long it took to fall asleep, and the patterns of sleep (ie, how much time was spent in REM sleep vs non-REM sleep). Then they analyzed the sleep disruptions' effects to control the effects of age, sex, race, smoking, diabetes, high blood pressure, and other risk factors.
The exact link between sleep and the development of atrial fibrillation is still a mystery, but we are getting closer to a clear picture, said the study authors. "Ultimately, even without a clear understanding of the responsible mechanisms, we believe these findings suggest that strategies to enhance sleep quality, such as incorporating known techniques to improve sleep hygiene, may help prevent this important arrhythmia," said senior author Gregory Marcus, MD, MAS, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
Poor sleep is a known contributor to other heart disease risk factors such as high blood pressure, obesity, and stroke. Getting enough physical activity, avoiding too much caffeine, and having an evening routine are good starting tips for sound sleep, said the researchers.
This study was funded in part by the Sarnoff Cardiovascular Research Foundation, the NIH, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Popular Heartburn Medication May Increase Ischemic Stroke Risk
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), which are used to reduce stomach acid and treat heartburn, may increase the risk of ischemic stroke, according to preliminary research. "PPIs have been associated with unhealthy vascular function, including heart attacks, kidney disease and dementia," said Thomas Sehested, MD, lead author and a researcher at the Danish Heart Foundation in Copenhagen. "We wanted to see if PPIs also posed a risk for ischemic stroke, especially given their increasing use in the general population."
Researchers analyzed the records of 244,679 Danish patients (average age, 57) who had an endoscopy. During nearly six years of follow up, 9,489 patients had an ischemic stroke for the first time in their lives. Researchers determined whether the stroke occurred while patients were using one of the following four PPIs: omeprazole, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, and esomeprazole.
For ischemic stroke, researchers found that overall stroke risk increased by 21% when patients were taking a PPI. At the lowest doses of the PPIs, the researchers found slight or no increased stroke risk. At the highest dose of these four PPIs, stroke risk increased by amounts ranging from 30% percent for lansoprazole to 94% for pantoprazole. There was no increased risk of stroke associated with another group of acid-reducing medications known as H2 blockers, which includes famotidine and ranitidine.
In comparison with nonusers, users of PPI were older and had more health conditions, including atrial fibrillation, at baseline (3.4% vs 3.8%). The study accounted for age, gender, and medical factors, including high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and the use of certain pain relievers that have been linked to heart attack and stroke.
The authors believe that their findings, along with those of previous studies, should encourage more cautious use of PPIs. Most PPIs in the United States are now available over the counter, noted Dr. Sehested. "At one time, PPIs were thought to be safe, without major side effects. This study further questions the cardiovascular safety of these drugs."
Although their study did not find a link between H2 blockers and stroke, the authors could not say that this group of drugs would be better for patients than PPIs. Doctors prescribing PPIs should carefully consider whether their use is warranted and for how long, said Dr. Sehested. "We know from prior studies that a lot of individuals are using PPIs for a much longer time than indicated, which is especially true for elderly patients."
Study limitations include an observational design, which cannot establish cause and effect, and the fact that nearly all the participants were white. Authors believe that a randomized controlled trial of PPIs and cardiovascular disease is warranted. This study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation.
Catheter Ablations Reduce Risks of Recurrent Stroke
Patients with atrial fibrillation and a prior history of stroke who undergo catheter ablation to treat the abnormal heart rhythm lower their long-term risk of a recurrent stroke by 50%, according to research from the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute.
When medications are not successful in treating the arrhythmia, catheter ablations are used to create scar tissue in the upper left atrium of the heart that prevents rapid, chaotic electric currents, often from the pulmonary veins, from causing the abnormal rhythm.
"One of the most devastating complications of atrial fibrillation is a stroke, and its prevention is the treatment cornerstone of the abnormal heart rhythm," said Jared Bunch, MD, lead author of the study and Director of Electrophysiology at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City. "Patients that have a prior history of stroke have a much greater risk of recurrent strokes. Our new research shows [that] the more successful we are in treating the abnormal rhythm through the process required with catheter ablation, the better chance we have of lowering a patient's long-term risk of stroke."
The Intermountain study compared a group of 140 patients, who had a prior history of stroke and underwent their first catheter ablation, with two other patient groups, both of which also had a prior history of stroke, including 416 patients with atrial fibrillation who did not receive a catheter ablation, and 416 patients with stroke who did not have atrial fibrillation. The patients were followed for five years and observed for recurrent outcomes of stroke, heart failure, and death.
The five-year risk of patients having another stroke was decreased in the patients who had a catheter ablation to treat atrial fibrillation, compared with the group that had no catheter ablation to treat their abnormal heart rhythm. The stroke rates of patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent an ablation procedure were similar to those of patients with no history of atrial fibrillation.
"One of the most important findings of this study was that stroke rates in patients that underwent an ablation were similar to [those of] patients with no history of atrial fibrillation. This suggests that our management approach can alter some of the negative effects and natural history of atrial fibrillation. As physicians, we spend a lot of our time and energy trying to prevent stroke. This study helps us understand better how our management approaches can alter stroke risk," said Dr. Bunch. "Our research shows that more aggressive treatment of atrial fibrillation by using catheter ablations will reduce the chances [that] a person will have a life-threatening stroke."
Migraine Increases Cardiovascular Risk in Women With Symptoms of Ischemic Heart Disease
Among women being evaluated for ischemic heart disease, those who reported a history of migraine headaches have an increased risk of future cardiovascular (CV) event. This finding is primarily driven by the more than twofold increased risk of stroke.
Data regarding the association between migraine headaches and CV events in women have been inconsistent. Cecil A. Rambarat, MD, a resident at the University of Florida in Gainesville, and colleagues conducted a study to determine the long-term risk of CV events among women with and without migraine headaches who were evaluated for suspected ischemic heart disease in the Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Study.
Women reporting a history of migraine headache were identified from the WISE cohort. Extended follow-up data were available, for a median follow-up of six years. Cox proportional adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were constructed for time to first adverse CV event (ie, CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], heart failure hospitalization, or nonfatal stroke) among women with and without migraine headaches. In addition, HRs were determined for each event separately, as well as for all-cause death, angina hospitalization, death or MI, and CV death or MI.
Data on self-reported migraine headaches were available for 917 women. A total of 224 (24.4%) women reported a history of migraine headaches. Compared with those who did not report a history of migraines, women with a history of migraine headaches had an increased adjusted risk of CV events (HR, 1.83) at a median follow-up of six years. This result was mainly due to an increase in the risk of stroke (HR, 2.33).
The variables for which Dr. Rambarat and colleagues adjusted the data included age, race, BMI, history of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, family history of coronary artery disease, WISE coronary artery disease severity score, and aspirin use.
Childhood Adversity Is Linked to Blood Pressure Dysfunction
A difficult childhood may be associated with a risk of poor blood pressure regulation, researchers reported. In some studies, blood pressure variability has been associated with an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease and complications from hypertension.
Researchers at the Augusta University Medical College of Georgia investigated the effect of adverse childhood experiences (eg, childhood abuse or neglect, dysfunctional homes, or low socioeconomic status) during the transition from childhood to adulthood. Earlier research has linked adverse childhood experiences to faster increase of blood pressure in adulthood.
The investigators conducted periodic around-the-clock blood pressure monitoring to capture daytime and nighttime readings in 373 participants between the ages of 7 and 38 during a 23-year period. Participants who reported childhood adversity were 17% more likely to have blood pressure that was higher than the clinical definition of hypertension during the daytime.
"Adverse environments in early life have been consistently associated with the increased risk of hypertension in later life," said Shaoyong Su, PhD, lead author and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Augusta University Medical College of Georgia. "We found that children who experienced childhood abuse or neglect, dysfunctional homes, and low socioeconomic status were far more likely to have higher blood pressure at night, as well as blood pressure variability over 24 hours, in addition to more rapid onset of hypertension at an earlier age."
Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure is considered a better predictor of organ damage and cardiovascular events because it can assess not only nighttime blood pressure levels, but also the blood pressure variability in real life. Blood pressure was monitored as many as 15 times during the study.
Researchers said that there was no difference in blood pressure regulation at various ages, thus suggesting that the patterns of adverse events in childhood are similar through young adulthood.
Most physicians focus on average blood pressure readings, but the new findings suggest that they should also ask younger patients about childhood adversity and watch for high blood pressure variability, noted Dr. Su. "This is not something most clinicians currently address, but it is a simple step that could identify many individuals at risk of adult hypertension and help them achieve control at an earlier age. This could avoid problems as they age," he added.
Blood pressure variability has been linked to various problems in adults, including decreased brain function in older adults, increased risk of stroke, and poorer post-stroke recovery. Likewise, early-onset hypertension and prehypertension have been linked to adverse preclinical cardiovascular disease, including left ventricular hypertrophy and evidence of increased arterial stiffness.
The current study was funded by the NIH and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute.
Poor Sleep May Increase Risk for Irregular Heart Rhythms
Disruptions in sleep may increase the risk of atrial fibrillation, according to preliminary research. Obstructive sleep apnea, sleep interrupted by pauses in breathing, is a known risk factor for atrial fibrillation, which can lead to stroke, heart failure, and other heart-related complications. But whether there is a relationship between disrupted sleep and atrial fibrillation in the absence of sleep apnea is unclear.
Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco examined three sources of data, each using a different approach, to isolate and confirm the effects of poor sleep on atrial fibrillation. Their analyses of these studies showed that disrupted sleep, including insomnia, may be independently associated with atrial fibrillation. People who reported frequent nighttime awakening had an approximately 26% higher risk of developing atrial fibrillation, compared with those who did not wake up many times. In addition, people diagnosed with insomnia had a 29% higher risk of developing atrial fibrillation, compared with those without insomnia.
"The idea that these three studies gave us consistent results was exciting," said lead study author Matt Christensen, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Past research has shown a link between poor sleep among people with atrial fibrillation. This study, however, focused on people whose pre-existing sleep disruptions were associated with developing atrial fibrillation later in life.
The data sources included the Health eHeart Study, an Internet-based cross-sectional study of more than 4,600 people; the Cardiovascular Health Study, an 11-year longitudinal study of more than 5,700 people, of whom almost 1,600 (28%) developed atrial fibrillation; and the California Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, a hospital-based database spanning five years and covering almost 14 million patients.
In all three studies, researchers adjusted for the effects of obstructive sleep apnea and atrial fibrillation risk factors that might also be related to sleep. Some of those factors were age, sex, race, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart failure, and smoking.
In a separate analysis, the same researchers reviewed a subset of participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study to understand the effect of sleep disruptions during different sleep phases on the risk of atrial fibrillation in patients without obstructive sleep apnea. The analysis showed that having less REM sleep than other sleep phases during the night is linked to a higher likelihood of developing atrial fibrillation.
"By examining the actual characteristics of sleep, such as how much REM sleep you get, it points us toward a more plausible mechanism. There could be something particular about how sleep impacts the autonomic nervous system," said Mr. Christensen.
Another possible explanation for the link between sleep disruptions and atrial fibrillation is that frequent waking puts extra stress on the heart's chambers, said Mr. Christensen. Participants in this analysis were also enrolled in the Sleep Heart Health Study. They had a formal sleep study to objectively measure sleep quality. That element strengthened the study's conclusions because it did not rely on self-reported data, said Mr. Christensen.
In this analysis, 1,131 people (average age, 77) participated in a study with almost 10 years of follow-up. Researchers measured how long participants slept, how well they slept, how long it took to fall asleep, and the patterns of sleep (ie, how much time was spent in REM sleep vs non-REM sleep). Then they analyzed the sleep disruptions' effects to control the effects of age, sex, race, smoking, diabetes, high blood pressure, and other risk factors.
The exact link between sleep and the development of atrial fibrillation is still a mystery, but we are getting closer to a clear picture, said the study authors. "Ultimately, even without a clear understanding of the responsible mechanisms, we believe these findings suggest that strategies to enhance sleep quality, such as incorporating known techniques to improve sleep hygiene, may help prevent this important arrhythmia," said senior author Gregory Marcus, MD, MAS, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
Poor sleep is a known contributor to other heart disease risk factors such as high blood pressure, obesity, and stroke. Getting enough physical activity, avoiding too much caffeine, and having an evening routine are good starting tips for sound sleep, said the researchers.
This study was funded in part by the Sarnoff Cardiovascular Research Foundation, the NIH, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Popular Heartburn Medication May Increase Ischemic Stroke Risk
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), which are used to reduce stomach acid and treat heartburn, may increase the risk of ischemic stroke, according to preliminary research. "PPIs have been associated with unhealthy vascular function, including heart attacks, kidney disease and dementia," said Thomas Sehested, MD, lead author and a researcher at the Danish Heart Foundation in Copenhagen. "We wanted to see if PPIs also posed a risk for ischemic stroke, especially given their increasing use in the general population."
Researchers analyzed the records of 244,679 Danish patients (average age, 57) who had an endoscopy. During nearly six years of follow up, 9,489 patients had an ischemic stroke for the first time in their lives. Researchers determined whether the stroke occurred while patients were using one of the following four PPIs: omeprazole, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, and esomeprazole.
For ischemic stroke, researchers found that overall stroke risk increased by 21% when patients were taking a PPI. At the lowest doses of the PPIs, the researchers found slight or no increased stroke risk. At the highest dose of these four PPIs, stroke risk increased by amounts ranging from 30% percent for lansoprazole to 94% for pantoprazole. There was no increased risk of stroke associated with another group of acid-reducing medications known as H2 blockers, which includes famotidine and ranitidine.
In comparison with nonusers, users of PPI were older and had more health conditions, including atrial fibrillation, at baseline (3.4% vs 3.8%). The study accounted for age, gender, and medical factors, including high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and the use of certain pain relievers that have been linked to heart attack and stroke.
The authors believe that their findings, along with those of previous studies, should encourage more cautious use of PPIs. Most PPIs in the United States are now available over the counter, noted Dr. Sehested. "At one time, PPIs were thought to be safe, without major side effects. This study further questions the cardiovascular safety of these drugs."
Although their study did not find a link between H2 blockers and stroke, the authors could not say that this group of drugs would be better for patients than PPIs. Doctors prescribing PPIs should carefully consider whether their use is warranted and for how long, said Dr. Sehested. "We know from prior studies that a lot of individuals are using PPIs for a much longer time than indicated, which is especially true for elderly patients."
Study limitations include an observational design, which cannot establish cause and effect, and the fact that nearly all the participants were white. Authors believe that a randomized controlled trial of PPIs and cardiovascular disease is warranted. This study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation.
Catheter Ablations Reduce Risks of Recurrent Stroke
Patients with atrial fibrillation and a prior history of stroke who undergo catheter ablation to treat the abnormal heart rhythm lower their long-term risk of a recurrent stroke by 50%, according to research from the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute.
When medications are not successful in treating the arrhythmia, catheter ablations are used to create scar tissue in the upper left atrium of the heart that prevents rapid, chaotic electric currents, often from the pulmonary veins, from causing the abnormal rhythm.
"One of the most devastating complications of atrial fibrillation is a stroke, and its prevention is the treatment cornerstone of the abnormal heart rhythm," said Jared Bunch, MD, lead author of the study and Director of Electrophysiology at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City. "Patients that have a prior history of stroke have a much greater risk of recurrent strokes. Our new research shows [that] the more successful we are in treating the abnormal rhythm through the process required with catheter ablation, the better chance we have of lowering a patient's long-term risk of stroke."
The Intermountain study compared a group of 140 patients, who had a prior history of stroke and underwent their first catheter ablation, with two other patient groups, both of which also had a prior history of stroke, including 416 patients with atrial fibrillation who did not receive a catheter ablation, and 416 patients with stroke who did not have atrial fibrillation. The patients were followed for five years and observed for recurrent outcomes of stroke, heart failure, and death.
The five-year risk of patients having another stroke was decreased in the patients who had a catheter ablation to treat atrial fibrillation, compared with the group that had no catheter ablation to treat their abnormal heart rhythm. The stroke rates of patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent an ablation procedure were similar to those of patients with no history of atrial fibrillation.
"One of the most important findings of this study was that stroke rates in patients that underwent an ablation were similar to [those of] patients with no history of atrial fibrillation. This suggests that our management approach can alter some of the negative effects and natural history of atrial fibrillation. As physicians, we spend a lot of our time and energy trying to prevent stroke. This study helps us understand better how our management approaches can alter stroke risk," said Dr. Bunch. "Our research shows that more aggressive treatment of atrial fibrillation by using catheter ablations will reduce the chances [that] a person will have a life-threatening stroke."
Migraine Increases Cardiovascular Risk in Women With Symptoms of Ischemic Heart Disease
Among women being evaluated for ischemic heart disease, those who reported a history of migraine headaches have an increased risk of future cardiovascular (CV) event. This finding is primarily driven by the more than twofold increased risk of stroke.
Data regarding the association between migraine headaches and CV events in women have been inconsistent. Cecil A. Rambarat, MD, a resident at the University of Florida in Gainesville, and colleagues conducted a study to determine the long-term risk of CV events among women with and without migraine headaches who were evaluated for suspected ischemic heart disease in the Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Study.
Women reporting a history of migraine headache were identified from the WISE cohort. Extended follow-up data were available, for a median follow-up of six years. Cox proportional adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were constructed for time to first adverse CV event (ie, CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], heart failure hospitalization, or nonfatal stroke) among women with and without migraine headaches. In addition, HRs were determined for each event separately, as well as for all-cause death, angina hospitalization, death or MI, and CV death or MI.
Data on self-reported migraine headaches were available for 917 women. A total of 224 (24.4%) women reported a history of migraine headaches. Compared with those who did not report a history of migraines, women with a history of migraine headaches had an increased adjusted risk of CV events (HR, 1.83) at a median follow-up of six years. This result was mainly due to an increase in the risk of stroke (HR, 2.33).
The variables for which Dr. Rambarat and colleagues adjusted the data included age, race, BMI, history of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, family history of coronary artery disease, WISE coronary artery disease severity score, and aspirin use.
Childhood Adversity Is Linked to Blood Pressure Dysfunction
A difficult childhood may be associated with a risk of poor blood pressure regulation, researchers reported. In some studies, blood pressure variability has been associated with an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease and complications from hypertension.
Researchers at the Augusta University Medical College of Georgia investigated the effect of adverse childhood experiences (eg, childhood abuse or neglect, dysfunctional homes, or low socioeconomic status) during the transition from childhood to adulthood. Earlier research has linked adverse childhood experiences to faster increase of blood pressure in adulthood.
The investigators conducted periodic around-the-clock blood pressure monitoring to capture daytime and nighttime readings in 373 participants between the ages of 7 and 38 during a 23-year period. Participants who reported childhood adversity were 17% more likely to have blood pressure that was higher than the clinical definition of hypertension during the daytime.
"Adverse environments in early life have been consistently associated with the increased risk of hypertension in later life," said Shaoyong Su, PhD, lead author and Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Augusta University Medical College of Georgia. "We found that children who experienced childhood abuse or neglect, dysfunctional homes, and low socioeconomic status were far more likely to have higher blood pressure at night, as well as blood pressure variability over 24 hours, in addition to more rapid onset of hypertension at an earlier age."
Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure is considered a better predictor of organ damage and cardiovascular events because it can assess not only nighttime blood pressure levels, but also the blood pressure variability in real life. Blood pressure was monitored as many as 15 times during the study.
Researchers said that there was no difference in blood pressure regulation at various ages, thus suggesting that the patterns of adverse events in childhood are similar through young adulthood.
Most physicians focus on average blood pressure readings, but the new findings suggest that they should also ask younger patients about childhood adversity and watch for high blood pressure variability, noted Dr. Su. "This is not something most clinicians currently address, but it is a simple step that could identify many individuals at risk of adult hypertension and help them achieve control at an earlier age. This could avoid problems as they age," he added.
Blood pressure variability has been linked to various problems in adults, including decreased brain function in older adults, increased risk of stroke, and poorer post-stroke recovery. Likewise, early-onset hypertension and prehypertension have been linked to adverse preclinical cardiovascular disease, including left ventricular hypertrophy and evidence of increased arterial stiffness.
The current study was funded by the NIH and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute.
Poor Sleep May Increase Risk for Irregular Heart Rhythms
Disruptions in sleep may increase the risk of atrial fibrillation, according to preliminary research. Obstructive sleep apnea, sleep interrupted by pauses in breathing, is a known risk factor for atrial fibrillation, which can lead to stroke, heart failure, and other heart-related complications. But whether there is a relationship between disrupted sleep and atrial fibrillation in the absence of sleep apnea is unclear.
Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco examined three sources of data, each using a different approach, to isolate and confirm the effects of poor sleep on atrial fibrillation. Their analyses of these studies showed that disrupted sleep, including insomnia, may be independently associated with atrial fibrillation. People who reported frequent nighttime awakening had an approximately 26% higher risk of developing atrial fibrillation, compared with those who did not wake up many times. In addition, people diagnosed with insomnia had a 29% higher risk of developing atrial fibrillation, compared with those without insomnia.
"The idea that these three studies gave us consistent results was exciting," said lead study author Matt Christensen, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Past research has shown a link between poor sleep among people with atrial fibrillation. This study, however, focused on people whose pre-existing sleep disruptions were associated with developing atrial fibrillation later in life.
The data sources included the Health eHeart Study, an Internet-based cross-sectional study of more than 4,600 people; the Cardiovascular Health Study, an 11-year longitudinal study of more than 5,700 people, of whom almost 1,600 (28%) developed atrial fibrillation; and the California Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, a hospital-based database spanning five years and covering almost 14 million patients.
In all three studies, researchers adjusted for the effects of obstructive sleep apnea and atrial fibrillation risk factors that might also be related to sleep. Some of those factors were age, sex, race, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart failure, and smoking.
In a separate analysis, the same researchers reviewed a subset of participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study to understand the effect of sleep disruptions during different sleep phases on the risk of atrial fibrillation in patients without obstructive sleep apnea. The analysis showed that having less REM sleep than other sleep phases during the night is linked to a higher likelihood of developing atrial fibrillation.
"By examining the actual characteristics of sleep, such as how much REM sleep you get, it points us toward a more plausible mechanism. There could be something particular about how sleep impacts the autonomic nervous system," said Mr. Christensen.
Another possible explanation for the link between sleep disruptions and atrial fibrillation is that frequent waking puts extra stress on the heart's chambers, said Mr. Christensen. Participants in this analysis were also enrolled in the Sleep Heart Health Study. They had a formal sleep study to objectively measure sleep quality. That element strengthened the study's conclusions because it did not rely on self-reported data, said Mr. Christensen.
In this analysis, 1,131 people (average age, 77) participated in a study with almost 10 years of follow-up. Researchers measured how long participants slept, how well they slept, how long it took to fall asleep, and the patterns of sleep (ie, how much time was spent in REM sleep vs non-REM sleep). Then they analyzed the sleep disruptions' effects to control the effects of age, sex, race, smoking, diabetes, high blood pressure, and other risk factors.
The exact link between sleep and the development of atrial fibrillation is still a mystery, but we are getting closer to a clear picture, said the study authors. "Ultimately, even without a clear understanding of the responsible mechanisms, we believe these findings suggest that strategies to enhance sleep quality, such as incorporating known techniques to improve sleep hygiene, may help prevent this important arrhythmia," said senior author Gregory Marcus, MD, MAS, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
Poor sleep is a known contributor to other heart disease risk factors such as high blood pressure, obesity, and stroke. Getting enough physical activity, avoiding too much caffeine, and having an evening routine are good starting tips for sound sleep, said the researchers.
This study was funded in part by the Sarnoff Cardiovascular Research Foundation, the NIH, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Popular Heartburn Medication May Increase Ischemic Stroke Risk
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), which are used to reduce stomach acid and treat heartburn, may increase the risk of ischemic stroke, according to preliminary research. "PPIs have been associated with unhealthy vascular function, including heart attacks, kidney disease and dementia," said Thomas Sehested, MD, lead author and a researcher at the Danish Heart Foundation in Copenhagen. "We wanted to see if PPIs also posed a risk for ischemic stroke, especially given their increasing use in the general population."
Researchers analyzed the records of 244,679 Danish patients (average age, 57) who had an endoscopy. During nearly six years of follow up, 9,489 patients had an ischemic stroke for the first time in their lives. Researchers determined whether the stroke occurred while patients were using one of the following four PPIs: omeprazole, pantoprazole, lansoprazole, and esomeprazole.
For ischemic stroke, researchers found that overall stroke risk increased by 21% when patients were taking a PPI. At the lowest doses of the PPIs, the researchers found slight or no increased stroke risk. At the highest dose of these four PPIs, stroke risk increased by amounts ranging from 30% percent for lansoprazole to 94% for pantoprazole. There was no increased risk of stroke associated with another group of acid-reducing medications known as H2 blockers, which includes famotidine and ranitidine.
In comparison with nonusers, users of PPI were older and had more health conditions, including atrial fibrillation, at baseline (3.4% vs 3.8%). The study accounted for age, gender, and medical factors, including high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and the use of certain pain relievers that have been linked to heart attack and stroke.
The authors believe that their findings, along with those of previous studies, should encourage more cautious use of PPIs. Most PPIs in the United States are now available over the counter, noted Dr. Sehested. "At one time, PPIs were thought to be safe, without major side effects. This study further questions the cardiovascular safety of these drugs."
Although their study did not find a link between H2 blockers and stroke, the authors could not say that this group of drugs would be better for patients than PPIs. Doctors prescribing PPIs should carefully consider whether their use is warranted and for how long, said Dr. Sehested. "We know from prior studies that a lot of individuals are using PPIs for a much longer time than indicated, which is especially true for elderly patients."
Study limitations include an observational design, which cannot establish cause and effect, and the fact that nearly all the participants were white. Authors believe that a randomized controlled trial of PPIs and cardiovascular disease is warranted. This study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation.
Catheter Ablations Reduce Risks of Recurrent Stroke
Patients with atrial fibrillation and a prior history of stroke who undergo catheter ablation to treat the abnormal heart rhythm lower their long-term risk of a recurrent stroke by 50%, according to research from the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute.
When medications are not successful in treating the arrhythmia, catheter ablations are used to create scar tissue in the upper left atrium of the heart that prevents rapid, chaotic electric currents, often from the pulmonary veins, from causing the abnormal rhythm.
"One of the most devastating complications of atrial fibrillation is a stroke, and its prevention is the treatment cornerstone of the abnormal heart rhythm," said Jared Bunch, MD, lead author of the study and Director of Electrophysiology at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City. "Patients that have a prior history of stroke have a much greater risk of recurrent strokes. Our new research shows [that] the more successful we are in treating the abnormal rhythm through the process required with catheter ablation, the better chance we have of lowering a patient's long-term risk of stroke."
The Intermountain study compared a group of 140 patients, who had a prior history of stroke and underwent their first catheter ablation, with two other patient groups, both of which also had a prior history of stroke, including 416 patients with atrial fibrillation who did not receive a catheter ablation, and 416 patients with stroke who did not have atrial fibrillation. The patients were followed for five years and observed for recurrent outcomes of stroke, heart failure, and death.
The five-year risk of patients having another stroke was decreased in the patients who had a catheter ablation to treat atrial fibrillation, compared with the group that had no catheter ablation to treat their abnormal heart rhythm. The stroke rates of patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent an ablation procedure were similar to those of patients with no history of atrial fibrillation.
"One of the most important findings of this study was that stroke rates in patients that underwent an ablation were similar to [those of] patients with no history of atrial fibrillation. This suggests that our management approach can alter some of the negative effects and natural history of atrial fibrillation. As physicians, we spend a lot of our time and energy trying to prevent stroke. This study helps us understand better how our management approaches can alter stroke risk," said Dr. Bunch. "Our research shows that more aggressive treatment of atrial fibrillation by using catheter ablations will reduce the chances [that] a person will have a life-threatening stroke."
Migraine Increases Cardiovascular Risk in Women With Symptoms of Ischemic Heart Disease
Among women being evaluated for ischemic heart disease, those who reported a history of migraine headaches have an increased risk of future cardiovascular (CV) event. This finding is primarily driven by the more than twofold increased risk of stroke.
Data regarding the association between migraine headaches and CV events in women have been inconsistent. Cecil A. Rambarat, MD, a resident at the University of Florida in Gainesville, and colleagues conducted a study to determine the long-term risk of CV events among women with and without migraine headaches who were evaluated for suspected ischemic heart disease in the Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Study.
Women reporting a history of migraine headache were identified from the WISE cohort. Extended follow-up data were available, for a median follow-up of six years. Cox proportional adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were constructed for time to first adverse CV event (ie, CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], heart failure hospitalization, or nonfatal stroke) among women with and without migraine headaches. In addition, HRs were determined for each event separately, as well as for all-cause death, angina hospitalization, death or MI, and CV death or MI.
Data on self-reported migraine headaches were available for 917 women. A total of 224 (24.4%) women reported a history of migraine headaches. Compared with those who did not report a history of migraines, women with a history of migraine headaches had an increased adjusted risk of CV events (HR, 1.83) at a median follow-up of six years. This result was mainly due to an increase in the risk of stroke (HR, 2.33).
The variables for which Dr. Rambarat and colleagues adjusted the data included age, race, BMI, history of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, family history of coronary artery disease, WISE coronary artery disease severity score, and aspirin use.
PPIs may boost ischemic stroke risk
NEW ORLEANS – The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) was associated with significantly increased risk of having a first ischemic stroke in a large nationwide Danish cohort study, Thomas S. Sehested, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The relationship was dose dependent. At the lowest available dose of each of the four PPIs studied there was no significantly increased risk. At the intermediate doses of three of the four PPIs studied, the increased risk of ischemic stroke became statistically significant. And the highest dose of each drug was associated with the greatest ischemic stroke risk.
In Denmark, for instance, where most PPIs are prescription only and use is easily trackable, it’s estimated that, at any given time, 7% of the adult population is taking a PPI, often not as directed in the labeling.
The impetus for this study, Dr. Sehested explained, was the mounting evidence that PPIs may constitute an independent risk factor for acute MI and other cardiovascular events. For example, a recent meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials totaling 7,540 participants published through mid-2015 concluded that the use of PPIs was associated with a 70% increase in cardiovascular risk (Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016 Aug 30. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12926).
He reported on 245,676 Danes above age 30 who were free of prior MI or stroke when they underwent elective GI endoscopy during 1997-2012. After a 30-day postendoscopy grace period during which 1,476 patients had a first MI, stroke, or died of any cause, the final study population was 244,200, of whom 43.7% were PPI users during the grace period and beyond.
During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 9,489 subjects (3.9%) had a first ischemic stroke. Because of the comprehensive nature of Denmark’s interlocking birth to death registries, there was virtually no loss to follow-up in this study.
The unadjusted incidence of ischemic stroke in PPI nonusers was 55.7 per 10,000 person-years, compared with 88.9 per 10,000 in PPI users.
The PPI users were slightly older than nonusers by roughly 3 years. They were also an absolute 5% more likely to be hypertensive and an absolute 1.7% more likely to be regular users of NSAIDs. All of these differences, while modest, were statistically significant because of the large patient numbers involved.
In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, calendar year, comorbid diabetes, hypertension, alcohol use disorder, heart failure, peptic ulcer, peripheral artery disease, kidney disease, aspirin, oral anticoagulants and other medications, and socioeconomic status, current users of PPIs were 19% more likely to have a first ischemic stroke than nonusers. That difference is statistically significant and clinically meaningful, Dr. Sehested said.
In contrast, when the same sort of nationwide analysis was repeated, comparing current users of histamine-2 receptor antagonists to nonusers of those drugs or PPIs, there was no difference in ischemic stroke risk between the two groups.
The message, according to Dr. Sehested, is that physicians should encourage more cautious use of PPIs. And especially in the United States, where most PPIs are available over the counter, it’s prudent during office visits to ask what nonprescription drugs a patient is taking.
Dr. Sehested presented his study findings in a session devoted to original research in cardiovascular epidemiology. Many top American epidemiologists were present in the audience, and several rose to congratulate him on his presentation of the latest elegant epidemiologic study to come out of Denmark, the only place in the world where this sort of nationwide comprehensive research is possible.
“Wow! I just love the work you do in Denmark. It’s really inspiring,” commented David Siscovick, MD, senior vice president for research at the New York Academy of Medicine and professor emeritus of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Washington in Seattle.
He had a question: “Did you deal with PPI starters and stoppers and compliance in any way?”
Dr. Sehested replied that he and his coinvestigators were able to see who was on a PPI at any given point in the study, and they accounted for that. One issue the researchers plan to examine but haven’t yet had a chance to, however, is the relationship between duration of PPI therapy and ischemic stroke risk. It’s likely that some patients had already been on a PPI for a lengthy time at elective endoscopy, which is when the study in its current form began.
“I think that would strengthen the study,” he said.
Comoderator Jorge Kizer, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, commented, “Confounding by indication is clearly the elephant in the room. The guidelines actually recommend adding a PPI if a patient is on dual-antiplatelet therapy and has an NSAID added. Did you adjust for that? It would boost confidence that the results are actually due to the PPI.”
Dr. Sehested answered that the great majority of individuals with cardiovascular disease at baseline were excluded from the analysis.
“I don’t think we had that many on dual-antiplatelet therapy,” he added.
Preclinical studies suggest a possible mechanism by which PPIs may harm cardiovascular health. The drugs reduce nitric oxide synthase levels, with resultant endothelial dysfunction, he said.
Dr. Sehested is employed at the Danish Heart Foundation, which funded the study.
A growing number of retrospective studies have associated proton pump inhibitors with a host of serious adverse effects. These include chronic kidney disease, dementia, osteoporosis, cardiovascular events, pneumonia, enteric infections, and others. The authors of this large, retrospective Danish study have now added ischemic stroke to the list.
Nonetheless, this study should serve as wake-up call to closely examine the risks and benefits of ongoing PPI use for each individual patient. For example, guidelines clearly advocate the use of PPIs in patients at high risk for peptic ulcer disease (for example, use of aspirin and warfarin together), and these patients should continue PPIs unless more convincing evidence of serious side effects emerge. On the other hand, several studies have shown that many patients with uncomplicated gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms can achieve symptom control with substitution of histamine2 blockers, p.r.n. dosing of PPIs, or without acid-reducing medications entirely. Still, many patients with confirmed pathologic acid reflux are likely to require ongoing PPIs. For patients who continue PPIs, they should use the lowest effective dose.
Surely, physicians will be discussing PPI adverse effects with increasing numbers of patients. Until higher-quality evidence in the form of a randomized controlled trial emerges, physicians should get used to explaining the principles of epidemiology.
Jacob Kurlander, MD, is a clinical lecturer in the division of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has received research funding from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals.
A growing number of retrospective studies have associated proton pump inhibitors with a host of serious adverse effects. These include chronic kidney disease, dementia, osteoporosis, cardiovascular events, pneumonia, enteric infections, and others. The authors of this large, retrospective Danish study have now added ischemic stroke to the list.
Nonetheless, this study should serve as wake-up call to closely examine the risks and benefits of ongoing PPI use for each individual patient. For example, guidelines clearly advocate the use of PPIs in patients at high risk for peptic ulcer disease (for example, use of aspirin and warfarin together), and these patients should continue PPIs unless more convincing evidence of serious side effects emerge. On the other hand, several studies have shown that many patients with uncomplicated gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms can achieve symptom control with substitution of histamine2 blockers, p.r.n. dosing of PPIs, or without acid-reducing medications entirely. Still, many patients with confirmed pathologic acid reflux are likely to require ongoing PPIs. For patients who continue PPIs, they should use the lowest effective dose.
Surely, physicians will be discussing PPI adverse effects with increasing numbers of patients. Until higher-quality evidence in the form of a randomized controlled trial emerges, physicians should get used to explaining the principles of epidemiology.
Jacob Kurlander, MD, is a clinical lecturer in the division of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has received research funding from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals.
A growing number of retrospective studies have associated proton pump inhibitors with a host of serious adverse effects. These include chronic kidney disease, dementia, osteoporosis, cardiovascular events, pneumonia, enteric infections, and others. The authors of this large, retrospective Danish study have now added ischemic stroke to the list.
Nonetheless, this study should serve as wake-up call to closely examine the risks and benefits of ongoing PPI use for each individual patient. For example, guidelines clearly advocate the use of PPIs in patients at high risk for peptic ulcer disease (for example, use of aspirin and warfarin together), and these patients should continue PPIs unless more convincing evidence of serious side effects emerge. On the other hand, several studies have shown that many patients with uncomplicated gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms can achieve symptom control with substitution of histamine2 blockers, p.r.n. dosing of PPIs, or without acid-reducing medications entirely. Still, many patients with confirmed pathologic acid reflux are likely to require ongoing PPIs. For patients who continue PPIs, they should use the lowest effective dose.
Surely, physicians will be discussing PPI adverse effects with increasing numbers of patients. Until higher-quality evidence in the form of a randomized controlled trial emerges, physicians should get used to explaining the principles of epidemiology.
Jacob Kurlander, MD, is a clinical lecturer in the division of gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has received research funding from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals.
NEW ORLEANS – The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) was associated with significantly increased risk of having a first ischemic stroke in a large nationwide Danish cohort study, Thomas S. Sehested, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The relationship was dose dependent. At the lowest available dose of each of the four PPIs studied there was no significantly increased risk. At the intermediate doses of three of the four PPIs studied, the increased risk of ischemic stroke became statistically significant. And the highest dose of each drug was associated with the greatest ischemic stroke risk.
In Denmark, for instance, where most PPIs are prescription only and use is easily trackable, it’s estimated that, at any given time, 7% of the adult population is taking a PPI, often not as directed in the labeling.
The impetus for this study, Dr. Sehested explained, was the mounting evidence that PPIs may constitute an independent risk factor for acute MI and other cardiovascular events. For example, a recent meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials totaling 7,540 participants published through mid-2015 concluded that the use of PPIs was associated with a 70% increase in cardiovascular risk (Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016 Aug 30. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12926).
He reported on 245,676 Danes above age 30 who were free of prior MI or stroke when they underwent elective GI endoscopy during 1997-2012. After a 30-day postendoscopy grace period during which 1,476 patients had a first MI, stroke, or died of any cause, the final study population was 244,200, of whom 43.7% were PPI users during the grace period and beyond.
During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 9,489 subjects (3.9%) had a first ischemic stroke. Because of the comprehensive nature of Denmark’s interlocking birth to death registries, there was virtually no loss to follow-up in this study.
The unadjusted incidence of ischemic stroke in PPI nonusers was 55.7 per 10,000 person-years, compared with 88.9 per 10,000 in PPI users.
The PPI users were slightly older than nonusers by roughly 3 years. They were also an absolute 5% more likely to be hypertensive and an absolute 1.7% more likely to be regular users of NSAIDs. All of these differences, while modest, were statistically significant because of the large patient numbers involved.
In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, calendar year, comorbid diabetes, hypertension, alcohol use disorder, heart failure, peptic ulcer, peripheral artery disease, kidney disease, aspirin, oral anticoagulants and other medications, and socioeconomic status, current users of PPIs were 19% more likely to have a first ischemic stroke than nonusers. That difference is statistically significant and clinically meaningful, Dr. Sehested said.
In contrast, when the same sort of nationwide analysis was repeated, comparing current users of histamine-2 receptor antagonists to nonusers of those drugs or PPIs, there was no difference in ischemic stroke risk between the two groups.
The message, according to Dr. Sehested, is that physicians should encourage more cautious use of PPIs. And especially in the United States, where most PPIs are available over the counter, it’s prudent during office visits to ask what nonprescription drugs a patient is taking.
Dr. Sehested presented his study findings in a session devoted to original research in cardiovascular epidemiology. Many top American epidemiologists were present in the audience, and several rose to congratulate him on his presentation of the latest elegant epidemiologic study to come out of Denmark, the only place in the world where this sort of nationwide comprehensive research is possible.
“Wow! I just love the work you do in Denmark. It’s really inspiring,” commented David Siscovick, MD, senior vice president for research at the New York Academy of Medicine and professor emeritus of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Washington in Seattle.
He had a question: “Did you deal with PPI starters and stoppers and compliance in any way?”
Dr. Sehested replied that he and his coinvestigators were able to see who was on a PPI at any given point in the study, and they accounted for that. One issue the researchers plan to examine but haven’t yet had a chance to, however, is the relationship between duration of PPI therapy and ischemic stroke risk. It’s likely that some patients had already been on a PPI for a lengthy time at elective endoscopy, which is when the study in its current form began.
“I think that would strengthen the study,” he said.
Comoderator Jorge Kizer, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, commented, “Confounding by indication is clearly the elephant in the room. The guidelines actually recommend adding a PPI if a patient is on dual-antiplatelet therapy and has an NSAID added. Did you adjust for that? It would boost confidence that the results are actually due to the PPI.”
Dr. Sehested answered that the great majority of individuals with cardiovascular disease at baseline were excluded from the analysis.
“I don’t think we had that many on dual-antiplatelet therapy,” he added.
Preclinical studies suggest a possible mechanism by which PPIs may harm cardiovascular health. The drugs reduce nitric oxide synthase levels, with resultant endothelial dysfunction, he said.
Dr. Sehested is employed at the Danish Heart Foundation, which funded the study.
NEW ORLEANS – The use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) was associated with significantly increased risk of having a first ischemic stroke in a large nationwide Danish cohort study, Thomas S. Sehested, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The relationship was dose dependent. At the lowest available dose of each of the four PPIs studied there was no significantly increased risk. At the intermediate doses of three of the four PPIs studied, the increased risk of ischemic stroke became statistically significant. And the highest dose of each drug was associated with the greatest ischemic stroke risk.
In Denmark, for instance, where most PPIs are prescription only and use is easily trackable, it’s estimated that, at any given time, 7% of the adult population is taking a PPI, often not as directed in the labeling.
The impetus for this study, Dr. Sehested explained, was the mounting evidence that PPIs may constitute an independent risk factor for acute MI and other cardiovascular events. For example, a recent meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials totaling 7,540 participants published through mid-2015 concluded that the use of PPIs was associated with a 70% increase in cardiovascular risk (Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016 Aug 30. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12926).
He reported on 245,676 Danes above age 30 who were free of prior MI or stroke when they underwent elective GI endoscopy during 1997-2012. After a 30-day postendoscopy grace period during which 1,476 patients had a first MI, stroke, or died of any cause, the final study population was 244,200, of whom 43.7% were PPI users during the grace period and beyond.
During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 9,489 subjects (3.9%) had a first ischemic stroke. Because of the comprehensive nature of Denmark’s interlocking birth to death registries, there was virtually no loss to follow-up in this study.
The unadjusted incidence of ischemic stroke in PPI nonusers was 55.7 per 10,000 person-years, compared with 88.9 per 10,000 in PPI users.
The PPI users were slightly older than nonusers by roughly 3 years. They were also an absolute 5% more likely to be hypertensive and an absolute 1.7% more likely to be regular users of NSAIDs. All of these differences, while modest, were statistically significant because of the large patient numbers involved.
In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, calendar year, comorbid diabetes, hypertension, alcohol use disorder, heart failure, peptic ulcer, peripheral artery disease, kidney disease, aspirin, oral anticoagulants and other medications, and socioeconomic status, current users of PPIs were 19% more likely to have a first ischemic stroke than nonusers. That difference is statistically significant and clinically meaningful, Dr. Sehested said.
In contrast, when the same sort of nationwide analysis was repeated, comparing current users of histamine-2 receptor antagonists to nonusers of those drugs or PPIs, there was no difference in ischemic stroke risk between the two groups.
The message, according to Dr. Sehested, is that physicians should encourage more cautious use of PPIs. And especially in the United States, where most PPIs are available over the counter, it’s prudent during office visits to ask what nonprescription drugs a patient is taking.
Dr. Sehested presented his study findings in a session devoted to original research in cardiovascular epidemiology. Many top American epidemiologists were present in the audience, and several rose to congratulate him on his presentation of the latest elegant epidemiologic study to come out of Denmark, the only place in the world where this sort of nationwide comprehensive research is possible.
“Wow! I just love the work you do in Denmark. It’s really inspiring,” commented David Siscovick, MD, senior vice president for research at the New York Academy of Medicine and professor emeritus of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Washington in Seattle.
He had a question: “Did you deal with PPI starters and stoppers and compliance in any way?”
Dr. Sehested replied that he and his coinvestigators were able to see who was on a PPI at any given point in the study, and they accounted for that. One issue the researchers plan to examine but haven’t yet had a chance to, however, is the relationship between duration of PPI therapy and ischemic stroke risk. It’s likely that some patients had already been on a PPI for a lengthy time at elective endoscopy, which is when the study in its current form began.
“I think that would strengthen the study,” he said.
Comoderator Jorge Kizer, MD, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, commented, “Confounding by indication is clearly the elephant in the room. The guidelines actually recommend adding a PPI if a patient is on dual-antiplatelet therapy and has an NSAID added. Did you adjust for that? It would boost confidence that the results are actually due to the PPI.”
Dr. Sehested answered that the great majority of individuals with cardiovascular disease at baseline were excluded from the analysis.
“I don’t think we had that many on dual-antiplatelet therapy,” he added.
Preclinical studies suggest a possible mechanism by which PPIs may harm cardiovascular health. The drugs reduce nitric oxide synthase levels, with resultant endothelial dysfunction, he said.
Dr. Sehested is employed at the Danish Heart Foundation, which funded the study.
AT THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Current use of a proton pump inhibitor was independently associated with a 19% increased risk of a first ischemic stroke, and the risk was greater at the top approved doses.
Data source: This retrospective nationwide Danish study involved 244,200 adults age 30 or older followed for a median of nearly 6 years following elective GI endoscopy.
Disclosures: The presenter is employed at the Danish Heart Foundation, which funded the study.