Team-based care for adolescent depression is cost effective in the long run, and easily meets the most rigid of third-party payer payment thresholds, a study found.

In a randomized, controlled, multisite study, 105 adolescents aged 13-17 years who screened positive for depression in the ROAD (Reaching Out to Adolescents in Distress) trial were given care as usual in a primary care setting or collaborative evidence-based treatment (with antidepressants, psychotherapy or both) plus regular follow-up with a behavioral health specialist. Controls were given their depression screening results and told they could access mental health services from a large health care network at their discretion. Non–English speaking teens, those already in psychiatric care, those with a bipolar or substance misuse diagnosis, and those with a suicide plan or a recent history of attempt were excluded. Ultimately, 101 youths completed the study, with 50 receiving the study intervention, said Davene R.Wright, PhD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, and associates (JAMA Pediatr. 2016. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1721).

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The overall health care plan costs did not differ significantly between the groups, with an average of $5,161 for the study group, compared with $5,752 for controls. The cost of delivering specialty care added an average of $1,475 to cost of care per patient – about 22% of the total collaborative care costs – making $883 the net mean difference in the cost of care between the groups.

The study group had a slightly higher daily utility value at 0.78, compared with 0.73 for controls, based on their Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised scores. This made the difference in the overall effectiveness of the two treatments 0.04 in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY).

When dividing the net cost of the collaborative model by its net effectiveness over time, the cost of treatment was $18,239 per QALY gained. Bootstrap uncertainty analyses used to determine confidence intervals in the study showed that 25.9% of cases would result in the intervention both costing less and increasing QALYs. Third-party payers consider an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50,000 per QALY gained or below the threshold for payment.

The study did not take into account out-of-pocket or time costs incurred by patients’ families, nor did it consider school absenteeism and use of school counseling services, so the total societal costs and economic burden of treating adolescent depression are not accounted for in this study. However, the investigators concluded that collaborative teen depression care saves money and improves outcomes over time, at least from the payer’s perspective.

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

Team-based care for adolescent depression is cost effective in the long run, and easily meets the most rigid of third-party payer payment thresholds, a study found.

In a randomized, controlled, multisite study, 105 adolescents aged 13-17 years who screened positive for depression in the ROAD (Reaching Out to Adolescents in Distress) trial were given care as usual in a primary care setting or collaborative evidence-based treatment (with antidepressants, psychotherapy or both) plus regular follow-up with a behavioral health specialist. Controls were given their depression screening results and told they could access mental health services from a large health care network at their discretion. Non–English speaking teens, those already in psychiatric care, those with a bipolar or substance misuse diagnosis, and those with a suicide plan or a recent history of attempt were excluded. Ultimately, 101 youths completed the study, with 50 receiving the study intervention, said Davene R.Wright, PhD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, and associates (JAMA Pediatr. 2016. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1721).

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The overall health care plan costs did not differ significantly between the groups, with an average of $5,161 for the study group, compared with $5,752 for controls. The cost of delivering specialty care added an average of $1,475 to cost of care per patient – about 22% of the total collaborative care costs – making $883 the net mean difference in the cost of care between the groups.

The study group had a slightly higher daily utility value at 0.78, compared with 0.73 for controls, based on their Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised scores. This made the difference in the overall effectiveness of the two treatments 0.04 in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY).

When dividing the net cost of the collaborative model by its net effectiveness over time, the cost of treatment was $18,239 per QALY gained. Bootstrap uncertainty analyses used to determine confidence intervals in the study showed that 25.9% of cases would result in the intervention both costing less and increasing QALYs. Third-party payers consider an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50,000 per QALY gained or below the threshold for payment.

The study did not take into account out-of-pocket or time costs incurred by patients’ families, nor did it consider school absenteeism and use of school counseling services, so the total societal costs and economic burden of treating adolescent depression are not accounted for in this study. However, the investigators concluded that collaborative teen depression care saves money and improves outcomes over time, at least from the payer’s perspective.

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

Team-based care for adolescent depression is cost effective in the long run, and easily meets the most rigid of third-party payer payment thresholds, a study found.

In a randomized, controlled, multisite study, 105 adolescents aged 13-17 years who screened positive for depression in the ROAD (Reaching Out to Adolescents in Distress) trial were given care as usual in a primary care setting or collaborative evidence-based treatment (with antidepressants, psychotherapy or both) plus regular follow-up with a behavioral health specialist. Controls were given their depression screening results and told they could access mental health services from a large health care network at their discretion. Non–English speaking teens, those already in psychiatric care, those with a bipolar or substance misuse diagnosis, and those with a suicide plan or a recent history of attempt were excluded. Ultimately, 101 youths completed the study, with 50 receiving the study intervention, said Davene R.Wright, PhD, of the University of Washington in Seattle, and associates (JAMA Pediatr. 2016. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1721).

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

The overall health care plan costs did not differ significantly between the groups, with an average of $5,161 for the study group, compared with $5,752 for controls. The cost of delivering specialty care added an average of $1,475 to cost of care per patient – about 22% of the total collaborative care costs – making $883 the net mean difference in the cost of care between the groups.

The study group had a slightly higher daily utility value at 0.78, compared with 0.73 for controls, based on their Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised scores. This made the difference in the overall effectiveness of the two treatments 0.04 in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY).

When dividing the net cost of the collaborative model by its net effectiveness over time, the cost of treatment was $18,239 per QALY gained. Bootstrap uncertainty analyses used to determine confidence intervals in the study showed that 25.9% of cases would result in the intervention both costing less and increasing QALYs. Third-party payers consider an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50,000 per QALY gained or below the threshold for payment.

The study did not take into account out-of-pocket or time costs incurred by patients’ families, nor did it consider school absenteeism and use of school counseling services, so the total societal costs and economic burden of treating adolescent depression are not accounted for in this study. However, the investigators concluded that collaborative teen depression care saves money and improves outcomes over time, at least from the payer’s perspective.

[email protected]

On Twitter @whitneymcknight

Vasectomy does not appear to be associated with prostate cancer mortality or prostate cancer incidence, according to findings from a large U.S. prospective cohort of men aged 40 years or older.

Prostate cancer mortality was examined in the overall Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) cohort of 363,726 men, including 7,451 who died as a result of prostate cancer between 1982 and 2012, and no association was found with vasectomy (hazard ratio, 1.01).

©alexdans/Thinkstock

Overall and high-grade prostate cancer incidence rates were examined among 66,542 men from the CPS-II Nutrition cohort subgroup, including 9,133 who were diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1991 and 2011, and again no associations were found with vasectomy (HR, 1.02 and 0.91, respectively), Eric J. Jacobs, PhD, and his colleagues at the American Cancer Society report (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 19. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.66.2361).

Results were similar after adjusting for years since vasectomy and in analyses restricted to men aged 50 years and older, the investigators noted.

Findings from prior, smaller studies have been conflicting, but the current study – the largest-known study to date to examine the association between vasectomy and prostate cancer, according to the authors – provides “some reassurance that vasectomy is unlikely to meaningfully increase risk of prostate cancer,” they wrote.

The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Vasectomy does not appear to be associated with prostate cancer mortality or prostate cancer incidence, according to findings from a large U.S. prospective cohort of men aged 40 years or older.

Prostate cancer mortality was examined in the overall Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) cohort of 363,726 men, including 7,451 who died as a result of prostate cancer between 1982 and 2012, and no association was found with vasectomy (hazard ratio, 1.01).

©alexdans/Thinkstock

Overall and high-grade prostate cancer incidence rates were examined among 66,542 men from the CPS-II Nutrition cohort subgroup, including 9,133 who were diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1991 and 2011, and again no associations were found with vasectomy (HR, 1.02 and 0.91, respectively), Eric J. Jacobs, PhD, and his colleagues at the American Cancer Society report (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 19. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.66.2361).

Results were similar after adjusting for years since vasectomy and in analyses restricted to men aged 50 years and older, the investigators noted.

Findings from prior, smaller studies have been conflicting, but the current study – the largest-known study to date to examine the association between vasectomy and prostate cancer, according to the authors – provides “some reassurance that vasectomy is unlikely to meaningfully increase risk of prostate cancer,” they wrote.

The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Vasectomy does not appear to be associated with prostate cancer mortality or prostate cancer incidence, according to findings from a large U.S. prospective cohort of men aged 40 years or older.

Prostate cancer mortality was examined in the overall Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) cohort of 363,726 men, including 7,451 who died as a result of prostate cancer between 1982 and 2012, and no association was found with vasectomy (hazard ratio, 1.01).

©alexdans/Thinkstock

Overall and high-grade prostate cancer incidence rates were examined among 66,542 men from the CPS-II Nutrition cohort subgroup, including 9,133 who were diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1991 and 2011, and again no associations were found with vasectomy (HR, 1.02 and 0.91, respectively), Eric J. Jacobs, PhD, and his colleagues at the American Cancer Society report (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 19. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.66.2361).

Results were similar after adjusting for years since vasectomy and in analyses restricted to men aged 50 years and older, the investigators noted.

Findings from prior, smaller studies have been conflicting, but the current study – the largest-known study to date to examine the association between vasectomy and prostate cancer, according to the authors – provides “some reassurance that vasectomy is unlikely to meaningfully increase risk of prostate cancer,” they wrote.

The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

LONDON—Treatment with ocrelizumab increases the proportion of patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) with no evidence of progression (NEP) at 120 weeks, compared with placebo, according to a post hoc analysis presented at the 32nd Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS (ECTRIMS). NEP was measured by the absence of composite disability progression using 12-week confirmed disability progression, the timed 25-foot walk test, and the nine-hole peg test.

Primary progressive MS is characterized by steadily increasing, objectively documented neurologic dysfunction or disability without recovery, although patients may have fluctuations and phases of stability.

Primary progressive MS remains a severely disabling condition with high unmet medical need. Investigators believe that B cells contribute to the pathogenesis of MS, including primary progressive MS. Ocrelizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively targets CD20⁺ B cells, showed superior efficacy and favorable safety, compared with placebo, in the phase III ORATORIO study in patients with primary progressive MS.

Xavier Montalban, MD, PhD, Chair of the Department of Neurology-Neuroimmunology and Director of the Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, and colleagues sought to assess the effect of ocrelizumab from baseline to Week 120 on the proportion of patients with NEP in the ORATORIO study.

In all, 732 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive 600 mg of ocrelizumab as two 300-mg IV infusions 14 days apart, or placebo every 24 weeks for at least 120 weeks until a prespecified number of 12-week confirmed disability progression events (as measured by Expanded Disability Status Scale score) occurred. Patients with NEP were defined as having no 12-week confirmed disability progression, and no 12-week confirmed progression of 20% or more on the timed 25-foot walk test and on the nine-hole peg test. A total of 230 placebo-treated patients and 461 ocrelizumab-treated patients were evaluable in this exploratory analysis of the ORATORIO trial.

Compared with placebo, ocrelizumab significantly increased the proportion of patients with NEP at Week 120. The relative risk of NEP for ocrelizumab versus placebo was 1.47. The proportions of ocrelizumab- and placebo-treated patients with NEP up to Week 120 were 42.7% and 29.1%, respectively. This result represents a 47% relative increase in the ocrelizumab group. The proportions of ocrelizumab- and placebo-treated patients with NEP for the individual components of NEP up to Week 120 were 68.5% and 63.0%, respectively, for 12-week confirmed disability progression; 51.0% and 38.7%, respectively, for the timed 25-foot walk test; and 82.2% and 71.3%, respectively for the nine-hole peg test.

The study was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

LONDON—Treatment with ocrelizumab increases the proportion of patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) with no evidence of progression (NEP) at 120 weeks, compared with placebo, according to a post hoc analysis presented at the 32nd Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS (ECTRIMS). NEP was measured by the absence of composite disability progression using 12-week confirmed disability progression, the timed 25-foot walk test, and the nine-hole peg test.

Primary progressive MS is characterized by steadily increasing, objectively documented neurologic dysfunction or disability without recovery, although patients may have fluctuations and phases of stability.

Primary progressive MS remains a severely disabling condition with high unmet medical need. Investigators believe that B cells contribute to the pathogenesis of MS, including primary progressive MS. Ocrelizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively targets CD20⁺ B cells, showed superior efficacy and favorable safety, compared with placebo, in the phase III ORATORIO study in patients with primary progressive MS.

Xavier Montalban, MD, PhD, Chair of the Department of Neurology-Neuroimmunology and Director of the Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, and colleagues sought to assess the effect of ocrelizumab from baseline to Week 120 on the proportion of patients with NEP in the ORATORIO study.

In all, 732 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive 600 mg of ocrelizumab as two 300-mg IV infusions 14 days apart, or placebo every 24 weeks for at least 120 weeks until a prespecified number of 12-week confirmed disability progression events (as measured by Expanded Disability Status Scale score) occurred. Patients with NEP were defined as having no 12-week confirmed disability progression, and no 12-week confirmed progression of 20% or more on the timed 25-foot walk test and on the nine-hole peg test. A total of 230 placebo-treated patients and 461 ocrelizumab-treated patients were evaluable in this exploratory analysis of the ORATORIO trial.

Compared with placebo, ocrelizumab significantly increased the proportion of patients with NEP at Week 120. The relative risk of NEP for ocrelizumab versus placebo was 1.47. The proportions of ocrelizumab- and placebo-treated patients with NEP up to Week 120 were 42.7% and 29.1%, respectively. This result represents a 47% relative increase in the ocrelizumab group. The proportions of ocrelizumab- and placebo-treated patients with NEP for the individual components of NEP up to Week 120 were 68.5% and 63.0%, respectively, for 12-week confirmed disability progression; 51.0% and 38.7%, respectively, for the timed 25-foot walk test; and 82.2% and 71.3%, respectively for the nine-hole peg test.

The study was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

LONDON—Treatment with ocrelizumab increases the proportion of patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS) with no evidence of progression (NEP) at 120 weeks, compared with placebo, according to a post hoc analysis presented at the 32nd Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS (ECTRIMS). NEP was measured by the absence of composite disability progression using 12-week confirmed disability progression, the timed 25-foot walk test, and the nine-hole peg test.

Primary progressive MS is characterized by steadily increasing, objectively documented neurologic dysfunction or disability without recovery, although patients may have fluctuations and phases of stability.

Primary progressive MS remains a severely disabling condition with high unmet medical need. Investigators believe that B cells contribute to the pathogenesis of MS, including primary progressive MS. Ocrelizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively targets CD20⁺ B cells, showed superior efficacy and favorable safety, compared with placebo, in the phase III ORATORIO study in patients with primary progressive MS.

Xavier Montalban, MD, PhD, Chair of the Department of Neurology-Neuroimmunology and Director of the Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, and colleagues sought to assess the effect of ocrelizumab from baseline to Week 120 on the proportion of patients with NEP in the ORATORIO study.

In all, 732 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive 600 mg of ocrelizumab as two 300-mg IV infusions 14 days apart, or placebo every 24 weeks for at least 120 weeks until a prespecified number of 12-week confirmed disability progression events (as measured by Expanded Disability Status Scale score) occurred. Patients with NEP were defined as having no 12-week confirmed disability progression, and no 12-week confirmed progression of 20% or more on the timed 25-foot walk test and on the nine-hole peg test. A total of 230 placebo-treated patients and 461 ocrelizumab-treated patients were evaluable in this exploratory analysis of the ORATORIO trial.

Compared with placebo, ocrelizumab significantly increased the proportion of patients with NEP at Week 120. The relative risk of NEP for ocrelizumab versus placebo was 1.47. The proportions of ocrelizumab- and placebo-treated patients with NEP up to Week 120 were 42.7% and 29.1%, respectively. This result represents a 47% relative increase in the ocrelizumab group. The proportions of ocrelizumab- and placebo-treated patients with NEP for the individual components of NEP up to Week 120 were 68.5% and 63.0%, respectively, for 12-week confirmed disability progression; 51.0% and 38.7%, respectively, for the timed 25-foot walk test; and 82.2% and 71.3%, respectively for the nine-hole peg test.

The study was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

LONDON—Arbaclofen extended-release tablets administered twice per day are an efficacious and safe treatment for spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS) that is better tolerated than baclofen, according to an analysis presented at the 32nd Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS (ECTRIMS).

Spasticity is common in MS and is associated with significant morbidity. The standard treatment is oral administration of baclofen, a γ-aminobutyric acid-b (GABA-b) receptor agonist. Baclofen is a racemic mixture, and its efficacy is thought to result from the R-enantiomer (arbaclofen). Therapeutic doses of baclofen can cause CNS side effects, decreased adherence, and decreased tolerability. Arbaclofen extended-release tablets potentially could reduce dosing frequency and adverse events.

Daniel Kantor, MD, a neurologist from Coconut Creek, Florida, and colleagues conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study to compare the efficacy and safety of arbaclofen extended-release tablets to those of placebo and baclofen over 12 weeks of treatment in patients with spasticity due to MS. Participants were randomized to receive 20 mg of arbaclofen bid, 20 mg of baclofen tablets qid, or matching placebo. The dose was titrated over four weeks, followed by a 12-week maintenance period. The primary end points were the mean changes in Total Numeric-transformed Modified Ashworth Scale (TNmAS) and Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at the end of the maintenance period.

Of 354 randomized participants, 59.0% had relapsing-remitting MS and 36.7% had secondary progressive MS. The average baseline TNmAS score was 7.78. Mean changes in TNmAS and CGIC were significantly greater for patients receiving arbaclofen, compared with patients receiving placebo. The researchers observed a greater difference in CGIC between arbaclofen and placebo, compared with that between baclofen and placebo, perhaps because of improved tolerability of arbaclofen, compared with baclofen. Differences between arbaclofen and baclofen were not statistically significant. MS Spasticity Scale (MSSS-88) showed a statistically significant improvement among patients receiving arbaclofen, compared with those receiving placebo. Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) showed a statistically significant increase in sleepiness in the baclofen group, but not in the arbaclofen group, compared with placebo. Drowsiness and dizziness were less frequent in the arbaclofen group, compared with baclofen.

The study was supported by Osmotica Pharmaceutical.

LONDON—Arbaclofen extended-release tablets administered twice per day are an efficacious and safe treatment for spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS) that is better tolerated than baclofen, according to an analysis presented at the 32nd Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS (ECTRIMS).

Spasticity is common in MS and is associated with significant morbidity. The standard treatment is oral administration of baclofen, a γ-aminobutyric acid-b (GABA-b) receptor agonist. Baclofen is a racemic mixture, and its efficacy is thought to result from the R-enantiomer (arbaclofen). Therapeutic doses of baclofen can cause CNS side effects, decreased adherence, and decreased tolerability. Arbaclofen extended-release tablets potentially could reduce dosing frequency and adverse events.

Daniel Kantor, MD, a neurologist from Coconut Creek, Florida, and colleagues conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study to compare the efficacy and safety of arbaclofen extended-release tablets to those of placebo and baclofen over 12 weeks of treatment in patients with spasticity due to MS. Participants were randomized to receive 20 mg of arbaclofen bid, 20 mg of baclofen tablets qid, or matching placebo. The dose was titrated over four weeks, followed by a 12-week maintenance period. The primary end points were the mean changes in Total Numeric-transformed Modified Ashworth Scale (TNmAS) and Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at the end of the maintenance period.

Of 354 randomized participants, 59.0% had relapsing-remitting MS and 36.7% had secondary progressive MS. The average baseline TNmAS score was 7.78. Mean changes in TNmAS and CGIC were significantly greater for patients receiving arbaclofen, compared with patients receiving placebo. The researchers observed a greater difference in CGIC between arbaclofen and placebo, compared with that between baclofen and placebo, perhaps because of improved tolerability of arbaclofen, compared with baclofen. Differences between arbaclofen and baclofen were not statistically significant. MS Spasticity Scale (MSSS-88) showed a statistically significant improvement among patients receiving arbaclofen, compared with those receiving placebo. Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) showed a statistically significant increase in sleepiness in the baclofen group, but not in the arbaclofen group, compared with placebo. Drowsiness and dizziness were less frequent in the arbaclofen group, compared with baclofen.

The study was supported by Osmotica Pharmaceutical.

LONDON—Arbaclofen extended-release tablets administered twice per day are an efficacious and safe treatment for spasticity in multiple sclerosis (MS) that is better tolerated than baclofen, according to an analysis presented at the 32nd Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in MS (ECTRIMS).

Spasticity is common in MS and is associated with significant morbidity. The standard treatment is oral administration of baclofen, a γ-aminobutyric acid-b (GABA-b) receptor agonist. Baclofen is a racemic mixture, and its efficacy is thought to result from the R-enantiomer (arbaclofen). Therapeutic doses of baclofen can cause CNS side effects, decreased adherence, and decreased tolerability. Arbaclofen extended-release tablets potentially could reduce dosing frequency and adverse events.

Daniel Kantor, MD, a neurologist from Coconut Creek, Florida, and colleagues conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study to compare the efficacy and safety of arbaclofen extended-release tablets to those of placebo and baclofen over 12 weeks of treatment in patients with spasticity due to MS. Participants were randomized to receive 20 mg of arbaclofen bid, 20 mg of baclofen tablets qid, or matching placebo. The dose was titrated over four weeks, followed by a 12-week maintenance period. The primary end points were the mean changes in Total Numeric-transformed Modified Ashworth Scale (TNmAS) and Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGIC) at the end of the maintenance period.

Of 354 randomized participants, 59.0% had relapsing-remitting MS and 36.7% had secondary progressive MS. The average baseline TNmAS score was 7.78. Mean changes in TNmAS and CGIC were significantly greater for patients receiving arbaclofen, compared with patients receiving placebo. The researchers observed a greater difference in CGIC between arbaclofen and placebo, compared with that between baclofen and placebo, perhaps because of improved tolerability of arbaclofen, compared with baclofen. Differences between arbaclofen and baclofen were not statistically significant. MS Spasticity Scale (MSSS-88) showed a statistically significant improvement among patients receiving arbaclofen, compared with those receiving placebo. Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) showed a statistically significant increase in sleepiness in the baclofen group, but not in the arbaclofen group, compared with placebo. Drowsiness and dizziness were less frequent in the arbaclofen group, compared with baclofen.

The study was supported by Osmotica Pharmaceutical.

SAN FRANCISCO – Whole body cryotherapy led to significant improvements in memory and significant but less durable reductions in depressive symptoms among older patients with mild cognitive impairment in a small, uncontrolled trial.

“We cannot call whole body cryotherapy a treatment yet, but we have some good preliminary results suggesting that this might be a natural method of treating memory impairment,” Joanna Rymaszewska, MD, PhD, of Wroclaw (Poland) Medical University said during an oral presentation at the at the 2016 congress of the International Psychogeriatric Association. Based on this and other work, whole body cryotherapy also might ease depression if patients were able to undergo regular long-term treatment, she said.

Very low temperatures have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects, which originally sparked the idea that cryotherapy might help prevent dementia, Dr. Rymaszewska said. To test that hypothesis, she and her colleagues exposed 21 patients with mild cognitive impairment (average baseline Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score, 23.8; range, 20-26) to whole body cryotherapy for 2 minutes a day for 10 days, excluding weekends. Patients donned swimsuits, socks, gloves, and mouth covers to facilitate breathing and then walked in pairs around a chamber cooled to between –110° C and –160° C (–166° F to –256° F). “The temperature is so low that you actually cannot feel it,” Dr. Rymaszewska said. The group averaged 65 years of age, and two-thirds were women.

Immediately after the final cryotherapy session and 2 weeks later, patients had improved significantly (P less than .05) from baseline on two-word recall subscales of the DemTect, a psychometric screening tool; on the semantic and anterograde subscales of the 5-minute Test Your Memory (TYM) scale; and on the logical memory subscale of the Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) exam, Dr. Rymaszewska said.

Enzyme-linked immunoassays showed no significant changes in plasma levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor or in the cytokines interleukin-6, IL-8, or IL-10 before and after cryotherapy, Dr. Rymaszewska said. But after treatment, patients produced significantly more brain-derived neurotrophic factor and significantly less IL-6 and IL-10 and in response to amyloid-beta, she added. “These preliminary results show a positive influence of whole body cryostimulation on mnestic processes in people with mild cognitive impairment, but the biological mechanisms need further investigation,” she concluded.

Patients also improved significantly on the short form,15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) immediately after finishing cryotherapy. However, the effect was less durable, having lost statistical significance 2 weeks later, Dr. Rymaszewska said. However, parallel studies of the effects of whole body cryotherapy on mood and depression are showing early positive results, she said.

Cryotherapy is so well known in Poland that it would not have been possible to blind a control group to a less-cold “placebo” intervention, Dr. Rymaszewska noted.

The Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland helped fund the research. Dr. Rymaszewska had no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Whole body cryotherapy led to significant improvements in memory and significant but less durable reductions in depressive symptoms among older patients with mild cognitive impairment in a small, uncontrolled trial.

“We cannot call whole body cryotherapy a treatment yet, but we have some good preliminary results suggesting that this might be a natural method of treating memory impairment,” Joanna Rymaszewska, MD, PhD, of Wroclaw (Poland) Medical University said during an oral presentation at the at the 2016 congress of the International Psychogeriatric Association. Based on this and other work, whole body cryotherapy also might ease depression if patients were able to undergo regular long-term treatment, she said.

Very low temperatures have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects, which originally sparked the idea that cryotherapy might help prevent dementia, Dr. Rymaszewska said. To test that hypothesis, she and her colleagues exposed 21 patients with mild cognitive impairment (average baseline Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score, 23.8; range, 20-26) to whole body cryotherapy for 2 minutes a day for 10 days, excluding weekends. Patients donned swimsuits, socks, gloves, and mouth covers to facilitate breathing and then walked in pairs around a chamber cooled to between –110° C and –160° C (–166° F to –256° F). “The temperature is so low that you actually cannot feel it,” Dr. Rymaszewska said. The group averaged 65 years of age, and two-thirds were women.

Immediately after the final cryotherapy session and 2 weeks later, patients had improved significantly (P less than .05) from baseline on two-word recall subscales of the DemTect, a psychometric screening tool; on the semantic and anterograde subscales of the 5-minute Test Your Memory (TYM) scale; and on the logical memory subscale of the Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) exam, Dr. Rymaszewska said.

Enzyme-linked immunoassays showed no significant changes in plasma levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor or in the cytokines interleukin-6, IL-8, or IL-10 before and after cryotherapy, Dr. Rymaszewska said. But after treatment, patients produced significantly more brain-derived neurotrophic factor and significantly less IL-6 and IL-10 and in response to amyloid-beta, she added. “These preliminary results show a positive influence of whole body cryostimulation on mnestic processes in people with mild cognitive impairment, but the biological mechanisms need further investigation,” she concluded.

Patients also improved significantly on the short form,15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) immediately after finishing cryotherapy. However, the effect was less durable, having lost statistical significance 2 weeks later, Dr. Rymaszewska said. However, parallel studies of the effects of whole body cryotherapy on mood and depression are showing early positive results, she said.

Cryotherapy is so well known in Poland that it would not have been possible to blind a control group to a less-cold “placebo” intervention, Dr. Rymaszewska noted.

The Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland helped fund the research. Dr. Rymaszewska had no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Whole body cryotherapy led to significant improvements in memory and significant but less durable reductions in depressive symptoms among older patients with mild cognitive impairment in a small, uncontrolled trial.

“We cannot call whole body cryotherapy a treatment yet, but we have some good preliminary results suggesting that this might be a natural method of treating memory impairment,” Joanna Rymaszewska, MD, PhD, of Wroclaw (Poland) Medical University said during an oral presentation at the at the 2016 congress of the International Psychogeriatric Association. Based on this and other work, whole body cryotherapy also might ease depression if patients were able to undergo regular long-term treatment, she said.

Very low temperatures have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects, which originally sparked the idea that cryotherapy might help prevent dementia, Dr. Rymaszewska said. To test that hypothesis, she and her colleagues exposed 21 patients with mild cognitive impairment (average baseline Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score, 23.8; range, 20-26) to whole body cryotherapy for 2 minutes a day for 10 days, excluding weekends. Patients donned swimsuits, socks, gloves, and mouth covers to facilitate breathing and then walked in pairs around a chamber cooled to between –110° C and –160° C (–166° F to –256° F). “The temperature is so low that you actually cannot feel it,” Dr. Rymaszewska said. The group averaged 65 years of age, and two-thirds were women.

Immediately after the final cryotherapy session and 2 weeks later, patients had improved significantly (P less than .05) from baseline on two-word recall subscales of the DemTect, a psychometric screening tool; on the semantic and anterograde subscales of the 5-minute Test Your Memory (TYM) scale; and on the logical memory subscale of the Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) exam, Dr. Rymaszewska said.

Enzyme-linked immunoassays showed no significant changes in plasma levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor or in the cytokines interleukin-6, IL-8, or IL-10 before and after cryotherapy, Dr. Rymaszewska said. But after treatment, patients produced significantly more brain-derived neurotrophic factor and significantly less IL-6 and IL-10 and in response to amyloid-beta, she added. “These preliminary results show a positive influence of whole body cryostimulation on mnestic processes in people with mild cognitive impairment, but the biological mechanisms need further investigation,” she concluded.

Patients also improved significantly on the short form,15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) immediately after finishing cryotherapy. However, the effect was less durable, having lost statistical significance 2 weeks later, Dr. Rymaszewska said. However, parallel studies of the effects of whole body cryotherapy on mood and depression are showing early positive results, she said.

Cryotherapy is so well known in Poland that it would not have been possible to blind a control group to a less-cold “placebo” intervention, Dr. Rymaszewska noted.

The Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland helped fund the research. Dr. Rymaszewska had no disclosures.

ROME – LDL cholesterol treatment targets remain alive and well in non-U.S. lipid management guidelines.

New dyslipidemia management guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology, issued in late August, retain the same LDL cholesterol targets as the prior, 2011 guidelines, a sharp and purposeful departure from the “risk-based” U.S. guidelines introduced in 2013 that eliminated treating patients to specific LDL cholesterol targets.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

The new ESC guidelines also incorporated the new class of lipid-lowering drugs, PCSK9 inhibitors (evolocumab [Repatha] and alirocumab [Praluent]), into the treatment algorithm, and carved out a role for ezetimibe (Zetia) following its proven success as an add-on agent to statins (Eur Heart J. 2016. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw272).

But it’s retention of LDL cholesterol targets as a cornerstone of dyslipidemia management in the new ESC report, written jointly with the European Atherosclerosis Society, that especially distinguishes the new guidelines.

“It seemed to us logical that if you have drugs [statins] that lower LDL cholesterol, then you target LDL cholesterol,” explained Ian M. Graham, MD, professor of cardiovascular medicine at Trinity College in Dublin and cochair of the guidelines panel. “If a patient’s risk is high, they still need to lower LDL cholesterol. It’s not really contradictory to the U.S. approach,” Dr. Graham said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

The ESC panel’s discussions about the LDL cholesterol targets were “difficult and long,” said Guy De Backer, MD, a member of the guidelines committee and professor of cardiology at the University of Ghent, Belgium, in a session devoted to the new guidelines during the annual congress of the ESC.

The ESC’s decision to retain the 2011 LDL cholesterol targets won praise from U.S. cardiologist Eugene Braunwald, MD. “I think that not measuring and following LDL cholesterol is silly. I don’t agree” with current U.S. guidelines, he said in a talk during the congress. “If you don’t follow LDL cholesterol then you don’t know a patient’s compliance.

Regularly measuring LDL cholesterol is important,” said Dr. Braunwald, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. But he questioned the LDL cholesterol targets set by the ESC panel, specifically the LDL cholesterol goal of less than 70 mg/dL for very-high-risk patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“I don’t think the ESC went low enough; the goal should be less than 50 mg/dL,” declared Dr. Braunwald, who added “anything above 50 mg/dL is toxic.”

The new guidelines also made the definition of “very-high-risk” patients “stricter and more precise,” said Alberico L. Catapano, MD, cochair of the panel and professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan.

The guideline’s detailed list defining very-high-risk patients includes those with either clinical or “unequivocal” imaging evidence for cardiovascular disease, as well as patients with diabetes and target-organ damage, severe chronic kidney disease, or a 10% or greater 10-year risk for fatal cardiovascular disease calculated by the European Score risk formula.

The potent lipid-lowering PCSK9 inhibitors came onto the U.S. and European markets in 2015, labeled in the United States specifically for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

In July 2016, an American College of Cardiology Task Force issued a model clinical-decision pathway for lowering LDL cholesterol levels that for the first time included the PCSK9 inhibitors, specified as a “may be considered” option for selected patients (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Jul;68[1]:92-125). This consensus decision pathway was not a set of actual guidelines, which means the ESC revision is the first guideline to include the PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel took the same stance as the U.S. decision pathway and designated the PCSK9 inhibitors as a “may be considered” option.

Dr. Graham explained that this designation was driven by the current absence of evidence for clinical benefit from the large lipid-lowering effect of the PCSK9 antibodies, although trial results that address this are expected to appear very soon. Experts not on the guidelines panel agreed with this decision.

“We know that it’s crucial to await results from the clinical endpoint studies” before the guidelines committee makes a more forceful recommendation, commented Erik S.G. Stroes, MD, professor of vascular medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. He added, however, that many clinicians, himself included, have been pleased to offer PCSK9-inhibitor treatment to very-high-risk patients with no good alternatives for effectively lowering their LDL cholesterol to target levels, such as statin-intolerant patients or those with LDL cholesterol levels that remain high despite maximal therapy.

 

The current ESC guideline’s statement on when to use a PCSK9 inhibitor “is vague” said Dr. Braunwald. “Within the next year, we’ll have results from two huge trials that will show clinical outcomes. We know that PCSK9 inhibitors are extremely powerful at lowering LDL cholesterol, but I would like to see the loop closed” with proven effects on clinical outcomes. “I would bet 100 to 1 that they will be effective, but LDL cholesterol is just a surrogate marker, and you need to look in large populations before you make a guideline recommendation to use these drugs, so we’ll wait.”

Once the clinical value of treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors is settled, the next issue will be the cost of these drugs, something that will become a big consideration once they become more widely used, Dr. Braunwald added.

Dr. De Backer and Dr. Graham had no disclosures. Dr. Catapano has been a consultant to Aegerion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, and Sigma-Tau. Dr. Braunwald has been a consultant to Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, the Medicines Company, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr. Stroes has been a consultant to Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

ROME – LDL cholesterol treatment targets remain alive and well in non-U.S. lipid management guidelines.

New dyslipidemia management guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology, issued in late August, retain the same LDL cholesterol targets as the prior, 2011 guidelines, a sharp and purposeful departure from the “risk-based” U.S. guidelines introduced in 2013 that eliminated treating patients to specific LDL cholesterol targets.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

The new ESC guidelines also incorporated the new class of lipid-lowering drugs, PCSK9 inhibitors (evolocumab [Repatha] and alirocumab [Praluent]), into the treatment algorithm, and carved out a role for ezetimibe (Zetia) following its proven success as an add-on agent to statins (Eur Heart J. 2016. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw272).

But it’s retention of LDL cholesterol targets as a cornerstone of dyslipidemia management in the new ESC report, written jointly with the European Atherosclerosis Society, that especially distinguishes the new guidelines.

“It seemed to us logical that if you have drugs [statins] that lower LDL cholesterol, then you target LDL cholesterol,” explained Ian M. Graham, MD, professor of cardiovascular medicine at Trinity College in Dublin and cochair of the guidelines panel. “If a patient’s risk is high, they still need to lower LDL cholesterol. It’s not really contradictory to the U.S. approach,” Dr. Graham said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

The ESC panel’s discussions about the LDL cholesterol targets were “difficult and long,” said Guy De Backer, MD, a member of the guidelines committee and professor of cardiology at the University of Ghent, Belgium, in a session devoted to the new guidelines during the annual congress of the ESC.

The ESC’s decision to retain the 2011 LDL cholesterol targets won praise from U.S. cardiologist Eugene Braunwald, MD. “I think that not measuring and following LDL cholesterol is silly. I don’t agree” with current U.S. guidelines, he said in a talk during the congress. “If you don’t follow LDL cholesterol then you don’t know a patient’s compliance.

Regularly measuring LDL cholesterol is important,” said Dr. Braunwald, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. But he questioned the LDL cholesterol targets set by the ESC panel, specifically the LDL cholesterol goal of less than 70 mg/dL for very-high-risk patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“I don’t think the ESC went low enough; the goal should be less than 50 mg/dL,” declared Dr. Braunwald, who added “anything above 50 mg/dL is toxic.”

The new guidelines also made the definition of “very-high-risk” patients “stricter and more precise,” said Alberico L. Catapano, MD, cochair of the panel and professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan.

The guideline’s detailed list defining very-high-risk patients includes those with either clinical or “unequivocal” imaging evidence for cardiovascular disease, as well as patients with diabetes and target-organ damage, severe chronic kidney disease, or a 10% or greater 10-year risk for fatal cardiovascular disease calculated by the European Score risk formula.

The potent lipid-lowering PCSK9 inhibitors came onto the U.S. and European markets in 2015, labeled in the United States specifically for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

In July 2016, an American College of Cardiology Task Force issued a model clinical-decision pathway for lowering LDL cholesterol levels that for the first time included the PCSK9 inhibitors, specified as a “may be considered” option for selected patients (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Jul;68[1]:92-125). This consensus decision pathway was not a set of actual guidelines, which means the ESC revision is the first guideline to include the PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel took the same stance as the U.S. decision pathway and designated the PCSK9 inhibitors as a “may be considered” option.

Dr. Graham explained that this designation was driven by the current absence of evidence for clinical benefit from the large lipid-lowering effect of the PCSK9 antibodies, although trial results that address this are expected to appear very soon. Experts not on the guidelines panel agreed with this decision.

“We know that it’s crucial to await results from the clinical endpoint studies” before the guidelines committee makes a more forceful recommendation, commented Erik S.G. Stroes, MD, professor of vascular medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. He added, however, that many clinicians, himself included, have been pleased to offer PCSK9-inhibitor treatment to very-high-risk patients with no good alternatives for effectively lowering their LDL cholesterol to target levels, such as statin-intolerant patients or those with LDL cholesterol levels that remain high despite maximal therapy.

 

The current ESC guideline’s statement on when to use a PCSK9 inhibitor “is vague” said Dr. Braunwald. “Within the next year, we’ll have results from two huge trials that will show clinical outcomes. We know that PCSK9 inhibitors are extremely powerful at lowering LDL cholesterol, but I would like to see the loop closed” with proven effects on clinical outcomes. “I would bet 100 to 1 that they will be effective, but LDL cholesterol is just a surrogate marker, and you need to look in large populations before you make a guideline recommendation to use these drugs, so we’ll wait.”

Once the clinical value of treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors is settled, the next issue will be the cost of these drugs, something that will become a big consideration once they become more widely used, Dr. Braunwald added.

Dr. De Backer and Dr. Graham had no disclosures. Dr. Catapano has been a consultant to Aegerion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, and Sigma-Tau. Dr. Braunwald has been a consultant to Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, the Medicines Company, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr. Stroes has been a consultant to Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

ROME – LDL cholesterol treatment targets remain alive and well in non-U.S. lipid management guidelines.

New dyslipidemia management guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology, issued in late August, retain the same LDL cholesterol targets as the prior, 2011 guidelines, a sharp and purposeful departure from the “risk-based” U.S. guidelines introduced in 2013 that eliminated treating patients to specific LDL cholesterol targets.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

The new ESC guidelines also incorporated the new class of lipid-lowering drugs, PCSK9 inhibitors (evolocumab [Repatha] and alirocumab [Praluent]), into the treatment algorithm, and carved out a role for ezetimibe (Zetia) following its proven success as an add-on agent to statins (Eur Heart J. 2016. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw272).

But it’s retention of LDL cholesterol targets as a cornerstone of dyslipidemia management in the new ESC report, written jointly with the European Atherosclerosis Society, that especially distinguishes the new guidelines.

“It seemed to us logical that if you have drugs [statins] that lower LDL cholesterol, then you target LDL cholesterol,” explained Ian M. Graham, MD, professor of cardiovascular medicine at Trinity College in Dublin and cochair of the guidelines panel. “If a patient’s risk is high, they still need to lower LDL cholesterol. It’s not really contradictory to the U.S. approach,” Dr. Graham said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

The ESC panel’s discussions about the LDL cholesterol targets were “difficult and long,” said Guy De Backer, MD, a member of the guidelines committee and professor of cardiology at the University of Ghent, Belgium, in a session devoted to the new guidelines during the annual congress of the ESC.

The ESC’s decision to retain the 2011 LDL cholesterol targets won praise from U.S. cardiologist Eugene Braunwald, MD. “I think that not measuring and following LDL cholesterol is silly. I don’t agree” with current U.S. guidelines, he said in a talk during the congress. “If you don’t follow LDL cholesterol then you don’t know a patient’s compliance.

Regularly measuring LDL cholesterol is important,” said Dr. Braunwald, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. But he questioned the LDL cholesterol targets set by the ESC panel, specifically the LDL cholesterol goal of less than 70 mg/dL for very-high-risk patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“I don’t think the ESC went low enough; the goal should be less than 50 mg/dL,” declared Dr. Braunwald, who added “anything above 50 mg/dL is toxic.”

The new guidelines also made the definition of “very-high-risk” patients “stricter and more precise,” said Alberico L. Catapano, MD, cochair of the panel and professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan.

The guideline’s detailed list defining very-high-risk patients includes those with either clinical or “unequivocal” imaging evidence for cardiovascular disease, as well as patients with diabetes and target-organ damage, severe chronic kidney disease, or a 10% or greater 10-year risk for fatal cardiovascular disease calculated by the European Score risk formula.

The potent lipid-lowering PCSK9 inhibitors came onto the U.S. and European markets in 2015, labeled in the United States specifically for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

In July 2016, an American College of Cardiology Task Force issued a model clinical-decision pathway for lowering LDL cholesterol levels that for the first time included the PCSK9 inhibitors, specified as a “may be considered” option for selected patients (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Jul;68[1]:92-125). This consensus decision pathway was not a set of actual guidelines, which means the ESC revision is the first guideline to include the PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel took the same stance as the U.S. decision pathway and designated the PCSK9 inhibitors as a “may be considered” option.

Dr. Graham explained that this designation was driven by the current absence of evidence for clinical benefit from the large lipid-lowering effect of the PCSK9 antibodies, although trial results that address this are expected to appear very soon. Experts not on the guidelines panel agreed with this decision.

“We know that it’s crucial to await results from the clinical endpoint studies” before the guidelines committee makes a more forceful recommendation, commented Erik S.G. Stroes, MD, professor of vascular medicine at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. He added, however, that many clinicians, himself included, have been pleased to offer PCSK9-inhibitor treatment to very-high-risk patients with no good alternatives for effectively lowering their LDL cholesterol to target levels, such as statin-intolerant patients or those with LDL cholesterol levels that remain high despite maximal therapy.

 

The current ESC guideline’s statement on when to use a PCSK9 inhibitor “is vague” said Dr. Braunwald. “Within the next year, we’ll have results from two huge trials that will show clinical outcomes. We know that PCSK9 inhibitors are extremely powerful at lowering LDL cholesterol, but I would like to see the loop closed” with proven effects on clinical outcomes. “I would bet 100 to 1 that they will be effective, but LDL cholesterol is just a surrogate marker, and you need to look in large populations before you make a guideline recommendation to use these drugs, so we’ll wait.”

Once the clinical value of treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors is settled, the next issue will be the cost of these drugs, something that will become a big consideration once they become more widely used, Dr. Braunwald added.

Dr. De Backer and Dr. Graham had no disclosures. Dr. Catapano has been a consultant to Aegerion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Pfizer, and Sigma-Tau. Dr. Braunwald has been a consultant to Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, the Medicines Company, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr. Stroes has been a consultant to Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – The risk of anastomotic failure among emergency general surgery patients requiring bowel resection and anastomosis stands at 12.5% and is similar between stapled and hand-sewn techniques, results from a multicenter analysis demonstrated.

Surgeons participating in the study, known as Stapled vs. Handsewn: A Prospective Emergency Surgery Study (SHAPES), “appear to be performing hand-sewn techniques in patients who have a higher burden of disease,” Brandon R. Bruns, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “Without adjustment and despite being performed in a more ill population, there was no difference in failure rate between hand-sewn and stapled techniques. After modeling, only being managed with an open abdomen and contamination at initial operation were associated with anastomotic failure.”

For SHAPES, which is the largest study of its kind and was sponsored by the AAST Multi-Institutional Studies Committee, Dr. Bruns and his associates set out to prospectively evaluate anastomotic failure rates for hand-sewn and stapled anastomoses in patients undergoing urgent/emergent operations. A 1999 study by Seattle researchers found that stapled techniques seemed to be associated with anastomotic failure (J Trauma. 1999;47[3]:500-08). Two years later, the same researchers pooled 4-year retrospective data from four trauma centers and concluded that again, hand-sewn techniques appeared to be superior to stapled techniques after traumatic bowel resection and anastomosis (J Trauma. 2001;51[6]:1054-61). Also in 2001, AAST sponsored a multi-institutional study that examined the same question, this time in penetrative colonic injury. Investigators found no difference in complications between the two groups (J Trauma. 2002;52[1]:117-21). They did, however, find a 22.7% overall incidence of colon-related complications.

“With this background we hypothesized that anastomotic failure rate would be high for emergency general surgery patients undergoing bowel resection and anastomosis,” said Dr. Bruns, an acute care surgeon at the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore. “We also hypothesized that failure rates would be higher for stapled techniques, compared with hand-sewn.”

The SHAPES researchers prospectively enrolled 595 patients at 15 medical centers in the United States who underwent urgent/emergent bowel resection for emergency general surgery pathology between July 22, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015. The patients were grouped by hand-sewn vs. stapled anastomoses and demographic and clinical variables were collected. The primary outcome was anastomotic failure. As in other studies, anastomotic failure was evaluated at the anastomosis level. Multivariable logistic regression was done, controlling for age and risk factors for anastomotic failure.

Dr. Bruns reported that the 595 patients had 649 anastomoses. Of these, 61% were stapled and 39% were hand-sewn. The mean age of patients was 62 years, 51% were male, and the overall mortality rate was 7.7%. More than two-thirds of the patients (35%) had more than one indication for operative intervention. The most common single indication for operation was small bowel obstruction, at 23%. The majority of the anastomoses were small bowel to small bowel (72%), while 21% were small bowel to large bowel, and 7% were large bowel to large bowel. There were a total of 81 anastomotic failures, for a rate of 12.5%.

When the researchers compared the hand-sewn and stapled groups, they were similar with respect to sex and age, with higher Charlson comorbidity indices in stapled and a higher body mass index in the hand-sewn group. They also observed a lower hemoglobin, higher INR, higher lactate, lower albumin, and worse renal function in the hand-sewn group, compared with the stapled group. Moreover, hand-sewn anastomotic techniques were performed more frequently in patients that were on vasopressor support. “Despite patients receiving hand-sewn techniques, having worse laboratory values, and more intraoperative vasopressors, the two techniques had equivalent failure rates, at 15.4% for hand-sewn and 10.6% for stapled,” Dr. Bruns said. “Patients with hand-sewn techniques had longer hospital length of stay, longer ICU length of stay, and a significantly higher mortality, compared with those who underwent stapled techniques. Interestingly and different from most other studies on the topic, operating time between the two groups was equivalent.”

On multivariate regression, the presence of contamination at initial bowel resection (OR 1.96) and the patient being managed with an open abdomen (OR 2.53) were independently associated with anastomotic failure, while the type of anastomosis (hand-sewn vs. stapled) was not.

The researchers also conducted a subanalysis of 165 patients managed with an open abdomen who had bowel resection and anastomosis. These patients had higher BMIs, higher lactates, higher INRs, and more negative base deficits, compared with those who were not managed with an open abdomen. “Perhaps not unexpectedly, open abdomen patients were more likely to be on vasopressor agents,” Dr. Bruns said. “They had longer hospital lengths of stay, more ICU days, and an 18.2% overall mortality. Overall there was an almost 22% anastomotic failure rate in patients managed with an open abdomen, compared with an 8.5% rate in patients managed with non-open techniques.” Comparing hand-sewn and stapled techniques, there was no difference in failure rate in patients managed with an open abdomen (25.2% vs. 17.5%, respectively; P = .20).

 

“An overall mortality rate of 8% and an anastomotic complication rate of 12.5% should emphasize the dire needs for these operations and the need for meticulous operative as well as surgically directed perioperative care in these patients,” the invited discussant, Gregory Jurkovich, MD, professor of surgery at the Davis Medical Center, University of California, said at the meeting. “We as surgeons must pay attention to all aspects of care in these patients.”

Dr. Bruns acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was not a randomized, controlled trial. Also, “surgeon preference did dictate the type of anastomosis that was created, and the patient and surgeon populations were heterogeneous,” he said. “The multivariable model was limited by missing laboratory data, likely given the urgent nature of some of the operative procedures.”

He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – The risk of anastomotic failure among emergency general surgery patients requiring bowel resection and anastomosis stands at 12.5% and is similar between stapled and hand-sewn techniques, results from a multicenter analysis demonstrated.

Surgeons participating in the study, known as Stapled vs. Handsewn: A Prospective Emergency Surgery Study (SHAPES), “appear to be performing hand-sewn techniques in patients who have a higher burden of disease,” Brandon R. Bruns, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “Without adjustment and despite being performed in a more ill population, there was no difference in failure rate between hand-sewn and stapled techniques. After modeling, only being managed with an open abdomen and contamination at initial operation were associated with anastomotic failure.”

For SHAPES, which is the largest study of its kind and was sponsored by the AAST Multi-Institutional Studies Committee, Dr. Bruns and his associates set out to prospectively evaluate anastomotic failure rates for hand-sewn and stapled anastomoses in patients undergoing urgent/emergent operations. A 1999 study by Seattle researchers found that stapled techniques seemed to be associated with anastomotic failure (J Trauma. 1999;47[3]:500-08). Two years later, the same researchers pooled 4-year retrospective data from four trauma centers and concluded that again, hand-sewn techniques appeared to be superior to stapled techniques after traumatic bowel resection and anastomosis (J Trauma. 2001;51[6]:1054-61). Also in 2001, AAST sponsored a multi-institutional study that examined the same question, this time in penetrative colonic injury. Investigators found no difference in complications between the two groups (J Trauma. 2002;52[1]:117-21). They did, however, find a 22.7% overall incidence of colon-related complications.

“With this background we hypothesized that anastomotic failure rate would be high for emergency general surgery patients undergoing bowel resection and anastomosis,” said Dr. Bruns, an acute care surgeon at the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore. “We also hypothesized that failure rates would be higher for stapled techniques, compared with hand-sewn.”

The SHAPES researchers prospectively enrolled 595 patients at 15 medical centers in the United States who underwent urgent/emergent bowel resection for emergency general surgery pathology between July 22, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015. The patients were grouped by hand-sewn vs. stapled anastomoses and demographic and clinical variables were collected. The primary outcome was anastomotic failure. As in other studies, anastomotic failure was evaluated at the anastomosis level. Multivariable logistic regression was done, controlling for age and risk factors for anastomotic failure.

Dr. Bruns reported that the 595 patients had 649 anastomoses. Of these, 61% were stapled and 39% were hand-sewn. The mean age of patients was 62 years, 51% were male, and the overall mortality rate was 7.7%. More than two-thirds of the patients (35%) had more than one indication for operative intervention. The most common single indication for operation was small bowel obstruction, at 23%. The majority of the anastomoses were small bowel to small bowel (72%), while 21% were small bowel to large bowel, and 7% were large bowel to large bowel. There were a total of 81 anastomotic failures, for a rate of 12.5%.

When the researchers compared the hand-sewn and stapled groups, they were similar with respect to sex and age, with higher Charlson comorbidity indices in stapled and a higher body mass index in the hand-sewn group. They also observed a lower hemoglobin, higher INR, higher lactate, lower albumin, and worse renal function in the hand-sewn group, compared with the stapled group. Moreover, hand-sewn anastomotic techniques were performed more frequently in patients that were on vasopressor support. “Despite patients receiving hand-sewn techniques, having worse laboratory values, and more intraoperative vasopressors, the two techniques had equivalent failure rates, at 15.4% for hand-sewn and 10.6% for stapled,” Dr. Bruns said. “Patients with hand-sewn techniques had longer hospital length of stay, longer ICU length of stay, and a significantly higher mortality, compared with those who underwent stapled techniques. Interestingly and different from most other studies on the topic, operating time between the two groups was equivalent.”

On multivariate regression, the presence of contamination at initial bowel resection (OR 1.96) and the patient being managed with an open abdomen (OR 2.53) were independently associated with anastomotic failure, while the type of anastomosis (hand-sewn vs. stapled) was not.

The researchers also conducted a subanalysis of 165 patients managed with an open abdomen who had bowel resection and anastomosis. These patients had higher BMIs, higher lactates, higher INRs, and more negative base deficits, compared with those who were not managed with an open abdomen. “Perhaps not unexpectedly, open abdomen patients were more likely to be on vasopressor agents,” Dr. Bruns said. “They had longer hospital lengths of stay, more ICU days, and an 18.2% overall mortality. Overall there was an almost 22% anastomotic failure rate in patients managed with an open abdomen, compared with an 8.5% rate in patients managed with non-open techniques.” Comparing hand-sewn and stapled techniques, there was no difference in failure rate in patients managed with an open abdomen (25.2% vs. 17.5%, respectively; P = .20).

 

“An overall mortality rate of 8% and an anastomotic complication rate of 12.5% should emphasize the dire needs for these operations and the need for meticulous operative as well as surgically directed perioperative care in these patients,” the invited discussant, Gregory Jurkovich, MD, professor of surgery at the Davis Medical Center, University of California, said at the meeting. “We as surgeons must pay attention to all aspects of care in these patients.”

Dr. Bruns acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was not a randomized, controlled trial. Also, “surgeon preference did dictate the type of anastomosis that was created, and the patient and surgeon populations were heterogeneous,” he said. “The multivariable model was limited by missing laboratory data, likely given the urgent nature of some of the operative procedures.”

He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – The risk of anastomotic failure among emergency general surgery patients requiring bowel resection and anastomosis stands at 12.5% and is similar between stapled and hand-sewn techniques, results from a multicenter analysis demonstrated.

Surgeons participating in the study, known as Stapled vs. Handsewn: A Prospective Emergency Surgery Study (SHAPES), “appear to be performing hand-sewn techniques in patients who have a higher burden of disease,” Brandon R. Bruns, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “Without adjustment and despite being performed in a more ill population, there was no difference in failure rate between hand-sewn and stapled techniques. After modeling, only being managed with an open abdomen and contamination at initial operation were associated with anastomotic failure.”

For SHAPES, which is the largest study of its kind and was sponsored by the AAST Multi-Institutional Studies Committee, Dr. Bruns and his associates set out to prospectively evaluate anastomotic failure rates for hand-sewn and stapled anastomoses in patients undergoing urgent/emergent operations. A 1999 study by Seattle researchers found that stapled techniques seemed to be associated with anastomotic failure (J Trauma. 1999;47[3]:500-08). Two years later, the same researchers pooled 4-year retrospective data from four trauma centers and concluded that again, hand-sewn techniques appeared to be superior to stapled techniques after traumatic bowel resection and anastomosis (J Trauma. 2001;51[6]:1054-61). Also in 2001, AAST sponsored a multi-institutional study that examined the same question, this time in penetrative colonic injury. Investigators found no difference in complications between the two groups (J Trauma. 2002;52[1]:117-21). They did, however, find a 22.7% overall incidence of colon-related complications.

“With this background we hypothesized that anastomotic failure rate would be high for emergency general surgery patients undergoing bowel resection and anastomosis,” said Dr. Bruns, an acute care surgeon at the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore. “We also hypothesized that failure rates would be higher for stapled techniques, compared with hand-sewn.”

The SHAPES researchers prospectively enrolled 595 patients at 15 medical centers in the United States who underwent urgent/emergent bowel resection for emergency general surgery pathology between July 22, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015. The patients were grouped by hand-sewn vs. stapled anastomoses and demographic and clinical variables were collected. The primary outcome was anastomotic failure. As in other studies, anastomotic failure was evaluated at the anastomosis level. Multivariable logistic regression was done, controlling for age and risk factors for anastomotic failure.

Dr. Bruns reported that the 595 patients had 649 anastomoses. Of these, 61% were stapled and 39% were hand-sewn. The mean age of patients was 62 years, 51% were male, and the overall mortality rate was 7.7%. More than two-thirds of the patients (35%) had more than one indication for operative intervention. The most common single indication for operation was small bowel obstruction, at 23%. The majority of the anastomoses were small bowel to small bowel (72%), while 21% were small bowel to large bowel, and 7% were large bowel to large bowel. There were a total of 81 anastomotic failures, for a rate of 12.5%.

When the researchers compared the hand-sewn and stapled groups, they were similar with respect to sex and age, with higher Charlson comorbidity indices in stapled and a higher body mass index in the hand-sewn group. They also observed a lower hemoglobin, higher INR, higher lactate, lower albumin, and worse renal function in the hand-sewn group, compared with the stapled group. Moreover, hand-sewn anastomotic techniques were performed more frequently in patients that were on vasopressor support. “Despite patients receiving hand-sewn techniques, having worse laboratory values, and more intraoperative vasopressors, the two techniques had equivalent failure rates, at 15.4% for hand-sewn and 10.6% for stapled,” Dr. Bruns said. “Patients with hand-sewn techniques had longer hospital length of stay, longer ICU length of stay, and a significantly higher mortality, compared with those who underwent stapled techniques. Interestingly and different from most other studies on the topic, operating time between the two groups was equivalent.”

On multivariate regression, the presence of contamination at initial bowel resection (OR 1.96) and the patient being managed with an open abdomen (OR 2.53) were independently associated with anastomotic failure, while the type of anastomosis (hand-sewn vs. stapled) was not.

The researchers also conducted a subanalysis of 165 patients managed with an open abdomen who had bowel resection and anastomosis. These patients had higher BMIs, higher lactates, higher INRs, and more negative base deficits, compared with those who were not managed with an open abdomen. “Perhaps not unexpectedly, open abdomen patients were more likely to be on vasopressor agents,” Dr. Bruns said. “They had longer hospital lengths of stay, more ICU days, and an 18.2% overall mortality. Overall there was an almost 22% anastomotic failure rate in patients managed with an open abdomen, compared with an 8.5% rate in patients managed with non-open techniques.” Comparing hand-sewn and stapled techniques, there was no difference in failure rate in patients managed with an open abdomen (25.2% vs. 17.5%, respectively; P = .20).

 

“An overall mortality rate of 8% and an anastomotic complication rate of 12.5% should emphasize the dire needs for these operations and the need for meticulous operative as well as surgically directed perioperative care in these patients,” the invited discussant, Gregory Jurkovich, MD, professor of surgery at the Davis Medical Center, University of California, said at the meeting. “We as surgeons must pay attention to all aspects of care in these patients.”

Dr. Bruns acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was not a randomized, controlled trial. Also, “surgeon preference did dictate the type of anastomosis that was created, and the patient and surgeon populations were heterogeneous,” he said. “The multivariable model was limited by missing laboratory data, likely given the urgent nature of some of the operative procedures.”

He reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Elderly women, blacks, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics are all still underrepresented in lung cancer clinical trials, while gender- and age-based disparities have improved, according to a report published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Herbert H. Pang, PhD, of the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Hong Kong, and his coauthors noted that enrollment disparities in cancer clinical trials have existed for many years, with previous research showing underenrollment of the elderly, women, blacks, and racial and ethnic minorities.

In this study, they analyzed data from 23,006 participants in National Cancer Institute lung cancer trials, and 578,476 patients with lung cancer from the SEER registry (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 19. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.7088).

When they compared the proportion of each subgroup in the trial population with the proportion in the U.S. lung cancer population over time, they noted consistent underrepresentation of blacks, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic patients across the entire study period.

The enrollment disparity for patients aged 70 years or older with non–small-cell lung cancer improved significantly from 1990 to 2012, but while there has been an increase in the proportion of elderly patients with small-cell lung cancer in the U.S. population from 1990 to 2012, the proportion of elderly patients in trials for small-cell lung cancer remained static.

The authors suggested that this may have been the result of local enrollment patterns for the mostly smaller, phase II trials in small-cell lung cancer, but also the fact that the therapies investigated for small-cell lung cancer may have posed a greater risk of treatment toxicity, which would limit the enrollment of older patients.

Significant improvements were seen in the proportion of women enrolled in lung cancer trials, with the enrollment gap between the genders closing in 2012, although elderly women were still underrepresented in lung cancer clinical trials.

“These findings suggest a beneficial effect of the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 that mandated the inclusion of women and minorities in all NIH-funded research,” the authors wrote. “However, other important enrollment disparities, especially for older patients with SCLC, elderly women, and racial/ethnic minorities, continue to persist and require ongoing work to eliminate underrepresentation in lung cancer treatment trials.”

Elderly women, blacks, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics are all still underrepresented in lung cancer clinical trials, while gender- and age-based disparities have improved, according to a report published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Herbert H. Pang, PhD, of the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Hong Kong, and his coauthors noted that enrollment disparities in cancer clinical trials have existed for many years, with previous research showing underenrollment of the elderly, women, blacks, and racial and ethnic minorities.

In this study, they analyzed data from 23,006 participants in National Cancer Institute lung cancer trials, and 578,476 patients with lung cancer from the SEER registry (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 19. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.7088).

When they compared the proportion of each subgroup in the trial population with the proportion in the U.S. lung cancer population over time, they noted consistent underrepresentation of blacks, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic patients across the entire study period.

The enrollment disparity for patients aged 70 years or older with non–small-cell lung cancer improved significantly from 1990 to 2012, but while there has been an increase in the proportion of elderly patients with small-cell lung cancer in the U.S. population from 1990 to 2012, the proportion of elderly patients in trials for small-cell lung cancer remained static.

The authors suggested that this may have been the result of local enrollment patterns for the mostly smaller, phase II trials in small-cell lung cancer, but also the fact that the therapies investigated for small-cell lung cancer may have posed a greater risk of treatment toxicity, which would limit the enrollment of older patients.

Significant improvements were seen in the proportion of women enrolled in lung cancer trials, with the enrollment gap between the genders closing in 2012, although elderly women were still underrepresented in lung cancer clinical trials.

“These findings suggest a beneficial effect of the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 that mandated the inclusion of women and minorities in all NIH-funded research,” the authors wrote. “However, other important enrollment disparities, especially for older patients with SCLC, elderly women, and racial/ethnic minorities, continue to persist and require ongoing work to eliminate underrepresentation in lung cancer treatment trials.”

Elderly women, blacks, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics are all still underrepresented in lung cancer clinical trials, while gender- and age-based disparities have improved, according to a report published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Herbert H. Pang, PhD, of the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Hong Kong, and his coauthors noted that enrollment disparities in cancer clinical trials have existed for many years, with previous research showing underenrollment of the elderly, women, blacks, and racial and ethnic minorities.

In this study, they analyzed data from 23,006 participants in National Cancer Institute lung cancer trials, and 578,476 patients with lung cancer from the SEER registry (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep 19. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.7088).

When they compared the proportion of each subgroup in the trial population with the proportion in the U.S. lung cancer population over time, they noted consistent underrepresentation of blacks, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic patients across the entire study period.

The enrollment disparity for patients aged 70 years or older with non–small-cell lung cancer improved significantly from 1990 to 2012, but while there has been an increase in the proportion of elderly patients with small-cell lung cancer in the U.S. population from 1990 to 2012, the proportion of elderly patients in trials for small-cell lung cancer remained static.

The authors suggested that this may have been the result of local enrollment patterns for the mostly smaller, phase II trials in small-cell lung cancer, but also the fact that the therapies investigated for small-cell lung cancer may have posed a greater risk of treatment toxicity, which would limit the enrollment of older patients.

Significant improvements were seen in the proportion of women enrolled in lung cancer trials, with the enrollment gap between the genders closing in 2012, although elderly women were still underrepresented in lung cancer clinical trials.

“These findings suggest a beneficial effect of the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 that mandated the inclusion of women and minorities in all NIH-funded research,” the authors wrote. “However, other important enrollment disparities, especially for older patients with SCLC, elderly women, and racial/ethnic minorities, continue to persist and require ongoing work to eliminate underrepresentation in lung cancer treatment trials.”

Palifosfamide added to doxorubicin did not improve survival outcomes in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma, compared with doxorubicin alone, a study showed.

The phase III randomized trial did not meet its amended primary endpoint, as there was no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) among patients in the two-drug regimen arm.

“This study represents one of the largest international efforts among sarcoma centers to date,” wrote Christopher W. Ryan, MD, of the Oregon Health & Science University, Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Ore., and his coauthors (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sept 12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.668).

“Single-agent doxorubicin thus remains a reference standard for the treatment of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma,” they wrote.

Doxorubicin has remained the standard first-line treatment for most sarcoma patients for more than 4 decades. Palifosfamide, a tris salt of isophosphoramide mustard, has previously demonstrated broad activity against sarcoma in experimental models.

In addition, a randomized phase II trial showed improved PFS for combined doxorubicin and palifosfamide, compared with doxorubicin alone, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.19-0.95).

Based on those promising results, Dr. Ryan and his colleagues conducted a phase III trial that evaluated the two-drug combination with doxorubicin alone as first-line treatment of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.

The cohort included 447 patients who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 IV on day 1 plus palifosfamide 150 mg/m² per day IV on days 1-3, or doxorubicin plus placebo once every 21 days for up to six cycles.

The primary endpoint of the study was PFS by independent radiologic review.

There was no significant difference in PFS between the two cohorts. For the combination therapy group, the median PFS was 6.0 months, compared with 5.2 months for doxorubicin plus placebo (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.08; P = .19).

Similar results were observed for median overall survival, which was also similar in the two treatment groups: 15.9 months for doxorubicin plus palifosfamide and 16.9 months for doxorubicin plus placebo (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.79-1.39; P = .74).

As for toxicity, all patients had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, with the most common of any grade being alopecia, nausea, and fatigue.

Grade 3-4 adverse events were more frequently observed in patients receiving doxorubicin plus palifosfamide (63.6%) than in the single-therapy group (50.9%; P = .0075).

“The median PFS of 5.2 months and OS [overall survival] of nearly 17 months with doxorubicin should serve as a reference in the design of future studies in the first-line treatment of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma,” Dr. Ryan and his associates said.

The study was supported by ZIOPHARM Oncology. Dr. Ryan and several of the coauthors reported multiple relationships with industry.

Palifosfamide added to doxorubicin did not improve survival outcomes in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma, compared with doxorubicin alone, a study showed.

The phase III randomized trial did not meet its amended primary endpoint, as there was no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) among patients in the two-drug regimen arm.

“This study represents one of the largest international efforts among sarcoma centers to date,” wrote Christopher W. Ryan, MD, of the Oregon Health & Science University, Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Ore., and his coauthors (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sept 12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.668).

“Single-agent doxorubicin thus remains a reference standard for the treatment of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma,” they wrote.

Doxorubicin has remained the standard first-line treatment for most sarcoma patients for more than 4 decades. Palifosfamide, a tris salt of isophosphoramide mustard, has previously demonstrated broad activity against sarcoma in experimental models.

In addition, a randomized phase II trial showed improved PFS for combined doxorubicin and palifosfamide, compared with doxorubicin alone, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.19-0.95).

Based on those promising results, Dr. Ryan and his colleagues conducted a phase III trial that evaluated the two-drug combination with doxorubicin alone as first-line treatment of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.

The cohort included 447 patients who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 IV on day 1 plus palifosfamide 150 mg/m² per day IV on days 1-3, or doxorubicin plus placebo once every 21 days for up to six cycles.

The primary endpoint of the study was PFS by independent radiologic review.

There was no significant difference in PFS between the two cohorts. For the combination therapy group, the median PFS was 6.0 months, compared with 5.2 months for doxorubicin plus placebo (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.08; P = .19).

Similar results were observed for median overall survival, which was also similar in the two treatment groups: 15.9 months for doxorubicin plus palifosfamide and 16.9 months for doxorubicin plus placebo (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.79-1.39; P = .74).

As for toxicity, all patients had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, with the most common of any grade being alopecia, nausea, and fatigue.

Grade 3-4 adverse events were more frequently observed in patients receiving doxorubicin plus palifosfamide (63.6%) than in the single-therapy group (50.9%; P = .0075).

“The median PFS of 5.2 months and OS [overall survival] of nearly 17 months with doxorubicin should serve as a reference in the design of future studies in the first-line treatment of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma,” Dr. Ryan and his associates said.

The study was supported by ZIOPHARM Oncology. Dr. Ryan and several of the coauthors reported multiple relationships with industry.

Palifosfamide added to doxorubicin did not improve survival outcomes in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma, compared with doxorubicin alone, a study showed.

The phase III randomized trial did not meet its amended primary endpoint, as there was no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) among patients in the two-drug regimen arm.

“This study represents one of the largest international efforts among sarcoma centers to date,” wrote Christopher W. Ryan, MD, of the Oregon Health & Science University, Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Ore., and his coauthors (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Sept 12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.668).

“Single-agent doxorubicin thus remains a reference standard for the treatment of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma,” they wrote.

Doxorubicin has remained the standard first-line treatment for most sarcoma patients for more than 4 decades. Palifosfamide, a tris salt of isophosphoramide mustard, has previously demonstrated broad activity against sarcoma in experimental models.

In addition, a randomized phase II trial showed improved PFS for combined doxorubicin and palifosfamide, compared with doxorubicin alone, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.19-0.95).

Based on those promising results, Dr. Ryan and his colleagues conducted a phase III trial that evaluated the two-drug combination with doxorubicin alone as first-line treatment of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma.

The cohort included 447 patients who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 IV on day 1 plus palifosfamide 150 mg/m² per day IV on days 1-3, or doxorubicin plus placebo once every 21 days for up to six cycles.

The primary endpoint of the study was PFS by independent radiologic review.

There was no significant difference in PFS between the two cohorts. For the combination therapy group, the median PFS was 6.0 months, compared with 5.2 months for doxorubicin plus placebo (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.68-1.08; P = .19).

Similar results were observed for median overall survival, which was also similar in the two treatment groups: 15.9 months for doxorubicin plus palifosfamide and 16.9 months for doxorubicin plus placebo (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.79-1.39; P = .74).

As for toxicity, all patients had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, with the most common of any grade being alopecia, nausea, and fatigue.

Grade 3-4 adverse events were more frequently observed in patients receiving doxorubicin plus palifosfamide (63.6%) than in the single-therapy group (50.9%; P = .0075).

“The median PFS of 5.2 months and OS [overall survival] of nearly 17 months with doxorubicin should serve as a reference in the design of future studies in the first-line treatment of metastatic soft tissue sarcoma,” Dr. Ryan and his associates said.

The study was supported by ZIOPHARM Oncology. Dr. Ryan and several of the coauthors reported multiple relationships with industry.

Sepsis is the primary cause of death from infection. Early identification and treatment of sepsis is important in improving patient outcomes. The consensus conference sought to differentiate sepsis, which is defined as “life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection” from uncomplicated infection.

Sepsis was last classified in a 2001 guideline that based its definition on the presence of two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, which included an elevated temperature, heart rate higher than 90 bpm, respiratory rate higher than 20 breaths per minute, and a white blood cell count greater than greater than 12,000 mcL or less than 4,000 mcL or greater than 10% immature bands.

The problem with the SIRS definition of sepsis is that while it reflects a response to infection, it does not sufficiently distinguish between individuals with infections and those with a dysregulated response that leads to a poor prognosis, which is the definition of sepsis. The current consensus conference redefines sepsis with a more direct emphasis on organ dysfunction, as this is the aspect of sepsis that is most clearly linked to patient outcomes.

In the consensus conference document, sepsis is defined as a “life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection.” The guidelines recommend using the quick version of the sequential (sepsis-related) organ failure assessment score (qSOFA) to identify patients with sepsis. In its long form, the SOFA used seven clinical and laboratory data points for completion, and is best suited to use in an intensive care setting where detailed data are available. The qSOFA score has only three criteria and by being easier to use can aid in rapid identification of sepsis and the patients most likely to deteriorate from sepsis.

The qSOFA criteria predict poor outcome in patients with infection who have two or more of the following: respiratory rate greater than or equal to 22 breaths/min, new or worsened altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 100 mm Hg. Unlike the full SOFA score, the qSOFA does not require any laboratory testing and so can be performed in the office or bedside on a hospital floor. The qSOFA does not necessarily define sepsis, rather it identifies patients at a higher risk of hospital death or prolonged ICU stay. The consensus conference suggests that “qSOFA criteria be used to prompt clinicians to further investigate for organ dysfunction, initiate or escalate therapy as appropriate, and consider referral to critical care or increase the frequency of monitoring, if such actions have not already been undertaken.” The task force suggested that the qSOFA score may be a helpful adjunct to best clinical judgment for identifying patients who might benefit from a higher level of care.

Septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk for death than sepsis alone. Septic shock can be identified when, after adequate fluid resuscitation, the patient requires vasopressor therapy to maintain mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mm Hg and has a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L.

Once sepsis is suspected, prompt therapy needs to be started as per the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. The qSOFA criteria can be used to identify patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality. Within 3 hours, a lactate level should be obtained as well as blood cultures from two separate sites drawn prior to administration of antibiotics (but do not delay antibiotic administration). Empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics should be given within 45 minutes of the identification of sepsis. Antibiotic choice will vary per clinician/institution preference, but should likely include coverage for Pseudomonas and MRSA (piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin, for example). Antibiotics should be reassessed daily for de-escalation. Administer 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension or lactate greater than or equal to 4 mmol/L. Within 6 hours, vasopressors should be given for hypotension that does not respond to initial fluid resuscitation to maintain a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of at least 65mm Hg. In the event of persistent hypotension after initial fluid administration (MAP under 65 mm Hg) or if initial lactate was greater than or equal to 4 mmol/L, volume status and tissue perfusion should be reassessed and lactate should be rechecked if it was initially elevated.

The bottom line

A 2016 international task force recommended that the definition of sepsis should be changed to emphasize organ dysfunction rather than a systemic inflammatory response. Use of the qSOFA score, which relies only on clinically observable data rather than laboratory evaluation, is recommended to identify patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality. Early recognition of sepsis and evaluation with qSOFT should facilitate early treatment and improve survival.

 

References

Singer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) FRCP; JAMA. 2016;315[8]:801-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287.

Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, Angus D, Cook D, et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med. 2003 Apr;31(4):1250-6.

Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour C, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.

Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, Gerlach H, Calandra T, Cohen J, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2004 Mar;32(3):858-73.

Dr. Mills is assistant residency program director and assistant professor in the department of family and community medicine and department of physiology at Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University. Dr. Botti is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program department of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.

Sepsis is the primary cause of death from infection. Early identification and treatment of sepsis is important in improving patient outcomes. The consensus conference sought to differentiate sepsis, which is defined as “life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection” from uncomplicated infection.

Sepsis was last classified in a 2001 guideline that based its definition on the presence of two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, which included an elevated temperature, heart rate higher than 90 bpm, respiratory rate higher than 20 breaths per minute, and a white blood cell count greater than greater than 12,000 mcL or less than 4,000 mcL or greater than 10% immature bands.

The problem with the SIRS definition of sepsis is that while it reflects a response to infection, it does not sufficiently distinguish between individuals with infections and those with a dysregulated response that leads to a poor prognosis, which is the definition of sepsis. The current consensus conference redefines sepsis with a more direct emphasis on organ dysfunction, as this is the aspect of sepsis that is most clearly linked to patient outcomes.

In the consensus conference document, sepsis is defined as a “life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection.” The guidelines recommend using the quick version of the sequential (sepsis-related) organ failure assessment score (qSOFA) to identify patients with sepsis. In its long form, the SOFA used seven clinical and laboratory data points for completion, and is best suited to use in an intensive care setting where detailed data are available. The qSOFA score has only three criteria and by being easier to use can aid in rapid identification of sepsis and the patients most likely to deteriorate from sepsis.

The qSOFA criteria predict poor outcome in patients with infection who have two or more of the following: respiratory rate greater than or equal to 22 breaths/min, new or worsened altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 100 mm Hg. Unlike the full SOFA score, the qSOFA does not require any laboratory testing and so can be performed in the office or bedside on a hospital floor. The qSOFA does not necessarily define sepsis, rather it identifies patients at a higher risk of hospital death or prolonged ICU stay. The consensus conference suggests that “qSOFA criteria be used to prompt clinicians to further investigate for organ dysfunction, initiate or escalate therapy as appropriate, and consider referral to critical care or increase the frequency of monitoring, if such actions have not already been undertaken.” The task force suggested that the qSOFA score may be a helpful adjunct to best clinical judgment for identifying patients who might benefit from a higher level of care.

Septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk for death than sepsis alone. Septic shock can be identified when, after adequate fluid resuscitation, the patient requires vasopressor therapy to maintain mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mm Hg and has a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L.

Once sepsis is suspected, prompt therapy needs to be started as per the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. The qSOFA criteria can be used to identify patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality. Within 3 hours, a lactate level should be obtained as well as blood cultures from two separate sites drawn prior to administration of antibiotics (but do not delay antibiotic administration). Empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics should be given within 45 minutes of the identification of sepsis. Antibiotic choice will vary per clinician/institution preference, but should likely include coverage for Pseudomonas and MRSA (piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin, for example). Antibiotics should be reassessed daily for de-escalation. Administer 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension or lactate greater than or equal to 4 mmol/L. Within 6 hours, vasopressors should be given for hypotension that does not respond to initial fluid resuscitation to maintain a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of at least 65mm Hg. In the event of persistent hypotension after initial fluid administration (MAP under 65 mm Hg) or if initial lactate was greater than or equal to 4 mmol/L, volume status and tissue perfusion should be reassessed and lactate should be rechecked if it was initially elevated.

The bottom line

A 2016 international task force recommended that the definition of sepsis should be changed to emphasize organ dysfunction rather than a systemic inflammatory response. Use of the qSOFA score, which relies only on clinically observable data rather than laboratory evaluation, is recommended to identify patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality. Early recognition of sepsis and evaluation with qSOFT should facilitate early treatment and improve survival.

 

References

Singer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) FRCP; JAMA. 2016;315[8]:801-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287.

Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, Angus D, Cook D, et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med. 2003 Apr;31(4):1250-6.

Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour C, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.

Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, Gerlach H, Calandra T, Cohen J, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2004 Mar;32(3):858-73.

Dr. Mills is assistant residency program director and assistant professor in the department of family and community medicine and department of physiology at Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University. Dr. Botti is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program department of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.

Sepsis is the primary cause of death from infection. Early identification and treatment of sepsis is important in improving patient outcomes. The consensus conference sought to differentiate sepsis, which is defined as “life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection” from uncomplicated infection.

Sepsis was last classified in a 2001 guideline that based its definition on the presence of two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, which included an elevated temperature, heart rate higher than 90 bpm, respiratory rate higher than 20 breaths per minute, and a white blood cell count greater than greater than 12,000 mcL or less than 4,000 mcL or greater than 10% immature bands.

The problem with the SIRS definition of sepsis is that while it reflects a response to infection, it does not sufficiently distinguish between individuals with infections and those with a dysregulated response that leads to a poor prognosis, which is the definition of sepsis. The current consensus conference redefines sepsis with a more direct emphasis on organ dysfunction, as this is the aspect of sepsis that is most clearly linked to patient outcomes.

In the consensus conference document, sepsis is defined as a “life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection.” The guidelines recommend using the quick version of the sequential (sepsis-related) organ failure assessment score (qSOFA) to identify patients with sepsis. In its long form, the SOFA used seven clinical and laboratory data points for completion, and is best suited to use in an intensive care setting where detailed data are available. The qSOFA score has only three criteria and by being easier to use can aid in rapid identification of sepsis and the patients most likely to deteriorate from sepsis.

The qSOFA criteria predict poor outcome in patients with infection who have two or more of the following: respiratory rate greater than or equal to 22 breaths/min, new or worsened altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 100 mm Hg. Unlike the full SOFA score, the qSOFA does not require any laboratory testing and so can be performed in the office or bedside on a hospital floor. The qSOFA does not necessarily define sepsis, rather it identifies patients at a higher risk of hospital death or prolonged ICU stay. The consensus conference suggests that “qSOFA criteria be used to prompt clinicians to further investigate for organ dysfunction, initiate or escalate therapy as appropriate, and consider referral to critical care or increase the frequency of monitoring, if such actions have not already been undertaken.” The task force suggested that the qSOFA score may be a helpful adjunct to best clinical judgment for identifying patients who might benefit from a higher level of care.

Septic shock is defined as a subset of sepsis in which profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk for death than sepsis alone. Septic shock can be identified when, after adequate fluid resuscitation, the patient requires vasopressor therapy to maintain mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mm Hg and has a serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L.

Once sepsis is suspected, prompt therapy needs to be started as per the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. The qSOFA criteria can be used to identify patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality. Within 3 hours, a lactate level should be obtained as well as blood cultures from two separate sites drawn prior to administration of antibiotics (but do not delay antibiotic administration). Empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics should be given within 45 minutes of the identification of sepsis. Antibiotic choice will vary per clinician/institution preference, but should likely include coverage for Pseudomonas and MRSA (piperacillin/tazobactam and vancomycin, for example). Antibiotics should be reassessed daily for de-escalation. Administer 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension or lactate greater than or equal to 4 mmol/L. Within 6 hours, vasopressors should be given for hypotension that does not respond to initial fluid resuscitation to maintain a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of at least 65mm Hg. In the event of persistent hypotension after initial fluid administration (MAP under 65 mm Hg) or if initial lactate was greater than or equal to 4 mmol/L, volume status and tissue perfusion should be reassessed and lactate should be rechecked if it was initially elevated.

The bottom line

A 2016 international task force recommended that the definition of sepsis should be changed to emphasize organ dysfunction rather than a systemic inflammatory response. Use of the qSOFA score, which relies only on clinically observable data rather than laboratory evaluation, is recommended to identify patients at high risk for morbidity and mortality. Early recognition of sepsis and evaluation with qSOFT should facilitate early treatment and improve survival.

 

References

Singer M, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) FRCP; JAMA. 2016;315[8]:801-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287.

Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, Angus D, Cook D, et al. 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med. 2003 Apr;31(4):1250-6.

Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour C, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10.

Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, Gerlach H, Calandra T, Cohen J, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2004 Mar;32(3):858-73.

Dr. Mills is assistant residency program director and assistant professor in the department of family and community medicine and department of physiology at Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University. Dr. Botti is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program department of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University. Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital and professor of family and community medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia.