Thach Tran, MD, and colleagues introduced the concept of “skeletal age” in a recently published paper that aims to incorporate the impact of fragility, or low trauma, fractures – which can occur in patients with osteoporosis – on mortality risk.
 

They defined “skeletal age” as the age of the skeleton following a fragility fracture. This is calculated as the chronological age of the individual plus the number of years of “life lost” as a consequence of the specific fracture.

The risk for premature death following fragility fractures is concerning, with 22%-58% of patients with hip fracture dying within a year (Brauer et al.; Rapp et al.). Thus, it’s important to treat osteoporosis in a timely fashion to reduce the risk for such fractures and the excess mortality risk associated with them.

Implementation and uptake of such treatment, however, either before or after a fragility fracture, is far from optimal (Solomon et al). This may be because patients don’t fully understand the consequence of such a fracture, and outcomes measures currently in use (such as relative risk or hazard of mortality) are difficult to communicate to patients.

In the recent paper by Dr. Tran and colleagues, the authors examined the association between fractures and mortality based on sex, age, associated comorbidities, and fracture site. They pooled this information to create a “skeletal age” for each fracture site, using data from the Danish National Hospital Discharge Registry, which documents fractures and related mortality for all Danish people.

They examined mortality over a period of at least 2 years following a fragility fracture in individuals aged 50 or older, and reported that occurrence of any fragility fracture is associated with a 30%-45% increased risk for death, with the highest risk noted for hip and femur fractures (twofold increase). Fractures of the pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, ribs, clavicle, and lower leg were also associated with increased mortality risk, but no increase was seen with fractures of the forearm, knee, ankle, hand, or foot.

The number of years of life lost at any age depending on the fracture site is represented as a linear graph of skeletal age for any chronological age, for specific fracture sites, separated by sex.

For example, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man who has a hip fracture is 57 years (7 years of life lost as a consequence of the fracture), while that for a 70-year-old man with the same fracture is 75 years (5 years of life lost because of the fracture). Similarly, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man with a fracture of the pelvis, femur, vertebrae, and humerus is 55 years (5 years of life lost). Fractures of the lower leg, humerus, and clavicle lead to fewer lost years of life.

The authors are to be commended for creating a simple strategy to quantify mortality risk following low-impact or fragility fractures in older individuals; this could enable providers to communicate the importance of osteoporosis treatment more effectively to patients on the basis of their skeletal age, and for patients to better understand this information.

The study design appears reasonably robust as the authors considered many factors that might affect mortality risk, such as sex, age, and comorbidities, and the results are based on information from a very large number of people – 1.6 million.

However, there’s a major issue with the concept of “skeletal age” as proposed by Dr. Tran and colleagues. The term is already in use and defines the maturity of bones in children and adolescents, also called “bone age” (Greulich and Pyle 1959; Skeletal Age, Radiology Key). This is a real oversight and could cause confusion in interpreting “skeletal age.”

Skeletal age as currently defined in children and adolescents is influenced by chronological age, exposure to certain hormones, nutritional deficiencies, and systemic diseases, and is a predictor of adult height based on the skeletal age and current height. This concept is completely different from that being proposed by the authors in this paper. Dr. Tran and colleagues (and the reviewers of this paper) are probably not familiar with the use of the terminology in youth, which is a major oversight; they should consider changing the terminology given this overlap.

Further, fragility fractures can occur from osteoporosis at any age, and this study doesn’t provide information regarding years of life lost from occurrence of fragility fractures at younger ages, or the age at which mortality risk starts to increase (as the study was performed only in those aged 50 or older).

While the study takes into account general comorbidities in developing the model to define years of life lost, it doesn’t account for other factors that can influence fracture risk, such as lifestyle factors, activity level, and genetic risk (family history of osteoporosis, for example). Of note, the impact of additional fractures isn’t considered either and should be factored into future investigations.

Overall, the study is robust and important and provides valuable information regarding mortality risk from a fragility fracture in older people. However, there are some flaws that need to be considered and addressed, the most serious of which is that the term “skeletal age” has been in existence for decades, applied to a much younger age group, and its implications are completely different from those being proposed by the authors here.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thach Tran, MD, and colleagues introduced the concept of “skeletal age” in a recently published paper that aims to incorporate the impact of fragility, or low trauma, fractures – which can occur in patients with osteoporosis – on mortality risk.
 

They defined “skeletal age” as the age of the skeleton following a fragility fracture. This is calculated as the chronological age of the individual plus the number of years of “life lost” as a consequence of the specific fracture.

The risk for premature death following fragility fractures is concerning, with 22%-58% of patients with hip fracture dying within a year (Brauer et al.; Rapp et al.). Thus, it’s important to treat osteoporosis in a timely fashion to reduce the risk for such fractures and the excess mortality risk associated with them.

Implementation and uptake of such treatment, however, either before or after a fragility fracture, is far from optimal (Solomon et al). This may be because patients don’t fully understand the consequence of such a fracture, and outcomes measures currently in use (such as relative risk or hazard of mortality) are difficult to communicate to patients.

In the recent paper by Dr. Tran and colleagues, the authors examined the association between fractures and mortality based on sex, age, associated comorbidities, and fracture site. They pooled this information to create a “skeletal age” for each fracture site, using data from the Danish National Hospital Discharge Registry, which documents fractures and related mortality for all Danish people.

They examined mortality over a period of at least 2 years following a fragility fracture in individuals aged 50 or older, and reported that occurrence of any fragility fracture is associated with a 30%-45% increased risk for death, with the highest risk noted for hip and femur fractures (twofold increase). Fractures of the pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, ribs, clavicle, and lower leg were also associated with increased mortality risk, but no increase was seen with fractures of the forearm, knee, ankle, hand, or foot.

The number of years of life lost at any age depending on the fracture site is represented as a linear graph of skeletal age for any chronological age, for specific fracture sites, separated by sex.

For example, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man who has a hip fracture is 57 years (7 years of life lost as a consequence of the fracture), while that for a 70-year-old man with the same fracture is 75 years (5 years of life lost because of the fracture). Similarly, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man with a fracture of the pelvis, femur, vertebrae, and humerus is 55 years (5 years of life lost). Fractures of the lower leg, humerus, and clavicle lead to fewer lost years of life.

The authors are to be commended for creating a simple strategy to quantify mortality risk following low-impact or fragility fractures in older individuals; this could enable providers to communicate the importance of osteoporosis treatment more effectively to patients on the basis of their skeletal age, and for patients to better understand this information.

The study design appears reasonably robust as the authors considered many factors that might affect mortality risk, such as sex, age, and comorbidities, and the results are based on information from a very large number of people – 1.6 million.

However, there’s a major issue with the concept of “skeletal age” as proposed by Dr. Tran and colleagues. The term is already in use and defines the maturity of bones in children and adolescents, also called “bone age” (Greulich and Pyle 1959; Skeletal Age, Radiology Key). This is a real oversight and could cause confusion in interpreting “skeletal age.”

Skeletal age as currently defined in children and adolescents is influenced by chronological age, exposure to certain hormones, nutritional deficiencies, and systemic diseases, and is a predictor of adult height based on the skeletal age and current height. This concept is completely different from that being proposed by the authors in this paper. Dr. Tran and colleagues (and the reviewers of this paper) are probably not familiar with the use of the terminology in youth, which is a major oversight; they should consider changing the terminology given this overlap.

Further, fragility fractures can occur from osteoporosis at any age, and this study doesn’t provide information regarding years of life lost from occurrence of fragility fractures at younger ages, or the age at which mortality risk starts to increase (as the study was performed only in those aged 50 or older).

While the study takes into account general comorbidities in developing the model to define years of life lost, it doesn’t account for other factors that can influence fracture risk, such as lifestyle factors, activity level, and genetic risk (family history of osteoporosis, for example). Of note, the impact of additional fractures isn’t considered either and should be factored into future investigations.

Overall, the study is robust and important and provides valuable information regarding mortality risk from a fragility fracture in older people. However, there are some flaws that need to be considered and addressed, the most serious of which is that the term “skeletal age” has been in existence for decades, applied to a much younger age group, and its implications are completely different from those being proposed by the authors here.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thach Tran, MD, and colleagues introduced the concept of “skeletal age” in a recently published paper that aims to incorporate the impact of fragility, or low trauma, fractures – which can occur in patients with osteoporosis – on mortality risk.
 

They defined “skeletal age” as the age of the skeleton following a fragility fracture. This is calculated as the chronological age of the individual plus the number of years of “life lost” as a consequence of the specific fracture.

The risk for premature death following fragility fractures is concerning, with 22%-58% of patients with hip fracture dying within a year (Brauer et al.; Rapp et al.). Thus, it’s important to treat osteoporosis in a timely fashion to reduce the risk for such fractures and the excess mortality risk associated with them.

Implementation and uptake of such treatment, however, either before or after a fragility fracture, is far from optimal (Solomon et al). This may be because patients don’t fully understand the consequence of such a fracture, and outcomes measures currently in use (such as relative risk or hazard of mortality) are difficult to communicate to patients.

In the recent paper by Dr. Tran and colleagues, the authors examined the association between fractures and mortality based on sex, age, associated comorbidities, and fracture site. They pooled this information to create a “skeletal age” for each fracture site, using data from the Danish National Hospital Discharge Registry, which documents fractures and related mortality for all Danish people.

They examined mortality over a period of at least 2 years following a fragility fracture in individuals aged 50 or older, and reported that occurrence of any fragility fracture is associated with a 30%-45% increased risk for death, with the highest risk noted for hip and femur fractures (twofold increase). Fractures of the pelvis, vertebrae, humerus, ribs, clavicle, and lower leg were also associated with increased mortality risk, but no increase was seen with fractures of the forearm, knee, ankle, hand, or foot.

The number of years of life lost at any age depending on the fracture site is represented as a linear graph of skeletal age for any chronological age, for specific fracture sites, separated by sex.

For example, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man who has a hip fracture is 57 years (7 years of life lost as a consequence of the fracture), while that for a 70-year-old man with the same fracture is 75 years (5 years of life lost because of the fracture). Similarly, the skeletal age of a 50-year-old man with a fracture of the pelvis, femur, vertebrae, and humerus is 55 years (5 years of life lost). Fractures of the lower leg, humerus, and clavicle lead to fewer lost years of life.

The authors are to be commended for creating a simple strategy to quantify mortality risk following low-impact or fragility fractures in older individuals; this could enable providers to communicate the importance of osteoporosis treatment more effectively to patients on the basis of their skeletal age, and for patients to better understand this information.

The study design appears reasonably robust as the authors considered many factors that might affect mortality risk, such as sex, age, and comorbidities, and the results are based on information from a very large number of people – 1.6 million.

However, there’s a major issue with the concept of “skeletal age” as proposed by Dr. Tran and colleagues. The term is already in use and defines the maturity of bones in children and adolescents, also called “bone age” (Greulich and Pyle 1959; Skeletal Age, Radiology Key). This is a real oversight and could cause confusion in interpreting “skeletal age.”

Skeletal age as currently defined in children and adolescents is influenced by chronological age, exposure to certain hormones, nutritional deficiencies, and systemic diseases, and is a predictor of adult height based on the skeletal age and current height. This concept is completely different from that being proposed by the authors in this paper. Dr. Tran and colleagues (and the reviewers of this paper) are probably not familiar with the use of the terminology in youth, which is a major oversight; they should consider changing the terminology given this overlap.

Further, fragility fractures can occur from osteoporosis at any age, and this study doesn’t provide information regarding years of life lost from occurrence of fragility fractures at younger ages, or the age at which mortality risk starts to increase (as the study was performed only in those aged 50 or older).

While the study takes into account general comorbidities in developing the model to define years of life lost, it doesn’t account for other factors that can influence fracture risk, such as lifestyle factors, activity level, and genetic risk (family history of osteoporosis, for example). Of note, the impact of additional fractures isn’t considered either and should be factored into future investigations.

Overall, the study is robust and important and provides valuable information regarding mortality risk from a fragility fracture in older people. However, there are some flaws that need to be considered and addressed, the most serious of which is that the term “skeletal age” has been in existence for decades, applied to a much younger age group, and its implications are completely different from those being proposed by the authors here.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello and welcome. I am Vivek Kaul, MD, from the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. It gives me great pleasure, once again, to collaborate with WebMD and Medscape to present this video capsule.

This time, we have picked the best GI and GI surgery papers from the recently concluded Digestive Disease Week 2023 international meeting in Chicago. For this edition of the Medscape GI/Primary Care video capsule, I thought it would be nice to present a couple of GI surgical papers that have major impact on common GI conditions seen in primary care.

This first paper in the GI surgery realm is “Diabetes Mellitus Remission in Patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2 after Bariatric Surgeries: A Real-World Multi-Centered Study.” This comes to us from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

This was a retrospective study of 329 patients who had type 2 diabetes, who underwent either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (two-thirds of them) or a surgical sleeve gastrectomy (about one third of them). The mean follow-up was about 6 years. Type 2 diabetes remission was seen in about half of them in this long-term follow-up.

There were significant improvements in hemoglobin A1c, fasting blood glucose, diabetes, and, of course, weight loss – and all were statistically significant. The type of surgery did not seem to make any difference. Both groups really benefited from this.

The take-home point of this study is that patients who have a high BMI and metabolic syndrome, whether they undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy, should expect to see long-term, durable, positive impact on their diabetes, as well as weight loss, of course, and all the metrics for blood glucose and hemodynamics.

This is an important study and helps us in counseling patients appropriately when they present for selection for these types of surgeries in the appropriate clinical context.

The next paper in the surgical realm is from the University of Padova (Italy), which is “Antireflux Surgery’s Lifespan: 20 Years After Laparoscopic Fundoplication.” This is a prospective study of 137 patients who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (n = 107) or a large hiatal hernia (n = 30).

The median follow-up in this study was 22 years, which is among the longest I’ve seen in recent years for any study. A very small percentage of patients underwent revision surgery, which speaks to the skill set and careful selection of the patient cohort.

Only nine patients of 137 had repeat surgeries. Positive outcomes, on the other hand, were seen in the vast majority of patients with reflux, at 84%, and still, two thirds of patients with hiatal hernia had positive outcomes over the long term.

Failure-free survival was much higher for the gastroesophageal reflux cohort, as expected, compared with the hiatal hernia cohort. Patient satisfaction after two decades was almost 90% both for reflux and for hiatal hernia, which is quite a significant milestone.

The take-home point from this study is that laparoscopic fundoplication is quite durable, with success rates approaching 90%, even 2 decades after the surgical intervention. This is quite an important data point for us to discuss with patients when they present with a question around surgery for these indications. Although, as we know well in the era of PPI therapy, surgical indications are definitely reduced, compared with 20 years ago.

The next paper in this group is related to another very important clinical entity, which is acute pancreatitis and the question of pancreatic cancer in those patients who present with acute pancreatitis.

Our previous work in this realm, published a couple of years ago, suggested that about 3% of patients who come to the hospital with acute pancreatitis may harbor pancreatic malignancy, which can be picked up if we do a diligent follow-up with cross-sectional imaging and endoscopic ultrasound.

This paper talks about acute pancreatitis and the modeling of risk in terms of prediction for early cancer. This study was conducted at the University of Pennsylvania and basically speaks to a clinical prediction model to assess the risk for pancreatic cancer after acute pancreatitis diagnosis.

As we know, the risk for pancreatic cancer is highest within 2 years of the initial presentation of acute pancreatitis, especially if the etiology of that pancreatitis was unclear. In this clinical prediction model, as shown on this slide, a variety of demographic and clinical criteria were used, all of which are easily accessible to us in GI and in primary care to calculate the modeling risk.

A large number of patients were used to apply this model: 51,613 patients. The mean age was 62%, the overwhelming majority were male, and half were Caucasian. Using this clinical prediction model, a 2-year incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was calculated to be 1.6% for an absolute number of 800 cases.

Nearly 50% were discovered after 3 months. There was a positive association with pancreatic cystic disease in these patients, which makes sense in terms of their preneoplastic potential.

The take-home point from this study is that readily available demographic and clinical criteria may be useful in helping us predict diagnosis of early pancreatic cancer in a subset of patients who present with acute pancreatitis, and in my opinion, particularly those who present with pancreatitis for which we cannot explain the etiology.

The next paper we have refers to a very common problem, which is Helicobacter pylori infection. This is almost an endemic problem in the Far East and in the third world, but also an increasing problem in the United States.

This particular study comes to us from Taiwan and is looking at different treatment strategies for H. pylori infection. In Taiwan and the Far East, it has been proposed that high acid content in the food might be interfering with efficacy rates. The consideration for antibiotic resistance may be an issue as well. That’s in the background of this paper.

This paper is titled “Enhanced Efficacy of Combined Bismuth and High-Dose Dual Therapy versus High-Dose Dual Therapy Alone or Quadruple Therapy for First-Line H pylori Eradication.” This was an interim report from a large multicenter, randomized controlled trial and included 436 patients with H. pylori infection.

Each patient had biopsies with H. pylori cultures, and they were randomized to one of three regimens as listed here. They received high-dose dual therapy or bismuth along with high-dose dual therapy – so, triple therapy – or they received the amoxicillin-based bismuth and quadruple-therapy regimen. Breath tests were used to check for eradication at the end of the treatment period.

In terms of the results from this study, it’s very clear that the bismuth-based regimen, which is listed here in the middle column, had the highest treatment efficacy rates and moderate adverse event rates when compared with the other two arms.

Reduced eradication in the dual-therapy arm was seen probably due to increased acid food intake. Reduced eradication in the quadruple-therapy arm was likely associated with antibiotic resistance and also with poor compliance, which is understandable when you have more medications to take compared with the group that has fewer medications to take.

The take-home point from this study was that the addition of bismuth might be the silver bullet when you add that to the dual-therapy regimen in difficult cases of H pylori infection. More to come on this, and certainly of relevance to us here as we tackle more and more cases of H. pylori infection stateside.

Last but not least, GI and primary care discussions can never be complete without a discussion on colorectal cancer screening. As the NordICC trial has shown us, it’s not the issue with the screening modality but more about patients’ acceptance of screening, particularly invasive screening.

This paper looked at different strategies and tried to figure out which strategy would be most attractive to bring more people in for screening. This is a large, randomized controlled trial with good distribution of patient populations with approximately half female, half White, and a mean age around 48 years, with more than 20,000 patients.

One of four screening strategies was used. Patients were invited for a fecal immunochemical test, a colonoscopy, or they were invited to choose between a FIT test and a colonoscopy. The final group was mailed a FIT test kit as an outreach mechanism.

Invitations were sent via electronic patient portals, which are very common nowadays, and via the United States Postal Service. Text-message reminders were sent a couple of weeks later. The primary outcome of this study was to look at any colorectal cancer completion rate at 26 weeks.

The results of the study were quite interesting. Screening completion rates were relatively low at 18%. It was interesting to note that the highest screening rates were seen with those who had the FIT test mailed to them, whereas each of the other three groups that had only invitations sent to them had relatively lower screening compliance rates.

The lowest participation was in the colonoscopy invitation group, I suspect due to the invasive nature of the procedure and the patients’ perception of that. When patients were offered a choice, they were more likely to be compliant with screening. In the end, more patients chose colonoscopy as their screening test of choice compared with FIT testing.

The take-home point from this study is that directly sending test kits as an outreach might be more effective than simply inviting subjects to be screened. From those who do respond to be screened, more patients would choose colonoscopy, compared with the FIT test.

With that, I come to the end of this video capsule summary for the Best of GI for Primary Care from DDW 2023. We covered a variety of topics, ranging from pancreatitis to H pylori to colon cancer screening and a couple of GI surgical interventions with long-term outcomes that are very favorable.

Dr. Kaul disclosed conflicts of interest with AMBU, Cook Medical, CDS, CDX,Steris, and Motus GI.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello and welcome. I am Vivek Kaul, MD, from the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. It gives me great pleasure, once again, to collaborate with WebMD and Medscape to present this video capsule.

This time, we have picked the best GI and GI surgery papers from the recently concluded Digestive Disease Week 2023 international meeting in Chicago. For this edition of the Medscape GI/Primary Care video capsule, I thought it would be nice to present a couple of GI surgical papers that have major impact on common GI conditions seen in primary care.

This first paper in the GI surgery realm is “Diabetes Mellitus Remission in Patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2 after Bariatric Surgeries: A Real-World Multi-Centered Study.” This comes to us from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

This was a retrospective study of 329 patients who had type 2 diabetes, who underwent either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (two-thirds of them) or a surgical sleeve gastrectomy (about one third of them). The mean follow-up was about 6 years. Type 2 diabetes remission was seen in about half of them in this long-term follow-up.

There were significant improvements in hemoglobin A1c, fasting blood glucose, diabetes, and, of course, weight loss – and all were statistically significant. The type of surgery did not seem to make any difference. Both groups really benefited from this.

The take-home point of this study is that patients who have a high BMI and metabolic syndrome, whether they undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy, should expect to see long-term, durable, positive impact on their diabetes, as well as weight loss, of course, and all the metrics for blood glucose and hemodynamics.

This is an important study and helps us in counseling patients appropriately when they present for selection for these types of surgeries in the appropriate clinical context.

The next paper in the surgical realm is from the University of Padova (Italy), which is “Antireflux Surgery’s Lifespan: 20 Years After Laparoscopic Fundoplication.” This is a prospective study of 137 patients who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (n = 107) or a large hiatal hernia (n = 30).

The median follow-up in this study was 22 years, which is among the longest I’ve seen in recent years for any study. A very small percentage of patients underwent revision surgery, which speaks to the skill set and careful selection of the patient cohort.

Only nine patients of 137 had repeat surgeries. Positive outcomes, on the other hand, were seen in the vast majority of patients with reflux, at 84%, and still, two thirds of patients with hiatal hernia had positive outcomes over the long term.

Failure-free survival was much higher for the gastroesophageal reflux cohort, as expected, compared with the hiatal hernia cohort. Patient satisfaction after two decades was almost 90% both for reflux and for hiatal hernia, which is quite a significant milestone.

The take-home point from this study is that laparoscopic fundoplication is quite durable, with success rates approaching 90%, even 2 decades after the surgical intervention. This is quite an important data point for us to discuss with patients when they present with a question around surgery for these indications. Although, as we know well in the era of PPI therapy, surgical indications are definitely reduced, compared with 20 years ago.

The next paper in this group is related to another very important clinical entity, which is acute pancreatitis and the question of pancreatic cancer in those patients who present with acute pancreatitis.

Our previous work in this realm, published a couple of years ago, suggested that about 3% of patients who come to the hospital with acute pancreatitis may harbor pancreatic malignancy, which can be picked up if we do a diligent follow-up with cross-sectional imaging and endoscopic ultrasound.

This paper talks about acute pancreatitis and the modeling of risk in terms of prediction for early cancer. This study was conducted at the University of Pennsylvania and basically speaks to a clinical prediction model to assess the risk for pancreatic cancer after acute pancreatitis diagnosis.

As we know, the risk for pancreatic cancer is highest within 2 years of the initial presentation of acute pancreatitis, especially if the etiology of that pancreatitis was unclear. In this clinical prediction model, as shown on this slide, a variety of demographic and clinical criteria were used, all of which are easily accessible to us in GI and in primary care to calculate the modeling risk.

A large number of patients were used to apply this model: 51,613 patients. The mean age was 62%, the overwhelming majority were male, and half were Caucasian. Using this clinical prediction model, a 2-year incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was calculated to be 1.6% for an absolute number of 800 cases.

Nearly 50% were discovered after 3 months. There was a positive association with pancreatic cystic disease in these patients, which makes sense in terms of their preneoplastic potential.

The take-home point from this study is that readily available demographic and clinical criteria may be useful in helping us predict diagnosis of early pancreatic cancer in a subset of patients who present with acute pancreatitis, and in my opinion, particularly those who present with pancreatitis for which we cannot explain the etiology.

The next paper we have refers to a very common problem, which is Helicobacter pylori infection. This is almost an endemic problem in the Far East and in the third world, but also an increasing problem in the United States.

This particular study comes to us from Taiwan and is looking at different treatment strategies for H. pylori infection. In Taiwan and the Far East, it has been proposed that high acid content in the food might be interfering with efficacy rates. The consideration for antibiotic resistance may be an issue as well. That’s in the background of this paper.

This paper is titled “Enhanced Efficacy of Combined Bismuth and High-Dose Dual Therapy versus High-Dose Dual Therapy Alone or Quadruple Therapy for First-Line H pylori Eradication.” This was an interim report from a large multicenter, randomized controlled trial and included 436 patients with H. pylori infection.

Each patient had biopsies with H. pylori cultures, and they were randomized to one of three regimens as listed here. They received high-dose dual therapy or bismuth along with high-dose dual therapy – so, triple therapy – or they received the amoxicillin-based bismuth and quadruple-therapy regimen. Breath tests were used to check for eradication at the end of the treatment period.

In terms of the results from this study, it’s very clear that the bismuth-based regimen, which is listed here in the middle column, had the highest treatment efficacy rates and moderate adverse event rates when compared with the other two arms.

Reduced eradication in the dual-therapy arm was seen probably due to increased acid food intake. Reduced eradication in the quadruple-therapy arm was likely associated with antibiotic resistance and also with poor compliance, which is understandable when you have more medications to take compared with the group that has fewer medications to take.

The take-home point from this study was that the addition of bismuth might be the silver bullet when you add that to the dual-therapy regimen in difficult cases of H pylori infection. More to come on this, and certainly of relevance to us here as we tackle more and more cases of H. pylori infection stateside.

Last but not least, GI and primary care discussions can never be complete without a discussion on colorectal cancer screening. As the NordICC trial has shown us, it’s not the issue with the screening modality but more about patients’ acceptance of screening, particularly invasive screening.

This paper looked at different strategies and tried to figure out which strategy would be most attractive to bring more people in for screening. This is a large, randomized controlled trial with good distribution of patient populations with approximately half female, half White, and a mean age around 48 years, with more than 20,000 patients.

One of four screening strategies was used. Patients were invited for a fecal immunochemical test, a colonoscopy, or they were invited to choose between a FIT test and a colonoscopy. The final group was mailed a FIT test kit as an outreach mechanism.

Invitations were sent via electronic patient portals, which are very common nowadays, and via the United States Postal Service. Text-message reminders were sent a couple of weeks later. The primary outcome of this study was to look at any colorectal cancer completion rate at 26 weeks.

The results of the study were quite interesting. Screening completion rates were relatively low at 18%. It was interesting to note that the highest screening rates were seen with those who had the FIT test mailed to them, whereas each of the other three groups that had only invitations sent to them had relatively lower screening compliance rates.

The lowest participation was in the colonoscopy invitation group, I suspect due to the invasive nature of the procedure and the patients’ perception of that. When patients were offered a choice, they were more likely to be compliant with screening. In the end, more patients chose colonoscopy as their screening test of choice compared with FIT testing.

The take-home point from this study is that directly sending test kits as an outreach might be more effective than simply inviting subjects to be screened. From those who do respond to be screened, more patients would choose colonoscopy, compared with the FIT test.

With that, I come to the end of this video capsule summary for the Best of GI for Primary Care from DDW 2023. We covered a variety of topics, ranging from pancreatitis to H pylori to colon cancer screening and a couple of GI surgical interventions with long-term outcomes that are very favorable.

Dr. Kaul disclosed conflicts of interest with AMBU, Cook Medical, CDS, CDX,Steris, and Motus GI.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello and welcome. I am Vivek Kaul, MD, from the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. It gives me great pleasure, once again, to collaborate with WebMD and Medscape to present this video capsule.

This time, we have picked the best GI and GI surgery papers from the recently concluded Digestive Disease Week 2023 international meeting in Chicago. For this edition of the Medscape GI/Primary Care video capsule, I thought it would be nice to present a couple of GI surgical papers that have major impact on common GI conditions seen in primary care.

This first paper in the GI surgery realm is “Diabetes Mellitus Remission in Patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2 after Bariatric Surgeries: A Real-World Multi-Centered Study.” This comes to us from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

This was a retrospective study of 329 patients who had type 2 diabetes, who underwent either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (two-thirds of them) or a surgical sleeve gastrectomy (about one third of them). The mean follow-up was about 6 years. Type 2 diabetes remission was seen in about half of them in this long-term follow-up.

There were significant improvements in hemoglobin A1c, fasting blood glucose, diabetes, and, of course, weight loss – and all were statistically significant. The type of surgery did not seem to make any difference. Both groups really benefited from this.

The take-home point of this study is that patients who have a high BMI and metabolic syndrome, whether they undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy, should expect to see long-term, durable, positive impact on their diabetes, as well as weight loss, of course, and all the metrics for blood glucose and hemodynamics.

This is an important study and helps us in counseling patients appropriately when they present for selection for these types of surgeries in the appropriate clinical context.

The next paper in the surgical realm is from the University of Padova (Italy), which is “Antireflux Surgery’s Lifespan: 20 Years After Laparoscopic Fundoplication.” This is a prospective study of 137 patients who underwent laparoscopic fundoplication for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (n = 107) or a large hiatal hernia (n = 30).

The median follow-up in this study was 22 years, which is among the longest I’ve seen in recent years for any study. A very small percentage of patients underwent revision surgery, which speaks to the skill set and careful selection of the patient cohort.

Only nine patients of 137 had repeat surgeries. Positive outcomes, on the other hand, were seen in the vast majority of patients with reflux, at 84%, and still, two thirds of patients with hiatal hernia had positive outcomes over the long term.

Failure-free survival was much higher for the gastroesophageal reflux cohort, as expected, compared with the hiatal hernia cohort. Patient satisfaction after two decades was almost 90% both for reflux and for hiatal hernia, which is quite a significant milestone.

The take-home point from this study is that laparoscopic fundoplication is quite durable, with success rates approaching 90%, even 2 decades after the surgical intervention. This is quite an important data point for us to discuss with patients when they present with a question around surgery for these indications. Although, as we know well in the era of PPI therapy, surgical indications are definitely reduced, compared with 20 years ago.

The next paper in this group is related to another very important clinical entity, which is acute pancreatitis and the question of pancreatic cancer in those patients who present with acute pancreatitis.

Our previous work in this realm, published a couple of years ago, suggested that about 3% of patients who come to the hospital with acute pancreatitis may harbor pancreatic malignancy, which can be picked up if we do a diligent follow-up with cross-sectional imaging and endoscopic ultrasound.

This paper talks about acute pancreatitis and the modeling of risk in terms of prediction for early cancer. This study was conducted at the University of Pennsylvania and basically speaks to a clinical prediction model to assess the risk for pancreatic cancer after acute pancreatitis diagnosis.

As we know, the risk for pancreatic cancer is highest within 2 years of the initial presentation of acute pancreatitis, especially if the etiology of that pancreatitis was unclear. In this clinical prediction model, as shown on this slide, a variety of demographic and clinical criteria were used, all of which are easily accessible to us in GI and in primary care to calculate the modeling risk.

A large number of patients were used to apply this model: 51,613 patients. The mean age was 62%, the overwhelming majority were male, and half were Caucasian. Using this clinical prediction model, a 2-year incidence of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma was calculated to be 1.6% for an absolute number of 800 cases.

Nearly 50% were discovered after 3 months. There was a positive association with pancreatic cystic disease in these patients, which makes sense in terms of their preneoplastic potential.

The take-home point from this study is that readily available demographic and clinical criteria may be useful in helping us predict diagnosis of early pancreatic cancer in a subset of patients who present with acute pancreatitis, and in my opinion, particularly those who present with pancreatitis for which we cannot explain the etiology.

The next paper we have refers to a very common problem, which is Helicobacter pylori infection. This is almost an endemic problem in the Far East and in the third world, but also an increasing problem in the United States.

This particular study comes to us from Taiwan and is looking at different treatment strategies for H. pylori infection. In Taiwan and the Far East, it has been proposed that high acid content in the food might be interfering with efficacy rates. The consideration for antibiotic resistance may be an issue as well. That’s in the background of this paper.

This paper is titled “Enhanced Efficacy of Combined Bismuth and High-Dose Dual Therapy versus High-Dose Dual Therapy Alone or Quadruple Therapy for First-Line H pylori Eradication.” This was an interim report from a large multicenter, randomized controlled trial and included 436 patients with H. pylori infection.

Each patient had biopsies with H. pylori cultures, and they were randomized to one of three regimens as listed here. They received high-dose dual therapy or bismuth along with high-dose dual therapy – so, triple therapy – or they received the amoxicillin-based bismuth and quadruple-therapy regimen. Breath tests were used to check for eradication at the end of the treatment period.

In terms of the results from this study, it’s very clear that the bismuth-based regimen, which is listed here in the middle column, had the highest treatment efficacy rates and moderate adverse event rates when compared with the other two arms.

Reduced eradication in the dual-therapy arm was seen probably due to increased acid food intake. Reduced eradication in the quadruple-therapy arm was likely associated with antibiotic resistance and also with poor compliance, which is understandable when you have more medications to take compared with the group that has fewer medications to take.

The take-home point from this study was that the addition of bismuth might be the silver bullet when you add that to the dual-therapy regimen in difficult cases of H pylori infection. More to come on this, and certainly of relevance to us here as we tackle more and more cases of H. pylori infection stateside.

Last but not least, GI and primary care discussions can never be complete without a discussion on colorectal cancer screening. As the NordICC trial has shown us, it’s not the issue with the screening modality but more about patients’ acceptance of screening, particularly invasive screening.

This paper looked at different strategies and tried to figure out which strategy would be most attractive to bring more people in for screening. This is a large, randomized controlled trial with good distribution of patient populations with approximately half female, half White, and a mean age around 48 years, with more than 20,000 patients.

One of four screening strategies was used. Patients were invited for a fecal immunochemical test, a colonoscopy, or they were invited to choose between a FIT test and a colonoscopy. The final group was mailed a FIT test kit as an outreach mechanism.

Invitations were sent via electronic patient portals, which are very common nowadays, and via the United States Postal Service. Text-message reminders were sent a couple of weeks later. The primary outcome of this study was to look at any colorectal cancer completion rate at 26 weeks.

The results of the study were quite interesting. Screening completion rates were relatively low at 18%. It was interesting to note that the highest screening rates were seen with those who had the FIT test mailed to them, whereas each of the other three groups that had only invitations sent to them had relatively lower screening compliance rates.

The lowest participation was in the colonoscopy invitation group, I suspect due to the invasive nature of the procedure and the patients’ perception of that. When patients were offered a choice, they were more likely to be compliant with screening. In the end, more patients chose colonoscopy as their screening test of choice compared with FIT testing.

The take-home point from this study is that directly sending test kits as an outreach might be more effective than simply inviting subjects to be screened. From those who do respond to be screened, more patients would choose colonoscopy, compared with the FIT test.

With that, I come to the end of this video capsule summary for the Best of GI for Primary Care from DDW 2023. We covered a variety of topics, ranging from pancreatitis to H pylori to colon cancer screening and a couple of GI surgical interventions with long-term outcomes that are very favorable.

Dr. Kaul disclosed conflicts of interest with AMBU, Cook Medical, CDS, CDX,Steris, and Motus GI.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – Resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and reduction of fibrosis on liver biopsy were achieved with the oral, thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist resmetirom (Madrigal Pharmaceuticals) in patients with NASH and associated cirrhosis in a pivotal phase 3 clinical trial. The primary results of the MAESTRO-NASH (NCT03900429) trial were reported at the European Association for the Study of the Liver Congress 2023.

Both doses of resmetirom – 80 mg and 100 mg – met the primary endpoints of NASH resolution and no worsening of fibrosis on liver biopsy. The key secondary endpoint of LDL cholesterol lowering was also achieved with statistical significance. Likewise, improvement was seen in liver enzymes, and liver and spleen volumes.

In the intent-to-treat population, NASH resolution was achieved in 26% (P < .0001) in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 30% (P < .0001) in the 100-mg group, and 10% in those taking placebo. And ≥ 1-stage improvement in fibrosis with no worsening of the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score (NAS) was achieved by 24% (P < .0002), 26% (P < .0001), and 14% in these groups respectively.

The investigational, liver-directed agent, designed to improve NASH by increasing hepatic fat metabolism and reducing lipotoxicity, was well tolerated overall with a favorable safety profile.

“This is an exciting time for NASH because we are at the forefront of having a drug to treat these patients, and the benefit to patients promises to be huge,” asserted Stephen Harrison, MD, principal investigator of the MAESTRO studies, gastroenterologist and hepatologist, and founder of Pinnacle Clinical Research, San Antonio, in reporting 52-week results.

“This is the first treatment to achieve meaningful effects on both primary liver biopsy endpoints – disease activity and fibrosis – which is absolutely critical because fibrosis pertains to a worse prognosis. [These results] are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit in a phase 3 trial in patients with NASH,” he added.
 

FDA-chosen endpoints likely to predict clinical outcomes

The ongoing 54-month, phase 3, registrational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involved taking liver biopsies from 966 patients at around 200 global sites. Biopsy readings were taken by two pathologists that were then combined into a single treatment effect. 

Patients had biopsy-proven NASH with fibrosis stages F1B, F2, or F3, the presence of three or more metabolic risk factors, a FibroScan vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) score of 8.5 kPa or more, baseline MRI proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) of 8% or more, and a NAS score of 4 or more with at least 1 in each NAS component. Around 65% of participants had type 2 diabetes, between 13% and 16% were taking glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and 46%-51% were taking statins.

Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily resmetirom 80 mg or 100 mg orally or to placebo and treated for 52 weeks.

Both liver histological improvement primary endpoints at week-52 were proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit and as such support accelerated approval for the treatment of NASH with liver fibrosis. These primary endpoints were NASH resolution (ballooning 0, inflammation 0/1) with ≥ 2-point improvement in NAS with no worsening of fibrosis, and ≥ 1-stage reduction in fibrosis with no worsening of NAS.

Patients on resmetirom showed improvement in NAS components and fibrosis, and less worsening of NAS and fibrosis, compared with placebo. Percentage improvement was seen in 31%, 33%, and 15% of patients on 80 mg resmetirom, 100 mg resmetirom, and placebo respectively; no change was seen in 51%, 48%, and 51% respectively; and worsening was seen in 18%, 19%, and 34% respectively. 

The key secondary endpoint of LDL cholesterol lowering was also met. “There was a significant effect of resmetirom 80 and 100 mg on multiple atherogenic lipids/lipoproteins at both week 24 and 52,” reported Dr. Harrison. The 52-week percentage change from baseline in LDL cholesterol was –14%, –20%, and 0% for the 80-mg resmetirom group, the 100-mg group, and the placebo group respectively.

“We also saw a significant reduction in liver enzymes [alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT)] relative to placebo both in terms of percentage and absolute measures,” Dr. Harrison added. “[And] the change in liver enzymes was associated with the neutral biomarker that increases with resmetirom target engagement.”   

Resmetirom at both doses also resulted in a significant effect on MRI-PDFF and Fibroscan CAP. At week 52, 80 mg resmetirom, 100 mg, and placebo led to –42.1%, –51.4% and –10.4% change from baseline in MRI-PDFF, while Fibroscan CAP changed by –39.6%, –41.3%, and –14.5% respectively, reported Dr. Harrison. Liver volume dropped by –21.6% in the 80-mg group and –25.8% in the 100-mg group, compared with –1.0% in the placebo group. Spleen volume changed by –5.9%, –6.1%, and +3.2% respectively.

Liver stiffness, as measured by Fibroscan VCTE at week 52, changed from –3.7 KPa (F1B) to –2.0 KPa (F3) at 80 mg, and from –3.7 KPa (F1B) to –2.5 KPa (F2) and –3.3 KPa (F3) at the 100-mg dose.

Further analysis showed that improvements in fibrosis and NASH resolution were seen across all key subgroups, including baseline fibrosis stage (F2 or F3), NAS (< 6, ≥ 6), type 2 diabetes status, age (< 65 years, ≥ 65 years), and sex.
 

Safety profile

“The safety profile of resmetirom in the MAESTRO-NASH trial is consistent with previous phase 2/3 trials in which the most common adverse events were diarrhea and nausea at treatment initiation,” said Dr. Harrison.

Study discontinuations in the 100-mg group were increased relative to placebo during the first few weeks of treatment and were similar in all treatment groups up to 52 weeks. Discontinuations of patients on resmetirom 100 mg were mainly gastrointestinal related. 

Phase 2 results of the serial liver biopsy trial in adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH showed that resmetirom resolved NASH in a significantly greater percentage of patients and reduced liver enzymes, inflammatory biomarkers, and fibrosis, compared with placebo.

“We’ve been waiting for a long, long time for a therapy for these patients because until now, they have been challenged with lifestyle modifications to lose and maintain weight,” said Dr. Harrison. “There’s been a delay in identifying patients with this disease because we’ve had no treatment, but now that we are on the forefront of a treatment, it allows clinicians to open their minds to the possibility of identifying these patients.”

Dr. Harrison noted that a limitation of these data was the lack of clinical outcomes data to correlate with the biopsy data; however, the MAESTRO-NASH trial will continue to 54 months to accrue and evaluate clinical outcomes.

Milan Mishkovikj, MSc, board director of the European Liver Patients Association, Bitola, North Macedonia, commented on the potential benefit of this drug for patients. “Adhering to a healthy lifestyle is not always easy – not in all countries – so it’s encouraging to have a drug that hopefully is affordable and accessible to us. Now we need to manage the expectations of patients and caregivers.”

EASL’s vice secretary Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, professor and head of hepatology at University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and Odense University Hospital remarked, “This is so exciting. This phase 3 trial is a real game-changer in the field of fatty liver disease because it has nearly 1,000 patients over 52 weeks of treatment.”

Madrigal Pharmaceuticals plans to submit an application to the FDA by end of the second quarter with a priority review.

Dr. Harrison is founder of Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Krag has served as speaker for Norgine, Siemens, and Nordic Bioscience, and participated in advisory boards for Norgine and Siemens, all outside the submitted work. He receives royalties from Gyldendal and Echosens. Dr. Mishkovikj has declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – Resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and reduction of fibrosis on liver biopsy were achieved with the oral, thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist resmetirom (Madrigal Pharmaceuticals) in patients with NASH and associated cirrhosis in a pivotal phase 3 clinical trial. The primary results of the MAESTRO-NASH (NCT03900429) trial were reported at the European Association for the Study of the Liver Congress 2023.

Both doses of resmetirom – 80 mg and 100 mg – met the primary endpoints of NASH resolution and no worsening of fibrosis on liver biopsy. The key secondary endpoint of LDL cholesterol lowering was also achieved with statistical significance. Likewise, improvement was seen in liver enzymes, and liver and spleen volumes.

In the intent-to-treat population, NASH resolution was achieved in 26% (P < .0001) in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 30% (P < .0001) in the 100-mg group, and 10% in those taking placebo. And ≥ 1-stage improvement in fibrosis with no worsening of the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score (NAS) was achieved by 24% (P < .0002), 26% (P < .0001), and 14% in these groups respectively.

The investigational, liver-directed agent, designed to improve NASH by increasing hepatic fat metabolism and reducing lipotoxicity, was well tolerated overall with a favorable safety profile.

“This is an exciting time for NASH because we are at the forefront of having a drug to treat these patients, and the benefit to patients promises to be huge,” asserted Stephen Harrison, MD, principal investigator of the MAESTRO studies, gastroenterologist and hepatologist, and founder of Pinnacle Clinical Research, San Antonio, in reporting 52-week results.

“This is the first treatment to achieve meaningful effects on both primary liver biopsy endpoints – disease activity and fibrosis – which is absolutely critical because fibrosis pertains to a worse prognosis. [These results] are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit in a phase 3 trial in patients with NASH,” he added.
 

FDA-chosen endpoints likely to predict clinical outcomes

The ongoing 54-month, phase 3, registrational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involved taking liver biopsies from 966 patients at around 200 global sites. Biopsy readings were taken by two pathologists that were then combined into a single treatment effect. 

Patients had biopsy-proven NASH with fibrosis stages F1B, F2, or F3, the presence of three or more metabolic risk factors, a FibroScan vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) score of 8.5 kPa or more, baseline MRI proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) of 8% or more, and a NAS score of 4 or more with at least 1 in each NAS component. Around 65% of participants had type 2 diabetes, between 13% and 16% were taking glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and 46%-51% were taking statins.

Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily resmetirom 80 mg or 100 mg orally or to placebo and treated for 52 weeks.

Both liver histological improvement primary endpoints at week-52 were proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit and as such support accelerated approval for the treatment of NASH with liver fibrosis. These primary endpoints were NASH resolution (ballooning 0, inflammation 0/1) with ≥ 2-point improvement in NAS with no worsening of fibrosis, and ≥ 1-stage reduction in fibrosis with no worsening of NAS.

Patients on resmetirom showed improvement in NAS components and fibrosis, and less worsening of NAS and fibrosis, compared with placebo. Percentage improvement was seen in 31%, 33%, and 15% of patients on 80 mg resmetirom, 100 mg resmetirom, and placebo respectively; no change was seen in 51%, 48%, and 51% respectively; and worsening was seen in 18%, 19%, and 34% respectively. 

The key secondary endpoint of LDL cholesterol lowering was also met. “There was a significant effect of resmetirom 80 and 100 mg on multiple atherogenic lipids/lipoproteins at both week 24 and 52,” reported Dr. Harrison. The 52-week percentage change from baseline in LDL cholesterol was –14%, –20%, and 0% for the 80-mg resmetirom group, the 100-mg group, and the placebo group respectively.

“We also saw a significant reduction in liver enzymes [alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT)] relative to placebo both in terms of percentage and absolute measures,” Dr. Harrison added. “[And] the change in liver enzymes was associated with the neutral biomarker that increases with resmetirom target engagement.”   

Resmetirom at both doses also resulted in a significant effect on MRI-PDFF and Fibroscan CAP. At week 52, 80 mg resmetirom, 100 mg, and placebo led to –42.1%, –51.4% and –10.4% change from baseline in MRI-PDFF, while Fibroscan CAP changed by –39.6%, –41.3%, and –14.5% respectively, reported Dr. Harrison. Liver volume dropped by –21.6% in the 80-mg group and –25.8% in the 100-mg group, compared with –1.0% in the placebo group. Spleen volume changed by –5.9%, –6.1%, and +3.2% respectively.

Liver stiffness, as measured by Fibroscan VCTE at week 52, changed from –3.7 KPa (F1B) to –2.0 KPa (F3) at 80 mg, and from –3.7 KPa (F1B) to –2.5 KPa (F2) and –3.3 KPa (F3) at the 100-mg dose.

Further analysis showed that improvements in fibrosis and NASH resolution were seen across all key subgroups, including baseline fibrosis stage (F2 or F3), NAS (< 6, ≥ 6), type 2 diabetes status, age (< 65 years, ≥ 65 years), and sex.
 

Safety profile

“The safety profile of resmetirom in the MAESTRO-NASH trial is consistent with previous phase 2/3 trials in which the most common adverse events were diarrhea and nausea at treatment initiation,” said Dr. Harrison.

Study discontinuations in the 100-mg group were increased relative to placebo during the first few weeks of treatment and were similar in all treatment groups up to 52 weeks. Discontinuations of patients on resmetirom 100 mg were mainly gastrointestinal related. 

Phase 2 results of the serial liver biopsy trial in adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH showed that resmetirom resolved NASH in a significantly greater percentage of patients and reduced liver enzymes, inflammatory biomarkers, and fibrosis, compared with placebo.

“We’ve been waiting for a long, long time for a therapy for these patients because until now, they have been challenged with lifestyle modifications to lose and maintain weight,” said Dr. Harrison. “There’s been a delay in identifying patients with this disease because we’ve had no treatment, but now that we are on the forefront of a treatment, it allows clinicians to open their minds to the possibility of identifying these patients.”

Dr. Harrison noted that a limitation of these data was the lack of clinical outcomes data to correlate with the biopsy data; however, the MAESTRO-NASH trial will continue to 54 months to accrue and evaluate clinical outcomes.

Milan Mishkovikj, MSc, board director of the European Liver Patients Association, Bitola, North Macedonia, commented on the potential benefit of this drug for patients. “Adhering to a healthy lifestyle is not always easy – not in all countries – so it’s encouraging to have a drug that hopefully is affordable and accessible to us. Now we need to manage the expectations of patients and caregivers.”

EASL’s vice secretary Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, professor and head of hepatology at University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and Odense University Hospital remarked, “This is so exciting. This phase 3 trial is a real game-changer in the field of fatty liver disease because it has nearly 1,000 patients over 52 weeks of treatment.”

Madrigal Pharmaceuticals plans to submit an application to the FDA by end of the second quarter with a priority review.

Dr. Harrison is founder of Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Krag has served as speaker for Norgine, Siemens, and Nordic Bioscience, and participated in advisory boards for Norgine and Siemens, all outside the submitted work. He receives royalties from Gyldendal and Echosens. Dr. Mishkovikj has declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – Resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and reduction of fibrosis on liver biopsy were achieved with the oral, thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist resmetirom (Madrigal Pharmaceuticals) in patients with NASH and associated cirrhosis in a pivotal phase 3 clinical trial. The primary results of the MAESTRO-NASH (NCT03900429) trial were reported at the European Association for the Study of the Liver Congress 2023.

Both doses of resmetirom – 80 mg and 100 mg – met the primary endpoints of NASH resolution and no worsening of fibrosis on liver biopsy. The key secondary endpoint of LDL cholesterol lowering was also achieved with statistical significance. Likewise, improvement was seen in liver enzymes, and liver and spleen volumes.

In the intent-to-treat population, NASH resolution was achieved in 26% (P < .0001) in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 30% (P < .0001) in the 100-mg group, and 10% in those taking placebo. And ≥ 1-stage improvement in fibrosis with no worsening of the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score (NAS) was achieved by 24% (P < .0002), 26% (P < .0001), and 14% in these groups respectively.

The investigational, liver-directed agent, designed to improve NASH by increasing hepatic fat metabolism and reducing lipotoxicity, was well tolerated overall with a favorable safety profile.

“This is an exciting time for NASH because we are at the forefront of having a drug to treat these patients, and the benefit to patients promises to be huge,” asserted Stephen Harrison, MD, principal investigator of the MAESTRO studies, gastroenterologist and hepatologist, and founder of Pinnacle Clinical Research, San Antonio, in reporting 52-week results.

“This is the first treatment to achieve meaningful effects on both primary liver biopsy endpoints – disease activity and fibrosis – which is absolutely critical because fibrosis pertains to a worse prognosis. [These results] are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit in a phase 3 trial in patients with NASH,” he added.
 

FDA-chosen endpoints likely to predict clinical outcomes

The ongoing 54-month, phase 3, registrational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involved taking liver biopsies from 966 patients at around 200 global sites. Biopsy readings were taken by two pathologists that were then combined into a single treatment effect. 

Patients had biopsy-proven NASH with fibrosis stages F1B, F2, or F3, the presence of three or more metabolic risk factors, a FibroScan vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) score of 8.5 kPa or more, baseline MRI proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) of 8% or more, and a NAS score of 4 or more with at least 1 in each NAS component. Around 65% of participants had type 2 diabetes, between 13% and 16% were taking glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and 46%-51% were taking statins.

Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily resmetirom 80 mg or 100 mg orally or to placebo and treated for 52 weeks.

Both liver histological improvement primary endpoints at week-52 were proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit and as such support accelerated approval for the treatment of NASH with liver fibrosis. These primary endpoints were NASH resolution (ballooning 0, inflammation 0/1) with ≥ 2-point improvement in NAS with no worsening of fibrosis, and ≥ 1-stage reduction in fibrosis with no worsening of NAS.

Patients on resmetirom showed improvement in NAS components and fibrosis, and less worsening of NAS and fibrosis, compared with placebo. Percentage improvement was seen in 31%, 33%, and 15% of patients on 80 mg resmetirom, 100 mg resmetirom, and placebo respectively; no change was seen in 51%, 48%, and 51% respectively; and worsening was seen in 18%, 19%, and 34% respectively. 

The key secondary endpoint of LDL cholesterol lowering was also met. “There was a significant effect of resmetirom 80 and 100 mg on multiple atherogenic lipids/lipoproteins at both week 24 and 52,” reported Dr. Harrison. The 52-week percentage change from baseline in LDL cholesterol was –14%, –20%, and 0% for the 80-mg resmetirom group, the 100-mg group, and the placebo group respectively.

“We also saw a significant reduction in liver enzymes [alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT)] relative to placebo both in terms of percentage and absolute measures,” Dr. Harrison added. “[And] the change in liver enzymes was associated with the neutral biomarker that increases with resmetirom target engagement.”   

Resmetirom at both doses also resulted in a significant effect on MRI-PDFF and Fibroscan CAP. At week 52, 80 mg resmetirom, 100 mg, and placebo led to –42.1%, –51.4% and –10.4% change from baseline in MRI-PDFF, while Fibroscan CAP changed by –39.6%, –41.3%, and –14.5% respectively, reported Dr. Harrison. Liver volume dropped by –21.6% in the 80-mg group and –25.8% in the 100-mg group, compared with –1.0% in the placebo group. Spleen volume changed by –5.9%, –6.1%, and +3.2% respectively.

Liver stiffness, as measured by Fibroscan VCTE at week 52, changed from –3.7 KPa (F1B) to –2.0 KPa (F3) at 80 mg, and from –3.7 KPa (F1B) to –2.5 KPa (F2) and –3.3 KPa (F3) at the 100-mg dose.

Further analysis showed that improvements in fibrosis and NASH resolution were seen across all key subgroups, including baseline fibrosis stage (F2 or F3), NAS (< 6, ≥ 6), type 2 diabetes status, age (< 65 years, ≥ 65 years), and sex.
 

Safety profile

“The safety profile of resmetirom in the MAESTRO-NASH trial is consistent with previous phase 2/3 trials in which the most common adverse events were diarrhea and nausea at treatment initiation,” said Dr. Harrison.

Study discontinuations in the 100-mg group were increased relative to placebo during the first few weeks of treatment and were similar in all treatment groups up to 52 weeks. Discontinuations of patients on resmetirom 100 mg were mainly gastrointestinal related. 

Phase 2 results of the serial liver biopsy trial in adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH showed that resmetirom resolved NASH in a significantly greater percentage of patients and reduced liver enzymes, inflammatory biomarkers, and fibrosis, compared with placebo.

“We’ve been waiting for a long, long time for a therapy for these patients because until now, they have been challenged with lifestyle modifications to lose and maintain weight,” said Dr. Harrison. “There’s been a delay in identifying patients with this disease because we’ve had no treatment, but now that we are on the forefront of a treatment, it allows clinicians to open their minds to the possibility of identifying these patients.”

Dr. Harrison noted that a limitation of these data was the lack of clinical outcomes data to correlate with the biopsy data; however, the MAESTRO-NASH trial will continue to 54 months to accrue and evaluate clinical outcomes.

Milan Mishkovikj, MSc, board director of the European Liver Patients Association, Bitola, North Macedonia, commented on the potential benefit of this drug for patients. “Adhering to a healthy lifestyle is not always easy – not in all countries – so it’s encouraging to have a drug that hopefully is affordable and accessible to us. Now we need to manage the expectations of patients and caregivers.”

EASL’s vice secretary Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, professor and head of hepatology at University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and Odense University Hospital remarked, “This is so exciting. This phase 3 trial is a real game-changer in the field of fatty liver disease because it has nearly 1,000 patients over 52 weeks of treatment.”

Madrigal Pharmaceuticals plans to submit an application to the FDA by end of the second quarter with a priority review.

Dr. Harrison is founder of Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Krag has served as speaker for Norgine, Siemens, and Nordic Bioscience, and participated in advisory boards for Norgine and Siemens, all outside the submitted work. He receives royalties from Gyldendal and Echosens. Dr. Mishkovikj has declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention has released a new policy statement outlining how pediatricians can improve child pedestrian safety by educating families as well as engaging in legislative advocacy to make communities more pedestrian friendly.

The policy statement recommends that pediatricians advocate for environmental and urban planning that aims for no pedestrian fatalities or serious injuries, according to authors Sadiqa A. I. Kendi, MD, MPH, CPST; and Brian D. Johnston, MD, MPH, and colleagues.

While pedestrian fatalities have declined over the last 3 decades, child pedestrian fatalities have increased by 11% since 2013, the AAP Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention noted. Many of these fatalities occur in rural areas, during 6 to 9 p.m., mid-block rather than at intersections, and among adolescents aged 10-19 years, according to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

“The reminder to ‘Look both ways before you cross the street,’ is good advice, but just part of the equation,” Dr. Kendi stated in a press release. “Research tells us that an even more effective way to consistently improve safety is when communities take intentional steps to create pedestrian-safe environments. We live in a busy, distracted world, and when local leaders create walkable spaces, they also enhance the appeal and vibrance of their communities.”
 

Advocating for safer communities

The AAP’s policy statement recommends that pediatricians advocate for legislation at the federal, state, and local level that supports a “Complete Streets” policy of including all forms of transportation and people on the roadways as well as incorporates a “Vision Zero” policy of reducing traffic fatalities and injuries. Other recommendations include supporting legislation that reduces speeds in urban areas, and the use of photo speed limit enforcement in areas such as school zones.

The AAP also highlighted the need for the adoption of new safety technology such as pedestrian detection systems, automatic braking in vehicles, and the consideration of child pedestrians with the development of new technologies such as autonomous vehicles.

“Drivers may not see small children when backing up their vehicles in a driveway or lot,” Dr. Kendi said. “Newer and self-driving vehicles are increasingly equipped with safety features and technology to detect pedestrians and avoid crashes, but they’re often more likely to detect adults and may not be able to account for the less predictable movements of a small child.”

In addition, the AAP’s policy statement recommends that pediatricians participate in community advocacy for safer and healthier pedestrian environments, community-level Vision Zero interventions, development of safe routes to school, alternative nonmotorized transportation methods to reduce vehicular traffic, the development of pedestrian infrastructure in communities, 20-mph zones in residential and commercial areas, research into pedestrian education, and surveillance systems that could identify locations where pedestrian injury is a high risk.
 

Educating families on pedestrian safety

There is also an opportunity to engage in anticipatory guidance with children and their parents, according to the policy statement. The AAP recommends pediatricians counsel families on the complexity of the traffic environment, remind parents that children may not be visible to drivers, and that driveways and unfenced yards are considered unsafe play areas. Adults should be with children aged younger than 10 years and teach young children the importance of pedestrian safety based on the child’s developmental level, the AAP said. When children are older, they can be more independent, but should still use “protected routes with signalized crossings in low-traffic environments,” they noted.

For parents of children with limited mobility or another disability, extra time may be needed to help children safely navigate a pedestrian environment, the AAP explained. “This might include selection of routes with low barriers to mobility, interventions to increase pedestrian visibility, instruction on use of audible pedestrian signals, and white-cane skills for children with visual impairment,” they noted.

All children should be educated on the risk of distracted walking, whether through texting, talking on the phone, or listening to music.

“We know that active transportation, like walking or biking, is good for kids and it’s good for the environment,” Brian D. Johnston, MD, MPH, coauthor of the report, said in a press release. “As children grow older, they will be able to be more independent. Each of us can help keep children safe by paying attention to the people around us and by promoting safer environments that benefit all of us.”
 

‘Pediatricians always find a way to reach their patients’

In an interview, Christina Johns, MD, MEd, pediatric emergency doctor and senior medical adviser at PM Pediatric Care, said that implementing this policy statement “requires a multilayered approach” that includes funding infrastructure and city planning, policy changes, family education, and other stakeholders and “will require support and buy-in at all levels.”

“While challenging to implement, the return in potential lives saved and additional health benefits of increased mobility for children (decreasing obesity burden, for example) cannot be overstated,” Dr. Johns said. “It will be helpful to create a checklist of the recommended counseling points that can be added to health records to keep this topic top of mind and document that it has been discussed at well visits.”

Emma Sartin, PhD, MPH, a research scientist at the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said environmental risks will still be present regardless of whether a child is a safe pedestrian. “Adults and children need to balance practical safe mobility behavior with being present and aware in the current moment; as a pedestrian, without the protection of active and passive safety systems in motor vehicles, staying vigilant is critical to safety,” she said. Many pedestrian injuries and fatalities come from marginalized racial and ethnic groups, and those with neurodivergent statuses, Dr. Sartin explained, who “get licensed later than their peers, which may make being a pedestrian or using other modes of transportation (such as cycling) necessary.”

“These groups also often have higher rates of crash injuries and fatalities when they are inside of vehicles,” she said. “We need to be better at supporting safe mobility across different transportation options – driving, walking, cycling, and public transit – for all children and adults.”

Pediatricians excel at using anticipatory guidance to counsel families, and the refinements in the latest AAP policy statement on child pedestrian safety are something pediatricians can focus on at well visits, Dr. Johns said. Specific age groups will require pediatricians to adjust their conversation based on the child’s development as well as the family’s questions and concerns, she noted.

Dorothy Novick, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said guidance to families will change as a child grows and develops, starting with teaching young children to hold hands when crossing the street, and not to play near driveways and roads.

“As children grow older, I remind families what I myself was surprised to learn as a new parent – that most children don’t develop the depth perception, judgment, and motor skills they need to cross the street safely by themselves until they’re at least 10 years old,” she explained. “Of course, with teens we place enormous emphasis on avoiding distractions, such as texting and watching videos while walking. One message remains the same for all parents, no matter the child’s age – the importance of modeling safe pedestrian behavior.

“Even during busy annual checkups, pediatricians always find a way to reach their patients and families about topics important to child health and wellness, so I have confidence that my colleagues and I will execute this mission,” Dr. Johns said. “The time required for advocacy and lobbying can be challenging however, and so having advocacy groups like the AAP is key to creating agency for pediatricians to have a voice in their communities and the legislature.

“Children cannot speak or advocate for themselves when it comes to funding, development of social programs or safety policy, or infrastructure planning and building, so it’s up to pediatricians to have a loud and unified voice to make sure that we watch out for their safety and incorporate their unique needs into their surroundings as much as possible,” she added.

The AAP reports that it has not accepted commercial involvement in developing the policy statement, and all authors have resolved potential conflicts of interest through a process approved by the AAP board of directors. Dr. Johns, Dr. Novick, and Dr. Sartin report no relevant financial disclosures.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention has released a new policy statement outlining how pediatricians can improve child pedestrian safety by educating families as well as engaging in legislative advocacy to make communities more pedestrian friendly.

The policy statement recommends that pediatricians advocate for environmental and urban planning that aims for no pedestrian fatalities or serious injuries, according to authors Sadiqa A. I. Kendi, MD, MPH, CPST; and Brian D. Johnston, MD, MPH, and colleagues.

While pedestrian fatalities have declined over the last 3 decades, child pedestrian fatalities have increased by 11% since 2013, the AAP Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention noted. Many of these fatalities occur in rural areas, during 6 to 9 p.m., mid-block rather than at intersections, and among adolescents aged 10-19 years, according to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

“The reminder to ‘Look both ways before you cross the street,’ is good advice, but just part of the equation,” Dr. Kendi stated in a press release. “Research tells us that an even more effective way to consistently improve safety is when communities take intentional steps to create pedestrian-safe environments. We live in a busy, distracted world, and when local leaders create walkable spaces, they also enhance the appeal and vibrance of their communities.”
 

Advocating for safer communities

The AAP’s policy statement recommends that pediatricians advocate for legislation at the federal, state, and local level that supports a “Complete Streets” policy of including all forms of transportation and people on the roadways as well as incorporates a “Vision Zero” policy of reducing traffic fatalities and injuries. Other recommendations include supporting legislation that reduces speeds in urban areas, and the use of photo speed limit enforcement in areas such as school zones.

The AAP also highlighted the need for the adoption of new safety technology such as pedestrian detection systems, automatic braking in vehicles, and the consideration of child pedestrians with the development of new technologies such as autonomous vehicles.

“Drivers may not see small children when backing up their vehicles in a driveway or lot,” Dr. Kendi said. “Newer and self-driving vehicles are increasingly equipped with safety features and technology to detect pedestrians and avoid crashes, but they’re often more likely to detect adults and may not be able to account for the less predictable movements of a small child.”

In addition, the AAP’s policy statement recommends that pediatricians participate in community advocacy for safer and healthier pedestrian environments, community-level Vision Zero interventions, development of safe routes to school, alternative nonmotorized transportation methods to reduce vehicular traffic, the development of pedestrian infrastructure in communities, 20-mph zones in residential and commercial areas, research into pedestrian education, and surveillance systems that could identify locations where pedestrian injury is a high risk.
 

Educating families on pedestrian safety

There is also an opportunity to engage in anticipatory guidance with children and their parents, according to the policy statement. The AAP recommends pediatricians counsel families on the complexity of the traffic environment, remind parents that children may not be visible to drivers, and that driveways and unfenced yards are considered unsafe play areas. Adults should be with children aged younger than 10 years and teach young children the importance of pedestrian safety based on the child’s developmental level, the AAP said. When children are older, they can be more independent, but should still use “protected routes with signalized crossings in low-traffic environments,” they noted.

For parents of children with limited mobility or another disability, extra time may be needed to help children safely navigate a pedestrian environment, the AAP explained. “This might include selection of routes with low barriers to mobility, interventions to increase pedestrian visibility, instruction on use of audible pedestrian signals, and white-cane skills for children with visual impairment,” they noted.

All children should be educated on the risk of distracted walking, whether through texting, talking on the phone, or listening to music.

“We know that active transportation, like walking or biking, is good for kids and it’s good for the environment,” Brian D. Johnston, MD, MPH, coauthor of the report, said in a press release. “As children grow older, they will be able to be more independent. Each of us can help keep children safe by paying attention to the people around us and by promoting safer environments that benefit all of us.”
 

‘Pediatricians always find a way to reach their patients’

In an interview, Christina Johns, MD, MEd, pediatric emergency doctor and senior medical adviser at PM Pediatric Care, said that implementing this policy statement “requires a multilayered approach” that includes funding infrastructure and city planning, policy changes, family education, and other stakeholders and “will require support and buy-in at all levels.”

“While challenging to implement, the return in potential lives saved and additional health benefits of increased mobility for children (decreasing obesity burden, for example) cannot be overstated,” Dr. Johns said. “It will be helpful to create a checklist of the recommended counseling points that can be added to health records to keep this topic top of mind and document that it has been discussed at well visits.”

Emma Sartin, PhD, MPH, a research scientist at the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said environmental risks will still be present regardless of whether a child is a safe pedestrian. “Adults and children need to balance practical safe mobility behavior with being present and aware in the current moment; as a pedestrian, without the protection of active and passive safety systems in motor vehicles, staying vigilant is critical to safety,” she said. Many pedestrian injuries and fatalities come from marginalized racial and ethnic groups, and those with neurodivergent statuses, Dr. Sartin explained, who “get licensed later than their peers, which may make being a pedestrian or using other modes of transportation (such as cycling) necessary.”

“These groups also often have higher rates of crash injuries and fatalities when they are inside of vehicles,” she said. “We need to be better at supporting safe mobility across different transportation options – driving, walking, cycling, and public transit – for all children and adults.”

Pediatricians excel at using anticipatory guidance to counsel families, and the refinements in the latest AAP policy statement on child pedestrian safety are something pediatricians can focus on at well visits, Dr. Johns said. Specific age groups will require pediatricians to adjust their conversation based on the child’s development as well as the family’s questions and concerns, she noted.

Dorothy Novick, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said guidance to families will change as a child grows and develops, starting with teaching young children to hold hands when crossing the street, and not to play near driveways and roads.

“As children grow older, I remind families what I myself was surprised to learn as a new parent – that most children don’t develop the depth perception, judgment, and motor skills they need to cross the street safely by themselves until they’re at least 10 years old,” she explained. “Of course, with teens we place enormous emphasis on avoiding distractions, such as texting and watching videos while walking. One message remains the same for all parents, no matter the child’s age – the importance of modeling safe pedestrian behavior.

“Even during busy annual checkups, pediatricians always find a way to reach their patients and families about topics important to child health and wellness, so I have confidence that my colleagues and I will execute this mission,” Dr. Johns said. “The time required for advocacy and lobbying can be challenging however, and so having advocacy groups like the AAP is key to creating agency for pediatricians to have a voice in their communities and the legislature.

“Children cannot speak or advocate for themselves when it comes to funding, development of social programs or safety policy, or infrastructure planning and building, so it’s up to pediatricians to have a loud and unified voice to make sure that we watch out for their safety and incorporate their unique needs into their surroundings as much as possible,” she added.

The AAP reports that it has not accepted commercial involvement in developing the policy statement, and all authors have resolved potential conflicts of interest through a process approved by the AAP board of directors. Dr. Johns, Dr. Novick, and Dr. Sartin report no relevant financial disclosures.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention has released a new policy statement outlining how pediatricians can improve child pedestrian safety by educating families as well as engaging in legislative advocacy to make communities more pedestrian friendly.

The policy statement recommends that pediatricians advocate for environmental and urban planning that aims for no pedestrian fatalities or serious injuries, according to authors Sadiqa A. I. Kendi, MD, MPH, CPST; and Brian D. Johnston, MD, MPH, and colleagues.

While pedestrian fatalities have declined over the last 3 decades, child pedestrian fatalities have increased by 11% since 2013, the AAP Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention noted. Many of these fatalities occur in rural areas, during 6 to 9 p.m., mid-block rather than at intersections, and among adolescents aged 10-19 years, according to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

“The reminder to ‘Look both ways before you cross the street,’ is good advice, but just part of the equation,” Dr. Kendi stated in a press release. “Research tells us that an even more effective way to consistently improve safety is when communities take intentional steps to create pedestrian-safe environments. We live in a busy, distracted world, and when local leaders create walkable spaces, they also enhance the appeal and vibrance of their communities.”
 

Advocating for safer communities

The AAP’s policy statement recommends that pediatricians advocate for legislation at the federal, state, and local level that supports a “Complete Streets” policy of including all forms of transportation and people on the roadways as well as incorporates a “Vision Zero” policy of reducing traffic fatalities and injuries. Other recommendations include supporting legislation that reduces speeds in urban areas, and the use of photo speed limit enforcement in areas such as school zones.

The AAP also highlighted the need for the adoption of new safety technology such as pedestrian detection systems, automatic braking in vehicles, and the consideration of child pedestrians with the development of new technologies such as autonomous vehicles.

“Drivers may not see small children when backing up their vehicles in a driveway or lot,” Dr. Kendi said. “Newer and self-driving vehicles are increasingly equipped with safety features and technology to detect pedestrians and avoid crashes, but they’re often more likely to detect adults and may not be able to account for the less predictable movements of a small child.”

In addition, the AAP’s policy statement recommends that pediatricians participate in community advocacy for safer and healthier pedestrian environments, community-level Vision Zero interventions, development of safe routes to school, alternative nonmotorized transportation methods to reduce vehicular traffic, the development of pedestrian infrastructure in communities, 20-mph zones in residential and commercial areas, research into pedestrian education, and surveillance systems that could identify locations where pedestrian injury is a high risk.
 

Educating families on pedestrian safety

There is also an opportunity to engage in anticipatory guidance with children and their parents, according to the policy statement. The AAP recommends pediatricians counsel families on the complexity of the traffic environment, remind parents that children may not be visible to drivers, and that driveways and unfenced yards are considered unsafe play areas. Adults should be with children aged younger than 10 years and teach young children the importance of pedestrian safety based on the child’s developmental level, the AAP said. When children are older, they can be more independent, but should still use “protected routes with signalized crossings in low-traffic environments,” they noted.

For parents of children with limited mobility or another disability, extra time may be needed to help children safely navigate a pedestrian environment, the AAP explained. “This might include selection of routes with low barriers to mobility, interventions to increase pedestrian visibility, instruction on use of audible pedestrian signals, and white-cane skills for children with visual impairment,” they noted.

All children should be educated on the risk of distracted walking, whether through texting, talking on the phone, or listening to music.

“We know that active transportation, like walking or biking, is good for kids and it’s good for the environment,” Brian D. Johnston, MD, MPH, coauthor of the report, said in a press release. “As children grow older, they will be able to be more independent. Each of us can help keep children safe by paying attention to the people around us and by promoting safer environments that benefit all of us.”
 

‘Pediatricians always find a way to reach their patients’

In an interview, Christina Johns, MD, MEd, pediatric emergency doctor and senior medical adviser at PM Pediatric Care, said that implementing this policy statement “requires a multilayered approach” that includes funding infrastructure and city planning, policy changes, family education, and other stakeholders and “will require support and buy-in at all levels.”

“While challenging to implement, the return in potential lives saved and additional health benefits of increased mobility for children (decreasing obesity burden, for example) cannot be overstated,” Dr. Johns said. “It will be helpful to create a checklist of the recommended counseling points that can be added to health records to keep this topic top of mind and document that it has been discussed at well visits.”

Emma Sartin, PhD, MPH, a research scientist at the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said environmental risks will still be present regardless of whether a child is a safe pedestrian. “Adults and children need to balance practical safe mobility behavior with being present and aware in the current moment; as a pedestrian, without the protection of active and passive safety systems in motor vehicles, staying vigilant is critical to safety,” she said. Many pedestrian injuries and fatalities come from marginalized racial and ethnic groups, and those with neurodivergent statuses, Dr. Sartin explained, who “get licensed later than their peers, which may make being a pedestrian or using other modes of transportation (such as cycling) necessary.”

“These groups also often have higher rates of crash injuries and fatalities when they are inside of vehicles,” she said. “We need to be better at supporting safe mobility across different transportation options – driving, walking, cycling, and public transit – for all children and adults.”

Pediatricians excel at using anticipatory guidance to counsel families, and the refinements in the latest AAP policy statement on child pedestrian safety are something pediatricians can focus on at well visits, Dr. Johns said. Specific age groups will require pediatricians to adjust their conversation based on the child’s development as well as the family’s questions and concerns, she noted.

Dorothy Novick, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said guidance to families will change as a child grows and develops, starting with teaching young children to hold hands when crossing the street, and not to play near driveways and roads.

“As children grow older, I remind families what I myself was surprised to learn as a new parent – that most children don’t develop the depth perception, judgment, and motor skills they need to cross the street safely by themselves until they’re at least 10 years old,” she explained. “Of course, with teens we place enormous emphasis on avoiding distractions, such as texting and watching videos while walking. One message remains the same for all parents, no matter the child’s age – the importance of modeling safe pedestrian behavior.

“Even during busy annual checkups, pediatricians always find a way to reach their patients and families about topics important to child health and wellness, so I have confidence that my colleagues and I will execute this mission,” Dr. Johns said. “The time required for advocacy and lobbying can be challenging however, and so having advocacy groups like the AAP is key to creating agency for pediatricians to have a voice in their communities and the legislature.

“Children cannot speak or advocate for themselves when it comes to funding, development of social programs or safety policy, or infrastructure planning and building, so it’s up to pediatricians to have a loud and unified voice to make sure that we watch out for their safety and incorporate their unique needs into their surroundings as much as possible,” she added.

The AAP reports that it has not accepted commercial involvement in developing the policy statement, and all authors have resolved potential conflicts of interest through a process approved by the AAP board of directors. Dr. Johns, Dr. Novick, and Dr. Sartin report no relevant financial disclosures.

A Massachusetts-based law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Harvard Medical School, alleging that it failed to protect the remains of people who donated their bodies to the university for research and education.

Plaintiffs include relatives of people whose remains were allegedly stolen and sold. The lawsuit alleges that as many as 400 cadavers may have been trafficked in a multi-year scheme. Details were revealed in a June 13 indictment by the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

“Medical schools like Harvard have a duty to ensure [donated remains] are handled properly and with decency and to ensure they are used for their intended purpose of scientific study,” attorney Jeff Catalano said in a statement.

“I do think Harvard has that duty,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University. But, he added, “I will say there’s not much they can do when employees set out to systematically undermine them.”

The indictment alleges that from 2018 through August 2022, Harvard morgue manager Cedric Lodge stole dissected portions of donated cadavers, including heads, brains, skin, and bones, which were then sold by him and his wife, Denise Lodge, to Katrina Maclean, owner of Kat’s Creepy Creations, Peabody, Mass. Ms. Maclean allegedly sold human remains to Joshua Taylor and Jeremy Pauley, both Pennsylvania residents.

On occasion, Mr. Lodge allowed Ms. Maclean, Mr. Taylor, and others into the morgue to choose which parts they wanted, according to the indictment. Mr. Taylor, Ms. Maclean, and Denise Lodge are all named in the indictment. Mr. Pauley was charged separately.

They each face a maximum of 15 years in prison.

Ms. Maclean allegedly bought two dissected faces for $600 and shipped human skin to Mr. Pauley to be made into leather; Mr. Pauley then eventually shipped the “tanned human skin” back to Ms. Maclean, according to the indictment. Over a 3-year period, Mr. Taylor paid the Lodges some $37,000 for stolen human remains, the indictment charges.

Mr. Pauley also purchased human remains from Candace Chapman Scott, who stole them from her employer, a mortuary in Little Rock, Ark. The mortuary received remains for cremation from an area medical school, according to the indictment.

After being notified of the investigation in March, Harvard cooperated fully, the school said in a statement from George Q. Daley, MD, PhD, dean of the Faculty of Medicine.

“We are appalled to learn that something so disturbing could happen on our campus – a community dedicated to healing and serving others,” the statement said. “The reported incidents are a betrayal of HMS and, most importantly, each of the individuals who altruistically chose to will their bodies to HMS through the Anatomical Gift Program to advance medical education and research.”

The U.S. attorney thanked Harvard for its cooperation, saying that it “is also a victim here.”

Dr. Caplan, who also writes an ethics column for this news organization, agrees. The school was betrayed, he said.

“You expect professionalism, integrity on the part of your doctors, on the part of your technicians, on the part of your workforce,” he said. He noted that those expectations are explained in institutions’ codes of ethics and policies.

Harvard said Mr. Lodge had worked in the morgue since 1995 and that he took several leaves: from September 2021 to February 2022, and again starting February 14. The school terminated his employment on May 6.

His duties included intake of anatomic donors’ bodies. He coordinated embalming and oversaw the storage and movement of cadavers to and from teaching labs. When studies were complete, he prepared remains to be transported to and from the external crematorium and, when appropriate, for burial, according to a Harvard fact sheet for families.

The medical school has convened an outside expert panel to evaluate the Anatomical Gift Program and morgue policies and practices. The panel is expected to make its findings public at the end of the summer.

Dr. Caplan said he hoped the committee recommends unannounced audits of cadaver donation programs and medical tissue and bone suppliers, which could help expose illicit diversions. “You need to keep an eye, which no one seems to do because it’s a state issue and it’s not a priority, on that trade in body parts,” he said.

He believes other medical schools will reexamine their donation programs, especially given Harvard’s status.

“With a prominent place like that having this kind of problem, I can’t imagine there’s not a little bit of a scramble at a lot of the body programs to make sure that they know that things are as they should be,” Dr. Caplan said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Massachusetts-based law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Harvard Medical School, alleging that it failed to protect the remains of people who donated their bodies to the university for research and education.

Plaintiffs include relatives of people whose remains were allegedly stolen and sold. The lawsuit alleges that as many as 400 cadavers may have been trafficked in a multi-year scheme. Details were revealed in a June 13 indictment by the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

“Medical schools like Harvard have a duty to ensure [donated remains] are handled properly and with decency and to ensure they are used for their intended purpose of scientific study,” attorney Jeff Catalano said in a statement.

“I do think Harvard has that duty,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University. But, he added, “I will say there’s not much they can do when employees set out to systematically undermine them.”

The indictment alleges that from 2018 through August 2022, Harvard morgue manager Cedric Lodge stole dissected portions of donated cadavers, including heads, brains, skin, and bones, which were then sold by him and his wife, Denise Lodge, to Katrina Maclean, owner of Kat’s Creepy Creations, Peabody, Mass. Ms. Maclean allegedly sold human remains to Joshua Taylor and Jeremy Pauley, both Pennsylvania residents.

On occasion, Mr. Lodge allowed Ms. Maclean, Mr. Taylor, and others into the morgue to choose which parts they wanted, according to the indictment. Mr. Taylor, Ms. Maclean, and Denise Lodge are all named in the indictment. Mr. Pauley was charged separately.

They each face a maximum of 15 years in prison.

Ms. Maclean allegedly bought two dissected faces for $600 and shipped human skin to Mr. Pauley to be made into leather; Mr. Pauley then eventually shipped the “tanned human skin” back to Ms. Maclean, according to the indictment. Over a 3-year period, Mr. Taylor paid the Lodges some $37,000 for stolen human remains, the indictment charges.

Mr. Pauley also purchased human remains from Candace Chapman Scott, who stole them from her employer, a mortuary in Little Rock, Ark. The mortuary received remains for cremation from an area medical school, according to the indictment.

After being notified of the investigation in March, Harvard cooperated fully, the school said in a statement from George Q. Daley, MD, PhD, dean of the Faculty of Medicine.

“We are appalled to learn that something so disturbing could happen on our campus – a community dedicated to healing and serving others,” the statement said. “The reported incidents are a betrayal of HMS and, most importantly, each of the individuals who altruistically chose to will their bodies to HMS through the Anatomical Gift Program to advance medical education and research.”

The U.S. attorney thanked Harvard for its cooperation, saying that it “is also a victim here.”

Dr. Caplan, who also writes an ethics column for this news organization, agrees. The school was betrayed, he said.

“You expect professionalism, integrity on the part of your doctors, on the part of your technicians, on the part of your workforce,” he said. He noted that those expectations are explained in institutions’ codes of ethics and policies.

Harvard said Mr. Lodge had worked in the morgue since 1995 and that he took several leaves: from September 2021 to February 2022, and again starting February 14. The school terminated his employment on May 6.

His duties included intake of anatomic donors’ bodies. He coordinated embalming and oversaw the storage and movement of cadavers to and from teaching labs. When studies were complete, he prepared remains to be transported to and from the external crematorium and, when appropriate, for burial, according to a Harvard fact sheet for families.

The medical school has convened an outside expert panel to evaluate the Anatomical Gift Program and morgue policies and practices. The panel is expected to make its findings public at the end of the summer.

Dr. Caplan said he hoped the committee recommends unannounced audits of cadaver donation programs and medical tissue and bone suppliers, which could help expose illicit diversions. “You need to keep an eye, which no one seems to do because it’s a state issue and it’s not a priority, on that trade in body parts,” he said.

He believes other medical schools will reexamine their donation programs, especially given Harvard’s status.

“With a prominent place like that having this kind of problem, I can’t imagine there’s not a little bit of a scramble at a lot of the body programs to make sure that they know that things are as they should be,” Dr. Caplan said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Massachusetts-based law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Harvard Medical School, alleging that it failed to protect the remains of people who donated their bodies to the university for research and education.

Plaintiffs include relatives of people whose remains were allegedly stolen and sold. The lawsuit alleges that as many as 400 cadavers may have been trafficked in a multi-year scheme. Details were revealed in a June 13 indictment by the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

“Medical schools like Harvard have a duty to ensure [donated remains] are handled properly and with decency and to ensure they are used for their intended purpose of scientific study,” attorney Jeff Catalano said in a statement.

“I do think Harvard has that duty,” said Arthur Caplan, PhD, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University. But, he added, “I will say there’s not much they can do when employees set out to systematically undermine them.”

The indictment alleges that from 2018 through August 2022, Harvard morgue manager Cedric Lodge stole dissected portions of donated cadavers, including heads, brains, skin, and bones, which were then sold by him and his wife, Denise Lodge, to Katrina Maclean, owner of Kat’s Creepy Creations, Peabody, Mass. Ms. Maclean allegedly sold human remains to Joshua Taylor and Jeremy Pauley, both Pennsylvania residents.

On occasion, Mr. Lodge allowed Ms. Maclean, Mr. Taylor, and others into the morgue to choose which parts they wanted, according to the indictment. Mr. Taylor, Ms. Maclean, and Denise Lodge are all named in the indictment. Mr. Pauley was charged separately.

They each face a maximum of 15 years in prison.

Ms. Maclean allegedly bought two dissected faces for $600 and shipped human skin to Mr. Pauley to be made into leather; Mr. Pauley then eventually shipped the “tanned human skin” back to Ms. Maclean, according to the indictment. Over a 3-year period, Mr. Taylor paid the Lodges some $37,000 for stolen human remains, the indictment charges.

Mr. Pauley also purchased human remains from Candace Chapman Scott, who stole them from her employer, a mortuary in Little Rock, Ark. The mortuary received remains for cremation from an area medical school, according to the indictment.

After being notified of the investigation in March, Harvard cooperated fully, the school said in a statement from George Q. Daley, MD, PhD, dean of the Faculty of Medicine.

“We are appalled to learn that something so disturbing could happen on our campus – a community dedicated to healing and serving others,” the statement said. “The reported incidents are a betrayal of HMS and, most importantly, each of the individuals who altruistically chose to will their bodies to HMS through the Anatomical Gift Program to advance medical education and research.”

The U.S. attorney thanked Harvard for its cooperation, saying that it “is also a victim here.”

Dr. Caplan, who also writes an ethics column for this news organization, agrees. The school was betrayed, he said.

“You expect professionalism, integrity on the part of your doctors, on the part of your technicians, on the part of your workforce,” he said. He noted that those expectations are explained in institutions’ codes of ethics and policies.

Harvard said Mr. Lodge had worked in the morgue since 1995 and that he took several leaves: from September 2021 to February 2022, and again starting February 14. The school terminated his employment on May 6.

His duties included intake of anatomic donors’ bodies. He coordinated embalming and oversaw the storage and movement of cadavers to and from teaching labs. When studies were complete, he prepared remains to be transported to and from the external crematorium and, when appropriate, for burial, according to a Harvard fact sheet for families.

The medical school has convened an outside expert panel to evaluate the Anatomical Gift Program and morgue policies and practices. The panel is expected to make its findings public at the end of the summer.

Dr. Caplan said he hoped the committee recommends unannounced audits of cadaver donation programs and medical tissue and bone suppliers, which could help expose illicit diversions. “You need to keep an eye, which no one seems to do because it’s a state issue and it’s not a priority, on that trade in body parts,” he said.

He believes other medical schools will reexamine their donation programs, especially given Harvard’s status.

“With a prominent place like that having this kind of problem, I can’t imagine there’s not a little bit of a scramble at a lot of the body programs to make sure that they know that things are as they should be,” Dr. Caplan said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has given a green light to two new vaccines to protect against respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, in older adults.

CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, agreed with and endorsed the recommendations made earlier by CDC advisors that people age 60 and over may get one of two new vaccines for RSV. Decisions should be made based on discussions with one’s health care provider about whether the vaccine is right for them, the federal health agency said.

The new vaccines, the first licensed in the United States to protect against the respiratory illness, are expected to be available this fall.

On June 21, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), an independent panel, stopped short of recommending the vaccines for everyone age 65 and above, which was the original question the committee was to consider. The experts amended that question, changing it to whether the panel should recommend the vaccine for those 65 and above if the person and their doctor agreed. The committee voted 9 to 5 in favor.
 

RSV vaccines

RSV leads to 6,000 to 10,000 deaths a year in the United States among those age 65 and older and 60,000 to 160,000 hospitalizations in that group. Seniors and infants are among the most vulnerable to the lower respiratory infection, marked by runny nose, wheezing, sneezing, decreased appetite, and fever.

The FDA in May approved two vaccines — GSK’s Arexvy and Pfizer’s Abrysvo — for adults age 60 and above.

The vote recommending shared decision-making about the vaccine, instead of a routine vaccination recommended for all, “is a weaker recommendation,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Dr. Schaffner is a non-voting member of ACIP. He attended the meeting.

He said the experts voiced concern about a number of issues, including what some saw as a lack of sufficient data from trials on the most vulnerable groups, such as nursing home residents.

Experts also wanted more information about the duration of protection and exactly when a second dose might be needed. At the meeting, a GSK official said its vaccine was 84.6% effective after one and a half seasons, down from 94.1% after one season. A Pfizer official said its vaccine decreased the risk of RSV with three or more symptoms by 78.6% after a season and a half, down from 88.9% after one season.

The panel also wanted more data on whether the RSV vaccines could be administered at the same time as other vaccines recommended for adults.

Both companies gave a range of cost estimates. Pfizer expects its vaccine to cost $180 to $270 but said it could not guarantee that range. GSK said it expects a price of $200 to $295. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, recommended vaccines are covered under Medicare for those with Part D plans, which 51 million of 65 million Medicare patients have. Commercial insurance is likely to cover the vaccines if the CDC recommends them.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

This article was updated 7/5/23.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has given a green light to two new vaccines to protect against respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, in older adults.

CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, agreed with and endorsed the recommendations made earlier by CDC advisors that people age 60 and over may get one of two new vaccines for RSV. Decisions should be made based on discussions with one’s health care provider about whether the vaccine is right for them, the federal health agency said.

The new vaccines, the first licensed in the United States to protect against the respiratory illness, are expected to be available this fall.

On June 21, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), an independent panel, stopped short of recommending the vaccines for everyone age 65 and above, which was the original question the committee was to consider. The experts amended that question, changing it to whether the panel should recommend the vaccine for those 65 and above if the person and their doctor agreed. The committee voted 9 to 5 in favor.
 

RSV vaccines

RSV leads to 6,000 to 10,000 deaths a year in the United States among those age 65 and older and 60,000 to 160,000 hospitalizations in that group. Seniors and infants are among the most vulnerable to the lower respiratory infection, marked by runny nose, wheezing, sneezing, decreased appetite, and fever.

The FDA in May approved two vaccines — GSK’s Arexvy and Pfizer’s Abrysvo — for adults age 60 and above.

The vote recommending shared decision-making about the vaccine, instead of a routine vaccination recommended for all, “is a weaker recommendation,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Dr. Schaffner is a non-voting member of ACIP. He attended the meeting.

He said the experts voiced concern about a number of issues, including what some saw as a lack of sufficient data from trials on the most vulnerable groups, such as nursing home residents.

Experts also wanted more information about the duration of protection and exactly when a second dose might be needed. At the meeting, a GSK official said its vaccine was 84.6% effective after one and a half seasons, down from 94.1% after one season. A Pfizer official said its vaccine decreased the risk of RSV with three or more symptoms by 78.6% after a season and a half, down from 88.9% after one season.

The panel also wanted more data on whether the RSV vaccines could be administered at the same time as other vaccines recommended for adults.

Both companies gave a range of cost estimates. Pfizer expects its vaccine to cost $180 to $270 but said it could not guarantee that range. GSK said it expects a price of $200 to $295. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, recommended vaccines are covered under Medicare for those with Part D plans, which 51 million of 65 million Medicare patients have. Commercial insurance is likely to cover the vaccines if the CDC recommends them.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

This article was updated 7/5/23.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has given a green light to two new vaccines to protect against respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, in older adults.

CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, agreed with and endorsed the recommendations made earlier by CDC advisors that people age 60 and over may get one of two new vaccines for RSV. Decisions should be made based on discussions with one’s health care provider about whether the vaccine is right for them, the federal health agency said.

The new vaccines, the first licensed in the United States to protect against the respiratory illness, are expected to be available this fall.

On June 21, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), an independent panel, stopped short of recommending the vaccines for everyone age 65 and above, which was the original question the committee was to consider. The experts amended that question, changing it to whether the panel should recommend the vaccine for those 65 and above if the person and their doctor agreed. The committee voted 9 to 5 in favor.
 

RSV vaccines

RSV leads to 6,000 to 10,000 deaths a year in the United States among those age 65 and older and 60,000 to 160,000 hospitalizations in that group. Seniors and infants are among the most vulnerable to the lower respiratory infection, marked by runny nose, wheezing, sneezing, decreased appetite, and fever.

The FDA in May approved two vaccines — GSK’s Arexvy and Pfizer’s Abrysvo — for adults age 60 and above.

The vote recommending shared decision-making about the vaccine, instead of a routine vaccination recommended for all, “is a weaker recommendation,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville and medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Dr. Schaffner is a non-voting member of ACIP. He attended the meeting.

He said the experts voiced concern about a number of issues, including what some saw as a lack of sufficient data from trials on the most vulnerable groups, such as nursing home residents.

Experts also wanted more information about the duration of protection and exactly when a second dose might be needed. At the meeting, a GSK official said its vaccine was 84.6% effective after one and a half seasons, down from 94.1% after one season. A Pfizer official said its vaccine decreased the risk of RSV with three or more symptoms by 78.6% after a season and a half, down from 88.9% after one season.

The panel also wanted more data on whether the RSV vaccines could be administered at the same time as other vaccines recommended for adults.

Both companies gave a range of cost estimates. Pfizer expects its vaccine to cost $180 to $270 but said it could not guarantee that range. GSK said it expects a price of $200 to $295. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, recommended vaccines are covered under Medicare for those with Part D plans, which 51 million of 65 million Medicare patients have. Commercial insurance is likely to cover the vaccines if the CDC recommends them.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

This article was updated 7/5/23.

While nurses nationwide continue to fight for greater practice freedom and improved staffing ratios, a recent hospital fine shows how pushback from nurses can sometimes lead to financial rewards.

A New York arbitrator recently fined Mount Sinai Hospital $127,000 for ongoing understaffing of its neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). At issue was the hospital’s failure to meet contractual requirements on staffing ratios, which nurses and administration agreed upon after a January nurses strike, according to Politico.

Following the strike, which primarily centered on safe staffing, the New York State Nurses Association ratified new contracts that included updated nurse-to-patient ratios and established a staffing committee with equal nurse-to-management ratios.

Failure to meet these provisions drove the nurses to seek arbitration, Matt Allen, RN, a labor and delivery nurse at Mount Sinai, said in an interview. “We hoped the administration would see this victory [the nurse strike settlement] as a warning to begin increasing the nursing staff throughout the hospital. Instead, units like the NICU continued to be critically understaffed, sometimes by up to eight nurses per shift.”

NICU nurses were frustrated by having to continue working in “dangerously understaffed shifts,” Mr. Allen said. “They saw it as disrespectful that the hospital wasn’t holding up the ratios they agreed to.” So the nurses decided to take further action to hold the hospital accountable.

Although Mount Sinai followed the arbitrator’s ruling, according to Allen, it expressed its disagreement with the findings.

In a prepared statement, the hospital wrote that the NICU is appropriately staffed to ensure safety and appropriate patient care. The recent penalties are an “unfortunate consequence” of the agreement the hospital reached with NSYNA at the end of the strike. But the ratios set in the agreement do not reflect the fact that the NICU is divided into two sections in which slightly fewer than half of the beds are designated for neonatal intensive care, and the rest are designated for intermediate/continuing care, the statement read.

“Intensive care patients are always staffed at a 1:1–1:2 ratio, while those in intermediate/continuing care are staffed 1:3 or 1:4, based on the clinical needs of the baby.”

According to Mr. Allen, the NICU’s action inspired other departments throughout the hospital to monitor their own ratios. “The hospital administration is finally taking notice,” he said.

Outside of New York, the fight to improve staffing shortages continues. In Minnesota, it was the hospital that scored a win. Mayo Clinic recently pushed back against state legislation that would have required Minnesota hospitals to create hospital nurse staffing committees.

At the end of the state’s legislative session, the bill no longer had enough votes to pass, according to a statement from the Minnesota Nurses Association.

Instead, the state legislature passed a Nurse and Patient Safety Act that included some elements of the original bill, notably, a study on nurse staffing and retention, new protections against workplace violence, provisions for childcare assistance, and student loan forgiveness for nurses, according to the MNA statement.

There’s no quick fix to the nursing shortage as the tug-of-war between hospitals and staff continues and new methods for resolution are considered, Mr. Allen said. “This staffing enforcement is not a cure-all, but it is another tool nurses now have to fight for safe staffing on our units.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While nurses nationwide continue to fight for greater practice freedom and improved staffing ratios, a recent hospital fine shows how pushback from nurses can sometimes lead to financial rewards.

A New York arbitrator recently fined Mount Sinai Hospital $127,000 for ongoing understaffing of its neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). At issue was the hospital’s failure to meet contractual requirements on staffing ratios, which nurses and administration agreed upon after a January nurses strike, according to Politico.

Following the strike, which primarily centered on safe staffing, the New York State Nurses Association ratified new contracts that included updated nurse-to-patient ratios and established a staffing committee with equal nurse-to-management ratios.

Failure to meet these provisions drove the nurses to seek arbitration, Matt Allen, RN, a labor and delivery nurse at Mount Sinai, said in an interview. “We hoped the administration would see this victory [the nurse strike settlement] as a warning to begin increasing the nursing staff throughout the hospital. Instead, units like the NICU continued to be critically understaffed, sometimes by up to eight nurses per shift.”

NICU nurses were frustrated by having to continue working in “dangerously understaffed shifts,” Mr. Allen said. “They saw it as disrespectful that the hospital wasn’t holding up the ratios they agreed to.” So the nurses decided to take further action to hold the hospital accountable.

Although Mount Sinai followed the arbitrator’s ruling, according to Allen, it expressed its disagreement with the findings.

In a prepared statement, the hospital wrote that the NICU is appropriately staffed to ensure safety and appropriate patient care. The recent penalties are an “unfortunate consequence” of the agreement the hospital reached with NSYNA at the end of the strike. But the ratios set in the agreement do not reflect the fact that the NICU is divided into two sections in which slightly fewer than half of the beds are designated for neonatal intensive care, and the rest are designated for intermediate/continuing care, the statement read.

“Intensive care patients are always staffed at a 1:1–1:2 ratio, while those in intermediate/continuing care are staffed 1:3 or 1:4, based on the clinical needs of the baby.”

According to Mr. Allen, the NICU’s action inspired other departments throughout the hospital to monitor their own ratios. “The hospital administration is finally taking notice,” he said.

Outside of New York, the fight to improve staffing shortages continues. In Minnesota, it was the hospital that scored a win. Mayo Clinic recently pushed back against state legislation that would have required Minnesota hospitals to create hospital nurse staffing committees.

At the end of the state’s legislative session, the bill no longer had enough votes to pass, according to a statement from the Minnesota Nurses Association.

Instead, the state legislature passed a Nurse and Patient Safety Act that included some elements of the original bill, notably, a study on nurse staffing and retention, new protections against workplace violence, provisions for childcare assistance, and student loan forgiveness for nurses, according to the MNA statement.

There’s no quick fix to the nursing shortage as the tug-of-war between hospitals and staff continues and new methods for resolution are considered, Mr. Allen said. “This staffing enforcement is not a cure-all, but it is another tool nurses now have to fight for safe staffing on our units.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While nurses nationwide continue to fight for greater practice freedom and improved staffing ratios, a recent hospital fine shows how pushback from nurses can sometimes lead to financial rewards.

A New York arbitrator recently fined Mount Sinai Hospital $127,000 for ongoing understaffing of its neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). At issue was the hospital’s failure to meet contractual requirements on staffing ratios, which nurses and administration agreed upon after a January nurses strike, according to Politico.

Following the strike, which primarily centered on safe staffing, the New York State Nurses Association ratified new contracts that included updated nurse-to-patient ratios and established a staffing committee with equal nurse-to-management ratios.

Failure to meet these provisions drove the nurses to seek arbitration, Matt Allen, RN, a labor and delivery nurse at Mount Sinai, said in an interview. “We hoped the administration would see this victory [the nurse strike settlement] as a warning to begin increasing the nursing staff throughout the hospital. Instead, units like the NICU continued to be critically understaffed, sometimes by up to eight nurses per shift.”

NICU nurses were frustrated by having to continue working in “dangerously understaffed shifts,” Mr. Allen said. “They saw it as disrespectful that the hospital wasn’t holding up the ratios they agreed to.” So the nurses decided to take further action to hold the hospital accountable.

Although Mount Sinai followed the arbitrator’s ruling, according to Allen, it expressed its disagreement with the findings.

In a prepared statement, the hospital wrote that the NICU is appropriately staffed to ensure safety and appropriate patient care. The recent penalties are an “unfortunate consequence” of the agreement the hospital reached with NSYNA at the end of the strike. But the ratios set in the agreement do not reflect the fact that the NICU is divided into two sections in which slightly fewer than half of the beds are designated for neonatal intensive care, and the rest are designated for intermediate/continuing care, the statement read.

“Intensive care patients are always staffed at a 1:1–1:2 ratio, while those in intermediate/continuing care are staffed 1:3 or 1:4, based on the clinical needs of the baby.”

According to Mr. Allen, the NICU’s action inspired other departments throughout the hospital to monitor their own ratios. “The hospital administration is finally taking notice,” he said.

Outside of New York, the fight to improve staffing shortages continues. In Minnesota, it was the hospital that scored a win. Mayo Clinic recently pushed back against state legislation that would have required Minnesota hospitals to create hospital nurse staffing committees.

At the end of the state’s legislative session, the bill no longer had enough votes to pass, according to a statement from the Minnesota Nurses Association.

Instead, the state legislature passed a Nurse and Patient Safety Act that included some elements of the original bill, notably, a study on nurse staffing and retention, new protections against workplace violence, provisions for childcare assistance, and student loan forgiveness for nurses, according to the MNA statement.

There’s no quick fix to the nursing shortage as the tug-of-war between hospitals and staff continues and new methods for resolution are considered, Mr. Allen said. “This staffing enforcement is not a cure-all, but it is another tool nurses now have to fight for safe staffing on our units.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

AUSTIN, TEX – Migraine treatment and prevention is challenging in any population, but some present even more difficulties. Pregnant women and pediatric patients are two such groups where physicians and patients may be hesitant to use drugs.

Neuromodulation devices are proven alternatives to medical interventions, and the remote electrical neuromodulation device Nerivio (Theranica) was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine patients aged 12 and over in 2021. In March 2023, the agency expanded the clearance to include prevention of migration in adolescents aged 12 and over as well as adults.

Two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed the safety of the remote electrical neuromodulation device in pregnant women and efficacy as a preventive measure in adolescents in a real-world setting. The latter study yielded similar findings to adults and was used by FDA in its decision to expand the device’s indication in adolescents in 2023, according to Teshamae Monteith, MD, who presented the study at a poster session.

The device, worn on the arm, allows the user to modulate the intensity of the stimulation so that it activates nociceptive pain receptors, but not in a painful way. “Each [patient] raises the intensity until it feels strong, yet comfortable, and when that happens, they activate the nociceptive receptors and the arm sends a signal all the way back up to the brainstem, where the pain control area is. Activating it causes the release of neurotransmitters that inhibit pain. That inhibition is a global pain inhibition mechanism, which causes inhibition of the migraine pain, and also the symptoms associated with migraine like photophobia and vomiting,” said Alit Stark-Inbar, PhD, who presented the study of treatment of pregnant women during a poster session.
 

Declining treatment days over time in adolescents

Dr. Monteith’s team studied high-frequency remote electrical neuromodulation device use in adolescents who had migraine on 10 days or more per month. They also required at least three treatment days in months 2 and 3 to control for the possibility that patients might stop using the device because they couldn’t afford it or for some reason other than efficacy or because their migraines went away.

The study included 83 adolescents aged 12-17 (mean, 15.9 years, 89% female). In the first month of use, the mean number of migraine treatment days was 12.6, which dropped to 9.0 in month 2 (P < .001), and 7.4 in month 3 (P < .001 from month 2). At 2 hours after treatment, 61.9% had pain relief, 24.5% had freedom from pain, 67.4% had functional disability relief, and 41.3% had functional disability freedom.

“It parallels the findings of the randomized, sham-controlled study in adults. The safety profile was excellent with just one person complaining of minor discomfort of the arm that resolved after treatment. The combination of the exceedingly safe profile and the likelihood of efficacy based on using monthly migraine treatment days as a proxy, the FDA decided to clear this for an adolescent indication,” said Dr. Monteith, associate professor of clinical neurology and chief of the headache division at the University of Miami.

The device design is convenient, according to Dr. Monteith. “The arm is just an easy place to stimulate. It’s a wearable device, and it’s 45 minutes [of treatment] and it’s app controlled. You know adolescents like their technology. They can track their symptoms here, and there’s some biobehavioral power to this because they can do biobehavioral exercises in addition to receiving the simulation,” she said.

The fact that the device is discrete is also an advantage for adolescents in school. “You have to go to the nurse to get your medication versus a device, you can just put it on, it’s easy, no one sees it, and no one’s making fun of you,” said Dr. Monteith.
 

Advantages for adolescents

The device offers a useful alternative to medication, according to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was asked for comment on the adolescent study. “I’d rather not give medication and certainly not preventive medication to an adolescent,” he said. He noted that over-the-counter acute care migraine medications such as aspirin or acetaminophen and combination medications with caffeine, as well as prescription medications such as triptans, “all have possible side effects, and when used to an increased extent can even cause medication overuse headache, increasing the severity and frequency of headache and migraine days per month,” Dr. Rapoport said. Using an effective device with almost no side effects is preferable to any of these acute care medications, especially if there are several headaches a month,” he said. Some newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide might be quite effective when they are approved for adolescents, and should have few adverse events, he added.

In the past, Dr. Rapoport has favored biofeedback training for acute and especially preventive treatment of migraine in adolescents. “[Remote electrical neuromodulation] seems to do just as well, children enjoy it, and it’s easier for a patient to do at home,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Biofeedback training is usually taught to patients by a PhD psychologist. Once the patients have been on the biofeedback equipment and learn the techniques, they can practice on their own at home without equipment. “This new device treatment using Nerivio for acute care and prevention of migraine in adults and children 12 and older, where they can easily apply the device in almost any situation, whether they are at home or possibly even in school or out and about, looks very promising,” said Dr. Rapoport. It is quite effective and has almost no adverse events, which is what you really want, especially for adolescents,” he said.

Also asked to comment on the study of remote electrical neuromodulation use in adolescents, Abraham Avi Ashkenazi, MD, director of the Headache Clinic at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, who attended the session, was enthusiastic, and said he has begun using it in his own practice. “It shows that remote electrical neuromodulation can not only be effective for the acute migraine attack, but also has a potential preventive effect on future migraine attacks. [This] actually makes sense, because we know that the more migraine attacks a person has, the more likely they are to progress to a more chronic form of the disease,” he said in an interview.

Asked what distinguishes REN from other neuromodulation therapies such as vagus nerve stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), Dr. Ashkenazi said: “It’s just a different way of modulating the brain system via a different mechanism. In both ways, though, the advantage is that there are literally no adverse effects, as opposed to drug treatment.”
 

An alternative during pregnancy

Adolescents aren’t the only population where there is reluctance to use medication. Physicians have been prescribing the device for pregnant women, who are reluctant to take medication due to concerns effects on the fetus. However, pregnant women were not included in the pivotal studies. “They expect it to be safe. This study was done in order to validate that assumption. We reached out to women who either used the device during pregnancy or women from the same database who started it using afterwards, but did not use it during the pregnancy,” said Dr. Stark-Inbar, vice president of medical information at Theranica.

The study included 140 women, 59 in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 81 controls. The primary endpoint was gestational age, which was 38 weeks and 5 days in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 39 weeks among controls (P = .150). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to newborn birth weight, miscarriage rate, preterm birth rate, birth defect rate, developmental milestone rate, or emergency department visit rate.

Dr. Monteith and Dr. Ashkenazi have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr. Rapoport is the editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and on the editorial board of CNS Drugs.

AUSTIN, TEX – Migraine treatment and prevention is challenging in any population, but some present even more difficulties. Pregnant women and pediatric patients are two such groups where physicians and patients may be hesitant to use drugs.

Neuromodulation devices are proven alternatives to medical interventions, and the remote electrical neuromodulation device Nerivio (Theranica) was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine patients aged 12 and over in 2021. In March 2023, the agency expanded the clearance to include prevention of migration in adolescents aged 12 and over as well as adults.

Two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed the safety of the remote electrical neuromodulation device in pregnant women and efficacy as a preventive measure in adolescents in a real-world setting. The latter study yielded similar findings to adults and was used by FDA in its decision to expand the device’s indication in adolescents in 2023, according to Teshamae Monteith, MD, who presented the study at a poster session.

The device, worn on the arm, allows the user to modulate the intensity of the stimulation so that it activates nociceptive pain receptors, but not in a painful way. “Each [patient] raises the intensity until it feels strong, yet comfortable, and when that happens, they activate the nociceptive receptors and the arm sends a signal all the way back up to the brainstem, where the pain control area is. Activating it causes the release of neurotransmitters that inhibit pain. That inhibition is a global pain inhibition mechanism, which causes inhibition of the migraine pain, and also the symptoms associated with migraine like photophobia and vomiting,” said Alit Stark-Inbar, PhD, who presented the study of treatment of pregnant women during a poster session.
 

Declining treatment days over time in adolescents

Dr. Monteith’s team studied high-frequency remote electrical neuromodulation device use in adolescents who had migraine on 10 days or more per month. They also required at least three treatment days in months 2 and 3 to control for the possibility that patients might stop using the device because they couldn’t afford it or for some reason other than efficacy or because their migraines went away.

The study included 83 adolescents aged 12-17 (mean, 15.9 years, 89% female). In the first month of use, the mean number of migraine treatment days was 12.6, which dropped to 9.0 in month 2 (P < .001), and 7.4 in month 3 (P < .001 from month 2). At 2 hours after treatment, 61.9% had pain relief, 24.5% had freedom from pain, 67.4% had functional disability relief, and 41.3% had functional disability freedom.

“It parallels the findings of the randomized, sham-controlled study in adults. The safety profile was excellent with just one person complaining of minor discomfort of the arm that resolved after treatment. The combination of the exceedingly safe profile and the likelihood of efficacy based on using monthly migraine treatment days as a proxy, the FDA decided to clear this for an adolescent indication,” said Dr. Monteith, associate professor of clinical neurology and chief of the headache division at the University of Miami.

The device design is convenient, according to Dr. Monteith. “The arm is just an easy place to stimulate. It’s a wearable device, and it’s 45 minutes [of treatment] and it’s app controlled. You know adolescents like their technology. They can track their symptoms here, and there’s some biobehavioral power to this because they can do biobehavioral exercises in addition to receiving the simulation,” she said.

The fact that the device is discrete is also an advantage for adolescents in school. “You have to go to the nurse to get your medication versus a device, you can just put it on, it’s easy, no one sees it, and no one’s making fun of you,” said Dr. Monteith.
 

Advantages for adolescents

The device offers a useful alternative to medication, according to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was asked for comment on the adolescent study. “I’d rather not give medication and certainly not preventive medication to an adolescent,” he said. He noted that over-the-counter acute care migraine medications such as aspirin or acetaminophen and combination medications with caffeine, as well as prescription medications such as triptans, “all have possible side effects, and when used to an increased extent can even cause medication overuse headache, increasing the severity and frequency of headache and migraine days per month,” Dr. Rapoport said. Using an effective device with almost no side effects is preferable to any of these acute care medications, especially if there are several headaches a month,” he said. Some newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide might be quite effective when they are approved for adolescents, and should have few adverse events, he added.

In the past, Dr. Rapoport has favored biofeedback training for acute and especially preventive treatment of migraine in adolescents. “[Remote electrical neuromodulation] seems to do just as well, children enjoy it, and it’s easier for a patient to do at home,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Biofeedback training is usually taught to patients by a PhD psychologist. Once the patients have been on the biofeedback equipment and learn the techniques, they can practice on their own at home without equipment. “This new device treatment using Nerivio for acute care and prevention of migraine in adults and children 12 and older, where they can easily apply the device in almost any situation, whether they are at home or possibly even in school or out and about, looks very promising,” said Dr. Rapoport. It is quite effective and has almost no adverse events, which is what you really want, especially for adolescents,” he said.

Also asked to comment on the study of remote electrical neuromodulation use in adolescents, Abraham Avi Ashkenazi, MD, director of the Headache Clinic at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, who attended the session, was enthusiastic, and said he has begun using it in his own practice. “It shows that remote electrical neuromodulation can not only be effective for the acute migraine attack, but also has a potential preventive effect on future migraine attacks. [This] actually makes sense, because we know that the more migraine attacks a person has, the more likely they are to progress to a more chronic form of the disease,” he said in an interview.

Asked what distinguishes REN from other neuromodulation therapies such as vagus nerve stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), Dr. Ashkenazi said: “It’s just a different way of modulating the brain system via a different mechanism. In both ways, though, the advantage is that there are literally no adverse effects, as opposed to drug treatment.”
 

An alternative during pregnancy

Adolescents aren’t the only population where there is reluctance to use medication. Physicians have been prescribing the device for pregnant women, who are reluctant to take medication due to concerns effects on the fetus. However, pregnant women were not included in the pivotal studies. “They expect it to be safe. This study was done in order to validate that assumption. We reached out to women who either used the device during pregnancy or women from the same database who started it using afterwards, but did not use it during the pregnancy,” said Dr. Stark-Inbar, vice president of medical information at Theranica.

The study included 140 women, 59 in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 81 controls. The primary endpoint was gestational age, which was 38 weeks and 5 days in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 39 weeks among controls (P = .150). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to newborn birth weight, miscarriage rate, preterm birth rate, birth defect rate, developmental milestone rate, or emergency department visit rate.

Dr. Monteith and Dr. Ashkenazi have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr. Rapoport is the editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and on the editorial board of CNS Drugs.

AUSTIN, TEX – Migraine treatment and prevention is challenging in any population, but some present even more difficulties. Pregnant women and pediatric patients are two such groups where physicians and patients may be hesitant to use drugs.

Neuromodulation devices are proven alternatives to medical interventions, and the remote electrical neuromodulation device Nerivio (Theranica) was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine patients aged 12 and over in 2021. In March 2023, the agency expanded the clearance to include prevention of migration in adolescents aged 12 and over as well as adults.

Two studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society showed the safety of the remote electrical neuromodulation device in pregnant women and efficacy as a preventive measure in adolescents in a real-world setting. The latter study yielded similar findings to adults and was used by FDA in its decision to expand the device’s indication in adolescents in 2023, according to Teshamae Monteith, MD, who presented the study at a poster session.

The device, worn on the arm, allows the user to modulate the intensity of the stimulation so that it activates nociceptive pain receptors, but not in a painful way. “Each [patient] raises the intensity until it feels strong, yet comfortable, and when that happens, they activate the nociceptive receptors and the arm sends a signal all the way back up to the brainstem, where the pain control area is. Activating it causes the release of neurotransmitters that inhibit pain. That inhibition is a global pain inhibition mechanism, which causes inhibition of the migraine pain, and also the symptoms associated with migraine like photophobia and vomiting,” said Alit Stark-Inbar, PhD, who presented the study of treatment of pregnant women during a poster session.
 

Declining treatment days over time in adolescents

Dr. Monteith’s team studied high-frequency remote electrical neuromodulation device use in adolescents who had migraine on 10 days or more per month. They also required at least three treatment days in months 2 and 3 to control for the possibility that patients might stop using the device because they couldn’t afford it or for some reason other than efficacy or because their migraines went away.

The study included 83 adolescents aged 12-17 (mean, 15.9 years, 89% female). In the first month of use, the mean number of migraine treatment days was 12.6, which dropped to 9.0 in month 2 (P < .001), and 7.4 in month 3 (P < .001 from month 2). At 2 hours after treatment, 61.9% had pain relief, 24.5% had freedom from pain, 67.4% had functional disability relief, and 41.3% had functional disability freedom.

“It parallels the findings of the randomized, sham-controlled study in adults. The safety profile was excellent with just one person complaining of minor discomfort of the arm that resolved after treatment. The combination of the exceedingly safe profile and the likelihood of efficacy based on using monthly migraine treatment days as a proxy, the FDA decided to clear this for an adolescent indication,” said Dr. Monteith, associate professor of clinical neurology and chief of the headache division at the University of Miami.

The device design is convenient, according to Dr. Monteith. “The arm is just an easy place to stimulate. It’s a wearable device, and it’s 45 minutes [of treatment] and it’s app controlled. You know adolescents like their technology. They can track their symptoms here, and there’s some biobehavioral power to this because they can do biobehavioral exercises in addition to receiving the simulation,” she said.

The fact that the device is discrete is also an advantage for adolescents in school. “You have to go to the nurse to get your medication versus a device, you can just put it on, it’s easy, no one sees it, and no one’s making fun of you,” said Dr. Monteith.
 

Advantages for adolescents

The device offers a useful alternative to medication, according to Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was asked for comment on the adolescent study. “I’d rather not give medication and certainly not preventive medication to an adolescent,” he said. He noted that over-the-counter acute care migraine medications such as aspirin or acetaminophen and combination medications with caffeine, as well as prescription medications such as triptans, “all have possible side effects, and when used to an increased extent can even cause medication overuse headache, increasing the severity and frequency of headache and migraine days per month,” Dr. Rapoport said. Using an effective device with almost no side effects is preferable to any of these acute care medications, especially if there are several headaches a month,” he said. Some newer medications that block calcitonin gene-related peptide might be quite effective when they are approved for adolescents, and should have few adverse events, he added.

In the past, Dr. Rapoport has favored biofeedback training for acute and especially preventive treatment of migraine in adolescents. “[Remote electrical neuromodulation] seems to do just as well, children enjoy it, and it’s easier for a patient to do at home,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Biofeedback training is usually taught to patients by a PhD psychologist. Once the patients have been on the biofeedback equipment and learn the techniques, they can practice on their own at home without equipment. “This new device treatment using Nerivio for acute care and prevention of migraine in adults and children 12 and older, where they can easily apply the device in almost any situation, whether they are at home or possibly even in school or out and about, looks very promising,” said Dr. Rapoport. It is quite effective and has almost no adverse events, which is what you really want, especially for adolescents,” he said.

Also asked to comment on the study of remote electrical neuromodulation use in adolescents, Abraham Avi Ashkenazi, MD, director of the Headache Clinic at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, who attended the session, was enthusiastic, and said he has begun using it in his own practice. “It shows that remote electrical neuromodulation can not only be effective for the acute migraine attack, but also has a potential preventive effect on future migraine attacks. [This] actually makes sense, because we know that the more migraine attacks a person has, the more likely they are to progress to a more chronic form of the disease,” he said in an interview.

Asked what distinguishes REN from other neuromodulation therapies such as vagus nerve stimulation or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), Dr. Ashkenazi said: “It’s just a different way of modulating the brain system via a different mechanism. In both ways, though, the advantage is that there are literally no adverse effects, as opposed to drug treatment.”
 

An alternative during pregnancy

Adolescents aren’t the only population where there is reluctance to use medication. Physicians have been prescribing the device for pregnant women, who are reluctant to take medication due to concerns effects on the fetus. However, pregnant women were not included in the pivotal studies. “They expect it to be safe. This study was done in order to validate that assumption. We reached out to women who either used the device during pregnancy or women from the same database who started it using afterwards, but did not use it during the pregnancy,” said Dr. Stark-Inbar, vice president of medical information at Theranica.

The study included 140 women, 59 in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 81 controls. The primary endpoint was gestational age, which was 38 weeks and 5 days in the remote electrical neuromodulation device group and 39 weeks among controls (P = .150). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to newborn birth weight, miscarriage rate, preterm birth rate, birth defect rate, developmental milestone rate, or emergency department visit rate.

Dr. Monteith and Dr. Ashkenazi have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Rapoport advises AbbVie, Biohaven, Cala Health, Dr. Reddy’s, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, and Theranica. He is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Dr. Reddy’s, Impel, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr. Rapoport is the editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and on the editorial board of CNS Drugs.

The recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco; Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

The Food and Drug Administration granted colchicine a very broad label: to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in adult patients with established ASCVD or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. But how will the drug be used in clinical practice?

“The idea of inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk has been around for decades, and it is very well known that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process. However, treating inflammation is new as we haven’t had a specific agent targeting inflammation before, noted Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, director of clinical research, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Dr. Blaha, who has been an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha, added that the approval of low-dose colchicine “will open the door toward having a routine conversation about residual inflammatory risk in our patients; and we need to work out exactly how we do that.”

Dr. Blaha is not surprised by the FDA-approved indication for colchicine, pointing out that the main large-scale trial supporting its use in ASCVD, the LoDoCo-2 trial, included a similar broad population.

“I think the approval was appropriate as the indication should always follow the data. But I think how the drug will actually be used will depend on the context for different individual patients,” he said.

“The paradigm coming forward is the idea of residual risk that patients have after they been treated with the standard of care – which in most cases is a statin and blood pressure control – and what is driving that residual risk,” he noted. “If we think patients are still at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, we have to think what we will do next. This is where this drug will come in.”

Dr. Blaha pointed out that there are now multiple options for reducing residual risk; he believes that it will depend on the profile of the patient as to which of those options is chosen first.

“If after high-dose statin treatment they still have raised LDL, then we can add another LDL lowering drug; or it might be diabetes and obesity that we want to address first; or elevated triglycerides. But now, we can also consider residual inflammatory risk if we think the patient has residual plaque inflammation,” he said. “So, colchicine will be one of several choices beyond a statin that we can think about as the next step for treating residual risk.”
 

Is CRP measurement necessary?

Though elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is a marker of inflammation in ASCVD, the two main trials of colchicine in ASCVD, both of which showed large benefits of the drug, did not measure hsCRP, leading to questions as to whether measurement of this biomarker is necessary to select patients for colchicine treatment.

“Some clinicians will favor testing hsCRP and treating those with levels above 2 mg/L. I think that’s very reasonable,” Dr. Blaha said. “However, because hsCRP was not measured in the trials, I don’t think testing for this biomarker is mandatory to establish that there is inflammation,” he added.

“The label does not stipulate that CRP has to be measured. It is giving physicians latitude; they can measure CRP, or they don’t have to.”

Dr. Blaha added that clinicians need to think about what is driving residual risk in each individual patient: “If you think their other risk factors are well controlled but they are still having recurrent events, then we can consider colchicine as a way of reducing their residual risk which is likely being caused by inflammation.

“We are at a great place in cardiovascular medicine as we have several different options to use after a statin, and now we have this new therapy targeted at inflammation as well. While we can use all these options together, I think most clinicians will want to prioritize therapies by using the ones that they believe will reduce the residual risk the most in each individual patient,” Dr. Blaha explained.
 

‘An entire other axis driving atherosclerosis’

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, is one of the major players in the cardiovascular inflammation field and has helped develop hsCRP testing. He has similar views.

“This FDA approval is extremely important, as it will draw attention to the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and the need to treat it,” he said.

“Physicians need to be aware that, yes, we need to lower cholesterol aggressively, but they also need to know that there is an entire other axis driving atherosclerosis – and that is inflammation. And until now, we haven’t had an FDA-approved drug to treat inflammation.”

Dr. Ridker stressed that he doesn’t want to undermine lowering lipids: “Therapies aimed at inflammation are not in competition with those aimed at lipid lowering. We know lipid lowering works. But now we have another approach as well. The challenge here is educating physicians on this new approach.”

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low-dose colchicine for patients whom he refers to as “frequent flyers”; those who keep coming back despite aggressive lipid lowering. “They have multiple angioplasties, bypass surgery, etc.”

Like Dr. Blaha, Dr. Ridker thinks that doctors should start using this drug in high-risk patients who are already on a statin and who have residual inflammatory risk: “[The] patient whose underlying biologic problem is inflammation [is whom] we really want to treat with this drug. That is where it is most likely to be highly effective and where the comfort level will be the greatest.”

He said that measurement of hsCRP is an appropriate way to select these patients.

“I think this is a great impetus to start having much wider CRP measurement so we can actually target this anti-inflammatory drug to the patients with residual inflammatory risk – those with hsCRP level above 2 mg/L,” he said, estimating that this could apply to around 30%-40% of patients with ASCVD who are already taking a statin.
 

A second pillar of ASCVD treatment?

A somewhat different view is held by Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Research Centre at the Montréal Heart Institute, Canada, who was the lead investigator of the other randomized controlled trial of colchicine in heart disease, the COLCOT trial.

He said that colchicine should become the “second pillar” of ASCVD treatment, along with statins, for almost all patients.

Tardif referred to the recent study (led by Dr. Ridker) in The Lancet, which showed that among patients who are already on a statin, those with high inflammation levels had the highest risk for future events.

“So, the next step after a statin has to be to consider inflammation reduction,” he said.

“Despite all the drugs we have, ASCVD remains the leading cause of death in the Western world. What drives these events is largely inflammation, so it makes sense to directly tackle reduction of inflammation in the vessel, with a drug like colchicine,” he noted.

“I would say all patients with coronary atherosclerosis are potential candidates for low-dose colchicine as long as they do not have severe kidney disease, which is a contraindication,” Dr. Tardif said.

“If you want to fine tune this a bit more, those that are at particular risk are those that have recurrent events, those with multiple risk factors, and those with a recent [myocardial infarction]. In these patients, it would make a lot of sense to add low-dose colchicine to high-dose statins,” he added.

Dr. Tardif said he is not going to use CRP measurements to select patients for colchicine treatment: “Although measuring CRP may make sense intuitively, both large, randomized trials of colchicine did not select patients based on raised CRP, and they showed a benefit across the board.

If I consider a patient with ASCVD to be at high risk of future events and they are already on a statin I’m going to consider colchicine in all these patients, as long as they don’t have severe kidney disease.”

Dr. Tardif said that ASCVD needs to follow the model of heart failure which has several pillars of treatment directed at different targets that are all used together.

“I think we should apply the same approach to patients with ASCVD,” he added. “Yes, we need to hit the cholesterol with a statin, but we can now also hit the inflammation with colchicine.”
 

Polypharmacy concerns

Steve Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the colchicine trials, is also enthusiastic about use of colchicine. But like Dr. Ridker and Dr. Blaha, he favors selecting patients who are likely to benefit the most.

“I have been an advocate of the inflammatory hypothesis for many years, and we have been on a quest for a pure anti-inflammatory therapy that we can add to the standard treatment of patients with coronary disease. And colchicine has the safety and efficacy to do this,” Dr. Nissen said.

“What colchicine offers here is an inexpensive drug with pretty good data on reduction in morbidity from coronary disease. It has a completely different mechanism, so its benefit is likely to be additive to statins. I think we could probably do a lot of good at very little expense by just using these two therapies,” he said.

“But at present my preference will be to use colchicine selectively in those with raised CRP. I think that’s logical. I’m just worried about polypharmacy. Some of my patients are already on five, six, or seven meds. I need to have a reason to add an additional drug, and I’m not sure if we really analyze this carefully that patients with a low CRP would derive the same benefit. They might do, but I doubt it,” he noted.

“There may be further research and analyses that help us understand the relationship between CRP and efficacy of colchicine, and that may help us figure this out,” he added.
 

Safety is reassuring

In terms of safety and tolerability of the 0.5-mg colchicine dose, the experts seem to think that this is very manageable.

“When used for gout or pericarditis, colchicine is generally given at a dose of 0.6 mg twice a day and this can cause a lot of gastrointestinal [GI] side effects,” Dr. Nissen said. “But the low dose approved for ASCVD – 0.5 mg once a day – appears to be much better tolerated. There are some GI side effects, but these are not intolerable, and they generally go away with time.”

Dr. Ridker added that in the randomized trials, the adverse effects were “quite minimal,” but, “that being said, this drug is not to be used in severe kidney or liver disease, and there are some drug interactions that we need to be aware of. But in general, side effects are rare with the low dose. There may be some GI effects but they are mainly mild and you can generally treat through them.”

Dr. Blaha agreed that this is not a drug for patients with advanced kidney disease, “and there are some drug interactions that we have to be mindful of, but the list is not so long. There is a signal of modest gastrointestinal and muscle side effects, but most patients will be able to take it without issues. Because it’s already used in gout, physicians are already quite comfortable with its use.”
 

Part of the backbone of CV treatment?

Concluding, Dr. Blaha said he believes that prescribing of colchicine will start with cardiologists who will use it in their highest-risk patients first.

“But as we become comfortable with it, I think we will start using it in a broader range of patients and eventually primary care doctors will start prescribing it – much like what has happened with the statins,” he suggested.

“Where it sits along with statins in the future will be very interesting to see, but I think some people can envision it being up there with statins as part of the backbone of cardiovascular treatment in future.”

Dr. Tardif holds patents on methods for using low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction, licensed to Montreal Heart Institute. Dr. Ridker is a consultant to Agepha and has research grants from Novo Nordisk related to the development of alternative anti-inflammatory therapies for atherosclerotic disease. Dr. Blaha reports being an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha Pharma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco; Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

The Food and Drug Administration granted colchicine a very broad label: to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in adult patients with established ASCVD or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. But how will the drug be used in clinical practice?

“The idea of inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk has been around for decades, and it is very well known that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process. However, treating inflammation is new as we haven’t had a specific agent targeting inflammation before, noted Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, director of clinical research, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Dr. Blaha, who has been an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha, added that the approval of low-dose colchicine “will open the door toward having a routine conversation about residual inflammatory risk in our patients; and we need to work out exactly how we do that.”

Dr. Blaha is not surprised by the FDA-approved indication for colchicine, pointing out that the main large-scale trial supporting its use in ASCVD, the LoDoCo-2 trial, included a similar broad population.

“I think the approval was appropriate as the indication should always follow the data. But I think how the drug will actually be used will depend on the context for different individual patients,” he said.

“The paradigm coming forward is the idea of residual risk that patients have after they been treated with the standard of care – which in most cases is a statin and blood pressure control – and what is driving that residual risk,” he noted. “If we think patients are still at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, we have to think what we will do next. This is where this drug will come in.”

Dr. Blaha pointed out that there are now multiple options for reducing residual risk; he believes that it will depend on the profile of the patient as to which of those options is chosen first.

“If after high-dose statin treatment they still have raised LDL, then we can add another LDL lowering drug; or it might be diabetes and obesity that we want to address first; or elevated triglycerides. But now, we can also consider residual inflammatory risk if we think the patient has residual plaque inflammation,” he said. “So, colchicine will be one of several choices beyond a statin that we can think about as the next step for treating residual risk.”
 

Is CRP measurement necessary?

Though elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is a marker of inflammation in ASCVD, the two main trials of colchicine in ASCVD, both of which showed large benefits of the drug, did not measure hsCRP, leading to questions as to whether measurement of this biomarker is necessary to select patients for colchicine treatment.

“Some clinicians will favor testing hsCRP and treating those with levels above 2 mg/L. I think that’s very reasonable,” Dr. Blaha said. “However, because hsCRP was not measured in the trials, I don’t think testing for this biomarker is mandatory to establish that there is inflammation,” he added.

“The label does not stipulate that CRP has to be measured. It is giving physicians latitude; they can measure CRP, or they don’t have to.”

Dr. Blaha added that clinicians need to think about what is driving residual risk in each individual patient: “If you think their other risk factors are well controlled but they are still having recurrent events, then we can consider colchicine as a way of reducing their residual risk which is likely being caused by inflammation.

“We are at a great place in cardiovascular medicine as we have several different options to use after a statin, and now we have this new therapy targeted at inflammation as well. While we can use all these options together, I think most clinicians will want to prioritize therapies by using the ones that they believe will reduce the residual risk the most in each individual patient,” Dr. Blaha explained.
 

‘An entire other axis driving atherosclerosis’

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, is one of the major players in the cardiovascular inflammation field and has helped develop hsCRP testing. He has similar views.

“This FDA approval is extremely important, as it will draw attention to the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and the need to treat it,” he said.

“Physicians need to be aware that, yes, we need to lower cholesterol aggressively, but they also need to know that there is an entire other axis driving atherosclerosis – and that is inflammation. And until now, we haven’t had an FDA-approved drug to treat inflammation.”

Dr. Ridker stressed that he doesn’t want to undermine lowering lipids: “Therapies aimed at inflammation are not in competition with those aimed at lipid lowering. We know lipid lowering works. But now we have another approach as well. The challenge here is educating physicians on this new approach.”

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low-dose colchicine for patients whom he refers to as “frequent flyers”; those who keep coming back despite aggressive lipid lowering. “They have multiple angioplasties, bypass surgery, etc.”

Like Dr. Blaha, Dr. Ridker thinks that doctors should start using this drug in high-risk patients who are already on a statin and who have residual inflammatory risk: “[The] patient whose underlying biologic problem is inflammation [is whom] we really want to treat with this drug. That is where it is most likely to be highly effective and where the comfort level will be the greatest.”

He said that measurement of hsCRP is an appropriate way to select these patients.

“I think this is a great impetus to start having much wider CRP measurement so we can actually target this anti-inflammatory drug to the patients with residual inflammatory risk – those with hsCRP level above 2 mg/L,” he said, estimating that this could apply to around 30%-40% of patients with ASCVD who are already taking a statin.
 

A second pillar of ASCVD treatment?

A somewhat different view is held by Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Research Centre at the Montréal Heart Institute, Canada, who was the lead investigator of the other randomized controlled trial of colchicine in heart disease, the COLCOT trial.

He said that colchicine should become the “second pillar” of ASCVD treatment, along with statins, for almost all patients.

Tardif referred to the recent study (led by Dr. Ridker) in The Lancet, which showed that among patients who are already on a statin, those with high inflammation levels had the highest risk for future events.

“So, the next step after a statin has to be to consider inflammation reduction,” he said.

“Despite all the drugs we have, ASCVD remains the leading cause of death in the Western world. What drives these events is largely inflammation, so it makes sense to directly tackle reduction of inflammation in the vessel, with a drug like colchicine,” he noted.

“I would say all patients with coronary atherosclerosis are potential candidates for low-dose colchicine as long as they do not have severe kidney disease, which is a contraindication,” Dr. Tardif said.

“If you want to fine tune this a bit more, those that are at particular risk are those that have recurrent events, those with multiple risk factors, and those with a recent [myocardial infarction]. In these patients, it would make a lot of sense to add low-dose colchicine to high-dose statins,” he added.

Dr. Tardif said he is not going to use CRP measurements to select patients for colchicine treatment: “Although measuring CRP may make sense intuitively, both large, randomized trials of colchicine did not select patients based on raised CRP, and they showed a benefit across the board.

If I consider a patient with ASCVD to be at high risk of future events and they are already on a statin I’m going to consider colchicine in all these patients, as long as they don’t have severe kidney disease.”

Dr. Tardif said that ASCVD needs to follow the model of heart failure which has several pillars of treatment directed at different targets that are all used together.

“I think we should apply the same approach to patients with ASCVD,” he added. “Yes, we need to hit the cholesterol with a statin, but we can now also hit the inflammation with colchicine.”
 

Polypharmacy concerns

Steve Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the colchicine trials, is also enthusiastic about use of colchicine. But like Dr. Ridker and Dr. Blaha, he favors selecting patients who are likely to benefit the most.

“I have been an advocate of the inflammatory hypothesis for many years, and we have been on a quest for a pure anti-inflammatory therapy that we can add to the standard treatment of patients with coronary disease. And colchicine has the safety and efficacy to do this,” Dr. Nissen said.

“What colchicine offers here is an inexpensive drug with pretty good data on reduction in morbidity from coronary disease. It has a completely different mechanism, so its benefit is likely to be additive to statins. I think we could probably do a lot of good at very little expense by just using these two therapies,” he said.

“But at present my preference will be to use colchicine selectively in those with raised CRP. I think that’s logical. I’m just worried about polypharmacy. Some of my patients are already on five, six, or seven meds. I need to have a reason to add an additional drug, and I’m not sure if we really analyze this carefully that patients with a low CRP would derive the same benefit. They might do, but I doubt it,” he noted.

“There may be further research and analyses that help us understand the relationship between CRP and efficacy of colchicine, and that may help us figure this out,” he added.
 

Safety is reassuring

In terms of safety and tolerability of the 0.5-mg colchicine dose, the experts seem to think that this is very manageable.

“When used for gout or pericarditis, colchicine is generally given at a dose of 0.6 mg twice a day and this can cause a lot of gastrointestinal [GI] side effects,” Dr. Nissen said. “But the low dose approved for ASCVD – 0.5 mg once a day – appears to be much better tolerated. There are some GI side effects, but these are not intolerable, and they generally go away with time.”

Dr. Ridker added that in the randomized trials, the adverse effects were “quite minimal,” but, “that being said, this drug is not to be used in severe kidney or liver disease, and there are some drug interactions that we need to be aware of. But in general, side effects are rare with the low dose. There may be some GI effects but they are mainly mild and you can generally treat through them.”

Dr. Blaha agreed that this is not a drug for patients with advanced kidney disease, “and there are some drug interactions that we have to be mindful of, but the list is not so long. There is a signal of modest gastrointestinal and muscle side effects, but most patients will be able to take it without issues. Because it’s already used in gout, physicians are already quite comfortable with its use.”
 

Part of the backbone of CV treatment?

Concluding, Dr. Blaha said he believes that prescribing of colchicine will start with cardiologists who will use it in their highest-risk patients first.

“But as we become comfortable with it, I think we will start using it in a broader range of patients and eventually primary care doctors will start prescribing it – much like what has happened with the statins,” he suggested.

“Where it sits along with statins in the future will be very interesting to see, but I think some people can envision it being up there with statins as part of the backbone of cardiovascular treatment in future.”

Dr. Tardif holds patents on methods for using low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction, licensed to Montreal Heart Institute. Dr. Ridker is a consultant to Agepha and has research grants from Novo Nordisk related to the development of alternative anti-inflammatory therapies for atherosclerotic disease. Dr. Blaha reports being an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha Pharma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco; Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

The Food and Drug Administration granted colchicine a very broad label: to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in adult patients with established ASCVD or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. But how will the drug be used in clinical practice?

“The idea of inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk has been around for decades, and it is very well known that atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process. However, treating inflammation is new as we haven’t had a specific agent targeting inflammation before, noted Michael Joseph Blaha, MD, director of clinical research, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Dr. Blaha, who has been an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha, added that the approval of low-dose colchicine “will open the door toward having a routine conversation about residual inflammatory risk in our patients; and we need to work out exactly how we do that.”

Dr. Blaha is not surprised by the FDA-approved indication for colchicine, pointing out that the main large-scale trial supporting its use in ASCVD, the LoDoCo-2 trial, included a similar broad population.

“I think the approval was appropriate as the indication should always follow the data. But I think how the drug will actually be used will depend on the context for different individual patients,” he said.

“The paradigm coming forward is the idea of residual risk that patients have after they been treated with the standard of care – which in most cases is a statin and blood pressure control – and what is driving that residual risk,” he noted. “If we think patients are still at high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, we have to think what we will do next. This is where this drug will come in.”

Dr. Blaha pointed out that there are now multiple options for reducing residual risk; he believes that it will depend on the profile of the patient as to which of those options is chosen first.

“If after high-dose statin treatment they still have raised LDL, then we can add another LDL lowering drug; or it might be diabetes and obesity that we want to address first; or elevated triglycerides. But now, we can also consider residual inflammatory risk if we think the patient has residual plaque inflammation,” he said. “So, colchicine will be one of several choices beyond a statin that we can think about as the next step for treating residual risk.”
 

Is CRP measurement necessary?

Though elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) is a marker of inflammation in ASCVD, the two main trials of colchicine in ASCVD, both of which showed large benefits of the drug, did not measure hsCRP, leading to questions as to whether measurement of this biomarker is necessary to select patients for colchicine treatment.

“Some clinicians will favor testing hsCRP and treating those with levels above 2 mg/L. I think that’s very reasonable,” Dr. Blaha said. “However, because hsCRP was not measured in the trials, I don’t think testing for this biomarker is mandatory to establish that there is inflammation,” he added.

“The label does not stipulate that CRP has to be measured. It is giving physicians latitude; they can measure CRP, or they don’t have to.”

Dr. Blaha added that clinicians need to think about what is driving residual risk in each individual patient: “If you think their other risk factors are well controlled but they are still having recurrent events, then we can consider colchicine as a way of reducing their residual risk which is likely being caused by inflammation.

“We are at a great place in cardiovascular medicine as we have several different options to use after a statin, and now we have this new therapy targeted at inflammation as well. While we can use all these options together, I think most clinicians will want to prioritize therapies by using the ones that they believe will reduce the residual risk the most in each individual patient,” Dr. Blaha explained.
 

‘An entire other axis driving atherosclerosis’

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, is one of the major players in the cardiovascular inflammation field and has helped develop hsCRP testing. He has similar views.

“This FDA approval is extremely important, as it will draw attention to the role of inflammation in atherosclerosis and the need to treat it,” he said.

“Physicians need to be aware that, yes, we need to lower cholesterol aggressively, but they also need to know that there is an entire other axis driving atherosclerosis – and that is inflammation. And until now, we haven’t had an FDA-approved drug to treat inflammation.”

Dr. Ridker stressed that he doesn’t want to undermine lowering lipids: “Therapies aimed at inflammation are not in competition with those aimed at lipid lowering. We know lipid lowering works. But now we have another approach as well. The challenge here is educating physicians on this new approach.”

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low-dose colchicine for patients whom he refers to as “frequent flyers”; those who keep coming back despite aggressive lipid lowering. “They have multiple angioplasties, bypass surgery, etc.”

Like Dr. Blaha, Dr. Ridker thinks that doctors should start using this drug in high-risk patients who are already on a statin and who have residual inflammatory risk: “[The] patient whose underlying biologic problem is inflammation [is whom] we really want to treat with this drug. That is where it is most likely to be highly effective and where the comfort level will be the greatest.”

He said that measurement of hsCRP is an appropriate way to select these patients.

“I think this is a great impetus to start having much wider CRP measurement so we can actually target this anti-inflammatory drug to the patients with residual inflammatory risk – those with hsCRP level above 2 mg/L,” he said, estimating that this could apply to around 30%-40% of patients with ASCVD who are already taking a statin.
 

A second pillar of ASCVD treatment?

A somewhat different view is held by Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, director of the Research Centre at the Montréal Heart Institute, Canada, who was the lead investigator of the other randomized controlled trial of colchicine in heart disease, the COLCOT trial.

He said that colchicine should become the “second pillar” of ASCVD treatment, along with statins, for almost all patients.

Tardif referred to the recent study (led by Dr. Ridker) in The Lancet, which showed that among patients who are already on a statin, those with high inflammation levels had the highest risk for future events.

“So, the next step after a statin has to be to consider inflammation reduction,” he said.

“Despite all the drugs we have, ASCVD remains the leading cause of death in the Western world. What drives these events is largely inflammation, so it makes sense to directly tackle reduction of inflammation in the vessel, with a drug like colchicine,” he noted.

“I would say all patients with coronary atherosclerosis are potential candidates for low-dose colchicine as long as they do not have severe kidney disease, which is a contraindication,” Dr. Tardif said.

“If you want to fine tune this a bit more, those that are at particular risk are those that have recurrent events, those with multiple risk factors, and those with a recent [myocardial infarction]. In these patients, it would make a lot of sense to add low-dose colchicine to high-dose statins,” he added.

Dr. Tardif said he is not going to use CRP measurements to select patients for colchicine treatment: “Although measuring CRP may make sense intuitively, both large, randomized trials of colchicine did not select patients based on raised CRP, and they showed a benefit across the board.

If I consider a patient with ASCVD to be at high risk of future events and they are already on a statin I’m going to consider colchicine in all these patients, as long as they don’t have severe kidney disease.”

Dr. Tardif said that ASCVD needs to follow the model of heart failure which has several pillars of treatment directed at different targets that are all used together.

“I think we should apply the same approach to patients with ASCVD,” he added. “Yes, we need to hit the cholesterol with a statin, but we can now also hit the inflammation with colchicine.”
 

Polypharmacy concerns

Steve Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the colchicine trials, is also enthusiastic about use of colchicine. But like Dr. Ridker and Dr. Blaha, he favors selecting patients who are likely to benefit the most.

“I have been an advocate of the inflammatory hypothesis for many years, and we have been on a quest for a pure anti-inflammatory therapy that we can add to the standard treatment of patients with coronary disease. And colchicine has the safety and efficacy to do this,” Dr. Nissen said.

“What colchicine offers here is an inexpensive drug with pretty good data on reduction in morbidity from coronary disease. It has a completely different mechanism, so its benefit is likely to be additive to statins. I think we could probably do a lot of good at very little expense by just using these two therapies,” he said.

“But at present my preference will be to use colchicine selectively in those with raised CRP. I think that’s logical. I’m just worried about polypharmacy. Some of my patients are already on five, six, or seven meds. I need to have a reason to add an additional drug, and I’m not sure if we really analyze this carefully that patients with a low CRP would derive the same benefit. They might do, but I doubt it,” he noted.

“There may be further research and analyses that help us understand the relationship between CRP and efficacy of colchicine, and that may help us figure this out,” he added.
 

Safety is reassuring

In terms of safety and tolerability of the 0.5-mg colchicine dose, the experts seem to think that this is very manageable.

“When used for gout or pericarditis, colchicine is generally given at a dose of 0.6 mg twice a day and this can cause a lot of gastrointestinal [GI] side effects,” Dr. Nissen said. “But the low dose approved for ASCVD – 0.5 mg once a day – appears to be much better tolerated. There are some GI side effects, but these are not intolerable, and they generally go away with time.”

Dr. Ridker added that in the randomized trials, the adverse effects were “quite minimal,” but, “that being said, this drug is not to be used in severe kidney or liver disease, and there are some drug interactions that we need to be aware of. But in general, side effects are rare with the low dose. There may be some GI effects but they are mainly mild and you can generally treat through them.”

Dr. Blaha agreed that this is not a drug for patients with advanced kidney disease, “and there are some drug interactions that we have to be mindful of, but the list is not so long. There is a signal of modest gastrointestinal and muscle side effects, but most patients will be able to take it without issues. Because it’s already used in gout, physicians are already quite comfortable with its use.”
 

Part of the backbone of CV treatment?

Concluding, Dr. Blaha said he believes that prescribing of colchicine will start with cardiologists who will use it in their highest-risk patients first.

“But as we become comfortable with it, I think we will start using it in a broader range of patients and eventually primary care doctors will start prescribing it – much like what has happened with the statins,” he suggested.

“Where it sits along with statins in the future will be very interesting to see, but I think some people can envision it being up there with statins as part of the backbone of cardiovascular treatment in future.”

Dr. Tardif holds patents on methods for using low-dose colchicine after myocardial infarction, licensed to Montreal Heart Institute. Dr. Ridker is a consultant to Agepha and has research grants from Novo Nordisk related to the development of alternative anti-inflammatory therapies for atherosclerotic disease. Dr. Blaha reports being an unpaid scientific adviser to Agepha Pharma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Lenalidomide (Revlimid) is a vital component of early therapy and maintenance for patients with multiple myeloma, but patients in first relapse who have disease that is refractory to lenalidomide have few good options for subsequent lines of therapy and a generally poor prognosis.

New results show that such patients benefit from treatment with the chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) construct ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) (Carvykti).

The finding comes from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial, which was reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who received a single infusion of ciltacabtagene autoleucel demonstrated a 74% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death, compared with patients who received the standard of care.

The hazard ratio for death or progression with cilta-cel was 0.26 (P < .001), which “is the best hazard ratio ever reported in this patient population in a randomized clinical setting,” said principal investigator Binod Dhakal, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Dr. Dhakal reported data from the first analysis of the trial. At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, had not been reached among 208 patients who received cilta-cel; PFS was 11.8 months for the 211 patients assigned to receive standard of care, which consisted of the physician’s choice of either pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), or daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd).

Twelve-month PFS rates were 75.9% and 48.6%, respectively, and both the overall response rate (ORR) and the complete response (CR) rate were higher with the CAR T construct than with the standard of care (ORR, 84.6% vs. 67.3%; CR rates, 73.1% and 21.8%, respectively).

“My perspective on Dr. Dakhal and colleague’s data is that myeloma treatment should be revisited in the light of this,” commented invited discussant Asher Chanan-Khan, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Jacksonville, Fla.

“Early CAR Ts demonstrating efficacy and safety and prior lines of treatment impact survival from CAR T in myeloma. In lymphoma, CAR T is almost replacing, if not already, autotransplant. Can this also be true for multiple myeloma?” he asked.

Dr. Chanan-Khan noted that there are at least four ongoing trials with CAR T targeting either the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) alone or in combination with an anti-CD19 CAR T, immune checkpoint inhibitors, or with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Also commenting on the new results, ASCO Expert Oreofe Odejide, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a statement: “Lenalidomide has become a foundation of care for people with myeloma, but as its use has expanded, so has the number of patients whose disease will no longer respond to the treatment. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel has not only shown that it delivers remarkably effective outcomes, compared with patients’ current options, but also that it can be used safely earlier in the treatment phase.”
 

Already approved for refractory myeloma

Cilta-cel is a second-generation CAR T that contains two single-domain antibodies that target BCMA. This target was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells.

The product is already approved for use in myeloma; it was approved in March 2022 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies. That approval was based on results from phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 trial, which, as previously reported by this news organization, showed that early and deep responses with cilta-cel proved to be durable.

Final results of CARTITUDE-1, reported in a scientific poster at ASCO 2023, showed that almost half of patients (47.5%) who were treated with cilta-cel were free of disease progression at 3 years, and 59.8% had sustained, complete responses. In addition, the median PFS was longer than for any previously reported therapy for heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the authors said.
 

CARTITUDE-4 details

For the CARTITUDE-4 trial, the investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who had experienced relapse after one to three prior lines of therapy that included a prosteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator. After stratification by the choice of PVd or DPd, Multiple Myeloma International Staging System, and number of prior lines of therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive either cilta-cel or one of the two standard-of-care regimens previously described.

Patients assigned to cilta-cel received one or more cycles of either PVd or DPd as bridging therapy during the period from apheresis to infusion of the CAR T cells.

As already noted, cilta-cel showed superior PFS and response rates and was associated with a significantly higher rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, compared with standard of care, in the intention-to-treat population: 60.6% vs. 15.6%, which translates into an odds ratio for achieving MRD negativity with CAR T of 8.7 (P < .0001). Among the subset of patients evaluable for MRD, the respective rates were 87.5% and 32.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of presentation. In all, 39 patients in the cilta-cel arm and 47 in the standard-of-care arm died during the study.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 97% of patients who received cilta-cel and in 94% of those who received standard-of-care therapies. In the cilta-cel arm, 76.1% of patients had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), although only 1.1% of cases were of grade 3 or 4 in severity, and there were no CRS-associated deaths. Eight patients in this arm had immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, all of grade 1 or 2. One patient had grade 1 movement and neurocognitive symptoms, 16 had grade 2 or 3 cranial nerve palsy, and 5 patients had CAR T–related peripheral neuropathy of grade 1, 2, or 3.

The investigators plan to follow patients to determine the long-term effects of ciltacabtagene autoleucel and are currently performing analyses of health-related quality of life, subgroups, and biomarkers.

The study was funded by Janssen and Legend Biotech, which market ciltacabtagene autoleucel. Dr. Dhakal disclosed consulting, speaker’s bureau participation, and institutional research funding from Janssen and others. Several coauthors are employees of the study funders. Dr. Chanan-Khan’s relevant financial information was not available. Dr. Odejide reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Lenalidomide (Revlimid) is a vital component of early therapy and maintenance for patients with multiple myeloma, but patients in first relapse who have disease that is refractory to lenalidomide have few good options for subsequent lines of therapy and a generally poor prognosis.

New results show that such patients benefit from treatment with the chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) construct ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) (Carvykti).

The finding comes from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial, which was reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who received a single infusion of ciltacabtagene autoleucel demonstrated a 74% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death, compared with patients who received the standard of care.

The hazard ratio for death or progression with cilta-cel was 0.26 (P < .001), which “is the best hazard ratio ever reported in this patient population in a randomized clinical setting,” said principal investigator Binod Dhakal, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Dr. Dhakal reported data from the first analysis of the trial. At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, had not been reached among 208 patients who received cilta-cel; PFS was 11.8 months for the 211 patients assigned to receive standard of care, which consisted of the physician’s choice of either pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), or daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd).

Twelve-month PFS rates were 75.9% and 48.6%, respectively, and both the overall response rate (ORR) and the complete response (CR) rate were higher with the CAR T construct than with the standard of care (ORR, 84.6% vs. 67.3%; CR rates, 73.1% and 21.8%, respectively).

“My perspective on Dr. Dakhal and colleague’s data is that myeloma treatment should be revisited in the light of this,” commented invited discussant Asher Chanan-Khan, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Jacksonville, Fla.

“Early CAR Ts demonstrating efficacy and safety and prior lines of treatment impact survival from CAR T in myeloma. In lymphoma, CAR T is almost replacing, if not already, autotransplant. Can this also be true for multiple myeloma?” he asked.

Dr. Chanan-Khan noted that there are at least four ongoing trials with CAR T targeting either the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) alone or in combination with an anti-CD19 CAR T, immune checkpoint inhibitors, or with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Also commenting on the new results, ASCO Expert Oreofe Odejide, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a statement: “Lenalidomide has become a foundation of care for people with myeloma, but as its use has expanded, so has the number of patients whose disease will no longer respond to the treatment. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel has not only shown that it delivers remarkably effective outcomes, compared with patients’ current options, but also that it can be used safely earlier in the treatment phase.”
 

Already approved for refractory myeloma

Cilta-cel is a second-generation CAR T that contains two single-domain antibodies that target BCMA. This target was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells.

The product is already approved for use in myeloma; it was approved in March 2022 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies. That approval was based on results from phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 trial, which, as previously reported by this news organization, showed that early and deep responses with cilta-cel proved to be durable.

Final results of CARTITUDE-1, reported in a scientific poster at ASCO 2023, showed that almost half of patients (47.5%) who were treated with cilta-cel were free of disease progression at 3 years, and 59.8% had sustained, complete responses. In addition, the median PFS was longer than for any previously reported therapy for heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the authors said.
 

CARTITUDE-4 details

For the CARTITUDE-4 trial, the investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who had experienced relapse after one to three prior lines of therapy that included a prosteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator. After stratification by the choice of PVd or DPd, Multiple Myeloma International Staging System, and number of prior lines of therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive either cilta-cel or one of the two standard-of-care regimens previously described.

Patients assigned to cilta-cel received one or more cycles of either PVd or DPd as bridging therapy during the period from apheresis to infusion of the CAR T cells.

As already noted, cilta-cel showed superior PFS and response rates and was associated with a significantly higher rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, compared with standard of care, in the intention-to-treat population: 60.6% vs. 15.6%, which translates into an odds ratio for achieving MRD negativity with CAR T of 8.7 (P < .0001). Among the subset of patients evaluable for MRD, the respective rates were 87.5% and 32.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of presentation. In all, 39 patients in the cilta-cel arm and 47 in the standard-of-care arm died during the study.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 97% of patients who received cilta-cel and in 94% of those who received standard-of-care therapies. In the cilta-cel arm, 76.1% of patients had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), although only 1.1% of cases were of grade 3 or 4 in severity, and there were no CRS-associated deaths. Eight patients in this arm had immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, all of grade 1 or 2. One patient had grade 1 movement and neurocognitive symptoms, 16 had grade 2 or 3 cranial nerve palsy, and 5 patients had CAR T–related peripheral neuropathy of grade 1, 2, or 3.

The investigators plan to follow patients to determine the long-term effects of ciltacabtagene autoleucel and are currently performing analyses of health-related quality of life, subgroups, and biomarkers.

The study was funded by Janssen and Legend Biotech, which market ciltacabtagene autoleucel. Dr. Dhakal disclosed consulting, speaker’s bureau participation, and institutional research funding from Janssen and others. Several coauthors are employees of the study funders. Dr. Chanan-Khan’s relevant financial information was not available. Dr. Odejide reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Lenalidomide (Revlimid) is a vital component of early therapy and maintenance for patients with multiple myeloma, but patients in first relapse who have disease that is refractory to lenalidomide have few good options for subsequent lines of therapy and a generally poor prognosis.

New results show that such patients benefit from treatment with the chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) construct ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) (Carvykti).

The finding comes from the phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial, which was reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who received a single infusion of ciltacabtagene autoleucel demonstrated a 74% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death, compared with patients who received the standard of care.

The hazard ratio for death or progression with cilta-cel was 0.26 (P < .001), which “is the best hazard ratio ever reported in this patient population in a randomized clinical setting,” said principal investigator Binod Dhakal, MD, from the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Dr. Dhakal reported data from the first analysis of the trial. At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, had not been reached among 208 patients who received cilta-cel; PFS was 11.8 months for the 211 patients assigned to receive standard of care, which consisted of the physician’s choice of either pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), or daratumumab, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (DPd).

Twelve-month PFS rates were 75.9% and 48.6%, respectively, and both the overall response rate (ORR) and the complete response (CR) rate were higher with the CAR T construct than with the standard of care (ORR, 84.6% vs. 67.3%; CR rates, 73.1% and 21.8%, respectively).

“My perspective on Dr. Dakhal and colleague’s data is that myeloma treatment should be revisited in the light of this,” commented invited discussant Asher Chanan-Khan, MD, from the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Jacksonville, Fla.

“Early CAR Ts demonstrating efficacy and safety and prior lines of treatment impact survival from CAR T in myeloma. In lymphoma, CAR T is almost replacing, if not already, autotransplant. Can this also be true for multiple myeloma?” he asked.

Dr. Chanan-Khan noted that there are at least four ongoing trials with CAR T targeting either the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) alone or in combination with an anti-CD19 CAR T, immune checkpoint inhibitors, or with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

Also commenting on the new results, ASCO Expert Oreofe Odejide, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in a statement: “Lenalidomide has become a foundation of care for people with myeloma, but as its use has expanded, so has the number of patients whose disease will no longer respond to the treatment. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel has not only shown that it delivers remarkably effective outcomes, compared with patients’ current options, but also that it can be used safely earlier in the treatment phase.”
 

Already approved for refractory myeloma

Cilta-cel is a second-generation CAR T that contains two single-domain antibodies that target BCMA. This target was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells.

The product is already approved for use in myeloma; it was approved in March 2022 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies. That approval was based on results from phase 1b/2 CARTITUDE-1 trial, which, as previously reported by this news organization, showed that early and deep responses with cilta-cel proved to be durable.

Final results of CARTITUDE-1, reported in a scientific poster at ASCO 2023, showed that almost half of patients (47.5%) who were treated with cilta-cel were free of disease progression at 3 years, and 59.8% had sustained, complete responses. In addition, the median PFS was longer than for any previously reported therapy for heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the authors said.
 

CARTITUDE-4 details

For the CARTITUDE-4 trial, the investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who had experienced relapse after one to three prior lines of therapy that included a prosteasome inhibitor and immunomodulator. After stratification by the choice of PVd or DPd, Multiple Myeloma International Staging System, and number of prior lines of therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive either cilta-cel or one of the two standard-of-care regimens previously described.

Patients assigned to cilta-cel received one or more cycles of either PVd or DPd as bridging therapy during the period from apheresis to infusion of the CAR T cells.

As already noted, cilta-cel showed superior PFS and response rates and was associated with a significantly higher rate of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, compared with standard of care, in the intention-to-treat population: 60.6% vs. 15.6%, which translates into an odds ratio for achieving MRD negativity with CAR T of 8.7 (P < .0001). Among the subset of patients evaluable for MRD, the respective rates were 87.5% and 32.7%.

Overall survival data were not mature at the time of presentation. In all, 39 patients in the cilta-cel arm and 47 in the standard-of-care arm died during the study.

Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 97% of patients who received cilta-cel and in 94% of those who received standard-of-care therapies. In the cilta-cel arm, 76.1% of patients had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), although only 1.1% of cases were of grade 3 or 4 in severity, and there were no CRS-associated deaths. Eight patients in this arm had immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, all of grade 1 or 2. One patient had grade 1 movement and neurocognitive symptoms, 16 had grade 2 or 3 cranial nerve palsy, and 5 patients had CAR T–related peripheral neuropathy of grade 1, 2, or 3.

The investigators plan to follow patients to determine the long-term effects of ciltacabtagene autoleucel and are currently performing analyses of health-related quality of life, subgroups, and biomarkers.

The study was funded by Janssen and Legend Biotech, which market ciltacabtagene autoleucel. Dr. Dhakal disclosed consulting, speaker’s bureau participation, and institutional research funding from Janssen and others. Several coauthors are employees of the study funders. Dr. Chanan-Khan’s relevant financial information was not available. Dr. Odejide reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.