User login
Blood pressure lowering after thrombectomy may be harmful
, new research suggests. Preliminary results of a new study showed that using an antihypertensive drug to target systolic blood pressure to below 160 mm Hg or 140 mm Hg in these patients may not be beneficial, and may even be harmful.
“This line of inquiry is probably not worth pursuing,” said stroke neurologist Eva A. Mistry, MBBS, MSCI, assistant professor of clinical neurology and rehabilitation medicine, University of Cincinnati.
Following current blood pressure guidelines in these patients (so targeting blood pressure under 180/105 mm Hg) “is probably reasonable,” unless the patient’s systolic blood pressure goes above 180, Dr. Mistry said. “Artificially trying to lower it may result in harm, at least in terms of the disability outcome.”
The findings were presented at the 2023 International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Endovascular therapy has become standard of care for patients with large vessel occlusion after studies showed “massive benefit,” yet about 50% of patients remain disabled or die at 90 days, Dr. Mistry said.
“We have been on the quest to understand if there’s something we can do to improve these outcomes.”
One approach could be optimizing medical management. Previous observational studies showed that higher blood pressure values after thrombectomy are associated with worse outcomes.
Taking it forward
“We wanted to take that forward in a randomized inquiry to see first with this trial if [artificially] lowering blood pressure using medications is safe, and preliminarily understand if it could be efficacious in a larger trial,” she said.
This blood pressure–lowering strategy is already practiced in some centers. A nationwide survey conducted by Dr. Mistry and her colleagues showed a wide range of targets, with some institutions aiming it as low as under 120 mm Hg after thrombectomy, which she found “surprising.”
The Blood pressure after Endovascular Stroke Treatment-II (BEST-II) study included 120 ischemic stroke patients at three stroke centers, mean age 70 years and 57% female, who had undergone endovascular treatment. They were randomized to one of three target blood pressure groups: 180 mm Hg or under, less than 160 mm Hg, or under 140 mm Hg.
To lower blood pressure, researchers used intravenous nicardipine, a calcium channel blocker, as a first line. This was started within 1 hour of the endovascular treatment and given for 24 hours if the patient’s systolic blood pressure was above the target of their group.
In the highest target group (≤180 mm Hg), the average systolic blood pressure reached 129 mm Hg. In the middle target group (<160 mm Hg), the average systolic blood pressure was 131 mm Hg, and in the lowest target group (<140 mm Hg), systolic blood pressure was lowered to an average of 123 mm Hg.
Mean infarct volumes
At 36 hours, the mean adjusted infarct volume was slightly lower in the lowest blood pressure target group (32.4), compared with the other groups (46.4 for the 180 mm Hg group and 50.7 for the under-160 mm Hg group).
“Based on a model or a slope that would be associated with serial lowering of blood pressure targets, we found the point estimate of the effect size was slightly in the direction of benefit of lower blood pressure targets in terms of lower infarct volume,” Dr. Mistry said.
But this was not conclusive. While the point estimate was in the direction of benefit, Dr. Mistry stressed that the trial design doesn’t “definitely rule out” the possibility of harm.
Researchers also measured functional status at 90 days with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). They found that the utility-weighted mRS was slightly lower in the lowest blood pressure target group (0.507), compared with the higher target groups (0.584 and 0.475, respectively, for the 180 mm Hg and under-160 mm Hg groups).
“The effect size was slightly in the direction of harm,” Dr. Mistry said. “To me, that means there might be safety issues associated with the lower blood pressure target.”
Probably futile
The results suggest that studying this issue further is probably futile. “If lowering blood pressure improves outcomes, that improvement is fairly marginal, and there are trends that suggest that, in fact, it might be harmful,” Dr. Mistry said. Her researcher team “believes it would not be the wisest decision” to pursue this strategy any further in a phase 3 study, she said.
“We wanted to understand whether or not we should spend millions of dollars to do a thousand-patient or two thousand-patient trial, and the answer to that is probably not.”
And there are other therapeutics “we can test that might be more promising than this approach,” she added.
In the meantime, Dr. Mistry stressed that clinicians should be cautious about automatically lowering blood pressure in this patient population and that decisions to target lower levels should be done on an individual basis.
Timely and important
In a comment, Karen Furie, MD, MPH, chair of neurology, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said that the study is “timely and important,” given the uncertainty about management of blood pressure after opening the vessel again using endovascular treatment.
“We already knew that letting the blood pressure go very high after reperfusion was bad, and this study shows that lowering it may also pose a risk, and I think that’s an important message for the community.”
The results send a cautionary message to clinicians but do not provide definitive evidence, she added. “Perhaps in the future we will have a better understanding of what the optimal range is.”
Dr. Furie stressed that this was a small pilot study and conclusions are “guarded.”
“I think the authors didn’t want to overinterpret the results so they ended up concluding that because the final disability might have been worse in the patients who had their blood pressure significantly lowered, recommending that as an approach across the board is sort of discouraged.”
Instead, the authors indicated that there may be factors such as degree of recanalization, size of the infarct, or other patient-specific factors “that would dictate where you target blood pressures,” Dr. Furie said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Mistry receives funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and compensation from the American Heart Association for editorial activities, and is a consultant for RapidAI. Dr. Furie has declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. Preliminary results of a new study showed that using an antihypertensive drug to target systolic blood pressure to below 160 mm Hg or 140 mm Hg in these patients may not be beneficial, and may even be harmful.
“This line of inquiry is probably not worth pursuing,” said stroke neurologist Eva A. Mistry, MBBS, MSCI, assistant professor of clinical neurology and rehabilitation medicine, University of Cincinnati.
Following current blood pressure guidelines in these patients (so targeting blood pressure under 180/105 mm Hg) “is probably reasonable,” unless the patient’s systolic blood pressure goes above 180, Dr. Mistry said. “Artificially trying to lower it may result in harm, at least in terms of the disability outcome.”
The findings were presented at the 2023 International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Endovascular therapy has become standard of care for patients with large vessel occlusion after studies showed “massive benefit,” yet about 50% of patients remain disabled or die at 90 days, Dr. Mistry said.
“We have been on the quest to understand if there’s something we can do to improve these outcomes.”
One approach could be optimizing medical management. Previous observational studies showed that higher blood pressure values after thrombectomy are associated with worse outcomes.
Taking it forward
“We wanted to take that forward in a randomized inquiry to see first with this trial if [artificially] lowering blood pressure using medications is safe, and preliminarily understand if it could be efficacious in a larger trial,” she said.
This blood pressure–lowering strategy is already practiced in some centers. A nationwide survey conducted by Dr. Mistry and her colleagues showed a wide range of targets, with some institutions aiming it as low as under 120 mm Hg after thrombectomy, which she found “surprising.”
The Blood pressure after Endovascular Stroke Treatment-II (BEST-II) study included 120 ischemic stroke patients at three stroke centers, mean age 70 years and 57% female, who had undergone endovascular treatment. They were randomized to one of three target blood pressure groups: 180 mm Hg or under, less than 160 mm Hg, or under 140 mm Hg.
To lower blood pressure, researchers used intravenous nicardipine, a calcium channel blocker, as a first line. This was started within 1 hour of the endovascular treatment and given for 24 hours if the patient’s systolic blood pressure was above the target of their group.
In the highest target group (≤180 mm Hg), the average systolic blood pressure reached 129 mm Hg. In the middle target group (<160 mm Hg), the average systolic blood pressure was 131 mm Hg, and in the lowest target group (<140 mm Hg), systolic blood pressure was lowered to an average of 123 mm Hg.
Mean infarct volumes
At 36 hours, the mean adjusted infarct volume was slightly lower in the lowest blood pressure target group (32.4), compared with the other groups (46.4 for the 180 mm Hg group and 50.7 for the under-160 mm Hg group).
“Based on a model or a slope that would be associated with serial lowering of blood pressure targets, we found the point estimate of the effect size was slightly in the direction of benefit of lower blood pressure targets in terms of lower infarct volume,” Dr. Mistry said.
But this was not conclusive. While the point estimate was in the direction of benefit, Dr. Mistry stressed that the trial design doesn’t “definitely rule out” the possibility of harm.
Researchers also measured functional status at 90 days with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). They found that the utility-weighted mRS was slightly lower in the lowest blood pressure target group (0.507), compared with the higher target groups (0.584 and 0.475, respectively, for the 180 mm Hg and under-160 mm Hg groups).
“The effect size was slightly in the direction of harm,” Dr. Mistry said. “To me, that means there might be safety issues associated with the lower blood pressure target.”
Probably futile
The results suggest that studying this issue further is probably futile. “If lowering blood pressure improves outcomes, that improvement is fairly marginal, and there are trends that suggest that, in fact, it might be harmful,” Dr. Mistry said. Her researcher team “believes it would not be the wisest decision” to pursue this strategy any further in a phase 3 study, she said.
“We wanted to understand whether or not we should spend millions of dollars to do a thousand-patient or two thousand-patient trial, and the answer to that is probably not.”
And there are other therapeutics “we can test that might be more promising than this approach,” she added.
In the meantime, Dr. Mistry stressed that clinicians should be cautious about automatically lowering blood pressure in this patient population and that decisions to target lower levels should be done on an individual basis.
Timely and important
In a comment, Karen Furie, MD, MPH, chair of neurology, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said that the study is “timely and important,” given the uncertainty about management of blood pressure after opening the vessel again using endovascular treatment.
“We already knew that letting the blood pressure go very high after reperfusion was bad, and this study shows that lowering it may also pose a risk, and I think that’s an important message for the community.”
The results send a cautionary message to clinicians but do not provide definitive evidence, she added. “Perhaps in the future we will have a better understanding of what the optimal range is.”
Dr. Furie stressed that this was a small pilot study and conclusions are “guarded.”
“I think the authors didn’t want to overinterpret the results so they ended up concluding that because the final disability might have been worse in the patients who had their blood pressure significantly lowered, recommending that as an approach across the board is sort of discouraged.”
Instead, the authors indicated that there may be factors such as degree of recanalization, size of the infarct, or other patient-specific factors “that would dictate where you target blood pressures,” Dr. Furie said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Mistry receives funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and compensation from the American Heart Association for editorial activities, and is a consultant for RapidAI. Dr. Furie has declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests. Preliminary results of a new study showed that using an antihypertensive drug to target systolic blood pressure to below 160 mm Hg or 140 mm Hg in these patients may not be beneficial, and may even be harmful.
“This line of inquiry is probably not worth pursuing,” said stroke neurologist Eva A. Mistry, MBBS, MSCI, assistant professor of clinical neurology and rehabilitation medicine, University of Cincinnati.
Following current blood pressure guidelines in these patients (so targeting blood pressure under 180/105 mm Hg) “is probably reasonable,” unless the patient’s systolic blood pressure goes above 180, Dr. Mistry said. “Artificially trying to lower it may result in harm, at least in terms of the disability outcome.”
The findings were presented at the 2023 International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Endovascular therapy has become standard of care for patients with large vessel occlusion after studies showed “massive benefit,” yet about 50% of patients remain disabled or die at 90 days, Dr. Mistry said.
“We have been on the quest to understand if there’s something we can do to improve these outcomes.”
One approach could be optimizing medical management. Previous observational studies showed that higher blood pressure values after thrombectomy are associated with worse outcomes.
Taking it forward
“We wanted to take that forward in a randomized inquiry to see first with this trial if [artificially] lowering blood pressure using medications is safe, and preliminarily understand if it could be efficacious in a larger trial,” she said.
This blood pressure–lowering strategy is already practiced in some centers. A nationwide survey conducted by Dr. Mistry and her colleagues showed a wide range of targets, with some institutions aiming it as low as under 120 mm Hg after thrombectomy, which she found “surprising.”
The Blood pressure after Endovascular Stroke Treatment-II (BEST-II) study included 120 ischemic stroke patients at three stroke centers, mean age 70 years and 57% female, who had undergone endovascular treatment. They were randomized to one of three target blood pressure groups: 180 mm Hg or under, less than 160 mm Hg, or under 140 mm Hg.
To lower blood pressure, researchers used intravenous nicardipine, a calcium channel blocker, as a first line. This was started within 1 hour of the endovascular treatment and given for 24 hours if the patient’s systolic blood pressure was above the target of their group.
In the highest target group (≤180 mm Hg), the average systolic blood pressure reached 129 mm Hg. In the middle target group (<160 mm Hg), the average systolic blood pressure was 131 mm Hg, and in the lowest target group (<140 mm Hg), systolic blood pressure was lowered to an average of 123 mm Hg.
Mean infarct volumes
At 36 hours, the mean adjusted infarct volume was slightly lower in the lowest blood pressure target group (32.4), compared with the other groups (46.4 for the 180 mm Hg group and 50.7 for the under-160 mm Hg group).
“Based on a model or a slope that would be associated with serial lowering of blood pressure targets, we found the point estimate of the effect size was slightly in the direction of benefit of lower blood pressure targets in terms of lower infarct volume,” Dr. Mistry said.
But this was not conclusive. While the point estimate was in the direction of benefit, Dr. Mistry stressed that the trial design doesn’t “definitely rule out” the possibility of harm.
Researchers also measured functional status at 90 days with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). They found that the utility-weighted mRS was slightly lower in the lowest blood pressure target group (0.507), compared with the higher target groups (0.584 and 0.475, respectively, for the 180 mm Hg and under-160 mm Hg groups).
“The effect size was slightly in the direction of harm,” Dr. Mistry said. “To me, that means there might be safety issues associated with the lower blood pressure target.”
Probably futile
The results suggest that studying this issue further is probably futile. “If lowering blood pressure improves outcomes, that improvement is fairly marginal, and there are trends that suggest that, in fact, it might be harmful,” Dr. Mistry said. Her researcher team “believes it would not be the wisest decision” to pursue this strategy any further in a phase 3 study, she said.
“We wanted to understand whether or not we should spend millions of dollars to do a thousand-patient or two thousand-patient trial, and the answer to that is probably not.”
And there are other therapeutics “we can test that might be more promising than this approach,” she added.
In the meantime, Dr. Mistry stressed that clinicians should be cautious about automatically lowering blood pressure in this patient population and that decisions to target lower levels should be done on an individual basis.
Timely and important
In a comment, Karen Furie, MD, MPH, chair of neurology, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said that the study is “timely and important,” given the uncertainty about management of blood pressure after opening the vessel again using endovascular treatment.
“We already knew that letting the blood pressure go very high after reperfusion was bad, and this study shows that lowering it may also pose a risk, and I think that’s an important message for the community.”
The results send a cautionary message to clinicians but do not provide definitive evidence, she added. “Perhaps in the future we will have a better understanding of what the optimal range is.”
Dr. Furie stressed that this was a small pilot study and conclusions are “guarded.”
“I think the authors didn’t want to overinterpret the results so they ended up concluding that because the final disability might have been worse in the patients who had their blood pressure significantly lowered, recommending that as an approach across the board is sort of discouraged.”
Instead, the authors indicated that there may be factors such as degree of recanalization, size of the infarct, or other patient-specific factors “that would dictate where you target blood pressures,” Dr. Furie said.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Mistry receives funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and compensation from the American Heart Association for editorial activities, and is a consultant for RapidAI. Dr. Furie has declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2023
Scams
It’s amazing how many phone calls I get from different agencies and groups:
The Drug Enforcement Administration – A car rented in your name was found with fentanyl in the trunk.
The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department – There is a warrant for your arrest due to failure to show up for jury duty and/or as an expert witness.
Doctors Without Borders – We treated one of your patients while they were overseas and need payment for the supplies used.
The Arizona Medical Board – Your license has been suspended.
The Department of Health & Human Services – Your patient database has been posted on the dark web.
Of course, any of these problems can be fixed simply paying the caller a fee by credit card, Bitcoin, or purchasing gift cards and reading off the numbers to them.
Really.
As you’ve probably guessed, none of these calls are real, they’re just popular scams that have been circulating among doctors’ (and other) offices for the last several years. You may have gotten some of them yourself.
I’m sure the vast majority of us don’t fall for them, but the scammer on the other end doesn’t care.
And, realistically, that sucker could be any of us on a bad day. Timing is everything. If we’re frazzled by office events, or aware that the local medical board is looking into something, or have just been up all night at the hospital and are exhausted ... that’s when we’re most vulnerable, our razor’s edge is dull, our thought process slowed, and maybe at that moment we are just not as able to think clearly.
If I were younger I’d probably be more inclined to waste time messing around with them for the entertainment, trying to get them to give up on me after a while. But nowadays I have neither the time nor interest for that. In the rare cases that they make it past my secretary (which is pretty hard) I just hang up.
I’m not sure if it says more about us or them that this happens. I suppose doctors’ offices are the low-hanging fruit where they assume there’s money and (hopefully) someone who’s either gullible, not paying attention, or just not on top of things. As with any other business, if it weren’t profitable they wouldn’t do it. The best we can do is to make it as unprofitable as possible.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
It’s amazing how many phone calls I get from different agencies and groups:
The Drug Enforcement Administration – A car rented in your name was found with fentanyl in the trunk.
The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department – There is a warrant for your arrest due to failure to show up for jury duty and/or as an expert witness.
Doctors Without Borders – We treated one of your patients while they were overseas and need payment for the supplies used.
The Arizona Medical Board – Your license has been suspended.
The Department of Health & Human Services – Your patient database has been posted on the dark web.
Of course, any of these problems can be fixed simply paying the caller a fee by credit card, Bitcoin, or purchasing gift cards and reading off the numbers to them.
Really.
As you’ve probably guessed, none of these calls are real, they’re just popular scams that have been circulating among doctors’ (and other) offices for the last several years. You may have gotten some of them yourself.
I’m sure the vast majority of us don’t fall for them, but the scammer on the other end doesn’t care.
And, realistically, that sucker could be any of us on a bad day. Timing is everything. If we’re frazzled by office events, or aware that the local medical board is looking into something, or have just been up all night at the hospital and are exhausted ... that’s when we’re most vulnerable, our razor’s edge is dull, our thought process slowed, and maybe at that moment we are just not as able to think clearly.
If I were younger I’d probably be more inclined to waste time messing around with them for the entertainment, trying to get them to give up on me after a while. But nowadays I have neither the time nor interest for that. In the rare cases that they make it past my secretary (which is pretty hard) I just hang up.
I’m not sure if it says more about us or them that this happens. I suppose doctors’ offices are the low-hanging fruit where they assume there’s money and (hopefully) someone who’s either gullible, not paying attention, or just not on top of things. As with any other business, if it weren’t profitable they wouldn’t do it. The best we can do is to make it as unprofitable as possible.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
It’s amazing how many phone calls I get from different agencies and groups:
The Drug Enforcement Administration – A car rented in your name was found with fentanyl in the trunk.
The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department – There is a warrant for your arrest due to failure to show up for jury duty and/or as an expert witness.
Doctors Without Borders – We treated one of your patients while they were overseas and need payment for the supplies used.
The Arizona Medical Board – Your license has been suspended.
The Department of Health & Human Services – Your patient database has been posted on the dark web.
Of course, any of these problems can be fixed simply paying the caller a fee by credit card, Bitcoin, or purchasing gift cards and reading off the numbers to them.
Really.
As you’ve probably guessed, none of these calls are real, they’re just popular scams that have been circulating among doctors’ (and other) offices for the last several years. You may have gotten some of them yourself.
I’m sure the vast majority of us don’t fall for them, but the scammer on the other end doesn’t care.
And, realistically, that sucker could be any of us on a bad day. Timing is everything. If we’re frazzled by office events, or aware that the local medical board is looking into something, or have just been up all night at the hospital and are exhausted ... that’s when we’re most vulnerable, our razor’s edge is dull, our thought process slowed, and maybe at that moment we are just not as able to think clearly.
If I were younger I’d probably be more inclined to waste time messing around with them for the entertainment, trying to get them to give up on me after a while. But nowadays I have neither the time nor interest for that. In the rare cases that they make it past my secretary (which is pretty hard) I just hang up.
I’m not sure if it says more about us or them that this happens. I suppose doctors’ offices are the low-hanging fruit where they assume there’s money and (hopefully) someone who’s either gullible, not paying attention, or just not on top of things. As with any other business, if it weren’t profitable they wouldn’t do it. The best we can do is to make it as unprofitable as possible.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
NICU use up, birth weights down in babies of mothers with HCV
Infants born to women infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) faced twice the risk of stays in the neonatal ICU (NICU) and 2.7 times the risk of low birth weight, a new analysis finds, even when researchers adjusted their data to control for injectable drug use and maternal medical comorbidity.
Clinicians should be “aware that the infants of pregnant people with HCV may have a high rate of need for higher-level pediatric care,” said Brenna L. Hughes, MD, MSc, chief of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. She spoke in an interview about the findings, which were presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
As Dr. Hughes noted, “HCV remains a serious problem in pregnancy because it often goes undiagnosed and/or untreated prior to pregnancy. It can be passed to infants, and this can cause significant health-related outcomes for children as they age.”
For the multicenter U.S. study, researchers identified 249 pregnant mothers with HCV from a 2012-2018 cohort and matched them by gestational age to controls (n = 486). The average age was 28; 71.1% of the cases were non-Hispanic White versus 41.6% of the controls; 8.4% of cases were non-Hispanic Black versus 32.1% of controls (P < .001 for race/ethnicity analysis); and 73% of cases were smokers versus 18% of controls (P < .001). More than 19% of cases reported injectable drug use during pregnancy versus 0.2% of controls (P < .001).
The researchers adjusted their findings for maternal age, body mass index, injectable drug use, and maternal comorbidity.
An earlier analysis of the study data found that 6% of pregnant women with HCV passed it on to their infants, especially those with high levels of virus in their systems. For the new study, researchers focused on various outcomes to test the assumption that “adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with HCV are related to prematurity or to ongoing use of injection drugs,” Dr. Hughes said.
There was no increase in rates of preterm birth or adverse maternal outcomes in the HCV cases. However, infants born to women with HCV were more likely than the controls to require a stay in the NICU (45% vs. 19%; adjusted relative risk, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-2.58). They were also more likely to have lower birth weights (small for gestational age < 5th percentile) (10.6% vs. 3.1%; ARR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.38-5.34).
No difference in outcomes was seen when HCV cases with viremia (33%) were excluded.
“The most surprising finding was that the need for higher-level pediatric care was so high even though there wasn’t an increased risk of prematurity,” Dr. Hughes said.
She added it’s not clear why NICU stays and low birth weights were more common in infants of women with HCV. “It is possible that the higher risk of need for higher-level pediatric care was related to a need for observation or treatment due to use of opioid replacement therapies with opioid agonists.” As for lower birth weight, “there may be other unmeasured risk factors.”
Tatyana Kushner, MD, MSCE, of the division of liver diseases at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview that the study adds to limited data about HCV in pregnancy. “These findings have been demonstrated in prior studies, and it would be important to tease apart whether [low birth weight] is related to the virus itself or more related to other confounding associated factors such as maternal substance use as well as other associated social determinants of health among women with HCV.”
As for the study’s message, Dr. Kushner said it makes it clear that “hepatitis C adversely impacts outcomes of pregnancy and it is important to identify women of childbearing age for treatment early, ideally prior to pregnancy, in order to improve their pregnancy outcomes. In addition, treatment of hepatitis C during pregnancy should be explored further to determine if treatment during pregnancy can improve outcomes.”
At the moment, she said, “there are ongoing studies to delineate the safety and efficacy of hepatitis C treatment during pregnancy. Given that we are screening for hepatitis C during pregnancy, we need clear recommendations on the use of direct-acting antivirals in people who screen positive.”
The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors have no disclosures. Dr. Kushner disclosed research support (Gilead) and advisory board service (Gilead, AbbVie, Bausch, GlaxoSmithKline, and Eiger).
Infants born to women infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) faced twice the risk of stays in the neonatal ICU (NICU) and 2.7 times the risk of low birth weight, a new analysis finds, even when researchers adjusted their data to control for injectable drug use and maternal medical comorbidity.
Clinicians should be “aware that the infants of pregnant people with HCV may have a high rate of need for higher-level pediatric care,” said Brenna L. Hughes, MD, MSc, chief of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. She spoke in an interview about the findings, which were presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
As Dr. Hughes noted, “HCV remains a serious problem in pregnancy because it often goes undiagnosed and/or untreated prior to pregnancy. It can be passed to infants, and this can cause significant health-related outcomes for children as they age.”
For the multicenter U.S. study, researchers identified 249 pregnant mothers with HCV from a 2012-2018 cohort and matched them by gestational age to controls (n = 486). The average age was 28; 71.1% of the cases were non-Hispanic White versus 41.6% of the controls; 8.4% of cases were non-Hispanic Black versus 32.1% of controls (P < .001 for race/ethnicity analysis); and 73% of cases were smokers versus 18% of controls (P < .001). More than 19% of cases reported injectable drug use during pregnancy versus 0.2% of controls (P < .001).
The researchers adjusted their findings for maternal age, body mass index, injectable drug use, and maternal comorbidity.
An earlier analysis of the study data found that 6% of pregnant women with HCV passed it on to their infants, especially those with high levels of virus in their systems. For the new study, researchers focused on various outcomes to test the assumption that “adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with HCV are related to prematurity or to ongoing use of injection drugs,” Dr. Hughes said.
There was no increase in rates of preterm birth or adverse maternal outcomes in the HCV cases. However, infants born to women with HCV were more likely than the controls to require a stay in the NICU (45% vs. 19%; adjusted relative risk, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-2.58). They were also more likely to have lower birth weights (small for gestational age < 5th percentile) (10.6% vs. 3.1%; ARR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.38-5.34).
No difference in outcomes was seen when HCV cases with viremia (33%) were excluded.
“The most surprising finding was that the need for higher-level pediatric care was so high even though there wasn’t an increased risk of prematurity,” Dr. Hughes said.
She added it’s not clear why NICU stays and low birth weights were more common in infants of women with HCV. “It is possible that the higher risk of need for higher-level pediatric care was related to a need for observation or treatment due to use of opioid replacement therapies with opioid agonists.” As for lower birth weight, “there may be other unmeasured risk factors.”
Tatyana Kushner, MD, MSCE, of the division of liver diseases at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview that the study adds to limited data about HCV in pregnancy. “These findings have been demonstrated in prior studies, and it would be important to tease apart whether [low birth weight] is related to the virus itself or more related to other confounding associated factors such as maternal substance use as well as other associated social determinants of health among women with HCV.”
As for the study’s message, Dr. Kushner said it makes it clear that “hepatitis C adversely impacts outcomes of pregnancy and it is important to identify women of childbearing age for treatment early, ideally prior to pregnancy, in order to improve their pregnancy outcomes. In addition, treatment of hepatitis C during pregnancy should be explored further to determine if treatment during pregnancy can improve outcomes.”
At the moment, she said, “there are ongoing studies to delineate the safety and efficacy of hepatitis C treatment during pregnancy. Given that we are screening for hepatitis C during pregnancy, we need clear recommendations on the use of direct-acting antivirals in people who screen positive.”
The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors have no disclosures. Dr. Kushner disclosed research support (Gilead) and advisory board service (Gilead, AbbVie, Bausch, GlaxoSmithKline, and Eiger).
Infants born to women infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) faced twice the risk of stays in the neonatal ICU (NICU) and 2.7 times the risk of low birth weight, a new analysis finds, even when researchers adjusted their data to control for injectable drug use and maternal medical comorbidity.
Clinicians should be “aware that the infants of pregnant people with HCV may have a high rate of need for higher-level pediatric care,” said Brenna L. Hughes, MD, MSc, chief of maternal fetal medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. She spoke in an interview about the findings, which were presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.
As Dr. Hughes noted, “HCV remains a serious problem in pregnancy because it often goes undiagnosed and/or untreated prior to pregnancy. It can be passed to infants, and this can cause significant health-related outcomes for children as they age.”
For the multicenter U.S. study, researchers identified 249 pregnant mothers with HCV from a 2012-2018 cohort and matched them by gestational age to controls (n = 486). The average age was 28; 71.1% of the cases were non-Hispanic White versus 41.6% of the controls; 8.4% of cases were non-Hispanic Black versus 32.1% of controls (P < .001 for race/ethnicity analysis); and 73% of cases were smokers versus 18% of controls (P < .001). More than 19% of cases reported injectable drug use during pregnancy versus 0.2% of controls (P < .001).
The researchers adjusted their findings for maternal age, body mass index, injectable drug use, and maternal comorbidity.
An earlier analysis of the study data found that 6% of pregnant women with HCV passed it on to their infants, especially those with high levels of virus in their systems. For the new study, researchers focused on various outcomes to test the assumption that “adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with HCV are related to prematurity or to ongoing use of injection drugs,” Dr. Hughes said.
There was no increase in rates of preterm birth or adverse maternal outcomes in the HCV cases. However, infants born to women with HCV were more likely than the controls to require a stay in the NICU (45% vs. 19%; adjusted relative risk, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-2.58). They were also more likely to have lower birth weights (small for gestational age < 5th percentile) (10.6% vs. 3.1%; ARR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.38-5.34).
No difference in outcomes was seen when HCV cases with viremia (33%) were excluded.
“The most surprising finding was that the need for higher-level pediatric care was so high even though there wasn’t an increased risk of prematurity,” Dr. Hughes said.
She added it’s not clear why NICU stays and low birth weights were more common in infants of women with HCV. “It is possible that the higher risk of need for higher-level pediatric care was related to a need for observation or treatment due to use of opioid replacement therapies with opioid agonists.” As for lower birth weight, “there may be other unmeasured risk factors.”
Tatyana Kushner, MD, MSCE, of the division of liver diseases at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview that the study adds to limited data about HCV in pregnancy. “These findings have been demonstrated in prior studies, and it would be important to tease apart whether [low birth weight] is related to the virus itself or more related to other confounding associated factors such as maternal substance use as well as other associated social determinants of health among women with HCV.”
As for the study’s message, Dr. Kushner said it makes it clear that “hepatitis C adversely impacts outcomes of pregnancy and it is important to identify women of childbearing age for treatment early, ideally prior to pregnancy, in order to improve their pregnancy outcomes. In addition, treatment of hepatitis C during pregnancy should be explored further to determine if treatment during pregnancy can improve outcomes.”
At the moment, she said, “there are ongoing studies to delineate the safety and efficacy of hepatitis C treatment during pregnancy. Given that we are screening for hepatitis C during pregnancy, we need clear recommendations on the use of direct-acting antivirals in people who screen positive.”
The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors have no disclosures. Dr. Kushner disclosed research support (Gilead) and advisory board service (Gilead, AbbVie, Bausch, GlaxoSmithKline, and Eiger).
FROM THE PREGNANCY MEETING
Embattled iPLEDGE program: Changes ahead?
In December 2021, major changes took effect in the iPLEDGE program, the Food and Drug Administration–required safety program for managing the risks of isotretinoin’s teratogenicity and preventing exposure during pregnancy. Now, more modifications may be coming to the acne drug’s safety program.
The risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) requirements. The aim, according to the FDA meeting announcement, is “to minimize burden on patients, pharmacies, and prescribers while maintaining safe use of isotretinoin oral capsules for patients.”
Isotretinoin is marketed as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane. Its former brand name was Accutane.
Problems began to surface days after a new, gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program was launched on Dec. 13, 2021. That program had been approved earlier by the FDA.
However, the problems that were encountered were a result of glitches in changes in the platform that had been planned, and were not related to the gender-neutral changes. The iPLEDGE program had transitioned to the new platform, and the rollout was far from smooth. Dermatologists, pharmacists, patients, parents of patients, and others were frustrated and angry that they could not access the new platform and obtain the medication promptly. Reaching the help line to sort out problems was another exercise in frustration. Wait times while on hold were unbearably long, or problems were not resolved over the phone.
(The new gender-neutral approach, which advocates said was needed to preserve inclusiveness of their patients, including transgender patients, places potential patients into two categories: those who can become pregnant, and those who cannot. Previously, there were three categories into which patients were classified: females who have reproductive potential, females who do not have reproductive potential, and males.)
Before pharmacists can fill a prescription for isotretinoin, a medical provider must confirm a patient’s negative pregnancy test and inform a patient with reproductive potential of the risks of the medication.
In January 2022, to deal with the chaotic launch and subsequent problems, the FDA said it would continue to meet with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) to resolve the problems reported by clinicians, pharmacists, and patients.
The American Academy of Dermatology Association formed an iPLEDGE work group to address the issues and suggest solutions. It has made several requests of and suggestions for the IPMG, which manages the program, according to Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Penn State Hershey (Pa.) Medical Center, and a member of the work group.
“We are asking them to eliminate the monthly attestation for patients who can’t get pregnant and to review and modify restrictive and punitive waiting and lockout periods for all patients,” she told this news organization.
As of February 2023, most of the platform glitches had been smoothed out, Dr. Zaenglein said. Still, “improvements to the design of the website could improve the user interface,” she added.
The FDA has established a docket for the public to submit comments before the meeting. The docket number is FDA-2022-N-3071. The electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on March 27. Background material and a link to the live webcast of the panel meeting will be available to the public no later than 2 days before the meeting and will be posted on the FDA web page or at the time of the meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In December 2021, major changes took effect in the iPLEDGE program, the Food and Drug Administration–required safety program for managing the risks of isotretinoin’s teratogenicity and preventing exposure during pregnancy. Now, more modifications may be coming to the acne drug’s safety program.
The risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) requirements. The aim, according to the FDA meeting announcement, is “to minimize burden on patients, pharmacies, and prescribers while maintaining safe use of isotretinoin oral capsules for patients.”
Isotretinoin is marketed as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane. Its former brand name was Accutane.
Problems began to surface days after a new, gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program was launched on Dec. 13, 2021. That program had been approved earlier by the FDA.
However, the problems that were encountered were a result of glitches in changes in the platform that had been planned, and were not related to the gender-neutral changes. The iPLEDGE program had transitioned to the new platform, and the rollout was far from smooth. Dermatologists, pharmacists, patients, parents of patients, and others were frustrated and angry that they could not access the new platform and obtain the medication promptly. Reaching the help line to sort out problems was another exercise in frustration. Wait times while on hold were unbearably long, or problems were not resolved over the phone.
(The new gender-neutral approach, which advocates said was needed to preserve inclusiveness of their patients, including transgender patients, places potential patients into two categories: those who can become pregnant, and those who cannot. Previously, there were three categories into which patients were classified: females who have reproductive potential, females who do not have reproductive potential, and males.)
Before pharmacists can fill a prescription for isotretinoin, a medical provider must confirm a patient’s negative pregnancy test and inform a patient with reproductive potential of the risks of the medication.
In January 2022, to deal with the chaotic launch and subsequent problems, the FDA said it would continue to meet with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) to resolve the problems reported by clinicians, pharmacists, and patients.
The American Academy of Dermatology Association formed an iPLEDGE work group to address the issues and suggest solutions. It has made several requests of and suggestions for the IPMG, which manages the program, according to Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Penn State Hershey (Pa.) Medical Center, and a member of the work group.
“We are asking them to eliminate the monthly attestation for patients who can’t get pregnant and to review and modify restrictive and punitive waiting and lockout periods for all patients,” she told this news organization.
As of February 2023, most of the platform glitches had been smoothed out, Dr. Zaenglein said. Still, “improvements to the design of the website could improve the user interface,” she added.
The FDA has established a docket for the public to submit comments before the meeting. The docket number is FDA-2022-N-3071. The electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on March 27. Background material and a link to the live webcast of the panel meeting will be available to the public no later than 2 days before the meeting and will be posted on the FDA web page or at the time of the meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In December 2021, major changes took effect in the iPLEDGE program, the Food and Drug Administration–required safety program for managing the risks of isotretinoin’s teratogenicity and preventing exposure during pregnancy. Now, more modifications may be coming to the acne drug’s safety program.
The risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) requirements. The aim, according to the FDA meeting announcement, is “to minimize burden on patients, pharmacies, and prescribers while maintaining safe use of isotretinoin oral capsules for patients.”
Isotretinoin is marketed as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane. Its former brand name was Accutane.
Problems began to surface days after a new, gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program was launched on Dec. 13, 2021. That program had been approved earlier by the FDA.
However, the problems that were encountered were a result of glitches in changes in the platform that had been planned, and were not related to the gender-neutral changes. The iPLEDGE program had transitioned to the new platform, and the rollout was far from smooth. Dermatologists, pharmacists, patients, parents of patients, and others were frustrated and angry that they could not access the new platform and obtain the medication promptly. Reaching the help line to sort out problems was another exercise in frustration. Wait times while on hold were unbearably long, or problems were not resolved over the phone.
(The new gender-neutral approach, which advocates said was needed to preserve inclusiveness of their patients, including transgender patients, places potential patients into two categories: those who can become pregnant, and those who cannot. Previously, there were three categories into which patients were classified: females who have reproductive potential, females who do not have reproductive potential, and males.)
Before pharmacists can fill a prescription for isotretinoin, a medical provider must confirm a patient’s negative pregnancy test and inform a patient with reproductive potential of the risks of the medication.
In January 2022, to deal with the chaotic launch and subsequent problems, the FDA said it would continue to meet with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) to resolve the problems reported by clinicians, pharmacists, and patients.
The American Academy of Dermatology Association formed an iPLEDGE work group to address the issues and suggest solutions. It has made several requests of and suggestions for the IPMG, which manages the program, according to Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Penn State Hershey (Pa.) Medical Center, and a member of the work group.
“We are asking them to eliminate the monthly attestation for patients who can’t get pregnant and to review and modify restrictive and punitive waiting and lockout periods for all patients,” she told this news organization.
As of February 2023, most of the platform glitches had been smoothed out, Dr. Zaenglein said. Still, “improvements to the design of the website could improve the user interface,” she added.
The FDA has established a docket for the public to submit comments before the meeting. The docket number is FDA-2022-N-3071. The electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on March 27. Background material and a link to the live webcast of the panel meeting will be available to the public no later than 2 days before the meeting and will be posted on the FDA web page or at the time of the meeting.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Forever chemicals’ up type 2 diabetes risk in midlife White women
Middle-aged White women who had higher levels of some breakdown products of phthalates – a class of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), or “forever chemicals,” that act as plasticizers – had a significantly greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes over a 6-year period compared with other similar women.
However, this association was not seen among Black or Asian middle-aged women.
These findings from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation – Multipollutant Study (SWAN-MPS), by Mia Q. Peng, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, have been published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
“Overall, our study has added some evidence to support the potential diabetogenic effects of phthalates, but it also highlights that much is still unknown about the metabolic effects of these chemicals,” the group noted.
“The apparent racial/ethnic differences in the associations between phthalates and incident diabetes should be investigated in future studies,” they cautioned.
Recruiting younger participants and observing them longer, they suggested, “will also help us understand the effects of phthalates on different stages of the diabetogenic process, including whether body fat gain is an important mediator.”
Phthalates are all around us
Low-molecular-weight phthalates are frequently added to personal care products, such as fragrance, nail polish, and some feminine hygiene products, as solvents, plasticizers, and fixatives, the researchers explained.
And high-molecular-weight phthalates are frequently added to polyvinyl chloride plastic products, such as plastic food packaging, clothing, and vinyl flooring, as plasticizers.
Phthalates have been hypothesized to contribute to the development of diabetes, but longitudinal evidence in humans was limited.
“Given widespread exposure to phthalates and the enormous costs of diabetes to individuals and societies, ongoing investments in the research on phthalates’ metabolic effects are warranted,” the researchers concluded.
Racial differences in phthalates and incident diabetes
“A new finding is that we observed some phthalates are associated with a higher risk of diabetes development, especially in White women [that] were not seen in Black or Asian women,” senior author Sung Kyun Park, ScD, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.
“We were surprised to see the racial/ethnic differences,” added Dr. Peng, formerly of the University of Michigan and now at Lifecourse Epidemiology of Adiposity and Diabetes Center, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.
A possible explanation is that “compared to White women, Black women develop diabetes at a younger age and are exposed to higher levels of several phthalates,” and this study excluded women who already had diabetes by midlife, she noted.
“Although our study was conducted in a cohort of women,” Dr. Park stressed, “we hope that our findings are not interpreted that only women should be concerned of phthalates. Our findings add to the current literature that phthalates may be a potential risk factor for type 2 diabetes.
“Certain phthalates are prohibited in children’s toys and child care articles,” Dr. Peng noted, as explained by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. In addition, a bill has been introduced in Congress to ban phthalates in food contact substances.
“If phthalates are removed from plastics and other consumer products,” she cautioned, “we do have to be careful in the process to avoid replacing them with some other potentially harmful chemicals.”
A well-known example of this type of “regrettable substitution,” Dr. Park added, “is ‘BPA-free’ plastics that replaced bisphenol A with other bisphenols such as bisphenol-F (BPF) or bisphenol-S (BPS). The product has a label of ‘BPA-free’, but those replaced chemicals turned out to be equally toxic. Science is slow to determine if a new chemical introduced to the market is safe and can replace a regulated chemical.”
And studies have shown that a diet rich in meat, fat, and ultraprocessed foods is associated with increased exposures to some phthalates, especially when the foods are obtained away from home, such as fast foods, Dr. Peng observed. In addition, some phthalates are added to personal care products such as fragrance.
“As a first step,” she said, “I think reducing consumption of ultraprocessed foods packaged in plastics may help reduce phthalate exposure.”
A 2020 report from the Endocrine Society and the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), titled, “Plastics, EDCs, and Health,” summarizes research on bisphenol A, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), phthalates, and other EDCs that leach from plastics. The Endocrine Society website also has a link to a 2-page summary.
Levels of 12 phthalate metabolites
Previously, the researchers reported how another class of “forever chemicals,” PFAS, were associated with risk of hypertension in a 17-year follow-up of middle-aged women in the SWAN study.
In the current study, they analyzed data from 1,308 women in SWAN-MPS who had been recruited at five study sites (Oakland, Calif; Los Angeles; Detroit; Pittsburgh; and Boston).
The women were between ages 42 and 52 years in 1996-1997 and self-identified as White, Black, Chinese, or Japanese.
They did not have diabetes in 1999-2000 and had sufficient urine samples for phthalate assessment then and midway through a 6-year follow-up.
The women were a median age of 49 years in 1999-2000. About half were White, 20% were Black, 13% were Chinese, and 15% were Japanese.
Researchers analyzed levels of 12 metabolites, chosen because their parent phthalates have been widely used in industry and commerce, and exposure to these phthalates is a national biomonitoring priority.
The measured phthalates were:
Three metabolites of low-molecular-weight phthalates:
- mono-ethyl phthalate (MEP)
- mono-n-butyl phthalate (MnBP)
- mono-isobutyl phthalate (MiBP)
Four metabolites of the high-molecular-weight phthalate di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), which is of particular public health interest:
- mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (MEHP)
- mono(2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl) phthalate (MEHHP)
- mono(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl) phthalate (MEOHP)
- mono(2-ethyl-5-carboxypentyl) phthalate (MECPP)
Five metabolites of other high-molecular-weight phthalates:
- monobenzyl phthalate (MBzP)
- monoisononyl phthalate (MiNP)
- mono-carboxyoctyl phthalate (MCOP)
- mono-carboxy-isononyl phthalate (MCNP)
- mono(3-carboxypropyl) phthalate (MCPP)
The researchers excluded MiNP from all analyses because it was detected in less than 1% of urine samples.
The different phthalate metabolites were detected in 84.8% of samples (MEHP) to 100% of samples (MnBP and MECPP).
Women who were younger, Black, current smokers, or obese generally had higher concentrations of phthalate metabolites.
Over 6 years, 61 women developed diabetes (an incidence rate of 8.1 per 1000 person-years).
Compared with other women, those with incident diabetes had significantly higher concentrations of all phthalate metabolites except DEHP metabolites and MCPP.
Phthalates were not associated with incident diabetes in Black or Asian women.
However, among White women, each doubling of the concentrations of MiBP, MBzP, MCOP, MCNP, and MCCP was associated with a 30% to 63% higher incidence of diabetes (HR 1.30 for MCNP; HR 1.63 for MiBP).
The SWAN study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services, National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Nursing Research, NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health, and SWAN Repository. The current study was supported by the National Center for Research Resources, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Dr. Peng was supported by an Interdisciplinary Research Training on Health and Aging grant from the NIA. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Middle-aged White women who had higher levels of some breakdown products of phthalates – a class of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), or “forever chemicals,” that act as plasticizers – had a significantly greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes over a 6-year period compared with other similar women.
However, this association was not seen among Black or Asian middle-aged women.
These findings from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation – Multipollutant Study (SWAN-MPS), by Mia Q. Peng, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, have been published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
“Overall, our study has added some evidence to support the potential diabetogenic effects of phthalates, but it also highlights that much is still unknown about the metabolic effects of these chemicals,” the group noted.
“The apparent racial/ethnic differences in the associations between phthalates and incident diabetes should be investigated in future studies,” they cautioned.
Recruiting younger participants and observing them longer, they suggested, “will also help us understand the effects of phthalates on different stages of the diabetogenic process, including whether body fat gain is an important mediator.”
Phthalates are all around us
Low-molecular-weight phthalates are frequently added to personal care products, such as fragrance, nail polish, and some feminine hygiene products, as solvents, plasticizers, and fixatives, the researchers explained.
And high-molecular-weight phthalates are frequently added to polyvinyl chloride plastic products, such as plastic food packaging, clothing, and vinyl flooring, as plasticizers.
Phthalates have been hypothesized to contribute to the development of diabetes, but longitudinal evidence in humans was limited.
“Given widespread exposure to phthalates and the enormous costs of diabetes to individuals and societies, ongoing investments in the research on phthalates’ metabolic effects are warranted,” the researchers concluded.
Racial differences in phthalates and incident diabetes
“A new finding is that we observed some phthalates are associated with a higher risk of diabetes development, especially in White women [that] were not seen in Black or Asian women,” senior author Sung Kyun Park, ScD, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.
“We were surprised to see the racial/ethnic differences,” added Dr. Peng, formerly of the University of Michigan and now at Lifecourse Epidemiology of Adiposity and Diabetes Center, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.
A possible explanation is that “compared to White women, Black women develop diabetes at a younger age and are exposed to higher levels of several phthalates,” and this study excluded women who already had diabetes by midlife, she noted.
“Although our study was conducted in a cohort of women,” Dr. Park stressed, “we hope that our findings are not interpreted that only women should be concerned of phthalates. Our findings add to the current literature that phthalates may be a potential risk factor for type 2 diabetes.
“Certain phthalates are prohibited in children’s toys and child care articles,” Dr. Peng noted, as explained by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. In addition, a bill has been introduced in Congress to ban phthalates in food contact substances.
“If phthalates are removed from plastics and other consumer products,” she cautioned, “we do have to be careful in the process to avoid replacing them with some other potentially harmful chemicals.”
A well-known example of this type of “regrettable substitution,” Dr. Park added, “is ‘BPA-free’ plastics that replaced bisphenol A with other bisphenols such as bisphenol-F (BPF) or bisphenol-S (BPS). The product has a label of ‘BPA-free’, but those replaced chemicals turned out to be equally toxic. Science is slow to determine if a new chemical introduced to the market is safe and can replace a regulated chemical.”
And studies have shown that a diet rich in meat, fat, and ultraprocessed foods is associated with increased exposures to some phthalates, especially when the foods are obtained away from home, such as fast foods, Dr. Peng observed. In addition, some phthalates are added to personal care products such as fragrance.
“As a first step,” she said, “I think reducing consumption of ultraprocessed foods packaged in plastics may help reduce phthalate exposure.”
A 2020 report from the Endocrine Society and the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), titled, “Plastics, EDCs, and Health,” summarizes research on bisphenol A, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), phthalates, and other EDCs that leach from plastics. The Endocrine Society website also has a link to a 2-page summary.
Levels of 12 phthalate metabolites
Previously, the researchers reported how another class of “forever chemicals,” PFAS, were associated with risk of hypertension in a 17-year follow-up of middle-aged women in the SWAN study.
In the current study, they analyzed data from 1,308 women in SWAN-MPS who had been recruited at five study sites (Oakland, Calif; Los Angeles; Detroit; Pittsburgh; and Boston).
The women were between ages 42 and 52 years in 1996-1997 and self-identified as White, Black, Chinese, or Japanese.
They did not have diabetes in 1999-2000 and had sufficient urine samples for phthalate assessment then and midway through a 6-year follow-up.
The women were a median age of 49 years in 1999-2000. About half were White, 20% were Black, 13% were Chinese, and 15% were Japanese.
Researchers analyzed levels of 12 metabolites, chosen because their parent phthalates have been widely used in industry and commerce, and exposure to these phthalates is a national biomonitoring priority.
The measured phthalates were:
Three metabolites of low-molecular-weight phthalates:
- mono-ethyl phthalate (MEP)
- mono-n-butyl phthalate (MnBP)
- mono-isobutyl phthalate (MiBP)
Four metabolites of the high-molecular-weight phthalate di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), which is of particular public health interest:
- mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (MEHP)
- mono(2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl) phthalate (MEHHP)
- mono(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl) phthalate (MEOHP)
- mono(2-ethyl-5-carboxypentyl) phthalate (MECPP)
Five metabolites of other high-molecular-weight phthalates:
- monobenzyl phthalate (MBzP)
- monoisononyl phthalate (MiNP)
- mono-carboxyoctyl phthalate (MCOP)
- mono-carboxy-isononyl phthalate (MCNP)
- mono(3-carboxypropyl) phthalate (MCPP)
The researchers excluded MiNP from all analyses because it was detected in less than 1% of urine samples.
The different phthalate metabolites were detected in 84.8% of samples (MEHP) to 100% of samples (MnBP and MECPP).
Women who were younger, Black, current smokers, or obese generally had higher concentrations of phthalate metabolites.
Over 6 years, 61 women developed diabetes (an incidence rate of 8.1 per 1000 person-years).
Compared with other women, those with incident diabetes had significantly higher concentrations of all phthalate metabolites except DEHP metabolites and MCPP.
Phthalates were not associated with incident diabetes in Black or Asian women.
However, among White women, each doubling of the concentrations of MiBP, MBzP, MCOP, MCNP, and MCCP was associated with a 30% to 63% higher incidence of diabetes (HR 1.30 for MCNP; HR 1.63 for MiBP).
The SWAN study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services, National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Nursing Research, NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health, and SWAN Repository. The current study was supported by the National Center for Research Resources, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Dr. Peng was supported by an Interdisciplinary Research Training on Health and Aging grant from the NIA. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Middle-aged White women who had higher levels of some breakdown products of phthalates – a class of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), or “forever chemicals,” that act as plasticizers – had a significantly greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes over a 6-year period compared with other similar women.
However, this association was not seen among Black or Asian middle-aged women.
These findings from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation – Multipollutant Study (SWAN-MPS), by Mia Q. Peng, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, have been published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
“Overall, our study has added some evidence to support the potential diabetogenic effects of phthalates, but it also highlights that much is still unknown about the metabolic effects of these chemicals,” the group noted.
“The apparent racial/ethnic differences in the associations between phthalates and incident diabetes should be investigated in future studies,” they cautioned.
Recruiting younger participants and observing them longer, they suggested, “will also help us understand the effects of phthalates on different stages of the diabetogenic process, including whether body fat gain is an important mediator.”
Phthalates are all around us
Low-molecular-weight phthalates are frequently added to personal care products, such as fragrance, nail polish, and some feminine hygiene products, as solvents, plasticizers, and fixatives, the researchers explained.
And high-molecular-weight phthalates are frequently added to polyvinyl chloride plastic products, such as plastic food packaging, clothing, and vinyl flooring, as plasticizers.
Phthalates have been hypothesized to contribute to the development of diabetes, but longitudinal evidence in humans was limited.
“Given widespread exposure to phthalates and the enormous costs of diabetes to individuals and societies, ongoing investments in the research on phthalates’ metabolic effects are warranted,” the researchers concluded.
Racial differences in phthalates and incident diabetes
“A new finding is that we observed some phthalates are associated with a higher risk of diabetes development, especially in White women [that] were not seen in Black or Asian women,” senior author Sung Kyun Park, ScD, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.
“We were surprised to see the racial/ethnic differences,” added Dr. Peng, formerly of the University of Michigan and now at Lifecourse Epidemiology of Adiposity and Diabetes Center, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.
A possible explanation is that “compared to White women, Black women develop diabetes at a younger age and are exposed to higher levels of several phthalates,” and this study excluded women who already had diabetes by midlife, she noted.
“Although our study was conducted in a cohort of women,” Dr. Park stressed, “we hope that our findings are not interpreted that only women should be concerned of phthalates. Our findings add to the current literature that phthalates may be a potential risk factor for type 2 diabetes.
“Certain phthalates are prohibited in children’s toys and child care articles,” Dr. Peng noted, as explained by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. In addition, a bill has been introduced in Congress to ban phthalates in food contact substances.
“If phthalates are removed from plastics and other consumer products,” she cautioned, “we do have to be careful in the process to avoid replacing them with some other potentially harmful chemicals.”
A well-known example of this type of “regrettable substitution,” Dr. Park added, “is ‘BPA-free’ plastics that replaced bisphenol A with other bisphenols such as bisphenol-F (BPF) or bisphenol-S (BPS). The product has a label of ‘BPA-free’, but those replaced chemicals turned out to be equally toxic. Science is slow to determine if a new chemical introduced to the market is safe and can replace a regulated chemical.”
And studies have shown that a diet rich in meat, fat, and ultraprocessed foods is associated with increased exposures to some phthalates, especially when the foods are obtained away from home, such as fast foods, Dr. Peng observed. In addition, some phthalates are added to personal care products such as fragrance.
“As a first step,” she said, “I think reducing consumption of ultraprocessed foods packaged in plastics may help reduce phthalate exposure.”
A 2020 report from the Endocrine Society and the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), titled, “Plastics, EDCs, and Health,” summarizes research on bisphenol A, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), phthalates, and other EDCs that leach from plastics. The Endocrine Society website also has a link to a 2-page summary.
Levels of 12 phthalate metabolites
Previously, the researchers reported how another class of “forever chemicals,” PFAS, were associated with risk of hypertension in a 17-year follow-up of middle-aged women in the SWAN study.
In the current study, they analyzed data from 1,308 women in SWAN-MPS who had been recruited at five study sites (Oakland, Calif; Los Angeles; Detroit; Pittsburgh; and Boston).
The women were between ages 42 and 52 years in 1996-1997 and self-identified as White, Black, Chinese, or Japanese.
They did not have diabetes in 1999-2000 and had sufficient urine samples for phthalate assessment then and midway through a 6-year follow-up.
The women were a median age of 49 years in 1999-2000. About half were White, 20% were Black, 13% were Chinese, and 15% were Japanese.
Researchers analyzed levels of 12 metabolites, chosen because their parent phthalates have been widely used in industry and commerce, and exposure to these phthalates is a national biomonitoring priority.
The measured phthalates were:
Three metabolites of low-molecular-weight phthalates:
- mono-ethyl phthalate (MEP)
- mono-n-butyl phthalate (MnBP)
- mono-isobutyl phthalate (MiBP)
Four metabolites of the high-molecular-weight phthalate di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), which is of particular public health interest:
- mono(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (MEHP)
- mono(2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl) phthalate (MEHHP)
- mono(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl) phthalate (MEOHP)
- mono(2-ethyl-5-carboxypentyl) phthalate (MECPP)
Five metabolites of other high-molecular-weight phthalates:
- monobenzyl phthalate (MBzP)
- monoisononyl phthalate (MiNP)
- mono-carboxyoctyl phthalate (MCOP)
- mono-carboxy-isononyl phthalate (MCNP)
- mono(3-carboxypropyl) phthalate (MCPP)
The researchers excluded MiNP from all analyses because it was detected in less than 1% of urine samples.
The different phthalate metabolites were detected in 84.8% of samples (MEHP) to 100% of samples (MnBP and MECPP).
Women who were younger, Black, current smokers, or obese generally had higher concentrations of phthalate metabolites.
Over 6 years, 61 women developed diabetes (an incidence rate of 8.1 per 1000 person-years).
Compared with other women, those with incident diabetes had significantly higher concentrations of all phthalate metabolites except DEHP metabolites and MCPP.
Phthalates were not associated with incident diabetes in Black or Asian women.
However, among White women, each doubling of the concentrations of MiBP, MBzP, MCOP, MCNP, and MCCP was associated with a 30% to 63% higher incidence of diabetes (HR 1.30 for MCNP; HR 1.63 for MiBP).
The SWAN study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services, National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Nursing Research, NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health, and SWAN Repository. The current study was supported by the National Center for Research Resources, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Dr. Peng was supported by an Interdisciplinary Research Training on Health and Aging grant from the NIA. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STROKE AF at 3 years: High AFib rate after atherosclerotic stroke
In the STROKE AF study, among patients who had a stroke presumably caused by atherosclerosis, the rate of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was almost 22% at 3 years, as detected by continuous monitoring.
The 3-year results from the study were presented by Lee H. Schwamm, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Schwamm said the high rate of AFib detection in this study suggests that continuous monitoring for AFib should be considered for a larger population of stroke patients, rather than just those with cryptogenic stroke.
“We found a much higher rate of AF[ib] than we expected in this population of patients who have had an atherosclerotic stroke,” Dr. Schwamm said in an interview.
“These AF[ib] occurrences were found by a device, so they are known as ‘device-documented AF[ib].’ The patient is not generally aware of symptoms, but 67% of the AF[ib] episodes lasted for more than 1 hour, showing that this is not trivial AF[ib]. This is meaningful AF[ib],” he said.
Dr. Schwamm said the major question is whether these cases of AFib that are detected with a device warrant treatment with anticoagulation. He noted that, in this study, clinicians decided to provide anticoagulation to 70%-80% of patients in whom AFib was detected.
“If we think it deserves treatment, then we have to look for it. And if we care about finding AF[ib], we have no choice but to monitor continuously,” he said.
“If this data doesn’t convince you that AF[ib] is present in this population, I don’t think any data will. Because it is consistent, it accumulates over time and looks remarkably similar to a set of data that we have all become very comfortable with – the CRYSTAL-AF study in patients with cryptogenic stroke,” he stated.
Dr. Schwamm noted that the STROKE AF trial was not based on the cause of the index stroke; rather, it was asking whether there are risk factors that could contribute to the 25% stroke recurrence rate in this population that are not covered in current guidelines.
“I’m really trying to move away from the anchor that I was trained in, which is to figure out the cause of the last stroke to help decide how to prevent the next stroke, towards more of a probabilistic model – of what is all the information I have at my disposal and how do I act on it to prevent the next stroke? We have to start thinking differently about building models for future stroke risk and determining therapy based on that,” he commented.
Changing practice
ISC 2023 program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and moderator of the session at which the results were presented, discussed the STROKE AF results in a highlights presentation.
“To me as clinician, these results are even more relevant than those at 12 months,” Dr. Jovin said. “The lesson I took is that AF[ib] is even more prevalent than we thought. The burden of AF[ib] is significant in these patients, and it doesn’t seem to be limited to a particular time. These are very thought-provoking results which are going to change clinical practice. I think the threshold for long-term monitoring will be lower.”
Comoderator Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., added: “This study shows that the longer we monitor, the more patients with AF[ib] we are likely to pick up. And because in two-thirds of patients with AF[ib], it lasted longer than 1 hour, I do believe this was clinically relevant AF[ib]. The question now is, do we monitor everyone? I think it puts the burden on us to search for AF[ib] in our patients.”
In his presentation, Dr. Schwamm explained that, on the basis of the CRYSTAL-AF study, insertable cardiac monitoring devices are frequently used to identify poststroke AFib in patients with cryptogenic stroke. In the device-monitored arm of that study, AFib was detected in 12.4% of patients over 12 months versus 2.0% in the control arm.
“However, we don’t know how often AF[ib] is detected in other presumed stroke types – largely those due to atherosclerosis,” he said.
He pointed out that, at present, long-term monitoring post stroke for the detection of AFib is not currently recommended for patients with ischemic stroke, owing to presumed small-vessel occlusion or large-artery atherosclerosis.
“In these patients, we are not suspecting AF[ib] because we believe the cause of the stroke was not embolic. But we wanted to investigate what the AF[ib] risk is in these patients, who often have multiple stroke risk factors,” he said.
The trial enrolled 496 patients at 33 centers in the United States. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older or aged 50-59 years with at least one additional stroke risk factor and had an index stroke that was attributed to large-artery or small-vessel disease. Patients were randomly assigned either to continuous monitoring with the Reveal LINQ device (Medtronic) or to the control arm following site-specific standard of care for AFib detection.
Dr. Schwamm noted that usual care for these patients normally involves monitoring for just a few days while in hospital, but this picks up less than 5% of AFib occurrences.
Baseline characteristics of patients in the STROKE AF study showed that the enrolled population was at high risk for stroke, with a CHADSVASC score of 5. But the index strokes were generally small; the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 2.
Results at 12 months, reported 2 years ago, showed a 12.5% incidence of AFib with continuous monitoring versus 1.8% with standard of care (hazard ratio, 7.7; P < .001), rates similar to that found in the CRYSTAL-AF study.
By 3 years, the rate of detected AFib had risen to 21.7% in the continuous monitoring arm versus 2.4% in the control arm (HR, 10.0; P < .001).
“At 12 months, we were seven times more likely to detect AF[ib] with continuous monitoring in these patients, and by 3 years, it was 10 times more likely that AF would be detected with continuous monitoring. I think we’ve settled the question of the best way to find AF[ib] in these patients – it is with an inserted device,” Dr. Schwamm said.
“We have also shown that this is not a transient rise in AFib after the stroke which then diminishes over the next few years. It is a continuous and progressive detection of AF[ib].”
Dr. Schwamm pointed out that 88% of the recorded AFib episodes were asymptomatic. “So relying on patients self-reporting symptoms when deciding who to monitor is unreliable and not a sensible strategy.”
The median time to the first adjudicated AFib episode at 12-month follow-up was 99 days; at the 3-year follow-up, it was 284 days.
“This shows that 30 days of monitoring with an external patch is not sufficient to exclude the presence of AF[ib]. And this really argues for a strategy of immediate insertion of cardiac monitor placement if your goal is to look for AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm commented.
Is this clinically relevant AFib?
Dr. Schwamm acknowledged that there is a question of whether device-detected AFib should be thought about in the same way as clinically detected AFib with respect to future stroke risk.
He noted that, in this study, 67.4% of patients for whom AFib was detected by continuous monitoring (31 of 46 patients) had at least one episode of AFib that lasted more than 1 hour.
“This is not a trivial little squiggle of something on an EKG which then goes away. This is of significant duration that the cardiologist who adjudicated these rhythm strips felt confident was AF[ib].”
He added: “AF[ib] lasting more than 1 hour crosses the threshold for most practitioners I know to feel confident in treating the patient with anticoagulation. If it was symptomatic AF, this wouldn’t even be a question.”
Dr. Schwamm made the point that device-detected A AFib F has been accepted as worthy of treatment in patients after cryptogenic stroke.
“If we are honest with ourselves and if we have no hesitation in starting anticoagulation in a patient with cryptogenic stroke who has had device-detected AF 6 months later, should we decide that if the patient has had a lacunar stroke, we can ignore that same device-detected fibrillation?”
He put forward the idea that, at some level, all stroke is cryptogenic. “We never know for sure what the cause was. We have hypotheses, we have associations, but we don’t really know. So how much should we weigh that presumptive etiology in terms of how we interpret a rhythm disturbance of fibrillation?”
When looking for predictors of AFib in this study, the investigators found that patients were more likely to have an episode of AFib detected if they had one of the four following risk factors: congestive heart failure, left atrial enlargement, obesity, or QRS prolongation.
“In patients with any one of those four factors, 30% of those had device-detected AF[ib]. These are same predictors of AF[ib] that we are all accustomed to,” Dr. Schwamm said.
Shared decision-making
Dr. Schwamm said in an interview that, in his practice, for these patients, the decision as to whether to use continuous monitoring is made with the patient through shared decision-making.
“We discuss the chance that they could have AF[ib], and I suggest that it might be worth looking for it, but there are factors to be considered. There is a cost to the device, and reimbursement may depend on insurance coverage. Also, some patients may have strong feelings about having the chip implanted in their body.”
He says implanting the chip is easy. “It takes longer to check in at the front desk than to put the device in. It is injected under the skin. It just needs two stitches and a Band-Aid.” The device connects with a smartphone, and the results are interpreted by a cardiologist.
Dr. Schwamm pointed out that the optimal antithrombotic regimen for these patients in whom AFib is detected remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.
“Do we just stick to antiplatelet therapy or advance to anticoagulation? In moving to an anticoagulant, are we providing less effective prevention for the atherosclerotic stroke risk at the expense of reducing the AF[ib]-related stroke risk? That may be a reasonable trade-off because we know the disability from AF[ib]-associated stroke is much higher.
“Or perhaps the optimal therapy is aspirin plus low-dose anticoagulant? Or left atrial appendage closure and an antiplatelet for patients at a higher risk of bleeding?” he said. “These are the really important questions we need to start asking.”
He added that he hopes a future study will address these questions, but he noted that it would have to be a large study, that it would have to first identify these patients and then randomly assign them to anticoagulation or to no treatment. “That is quite a major undertaking.”
In the highlights presentation, Dr. Jovin said he was uncertain of which of these patients in whom AFib is detected would benefit from anticoagulation. He said he would also like to see a randomized trial on this. But he added: “This would be challenging, as there is the issue of whether there would be equipoise to allow us to randomize to a placebo.”
Dr. Sansing agreed. “I think it would be a hard sell. I would have to think carefully about randomizing a patient to anticoagulation therapy or no therapy who has been found to have AF[ib].”
Dr. Schwamm noted that the current STROKE-AF study was not designed or powered to detect differences in stroke recurrence rates and that there was no difference in stroke recurrence rates between the two arms. There was also no randomization with regard to treatment; choice of medication was left to the discretion of the treating physician.
But he noted that only for 3 of the 34 patients with recurrent stroke in the continuous-monitor arm was AFib detected prior to the recurrent stroke, and only one of those three was receiving anticoagulation at the time of the recurrent stroke.
“These strokes were occurring in patients who did not have device-detected AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm said. “This is because the population in this study were loaded with stroke risk factors and are at risk of recurrent stroke, but we don’t have the opportunity in this study to really understand the significance of the recurrent strokes.”
The STROKE AF trial was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Schwamm is a consultant to Medtronic.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In the STROKE AF study, among patients who had a stroke presumably caused by atherosclerosis, the rate of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was almost 22% at 3 years, as detected by continuous monitoring.
The 3-year results from the study were presented by Lee H. Schwamm, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Schwamm said the high rate of AFib detection in this study suggests that continuous monitoring for AFib should be considered for a larger population of stroke patients, rather than just those with cryptogenic stroke.
“We found a much higher rate of AF[ib] than we expected in this population of patients who have had an atherosclerotic stroke,” Dr. Schwamm said in an interview.
“These AF[ib] occurrences were found by a device, so they are known as ‘device-documented AF[ib].’ The patient is not generally aware of symptoms, but 67% of the AF[ib] episodes lasted for more than 1 hour, showing that this is not trivial AF[ib]. This is meaningful AF[ib],” he said.
Dr. Schwamm said the major question is whether these cases of AFib that are detected with a device warrant treatment with anticoagulation. He noted that, in this study, clinicians decided to provide anticoagulation to 70%-80% of patients in whom AFib was detected.
“If we think it deserves treatment, then we have to look for it. And if we care about finding AF[ib], we have no choice but to monitor continuously,” he said.
“If this data doesn’t convince you that AF[ib] is present in this population, I don’t think any data will. Because it is consistent, it accumulates over time and looks remarkably similar to a set of data that we have all become very comfortable with – the CRYSTAL-AF study in patients with cryptogenic stroke,” he stated.
Dr. Schwamm noted that the STROKE AF trial was not based on the cause of the index stroke; rather, it was asking whether there are risk factors that could contribute to the 25% stroke recurrence rate in this population that are not covered in current guidelines.
“I’m really trying to move away from the anchor that I was trained in, which is to figure out the cause of the last stroke to help decide how to prevent the next stroke, towards more of a probabilistic model – of what is all the information I have at my disposal and how do I act on it to prevent the next stroke? We have to start thinking differently about building models for future stroke risk and determining therapy based on that,” he commented.
Changing practice
ISC 2023 program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and moderator of the session at which the results were presented, discussed the STROKE AF results in a highlights presentation.
“To me as clinician, these results are even more relevant than those at 12 months,” Dr. Jovin said. “The lesson I took is that AF[ib] is even more prevalent than we thought. The burden of AF[ib] is significant in these patients, and it doesn’t seem to be limited to a particular time. These are very thought-provoking results which are going to change clinical practice. I think the threshold for long-term monitoring will be lower.”
Comoderator Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., added: “This study shows that the longer we monitor, the more patients with AF[ib] we are likely to pick up. And because in two-thirds of patients with AF[ib], it lasted longer than 1 hour, I do believe this was clinically relevant AF[ib]. The question now is, do we monitor everyone? I think it puts the burden on us to search for AF[ib] in our patients.”
In his presentation, Dr. Schwamm explained that, on the basis of the CRYSTAL-AF study, insertable cardiac monitoring devices are frequently used to identify poststroke AFib in patients with cryptogenic stroke. In the device-monitored arm of that study, AFib was detected in 12.4% of patients over 12 months versus 2.0% in the control arm.
“However, we don’t know how often AF[ib] is detected in other presumed stroke types – largely those due to atherosclerosis,” he said.
He pointed out that, at present, long-term monitoring post stroke for the detection of AFib is not currently recommended for patients with ischemic stroke, owing to presumed small-vessel occlusion or large-artery atherosclerosis.
“In these patients, we are not suspecting AF[ib] because we believe the cause of the stroke was not embolic. But we wanted to investigate what the AF[ib] risk is in these patients, who often have multiple stroke risk factors,” he said.
The trial enrolled 496 patients at 33 centers in the United States. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older or aged 50-59 years with at least one additional stroke risk factor and had an index stroke that was attributed to large-artery or small-vessel disease. Patients were randomly assigned either to continuous monitoring with the Reveal LINQ device (Medtronic) or to the control arm following site-specific standard of care for AFib detection.
Dr. Schwamm noted that usual care for these patients normally involves monitoring for just a few days while in hospital, but this picks up less than 5% of AFib occurrences.
Baseline characteristics of patients in the STROKE AF study showed that the enrolled population was at high risk for stroke, with a CHADSVASC score of 5. But the index strokes were generally small; the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 2.
Results at 12 months, reported 2 years ago, showed a 12.5% incidence of AFib with continuous monitoring versus 1.8% with standard of care (hazard ratio, 7.7; P < .001), rates similar to that found in the CRYSTAL-AF study.
By 3 years, the rate of detected AFib had risen to 21.7% in the continuous monitoring arm versus 2.4% in the control arm (HR, 10.0; P < .001).
“At 12 months, we were seven times more likely to detect AF[ib] with continuous monitoring in these patients, and by 3 years, it was 10 times more likely that AF would be detected with continuous monitoring. I think we’ve settled the question of the best way to find AF[ib] in these patients – it is with an inserted device,” Dr. Schwamm said.
“We have also shown that this is not a transient rise in AFib after the stroke which then diminishes over the next few years. It is a continuous and progressive detection of AF[ib].”
Dr. Schwamm pointed out that 88% of the recorded AFib episodes were asymptomatic. “So relying on patients self-reporting symptoms when deciding who to monitor is unreliable and not a sensible strategy.”
The median time to the first adjudicated AFib episode at 12-month follow-up was 99 days; at the 3-year follow-up, it was 284 days.
“This shows that 30 days of monitoring with an external patch is not sufficient to exclude the presence of AF[ib]. And this really argues for a strategy of immediate insertion of cardiac monitor placement if your goal is to look for AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm commented.
Is this clinically relevant AFib?
Dr. Schwamm acknowledged that there is a question of whether device-detected AFib should be thought about in the same way as clinically detected AFib with respect to future stroke risk.
He noted that, in this study, 67.4% of patients for whom AFib was detected by continuous monitoring (31 of 46 patients) had at least one episode of AFib that lasted more than 1 hour.
“This is not a trivial little squiggle of something on an EKG which then goes away. This is of significant duration that the cardiologist who adjudicated these rhythm strips felt confident was AF[ib].”
He added: “AF[ib] lasting more than 1 hour crosses the threshold for most practitioners I know to feel confident in treating the patient with anticoagulation. If it was symptomatic AF, this wouldn’t even be a question.”
Dr. Schwamm made the point that device-detected A AFib F has been accepted as worthy of treatment in patients after cryptogenic stroke.
“If we are honest with ourselves and if we have no hesitation in starting anticoagulation in a patient with cryptogenic stroke who has had device-detected AF 6 months later, should we decide that if the patient has had a lacunar stroke, we can ignore that same device-detected fibrillation?”
He put forward the idea that, at some level, all stroke is cryptogenic. “We never know for sure what the cause was. We have hypotheses, we have associations, but we don’t really know. So how much should we weigh that presumptive etiology in terms of how we interpret a rhythm disturbance of fibrillation?”
When looking for predictors of AFib in this study, the investigators found that patients were more likely to have an episode of AFib detected if they had one of the four following risk factors: congestive heart failure, left atrial enlargement, obesity, or QRS prolongation.
“In patients with any one of those four factors, 30% of those had device-detected AF[ib]. These are same predictors of AF[ib] that we are all accustomed to,” Dr. Schwamm said.
Shared decision-making
Dr. Schwamm said in an interview that, in his practice, for these patients, the decision as to whether to use continuous monitoring is made with the patient through shared decision-making.
“We discuss the chance that they could have AF[ib], and I suggest that it might be worth looking for it, but there are factors to be considered. There is a cost to the device, and reimbursement may depend on insurance coverage. Also, some patients may have strong feelings about having the chip implanted in their body.”
He says implanting the chip is easy. “It takes longer to check in at the front desk than to put the device in. It is injected under the skin. It just needs two stitches and a Band-Aid.” The device connects with a smartphone, and the results are interpreted by a cardiologist.
Dr. Schwamm pointed out that the optimal antithrombotic regimen for these patients in whom AFib is detected remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.
“Do we just stick to antiplatelet therapy or advance to anticoagulation? In moving to an anticoagulant, are we providing less effective prevention for the atherosclerotic stroke risk at the expense of reducing the AF[ib]-related stroke risk? That may be a reasonable trade-off because we know the disability from AF[ib]-associated stroke is much higher.
“Or perhaps the optimal therapy is aspirin plus low-dose anticoagulant? Or left atrial appendage closure and an antiplatelet for patients at a higher risk of bleeding?” he said. “These are the really important questions we need to start asking.”
He added that he hopes a future study will address these questions, but he noted that it would have to be a large study, that it would have to first identify these patients and then randomly assign them to anticoagulation or to no treatment. “That is quite a major undertaking.”
In the highlights presentation, Dr. Jovin said he was uncertain of which of these patients in whom AFib is detected would benefit from anticoagulation. He said he would also like to see a randomized trial on this. But he added: “This would be challenging, as there is the issue of whether there would be equipoise to allow us to randomize to a placebo.”
Dr. Sansing agreed. “I think it would be a hard sell. I would have to think carefully about randomizing a patient to anticoagulation therapy or no therapy who has been found to have AF[ib].”
Dr. Schwamm noted that the current STROKE-AF study was not designed or powered to detect differences in stroke recurrence rates and that there was no difference in stroke recurrence rates between the two arms. There was also no randomization with regard to treatment; choice of medication was left to the discretion of the treating physician.
But he noted that only for 3 of the 34 patients with recurrent stroke in the continuous-monitor arm was AFib detected prior to the recurrent stroke, and only one of those three was receiving anticoagulation at the time of the recurrent stroke.
“These strokes were occurring in patients who did not have device-detected AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm said. “This is because the population in this study were loaded with stroke risk factors and are at risk of recurrent stroke, but we don’t have the opportunity in this study to really understand the significance of the recurrent strokes.”
The STROKE AF trial was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Schwamm is a consultant to Medtronic.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In the STROKE AF study, among patients who had a stroke presumably caused by atherosclerosis, the rate of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was almost 22% at 3 years, as detected by continuous monitoring.
The 3-year results from the study were presented by Lee H. Schwamm, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Dr. Schwamm said the high rate of AFib detection in this study suggests that continuous monitoring for AFib should be considered for a larger population of stroke patients, rather than just those with cryptogenic stroke.
“We found a much higher rate of AF[ib] than we expected in this population of patients who have had an atherosclerotic stroke,” Dr. Schwamm said in an interview.
“These AF[ib] occurrences were found by a device, so they are known as ‘device-documented AF[ib].’ The patient is not generally aware of symptoms, but 67% of the AF[ib] episodes lasted for more than 1 hour, showing that this is not trivial AF[ib]. This is meaningful AF[ib],” he said.
Dr. Schwamm said the major question is whether these cases of AFib that are detected with a device warrant treatment with anticoagulation. He noted that, in this study, clinicians decided to provide anticoagulation to 70%-80% of patients in whom AFib was detected.
“If we think it deserves treatment, then we have to look for it. And if we care about finding AF[ib], we have no choice but to monitor continuously,” he said.
“If this data doesn’t convince you that AF[ib] is present in this population, I don’t think any data will. Because it is consistent, it accumulates over time and looks remarkably similar to a set of data that we have all become very comfortable with – the CRYSTAL-AF study in patients with cryptogenic stroke,” he stated.
Dr. Schwamm noted that the STROKE AF trial was not based on the cause of the index stroke; rather, it was asking whether there are risk factors that could contribute to the 25% stroke recurrence rate in this population that are not covered in current guidelines.
“I’m really trying to move away from the anchor that I was trained in, which is to figure out the cause of the last stroke to help decide how to prevent the next stroke, towards more of a probabilistic model – of what is all the information I have at my disposal and how do I act on it to prevent the next stroke? We have to start thinking differently about building models for future stroke risk and determining therapy based on that,” he commented.
Changing practice
ISC 2023 program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and moderator of the session at which the results were presented, discussed the STROKE AF results in a highlights presentation.
“To me as clinician, these results are even more relevant than those at 12 months,” Dr. Jovin said. “The lesson I took is that AF[ib] is even more prevalent than we thought. The burden of AF[ib] is significant in these patients, and it doesn’t seem to be limited to a particular time. These are very thought-provoking results which are going to change clinical practice. I think the threshold for long-term monitoring will be lower.”
Comoderator Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., added: “This study shows that the longer we monitor, the more patients with AF[ib] we are likely to pick up. And because in two-thirds of patients with AF[ib], it lasted longer than 1 hour, I do believe this was clinically relevant AF[ib]. The question now is, do we monitor everyone? I think it puts the burden on us to search for AF[ib] in our patients.”
In his presentation, Dr. Schwamm explained that, on the basis of the CRYSTAL-AF study, insertable cardiac monitoring devices are frequently used to identify poststroke AFib in patients with cryptogenic stroke. In the device-monitored arm of that study, AFib was detected in 12.4% of patients over 12 months versus 2.0% in the control arm.
“However, we don’t know how often AF[ib] is detected in other presumed stroke types – largely those due to atherosclerosis,” he said.
He pointed out that, at present, long-term monitoring post stroke for the detection of AFib is not currently recommended for patients with ischemic stroke, owing to presumed small-vessel occlusion or large-artery atherosclerosis.
“In these patients, we are not suspecting AF[ib] because we believe the cause of the stroke was not embolic. But we wanted to investigate what the AF[ib] risk is in these patients, who often have multiple stroke risk factors,” he said.
The trial enrolled 496 patients at 33 centers in the United States. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older or aged 50-59 years with at least one additional stroke risk factor and had an index stroke that was attributed to large-artery or small-vessel disease. Patients were randomly assigned either to continuous monitoring with the Reveal LINQ device (Medtronic) or to the control arm following site-specific standard of care for AFib detection.
Dr. Schwamm noted that usual care for these patients normally involves monitoring for just a few days while in hospital, but this picks up less than 5% of AFib occurrences.
Baseline characteristics of patients in the STROKE AF study showed that the enrolled population was at high risk for stroke, with a CHADSVASC score of 5. But the index strokes were generally small; the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 2.
Results at 12 months, reported 2 years ago, showed a 12.5% incidence of AFib with continuous monitoring versus 1.8% with standard of care (hazard ratio, 7.7; P < .001), rates similar to that found in the CRYSTAL-AF study.
By 3 years, the rate of detected AFib had risen to 21.7% in the continuous monitoring arm versus 2.4% in the control arm (HR, 10.0; P < .001).
“At 12 months, we were seven times more likely to detect AF[ib] with continuous monitoring in these patients, and by 3 years, it was 10 times more likely that AF would be detected with continuous monitoring. I think we’ve settled the question of the best way to find AF[ib] in these patients – it is with an inserted device,” Dr. Schwamm said.
“We have also shown that this is not a transient rise in AFib after the stroke which then diminishes over the next few years. It is a continuous and progressive detection of AF[ib].”
Dr. Schwamm pointed out that 88% of the recorded AFib episodes were asymptomatic. “So relying on patients self-reporting symptoms when deciding who to monitor is unreliable and not a sensible strategy.”
The median time to the first adjudicated AFib episode at 12-month follow-up was 99 days; at the 3-year follow-up, it was 284 days.
“This shows that 30 days of monitoring with an external patch is not sufficient to exclude the presence of AF[ib]. And this really argues for a strategy of immediate insertion of cardiac monitor placement if your goal is to look for AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm commented.
Is this clinically relevant AFib?
Dr. Schwamm acknowledged that there is a question of whether device-detected AFib should be thought about in the same way as clinically detected AFib with respect to future stroke risk.
He noted that, in this study, 67.4% of patients for whom AFib was detected by continuous monitoring (31 of 46 patients) had at least one episode of AFib that lasted more than 1 hour.
“This is not a trivial little squiggle of something on an EKG which then goes away. This is of significant duration that the cardiologist who adjudicated these rhythm strips felt confident was AF[ib].”
He added: “AF[ib] lasting more than 1 hour crosses the threshold for most practitioners I know to feel confident in treating the patient with anticoagulation. If it was symptomatic AF, this wouldn’t even be a question.”
Dr. Schwamm made the point that device-detected A AFib F has been accepted as worthy of treatment in patients after cryptogenic stroke.
“If we are honest with ourselves and if we have no hesitation in starting anticoagulation in a patient with cryptogenic stroke who has had device-detected AF 6 months later, should we decide that if the patient has had a lacunar stroke, we can ignore that same device-detected fibrillation?”
He put forward the idea that, at some level, all stroke is cryptogenic. “We never know for sure what the cause was. We have hypotheses, we have associations, but we don’t really know. So how much should we weigh that presumptive etiology in terms of how we interpret a rhythm disturbance of fibrillation?”
When looking for predictors of AFib in this study, the investigators found that patients were more likely to have an episode of AFib detected if they had one of the four following risk factors: congestive heart failure, left atrial enlargement, obesity, or QRS prolongation.
“In patients with any one of those four factors, 30% of those had device-detected AF[ib]. These are same predictors of AF[ib] that we are all accustomed to,” Dr. Schwamm said.
Shared decision-making
Dr. Schwamm said in an interview that, in his practice, for these patients, the decision as to whether to use continuous monitoring is made with the patient through shared decision-making.
“We discuss the chance that they could have AF[ib], and I suggest that it might be worth looking for it, but there are factors to be considered. There is a cost to the device, and reimbursement may depend on insurance coverage. Also, some patients may have strong feelings about having the chip implanted in their body.”
He says implanting the chip is easy. “It takes longer to check in at the front desk than to put the device in. It is injected under the skin. It just needs two stitches and a Band-Aid.” The device connects with a smartphone, and the results are interpreted by a cardiologist.
Dr. Schwamm pointed out that the optimal antithrombotic regimen for these patients in whom AFib is detected remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.
“Do we just stick to antiplatelet therapy or advance to anticoagulation? In moving to an anticoagulant, are we providing less effective prevention for the atherosclerotic stroke risk at the expense of reducing the AF[ib]-related stroke risk? That may be a reasonable trade-off because we know the disability from AF[ib]-associated stroke is much higher.
“Or perhaps the optimal therapy is aspirin plus low-dose anticoagulant? Or left atrial appendage closure and an antiplatelet for patients at a higher risk of bleeding?” he said. “These are the really important questions we need to start asking.”
He added that he hopes a future study will address these questions, but he noted that it would have to be a large study, that it would have to first identify these patients and then randomly assign them to anticoagulation or to no treatment. “That is quite a major undertaking.”
In the highlights presentation, Dr. Jovin said he was uncertain of which of these patients in whom AFib is detected would benefit from anticoagulation. He said he would also like to see a randomized trial on this. But he added: “This would be challenging, as there is the issue of whether there would be equipoise to allow us to randomize to a placebo.”
Dr. Sansing agreed. “I think it would be a hard sell. I would have to think carefully about randomizing a patient to anticoagulation therapy or no therapy who has been found to have AF[ib].”
Dr. Schwamm noted that the current STROKE-AF study was not designed or powered to detect differences in stroke recurrence rates and that there was no difference in stroke recurrence rates between the two arms. There was also no randomization with regard to treatment; choice of medication was left to the discretion of the treating physician.
But he noted that only for 3 of the 34 patients with recurrent stroke in the continuous-monitor arm was AFib detected prior to the recurrent stroke, and only one of those three was receiving anticoagulation at the time of the recurrent stroke.
“These strokes were occurring in patients who did not have device-detected AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm said. “This is because the population in this study were loaded with stroke risk factors and are at risk of recurrent stroke, but we don’t have the opportunity in this study to really understand the significance of the recurrent strokes.”
The STROKE AF trial was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Schwamm is a consultant to Medtronic.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2023
Understanding Cholangiocarcinoma: How Biomarker Testing Can Lead to a Targeted Treatment for Patients
PEMAZYRE® (pemigatinib) is indicated for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test. This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s)1.
PEMAZYRE can cause serious adverse reactions including Ocular Toxicity (Retinal Pigment Epithelial Detachment [RPED] and Dry Eye), Hyperphosphatemia and Soft Tissue Mineralization, and Embryo-Fetal Toxicity. See Additional Important Safety Information Below1.
Cholangiocarcinoma, or CCA, is a rare cancer formed in the bile duct. It is difficult to diagnose due to generalized symptoms patients often experience2. As with any serious disease, the initial diagnosis can be an incredibly overwhelming experience for patients and their families. For people living with CCA specifically, the diagnosis process can be very long and arduous, which often means a patient’s condition can reach an advanced stage where the prognosis is poor by the time he or she is diagnosed3.
Scientific advancements, such as biomarker testing, or genomic analysis of a patient’s tissue, have made it possible to better understand a person’s specific cancer. Understanding patients’ tumors at the molecular level may help health care professionals individualize a treatment plan that is specific to each patient.
As the genomic profile of CCA has become clearer, actionable alterations in the DNA that are amenable to treatment with either existing agents or those in development have come into focus. Certain actionable genomic alterations have been identified in up to 2/3 of patients with the intrahepatic subtype of CCA, although this percentage may vary in actual practice4. Specifically, research has found that fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) alterations, which play an important role in the development of cancers like CCA, especially the intrahepatic subtype, is on the rise3. This has prompted recognition of comprehensive genomic testing. Due to the rapid advances in precision medicine for CCA, the NCCN guidelines recommend the use of biomarker testing for advanced CCA5.
The First Targeted Treatment Option for CCA
Though an incredibly useful tool, there is a need for further education about the importance of early biomarker testing amongst the medical community. In one large community-based hospital in California, the implementation of a precision medicine program allowed oncologists and pathologists to standardize all tumor biomarker testing, resulting in an increase in testing5. However, there is still much improvement needed. What’s more, scientific advancements in recent years have opened the door to targeted treatment options including Pemazyre® (pemigatinib). Pemazyre was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under accelerated approval in 2020 as the first targeted treatment for adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic CCA with a FGFR2 fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test.
“The FDA approval of Pemazyre was and continues to be an encouraging milestone for the CCA community, as patients historically had limited options after first-line chemotherapy or surgery, after which relapse rates were high,” said Dr. Sahai.
Pemazyre works by helping to stop the activity of the abnormal FGFR2 protein, which may help reduce the size of CCA tumors or cause them to disappear. Pemazyre’s approval was based on the results of the multicenter, open-label, single arm FIGHT-202 study in 146 previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA1.
- The efficacy population consisted of 107 patients with disease that had progressed on or after at least 1 prior therapy and who had an FGFR2 fusion or non-fusion rearrangement, as determined by a clinical trial assay (FoundationOne® CDx) performed at a central laboratory.
- The major efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR). The study found an ORR of 36%, and median DoR of 9.1 months.
- The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) in all patients were hyperphosphatemia, alopecia, diarrhea, nail toxicity, fatigue, dysgeusia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, dry eye, dry mouth, decreased appetite, vomiting, arthralgia, abdominal pain, hypophosphatemia, back pain, and dry skin.
Meet Fred, Battling CCA
Meet Fred – a man living with CCA. After noticing an unusual amount of blood following what he thought was a normal kidney stone, Fred contacted his doctor right away. Unfortunately, it was not clear from his initial symptoms what the problem was. A computed tomography (CT or CAT) scan revealed Fred did indeed have a kidney stone, but it also showed a large mass had formed on his liver, leading to more testing. After several tests, Fred was diagnosed with CCA. Because of the nonspecific symptoms he had been experiencing, his cancer unfortunately had time to grow. Upon advice from his doctor, Fred met with a CCA specialist who quickly ordered biomarker testing, revealing that he had FGFR2-driven CCA. With a molecular understanding of Fred’s specific CCA, his health care team was able to prescribe him Pemazyre.
“I’m grateful I was able to start receiving treatment for my condition following chemotherapy and continue to see improvements in my condition,” noted Fred. “Though I fight side effects such as great fatigue, dry eye, dry skin, and fingernail discoloration, these innovations in science that lead to treatments like Pemazyre are what continue to give my family and I hope.”
Through his own experience, Fred has become an advocate for encouraging others living with CCA to educate themselves about the disease and the importance of early biomarker testing. “My advice is to be your own health advocate. Take charge of how your diagnosis and treatment plan is formed with your doctor, and don’t be afraid to speak openly with your doctor about the tools, like biomarker testing, that are available,” said Fred. “I feel fortunate that my health care team initiated biomarker testing quickly after my diagnosis, which enabled me to find an appropriate treatment option for my specific condition. I know that’s not always the case for my fellow CCA warriors, so I urge those in the community to take charge of their health conversations.”
Leverage The Leading Tools at Hand
Fred’s story, like that of so many other CCA patients, was a long and winding road to an accurate diagnosis; however, once he was diagnosed, biomarker testing allowed for Fred’s health care team to fully understand his condition, which led to a tailored treatment plan with Pemazyre. While the regular use of biomarker testing is on the rise, it’s critical that health care providers continue to institute early biomarker testing as standard practice, as it may provide the opportunity to quickly and accurately determine the best path forward for their patients.
For more information about treatment with Pemazyre, visit Pemzayre.com and Full Prescribing Information.
###
You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch or call 1-800-FDA-1088.
PEMAZYRE® is indicated for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test.
This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s).
IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION
Ocular Toxicity
Retinal Pigment Epithelial Detachment (RPED): PEMAZYRE can cause RPED, which may cause symptoms such as blurred vision, visual floaters, or photopsia. Clinical trials of PEMAZYRE did not conduct routine monitoring including optical coherence tomography (OCT) to detect asymptomatic RPED; therefore, the incidence of asymptomatic RPED with PEMAZYRE is unknown.
Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, RPED occurred in 11% of patients, including Grade 3-4 RPED in 1.3%. The median time to first onset of RPED was 56 days. RPED led to dose interruption of PEMAZYRE in 3.1% of patients, and dose reduction and permanent discontinuation in 1.3% and in 0.2% of patients, respectively. RPED resolved or improved to Grade 1 levels in 76% of patients who required dosage modification of PEMAZYRE for RPED.
Perform a comprehensive ophthalmological examination including OCT prior to initiation of PEMAZYRE and every 2 months for the first 6 months and every 3 months thereafter during treatment. For onset of visual symptoms, refer patients for ophthalmologic evaluation urgently, with follow-up every 3 weeks until resolution or discontinuation of PEMAZYRE. Modify the dose or permanently discontinue PEMAZYRE as recommended in the prescribing information for PEMAZYRE.
Dry Eye: Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, dry eye occurred in 31% of patients, including Grade 3-4 in 1.6% of patients. Treat patients with ocular demulcents as needed.
Hyperphosphatemia and Soft Tissue Mineralization
PEMAZYRE can cause hyperphosphatemia leading to soft tissue mineralization, cutaneous calcification, calcinosis, and non-uremic calciphylaxis. Increases in phosphate levels are a pharmacodynamic effect of PEMAZYRE. Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, hyperphosphatemia was reported in 93% of patients based on laboratory values above the upper limit of normal. The median time to onset of hyperphosphatemia was 8 days (range 1-169). Phosphate lowering therapy was required in 33% of patients receiving PEMAZYRE.
Monitor for hyperphosphatemia and initiate a low phosphate diet when serum phosphate level is >5.5 mg/dL. For serum phosphate levels >7 mg/dL, initiate phosphate lowering therapy and withhold, reduce the dose, or permanently discontinue PEMAZYRE based on duration and severity of hyperphosphatemia as recommended in the prescribing information.
Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
Based on findings in an animal study and its mechanism of action, PEMAZYRE can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Oral administration of pemigatinib to pregnant rats during the period of organogenesis caused fetal malformations, fetal growth retardation, and embryo-fetal death at maternal exposures lower than the human exposure based on area under the curve (AUC) at the clinical dose of 13.5 mg.
Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to the fetus. Advise female patients of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose. Advise males with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose.
Adverse Reactions: Cholangiocarcinoma
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 45% of patients receiving PEMAZYRE (n=146). Serious adverse reactions in ≥2% of patients who received PEMAZYRE included abdominal pain, pyrexia, cholangitis, pleural effusion, acute kidney injury, cholangitis infective, failure to thrive, hypercalcemia, hyponatremia, small intestinal obstruction, and urinary tract infection. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 4.1% of patients, including failure to thrive, bile duct obstruction, cholangitis, sepsis, and pleural effusion.
Permanent discontinuation due to an adverse reaction occurred in 9% of patients who received PEMAZYRE. Adverse reactions requiring permanent discontinuation in ≥1% of patients included intestinal obstruction and acute kidney injury.
Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 43% of patients who received PEMAZYRE. Adverse reactions requiring dosage interruption in ≥1% of patients included stomatitis, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, arthralgia, fatigue, abdominal pain, AST increased, asthenia, pyrexia, ALT increased, cholangitis, small intestinal obstruction, alkaline phosphatase increased, diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, electrocardiogram QT prolonged, decreased appetite, dehydration, hypercalcemia, hyperphosphatemia, hypophosphatemia, back pain, pain in extremity, syncope, acute kidney injury, onychomadesis, and hypotension.
Dose reductions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 14% of patients who received PEMAZYRE. Adverse reactions requiring dosage reductions in ≥1% of patients who received PEMAZYRE included stomatitis, arthralgia, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, asthenia, and onychomadesis.
Clinically relevant adverse reactions occurring in ≤10% of patients included fractures (2.1%). In all patients treated with pemigatinib, 0.5% experienced pathologic fractures (which included patients with and without cholangiocarcinoma [N = 635]). Soft tissue mineralization, including cutaneous calcification, calcinosis, and non-uremic calciphylaxis associated with hyperphosphatemia were observed with PEMAZYRE treatment.
Within the first 21-day cycle of PEMAZYRE dosing, serum creatinine increased (mean increase of 0.2 mg/dL) and reached steady state by Day 8, and then decreased during the 7 days off therapy. Consider alternative markers of renal function if persistent elevations in serum creatinine are observed.
In cholangiocarcinoma (n=146) the most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) were hyperphosphatemia (60%), alopecia (49%), diarrhea (47%), nail toxicity (43%), fatigue (42%), dysgeusia (40%), nausea (40%), constipation (35%), stomatitis (35%), dry eye (35%), dry mouth (34%), decreased appetite (33%), vomiting (27%), arthralgia (25%), abdominal pain (23%), hypophosphatemia (23%), back pain (20%), and dry skin (20%).
Drug Interactions
Avoid concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inhibitors with PEMAZYRE. Reduce the dose of PEMAZYRE if concomitant use with a strong or moderate CYP3A inhibitor cannot be avoided. Avoid concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inducers with PEMAZYRE.
Special Populations
Advise lactating women not to breastfeed during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose.
Reduce the recommended dose of PEMAZYRE for patients with severe renal impairment as described in the prescribing information.
Reduce the recommended dose of PEMAZYRE for patients with severe hepatic impairment as described in the prescribing information.
Please see Full Prescribing Information for PEMAZYRE.
Incyte and the Incyte logo are registered trademarks of Incyte.
PEMAZYRE and the PEMAZYRE logo are registered trademarks of Incyte.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
© 2022, Incyte. MAT-PEM-00414 10/22
References:
1. Pemazyre. Prescribing Information. Incyte Corporation. Accessed August 22, 2022.https://www.pemazyre.com/pdf/prescribing-information.pdf.
2. Signs and Symptoms of Bile Duct Cancer. American Cancer Society. Updated January 27, 2021. Accessed June 16, 2022. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/bile-duct-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-by-stage.html.
3. Banales JM, Cardinale V, Carpino G, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma: current knowledge and future perspectives consensus statement from the European Network for the study of cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;13(5):261-280.
4. Ross JS, Wang K, Gay L, et al. New routes to targeted therapy of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas revealed by next-generation sequencing. Oncol. 2014;19(3):235-242.
5. Cho M, Gholami S, Gui D, et al. Optimizing the diagnosis and biomarker testing for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multidisciplinary approach. National Library of Medicine. 2022;13(1).
PEMAZYRE® (pemigatinib) is indicated for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test. This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s)1.
PEMAZYRE can cause serious adverse reactions including Ocular Toxicity (Retinal Pigment Epithelial Detachment [RPED] and Dry Eye), Hyperphosphatemia and Soft Tissue Mineralization, and Embryo-Fetal Toxicity. See Additional Important Safety Information Below1.
Cholangiocarcinoma, or CCA, is a rare cancer formed in the bile duct. It is difficult to diagnose due to generalized symptoms patients often experience2. As with any serious disease, the initial diagnosis can be an incredibly overwhelming experience for patients and their families. For people living with CCA specifically, the diagnosis process can be very long and arduous, which often means a patient’s condition can reach an advanced stage where the prognosis is poor by the time he or she is diagnosed3.
Scientific advancements, such as biomarker testing, or genomic analysis of a patient’s tissue, have made it possible to better understand a person’s specific cancer. Understanding patients’ tumors at the molecular level may help health care professionals individualize a treatment plan that is specific to each patient.
As the genomic profile of CCA has become clearer, actionable alterations in the DNA that are amenable to treatment with either existing agents or those in development have come into focus. Certain actionable genomic alterations have been identified in up to 2/3 of patients with the intrahepatic subtype of CCA, although this percentage may vary in actual practice4. Specifically, research has found that fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) alterations, which play an important role in the development of cancers like CCA, especially the intrahepatic subtype, is on the rise3. This has prompted recognition of comprehensive genomic testing. Due to the rapid advances in precision medicine for CCA, the NCCN guidelines recommend the use of biomarker testing for advanced CCA5.
The First Targeted Treatment Option for CCA
Though an incredibly useful tool, there is a need for further education about the importance of early biomarker testing amongst the medical community. In one large community-based hospital in California, the implementation of a precision medicine program allowed oncologists and pathologists to standardize all tumor biomarker testing, resulting in an increase in testing5. However, there is still much improvement needed. What’s more, scientific advancements in recent years have opened the door to targeted treatment options including Pemazyre® (pemigatinib). Pemazyre was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under accelerated approval in 2020 as the first targeted treatment for adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic CCA with a FGFR2 fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test.
“The FDA approval of Pemazyre was and continues to be an encouraging milestone for the CCA community, as patients historically had limited options after first-line chemotherapy or surgery, after which relapse rates were high,” said Dr. Sahai.
Pemazyre works by helping to stop the activity of the abnormal FGFR2 protein, which may help reduce the size of CCA tumors or cause them to disappear. Pemazyre’s approval was based on the results of the multicenter, open-label, single arm FIGHT-202 study in 146 previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA1.
- The efficacy population consisted of 107 patients with disease that had progressed on or after at least 1 prior therapy and who had an FGFR2 fusion or non-fusion rearrangement, as determined by a clinical trial assay (FoundationOne® CDx) performed at a central laboratory.
- The major efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR). The study found an ORR of 36%, and median DoR of 9.1 months.
- The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) in all patients were hyperphosphatemia, alopecia, diarrhea, nail toxicity, fatigue, dysgeusia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, dry eye, dry mouth, decreased appetite, vomiting, arthralgia, abdominal pain, hypophosphatemia, back pain, and dry skin.
Meet Fred, Battling CCA
Meet Fred – a man living with CCA. After noticing an unusual amount of blood following what he thought was a normal kidney stone, Fred contacted his doctor right away. Unfortunately, it was not clear from his initial symptoms what the problem was. A computed tomography (CT or CAT) scan revealed Fred did indeed have a kidney stone, but it also showed a large mass had formed on his liver, leading to more testing. After several tests, Fred was diagnosed with CCA. Because of the nonspecific symptoms he had been experiencing, his cancer unfortunately had time to grow. Upon advice from his doctor, Fred met with a CCA specialist who quickly ordered biomarker testing, revealing that he had FGFR2-driven CCA. With a molecular understanding of Fred’s specific CCA, his health care team was able to prescribe him Pemazyre.
“I’m grateful I was able to start receiving treatment for my condition following chemotherapy and continue to see improvements in my condition,” noted Fred. “Though I fight side effects such as great fatigue, dry eye, dry skin, and fingernail discoloration, these innovations in science that lead to treatments like Pemazyre are what continue to give my family and I hope.”
Through his own experience, Fred has become an advocate for encouraging others living with CCA to educate themselves about the disease and the importance of early biomarker testing. “My advice is to be your own health advocate. Take charge of how your diagnosis and treatment plan is formed with your doctor, and don’t be afraid to speak openly with your doctor about the tools, like biomarker testing, that are available,” said Fred. “I feel fortunate that my health care team initiated biomarker testing quickly after my diagnosis, which enabled me to find an appropriate treatment option for my specific condition. I know that’s not always the case for my fellow CCA warriors, so I urge those in the community to take charge of their health conversations.”
Leverage The Leading Tools at Hand
Fred’s story, like that of so many other CCA patients, was a long and winding road to an accurate diagnosis; however, once he was diagnosed, biomarker testing allowed for Fred’s health care team to fully understand his condition, which led to a tailored treatment plan with Pemazyre. While the regular use of biomarker testing is on the rise, it’s critical that health care providers continue to institute early biomarker testing as standard practice, as it may provide the opportunity to quickly and accurately determine the best path forward for their patients.
For more information about treatment with Pemazyre, visit Pemzayre.com and Full Prescribing Information.
###
You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch or call 1-800-FDA-1088.
PEMAZYRE® is indicated for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test.
This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s).
IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION
Ocular Toxicity
Retinal Pigment Epithelial Detachment (RPED): PEMAZYRE can cause RPED, which may cause symptoms such as blurred vision, visual floaters, or photopsia. Clinical trials of PEMAZYRE did not conduct routine monitoring including optical coherence tomography (OCT) to detect asymptomatic RPED; therefore, the incidence of asymptomatic RPED with PEMAZYRE is unknown.
Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, RPED occurred in 11% of patients, including Grade 3-4 RPED in 1.3%. The median time to first onset of RPED was 56 days. RPED led to dose interruption of PEMAZYRE in 3.1% of patients, and dose reduction and permanent discontinuation in 1.3% and in 0.2% of patients, respectively. RPED resolved or improved to Grade 1 levels in 76% of patients who required dosage modification of PEMAZYRE for RPED.
Perform a comprehensive ophthalmological examination including OCT prior to initiation of PEMAZYRE and every 2 months for the first 6 months and every 3 months thereafter during treatment. For onset of visual symptoms, refer patients for ophthalmologic evaluation urgently, with follow-up every 3 weeks until resolution or discontinuation of PEMAZYRE. Modify the dose or permanently discontinue PEMAZYRE as recommended in the prescribing information for PEMAZYRE.
Dry Eye: Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, dry eye occurred in 31% of patients, including Grade 3-4 in 1.6% of patients. Treat patients with ocular demulcents as needed.
Hyperphosphatemia and Soft Tissue Mineralization
PEMAZYRE can cause hyperphosphatemia leading to soft tissue mineralization, cutaneous calcification, calcinosis, and non-uremic calciphylaxis. Increases in phosphate levels are a pharmacodynamic effect of PEMAZYRE. Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, hyperphosphatemia was reported in 93% of patients based on laboratory values above the upper limit of normal. The median time to onset of hyperphosphatemia was 8 days (range 1-169). Phosphate lowering therapy was required in 33% of patients receiving PEMAZYRE.
Monitor for hyperphosphatemia and initiate a low phosphate diet when serum phosphate level is >5.5 mg/dL. For serum phosphate levels >7 mg/dL, initiate phosphate lowering therapy and withhold, reduce the dose, or permanently discontinue PEMAZYRE based on duration and severity of hyperphosphatemia as recommended in the prescribing information.
Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
Based on findings in an animal study and its mechanism of action, PEMAZYRE can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Oral administration of pemigatinib to pregnant rats during the period of organogenesis caused fetal malformations, fetal growth retardation, and embryo-fetal death at maternal exposures lower than the human exposure based on area under the curve (AUC) at the clinical dose of 13.5 mg.
Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to the fetus. Advise female patients of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose. Advise males with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose.
Adverse Reactions: Cholangiocarcinoma
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 45% of patients receiving PEMAZYRE (n=146). Serious adverse reactions in ≥2% of patients who received PEMAZYRE included abdominal pain, pyrexia, cholangitis, pleural effusion, acute kidney injury, cholangitis infective, failure to thrive, hypercalcemia, hyponatremia, small intestinal obstruction, and urinary tract infection. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 4.1% of patients, including failure to thrive, bile duct obstruction, cholangitis, sepsis, and pleural effusion.
Permanent discontinuation due to an adverse reaction occurred in 9% of patients who received PEMAZYRE. Adverse reactions requiring permanent discontinuation in ≥1% of patients included intestinal obstruction and acute kidney injury.
Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 43% of patients who received PEMAZYRE. Adverse reactions requiring dosage interruption in ≥1% of patients included stomatitis, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, arthralgia, fatigue, abdominal pain, AST increased, asthenia, pyrexia, ALT increased, cholangitis, small intestinal obstruction, alkaline phosphatase increased, diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, electrocardiogram QT prolonged, decreased appetite, dehydration, hypercalcemia, hyperphosphatemia, hypophosphatemia, back pain, pain in extremity, syncope, acute kidney injury, onychomadesis, and hypotension.
Dose reductions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 14% of patients who received PEMAZYRE. Adverse reactions requiring dosage reductions in ≥1% of patients who received PEMAZYRE included stomatitis, arthralgia, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, asthenia, and onychomadesis.
Clinically relevant adverse reactions occurring in ≤10% of patients included fractures (2.1%). In all patients treated with pemigatinib, 0.5% experienced pathologic fractures (which included patients with and without cholangiocarcinoma [N = 635]). Soft tissue mineralization, including cutaneous calcification, calcinosis, and non-uremic calciphylaxis associated with hyperphosphatemia were observed with PEMAZYRE treatment.
Within the first 21-day cycle of PEMAZYRE dosing, serum creatinine increased (mean increase of 0.2 mg/dL) and reached steady state by Day 8, and then decreased during the 7 days off therapy. Consider alternative markers of renal function if persistent elevations in serum creatinine are observed.
In cholangiocarcinoma (n=146) the most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) were hyperphosphatemia (60%), alopecia (49%), diarrhea (47%), nail toxicity (43%), fatigue (42%), dysgeusia (40%), nausea (40%), constipation (35%), stomatitis (35%), dry eye (35%), dry mouth (34%), decreased appetite (33%), vomiting (27%), arthralgia (25%), abdominal pain (23%), hypophosphatemia (23%), back pain (20%), and dry skin (20%).
Drug Interactions
Avoid concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inhibitors with PEMAZYRE. Reduce the dose of PEMAZYRE if concomitant use with a strong or moderate CYP3A inhibitor cannot be avoided. Avoid concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inducers with PEMAZYRE.
Special Populations
Advise lactating women not to breastfeed during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose.
Reduce the recommended dose of PEMAZYRE for patients with severe renal impairment as described in the prescribing information.
Reduce the recommended dose of PEMAZYRE for patients with severe hepatic impairment as described in the prescribing information.
Please see Full Prescribing Information for PEMAZYRE.
Incyte and the Incyte logo are registered trademarks of Incyte.
PEMAZYRE and the PEMAZYRE logo are registered trademarks of Incyte.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
© 2022, Incyte. MAT-PEM-00414 10/22
References:
1. Pemazyre. Prescribing Information. Incyte Corporation. Accessed August 22, 2022.https://www.pemazyre.com/pdf/prescribing-information.pdf.
2. Signs and Symptoms of Bile Duct Cancer. American Cancer Society. Updated January 27, 2021. Accessed June 16, 2022. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/bile-duct-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-by-stage.html.
3. Banales JM, Cardinale V, Carpino G, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma: current knowledge and future perspectives consensus statement from the European Network for the study of cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;13(5):261-280.
4. Ross JS, Wang K, Gay L, et al. New routes to targeted therapy of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas revealed by next-generation sequencing. Oncol. 2014;19(3):235-242.
5. Cho M, Gholami S, Gui D, et al. Optimizing the diagnosis and biomarker testing for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multidisciplinary approach. National Library of Medicine. 2022;13(1).
PEMAZYRE® (pemigatinib) is indicated for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test. This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s)1.
PEMAZYRE can cause serious adverse reactions including Ocular Toxicity (Retinal Pigment Epithelial Detachment [RPED] and Dry Eye), Hyperphosphatemia and Soft Tissue Mineralization, and Embryo-Fetal Toxicity. See Additional Important Safety Information Below1.
Cholangiocarcinoma, or CCA, is a rare cancer formed in the bile duct. It is difficult to diagnose due to generalized symptoms patients often experience2. As with any serious disease, the initial diagnosis can be an incredibly overwhelming experience for patients and their families. For people living with CCA specifically, the diagnosis process can be very long and arduous, which often means a patient’s condition can reach an advanced stage where the prognosis is poor by the time he or she is diagnosed3.
Scientific advancements, such as biomarker testing, or genomic analysis of a patient’s tissue, have made it possible to better understand a person’s specific cancer. Understanding patients’ tumors at the molecular level may help health care professionals individualize a treatment plan that is specific to each patient.
As the genomic profile of CCA has become clearer, actionable alterations in the DNA that are amenable to treatment with either existing agents or those in development have come into focus. Certain actionable genomic alterations have been identified in up to 2/3 of patients with the intrahepatic subtype of CCA, although this percentage may vary in actual practice4. Specifically, research has found that fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) alterations, which play an important role in the development of cancers like CCA, especially the intrahepatic subtype, is on the rise3. This has prompted recognition of comprehensive genomic testing. Due to the rapid advances in precision medicine for CCA, the NCCN guidelines recommend the use of biomarker testing for advanced CCA5.
The First Targeted Treatment Option for CCA
Though an incredibly useful tool, there is a need for further education about the importance of early biomarker testing amongst the medical community. In one large community-based hospital in California, the implementation of a precision medicine program allowed oncologists and pathologists to standardize all tumor biomarker testing, resulting in an increase in testing5. However, there is still much improvement needed. What’s more, scientific advancements in recent years have opened the door to targeted treatment options including Pemazyre® (pemigatinib). Pemazyre was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under accelerated approval in 2020 as the first targeted treatment for adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic CCA with a FGFR2 fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test.
“The FDA approval of Pemazyre was and continues to be an encouraging milestone for the CCA community, as patients historically had limited options after first-line chemotherapy or surgery, after which relapse rates were high,” said Dr. Sahai.
Pemazyre works by helping to stop the activity of the abnormal FGFR2 protein, which may help reduce the size of CCA tumors or cause them to disappear. Pemazyre’s approval was based on the results of the multicenter, open-label, single arm FIGHT-202 study in 146 previously treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA1.
- The efficacy population consisted of 107 patients with disease that had progressed on or after at least 1 prior therapy and who had an FGFR2 fusion or non-fusion rearrangement, as determined by a clinical trial assay (FoundationOne® CDx) performed at a central laboratory.
- The major efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR). The study found an ORR of 36%, and median DoR of 9.1 months.
- The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) in all patients were hyperphosphatemia, alopecia, diarrhea, nail toxicity, fatigue, dysgeusia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, dry eye, dry mouth, decreased appetite, vomiting, arthralgia, abdominal pain, hypophosphatemia, back pain, and dry skin.
Meet Fred, Battling CCA
Meet Fred – a man living with CCA. After noticing an unusual amount of blood following what he thought was a normal kidney stone, Fred contacted his doctor right away. Unfortunately, it was not clear from his initial symptoms what the problem was. A computed tomography (CT or CAT) scan revealed Fred did indeed have a kidney stone, but it also showed a large mass had formed on his liver, leading to more testing. After several tests, Fred was diagnosed with CCA. Because of the nonspecific symptoms he had been experiencing, his cancer unfortunately had time to grow. Upon advice from his doctor, Fred met with a CCA specialist who quickly ordered biomarker testing, revealing that he had FGFR2-driven CCA. With a molecular understanding of Fred’s specific CCA, his health care team was able to prescribe him Pemazyre.
“I’m grateful I was able to start receiving treatment for my condition following chemotherapy and continue to see improvements in my condition,” noted Fred. “Though I fight side effects such as great fatigue, dry eye, dry skin, and fingernail discoloration, these innovations in science that lead to treatments like Pemazyre are what continue to give my family and I hope.”
Through his own experience, Fred has become an advocate for encouraging others living with CCA to educate themselves about the disease and the importance of early biomarker testing. “My advice is to be your own health advocate. Take charge of how your diagnosis and treatment plan is formed with your doctor, and don’t be afraid to speak openly with your doctor about the tools, like biomarker testing, that are available,” said Fred. “I feel fortunate that my health care team initiated biomarker testing quickly after my diagnosis, which enabled me to find an appropriate treatment option for my specific condition. I know that’s not always the case for my fellow CCA warriors, so I urge those in the community to take charge of their health conversations.”
Leverage The Leading Tools at Hand
Fred’s story, like that of so many other CCA patients, was a long and winding road to an accurate diagnosis; however, once he was diagnosed, biomarker testing allowed for Fred’s health care team to fully understand his condition, which led to a tailored treatment plan with Pemazyre. While the regular use of biomarker testing is on the rise, it’s critical that health care providers continue to institute early biomarker testing as standard practice, as it may provide the opportunity to quickly and accurately determine the best path forward for their patients.
For more information about treatment with Pemazyre, visit Pemzayre.com and Full Prescribing Information.
###
You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit www.fda.gov/medwatch or call 1-800-FDA-1088.
PEMAZYRE® is indicated for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with a fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test.
This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s).
IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION
Ocular Toxicity
Retinal Pigment Epithelial Detachment (RPED): PEMAZYRE can cause RPED, which may cause symptoms such as blurred vision, visual floaters, or photopsia. Clinical trials of PEMAZYRE did not conduct routine monitoring including optical coherence tomography (OCT) to detect asymptomatic RPED; therefore, the incidence of asymptomatic RPED with PEMAZYRE is unknown.
Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, RPED occurred in 11% of patients, including Grade 3-4 RPED in 1.3%. The median time to first onset of RPED was 56 days. RPED led to dose interruption of PEMAZYRE in 3.1% of patients, and dose reduction and permanent discontinuation in 1.3% and in 0.2% of patients, respectively. RPED resolved or improved to Grade 1 levels in 76% of patients who required dosage modification of PEMAZYRE for RPED.
Perform a comprehensive ophthalmological examination including OCT prior to initiation of PEMAZYRE and every 2 months for the first 6 months and every 3 months thereafter during treatment. For onset of visual symptoms, refer patients for ophthalmologic evaluation urgently, with follow-up every 3 weeks until resolution or discontinuation of PEMAZYRE. Modify the dose or permanently discontinue PEMAZYRE as recommended in the prescribing information for PEMAZYRE.
Dry Eye: Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, dry eye occurred in 31% of patients, including Grade 3-4 in 1.6% of patients. Treat patients with ocular demulcents as needed.
Hyperphosphatemia and Soft Tissue Mineralization
PEMAZYRE can cause hyperphosphatemia leading to soft tissue mineralization, cutaneous calcification, calcinosis, and non-uremic calciphylaxis. Increases in phosphate levels are a pharmacodynamic effect of PEMAZYRE. Among 635 patients who received a starting dose of PEMAZYRE 13.5 mg across clinical trials, hyperphosphatemia was reported in 93% of patients based on laboratory values above the upper limit of normal. The median time to onset of hyperphosphatemia was 8 days (range 1-169). Phosphate lowering therapy was required in 33% of patients receiving PEMAZYRE.
Monitor for hyperphosphatemia and initiate a low phosphate diet when serum phosphate level is >5.5 mg/dL. For serum phosphate levels >7 mg/dL, initiate phosphate lowering therapy and withhold, reduce the dose, or permanently discontinue PEMAZYRE based on duration and severity of hyperphosphatemia as recommended in the prescribing information.
Embryo-Fetal Toxicity
Based on findings in an animal study and its mechanism of action, PEMAZYRE can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Oral administration of pemigatinib to pregnant rats during the period of organogenesis caused fetal malformations, fetal growth retardation, and embryo-fetal death at maternal exposures lower than the human exposure based on area under the curve (AUC) at the clinical dose of 13.5 mg.
Advise pregnant women of the potential risk to the fetus. Advise female patients of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose. Advise males with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose.
Adverse Reactions: Cholangiocarcinoma
Serious adverse reactions occurred in 45% of patients receiving PEMAZYRE (n=146). Serious adverse reactions in ≥2% of patients who received PEMAZYRE included abdominal pain, pyrexia, cholangitis, pleural effusion, acute kidney injury, cholangitis infective, failure to thrive, hypercalcemia, hyponatremia, small intestinal obstruction, and urinary tract infection. Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 4.1% of patients, including failure to thrive, bile duct obstruction, cholangitis, sepsis, and pleural effusion.
Permanent discontinuation due to an adverse reaction occurred in 9% of patients who received PEMAZYRE. Adverse reactions requiring permanent discontinuation in ≥1% of patients included intestinal obstruction and acute kidney injury.
Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 43% of patients who received PEMAZYRE. Adverse reactions requiring dosage interruption in ≥1% of patients included stomatitis, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, arthralgia, fatigue, abdominal pain, AST increased, asthenia, pyrexia, ALT increased, cholangitis, small intestinal obstruction, alkaline phosphatase increased, diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, electrocardiogram QT prolonged, decreased appetite, dehydration, hypercalcemia, hyperphosphatemia, hypophosphatemia, back pain, pain in extremity, syncope, acute kidney injury, onychomadesis, and hypotension.
Dose reductions due to an adverse reaction occurred in 14% of patients who received PEMAZYRE. Adverse reactions requiring dosage reductions in ≥1% of patients who received PEMAZYRE included stomatitis, arthralgia, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, asthenia, and onychomadesis.
Clinically relevant adverse reactions occurring in ≤10% of patients included fractures (2.1%). In all patients treated with pemigatinib, 0.5% experienced pathologic fractures (which included patients with and without cholangiocarcinoma [N = 635]). Soft tissue mineralization, including cutaneous calcification, calcinosis, and non-uremic calciphylaxis associated with hyperphosphatemia were observed with PEMAZYRE treatment.
Within the first 21-day cycle of PEMAZYRE dosing, serum creatinine increased (mean increase of 0.2 mg/dL) and reached steady state by Day 8, and then decreased during the 7 days off therapy. Consider alternative markers of renal function if persistent elevations in serum creatinine are observed.
In cholangiocarcinoma (n=146) the most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥20%) were hyperphosphatemia (60%), alopecia (49%), diarrhea (47%), nail toxicity (43%), fatigue (42%), dysgeusia (40%), nausea (40%), constipation (35%), stomatitis (35%), dry eye (35%), dry mouth (34%), decreased appetite (33%), vomiting (27%), arthralgia (25%), abdominal pain (23%), hypophosphatemia (23%), back pain (20%), and dry skin (20%).
Drug Interactions
Avoid concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inhibitors with PEMAZYRE. Reduce the dose of PEMAZYRE if concomitant use with a strong or moderate CYP3A inhibitor cannot be avoided. Avoid concomitant use of strong and moderate CYP3A inducers with PEMAZYRE.
Special Populations
Advise lactating women not to breastfeed during treatment with PEMAZYRE and for 1 week after the last dose.
Reduce the recommended dose of PEMAZYRE for patients with severe renal impairment as described in the prescribing information.
Reduce the recommended dose of PEMAZYRE for patients with severe hepatic impairment as described in the prescribing information.
Please see Full Prescribing Information for PEMAZYRE.
Incyte and the Incyte logo are registered trademarks of Incyte.
PEMAZYRE and the PEMAZYRE logo are registered trademarks of Incyte.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
© 2022, Incyte. MAT-PEM-00414 10/22
References:
1. Pemazyre. Prescribing Information. Incyte Corporation. Accessed August 22, 2022.https://www.pemazyre.com/pdf/prescribing-information.pdf.
2. Signs and Symptoms of Bile Duct Cancer. American Cancer Society. Updated January 27, 2021. Accessed June 16, 2022. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/bile-duct-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-by-stage.html.
3. Banales JM, Cardinale V, Carpino G, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma: current knowledge and future perspectives consensus statement from the European Network for the study of cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;13(5):261-280.
4. Ross JS, Wang K, Gay L, et al. New routes to targeted therapy of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas revealed by next-generation sequencing. Oncol. 2014;19(3):235-242.
5. Cho M, Gholami S, Gui D, et al. Optimizing the diagnosis and biomarker testing for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multidisciplinary approach. National Library of Medicine. 2022;13(1).
FDA expands oral JAK abrocitinib to adolescents with AD
Abrocitinib, taken once daily, previously was approved only for treating adults aged 18 and older.
It joins upadacitinib (Rinvoq), previously the only oral JAK inhibitor to be approved for use by adolescents aged 12 through 17 with refractory moderate to severe AD.
The indication has been expanded for teens whose disease is not adequately controlled with other systemic drugs, including biologics, or those for whom use of those drugs is not advised.
Prescribing information was updated to reflect data from JADE TEEN, a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that supported the indication for adolescents. That trial evaluated both the 100-mg and 200-mg doses of abrocitinib in comparison with placebo in 285 adolescents aged 12-18 who had moderate to severe AD and who were also receiving background therapy with topical medications.
The most common toxicities that were reported in at least 1% of patients treated with abrocitinib for up to 16 weeks included nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache.
Efficacy measures included improvements in itch, skin clearance, and disease severity using the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS), and the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), according to the Pfizer statement announcing the expanded approval.
Select JADE TEEN findings include the following:
- IGA response rate of 0 or 1 at week 12: 39% with abrocitinib 100 mg; 46% with abrocitinib 200 mg; and 24% with placebo.
- EASI-75 response rate at week 12: 64%, 71%, and 41%, respectively.
- Proportion of participants achieving PP-NRS with at least a 4-point decrease from baseline at week 2: 13%, 25%, and 8%, respectively.
Data included in the prescribing information now encompass five randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials and a long-term extension study with more than 1,600 patients treated with abrocitinib, according to the statement from Pfizer.
In a 2021 story, when JADE TEEN trial results were presented, Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, told this news organization that he welcomed oral JAKs as a weapon against atopic dermatitis.
He noted that moderate to severe AD can have a tremendous impact on adolescents. “Traditionally, we have treated it with intermittent topical corticosteroids, but this has left a significant percentage of patients without long-term disease control,” he said.
Abrocitinib is not recommended for use with other JAK inhibitors, biologic immunomodulators, or other immunosuppressants.
AD, one of the most common inflammatory skin diseases, affects approximately 5%-10% of adults in the United States and approximately 11% of children. About one in three adults and one in three children and adolescents aged 17 and younger with AD have moderate to severe disease.
JAK inhibition is thought to modulate multiple cytokines involved in AD, including interleukin (IL)–4, IL-13, IL-31, IL-22, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin.
Prescribing information includes a warning that use of abrocitinib should be avoided by patients with an active, serious infection, including localized infections. A boxed warning is included in the labels of JAK inhibitors regarding the risk of serious infections, mortality, major cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.
Treatment risks and benefits should be carefully considered for patients with chronic or recurrent infections or those who have lived in or traveled in areas of endemic tuberculosis or endemic mycoses, the information states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Abrocitinib, taken once daily, previously was approved only for treating adults aged 18 and older.
It joins upadacitinib (Rinvoq), previously the only oral JAK inhibitor to be approved for use by adolescents aged 12 through 17 with refractory moderate to severe AD.
The indication has been expanded for teens whose disease is not adequately controlled with other systemic drugs, including biologics, or those for whom use of those drugs is not advised.
Prescribing information was updated to reflect data from JADE TEEN, a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that supported the indication for adolescents. That trial evaluated both the 100-mg and 200-mg doses of abrocitinib in comparison with placebo in 285 adolescents aged 12-18 who had moderate to severe AD and who were also receiving background therapy with topical medications.
The most common toxicities that were reported in at least 1% of patients treated with abrocitinib for up to 16 weeks included nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache.
Efficacy measures included improvements in itch, skin clearance, and disease severity using the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS), and the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), according to the Pfizer statement announcing the expanded approval.
Select JADE TEEN findings include the following:
- IGA response rate of 0 or 1 at week 12: 39% with abrocitinib 100 mg; 46% with abrocitinib 200 mg; and 24% with placebo.
- EASI-75 response rate at week 12: 64%, 71%, and 41%, respectively.
- Proportion of participants achieving PP-NRS with at least a 4-point decrease from baseline at week 2: 13%, 25%, and 8%, respectively.
Data included in the prescribing information now encompass five randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials and a long-term extension study with more than 1,600 patients treated with abrocitinib, according to the statement from Pfizer.
In a 2021 story, when JADE TEEN trial results were presented, Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, told this news organization that he welcomed oral JAKs as a weapon against atopic dermatitis.
He noted that moderate to severe AD can have a tremendous impact on adolescents. “Traditionally, we have treated it with intermittent topical corticosteroids, but this has left a significant percentage of patients without long-term disease control,” he said.
Abrocitinib is not recommended for use with other JAK inhibitors, biologic immunomodulators, or other immunosuppressants.
AD, one of the most common inflammatory skin diseases, affects approximately 5%-10% of adults in the United States and approximately 11% of children. About one in three adults and one in three children and adolescents aged 17 and younger with AD have moderate to severe disease.
JAK inhibition is thought to modulate multiple cytokines involved in AD, including interleukin (IL)–4, IL-13, IL-31, IL-22, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin.
Prescribing information includes a warning that use of abrocitinib should be avoided by patients with an active, serious infection, including localized infections. A boxed warning is included in the labels of JAK inhibitors regarding the risk of serious infections, mortality, major cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.
Treatment risks and benefits should be carefully considered for patients with chronic or recurrent infections or those who have lived in or traveled in areas of endemic tuberculosis or endemic mycoses, the information states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Abrocitinib, taken once daily, previously was approved only for treating adults aged 18 and older.
It joins upadacitinib (Rinvoq), previously the only oral JAK inhibitor to be approved for use by adolescents aged 12 through 17 with refractory moderate to severe AD.
The indication has been expanded for teens whose disease is not adequately controlled with other systemic drugs, including biologics, or those for whom use of those drugs is not advised.
Prescribing information was updated to reflect data from JADE TEEN, a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that supported the indication for adolescents. That trial evaluated both the 100-mg and 200-mg doses of abrocitinib in comparison with placebo in 285 adolescents aged 12-18 who had moderate to severe AD and who were also receiving background therapy with topical medications.
The most common toxicities that were reported in at least 1% of patients treated with abrocitinib for up to 16 weeks included nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache.
Efficacy measures included improvements in itch, skin clearance, and disease severity using the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS), and the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), according to the Pfizer statement announcing the expanded approval.
Select JADE TEEN findings include the following:
- IGA response rate of 0 or 1 at week 12: 39% with abrocitinib 100 mg; 46% with abrocitinib 200 mg; and 24% with placebo.
- EASI-75 response rate at week 12: 64%, 71%, and 41%, respectively.
- Proportion of participants achieving PP-NRS with at least a 4-point decrease from baseline at week 2: 13%, 25%, and 8%, respectively.
Data included in the prescribing information now encompass five randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials and a long-term extension study with more than 1,600 patients treated with abrocitinib, according to the statement from Pfizer.
In a 2021 story, when JADE TEEN trial results were presented, Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, told this news organization that he welcomed oral JAKs as a weapon against atopic dermatitis.
He noted that moderate to severe AD can have a tremendous impact on adolescents. “Traditionally, we have treated it with intermittent topical corticosteroids, but this has left a significant percentage of patients without long-term disease control,” he said.
Abrocitinib is not recommended for use with other JAK inhibitors, biologic immunomodulators, or other immunosuppressants.
AD, one of the most common inflammatory skin diseases, affects approximately 5%-10% of adults in the United States and approximately 11% of children. About one in three adults and one in three children and adolescents aged 17 and younger with AD have moderate to severe disease.
JAK inhibition is thought to modulate multiple cytokines involved in AD, including interleukin (IL)–4, IL-13, IL-31, IL-22, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin.
Prescribing information includes a warning that use of abrocitinib should be avoided by patients with an active, serious infection, including localized infections. A boxed warning is included in the labels of JAK inhibitors regarding the risk of serious infections, mortality, major cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.
Treatment risks and benefits should be carefully considered for patients with chronic or recurrent infections or those who have lived in or traveled in areas of endemic tuberculosis or endemic mycoses, the information states.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Room for improvement in Barrett esophagus care
, an analysis of U.S. registry data shows.
“As the GI Quality Improvement Consortium (GIQuIC) registry represents the ‘best-case scenario’ for adherence, since sites and endoscopists enrolled in this quality registry are aware that their practices are being monitored, these results indicate that there is still room for improvement and better consistency,” the researchers write.
The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Quality care in BE, which is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), includes adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol for sampling the BE segment (four-quadrant biopsies every 2 cm) and to a surveillance interval of 3-5 years for patients with nondysplastic BE (NDBE).
Previous studies have found poor adherence to these two QIs, but those studies only provided overall estimates, and individual endoscopists or different sites were not taken into consideration.
Jennifer Kolb, MD, with the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues say their study is the first to highlight variation in adherence to these measures at the center and endoscopist levels.
The study is also the first U.S. population–based study to report the dysplasia detection rate (DDR), which is a proposed quality indicator. The findings on this metric also demonstrate marked variability across endoscopists and sites.
Study details
Using the nationwide GIQuIC registry, the researchers evaluated endoscopist and site-based adherence to the Seattle protocol and surveillance interval advice from January 2018 to May 2021.
Among 255 practices with 1,195 endoscopists who performed 20,155 upper endoscopies for suspected or established BE, overall adherence to the Seattle protocol was 86%, which is considerably higher than the 51% reported in a study conducted from 2002 to 2007, Dr. Kolb and colleagues note.
When researchers looked specifically at 572 endoscopists for whom there were at least 10 endoscopy records in the registry, they found high variability in adherence to the Seattle protocol (median, 93.8%; interquartile range, 18.9%).
Adherence to the Seattle protocol was also variable among 153 practices for which there were at least 20 endoscopy records (median, 90%; IQR, 20.1%).
Of the 12,100 upper endoscopies with documented NDBE, 8,517 (70.4%) had a guideline-concordant–recommended surveillance interval of 3-5 years, with variability at both the endoscopist (median, 82.4%; IQR, 36.3%) and site level (median, 77.2%; IQR, 28.9%).
Endoscopist and site adherence to the Seattle protocol and surveillance guidance generally rose along with volume of upper endoscopies performed.
The overall DDR was 3.1%; it varied among endoscopists and sites (mean, 3.3% for both).
The investigators note that the 95% confidence intervals for each provider for DDR were “highly variable” and ranged from –20% to 119.3%. Notably, increasing upper endoscopy volume had an inconsistent effect on adherence rates and DDR by endoscopists and sites.
The investigators saw no correlation between overall DDR and Seattle protocol adherence among sites and only weak but statistically significant negative correlation between DDR and Seattle protocol adherence among individual endoscopists.
Practical approaches to improvement
The researchers say their observations from the GIQuIC database “most accurately represent the real-world experience in Barrett’s endoscopy.”
The results can serve as a “benchmark for quality initiatives and intervention trials aimed at improving outcomes for patients with BE,” they say.
Improving adherence to key QI measures and ensuring more consistent clinical behavior across practice groups and endoscopists are “critical first steps” to ensure high-quality BE care, Dr. Kolb and colleagues say.
To that end, they encourage professional societies to emphasize these metrics to their members and to streamline the reporting systems for QIs within the electronic health records used across various practice settings.
Avenues to improve examination quality may include educational interventions, such as online learning platforms that teach dysplasia detection or that highlight best practices, they add. These educational tools should be easy to use and should emphasize quality improvement measures.
“Future efforts are warranted to identify and extinguish predictors of this variability and to determine whether these interventions can improve DDR and adherence rates to QIs among endoscopists doing these examinations with the goal to improve EAC outcomes,” they conclude.
The study had no financial support. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, an analysis of U.S. registry data shows.
“As the GI Quality Improvement Consortium (GIQuIC) registry represents the ‘best-case scenario’ for adherence, since sites and endoscopists enrolled in this quality registry are aware that their practices are being monitored, these results indicate that there is still room for improvement and better consistency,” the researchers write.
The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Quality care in BE, which is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), includes adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol for sampling the BE segment (four-quadrant biopsies every 2 cm) and to a surveillance interval of 3-5 years for patients with nondysplastic BE (NDBE).
Previous studies have found poor adherence to these two QIs, but those studies only provided overall estimates, and individual endoscopists or different sites were not taken into consideration.
Jennifer Kolb, MD, with the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues say their study is the first to highlight variation in adherence to these measures at the center and endoscopist levels.
The study is also the first U.S. population–based study to report the dysplasia detection rate (DDR), which is a proposed quality indicator. The findings on this metric also demonstrate marked variability across endoscopists and sites.
Study details
Using the nationwide GIQuIC registry, the researchers evaluated endoscopist and site-based adherence to the Seattle protocol and surveillance interval advice from January 2018 to May 2021.
Among 255 practices with 1,195 endoscopists who performed 20,155 upper endoscopies for suspected or established BE, overall adherence to the Seattle protocol was 86%, which is considerably higher than the 51% reported in a study conducted from 2002 to 2007, Dr. Kolb and colleagues note.
When researchers looked specifically at 572 endoscopists for whom there were at least 10 endoscopy records in the registry, they found high variability in adherence to the Seattle protocol (median, 93.8%; interquartile range, 18.9%).
Adherence to the Seattle protocol was also variable among 153 practices for which there were at least 20 endoscopy records (median, 90%; IQR, 20.1%).
Of the 12,100 upper endoscopies with documented NDBE, 8,517 (70.4%) had a guideline-concordant–recommended surveillance interval of 3-5 years, with variability at both the endoscopist (median, 82.4%; IQR, 36.3%) and site level (median, 77.2%; IQR, 28.9%).
Endoscopist and site adherence to the Seattle protocol and surveillance guidance generally rose along with volume of upper endoscopies performed.
The overall DDR was 3.1%; it varied among endoscopists and sites (mean, 3.3% for both).
The investigators note that the 95% confidence intervals for each provider for DDR were “highly variable” and ranged from –20% to 119.3%. Notably, increasing upper endoscopy volume had an inconsistent effect on adherence rates and DDR by endoscopists and sites.
The investigators saw no correlation between overall DDR and Seattle protocol adherence among sites and only weak but statistically significant negative correlation between DDR and Seattle protocol adherence among individual endoscopists.
Practical approaches to improvement
The researchers say their observations from the GIQuIC database “most accurately represent the real-world experience in Barrett’s endoscopy.”
The results can serve as a “benchmark for quality initiatives and intervention trials aimed at improving outcomes for patients with BE,” they say.
Improving adherence to key QI measures and ensuring more consistent clinical behavior across practice groups and endoscopists are “critical first steps” to ensure high-quality BE care, Dr. Kolb and colleagues say.
To that end, they encourage professional societies to emphasize these metrics to their members and to streamline the reporting systems for QIs within the electronic health records used across various practice settings.
Avenues to improve examination quality may include educational interventions, such as online learning platforms that teach dysplasia detection or that highlight best practices, they add. These educational tools should be easy to use and should emphasize quality improvement measures.
“Future efforts are warranted to identify and extinguish predictors of this variability and to determine whether these interventions can improve DDR and adherence rates to QIs among endoscopists doing these examinations with the goal to improve EAC outcomes,” they conclude.
The study had no financial support. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, an analysis of U.S. registry data shows.
“As the GI Quality Improvement Consortium (GIQuIC) registry represents the ‘best-case scenario’ for adherence, since sites and endoscopists enrolled in this quality registry are aware that their practices are being monitored, these results indicate that there is still room for improvement and better consistency,” the researchers write.
The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
Quality care in BE, which is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), includes adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol for sampling the BE segment (four-quadrant biopsies every 2 cm) and to a surveillance interval of 3-5 years for patients with nondysplastic BE (NDBE).
Previous studies have found poor adherence to these two QIs, but those studies only provided overall estimates, and individual endoscopists or different sites were not taken into consideration.
Jennifer Kolb, MD, with the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues say their study is the first to highlight variation in adherence to these measures at the center and endoscopist levels.
The study is also the first U.S. population–based study to report the dysplasia detection rate (DDR), which is a proposed quality indicator. The findings on this metric also demonstrate marked variability across endoscopists and sites.
Study details
Using the nationwide GIQuIC registry, the researchers evaluated endoscopist and site-based adherence to the Seattle protocol and surveillance interval advice from January 2018 to May 2021.
Among 255 practices with 1,195 endoscopists who performed 20,155 upper endoscopies for suspected or established BE, overall adherence to the Seattle protocol was 86%, which is considerably higher than the 51% reported in a study conducted from 2002 to 2007, Dr. Kolb and colleagues note.
When researchers looked specifically at 572 endoscopists for whom there were at least 10 endoscopy records in the registry, they found high variability in adherence to the Seattle protocol (median, 93.8%; interquartile range, 18.9%).
Adherence to the Seattle protocol was also variable among 153 practices for which there were at least 20 endoscopy records (median, 90%; IQR, 20.1%).
Of the 12,100 upper endoscopies with documented NDBE, 8,517 (70.4%) had a guideline-concordant–recommended surveillance interval of 3-5 years, with variability at both the endoscopist (median, 82.4%; IQR, 36.3%) and site level (median, 77.2%; IQR, 28.9%).
Endoscopist and site adherence to the Seattle protocol and surveillance guidance generally rose along with volume of upper endoscopies performed.
The overall DDR was 3.1%; it varied among endoscopists and sites (mean, 3.3% for both).
The investigators note that the 95% confidence intervals for each provider for DDR were “highly variable” and ranged from –20% to 119.3%. Notably, increasing upper endoscopy volume had an inconsistent effect on adherence rates and DDR by endoscopists and sites.
The investigators saw no correlation between overall DDR and Seattle protocol adherence among sites and only weak but statistically significant negative correlation between DDR and Seattle protocol adherence among individual endoscopists.
Practical approaches to improvement
The researchers say their observations from the GIQuIC database “most accurately represent the real-world experience in Barrett’s endoscopy.”
The results can serve as a “benchmark for quality initiatives and intervention trials aimed at improving outcomes for patients with BE,” they say.
Improving adherence to key QI measures and ensuring more consistent clinical behavior across practice groups and endoscopists are “critical first steps” to ensure high-quality BE care, Dr. Kolb and colleagues say.
To that end, they encourage professional societies to emphasize these metrics to their members and to streamline the reporting systems for QIs within the electronic health records used across various practice settings.
Avenues to improve examination quality may include educational interventions, such as online learning platforms that teach dysplasia detection or that highlight best practices, they add. These educational tools should be easy to use and should emphasize quality improvement measures.
“Future efforts are warranted to identify and extinguish predictors of this variability and to determine whether these interventions can improve DDR and adherence rates to QIs among endoscopists doing these examinations with the goal to improve EAC outcomes,” they conclude.
The study had no financial support. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Differences in brain structure linked to social disadvantage
Brain volume disparities among young children of different races may be attributable to adverse childhood experiences related to socioeconomic conditions and structural racism, new research suggests.
Investigators from the Belmont, Mass.–based McLean Hospital, an affiliate of Mass General Brigham, found that 9- and 10-year-old children of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds have subtle neurobiological differences in gray matter volume in certain brain regions associated with trauma and stress.
Lead investigator Nathaniel Harnett, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, believes this research shows evidence that “structural racism” – broad socioeconomic disadvantages that lead to poverty and emotional trauma – may affect brain structures and growth and ultimately may lead to psychiatric illness.
“For clinicians, I think the take-home message is that we really need to be more aware about the ways in which the disproportionate burden of stress might impact some groups,” Dr. Harnett told this news organization.
“This in turn can affect the way they respond either to later stress or maybe even treatment outcomes.” He added that other brain regions and compensatory mechanisms are likely to be involved, and more work needs to explore these connections.
The study was published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
‘Toxic stressor’
Dr. Harnett and colleagues used MRI and survey data from the 2019 Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study involving over 12,000 children from 21 sites across the United States.
Participating children provided information about emotional and physical conflicts in the household. The ABCD study also surveyed the parents about their race and ethnicity, parental education, employment, and family income. Another factor in the analysis was neighborhood disadvantage, based on the Area Deprivation Index utilizing 17 socioeconomic indicators from the U.S. Census, including poverty and housing.
Comparing brain MRI findings from approximately 7,300 White children and 1,800 Black children in the ABCD study, Dr. Harnett’s group found that Black children had lower gray matter volume in the amygdala, hippocampus, and other subregions of the prefrontal cortex.
Experience of adversity was the “sole factor” explaining brain volume differences, with household income being the predominant factor.
Compared with White children, Black children were three times less likely to have parents who were currently employed. In addition, White parents were more likely than Black parents to have higher education at 75.2% versus 40.6%. Black families had significantly lower household income than White families and experienced more family conflict, material hardship, neighborhood disadvantage, and traumatic events.
The researchers analyzed race-related differences in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and the relationship with adversity and found that Black children had significantly greater PTSD symptom severity, and that symptom severity was “further predicted by adversity.”
“Taken together, early-life adversity may act as a toxic stressor that disproportionately impacts Black children as a result of their significantly greater exposure to adversity and contributes to differential neural development of key threat-processing regions,” the investigators write.
“These parts of the brain are involved in what we typically call threat learning,” Dr. Harnett explained. “Threat learning is basically learning to recognize potential dangers in our environment and selecting behaviors to keep us safe, whether we’re going to run away from a danger or face it head on. When you have chronic exposure to things that can be dangerous or can make you feel unsafe, that might have an impact on how these brain regions develop, with potential implications for how these regions function later on in life.”
A consequence of toxic stress
This study is part of a growing body of work on the influence of “toxic stress” and other forms of PTSD on brain architecture. The authors note that prolonged exposure to adverse experiences leads to excessive activation of stress-response systems and accumulation of stress hormones. This disrupts immune and metabolic regulatory systems that influence the developing structures of the brain.
The study helps to contradict the “pseudoscientific falsehood” of biologic race-related differences in brain volume, instead emphasizing the role of adversity brought on by structural racism, the authors add.
In an accompanying editor’s note, the publication’s Editor-in-Chief Ned H. Kalin, MD, called childhood adversity, maltreatment, and stress, “significant risk factors for the development of psychopathology.”
These findings are “critically important, as they speak to the need for psychiatry as a field to be outspoken about the detrimental psychological impacts of race-related disparities in childhood adversity, to call out the fact that these disparities stem from structural racism, and to vigorously support rectifying efforts by pursuing policy changes,” he stated in a news release.
Social construct?
Joan Luby, MD, coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said she and her coauthor “really appreciate the study and think the findings are overall very consistent with the emerging literature, increasing the confidence [in the findings].”
Dr. Luby, a professor of child psychiatry and director of the Early Emotional Development Program, Washington University, St. Louis, noted that she “takes issue” with the fact that the study “makes inferences regarding race, when we think those inferences aren’t well justified, are misinterpretations, and could be misleading.”
Race is a “social construct” and there are many sources of adversity that the authors didn’t measure in the study and are likely the source of any remaining variance they found, including experiences of structural racism and discrimination,” said Dr. Luby, who was not involved in the study.
“How people look doesn’t have any bearing on their inherent biological characteristics, and more [needs to be studied] on how they experience the psychosocial environment and how the psychosocial environment rejects or reacts to them.”
These psychosocial issues “have to be taken into account and measured in a very comprehensive way,” she added.
The ABCD study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and additional federal partners. Dr. Harnett reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Luby receives royalties from Guilford Press. Her coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Brain volume disparities among young children of different races may be attributable to adverse childhood experiences related to socioeconomic conditions and structural racism, new research suggests.
Investigators from the Belmont, Mass.–based McLean Hospital, an affiliate of Mass General Brigham, found that 9- and 10-year-old children of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds have subtle neurobiological differences in gray matter volume in certain brain regions associated with trauma and stress.
Lead investigator Nathaniel Harnett, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, believes this research shows evidence that “structural racism” – broad socioeconomic disadvantages that lead to poverty and emotional trauma – may affect brain structures and growth and ultimately may lead to psychiatric illness.
“For clinicians, I think the take-home message is that we really need to be more aware about the ways in which the disproportionate burden of stress might impact some groups,” Dr. Harnett told this news organization.
“This in turn can affect the way they respond either to later stress or maybe even treatment outcomes.” He added that other brain regions and compensatory mechanisms are likely to be involved, and more work needs to explore these connections.
The study was published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
‘Toxic stressor’
Dr. Harnett and colleagues used MRI and survey data from the 2019 Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study involving over 12,000 children from 21 sites across the United States.
Participating children provided information about emotional and physical conflicts in the household. The ABCD study also surveyed the parents about their race and ethnicity, parental education, employment, and family income. Another factor in the analysis was neighborhood disadvantage, based on the Area Deprivation Index utilizing 17 socioeconomic indicators from the U.S. Census, including poverty and housing.
Comparing brain MRI findings from approximately 7,300 White children and 1,800 Black children in the ABCD study, Dr. Harnett’s group found that Black children had lower gray matter volume in the amygdala, hippocampus, and other subregions of the prefrontal cortex.
Experience of adversity was the “sole factor” explaining brain volume differences, with household income being the predominant factor.
Compared with White children, Black children were three times less likely to have parents who were currently employed. In addition, White parents were more likely than Black parents to have higher education at 75.2% versus 40.6%. Black families had significantly lower household income than White families and experienced more family conflict, material hardship, neighborhood disadvantage, and traumatic events.
The researchers analyzed race-related differences in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and the relationship with adversity and found that Black children had significantly greater PTSD symptom severity, and that symptom severity was “further predicted by adversity.”
“Taken together, early-life adversity may act as a toxic stressor that disproportionately impacts Black children as a result of their significantly greater exposure to adversity and contributes to differential neural development of key threat-processing regions,” the investigators write.
“These parts of the brain are involved in what we typically call threat learning,” Dr. Harnett explained. “Threat learning is basically learning to recognize potential dangers in our environment and selecting behaviors to keep us safe, whether we’re going to run away from a danger or face it head on. When you have chronic exposure to things that can be dangerous or can make you feel unsafe, that might have an impact on how these brain regions develop, with potential implications for how these regions function later on in life.”
A consequence of toxic stress
This study is part of a growing body of work on the influence of “toxic stress” and other forms of PTSD on brain architecture. The authors note that prolonged exposure to adverse experiences leads to excessive activation of stress-response systems and accumulation of stress hormones. This disrupts immune and metabolic regulatory systems that influence the developing structures of the brain.
The study helps to contradict the “pseudoscientific falsehood” of biologic race-related differences in brain volume, instead emphasizing the role of adversity brought on by structural racism, the authors add.
In an accompanying editor’s note, the publication’s Editor-in-Chief Ned H. Kalin, MD, called childhood adversity, maltreatment, and stress, “significant risk factors for the development of psychopathology.”
These findings are “critically important, as they speak to the need for psychiatry as a field to be outspoken about the detrimental psychological impacts of race-related disparities in childhood adversity, to call out the fact that these disparities stem from structural racism, and to vigorously support rectifying efforts by pursuing policy changes,” he stated in a news release.
Social construct?
Joan Luby, MD, coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said she and her coauthor “really appreciate the study and think the findings are overall very consistent with the emerging literature, increasing the confidence [in the findings].”
Dr. Luby, a professor of child psychiatry and director of the Early Emotional Development Program, Washington University, St. Louis, noted that she “takes issue” with the fact that the study “makes inferences regarding race, when we think those inferences aren’t well justified, are misinterpretations, and could be misleading.”
Race is a “social construct” and there are many sources of adversity that the authors didn’t measure in the study and are likely the source of any remaining variance they found, including experiences of structural racism and discrimination,” said Dr. Luby, who was not involved in the study.
“How people look doesn’t have any bearing on their inherent biological characteristics, and more [needs to be studied] on how they experience the psychosocial environment and how the psychosocial environment rejects or reacts to them.”
These psychosocial issues “have to be taken into account and measured in a very comprehensive way,” she added.
The ABCD study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and additional federal partners. Dr. Harnett reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Luby receives royalties from Guilford Press. Her coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Brain volume disparities among young children of different races may be attributable to adverse childhood experiences related to socioeconomic conditions and structural racism, new research suggests.
Investigators from the Belmont, Mass.–based McLean Hospital, an affiliate of Mass General Brigham, found that 9- and 10-year-old children of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds have subtle neurobiological differences in gray matter volume in certain brain regions associated with trauma and stress.
Lead investigator Nathaniel Harnett, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, believes this research shows evidence that “structural racism” – broad socioeconomic disadvantages that lead to poverty and emotional trauma – may affect brain structures and growth and ultimately may lead to psychiatric illness.
“For clinicians, I think the take-home message is that we really need to be more aware about the ways in which the disproportionate burden of stress might impact some groups,” Dr. Harnett told this news organization.
“This in turn can affect the way they respond either to later stress or maybe even treatment outcomes.” He added that other brain regions and compensatory mechanisms are likely to be involved, and more work needs to explore these connections.
The study was published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
‘Toxic stressor’
Dr. Harnett and colleagues used MRI and survey data from the 2019 Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study involving over 12,000 children from 21 sites across the United States.
Participating children provided information about emotional and physical conflicts in the household. The ABCD study also surveyed the parents about their race and ethnicity, parental education, employment, and family income. Another factor in the analysis was neighborhood disadvantage, based on the Area Deprivation Index utilizing 17 socioeconomic indicators from the U.S. Census, including poverty and housing.
Comparing brain MRI findings from approximately 7,300 White children and 1,800 Black children in the ABCD study, Dr. Harnett’s group found that Black children had lower gray matter volume in the amygdala, hippocampus, and other subregions of the prefrontal cortex.
Experience of adversity was the “sole factor” explaining brain volume differences, with household income being the predominant factor.
Compared with White children, Black children were three times less likely to have parents who were currently employed. In addition, White parents were more likely than Black parents to have higher education at 75.2% versus 40.6%. Black families had significantly lower household income than White families and experienced more family conflict, material hardship, neighborhood disadvantage, and traumatic events.
The researchers analyzed race-related differences in posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and the relationship with adversity and found that Black children had significantly greater PTSD symptom severity, and that symptom severity was “further predicted by adversity.”
“Taken together, early-life adversity may act as a toxic stressor that disproportionately impacts Black children as a result of their significantly greater exposure to adversity and contributes to differential neural development of key threat-processing regions,” the investigators write.
“These parts of the brain are involved in what we typically call threat learning,” Dr. Harnett explained. “Threat learning is basically learning to recognize potential dangers in our environment and selecting behaviors to keep us safe, whether we’re going to run away from a danger or face it head on. When you have chronic exposure to things that can be dangerous or can make you feel unsafe, that might have an impact on how these brain regions develop, with potential implications for how these regions function later on in life.”
A consequence of toxic stress
This study is part of a growing body of work on the influence of “toxic stress” and other forms of PTSD on brain architecture. The authors note that prolonged exposure to adverse experiences leads to excessive activation of stress-response systems and accumulation of stress hormones. This disrupts immune and metabolic regulatory systems that influence the developing structures of the brain.
The study helps to contradict the “pseudoscientific falsehood” of biologic race-related differences in brain volume, instead emphasizing the role of adversity brought on by structural racism, the authors add.
In an accompanying editor’s note, the publication’s Editor-in-Chief Ned H. Kalin, MD, called childhood adversity, maltreatment, and stress, “significant risk factors for the development of psychopathology.”
These findings are “critically important, as they speak to the need for psychiatry as a field to be outspoken about the detrimental psychological impacts of race-related disparities in childhood adversity, to call out the fact that these disparities stem from structural racism, and to vigorously support rectifying efforts by pursuing policy changes,” he stated in a news release.
Social construct?
Joan Luby, MD, coauthor of an accompanying editorial, said she and her coauthor “really appreciate the study and think the findings are overall very consistent with the emerging literature, increasing the confidence [in the findings].”
Dr. Luby, a professor of child psychiatry and director of the Early Emotional Development Program, Washington University, St. Louis, noted that she “takes issue” with the fact that the study “makes inferences regarding race, when we think those inferences aren’t well justified, are misinterpretations, and could be misleading.”
Race is a “social construct” and there are many sources of adversity that the authors didn’t measure in the study and are likely the source of any remaining variance they found, including experiences of structural racism and discrimination,” said Dr. Luby, who was not involved in the study.
“How people look doesn’t have any bearing on their inherent biological characteristics, and more [needs to be studied] on how they experience the psychosocial environment and how the psychosocial environment rejects or reacts to them.”
These psychosocial issues “have to be taken into account and measured in a very comprehensive way,” she added.
The ABCD study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and additional federal partners. Dr. Harnett reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Luby receives royalties from Guilford Press. Her coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.