User login
Trial of epicutaneous immunotherapy in eosinophilic esophagitis
For children with milk-induced eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), 9 months of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) with Viaskin Milk did not significantly improve eosinophil counts or symptoms, compared with placebo, according to the results of an intention-to-treat analysis of a randomized, double-blinded pilot study.
Average maximum eosinophil counts were 50.1 per high-power field in the Viaskin Milk group versus 48.2 in the placebo group, said Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and associates. However, in the per-protocol analysis, the seven patients who received Viaskin Milk had mean eosinophil counts of 25.6 per high-power field, compared with 95.0 for the two children who received placebo (P = .038). Moreover, 47% of patients had fewer than 15 eosinophils per high-power field after an additional 11 months of open-label treatment with Viaskin Milk. Taken together, the findings justify larger, multicenter studies to evaluate EPIT for treating EoE and other non-IgE mediated food diseases, Dr. Spergel and associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
EoE results from an immune response to specific food allergens, including milk. Classic symptoms include difficulty feeding and failure to thrive in infants, abdominal pain in young children, and dysphagia in older children and adults. Definitive diagnosis requires an esophageal biopsy with an eosinophil count of 15 or more cells per high-power field. “There are no approved therapies [for eosinophilic esophagitis] beyond avoidance of the allergen(s) or treatment of inflammation,” the investigators wrote.
In prior studies, exposure to EPIT was found to mitigate eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease in mice and pigs. In humans, milk is the most common dietary cause of eosinophilic esophagitis. Accordingly, Viaskin Milk is an EPIT containing an allergen extract of milk that is administered epicutaneously using a specialized delivery system. To evaluate its use for the treatment of pediatric milk-induced EoE (at least 15 eosinophils per high-power frame despite at least 2 months of high-dose proton pump–inhibitor therapy at 1-2 mg/kg twice daily), the researchers randomly assigned 20 children on a 3:1 basis to receive either Viaskin Milk or placebo for 9 months. Patients and investigators were double-blinded for this phase of the study, during most of which patients abstained from milk. Toward the end of the 9 months, patients resumed consuming milk and continued doing so if their upper endoscopy biopsy showed resolution of EoE (eosinophil count less than 15 per high-power field).
In the intention-to-treat analysis, Viaskin Milk did not meet the primary endpoint of the difference in least squares mean compared with placebo (8.6; 95% confidence interval, –35.36 to 52.56). Symptom scores also were similar between groups. In contrast, at the end of the 11-month, open-label period, 9 of 19 evaluable patients had eosinophil biopsy counts of fewer than 15 per high-power field, for a response rate of 47%. “The number of adverse events did not differ significantly between the Viaskin Milk and placebo groups,” the researchers added.
Protocol violations might explain why EPIT failed to meet the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat analysis, they wrote. “For example, the patients on the active therapy wanted to ingest more milk, while the patients in the placebo group wanted less milk,” they reported. “Three patients in the active therapy went on binge milk diets drinking 4 to 8 times the amount of milk compared with baseline.” The use of proton pump inhibitors also was inconsistent between groups, they added. “The major limitation in the [per-protocol] population was the small sample size of this pilot study, raising the possibility of false-positive results.”
The study was funded by DBV Technologies and by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Eosinophilic Esophagitis Family Fund. Dr. Spergel disclosed consulting agreements, grants funding, and stock equity with DBV Technologies. Three coinvestigators also disclosed ties to DBV. The remaining five coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Spergel JM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.05.014.
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease that is primarily triggered by food antigens. Though many patients can be treated with dietary elimination or pharmacologic therapies, when foods are added back, elimination diets are not followed, or medications stopped, the disease will flare. Further, unlike some other atopic conditions, patients with EoE do not “grow out of it.” A true cure for EoE has been elusive. In this study by Spergel and colleagues, they build on intriguing data from animal models showing induction of immune tolerance to food antigens with epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT).
The investigators conducted a proof-of-concept, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial of epicutaneous desensitization with a milk patch in children with EoE who had milk as a confirmed dietary trigger. The primary intention-to-treat results showed that there was no difference between placebo and active patches for decreasing esophageal eosinophil counts. However, in the small set of patients who were able to adhere fully to the protocol, the per-protocol analysis suggested that there was a lower eosinophil count with active treatment. Additionally, in an 11-month, open-label extension, there were patients who maintained histologic response (less than 15 eosinophils/hpf) after reintroducing milk.
These data suggest that EPIT potentially can desensitize milk-triggered EoE patients and that this treatment method should be pursued in future studies, with protocol alterations based on lessons learned regarding adherence in this study. Should this line of investigation be successful, then EoE patients who have milk as their EoE trigger, and who undergo successful desensitization with mild reintroduction while maintaining disease remission, may be able to be deemed cured.
Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and epidemiology, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has received research funding from and consulted for Adare, Allakos, GSK, Celgene/Receptos, and Shire/Takeda among other pharmaceutical companies.
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease that is primarily triggered by food antigens. Though many patients can be treated with dietary elimination or pharmacologic therapies, when foods are added back, elimination diets are not followed, or medications stopped, the disease will flare. Further, unlike some other atopic conditions, patients with EoE do not “grow out of it.” A true cure for EoE has been elusive. In this study by Spergel and colleagues, they build on intriguing data from animal models showing induction of immune tolerance to food antigens with epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT).
The investigators conducted a proof-of-concept, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial of epicutaneous desensitization with a milk patch in children with EoE who had milk as a confirmed dietary trigger. The primary intention-to-treat results showed that there was no difference between placebo and active patches for decreasing esophageal eosinophil counts. However, in the small set of patients who were able to adhere fully to the protocol, the per-protocol analysis suggested that there was a lower eosinophil count with active treatment. Additionally, in an 11-month, open-label extension, there were patients who maintained histologic response (less than 15 eosinophils/hpf) after reintroducing milk.
These data suggest that EPIT potentially can desensitize milk-triggered EoE patients and that this treatment method should be pursued in future studies, with protocol alterations based on lessons learned regarding adherence in this study. Should this line of investigation be successful, then EoE patients who have milk as their EoE trigger, and who undergo successful desensitization with mild reintroduction while maintaining disease remission, may be able to be deemed cured.
Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and epidemiology, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has received research funding from and consulted for Adare, Allakos, GSK, Celgene/Receptos, and Shire/Takeda among other pharmaceutical companies.
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease that is primarily triggered by food antigens. Though many patients can be treated with dietary elimination or pharmacologic therapies, when foods are added back, elimination diets are not followed, or medications stopped, the disease will flare. Further, unlike some other atopic conditions, patients with EoE do not “grow out of it.” A true cure for EoE has been elusive. In this study by Spergel and colleagues, they build on intriguing data from animal models showing induction of immune tolerance to food antigens with epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT).
The investigators conducted a proof-of-concept, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial of epicutaneous desensitization with a milk patch in children with EoE who had milk as a confirmed dietary trigger. The primary intention-to-treat results showed that there was no difference between placebo and active patches for decreasing esophageal eosinophil counts. However, in the small set of patients who were able to adhere fully to the protocol, the per-protocol analysis suggested that there was a lower eosinophil count with active treatment. Additionally, in an 11-month, open-label extension, there were patients who maintained histologic response (less than 15 eosinophils/hpf) after reintroducing milk.
These data suggest that EPIT potentially can desensitize milk-triggered EoE patients and that this treatment method should be pursued in future studies, with protocol alterations based on lessons learned regarding adherence in this study. Should this line of investigation be successful, then EoE patients who have milk as their EoE trigger, and who undergo successful desensitization with mild reintroduction while maintaining disease remission, may be able to be deemed cured.
Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, professor of medicine and epidemiology, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has received research funding from and consulted for Adare, Allakos, GSK, Celgene/Receptos, and Shire/Takeda among other pharmaceutical companies.
For children with milk-induced eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), 9 months of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) with Viaskin Milk did not significantly improve eosinophil counts or symptoms, compared with placebo, according to the results of an intention-to-treat analysis of a randomized, double-blinded pilot study.
Average maximum eosinophil counts were 50.1 per high-power field in the Viaskin Milk group versus 48.2 in the placebo group, said Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and associates. However, in the per-protocol analysis, the seven patients who received Viaskin Milk had mean eosinophil counts of 25.6 per high-power field, compared with 95.0 for the two children who received placebo (P = .038). Moreover, 47% of patients had fewer than 15 eosinophils per high-power field after an additional 11 months of open-label treatment with Viaskin Milk. Taken together, the findings justify larger, multicenter studies to evaluate EPIT for treating EoE and other non-IgE mediated food diseases, Dr. Spergel and associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
EoE results from an immune response to specific food allergens, including milk. Classic symptoms include difficulty feeding and failure to thrive in infants, abdominal pain in young children, and dysphagia in older children and adults. Definitive diagnosis requires an esophageal biopsy with an eosinophil count of 15 or more cells per high-power field. “There are no approved therapies [for eosinophilic esophagitis] beyond avoidance of the allergen(s) or treatment of inflammation,” the investigators wrote.
In prior studies, exposure to EPIT was found to mitigate eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease in mice and pigs. In humans, milk is the most common dietary cause of eosinophilic esophagitis. Accordingly, Viaskin Milk is an EPIT containing an allergen extract of milk that is administered epicutaneously using a specialized delivery system. To evaluate its use for the treatment of pediatric milk-induced EoE (at least 15 eosinophils per high-power frame despite at least 2 months of high-dose proton pump–inhibitor therapy at 1-2 mg/kg twice daily), the researchers randomly assigned 20 children on a 3:1 basis to receive either Viaskin Milk or placebo for 9 months. Patients and investigators were double-blinded for this phase of the study, during most of which patients abstained from milk. Toward the end of the 9 months, patients resumed consuming milk and continued doing so if their upper endoscopy biopsy showed resolution of EoE (eosinophil count less than 15 per high-power field).
In the intention-to-treat analysis, Viaskin Milk did not meet the primary endpoint of the difference in least squares mean compared with placebo (8.6; 95% confidence interval, –35.36 to 52.56). Symptom scores also were similar between groups. In contrast, at the end of the 11-month, open-label period, 9 of 19 evaluable patients had eosinophil biopsy counts of fewer than 15 per high-power field, for a response rate of 47%. “The number of adverse events did not differ significantly between the Viaskin Milk and placebo groups,” the researchers added.
Protocol violations might explain why EPIT failed to meet the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat analysis, they wrote. “For example, the patients on the active therapy wanted to ingest more milk, while the patients in the placebo group wanted less milk,” they reported. “Three patients in the active therapy went on binge milk diets drinking 4 to 8 times the amount of milk compared with baseline.” The use of proton pump inhibitors also was inconsistent between groups, they added. “The major limitation in the [per-protocol] population was the small sample size of this pilot study, raising the possibility of false-positive results.”
The study was funded by DBV Technologies and by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Eosinophilic Esophagitis Family Fund. Dr. Spergel disclosed consulting agreements, grants funding, and stock equity with DBV Technologies. Three coinvestigators also disclosed ties to DBV. The remaining five coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Spergel JM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.05.014.
For children with milk-induced eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), 9 months of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) with Viaskin Milk did not significantly improve eosinophil counts or symptoms, compared with placebo, according to the results of an intention-to-treat analysis of a randomized, double-blinded pilot study.
Average maximum eosinophil counts were 50.1 per high-power field in the Viaskin Milk group versus 48.2 in the placebo group, said Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and associates. However, in the per-protocol analysis, the seven patients who received Viaskin Milk had mean eosinophil counts of 25.6 per high-power field, compared with 95.0 for the two children who received placebo (P = .038). Moreover, 47% of patients had fewer than 15 eosinophils per high-power field after an additional 11 months of open-label treatment with Viaskin Milk. Taken together, the findings justify larger, multicenter studies to evaluate EPIT for treating EoE and other non-IgE mediated food diseases, Dr. Spergel and associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
EoE results from an immune response to specific food allergens, including milk. Classic symptoms include difficulty feeding and failure to thrive in infants, abdominal pain in young children, and dysphagia in older children and adults. Definitive diagnosis requires an esophageal biopsy with an eosinophil count of 15 or more cells per high-power field. “There are no approved therapies [for eosinophilic esophagitis] beyond avoidance of the allergen(s) or treatment of inflammation,” the investigators wrote.
In prior studies, exposure to EPIT was found to mitigate eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease in mice and pigs. In humans, milk is the most common dietary cause of eosinophilic esophagitis. Accordingly, Viaskin Milk is an EPIT containing an allergen extract of milk that is administered epicutaneously using a specialized delivery system. To evaluate its use for the treatment of pediatric milk-induced EoE (at least 15 eosinophils per high-power frame despite at least 2 months of high-dose proton pump–inhibitor therapy at 1-2 mg/kg twice daily), the researchers randomly assigned 20 children on a 3:1 basis to receive either Viaskin Milk or placebo for 9 months. Patients and investigators were double-blinded for this phase of the study, during most of which patients abstained from milk. Toward the end of the 9 months, patients resumed consuming milk and continued doing so if their upper endoscopy biopsy showed resolution of EoE (eosinophil count less than 15 per high-power field).
In the intention-to-treat analysis, Viaskin Milk did not meet the primary endpoint of the difference in least squares mean compared with placebo (8.6; 95% confidence interval, –35.36 to 52.56). Symptom scores also were similar between groups. In contrast, at the end of the 11-month, open-label period, 9 of 19 evaluable patients had eosinophil biopsy counts of fewer than 15 per high-power field, for a response rate of 47%. “The number of adverse events did not differ significantly between the Viaskin Milk and placebo groups,” the researchers added.
Protocol violations might explain why EPIT failed to meet the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat analysis, they wrote. “For example, the patients on the active therapy wanted to ingest more milk, while the patients in the placebo group wanted less milk,” they reported. “Three patients in the active therapy went on binge milk diets drinking 4 to 8 times the amount of milk compared with baseline.” The use of proton pump inhibitors also was inconsistent between groups, they added. “The major limitation in the [per-protocol] population was the small sample size of this pilot study, raising the possibility of false-positive results.”
The study was funded by DBV Technologies and by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Eosinophilic Esophagitis Family Fund. Dr. Spergel disclosed consulting agreements, grants funding, and stock equity with DBV Technologies. Three coinvestigators also disclosed ties to DBV. The remaining five coinvestigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Spergel JM et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.05.014.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Eradicating H. pylori may cut risk of gastric cancer
Eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection was associated with a more than 75% decrease in hazard of subsequent stomach cancer in a large retrospective cohort study.
Simply being treated for H. pylori infection did not mitigate the risk of gastric adenocarcinoma, and patients whose H. pylori was not eradicated were at increased risk, said Shria Kumar, MD, of the Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine in Philadelphia, and with her associates. “This speaks to the ability of H. pylori eradication to modify future risks of gastric adenocarcinoma, and the need to not only treat those diagnosed with H. pylori, but to confirm eradication, and re-treat those who fail eradication,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
Gastric adenocarcinoma remains a grave diagnosis, with a 5-year survival rate of less than 30%. Although H. pylori infection is an established risk factor for gastric cancer (particularly nonproximal disease), most studies have used national cancer databases that do not track H. pylori infection. Accordingly, Dr. Kumar and her associates analyzed data for 371,813 patients diagnosed with H. pylori infection at U.S. Veterans Health Administration facilities between 1994 and 2018. A total of 92% of patients were men, 58% were white, 24% were black, and approximately 1% each were Native American, Asian, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Median age was 62 years.
Patients with H. pylori infection who subsequently were diagnosed with nonproximal gastric cancer were significantly (P less than .001) more likely to be older (median age, 65.1 vs. 62.0 years), current or historical smokers, or racial or ethnic minorities (black or African American, Asian, or Hispanic/Latino), compared with patients with H. pylori who did not develop cancer. In the multivariable analysis, standardized hazard ratios for these variables remained statistically significant, with point estimates ranging from 1.13 (for each 5-year increase in age at diagnosis of infection) to 2.00 (for black or African American race). Cumulative incidence rates of distal gastric adenocarcinoma following H. pylori infection were 0.37% at 5 years, 0.5% at 10 years, and 0.65% at 20 year.
Patients whose infections were confirmed to have been eradicated were at markedly lower risk for subsequent gastric cancer than were patients whose infections were not eradicated (SHR, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.41; P less than .001). Importantly, simply being treated for H. pylori did not significantly affect cancer risk (SHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.74-1.83).
Rates in Japan are approximately five times higher, while in sub-Saharan Africa, H. pylori infection is prevalent but gastric cancer is uncommon, the researchers noted. These discrepancies support the idea that carcinogenesis depends on additional genetic or environmental variables in addition to H. pylori infection alone, they said. They called for future studies of protective factors.
Dr. Kumar is supported by a training grant from the National Institutes of Health. She disclosed travel support from Boston Scientific and Olympus. Her coinvestigators disclosed ties to Takeda, Novartis, Janssen, Gilead, Bayer, and several other companies.
SOURCE: Kumar S et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Jul 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.10.019.
Eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection was associated with a more than 75% decrease in hazard of subsequent stomach cancer in a large retrospective cohort study.
Simply being treated for H. pylori infection did not mitigate the risk of gastric adenocarcinoma, and patients whose H. pylori was not eradicated were at increased risk, said Shria Kumar, MD, of the Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine in Philadelphia, and with her associates. “This speaks to the ability of H. pylori eradication to modify future risks of gastric adenocarcinoma, and the need to not only treat those diagnosed with H. pylori, but to confirm eradication, and re-treat those who fail eradication,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
Gastric adenocarcinoma remains a grave diagnosis, with a 5-year survival rate of less than 30%. Although H. pylori infection is an established risk factor for gastric cancer (particularly nonproximal disease), most studies have used national cancer databases that do not track H. pylori infection. Accordingly, Dr. Kumar and her associates analyzed data for 371,813 patients diagnosed with H. pylori infection at U.S. Veterans Health Administration facilities between 1994 and 2018. A total of 92% of patients were men, 58% were white, 24% were black, and approximately 1% each were Native American, Asian, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Median age was 62 years.
Patients with H. pylori infection who subsequently were diagnosed with nonproximal gastric cancer were significantly (P less than .001) more likely to be older (median age, 65.1 vs. 62.0 years), current or historical smokers, or racial or ethnic minorities (black or African American, Asian, or Hispanic/Latino), compared with patients with H. pylori who did not develop cancer. In the multivariable analysis, standardized hazard ratios for these variables remained statistically significant, with point estimates ranging from 1.13 (for each 5-year increase in age at diagnosis of infection) to 2.00 (for black or African American race). Cumulative incidence rates of distal gastric adenocarcinoma following H. pylori infection were 0.37% at 5 years, 0.5% at 10 years, and 0.65% at 20 year.
Patients whose infections were confirmed to have been eradicated were at markedly lower risk for subsequent gastric cancer than were patients whose infections were not eradicated (SHR, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.41; P less than .001). Importantly, simply being treated for H. pylori did not significantly affect cancer risk (SHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.74-1.83).
Rates in Japan are approximately five times higher, while in sub-Saharan Africa, H. pylori infection is prevalent but gastric cancer is uncommon, the researchers noted. These discrepancies support the idea that carcinogenesis depends on additional genetic or environmental variables in addition to H. pylori infection alone, they said. They called for future studies of protective factors.
Dr. Kumar is supported by a training grant from the National Institutes of Health. She disclosed travel support from Boston Scientific and Olympus. Her coinvestigators disclosed ties to Takeda, Novartis, Janssen, Gilead, Bayer, and several other companies.
SOURCE: Kumar S et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Jul 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.10.019.
Eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection was associated with a more than 75% decrease in hazard of subsequent stomach cancer in a large retrospective cohort study.
Simply being treated for H. pylori infection did not mitigate the risk of gastric adenocarcinoma, and patients whose H. pylori was not eradicated were at increased risk, said Shria Kumar, MD, of the Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine in Philadelphia, and with her associates. “This speaks to the ability of H. pylori eradication to modify future risks of gastric adenocarcinoma, and the need to not only treat those diagnosed with H. pylori, but to confirm eradication, and re-treat those who fail eradication,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
Gastric adenocarcinoma remains a grave diagnosis, with a 5-year survival rate of less than 30%. Although H. pylori infection is an established risk factor for gastric cancer (particularly nonproximal disease), most studies have used national cancer databases that do not track H. pylori infection. Accordingly, Dr. Kumar and her associates analyzed data for 371,813 patients diagnosed with H. pylori infection at U.S. Veterans Health Administration facilities between 1994 and 2018. A total of 92% of patients were men, 58% were white, 24% were black, and approximately 1% each were Native American, Asian, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Median age was 62 years.
Patients with H. pylori infection who subsequently were diagnosed with nonproximal gastric cancer were significantly (P less than .001) more likely to be older (median age, 65.1 vs. 62.0 years), current or historical smokers, or racial or ethnic minorities (black or African American, Asian, or Hispanic/Latino), compared with patients with H. pylori who did not develop cancer. In the multivariable analysis, standardized hazard ratios for these variables remained statistically significant, with point estimates ranging from 1.13 (for each 5-year increase in age at diagnosis of infection) to 2.00 (for black or African American race). Cumulative incidence rates of distal gastric adenocarcinoma following H. pylori infection were 0.37% at 5 years, 0.5% at 10 years, and 0.65% at 20 year.
Patients whose infections were confirmed to have been eradicated were at markedly lower risk for subsequent gastric cancer than were patients whose infections were not eradicated (SHR, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.41; P less than .001). Importantly, simply being treated for H. pylori did not significantly affect cancer risk (SHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.74-1.83).
Rates in Japan are approximately five times higher, while in sub-Saharan Africa, H. pylori infection is prevalent but gastric cancer is uncommon, the researchers noted. These discrepancies support the idea that carcinogenesis depends on additional genetic or environmental variables in addition to H. pylori infection alone, they said. They called for future studies of protective factors.
Dr. Kumar is supported by a training grant from the National Institutes of Health. She disclosed travel support from Boston Scientific and Olympus. Her coinvestigators disclosed ties to Takeda, Novartis, Janssen, Gilead, Bayer, and several other companies.
SOURCE: Kumar S et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Jul 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.10.019.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Optimal management of Barrett’s esophagus without high-grade dysplasia
, according to the study, which was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Clinical guidelines recommend surveillance or treatment of patients with Barrett’s esophagus, a precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma, depending on the presence and grade of dysplasia. For high-grade dysplasia, guidelines recommend endoscopic eradication therapy. For low-grade dysplasia, the optimal strategy is unclear, said first study author Amir-Houshang Omidvari, MD, MPH, a researcher at Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands) and colleagues. In addition, the ideal surveillance interval for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus is unknown.
Simulated cohorts
To identify optimal management strategies, the investigators simulated cohorts of 60-year-old patients with Barrett’s esophagus in the United States using three independent population-based models. They followed each cohort until death or age 100 years. The study compared disease progression without surveillance or treatment with 78 management strategies. The cost-effectiveness analyses used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
For low-grade dysplasia, the researchers assessed various surveillance intervals, endoscopic eradication therapy with confirmation of low-grade dysplasia by a repeat endoscopy after 2 months of high-dose acid suppression, and endoscopic eradication therapy without confirmatory testing. For nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, the researchers evaluated no surveillance and surveillance intervals of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 10 years. The researchers made assumptions based on published data about rates of misdiagnosis, treatment efficacy, recurrence, complications, and other outcomes. They used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement rates to evaluate costs. For all management strategies, the researchers assumed surveillance would stop at age 80 years.
In a simulated cohort of men with Barrett’s esophagus who did not receive surveillance or endoscopic eradication therapy, the models predicted an average esophageal adenocarcinoma cumulative incidence of 111 cases per 1,000 patients and mortality of 77 deaths per 1,000 patients, with a total cost of $5.7 million for their care. Management strategies “prevented 23%-75% of [esophageal adenocarcinoma] cases and decreased mortality by 31%-88% while increasing costs to $6.2-$17.3 million depending on the management strategy,” the authors said. The optimal cost-effective strategy – endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with low-grade dysplasia after endoscopic confirmation, and surveillance every 3 years for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus – decreased esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence to 38 cases (–66%) and mortality to 15 deaths (–81%) per 1,000 patients, compared with natural history. This approach increased costs to $9.8 million and gained 358 QALYs.
The models predicted fewer esophageal adenocarcinoma cases in women without surveillance or treatment (75 cases per 1,000 patients). “Because of the higher incremental costs per QALY gained in women, the optimal strategy was surveillance every 5 years for [nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus],” the researchers reported.
Avoiding misdiagnosis
“Despite the potential harms and cost of endoscopic therapy, [endoscopic eradication therapy of low-grade dysplasia] reduces the number of endoscopies required for surveillance ... because of prolonged surveillance intervals after successful treatment, and [it] generally prevents more [esophageal adenocarcinoma] cases than strategies using only surveillance,” wrote Dr. Omidvari and colleagues. Confirmation of low-grade dysplasia with repeat testing before treatment was more cost-effective than treatment without confirmatory testing. Although this approach requires one more endoscopy per patient, a decrease in inappropriate treatment of patients with false-positive low-grade dysplasia diagnoses compensates for the additional testing costs, they said.
The researchers noted that available data on long-term outcomes are limited. Nevertheless, the analysis may have important implications for patients with Barrett’s esophagus without dysplasia or with low-grade dysplasia, the authors said.
The National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute supported the study and provided funding for the authors.
SOURCE: Omidvari A-H et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.058.
, according to the study, which was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Clinical guidelines recommend surveillance or treatment of patients with Barrett’s esophagus, a precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma, depending on the presence and grade of dysplasia. For high-grade dysplasia, guidelines recommend endoscopic eradication therapy. For low-grade dysplasia, the optimal strategy is unclear, said first study author Amir-Houshang Omidvari, MD, MPH, a researcher at Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands) and colleagues. In addition, the ideal surveillance interval for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus is unknown.
Simulated cohorts
To identify optimal management strategies, the investigators simulated cohorts of 60-year-old patients with Barrett’s esophagus in the United States using three independent population-based models. They followed each cohort until death or age 100 years. The study compared disease progression without surveillance or treatment with 78 management strategies. The cost-effectiveness analyses used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
For low-grade dysplasia, the researchers assessed various surveillance intervals, endoscopic eradication therapy with confirmation of low-grade dysplasia by a repeat endoscopy after 2 months of high-dose acid suppression, and endoscopic eradication therapy without confirmatory testing. For nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, the researchers evaluated no surveillance and surveillance intervals of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 10 years. The researchers made assumptions based on published data about rates of misdiagnosis, treatment efficacy, recurrence, complications, and other outcomes. They used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement rates to evaluate costs. For all management strategies, the researchers assumed surveillance would stop at age 80 years.
In a simulated cohort of men with Barrett’s esophagus who did not receive surveillance or endoscopic eradication therapy, the models predicted an average esophageal adenocarcinoma cumulative incidence of 111 cases per 1,000 patients and mortality of 77 deaths per 1,000 patients, with a total cost of $5.7 million for their care. Management strategies “prevented 23%-75% of [esophageal adenocarcinoma] cases and decreased mortality by 31%-88% while increasing costs to $6.2-$17.3 million depending on the management strategy,” the authors said. The optimal cost-effective strategy – endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with low-grade dysplasia after endoscopic confirmation, and surveillance every 3 years for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus – decreased esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence to 38 cases (–66%) and mortality to 15 deaths (–81%) per 1,000 patients, compared with natural history. This approach increased costs to $9.8 million and gained 358 QALYs.
The models predicted fewer esophageal adenocarcinoma cases in women without surveillance or treatment (75 cases per 1,000 patients). “Because of the higher incremental costs per QALY gained in women, the optimal strategy was surveillance every 5 years for [nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus],” the researchers reported.
Avoiding misdiagnosis
“Despite the potential harms and cost of endoscopic therapy, [endoscopic eradication therapy of low-grade dysplasia] reduces the number of endoscopies required for surveillance ... because of prolonged surveillance intervals after successful treatment, and [it] generally prevents more [esophageal adenocarcinoma] cases than strategies using only surveillance,” wrote Dr. Omidvari and colleagues. Confirmation of low-grade dysplasia with repeat testing before treatment was more cost-effective than treatment without confirmatory testing. Although this approach requires one more endoscopy per patient, a decrease in inappropriate treatment of patients with false-positive low-grade dysplasia diagnoses compensates for the additional testing costs, they said.
The researchers noted that available data on long-term outcomes are limited. Nevertheless, the analysis may have important implications for patients with Barrett’s esophagus without dysplasia or with low-grade dysplasia, the authors said.
The National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute supported the study and provided funding for the authors.
SOURCE: Omidvari A-H et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.058.
, according to the study, which was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Clinical guidelines recommend surveillance or treatment of patients with Barrett’s esophagus, a precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma, depending on the presence and grade of dysplasia. For high-grade dysplasia, guidelines recommend endoscopic eradication therapy. For low-grade dysplasia, the optimal strategy is unclear, said first study author Amir-Houshang Omidvari, MD, MPH, a researcher at Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands) and colleagues. In addition, the ideal surveillance interval for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus is unknown.
Simulated cohorts
To identify optimal management strategies, the investigators simulated cohorts of 60-year-old patients with Barrett’s esophagus in the United States using three independent population-based models. They followed each cohort until death or age 100 years. The study compared disease progression without surveillance or treatment with 78 management strategies. The cost-effectiveness analyses used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
For low-grade dysplasia, the researchers assessed various surveillance intervals, endoscopic eradication therapy with confirmation of low-grade dysplasia by a repeat endoscopy after 2 months of high-dose acid suppression, and endoscopic eradication therapy without confirmatory testing. For nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, the researchers evaluated no surveillance and surveillance intervals of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 10 years. The researchers made assumptions based on published data about rates of misdiagnosis, treatment efficacy, recurrence, complications, and other outcomes. They used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement rates to evaluate costs. For all management strategies, the researchers assumed surveillance would stop at age 80 years.
In a simulated cohort of men with Barrett’s esophagus who did not receive surveillance or endoscopic eradication therapy, the models predicted an average esophageal adenocarcinoma cumulative incidence of 111 cases per 1,000 patients and mortality of 77 deaths per 1,000 patients, with a total cost of $5.7 million for their care. Management strategies “prevented 23%-75% of [esophageal adenocarcinoma] cases and decreased mortality by 31%-88% while increasing costs to $6.2-$17.3 million depending on the management strategy,” the authors said. The optimal cost-effective strategy – endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with low-grade dysplasia after endoscopic confirmation, and surveillance every 3 years for patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus – decreased esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence to 38 cases (–66%) and mortality to 15 deaths (–81%) per 1,000 patients, compared with natural history. This approach increased costs to $9.8 million and gained 358 QALYs.
The models predicted fewer esophageal adenocarcinoma cases in women without surveillance or treatment (75 cases per 1,000 patients). “Because of the higher incremental costs per QALY gained in women, the optimal strategy was surveillance every 5 years for [nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus],” the researchers reported.
Avoiding misdiagnosis
“Despite the potential harms and cost of endoscopic therapy, [endoscopic eradication therapy of low-grade dysplasia] reduces the number of endoscopies required for surveillance ... because of prolonged surveillance intervals after successful treatment, and [it] generally prevents more [esophageal adenocarcinoma] cases than strategies using only surveillance,” wrote Dr. Omidvari and colleagues. Confirmation of low-grade dysplasia with repeat testing before treatment was more cost-effective than treatment without confirmatory testing. Although this approach requires one more endoscopy per patient, a decrease in inappropriate treatment of patients with false-positive low-grade dysplasia diagnoses compensates for the additional testing costs, they said.
The researchers noted that available data on long-term outcomes are limited. Nevertheless, the analysis may have important implications for patients with Barrett’s esophagus without dysplasia or with low-grade dysplasia, the authors said.
The National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute supported the study and provided funding for the authors.
SOURCE: Omidvari A-H et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.058.
CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Long-term entecavir looks safe, effective in HBV
For patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, up to 10 years of treatment with entecavir was safe and produced a superior rate of sustained virologic response, compared with other HBV nucleoside or nucleotide analogues in a global randomized clinical trial.
Virologic responses were confirmed and maintained in 80% of entecavir patients and 61% of patients who received other therapies, said Jin-Lin Hou, MD, of Southern Medical University in Guangzhou, China, and associates. Regardless of which treatment patients received, a sustained virologic response was associated with a significantly lower rate of liver-related hepatitis B virus (HBV) disease progression and hepatocellular carcinoma. Rates of serious treatment-related adverse events were 0.2% in the entecavir arm and 0.8% in the nonentecavir arm. Moreover, the primary outcome of time-to-adjudicated clinical outcome events “showed that entecavir treatment, compared with nonentecavir, was not associated with an increased risk of malignant neoplasms, including hepatocellular carcinoma, nonhepatocellular carcinoma malignancies, and overall malignancies,” they wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Entecavir is approved for the treatment of adults with chronic HBV infection, and its long-term use has been linked to the regression of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. In treatment-naive patients, genotypic resistance and virologic breakthrough are rare even after up to 5 years of entecavir therapy. Although human studies have not linked this treatment duration with an increased risk of adverse events, murine studies have identified benign and malignant tumors of the brain, lung, and liver in entecavir-treated mice and rats. “With the exception of lung tumors, which were limited to male mice, rodent tumors occurred only at entecavir exposures [that were] significantly higher than those achieved in human beings with standard approved doses,” the researchers wrote.
For the trial, they assigned more than 12,000 patients with chronic HBV infection to receive long-term treatment with entecavir or investigators’ choice of another HBV nucleoside or nucleotide analogue. Patients were from 229 centers in Asia, Europe, and North and South America, and a total of 6,216 received entecavir, while 6,162 received another therapy.
Compared with other HBV nucleoside and nucleotide analogues, long-term treatment with entecavir “provided a high margin of safety” and was not tied to higher rates of liver or nonliver malignancies, the researchers found. The carcinogenicity of entecavir in rodents did not appear to extend to humans. Furthermore, among 5,305 trial participants in China, a sustained virologic response was associated with a clinically and statistically significant reduction in the risk of liver-related HBV disease progression (hazard ratio, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.04-0.22) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.009-0.113).
The results confirm the appropriateness of long-term entecavir therapy for chronic HBV infection, as recommended by current guidelines, Dr. Hou and associates concluded. However, patients in this trial were relatively young, with a median age of only 39 years. Therefore, the risk of entecavir-associated malignancies in older age cohorts could not be evaluated.
Bristol-Myers Squibb designed the study, performed statistical analyses, and funded the study and manuscript preparation. The Ministry of Science and Technology of China and the Local Innovative and Research Teams Project of Guangdong Pearl River Talents Program provided partial support. Dr. Hou disclosed grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Several coinvestigators also disclosed ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb and to several other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Hou J-L et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jul 12. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.07.010.
For patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, up to 10 years of treatment with entecavir was safe and produced a superior rate of sustained virologic response, compared with other HBV nucleoside or nucleotide analogues in a global randomized clinical trial.
Virologic responses were confirmed and maintained in 80% of entecavir patients and 61% of patients who received other therapies, said Jin-Lin Hou, MD, of Southern Medical University in Guangzhou, China, and associates. Regardless of which treatment patients received, a sustained virologic response was associated with a significantly lower rate of liver-related hepatitis B virus (HBV) disease progression and hepatocellular carcinoma. Rates of serious treatment-related adverse events were 0.2% in the entecavir arm and 0.8% in the nonentecavir arm. Moreover, the primary outcome of time-to-adjudicated clinical outcome events “showed that entecavir treatment, compared with nonentecavir, was not associated with an increased risk of malignant neoplasms, including hepatocellular carcinoma, nonhepatocellular carcinoma malignancies, and overall malignancies,” they wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Entecavir is approved for the treatment of adults with chronic HBV infection, and its long-term use has been linked to the regression of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. In treatment-naive patients, genotypic resistance and virologic breakthrough are rare even after up to 5 years of entecavir therapy. Although human studies have not linked this treatment duration with an increased risk of adverse events, murine studies have identified benign and malignant tumors of the brain, lung, and liver in entecavir-treated mice and rats. “With the exception of lung tumors, which were limited to male mice, rodent tumors occurred only at entecavir exposures [that were] significantly higher than those achieved in human beings with standard approved doses,” the researchers wrote.
For the trial, they assigned more than 12,000 patients with chronic HBV infection to receive long-term treatment with entecavir or investigators’ choice of another HBV nucleoside or nucleotide analogue. Patients were from 229 centers in Asia, Europe, and North and South America, and a total of 6,216 received entecavir, while 6,162 received another therapy.
Compared with other HBV nucleoside and nucleotide analogues, long-term treatment with entecavir “provided a high margin of safety” and was not tied to higher rates of liver or nonliver malignancies, the researchers found. The carcinogenicity of entecavir in rodents did not appear to extend to humans. Furthermore, among 5,305 trial participants in China, a sustained virologic response was associated with a clinically and statistically significant reduction in the risk of liver-related HBV disease progression (hazard ratio, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.04-0.22) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.009-0.113).
The results confirm the appropriateness of long-term entecavir therapy for chronic HBV infection, as recommended by current guidelines, Dr. Hou and associates concluded. However, patients in this trial were relatively young, with a median age of only 39 years. Therefore, the risk of entecavir-associated malignancies in older age cohorts could not be evaluated.
Bristol-Myers Squibb designed the study, performed statistical analyses, and funded the study and manuscript preparation. The Ministry of Science and Technology of China and the Local Innovative and Research Teams Project of Guangdong Pearl River Talents Program provided partial support. Dr. Hou disclosed grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Several coinvestigators also disclosed ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb and to several other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Hou J-L et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jul 12. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.07.010.
For patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, up to 10 years of treatment with entecavir was safe and produced a superior rate of sustained virologic response, compared with other HBV nucleoside or nucleotide analogues in a global randomized clinical trial.
Virologic responses were confirmed and maintained in 80% of entecavir patients and 61% of patients who received other therapies, said Jin-Lin Hou, MD, of Southern Medical University in Guangzhou, China, and associates. Regardless of which treatment patients received, a sustained virologic response was associated with a significantly lower rate of liver-related hepatitis B virus (HBV) disease progression and hepatocellular carcinoma. Rates of serious treatment-related adverse events were 0.2% in the entecavir arm and 0.8% in the nonentecavir arm. Moreover, the primary outcome of time-to-adjudicated clinical outcome events “showed that entecavir treatment, compared with nonentecavir, was not associated with an increased risk of malignant neoplasms, including hepatocellular carcinoma, nonhepatocellular carcinoma malignancies, and overall malignancies,” they wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Entecavir is approved for the treatment of adults with chronic HBV infection, and its long-term use has been linked to the regression of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. In treatment-naive patients, genotypic resistance and virologic breakthrough are rare even after up to 5 years of entecavir therapy. Although human studies have not linked this treatment duration with an increased risk of adverse events, murine studies have identified benign and malignant tumors of the brain, lung, and liver in entecavir-treated mice and rats. “With the exception of lung tumors, which were limited to male mice, rodent tumors occurred only at entecavir exposures [that were] significantly higher than those achieved in human beings with standard approved doses,” the researchers wrote.
For the trial, they assigned more than 12,000 patients with chronic HBV infection to receive long-term treatment with entecavir or investigators’ choice of another HBV nucleoside or nucleotide analogue. Patients were from 229 centers in Asia, Europe, and North and South America, and a total of 6,216 received entecavir, while 6,162 received another therapy.
Compared with other HBV nucleoside and nucleotide analogues, long-term treatment with entecavir “provided a high margin of safety” and was not tied to higher rates of liver or nonliver malignancies, the researchers found. The carcinogenicity of entecavir in rodents did not appear to extend to humans. Furthermore, among 5,305 trial participants in China, a sustained virologic response was associated with a clinically and statistically significant reduction in the risk of liver-related HBV disease progression (hazard ratio, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.04-0.22) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.009-0.113).
The results confirm the appropriateness of long-term entecavir therapy for chronic HBV infection, as recommended by current guidelines, Dr. Hou and associates concluded. However, patients in this trial were relatively young, with a median age of only 39 years. Therefore, the risk of entecavir-associated malignancies in older age cohorts could not be evaluated.
Bristol-Myers Squibb designed the study, performed statistical analyses, and funded the study and manuscript preparation. The Ministry of Science and Technology of China and the Local Innovative and Research Teams Project of Guangdong Pearl River Talents Program provided partial support. Dr. Hou disclosed grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. Several coinvestigators also disclosed ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb and to several other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Hou J-L et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jul 12. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.07.010.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Unique T cell populations pinpointed in hepatocellular carcinoma tissue
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tissue contains several unique populations of tumor infiltrating cells, including some exhausted effector T cells that regain normal function when treated with the immunotherapy drug nivolumab, according to researchers.
The unique populations of recently activated CD4+, CD8+, and CD4-CD8 double-negative cells identified in the tumors expressed specific activation markers and inhibitor receptors, according to investigators, who have published the results of their immune profiling analyses in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
“Importantly, these cells expressed markers of activation and tissue residence, possibly suggesting activation within the tumor,” said Daniela Di Blasi, PhD, and the others researchers, of the University of Basel in Switzerland.
A further look at tumor histology revealed an accumulation of those activated T cells in immune-inflamed HCC, according to the investigators, who added that enumeration of specific tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes could represent “a prognostic indicator of therapy responsiveness.”
However, they advised caution in interpreting the results to date: “We are aware that the analysis described here is based on a small number of patients and that validation of its prognostic value requires ad hoc prospective studies that include more patients,” they said in their report.
The researcher’s findings were based on analysis of HCC biopsies before and after treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab, nontumor liver tissue biopsies, and peripheral blood samples from 36 patients, most of whom were male, and about half of whom had cirrhosis. Investigators used multiparametric flow cytometry to characterize expression of activation markers including CD137, CD150, and ICOS, among others, as well as expression of inhibitory receptors including TIGIT and PD1.
Compared with nonneoplastic liver tissue, tumor tissue was enriched with T cells expressing the activation marker CD137 and the inhibitory receptor ICOS, indicating that HCC tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes “are different from liver-resident T cells and might have immunologic relevance,” Dr. Di Blasi and coauthors said in their report.
Further analysis revealed several cell populations unique to HCC samples, the authors said, including CD4+ T cells coexpressing ICOS and TIGIT, which tended to accumulate in tumor tissue, compared with nontumor tissue and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Those CD4+ tumor-infiltrating T cells were functionally impaired, they added, as shown by a lack of cytokine production.
Activated CD8+ T cells likewise preferentially accumulated in tumor tissue, and most of those tumor-infiltrating cells expressed CD38 and PD1. The presence of these proliferating and functional cells may contribute to local inflammation and antitumor response, according to the investigators, who also identified two unique populations of double-negative T cells, including some that expressed CD137, which they said was a marker of recent T-cell activation.
The investigators also looked at the presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes correlated to the presence of mononuclear cell infiltrate in tumor tissue. They found that immune-inflamed tumors had significantly increased proliferation of unique CD4+, CD8+, and double-negative T cell populations.
Nivolumab treatment appeared to substantially reduce the proportion of impaired CD4+ T cells, while increasing the percentage of interferon gamma–producing CD38+ CD4+ T cells and also promoting enrichment of interferon gamma–producing CD38+ CD8+ cells. Those increases in release of interferon gamma may have a positive influence on antitumor immunity via modulation of immune and tumor cell functions, according to the investigators.
Not all immune-inflamed tumors responded to nivolumab treatment, suggesting that an immune-inflamed profile is “necessary but not sufficient” for clinical response to an anti-PD1 agent, noted Dr. Di Blasi and colleagues.
Taken together, the researchers said their investigations suggest the presence of unique populations of T cells that might be providing effective anti-tumor immunity.
“These studies set the point for the identification of the tumor antigens stimulating these T cells and their possible exploitation as immunotherapeutic targets in HCC,” they concluded in the report.
The study was supported by grants from the European Research Council and the Swiss Initiative in Systems Biology, among others. Dr. Di Blasi and coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Di Blasi D et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2019.08.004.
Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has been suggested for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and finding relevant predictors of response to immunotherapy remains one of the most challenging tasks for solid gastrointestinal cancers such as HCC where efficiency of immune therapy suggests only a moderate response so far. Recently, two randomized phase 3 trials on checkpoint inhibitors in HCC, both first-line against sorafenib (Checkmate 459) as well as second-line against placebo (KEYNOTE-240), have failed to show an overall survival benefit despite clinical benefit in some patients and a manageable side effects profile. The study by Di Blasi et al. therefore provides important insights into the immune cell composition of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in HCC. In this study it was possible to identify certain cell populations within TILs that resembled recently activated tumor-specific T cells that were in an exhausted state. It was possible to reinvigorate these exhausted cell clusters and to activate IFN-delta–producing T cells with the help of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in these patients. These data suggest that the enumeration of certain immune cell infiltrates may identify patients responding to checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Another important observation from this study was that not all immune-inflamed tumors identified by immunohistochemistry (or so-called “hot tumors”) responded to checkpoint inhibitor therapy and that more sophisticated analysis of the immune infiltrates with, e.g., flow cytometry or mass cytometry seems to be necessary to understand which patients respond. Different immune cell clusters have been suggested by other research groups and further research is needed to confirm this theory and to understand which of the proposed immune cell clusters and phenotypic profiles will prove most valuable in terms of prognosis for checkpoint inhibitor therapy in HCC.
Nico Buettner, MD, and Robert Thimme, MD, are professors in the department of medicine II, Medical Center University of Freiburg, Germany. They have no conflicts of interest.
Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has been suggested for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and finding relevant predictors of response to immunotherapy remains one of the most challenging tasks for solid gastrointestinal cancers such as HCC where efficiency of immune therapy suggests only a moderate response so far. Recently, two randomized phase 3 trials on checkpoint inhibitors in HCC, both first-line against sorafenib (Checkmate 459) as well as second-line against placebo (KEYNOTE-240), have failed to show an overall survival benefit despite clinical benefit in some patients and a manageable side effects profile. The study by Di Blasi et al. therefore provides important insights into the immune cell composition of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in HCC. In this study it was possible to identify certain cell populations within TILs that resembled recently activated tumor-specific T cells that were in an exhausted state. It was possible to reinvigorate these exhausted cell clusters and to activate IFN-delta–producing T cells with the help of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in these patients. These data suggest that the enumeration of certain immune cell infiltrates may identify patients responding to checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Another important observation from this study was that not all immune-inflamed tumors identified by immunohistochemistry (or so-called “hot tumors”) responded to checkpoint inhibitor therapy and that more sophisticated analysis of the immune infiltrates with, e.g., flow cytometry or mass cytometry seems to be necessary to understand which patients respond. Different immune cell clusters have been suggested by other research groups and further research is needed to confirm this theory and to understand which of the proposed immune cell clusters and phenotypic profiles will prove most valuable in terms of prognosis for checkpoint inhibitor therapy in HCC.
Nico Buettner, MD, and Robert Thimme, MD, are professors in the department of medicine II, Medical Center University of Freiburg, Germany. They have no conflicts of interest.
Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has been suggested for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and finding relevant predictors of response to immunotherapy remains one of the most challenging tasks for solid gastrointestinal cancers such as HCC where efficiency of immune therapy suggests only a moderate response so far. Recently, two randomized phase 3 trials on checkpoint inhibitors in HCC, both first-line against sorafenib (Checkmate 459) as well as second-line against placebo (KEYNOTE-240), have failed to show an overall survival benefit despite clinical benefit in some patients and a manageable side effects profile. The study by Di Blasi et al. therefore provides important insights into the immune cell composition of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in HCC. In this study it was possible to identify certain cell populations within TILs that resembled recently activated tumor-specific T cells that were in an exhausted state. It was possible to reinvigorate these exhausted cell clusters and to activate IFN-delta–producing T cells with the help of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in these patients. These data suggest that the enumeration of certain immune cell infiltrates may identify patients responding to checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Another important observation from this study was that not all immune-inflamed tumors identified by immunohistochemistry (or so-called “hot tumors”) responded to checkpoint inhibitor therapy and that more sophisticated analysis of the immune infiltrates with, e.g., flow cytometry or mass cytometry seems to be necessary to understand which patients respond. Different immune cell clusters have been suggested by other research groups and further research is needed to confirm this theory and to understand which of the proposed immune cell clusters and phenotypic profiles will prove most valuable in terms of prognosis for checkpoint inhibitor therapy in HCC.
Nico Buettner, MD, and Robert Thimme, MD, are professors in the department of medicine II, Medical Center University of Freiburg, Germany. They have no conflicts of interest.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tissue contains several unique populations of tumor infiltrating cells, including some exhausted effector T cells that regain normal function when treated with the immunotherapy drug nivolumab, according to researchers.
The unique populations of recently activated CD4+, CD8+, and CD4-CD8 double-negative cells identified in the tumors expressed specific activation markers and inhibitor receptors, according to investigators, who have published the results of their immune profiling analyses in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
“Importantly, these cells expressed markers of activation and tissue residence, possibly suggesting activation within the tumor,” said Daniela Di Blasi, PhD, and the others researchers, of the University of Basel in Switzerland.
A further look at tumor histology revealed an accumulation of those activated T cells in immune-inflamed HCC, according to the investigators, who added that enumeration of specific tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes could represent “a prognostic indicator of therapy responsiveness.”
However, they advised caution in interpreting the results to date: “We are aware that the analysis described here is based on a small number of patients and that validation of its prognostic value requires ad hoc prospective studies that include more patients,” they said in their report.
The researcher’s findings were based on analysis of HCC biopsies before and after treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab, nontumor liver tissue biopsies, and peripheral blood samples from 36 patients, most of whom were male, and about half of whom had cirrhosis. Investigators used multiparametric flow cytometry to characterize expression of activation markers including CD137, CD150, and ICOS, among others, as well as expression of inhibitory receptors including TIGIT and PD1.
Compared with nonneoplastic liver tissue, tumor tissue was enriched with T cells expressing the activation marker CD137 and the inhibitory receptor ICOS, indicating that HCC tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes “are different from liver-resident T cells and might have immunologic relevance,” Dr. Di Blasi and coauthors said in their report.
Further analysis revealed several cell populations unique to HCC samples, the authors said, including CD4+ T cells coexpressing ICOS and TIGIT, which tended to accumulate in tumor tissue, compared with nontumor tissue and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Those CD4+ tumor-infiltrating T cells were functionally impaired, they added, as shown by a lack of cytokine production.
Activated CD8+ T cells likewise preferentially accumulated in tumor tissue, and most of those tumor-infiltrating cells expressed CD38 and PD1. The presence of these proliferating and functional cells may contribute to local inflammation and antitumor response, according to the investigators, who also identified two unique populations of double-negative T cells, including some that expressed CD137, which they said was a marker of recent T-cell activation.
The investigators also looked at the presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes correlated to the presence of mononuclear cell infiltrate in tumor tissue. They found that immune-inflamed tumors had significantly increased proliferation of unique CD4+, CD8+, and double-negative T cell populations.
Nivolumab treatment appeared to substantially reduce the proportion of impaired CD4+ T cells, while increasing the percentage of interferon gamma–producing CD38+ CD4+ T cells and also promoting enrichment of interferon gamma–producing CD38+ CD8+ cells. Those increases in release of interferon gamma may have a positive influence on antitumor immunity via modulation of immune and tumor cell functions, according to the investigators.
Not all immune-inflamed tumors responded to nivolumab treatment, suggesting that an immune-inflamed profile is “necessary but not sufficient” for clinical response to an anti-PD1 agent, noted Dr. Di Blasi and colleagues.
Taken together, the researchers said their investigations suggest the presence of unique populations of T cells that might be providing effective anti-tumor immunity.
“These studies set the point for the identification of the tumor antigens stimulating these T cells and their possible exploitation as immunotherapeutic targets in HCC,” they concluded in the report.
The study was supported by grants from the European Research Council and the Swiss Initiative in Systems Biology, among others. Dr. Di Blasi and coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Di Blasi D et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2019.08.004.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tissue contains several unique populations of tumor infiltrating cells, including some exhausted effector T cells that regain normal function when treated with the immunotherapy drug nivolumab, according to researchers.
The unique populations of recently activated CD4+, CD8+, and CD4-CD8 double-negative cells identified in the tumors expressed specific activation markers and inhibitor receptors, according to investigators, who have published the results of their immune profiling analyses in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
“Importantly, these cells expressed markers of activation and tissue residence, possibly suggesting activation within the tumor,” said Daniela Di Blasi, PhD, and the others researchers, of the University of Basel in Switzerland.
A further look at tumor histology revealed an accumulation of those activated T cells in immune-inflamed HCC, according to the investigators, who added that enumeration of specific tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes could represent “a prognostic indicator of therapy responsiveness.”
However, they advised caution in interpreting the results to date: “We are aware that the analysis described here is based on a small number of patients and that validation of its prognostic value requires ad hoc prospective studies that include more patients,” they said in their report.
The researcher’s findings were based on analysis of HCC biopsies before and after treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab, nontumor liver tissue biopsies, and peripheral blood samples from 36 patients, most of whom were male, and about half of whom had cirrhosis. Investigators used multiparametric flow cytometry to characterize expression of activation markers including CD137, CD150, and ICOS, among others, as well as expression of inhibitory receptors including TIGIT and PD1.
Compared with nonneoplastic liver tissue, tumor tissue was enriched with T cells expressing the activation marker CD137 and the inhibitory receptor ICOS, indicating that HCC tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes “are different from liver-resident T cells and might have immunologic relevance,” Dr. Di Blasi and coauthors said in their report.
Further analysis revealed several cell populations unique to HCC samples, the authors said, including CD4+ T cells coexpressing ICOS and TIGIT, which tended to accumulate in tumor tissue, compared with nontumor tissue and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Those CD4+ tumor-infiltrating T cells were functionally impaired, they added, as shown by a lack of cytokine production.
Activated CD8+ T cells likewise preferentially accumulated in tumor tissue, and most of those tumor-infiltrating cells expressed CD38 and PD1. The presence of these proliferating and functional cells may contribute to local inflammation and antitumor response, according to the investigators, who also identified two unique populations of double-negative T cells, including some that expressed CD137, which they said was a marker of recent T-cell activation.
The investigators also looked at the presence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes correlated to the presence of mononuclear cell infiltrate in tumor tissue. They found that immune-inflamed tumors had significantly increased proliferation of unique CD4+, CD8+, and double-negative T cell populations.
Nivolumab treatment appeared to substantially reduce the proportion of impaired CD4+ T cells, while increasing the percentage of interferon gamma–producing CD38+ CD4+ T cells and also promoting enrichment of interferon gamma–producing CD38+ CD8+ cells. Those increases in release of interferon gamma may have a positive influence on antitumor immunity via modulation of immune and tumor cell functions, according to the investigators.
Not all immune-inflamed tumors responded to nivolumab treatment, suggesting that an immune-inflamed profile is “necessary but not sufficient” for clinical response to an anti-PD1 agent, noted Dr. Di Blasi and colleagues.
Taken together, the researchers said their investigations suggest the presence of unique populations of T cells that might be providing effective anti-tumor immunity.
“These studies set the point for the identification of the tumor antigens stimulating these T cells and their possible exploitation as immunotherapeutic targets in HCC,” they concluded in the report.
The study was supported by grants from the European Research Council and the Swiss Initiative in Systems Biology, among others. Dr. Di Blasi and coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Di Blasi D et al. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2019.08.004.
FROM CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Gastric electrical stimulation device may improve refractory vomiting
An implanted gastric electrical stimulation device significantly improved refractory vomiting but not quality of life in a randomized, multicenter, double-blind crossover trial of 172 patients.
After 4 months of electrical stimulation, frequency of vomiting was significantly improved from baseline in the intervention arm, compared with the control arm, in patients with both delayed (P less than .01) and normal (P = .05) gastric emptying. There was also an improvement in nausea with gastric stimulation. In contrast, there was no significant improvement in the coprimary endpoint of quality of life. Based on these findings, “a limited number of medically resistant patients may benefit from gastroelectric stimulation to relieve nausea and vomiting,” wrote Philippe Ducrotté, MD, of Rouen (France) University Hospital and associates in Gastroenterology.
High-frequency gastric electrical stimulation with the surgically implanted Enterra device is regarded as a treatment option for chronic refractory vomiting in patients with or without gastroparesis. However, only moderate evidence supports the use of this therapy, with level 1 evidence limited to a single study, according to the researchers. For the study, they enrolled 172 adults with at least 12 months of nausea or vomiting that was refractory to antiemetic or prokinetic therapy and was either idiopathic or related to type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus or surgery (partial gastric resection or vagotomy). Symptoms “had to be severe enough to affect the general condition of the patient, including [causing] weight loss, or the need to change dietary intake to control diabetes,” said the researchers.
The study started with a 4-month run-in period, after which all patients had the device implanted and left off for one month. Patients in the intervention arm then had the device turned on and programmed at standard parameters (5 mA, 14 Hz, 330 micros, cycle on 0.1s, cycle off 5s). Both groups were assessed at 4 months, and 149 patients then crossed over to the other arm and were assessed again at 4 months. Vomiting was evaluated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (most severe) to 5 (symptom absent), while quality of life was assessed by means of the 36-question, self-administered Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI).
During the intervention, 30.6% of patients reported at least a 1-point improvement on the vomiting frequency scale, while 53% reported no change. With the device turned off, 16.5% of patients reported an improvement in vomiting. During both phases of the trial, median vomiting frequency score was improved in the intervention arm compared with the control arm (P less than .001) in patients with (42%) and without (58%) diabetes. “Gastric emptying was not accelerated during the on period compared with the off period,” the investigators wrote.
A total of 133 (77%) patients in the study had gastroparesis. Most patients were women in their 40s who vomited several times per day. Among 45 device-related events, the most common was abdominal pain at the implantation site (62%), followed by “infectious problems” at the abdominal pouch level (36%) and hematoma (2%). Three of these events “were serious enough to prompt device removal,” the researchers wrote.
The French government funded the study. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest. They dedicated the paper to the memory of Dr. Ducrotté, who died during the course of the study.
*This story was updated on January 13, 2020.
SOURCE: Ducrotté P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Oct 1. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.10.018
Use of gastric electric stimulation is a controversial therapy for gastroparesis. The Enterra Gastric Electric Stimulator System received FDA approval under a Humanitarian Device Exemption in 2000 considering the device to be safe and of probable benefit. Enterra had been shown to decrease vomiting frequency in patients with medication refractory gastroparesis. Subsequent studies performed for approval for efficacy did not meet their predefined endpoint. Some physicians use this as treatment for their patients with refractory gastroparesis under the HDE and with institutional review board approval; many physicians do not.
The article by the French group brings support for gastric electric stimulation in a double blind study that showed gastric stimulation significantly reduced nausea and vomiting, both in diabetic and nondiabetic patients and in both those with delayed and normal gastric emptying.
The NIH Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium recently reported the symptom response with gastric stimulation for clinical care of patients with gastroparesis, compared with those who did not receive this treatment. In this observational study in multiple practice settings, 15% of patients with symptoms of gastroparesis in the NIH registry underwent gastric stimulation. Patients with more severe overall symptoms were more likely to improve symptomatically over 48 weeks, primarily because of reduction in nausea severity.
In the last 5 years, pyloromyotomy for gastroparesis has reemerged as a treatment for gastroparesis, especially when performed endoscopically (G-POEM or POP). Multiple studies, primarily single-center studies, support this treatment in improving gastroparesis symptoms and gastric emptying, though placebo-controlled studies have not been performed.
When should one perform gastric electric stimulation versus pyloromyotomy? At our center, we perform both stimulator placement and pyloromyotomy procedures in patients with refractory gastroparesis symptoms with delayed gastric emptying. We find that patients with refractory symptoms of gastroparesis undergoing stimulator placement, pyloromyotomy, or combined stimulator with pyloromyotomy each had improvement of their gastroparesis symptoms. Gastric stimulation and combined stimulator with pyloromyotomy improved nausea/vomiting, whereas pyloromyotomy alone tended to improve early satiety and postprandial fullness.
Presently, our clinical protocol for patients with refractory gastroparesis (not responding to metoclopramide, domperidone, granisetron patch, mirtazapine) is the following:
- If nausea and vomiting are particularly severe, we proceed with gastric stimulation.
- If gastric emptying is significantly delayed especially with symptoms of early satiety, patients undergo pyloromyotomy.
- If patients have significant nausea and vomiting with markedly delayed gastric emptying, patients get both stimulator placement and pyloromyotomy.
Studies are currently being performed to evaluate this type of patient-oriented management approach.
Henry P. Parkman, MD, gastroenterologist, gastroenterology section, Temple University, Philadelphia. He has no conflicts of interest.
Use of gastric electric stimulation is a controversial therapy for gastroparesis. The Enterra Gastric Electric Stimulator System received FDA approval under a Humanitarian Device Exemption in 2000 considering the device to be safe and of probable benefit. Enterra had been shown to decrease vomiting frequency in patients with medication refractory gastroparesis. Subsequent studies performed for approval for efficacy did not meet their predefined endpoint. Some physicians use this as treatment for their patients with refractory gastroparesis under the HDE and with institutional review board approval; many physicians do not.
The article by the French group brings support for gastric electric stimulation in a double blind study that showed gastric stimulation significantly reduced nausea and vomiting, both in diabetic and nondiabetic patients and in both those with delayed and normal gastric emptying.
The NIH Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium recently reported the symptom response with gastric stimulation for clinical care of patients with gastroparesis, compared with those who did not receive this treatment. In this observational study in multiple practice settings, 15% of patients with symptoms of gastroparesis in the NIH registry underwent gastric stimulation. Patients with more severe overall symptoms were more likely to improve symptomatically over 48 weeks, primarily because of reduction in nausea severity.
In the last 5 years, pyloromyotomy for gastroparesis has reemerged as a treatment for gastroparesis, especially when performed endoscopically (G-POEM or POP). Multiple studies, primarily single-center studies, support this treatment in improving gastroparesis symptoms and gastric emptying, though placebo-controlled studies have not been performed.
When should one perform gastric electric stimulation versus pyloromyotomy? At our center, we perform both stimulator placement and pyloromyotomy procedures in patients with refractory gastroparesis symptoms with delayed gastric emptying. We find that patients with refractory symptoms of gastroparesis undergoing stimulator placement, pyloromyotomy, or combined stimulator with pyloromyotomy each had improvement of their gastroparesis symptoms. Gastric stimulation and combined stimulator with pyloromyotomy improved nausea/vomiting, whereas pyloromyotomy alone tended to improve early satiety and postprandial fullness.
Presently, our clinical protocol for patients with refractory gastroparesis (not responding to metoclopramide, domperidone, granisetron patch, mirtazapine) is the following:
- If nausea and vomiting are particularly severe, we proceed with gastric stimulation.
- If gastric emptying is significantly delayed especially with symptoms of early satiety, patients undergo pyloromyotomy.
- If patients have significant nausea and vomiting with markedly delayed gastric emptying, patients get both stimulator placement and pyloromyotomy.
Studies are currently being performed to evaluate this type of patient-oriented management approach.
Henry P. Parkman, MD, gastroenterologist, gastroenterology section, Temple University, Philadelphia. He has no conflicts of interest.
Use of gastric electric stimulation is a controversial therapy for gastroparesis. The Enterra Gastric Electric Stimulator System received FDA approval under a Humanitarian Device Exemption in 2000 considering the device to be safe and of probable benefit. Enterra had been shown to decrease vomiting frequency in patients with medication refractory gastroparesis. Subsequent studies performed for approval for efficacy did not meet their predefined endpoint. Some physicians use this as treatment for their patients with refractory gastroparesis under the HDE and with institutional review board approval; many physicians do not.
The article by the French group brings support for gastric electric stimulation in a double blind study that showed gastric stimulation significantly reduced nausea and vomiting, both in diabetic and nondiabetic patients and in both those with delayed and normal gastric emptying.
The NIH Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium recently reported the symptom response with gastric stimulation for clinical care of patients with gastroparesis, compared with those who did not receive this treatment. In this observational study in multiple practice settings, 15% of patients with symptoms of gastroparesis in the NIH registry underwent gastric stimulation. Patients with more severe overall symptoms were more likely to improve symptomatically over 48 weeks, primarily because of reduction in nausea severity.
In the last 5 years, pyloromyotomy for gastroparesis has reemerged as a treatment for gastroparesis, especially when performed endoscopically (G-POEM or POP). Multiple studies, primarily single-center studies, support this treatment in improving gastroparesis symptoms and gastric emptying, though placebo-controlled studies have not been performed.
When should one perform gastric electric stimulation versus pyloromyotomy? At our center, we perform both stimulator placement and pyloromyotomy procedures in patients with refractory gastroparesis symptoms with delayed gastric emptying. We find that patients with refractory symptoms of gastroparesis undergoing stimulator placement, pyloromyotomy, or combined stimulator with pyloromyotomy each had improvement of their gastroparesis symptoms. Gastric stimulation and combined stimulator with pyloromyotomy improved nausea/vomiting, whereas pyloromyotomy alone tended to improve early satiety and postprandial fullness.
Presently, our clinical protocol for patients with refractory gastroparesis (not responding to metoclopramide, domperidone, granisetron patch, mirtazapine) is the following:
- If nausea and vomiting are particularly severe, we proceed with gastric stimulation.
- If gastric emptying is significantly delayed especially with symptoms of early satiety, patients undergo pyloromyotomy.
- If patients have significant nausea and vomiting with markedly delayed gastric emptying, patients get both stimulator placement and pyloromyotomy.
Studies are currently being performed to evaluate this type of patient-oriented management approach.
Henry P. Parkman, MD, gastroenterologist, gastroenterology section, Temple University, Philadelphia. He has no conflicts of interest.
An implanted gastric electrical stimulation device significantly improved refractory vomiting but not quality of life in a randomized, multicenter, double-blind crossover trial of 172 patients.
After 4 months of electrical stimulation, frequency of vomiting was significantly improved from baseline in the intervention arm, compared with the control arm, in patients with both delayed (P less than .01) and normal (P = .05) gastric emptying. There was also an improvement in nausea with gastric stimulation. In contrast, there was no significant improvement in the coprimary endpoint of quality of life. Based on these findings, “a limited number of medically resistant patients may benefit from gastroelectric stimulation to relieve nausea and vomiting,” wrote Philippe Ducrotté, MD, of Rouen (France) University Hospital and associates in Gastroenterology.
High-frequency gastric electrical stimulation with the surgically implanted Enterra device is regarded as a treatment option for chronic refractory vomiting in patients with or without gastroparesis. However, only moderate evidence supports the use of this therapy, with level 1 evidence limited to a single study, according to the researchers. For the study, they enrolled 172 adults with at least 12 months of nausea or vomiting that was refractory to antiemetic or prokinetic therapy and was either idiopathic or related to type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus or surgery (partial gastric resection or vagotomy). Symptoms “had to be severe enough to affect the general condition of the patient, including [causing] weight loss, or the need to change dietary intake to control diabetes,” said the researchers.
The study started with a 4-month run-in period, after which all patients had the device implanted and left off for one month. Patients in the intervention arm then had the device turned on and programmed at standard parameters (5 mA, 14 Hz, 330 micros, cycle on 0.1s, cycle off 5s). Both groups were assessed at 4 months, and 149 patients then crossed over to the other arm and were assessed again at 4 months. Vomiting was evaluated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (most severe) to 5 (symptom absent), while quality of life was assessed by means of the 36-question, self-administered Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI).
During the intervention, 30.6% of patients reported at least a 1-point improvement on the vomiting frequency scale, while 53% reported no change. With the device turned off, 16.5% of patients reported an improvement in vomiting. During both phases of the trial, median vomiting frequency score was improved in the intervention arm compared with the control arm (P less than .001) in patients with (42%) and without (58%) diabetes. “Gastric emptying was not accelerated during the on period compared with the off period,” the investigators wrote.
A total of 133 (77%) patients in the study had gastroparesis. Most patients were women in their 40s who vomited several times per day. Among 45 device-related events, the most common was abdominal pain at the implantation site (62%), followed by “infectious problems” at the abdominal pouch level (36%) and hematoma (2%). Three of these events “were serious enough to prompt device removal,” the researchers wrote.
The French government funded the study. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest. They dedicated the paper to the memory of Dr. Ducrotté, who died during the course of the study.
*This story was updated on January 13, 2020.
SOURCE: Ducrotté P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Oct 1. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.10.018
An implanted gastric electrical stimulation device significantly improved refractory vomiting but not quality of life in a randomized, multicenter, double-blind crossover trial of 172 patients.
After 4 months of electrical stimulation, frequency of vomiting was significantly improved from baseline in the intervention arm, compared with the control arm, in patients with both delayed (P less than .01) and normal (P = .05) gastric emptying. There was also an improvement in nausea with gastric stimulation. In contrast, there was no significant improvement in the coprimary endpoint of quality of life. Based on these findings, “a limited number of medically resistant patients may benefit from gastroelectric stimulation to relieve nausea and vomiting,” wrote Philippe Ducrotté, MD, of Rouen (France) University Hospital and associates in Gastroenterology.
High-frequency gastric electrical stimulation with the surgically implanted Enterra device is regarded as a treatment option for chronic refractory vomiting in patients with or without gastroparesis. However, only moderate evidence supports the use of this therapy, with level 1 evidence limited to a single study, according to the researchers. For the study, they enrolled 172 adults with at least 12 months of nausea or vomiting that was refractory to antiemetic or prokinetic therapy and was either idiopathic or related to type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus or surgery (partial gastric resection or vagotomy). Symptoms “had to be severe enough to affect the general condition of the patient, including [causing] weight loss, or the need to change dietary intake to control diabetes,” said the researchers.
The study started with a 4-month run-in period, after which all patients had the device implanted and left off for one month. Patients in the intervention arm then had the device turned on and programmed at standard parameters (5 mA, 14 Hz, 330 micros, cycle on 0.1s, cycle off 5s). Both groups were assessed at 4 months, and 149 patients then crossed over to the other arm and were assessed again at 4 months. Vomiting was evaluated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (most severe) to 5 (symptom absent), while quality of life was assessed by means of the 36-question, self-administered Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI).
During the intervention, 30.6% of patients reported at least a 1-point improvement on the vomiting frequency scale, while 53% reported no change. With the device turned off, 16.5% of patients reported an improvement in vomiting. During both phases of the trial, median vomiting frequency score was improved in the intervention arm compared with the control arm (P less than .001) in patients with (42%) and without (58%) diabetes. “Gastric emptying was not accelerated during the on period compared with the off period,” the investigators wrote.
A total of 133 (77%) patients in the study had gastroparesis. Most patients were women in their 40s who vomited several times per day. Among 45 device-related events, the most common was abdominal pain at the implantation site (62%), followed by “infectious problems” at the abdominal pouch level (36%) and hematoma (2%). Three of these events “were serious enough to prompt device removal,” the researchers wrote.
The French government funded the study. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest. They dedicated the paper to the memory of Dr. Ducrotté, who died during the course of the study.
*This story was updated on January 13, 2020.
SOURCE: Ducrotté P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Oct 1. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.10.018
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
AGA releases update for endoscopic treatment of Barrett’s esophagus
The American Gastroenterological Association recently released a clinical practice update for endoscopic treatment of Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and/or early esophageal adenocarcinoma.
The update offers best practice advice for a range of clinical scenarios based on published evidence, including guidelines and recent systematic reviews, reported lead author Prateek Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City. Dr. Sharma was accompanied on the authoring review team by three other expert gastroenterologists from the United States and the Netherlands.
Beyond practice advice, the investigators highlighted a research focus for the future.
“Given the expense and time required for careful and continual surveillance after Barrett’s endoscopic therapy, the future must define improved means of risk-stratifying patients for therapy who are at highest risk for cancer development and for risk of recurrence after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia,” they wrote in Gastroenterology. “Potentially, we may use a panel of patient characteristics (such as the [Progression in Barrett’s] score), preablation tissue characteristics (e.g., baseline grade of dysplasia) and the posttherapy molecular makeup of the epithelium to help risk stratify our patients.”
For now, many of the treatment principles in the update depend upon histologic features.
For instance, either endoscopic therapy or continued surveillance are reasonable options for patients with Barrett’s esophagus who have confirmed and persistent low-grade dysplasia. In contrast, the update recommends that all patients with high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a) undergo endoscopic therapy, highlighting that this method is preferred over esophagectomy for patients with T1a cancer. Along the same lines, the investigators noted that endoscopic therapy is a “reasonable alternative” to esophagectomy in cases of T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma in the presence of minimal invasion and good to moderate differentiation, particularly in patients who are poor candidates for surgery.
During the decision-making process, patients with dysplasia should be advised that not undergoing endoscopic therapy may increase cancer risk, the investigators wrote, adding that patients should also be informed about endoscopic therapy–related risks of bleeding and perforation, which occur in less than 1% of patients, and the risk of postprocedural stricture formation, which occurs in approximately 6% of patients.
If endoscopic therapy is elected, the update suggests that the procedure be done by experts who perform at least 10 new cases per year.
Concerning specifics of therapy, the investigators advised that mucosal ablation be applied to all visible esophageal columnar mucosa, 5-10 mm proximal to the squamocolumnar junction, and 5-10 mm distal to the gastroesophageal junction. Ablation should only be performed in cases of flat Barrett’s esophagus in which no visible abnormalities or signs of inflammation are present, the review team wrote.
The investigators went on to lay out some “practical ground rules” for endoscopic therapy, including a potential pitfall.
“Ablation therapy may consist of multiple 2-3 monthly ablation sessions that may extend over a period of more than a year,” the investigators wrote. “The worst adverse outcome during the treatment period is failing to recognize and treat an invasive cancer while continuing the ablation sessions. This occurrence may place the patient outside of the window of opportunity for curative endoscopic treatment. Therefore, every ablation session starts with careful endoscopic inspection using [high-definition white-light endoscopy] and preferably optical chromoendoscopy to exclude the presence of visible abnormalities that require an endoscopic resection instead of the scheduled ablation. Routine biopsies of flat Barrett’s esophagus are not necessary or recommended prior to ablation at these sessions, as the blood may inhibit optimal energy transfer to the tissue.”
Following successfully achieved complete endoscopic and histologic eradication of intestinal metaplasia, the update calls for surveillance endoscopy with biopsies at intervals of 1 and 3 years for cases of low-grade dysplasia and at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months for high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma, followed by annual checks thereafter.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Olympus, Ironwood, Erbe, and others.
SOURCE: Sharma P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.051.
The American Gastroenterological Association recently released a clinical practice update for endoscopic treatment of Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and/or early esophageal adenocarcinoma.
The update offers best practice advice for a range of clinical scenarios based on published evidence, including guidelines and recent systematic reviews, reported lead author Prateek Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City. Dr. Sharma was accompanied on the authoring review team by three other expert gastroenterologists from the United States and the Netherlands.
Beyond practice advice, the investigators highlighted a research focus for the future.
“Given the expense and time required for careful and continual surveillance after Barrett’s endoscopic therapy, the future must define improved means of risk-stratifying patients for therapy who are at highest risk for cancer development and for risk of recurrence after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia,” they wrote in Gastroenterology. “Potentially, we may use a panel of patient characteristics (such as the [Progression in Barrett’s] score), preablation tissue characteristics (e.g., baseline grade of dysplasia) and the posttherapy molecular makeup of the epithelium to help risk stratify our patients.”
For now, many of the treatment principles in the update depend upon histologic features.
For instance, either endoscopic therapy or continued surveillance are reasonable options for patients with Barrett’s esophagus who have confirmed and persistent low-grade dysplasia. In contrast, the update recommends that all patients with high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a) undergo endoscopic therapy, highlighting that this method is preferred over esophagectomy for patients with T1a cancer. Along the same lines, the investigators noted that endoscopic therapy is a “reasonable alternative” to esophagectomy in cases of T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma in the presence of minimal invasion and good to moderate differentiation, particularly in patients who are poor candidates for surgery.
During the decision-making process, patients with dysplasia should be advised that not undergoing endoscopic therapy may increase cancer risk, the investigators wrote, adding that patients should also be informed about endoscopic therapy–related risks of bleeding and perforation, which occur in less than 1% of patients, and the risk of postprocedural stricture formation, which occurs in approximately 6% of patients.
If endoscopic therapy is elected, the update suggests that the procedure be done by experts who perform at least 10 new cases per year.
Concerning specifics of therapy, the investigators advised that mucosal ablation be applied to all visible esophageal columnar mucosa, 5-10 mm proximal to the squamocolumnar junction, and 5-10 mm distal to the gastroesophageal junction. Ablation should only be performed in cases of flat Barrett’s esophagus in which no visible abnormalities or signs of inflammation are present, the review team wrote.
The investigators went on to lay out some “practical ground rules” for endoscopic therapy, including a potential pitfall.
“Ablation therapy may consist of multiple 2-3 monthly ablation sessions that may extend over a period of more than a year,” the investigators wrote. “The worst adverse outcome during the treatment period is failing to recognize and treat an invasive cancer while continuing the ablation sessions. This occurrence may place the patient outside of the window of opportunity for curative endoscopic treatment. Therefore, every ablation session starts with careful endoscopic inspection using [high-definition white-light endoscopy] and preferably optical chromoendoscopy to exclude the presence of visible abnormalities that require an endoscopic resection instead of the scheduled ablation. Routine biopsies of flat Barrett’s esophagus are not necessary or recommended prior to ablation at these sessions, as the blood may inhibit optimal energy transfer to the tissue.”
Following successfully achieved complete endoscopic and histologic eradication of intestinal metaplasia, the update calls for surveillance endoscopy with biopsies at intervals of 1 and 3 years for cases of low-grade dysplasia and at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months for high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma, followed by annual checks thereafter.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Olympus, Ironwood, Erbe, and others.
SOURCE: Sharma P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.051.
The American Gastroenterological Association recently released a clinical practice update for endoscopic treatment of Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and/or early esophageal adenocarcinoma.
The update offers best practice advice for a range of clinical scenarios based on published evidence, including guidelines and recent systematic reviews, reported lead author Prateek Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City. Dr. Sharma was accompanied on the authoring review team by three other expert gastroenterologists from the United States and the Netherlands.
Beyond practice advice, the investigators highlighted a research focus for the future.
“Given the expense and time required for careful and continual surveillance after Barrett’s endoscopic therapy, the future must define improved means of risk-stratifying patients for therapy who are at highest risk for cancer development and for risk of recurrence after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia,” they wrote in Gastroenterology. “Potentially, we may use a panel of patient characteristics (such as the [Progression in Barrett’s] score), preablation tissue characteristics (e.g., baseline grade of dysplasia) and the posttherapy molecular makeup of the epithelium to help risk stratify our patients.”
For now, many of the treatment principles in the update depend upon histologic features.
For instance, either endoscopic therapy or continued surveillance are reasonable options for patients with Barrett’s esophagus who have confirmed and persistent low-grade dysplasia. In contrast, the update recommends that all patients with high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a) undergo endoscopic therapy, highlighting that this method is preferred over esophagectomy for patients with T1a cancer. Along the same lines, the investigators noted that endoscopic therapy is a “reasonable alternative” to esophagectomy in cases of T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma in the presence of minimal invasion and good to moderate differentiation, particularly in patients who are poor candidates for surgery.
During the decision-making process, patients with dysplasia should be advised that not undergoing endoscopic therapy may increase cancer risk, the investigators wrote, adding that patients should also be informed about endoscopic therapy–related risks of bleeding and perforation, which occur in less than 1% of patients, and the risk of postprocedural stricture formation, which occurs in approximately 6% of patients.
If endoscopic therapy is elected, the update suggests that the procedure be done by experts who perform at least 10 new cases per year.
Concerning specifics of therapy, the investigators advised that mucosal ablation be applied to all visible esophageal columnar mucosa, 5-10 mm proximal to the squamocolumnar junction, and 5-10 mm distal to the gastroesophageal junction. Ablation should only be performed in cases of flat Barrett’s esophagus in which no visible abnormalities or signs of inflammation are present, the review team wrote.
The investigators went on to lay out some “practical ground rules” for endoscopic therapy, including a potential pitfall.
“Ablation therapy may consist of multiple 2-3 monthly ablation sessions that may extend over a period of more than a year,” the investigators wrote. “The worst adverse outcome during the treatment period is failing to recognize and treat an invasive cancer while continuing the ablation sessions. This occurrence may place the patient outside of the window of opportunity for curative endoscopic treatment. Therefore, every ablation session starts with careful endoscopic inspection using [high-definition white-light endoscopy] and preferably optical chromoendoscopy to exclude the presence of visible abnormalities that require an endoscopic resection instead of the scheduled ablation. Routine biopsies of flat Barrett’s esophagus are not necessary or recommended prior to ablation at these sessions, as the blood may inhibit optimal energy transfer to the tissue.”
Following successfully achieved complete endoscopic and histologic eradication of intestinal metaplasia, the update calls for surveillance endoscopy with biopsies at intervals of 1 and 3 years for cases of low-grade dysplasia and at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months for high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma, followed by annual checks thereafter.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Olympus, Ironwood, Erbe, and others.
SOURCE: Sharma P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.051.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
AGA publishes clinical practice guidelines for gastric intestinal metaplasia
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) recently published clinical practice guidelines for managing gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM).
The guidelines are the first of their kind to be published in the United States, according to lead author Samir Gupta, MD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues. The panelists suggested that the guidelines may help standardize decision making in a common clinical scenario.
“GIM has been considered as one specific marker to identify patients who might benefit from surveillance because it has been associated with increased risk for gastric cancer and is routinely encountered in clinical practice,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology.
The guideline panel was composed of three gastroenterologists, two guideline methodologist trainees, and three GRADE experts. Recommendations were based on the AGA guideline development process, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, best practices set forth by the Academy of Medicine, and a technical review.
“Given the paucity of robust direct data on GIM in the U.S., evidence from all regions of the world was considered relevant in the evidence-gathering phase,” the panelists wrote (Gastroenterology. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.12.003).
Based on available evidence, the expert panel developed three clinical recommendations.
First, the panelists recommended that clinicians test all patients with GIM for Helicobacter pylori, followed by eradication, over no testing and eradication. This recommendation was strong and based on moderate quality evidence from 22 studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials. These studies showed that, compared with placebo, eradication of H. pylori was associated with a 32% pooled relative risk reduction in gastric cancer and a 33% pooled relative risk reduction in gastric cancer mortality among patients with or without GIM. The pooled relative risk reduction rate was similar in analyses solely composed of individuals with GIM, the panelists noted, whereas mortality data restricted to individuals with GIM were lacking.
“Overall, the known strong association of H. pylori with risk for incident gastric cancer and the technical review’s findings, which reinforce the evidence of reduced risk for incident gastric cancer after H. pylori eradication, supports the AGA recommendation to test for and eradicate H. pylori,” the panelists wrote.
The second recommendation, which was conditional and based on very low quality evidence, advised against routine use of endoscopic surveillance for patients with GIM. Still, surveillance may be considered for patients with higher risk of gastric cancer, including those with incomplete and/or extensive GIM, a family history of gastric cancer, racial/ethnic minorities, and immigrants from high incidence regions, the panelists wrote.
“Although the technical review did not find evidence supporting increased risk for gastric cancer among racial/ethnic minorities or immigrants with documented GIM, an overall increased risk for gastric cancer (irrespective of presence/absence of GIM) has been established among these groups, and may be considered as part of decision making regarding surveillance,” the panelists wrote.
The third and final recommendation was also conditional and based on very weak evidence; the panelists recommended against routine short-interval repeat endoscopy for the purpose of risk stratification.
“The technical review found no direct evidence to support the impact of short-interval (less than 12 months) repeat upper endoscopy among patients with incidental GIM on patient-important outcomes,” the panelists wrote.
However, the guidelines note that patients with potentially elevated risk profiles, such as patients with a family history of gastric cancer, “may reasonably elect for repeat endoscopy within 1 year for risk stratification.”
Comparing these guidelines with those from other organizations, such as the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the panelists concluded that recommendations across organizations are “generally similar.”
Finally, the panelists outlined relevant knowledge gaps and pointed to future research topics. For instance, data are scarce comparing outcomes in relation to surveillance versus no surveillance among patients with GIM; and biomarkers such as pepsinogen levels, which are used in Asian countries for risk stratification of gastric cancer, have been studied minimally in the United States.
Guideline development was funded by the AGA. The panelists disclosed no conflicts of interest.
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) recently published clinical practice guidelines for managing gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM).
The guidelines are the first of their kind to be published in the United States, according to lead author Samir Gupta, MD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues. The panelists suggested that the guidelines may help standardize decision making in a common clinical scenario.
“GIM has been considered as one specific marker to identify patients who might benefit from surveillance because it has been associated with increased risk for gastric cancer and is routinely encountered in clinical practice,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology.
The guideline panel was composed of three gastroenterologists, two guideline methodologist trainees, and three GRADE experts. Recommendations were based on the AGA guideline development process, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, best practices set forth by the Academy of Medicine, and a technical review.
“Given the paucity of robust direct data on GIM in the U.S., evidence from all regions of the world was considered relevant in the evidence-gathering phase,” the panelists wrote (Gastroenterology. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.12.003).
Based on available evidence, the expert panel developed three clinical recommendations.
First, the panelists recommended that clinicians test all patients with GIM for Helicobacter pylori, followed by eradication, over no testing and eradication. This recommendation was strong and based on moderate quality evidence from 22 studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials. These studies showed that, compared with placebo, eradication of H. pylori was associated with a 32% pooled relative risk reduction in gastric cancer and a 33% pooled relative risk reduction in gastric cancer mortality among patients with or without GIM. The pooled relative risk reduction rate was similar in analyses solely composed of individuals with GIM, the panelists noted, whereas mortality data restricted to individuals with GIM were lacking.
“Overall, the known strong association of H. pylori with risk for incident gastric cancer and the technical review’s findings, which reinforce the evidence of reduced risk for incident gastric cancer after H. pylori eradication, supports the AGA recommendation to test for and eradicate H. pylori,” the panelists wrote.
The second recommendation, which was conditional and based on very low quality evidence, advised against routine use of endoscopic surveillance for patients with GIM. Still, surveillance may be considered for patients with higher risk of gastric cancer, including those with incomplete and/or extensive GIM, a family history of gastric cancer, racial/ethnic minorities, and immigrants from high incidence regions, the panelists wrote.
“Although the technical review did not find evidence supporting increased risk for gastric cancer among racial/ethnic minorities or immigrants with documented GIM, an overall increased risk for gastric cancer (irrespective of presence/absence of GIM) has been established among these groups, and may be considered as part of decision making regarding surveillance,” the panelists wrote.
The third and final recommendation was also conditional and based on very weak evidence; the panelists recommended against routine short-interval repeat endoscopy for the purpose of risk stratification.
“The technical review found no direct evidence to support the impact of short-interval (less than 12 months) repeat upper endoscopy among patients with incidental GIM on patient-important outcomes,” the panelists wrote.
However, the guidelines note that patients with potentially elevated risk profiles, such as patients with a family history of gastric cancer, “may reasonably elect for repeat endoscopy within 1 year for risk stratification.”
Comparing these guidelines with those from other organizations, such as the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the panelists concluded that recommendations across organizations are “generally similar.”
Finally, the panelists outlined relevant knowledge gaps and pointed to future research topics. For instance, data are scarce comparing outcomes in relation to surveillance versus no surveillance among patients with GIM; and biomarkers such as pepsinogen levels, which are used in Asian countries for risk stratification of gastric cancer, have been studied minimally in the United States.
Guideline development was funded by the AGA. The panelists disclosed no conflicts of interest.
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) recently published clinical practice guidelines for managing gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM).
The guidelines are the first of their kind to be published in the United States, according to lead author Samir Gupta, MD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues. The panelists suggested that the guidelines may help standardize decision making in a common clinical scenario.
“GIM has been considered as one specific marker to identify patients who might benefit from surveillance because it has been associated with increased risk for gastric cancer and is routinely encountered in clinical practice,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology.
The guideline panel was composed of three gastroenterologists, two guideline methodologist trainees, and three GRADE experts. Recommendations were based on the AGA guideline development process, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, best practices set forth by the Academy of Medicine, and a technical review.
“Given the paucity of robust direct data on GIM in the U.S., evidence from all regions of the world was considered relevant in the evidence-gathering phase,” the panelists wrote (Gastroenterology. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.12.003).
Based on available evidence, the expert panel developed three clinical recommendations.
First, the panelists recommended that clinicians test all patients with GIM for Helicobacter pylori, followed by eradication, over no testing and eradication. This recommendation was strong and based on moderate quality evidence from 22 studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials. These studies showed that, compared with placebo, eradication of H. pylori was associated with a 32% pooled relative risk reduction in gastric cancer and a 33% pooled relative risk reduction in gastric cancer mortality among patients with or without GIM. The pooled relative risk reduction rate was similar in analyses solely composed of individuals with GIM, the panelists noted, whereas mortality data restricted to individuals with GIM were lacking.
“Overall, the known strong association of H. pylori with risk for incident gastric cancer and the technical review’s findings, which reinforce the evidence of reduced risk for incident gastric cancer after H. pylori eradication, supports the AGA recommendation to test for and eradicate H. pylori,” the panelists wrote.
The second recommendation, which was conditional and based on very low quality evidence, advised against routine use of endoscopic surveillance for patients with GIM. Still, surveillance may be considered for patients with higher risk of gastric cancer, including those with incomplete and/or extensive GIM, a family history of gastric cancer, racial/ethnic minorities, and immigrants from high incidence regions, the panelists wrote.
“Although the technical review did not find evidence supporting increased risk for gastric cancer among racial/ethnic minorities or immigrants with documented GIM, an overall increased risk for gastric cancer (irrespective of presence/absence of GIM) has been established among these groups, and may be considered as part of decision making regarding surveillance,” the panelists wrote.
The third and final recommendation was also conditional and based on very weak evidence; the panelists recommended against routine short-interval repeat endoscopy for the purpose of risk stratification.
“The technical review found no direct evidence to support the impact of short-interval (less than 12 months) repeat upper endoscopy among patients with incidental GIM on patient-important outcomes,” the panelists wrote.
However, the guidelines note that patients with potentially elevated risk profiles, such as patients with a family history of gastric cancer, “may reasonably elect for repeat endoscopy within 1 year for risk stratification.”
Comparing these guidelines with those from other organizations, such as the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the panelists concluded that recommendations across organizations are “generally similar.”
Finally, the panelists outlined relevant knowledge gaps and pointed to future research topics. For instance, data are scarce comparing outcomes in relation to surveillance versus no surveillance among patients with GIM; and biomarkers such as pepsinogen levels, which are used in Asian countries for risk stratification of gastric cancer, have been studied minimally in the United States.
Guideline development was funded by the AGA. The panelists disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Fibrosis scoring systems have ‘modest’ predictive value in general population
Currently available fibrosis scoring systems appear to have only a modest predictive ability for development of severe liver disease in the general population, according to authors of a large, retrospective cohort study.
Of five noninvasive scoring systems evaluated, all did have high negative predictive value in the general population, according to authors of the study, which included data on more than 800,000 individuals in Sweden. However, their sensitivities were low, with most of the individuals who developed severe liver disease over a 10-year follow-up period initially classified as being at low risk for advanced fibrosis, according to the study authors, led by Hannes Hagström, MD, PhD, of the division of hepatology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.
The scoring systems tended to perform better in patients at higher risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) at baseline, suggesting the best use of the tools is in patients at increased risk or who have liver disease indications, Dr. Hagström and coauthors wrote in a report on the study.
“Although useful in populations with a high prevalence of advanced fibrosis, current scores lack precision for usage in the general population for which the prevalence of advanced fibrosis is much lower,” Dr. Hagström and colleagues said.
The scoring systems were derived from high-risk cohorts with liver diseases, the authors noted, stating that the disease prevalence in any given population will affect the performance of a test that’s intended to diagnose that specific disease.
“New and improved” scoring systems should be developed to more effectively pinpoint patients with NAFLD who are at higher risk of a severe liver event, they added in the report, which appears in Gastroenterology.
The population-based cohort study by Dr. Hagström and colleagues was based on data from 812,073 patients enrolled in the Swedish Apolipoprotein Mortality Risk (AMORIS) cohort between 1985 and 1996. Investigators said they excluded patients under 35 and over 79 years of age, patients with severe liver disease at baseline, and those with a prior diagnosis of alcohol or drug abuse.
Investigators used available data to calculate five scores, including the AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI); the body mass index, AST/ALT ratio, and diabetes (BARD) score; the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score; Forns Index; and NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS).
At baseline, 0.5%-8.0% of patients were considered to be at high risk for advanced fibrosis, depending on the test used, investigators said. With up to 10 years of follow-up, the proportion of individuals who developed severe liver diseases (cirrhosis, liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, or decompensated liver disease) was 0.3%-0.6%, and with the maximum 27 years of follow-up, the incidence ranged from 1.0% to 1.4%.
There was a “strong association” between baseline risk of fibrosis and development of severe liver diseases; however, the majority of cases occurred in patients deemed low risk at baseline, Dr. Hagström and colleagues noted in their report.
For example, 12.4% of individuals classified as high risk by APRI developed severe liver diseases over 10 years, compared to just 0.4% of the low-risk group, yet out of 723 cases, 502 (69%) occurred in the low-risk patients, the data show.
Hazard ratios did increase with risk level, and at the high-risk level, adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.5) for the high-risk BARD patients to 45.9 (95% CI, 36.1-58.3) for the high-risk APRI patients, investigators reported.
Taken together, results of this study demonstrate that the performance of all scores was low in an unselected population, according to investigators.
Of all tests, APRI was least likely to falsely classify patients who never developed severe liver diseases and had an intermediate-risk group of 4%, the lowest of any test, which are findings that may have implications for routine primary care, according to investigators.
“APRI could be the currently best score to exclude a high risk of liver-related events in the near future, and thereby reduce unnecessary testing in a general population,” they said in a discussion of their results.
The study was supported by an independent grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Hagström reported disclosures related to that company, as well as Novo Nordisk, Gilead Sciences, IQVIA, Intercept, and Bristol Myers-Squibb.
SOURCE: Hagström H et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.008.
Currently available fibrosis scoring systems appear to have only a modest predictive ability for development of severe liver disease in the general population, according to authors of a large, retrospective cohort study.
Of five noninvasive scoring systems evaluated, all did have high negative predictive value in the general population, according to authors of the study, which included data on more than 800,000 individuals in Sweden. However, their sensitivities were low, with most of the individuals who developed severe liver disease over a 10-year follow-up period initially classified as being at low risk for advanced fibrosis, according to the study authors, led by Hannes Hagström, MD, PhD, of the division of hepatology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.
The scoring systems tended to perform better in patients at higher risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) at baseline, suggesting the best use of the tools is in patients at increased risk or who have liver disease indications, Dr. Hagström and coauthors wrote in a report on the study.
“Although useful in populations with a high prevalence of advanced fibrosis, current scores lack precision for usage in the general population for which the prevalence of advanced fibrosis is much lower,” Dr. Hagström and colleagues said.
The scoring systems were derived from high-risk cohorts with liver diseases, the authors noted, stating that the disease prevalence in any given population will affect the performance of a test that’s intended to diagnose that specific disease.
“New and improved” scoring systems should be developed to more effectively pinpoint patients with NAFLD who are at higher risk of a severe liver event, they added in the report, which appears in Gastroenterology.
The population-based cohort study by Dr. Hagström and colleagues was based on data from 812,073 patients enrolled in the Swedish Apolipoprotein Mortality Risk (AMORIS) cohort between 1985 and 1996. Investigators said they excluded patients under 35 and over 79 years of age, patients with severe liver disease at baseline, and those with a prior diagnosis of alcohol or drug abuse.
Investigators used available data to calculate five scores, including the AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI); the body mass index, AST/ALT ratio, and diabetes (BARD) score; the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score; Forns Index; and NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS).
At baseline, 0.5%-8.0% of patients were considered to be at high risk for advanced fibrosis, depending on the test used, investigators said. With up to 10 years of follow-up, the proportion of individuals who developed severe liver diseases (cirrhosis, liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, or decompensated liver disease) was 0.3%-0.6%, and with the maximum 27 years of follow-up, the incidence ranged from 1.0% to 1.4%.
There was a “strong association” between baseline risk of fibrosis and development of severe liver diseases; however, the majority of cases occurred in patients deemed low risk at baseline, Dr. Hagström and colleagues noted in their report.
For example, 12.4% of individuals classified as high risk by APRI developed severe liver diseases over 10 years, compared to just 0.4% of the low-risk group, yet out of 723 cases, 502 (69%) occurred in the low-risk patients, the data show.
Hazard ratios did increase with risk level, and at the high-risk level, adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.5) for the high-risk BARD patients to 45.9 (95% CI, 36.1-58.3) for the high-risk APRI patients, investigators reported.
Taken together, results of this study demonstrate that the performance of all scores was low in an unselected population, according to investigators.
Of all tests, APRI was least likely to falsely classify patients who never developed severe liver diseases and had an intermediate-risk group of 4%, the lowest of any test, which are findings that may have implications for routine primary care, according to investigators.
“APRI could be the currently best score to exclude a high risk of liver-related events in the near future, and thereby reduce unnecessary testing in a general population,” they said in a discussion of their results.
The study was supported by an independent grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Hagström reported disclosures related to that company, as well as Novo Nordisk, Gilead Sciences, IQVIA, Intercept, and Bristol Myers-Squibb.
SOURCE: Hagström H et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.008.
Currently available fibrosis scoring systems appear to have only a modest predictive ability for development of severe liver disease in the general population, according to authors of a large, retrospective cohort study.
Of five noninvasive scoring systems evaluated, all did have high negative predictive value in the general population, according to authors of the study, which included data on more than 800,000 individuals in Sweden. However, their sensitivities were low, with most of the individuals who developed severe liver disease over a 10-year follow-up period initially classified as being at low risk for advanced fibrosis, according to the study authors, led by Hannes Hagström, MD, PhD, of the division of hepatology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm.
The scoring systems tended to perform better in patients at higher risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) at baseline, suggesting the best use of the tools is in patients at increased risk or who have liver disease indications, Dr. Hagström and coauthors wrote in a report on the study.
“Although useful in populations with a high prevalence of advanced fibrosis, current scores lack precision for usage in the general population for which the prevalence of advanced fibrosis is much lower,” Dr. Hagström and colleagues said.
The scoring systems were derived from high-risk cohorts with liver diseases, the authors noted, stating that the disease prevalence in any given population will affect the performance of a test that’s intended to diagnose that specific disease.
“New and improved” scoring systems should be developed to more effectively pinpoint patients with NAFLD who are at higher risk of a severe liver event, they added in the report, which appears in Gastroenterology.
The population-based cohort study by Dr. Hagström and colleagues was based on data from 812,073 patients enrolled in the Swedish Apolipoprotein Mortality Risk (AMORIS) cohort between 1985 and 1996. Investigators said they excluded patients under 35 and over 79 years of age, patients with severe liver disease at baseline, and those with a prior diagnosis of alcohol or drug abuse.
Investigators used available data to calculate five scores, including the AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI); the body mass index, AST/ALT ratio, and diabetes (BARD) score; the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score; Forns Index; and NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS).
At baseline, 0.5%-8.0% of patients were considered to be at high risk for advanced fibrosis, depending on the test used, investigators said. With up to 10 years of follow-up, the proportion of individuals who developed severe liver diseases (cirrhosis, liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, or decompensated liver disease) was 0.3%-0.6%, and with the maximum 27 years of follow-up, the incidence ranged from 1.0% to 1.4%.
There was a “strong association” between baseline risk of fibrosis and development of severe liver diseases; however, the majority of cases occurred in patients deemed low risk at baseline, Dr. Hagström and colleagues noted in their report.
For example, 12.4% of individuals classified as high risk by APRI developed severe liver diseases over 10 years, compared to just 0.4% of the low-risk group, yet out of 723 cases, 502 (69%) occurred in the low-risk patients, the data show.
Hazard ratios did increase with risk level, and at the high-risk level, adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.5) for the high-risk BARD patients to 45.9 (95% CI, 36.1-58.3) for the high-risk APRI patients, investigators reported.
Taken together, results of this study demonstrate that the performance of all scores was low in an unselected population, according to investigators.
Of all tests, APRI was least likely to falsely classify patients who never developed severe liver diseases and had an intermediate-risk group of 4%, the lowest of any test, which are findings that may have implications for routine primary care, according to investigators.
“APRI could be the currently best score to exclude a high risk of liver-related events in the near future, and thereby reduce unnecessary testing in a general population,” they said in a discussion of their results.
The study was supported by an independent grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Hagström reported disclosures related to that company, as well as Novo Nordisk, Gilead Sciences, IQVIA, Intercept, and Bristol Myers-Squibb.
SOURCE: Hagström H et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.008.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
UC: Tofacitinib tied to modest, reversible lipid increases, infrequent CV events
according to results of an analysis including more than 1,000 patients.
Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were “infrequent” following treatment, according to the authors of the analysis, with an incidence rate similar to what has been reported for tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis and for other agents in ulcerative colitis.
That said, the period of observation in the analysis is “relatively short,” and so may not provide an accurate risk estimate for MACE, noted the investigators, led by Bruce E. Sands, MD, of the division of gastroenterology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“Longer-term studies, involving a larger number of patients, will be needed to further assess MACE risk in patients with ulcerative colitis,” Dr. Sands and coinvestigators wrote in their report on the observational analysis, which appears in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
“It is noteworthy that no increase in MACE risk and no dose relationship with tofacitinib have been observed in a larger rheumatoid arthritis cohort with over 8.5 years of observation and more than 19,000 patient-years of collective exposure,” they continued.
The present analysis included 1,157 patients with ulcerative colitis who participated in 8-week phase 2 and 3 tofacitinib induction studies, a phase 3 maintenance study, and a long-term extension study that is ongoing.
Reversible and dose-dependent increases in both LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol were observed after 8 weeks of treatment with tofacitinib at the recommended induction dose of 10 mg twice daily, the investigators found.
Increases in LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol correlated with decreases in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, suggesting any potential impact of lipid increases on cardiovascular events might be offset by reduced inflammation, according to the investigators.
“Previous studies in RA and inflammatory bowel disease have shown an inverse relationship between active inflammation and serum lipid profiles, suggesting that inflammation lowers lipid concentrations, and that treatment of the underlying inflammatory disease may, therefore, increase them,” Dr. Sands and colleagues wrote.
The lipid changes also correlated with increases in body mass index, possibly because of better nutrition, reduced protein loss, and less catabolism following tofacitinib treatment, along with the corticosteroid taper required in these studies of the drug, they added.
Lipid increases generally stayed elevated through 61 weeks of treatment, while in patients randomized to placebo after 8 weeks of tofacitinib treatment, lipid levels fell back toward baseline, which suggests a reversal of the increases after tofacitinib withdrawal, the investigators wrote.
A total of 4 MACEs were seen among the 1,157 patients in the analysis, for an incidence rate of 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.62), according to the report. Those events included an acute coronary syndrome, an MI, an aortic dissection, and a hemorrhagic stroke. All four occurred in tofacitinib-treated patients, though the investigators noted that the aortic dissection and hemorrhagic stroke are events typically associated with genetics or other nonlipid factors.
In any case, that MACE incidence rate was “similar” to infliximab (Remicade) for what has been observed in tumor necrosis factor antagonist treatment of ulcerative colitis within a U.S. claims database study. In that analysis, including patients treated with infliximab, golimumab, and adalimumab, the incidence rate was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.31-0.79), the investigators noted.
These findings, taken together, support recommendations in tofacitinib prescribing information that call for monitoring of lipid concentrations 4-8 weeks after treatment is started, according to Dr. Sands and coauthors.
Funding for the study came from Pfizer. The study authors disclosed potential conflicts of interest related to Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MedImmune (AstraZeneca), Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Prometheus Laboratories, Takeda, and 4D Pharma, among others.
SOURCE: Sands BE et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May 8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.04.059.
Tofacitinib has several well-described effects on lipid metabolism, increasing levels of LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol. The clinical consequences of these lipid changes remains uncertain in ulcerative colitis (UC), for which there may be an increased risk of cardiovascular events.
In this study, Sands and colleagues used the largest cohort to date to quantify the effect of tofacitinib-associated lipid profile changes, their association with inflammatory markers, and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Using pooled data from multiple controlled, open-label studies of tofacitinib in UC, the authors appreciated a significant association between the rise in HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol levels and declines in C-reactive protein. They noted only four MACEs, an incidence rate similar to that seen in prior anti–tumor necrosis factor trials, and no change in a commonly used risk score for cardiovascular events.
These results are an important initial step in quantifying the cardiovascular risk associated with tofacitinib, but should be interpreted with caution. A significant proportion of individuals evaluated were from induction studies, with only 8 weeks of exposure. Only one dose of tofacitinib was required for inclusion. The median age in the OCTAVE trials, which contributed the majority of the data for this cohort, was only 41 years, and the baseline cardiovascular risk was low. While these data and rheumatologic literature are reassuring, further research with longitudinal follow-up, the assessment of time-varying exposures, and stratification by baseline cardiovascular risk will be required to better understand the association between tofacitinib and MACEs.
Frank I. Scott, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of medicine, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, codirector of clinical research/DART, director of GI fellowship research, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. He has received research funding and consulting fees from Takeda, and Janssen, and consulting fees from Merck.
Tofacitinib has several well-described effects on lipid metabolism, increasing levels of LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol. The clinical consequences of these lipid changes remains uncertain in ulcerative colitis (UC), for which there may be an increased risk of cardiovascular events.
In this study, Sands and colleagues used the largest cohort to date to quantify the effect of tofacitinib-associated lipid profile changes, their association with inflammatory markers, and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Using pooled data from multiple controlled, open-label studies of tofacitinib in UC, the authors appreciated a significant association between the rise in HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol levels and declines in C-reactive protein. They noted only four MACEs, an incidence rate similar to that seen in prior anti–tumor necrosis factor trials, and no change in a commonly used risk score for cardiovascular events.
These results are an important initial step in quantifying the cardiovascular risk associated with tofacitinib, but should be interpreted with caution. A significant proportion of individuals evaluated were from induction studies, with only 8 weeks of exposure. Only one dose of tofacitinib was required for inclusion. The median age in the OCTAVE trials, which contributed the majority of the data for this cohort, was only 41 years, and the baseline cardiovascular risk was low. While these data and rheumatologic literature are reassuring, further research with longitudinal follow-up, the assessment of time-varying exposures, and stratification by baseline cardiovascular risk will be required to better understand the association between tofacitinib and MACEs.
Frank I. Scott, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of medicine, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, codirector of clinical research/DART, director of GI fellowship research, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. He has received research funding and consulting fees from Takeda, and Janssen, and consulting fees from Merck.
Tofacitinib has several well-described effects on lipid metabolism, increasing levels of LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol. The clinical consequences of these lipid changes remains uncertain in ulcerative colitis (UC), for which there may be an increased risk of cardiovascular events.
In this study, Sands and colleagues used the largest cohort to date to quantify the effect of tofacitinib-associated lipid profile changes, their association with inflammatory markers, and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Using pooled data from multiple controlled, open-label studies of tofacitinib in UC, the authors appreciated a significant association between the rise in HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol levels and declines in C-reactive protein. They noted only four MACEs, an incidence rate similar to that seen in prior anti–tumor necrosis factor trials, and no change in a commonly used risk score for cardiovascular events.
These results are an important initial step in quantifying the cardiovascular risk associated with tofacitinib, but should be interpreted with caution. A significant proportion of individuals evaluated were from induction studies, with only 8 weeks of exposure. Only one dose of tofacitinib was required for inclusion. The median age in the OCTAVE trials, which contributed the majority of the data for this cohort, was only 41 years, and the baseline cardiovascular risk was low. While these data and rheumatologic literature are reassuring, further research with longitudinal follow-up, the assessment of time-varying exposures, and stratification by baseline cardiovascular risk will be required to better understand the association between tofacitinib and MACEs.
Frank I. Scott, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of medicine, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, codirector of clinical research/DART, director of GI fellowship research, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. He has received research funding and consulting fees from Takeda, and Janssen, and consulting fees from Merck.
according to results of an analysis including more than 1,000 patients.
Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were “infrequent” following treatment, according to the authors of the analysis, with an incidence rate similar to what has been reported for tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis and for other agents in ulcerative colitis.
That said, the period of observation in the analysis is “relatively short,” and so may not provide an accurate risk estimate for MACE, noted the investigators, led by Bruce E. Sands, MD, of the division of gastroenterology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“Longer-term studies, involving a larger number of patients, will be needed to further assess MACE risk in patients with ulcerative colitis,” Dr. Sands and coinvestigators wrote in their report on the observational analysis, which appears in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
“It is noteworthy that no increase in MACE risk and no dose relationship with tofacitinib have been observed in a larger rheumatoid arthritis cohort with over 8.5 years of observation and more than 19,000 patient-years of collective exposure,” they continued.
The present analysis included 1,157 patients with ulcerative colitis who participated in 8-week phase 2 and 3 tofacitinib induction studies, a phase 3 maintenance study, and a long-term extension study that is ongoing.
Reversible and dose-dependent increases in both LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol were observed after 8 weeks of treatment with tofacitinib at the recommended induction dose of 10 mg twice daily, the investigators found.
Increases in LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol correlated with decreases in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, suggesting any potential impact of lipid increases on cardiovascular events might be offset by reduced inflammation, according to the investigators.
“Previous studies in RA and inflammatory bowel disease have shown an inverse relationship between active inflammation and serum lipid profiles, suggesting that inflammation lowers lipid concentrations, and that treatment of the underlying inflammatory disease may, therefore, increase them,” Dr. Sands and colleagues wrote.
The lipid changes also correlated with increases in body mass index, possibly because of better nutrition, reduced protein loss, and less catabolism following tofacitinib treatment, along with the corticosteroid taper required in these studies of the drug, they added.
Lipid increases generally stayed elevated through 61 weeks of treatment, while in patients randomized to placebo after 8 weeks of tofacitinib treatment, lipid levels fell back toward baseline, which suggests a reversal of the increases after tofacitinib withdrawal, the investigators wrote.
A total of 4 MACEs were seen among the 1,157 patients in the analysis, for an incidence rate of 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.62), according to the report. Those events included an acute coronary syndrome, an MI, an aortic dissection, and a hemorrhagic stroke. All four occurred in tofacitinib-treated patients, though the investigators noted that the aortic dissection and hemorrhagic stroke are events typically associated with genetics or other nonlipid factors.
In any case, that MACE incidence rate was “similar” to infliximab (Remicade) for what has been observed in tumor necrosis factor antagonist treatment of ulcerative colitis within a U.S. claims database study. In that analysis, including patients treated with infliximab, golimumab, and adalimumab, the incidence rate was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.31-0.79), the investigators noted.
These findings, taken together, support recommendations in tofacitinib prescribing information that call for monitoring of lipid concentrations 4-8 weeks after treatment is started, according to Dr. Sands and coauthors.
Funding for the study came from Pfizer. The study authors disclosed potential conflicts of interest related to Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MedImmune (AstraZeneca), Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Prometheus Laboratories, Takeda, and 4D Pharma, among others.
SOURCE: Sands BE et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May 8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.04.059.
according to results of an analysis including more than 1,000 patients.
Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were “infrequent” following treatment, according to the authors of the analysis, with an incidence rate similar to what has been reported for tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis and for other agents in ulcerative colitis.
That said, the period of observation in the analysis is “relatively short,” and so may not provide an accurate risk estimate for MACE, noted the investigators, led by Bruce E. Sands, MD, of the division of gastroenterology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“Longer-term studies, involving a larger number of patients, will be needed to further assess MACE risk in patients with ulcerative colitis,” Dr. Sands and coinvestigators wrote in their report on the observational analysis, which appears in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
“It is noteworthy that no increase in MACE risk and no dose relationship with tofacitinib have been observed in a larger rheumatoid arthritis cohort with over 8.5 years of observation and more than 19,000 patient-years of collective exposure,” they continued.
The present analysis included 1,157 patients with ulcerative colitis who participated in 8-week phase 2 and 3 tofacitinib induction studies, a phase 3 maintenance study, and a long-term extension study that is ongoing.
Reversible and dose-dependent increases in both LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol were observed after 8 weeks of treatment with tofacitinib at the recommended induction dose of 10 mg twice daily, the investigators found.
Increases in LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol correlated with decreases in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, suggesting any potential impact of lipid increases on cardiovascular events might be offset by reduced inflammation, according to the investigators.
“Previous studies in RA and inflammatory bowel disease have shown an inverse relationship between active inflammation and serum lipid profiles, suggesting that inflammation lowers lipid concentrations, and that treatment of the underlying inflammatory disease may, therefore, increase them,” Dr. Sands and colleagues wrote.
The lipid changes also correlated with increases in body mass index, possibly because of better nutrition, reduced protein loss, and less catabolism following tofacitinib treatment, along with the corticosteroid taper required in these studies of the drug, they added.
Lipid increases generally stayed elevated through 61 weeks of treatment, while in patients randomized to placebo after 8 weeks of tofacitinib treatment, lipid levels fell back toward baseline, which suggests a reversal of the increases after tofacitinib withdrawal, the investigators wrote.
A total of 4 MACEs were seen among the 1,157 patients in the analysis, for an incidence rate of 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.62), according to the report. Those events included an acute coronary syndrome, an MI, an aortic dissection, and a hemorrhagic stroke. All four occurred in tofacitinib-treated patients, though the investigators noted that the aortic dissection and hemorrhagic stroke are events typically associated with genetics or other nonlipid factors.
In any case, that MACE incidence rate was “similar” to infliximab (Remicade) for what has been observed in tumor necrosis factor antagonist treatment of ulcerative colitis within a U.S. claims database study. In that analysis, including patients treated with infliximab, golimumab, and adalimumab, the incidence rate was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.31-0.79), the investigators noted.
These findings, taken together, support recommendations in tofacitinib prescribing information that call for monitoring of lipid concentrations 4-8 weeks after treatment is started, according to Dr. Sands and coauthors.
Funding for the study came from Pfizer. The study authors disclosed potential conflicts of interest related to Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MedImmune (AstraZeneca), Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Prometheus Laboratories, Takeda, and 4D Pharma, among others.
SOURCE: Sands BE et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May 8. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.04.059.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY