Conference Coverage

AURORA, COLO. – Long-term use of ozanimod for multiple sclerosis (MS) was well-tolerated across multiple age groups, though risk of certain infections and other treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) did increase with age, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Research from the phase 3 DAYBREAK trial had already shown the safety of ozanimod, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an oral disease-modifying therapy for relapsing forms of MS in 2020.

“In the DAYBREAK study, we already have shown that the clinical and radiological disease was quite low in these patients who received the higher dose of ozanimod, and those who switched from the lower dose of the interferon to this active treatment also had decreases in their annualized relapse rate and their MRI lesion counts,” Sarah Morrow, MD, associate professor of neurology at Western University in London, Ontario, told attendees. She presented the data on behalf of senior author Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and clinical research director at the University of California, San Francisco, Multiple Sclerosis Center, and the other authors. “But what was not known was whether there’s a difference in efficacy based on age, and we know that disease activity can differ based on age in person with relapsing multiple sclerosis.”
 

Examining efficacy by age

Analysis of data from DAYBREAK and an open-label extension study revealed that respiratory infections were more common in patients younger than 35, and urinary tract infections, dizziness, and treatment-emergent depressive symptoms became were common in patients age 50 and older. “Serious infections did not vary by age, and there were too few serious events to identify any age-related trends by specific TEAE,” the authors reported. During the open-label extension of the study, no new adverse events emerged, “confirming the ozanimod safety profile reported in the parent trials,” SUNBEAM and RADIANCE, the authors reported.

The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a to 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over 1 week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for approximately 5 years of follow-up. The researchers then analyzed TEAEs, serious adverse events, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation in four age categories: 18-25, 26-35, 36-49, and 50 and older.

Respiratory infections occurred more often in those aged 18-25 (10.9%) and 26-35 (6.1%) than in those 36-49 (5.8%) and 50 and older (3.4%). However, UTIs occurred most in those age 50 and older (9.2%), versus occurring in 6.6% of those 36-49, 4.3% of those aged 26-35, and 4.6% of those 18-25.

High cholesterol occurred significantly less often in those 18-25 (1.4%) and 26-35 (2%) than in those 36-49 (5%) and 50 and older (8%), and hypertension showed a similar pattern: 2% in the youngest group, 4.7% in those aged 26-35, 12.8% in those aged 36-49, and 16.7% in those aged 50 and older.

Other TEAEs that occurred more often in older patients included depression/depressive symptoms, dizziness, back pain, joint pain, osteoarthritis, and high gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels. Overall cardiac and vascular disorders and malignancies were also more common as participants’ age increased.
 

Bigger concerns?

The increase in malignancy risk by age surprised Shailee Shah, MD, assistant professor of neuroimmunology and neurology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research. This increase in risk was “not expanded upon much in this abstract or compared to population estimates, as this may ultimately be one of the bigger concerns with long-term use of this drug,” Dr. Shah said.

She further noted that “older patients may be at higher risk of infections and multiple cardiovascular risk factors, and so if patients already have comorbid disease, I may be less inclined to use this agent and likely less so in older individuals.”

Dr. Shah said these drugs are often recommended to individuals in their 20s and 30s at time of diagnosis. “If a patient is given this drug and tolerates it and finds it efficacious, we might continue this indefinitely, so looking at how the risk profile of young patients on this drug changes over time will be important,” Dr. Shah said. “I am also concerned about the malignancy risk and would want this elaborated upon.”
 

Overall efficacy across age groups

Serious infections occurred at relatively similar rates across all age groups. Incidence of any serious adverse event was 27 per 1,000 people per year in the youngest group compared with 24 events in the 26-35 group, 35 events in the 36-49 group, and 62 events per 1,000 people per year in those 50 and older.

“Patients in the 50 and older age group had a numerically lower adjusted annualized relapse rate and less gadolinium-enhancing lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions per scan and were generally more likely to be free of gadolinium-enhancing lesions or new or enlarging T2 lesions than the 25 and younger age group,” Dr. Morrow told attendees, “but we feel that that’s more in keeping with the natural history of disease. And, overall, ozanimod, regardless of the age group, showed decreasing disease activity in the inflammatory part of disease, showing with annualized relapse rate, gad-enhancing lesions, and T2 lesions.”

Older participants were substantially more likely to withdraw from the trial because of adverse events. While 8% of the youngest group and 7.6% of participants aged 26-35 withdrew because of adverse events, 24.5% of those aged 36-49 and 18.5% of those aged 50 and older withdrew because of adverse events.

Dr. Shah said it was reassuring that no new safety signals emerged, “but based on this data, you would be concerned that long-term risk of cardiovascular disease may result in more serious adverse events over a longer period of time and will need to be considered as we see people increasingly on this drug.”

The research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors reported a wide range of financial disclosures, including personal fees, research funding, advisory board, and speakers fees, for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, and five authors are employees and/or shareholders of the company. Dr. Shah has served on advisory boards for Alexion, Genentech, and Horizon.

AURORA, COLO. – Long-term use of ozanimod for multiple sclerosis (MS) was well-tolerated across multiple age groups, though risk of certain infections and other treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) did increase with age, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Research from the phase 3 DAYBREAK trial had already shown the safety of ozanimod, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an oral disease-modifying therapy for relapsing forms of MS in 2020.

“In the DAYBREAK study, we already have shown that the clinical and radiological disease was quite low in these patients who received the higher dose of ozanimod, and those who switched from the lower dose of the interferon to this active treatment also had decreases in their annualized relapse rate and their MRI lesion counts,” Sarah Morrow, MD, associate professor of neurology at Western University in London, Ontario, told attendees. She presented the data on behalf of senior author Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and clinical research director at the University of California, San Francisco, Multiple Sclerosis Center, and the other authors. “But what was not known was whether there’s a difference in efficacy based on age, and we know that disease activity can differ based on age in person with relapsing multiple sclerosis.”
 

Examining efficacy by age

Analysis of data from DAYBREAK and an open-label extension study revealed that respiratory infections were more common in patients younger than 35, and urinary tract infections, dizziness, and treatment-emergent depressive symptoms became were common in patients age 50 and older. “Serious infections did not vary by age, and there were too few serious events to identify any age-related trends by specific TEAE,” the authors reported. During the open-label extension of the study, no new adverse events emerged, “confirming the ozanimod safety profile reported in the parent trials,” SUNBEAM and RADIANCE, the authors reported.

The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a to 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over 1 week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for approximately 5 years of follow-up. The researchers then analyzed TEAEs, serious adverse events, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation in four age categories: 18-25, 26-35, 36-49, and 50 and older.

Respiratory infections occurred more often in those aged 18-25 (10.9%) and 26-35 (6.1%) than in those 36-49 (5.8%) and 50 and older (3.4%). However, UTIs occurred most in those age 50 and older (9.2%), versus occurring in 6.6% of those 36-49, 4.3% of those aged 26-35, and 4.6% of those 18-25.

High cholesterol occurred significantly less often in those 18-25 (1.4%) and 26-35 (2%) than in those 36-49 (5%) and 50 and older (8%), and hypertension showed a similar pattern: 2% in the youngest group, 4.7% in those aged 26-35, 12.8% in those aged 36-49, and 16.7% in those aged 50 and older.

Other TEAEs that occurred more often in older patients included depression/depressive symptoms, dizziness, back pain, joint pain, osteoarthritis, and high gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels. Overall cardiac and vascular disorders and malignancies were also more common as participants’ age increased.
 

Bigger concerns?

The increase in malignancy risk by age surprised Shailee Shah, MD, assistant professor of neuroimmunology and neurology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research. This increase in risk was “not expanded upon much in this abstract or compared to population estimates, as this may ultimately be one of the bigger concerns with long-term use of this drug,” Dr. Shah said.

She further noted that “older patients may be at higher risk of infections and multiple cardiovascular risk factors, and so if patients already have comorbid disease, I may be less inclined to use this agent and likely less so in older individuals.”

Dr. Shah said these drugs are often recommended to individuals in their 20s and 30s at time of diagnosis. “If a patient is given this drug and tolerates it and finds it efficacious, we might continue this indefinitely, so looking at how the risk profile of young patients on this drug changes over time will be important,” Dr. Shah said. “I am also concerned about the malignancy risk and would want this elaborated upon.”
 

Overall efficacy across age groups

Serious infections occurred at relatively similar rates across all age groups. Incidence of any serious adverse event was 27 per 1,000 people per year in the youngest group compared with 24 events in the 26-35 group, 35 events in the 36-49 group, and 62 events per 1,000 people per year in those 50 and older.

“Patients in the 50 and older age group had a numerically lower adjusted annualized relapse rate and less gadolinium-enhancing lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions per scan and were generally more likely to be free of gadolinium-enhancing lesions or new or enlarging T2 lesions than the 25 and younger age group,” Dr. Morrow told attendees, “but we feel that that’s more in keeping with the natural history of disease. And, overall, ozanimod, regardless of the age group, showed decreasing disease activity in the inflammatory part of disease, showing with annualized relapse rate, gad-enhancing lesions, and T2 lesions.”

Older participants were substantially more likely to withdraw from the trial because of adverse events. While 8% of the youngest group and 7.6% of participants aged 26-35 withdrew because of adverse events, 24.5% of those aged 36-49 and 18.5% of those aged 50 and older withdrew because of adverse events.

Dr. Shah said it was reassuring that no new safety signals emerged, “but based on this data, you would be concerned that long-term risk of cardiovascular disease may result in more serious adverse events over a longer period of time and will need to be considered as we see people increasingly on this drug.”

The research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors reported a wide range of financial disclosures, including personal fees, research funding, advisory board, and speakers fees, for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, and five authors are employees and/or shareholders of the company. Dr. Shah has served on advisory boards for Alexion, Genentech, and Horizon.

AURORA, COLO. – Long-term use of ozanimod for multiple sclerosis (MS) was well-tolerated across multiple age groups, though risk of certain infections and other treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) did increase with age, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

Research from the phase 3 DAYBREAK trial had already shown the safety of ozanimod, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an oral disease-modifying therapy for relapsing forms of MS in 2020.

“In the DAYBREAK study, we already have shown that the clinical and radiological disease was quite low in these patients who received the higher dose of ozanimod, and those who switched from the lower dose of the interferon to this active treatment also had decreases in their annualized relapse rate and their MRI lesion counts,” Sarah Morrow, MD, associate professor of neurology at Western University in London, Ontario, told attendees. She presented the data on behalf of senior author Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and clinical research director at the University of California, San Francisco, Multiple Sclerosis Center, and the other authors. “But what was not known was whether there’s a difference in efficacy based on age, and we know that disease activity can differ based on age in person with relapsing multiple sclerosis.”
 

Examining efficacy by age

Analysis of data from DAYBREAK and an open-label extension study revealed that respiratory infections were more common in patients younger than 35, and urinary tract infections, dizziness, and treatment-emergent depressive symptoms became were common in patients age 50 and older. “Serious infections did not vary by age, and there were too few serious events to identify any age-related trends by specific TEAE,” the authors reported. During the open-label extension of the study, no new adverse events emerged, “confirming the ozanimod safety profile reported in the parent trials,” SUNBEAM and RADIANCE, the authors reported.

The phase 3 parent trials compared 30 mcg once weekly of intramuscular interferon beta-1a to 0.92 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod and 0.46 mg of once-daily oral ozanimod. In the DAYBREAK open-label extension, 2,256 participants underwent a dose escalation over 1 week until all reached 0.92 mg of ozanimod, where they remained for approximately 5 years of follow-up. The researchers then analyzed TEAEs, serious adverse events, and TEAEs leading to discontinuation in four age categories: 18-25, 26-35, 36-49, and 50 and older.

Respiratory infections occurred more often in those aged 18-25 (10.9%) and 26-35 (6.1%) than in those 36-49 (5.8%) and 50 and older (3.4%). However, UTIs occurred most in those age 50 and older (9.2%), versus occurring in 6.6% of those 36-49, 4.3% of those aged 26-35, and 4.6% of those 18-25.

High cholesterol occurred significantly less often in those 18-25 (1.4%) and 26-35 (2%) than in those 36-49 (5%) and 50 and older (8%), and hypertension showed a similar pattern: 2% in the youngest group, 4.7% in those aged 26-35, 12.8% in those aged 36-49, and 16.7% in those aged 50 and older.

Other TEAEs that occurred more often in older patients included depression/depressive symptoms, dizziness, back pain, joint pain, osteoarthritis, and high gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels. Overall cardiac and vascular disorders and malignancies were also more common as participants’ age increased.
 

Bigger concerns?

The increase in malignancy risk by age surprised Shailee Shah, MD, assistant professor of neuroimmunology and neurology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research. This increase in risk was “not expanded upon much in this abstract or compared to population estimates, as this may ultimately be one of the bigger concerns with long-term use of this drug,” Dr. Shah said.

She further noted that “older patients may be at higher risk of infections and multiple cardiovascular risk factors, and so if patients already have comorbid disease, I may be less inclined to use this agent and likely less so in older individuals.”

Dr. Shah said these drugs are often recommended to individuals in their 20s and 30s at time of diagnosis. “If a patient is given this drug and tolerates it and finds it efficacious, we might continue this indefinitely, so looking at how the risk profile of young patients on this drug changes over time will be important,” Dr. Shah said. “I am also concerned about the malignancy risk and would want this elaborated upon.”
 

Overall efficacy across age groups

Serious infections occurred at relatively similar rates across all age groups. Incidence of any serious adverse event was 27 per 1,000 people per year in the youngest group compared with 24 events in the 26-35 group, 35 events in the 36-49 group, and 62 events per 1,000 people per year in those 50 and older.

“Patients in the 50 and older age group had a numerically lower adjusted annualized relapse rate and less gadolinium-enhancing lesions and new or enlarging T2 lesions per scan and were generally more likely to be free of gadolinium-enhancing lesions or new or enlarging T2 lesions than the 25 and younger age group,” Dr. Morrow told attendees, “but we feel that that’s more in keeping with the natural history of disease. And, overall, ozanimod, regardless of the age group, showed decreasing disease activity in the inflammatory part of disease, showing with annualized relapse rate, gad-enhancing lesions, and T2 lesions.”

Older participants were substantially more likely to withdraw from the trial because of adverse events. While 8% of the youngest group and 7.6% of participants aged 26-35 withdrew because of adverse events, 24.5% of those aged 36-49 and 18.5% of those aged 50 and older withdrew because of adverse events.

Dr. Shah said it was reassuring that no new safety signals emerged, “but based on this data, you would be concerned that long-term risk of cardiovascular disease may result in more serious adverse events over a longer period of time and will need to be considered as we see people increasingly on this drug.”

The research was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors reported a wide range of financial disclosures, including personal fees, research funding, advisory board, and speakers fees, for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, and five authors are employees and/or shareholders of the company. Dr. Shah has served on advisory boards for Alexion, Genentech, and Horizon.

Milan – Clinical trial and registry data comparisons between patients with rheumatoid arthritis who take Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) such as tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) continue to contribute to a better understanding of their efficacy and cardiovascular safety profile, based on presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Tofacitinib vs. TNFi efficacy with or without history of atherosclerotic CVD

The efficacy of tofacitinib appears to be at least as good as TNFi, regardless of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance study presented by Maya Buch, MD, PhD, of NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and University of Manchester, England. ORAL Surveillance was a randomized, open-label, postmarketing safety study sponsored by Pfizer. The study enrolled patients aged 50 or older, with one or more additional CV risk factors, and with active disease despite methotrexate treatment. The cohort included patients treated with the tofacitinib at two different doses (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or TNFi.

Given that a prior “post hoc analysis showed differences in the risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus TNFi, depending on the personal history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Buch and coauthors aimed to further characterize the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib by evaluating its efficacy, compared with TNFi, in patients with a history of ASCVD and baseline CV risk. Out of the 4,362 patients, 640 (14.7%) had a positive history of ASCVD, while 3,722 (85.3%) did not. For the latter group, the 10-year risk of ASCVD was calculated at baseline, which was high (≥ 20%) in 22.5% and intermediate (≥ 7.5% to < 20%) in 39.4%.

The analysis demonstrated that in patients without a history of ASCVD, the odds of achieving either remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤ 2.8) or low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) were greater with tofacitinib vs. TNFi. With a history of ASCVD, the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity (LDA) was not statistically different between tofacitinib and TNFi. Patients with high or intermediate CV risk scores tended to be more likely to reach remission or LDA with tofacitinib vs. TNFi.

Dr. Buch emphasized that selecting the right therapy for each patient requires careful consideration of potential benefits and risks by the rheumatologist, taking into account individual patient history. “Stratification by baseline risk of CV events may help ensure appropriate and effective use of tofacitinib in patients with RA,” she concluded.

Kim Lauper, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Geneva University Hospitals, who was not involved in the study, commented on the importance of this data: “These findings are important because we currently lack information on how the presence of CV comorbidities can impact the efficacy of RA drugs.”
 

A real-world perspective

MACE occurred at similar rates between JAKi and TNFi, as well as for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with other modes of action (OMA) vs. TNFi, in the JAK-Pot study, an international collaboration of RA registries, reported Romain Aymon, of Geneva University Hospitals. But a subanalysis of JAK-Pot in patients resembling the population in the ORAL Surveillance trial found that the incidence of MACE was higher in each treatment group, compared with the overall population. However, no significant difference was found between JAKi vs. TNFi and OMA vs. TNFi.

Mr. Aymon said that the analysis is still ongoing, with additional registries being included.

Dr. Lauper, who is the principal investigator of the study presented by Mr. Aymon, noted that “the absence of a difference in MACE risk in the population resembling the ORAL Surveillance study is in contrast with the results from the ORAL Surveillance itself. This may be due to differences in the populations, with the ORAL Surveillance study having a more selected set of patients.”
 

The Dutch perspective

In line with the findings from the JAK-Pot study, a retrospective inception cohort study conducted on a Dutch RA population also revealed no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events between JAKi starters and bDMARD starters, according to Merel Opdam, MSc, of Sint Maartenskliniek in Ubbergen, the Netherlands, who reported the findings at the meeting. Two subanalyses of the cohort study, funded by Pfizer, also did not show any difference between tofacitinib and baricitinib (Olumiant), compared with DMARDs, or in patients above 65 years of age. The analysis was conducted on 15,191 patients with RA who were initiating treatment with a JAKi or a new bDMARD, selected from IQVIA’s Dutch Real-World Data Longitudinal Prescription database, which covers approximately 63% of outpatient prescriptions in the Netherlands.

“Not all DMARDs have similar effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and observational studies can contribute to understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with JAKi,” Ms. Opdam said.

“Real-world data holds significant importance as it provides insights into a broader spectrum of patients and reflects the actual clinical practice where treatment decisions are tailored to individual patient needs,” commented Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, and Charité University Medicine Berlin. She said that registries have a pivotal role in this regard.

Dr. Buch reports serving on a speakers bureau for AbbVie; serving as a consultant to AbbVie, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer; and receiving grant/research support from Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB. Mr. Aymon and Ms. Opdam report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Milan – Clinical trial and registry data comparisons between patients with rheumatoid arthritis who take Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) such as tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) continue to contribute to a better understanding of their efficacy and cardiovascular safety profile, based on presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Tofacitinib vs. TNFi efficacy with or without history of atherosclerotic CVD

The efficacy of tofacitinib appears to be at least as good as TNFi, regardless of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance study presented by Maya Buch, MD, PhD, of NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and University of Manchester, England. ORAL Surveillance was a randomized, open-label, postmarketing safety study sponsored by Pfizer. The study enrolled patients aged 50 or older, with one or more additional CV risk factors, and with active disease despite methotrexate treatment. The cohort included patients treated with the tofacitinib at two different doses (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or TNFi.

Given that a prior “post hoc analysis showed differences in the risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus TNFi, depending on the personal history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Buch and coauthors aimed to further characterize the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib by evaluating its efficacy, compared with TNFi, in patients with a history of ASCVD and baseline CV risk. Out of the 4,362 patients, 640 (14.7%) had a positive history of ASCVD, while 3,722 (85.3%) did not. For the latter group, the 10-year risk of ASCVD was calculated at baseline, which was high (≥ 20%) in 22.5% and intermediate (≥ 7.5% to < 20%) in 39.4%.

The analysis demonstrated that in patients without a history of ASCVD, the odds of achieving either remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤ 2.8) or low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) were greater with tofacitinib vs. TNFi. With a history of ASCVD, the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity (LDA) was not statistically different between tofacitinib and TNFi. Patients with high or intermediate CV risk scores tended to be more likely to reach remission or LDA with tofacitinib vs. TNFi.

Dr. Buch emphasized that selecting the right therapy for each patient requires careful consideration of potential benefits and risks by the rheumatologist, taking into account individual patient history. “Stratification by baseline risk of CV events may help ensure appropriate and effective use of tofacitinib in patients with RA,” she concluded.

Kim Lauper, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Geneva University Hospitals, who was not involved in the study, commented on the importance of this data: “These findings are important because we currently lack information on how the presence of CV comorbidities can impact the efficacy of RA drugs.”
 

A real-world perspective

MACE occurred at similar rates between JAKi and TNFi, as well as for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with other modes of action (OMA) vs. TNFi, in the JAK-Pot study, an international collaboration of RA registries, reported Romain Aymon, of Geneva University Hospitals. But a subanalysis of JAK-Pot in patients resembling the population in the ORAL Surveillance trial found that the incidence of MACE was higher in each treatment group, compared with the overall population. However, no significant difference was found between JAKi vs. TNFi and OMA vs. TNFi.

Mr. Aymon said that the analysis is still ongoing, with additional registries being included.

Dr. Lauper, who is the principal investigator of the study presented by Mr. Aymon, noted that “the absence of a difference in MACE risk in the population resembling the ORAL Surveillance study is in contrast with the results from the ORAL Surveillance itself. This may be due to differences in the populations, with the ORAL Surveillance study having a more selected set of patients.”
 

The Dutch perspective

In line with the findings from the JAK-Pot study, a retrospective inception cohort study conducted on a Dutch RA population also revealed no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events between JAKi starters and bDMARD starters, according to Merel Opdam, MSc, of Sint Maartenskliniek in Ubbergen, the Netherlands, who reported the findings at the meeting. Two subanalyses of the cohort study, funded by Pfizer, also did not show any difference between tofacitinib and baricitinib (Olumiant), compared with DMARDs, or in patients above 65 years of age. The analysis was conducted on 15,191 patients with RA who were initiating treatment with a JAKi or a new bDMARD, selected from IQVIA’s Dutch Real-World Data Longitudinal Prescription database, which covers approximately 63% of outpatient prescriptions in the Netherlands.

“Not all DMARDs have similar effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and observational studies can contribute to understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with JAKi,” Ms. Opdam said.

“Real-world data holds significant importance as it provides insights into a broader spectrum of patients and reflects the actual clinical practice where treatment decisions are tailored to individual patient needs,” commented Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, and Charité University Medicine Berlin. She said that registries have a pivotal role in this regard.

Dr. Buch reports serving on a speakers bureau for AbbVie; serving as a consultant to AbbVie, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer; and receiving grant/research support from Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB. Mr. Aymon and Ms. Opdam report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Milan – Clinical trial and registry data comparisons between patients with rheumatoid arthritis who take Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) such as tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) continue to contribute to a better understanding of their efficacy and cardiovascular safety profile, based on presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Tofacitinib vs. TNFi efficacy with or without history of atherosclerotic CVD

The efficacy of tofacitinib appears to be at least as good as TNFi, regardless of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance study presented by Maya Buch, MD, PhD, of NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and University of Manchester, England. ORAL Surveillance was a randomized, open-label, postmarketing safety study sponsored by Pfizer. The study enrolled patients aged 50 or older, with one or more additional CV risk factors, and with active disease despite methotrexate treatment. The cohort included patients treated with the tofacitinib at two different doses (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or TNFi.

Given that a prior “post hoc analysis showed differences in the risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus TNFi, depending on the personal history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Buch and coauthors aimed to further characterize the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib by evaluating its efficacy, compared with TNFi, in patients with a history of ASCVD and baseline CV risk. Out of the 4,362 patients, 640 (14.7%) had a positive history of ASCVD, while 3,722 (85.3%) did not. For the latter group, the 10-year risk of ASCVD was calculated at baseline, which was high (≥ 20%) in 22.5% and intermediate (≥ 7.5% to < 20%) in 39.4%.

The analysis demonstrated that in patients without a history of ASCVD, the odds of achieving either remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤ 2.8) or low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) were greater with tofacitinib vs. TNFi. With a history of ASCVD, the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity (LDA) was not statistically different between tofacitinib and TNFi. Patients with high or intermediate CV risk scores tended to be more likely to reach remission or LDA with tofacitinib vs. TNFi.

Dr. Buch emphasized that selecting the right therapy for each patient requires careful consideration of potential benefits and risks by the rheumatologist, taking into account individual patient history. “Stratification by baseline risk of CV events may help ensure appropriate and effective use of tofacitinib in patients with RA,” she concluded.

Kim Lauper, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Geneva University Hospitals, who was not involved in the study, commented on the importance of this data: “These findings are important because we currently lack information on how the presence of CV comorbidities can impact the efficacy of RA drugs.”
 

A real-world perspective

MACE occurred at similar rates between JAKi and TNFi, as well as for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with other modes of action (OMA) vs. TNFi, in the JAK-Pot study, an international collaboration of RA registries, reported Romain Aymon, of Geneva University Hospitals. But a subanalysis of JAK-Pot in patients resembling the population in the ORAL Surveillance trial found that the incidence of MACE was higher in each treatment group, compared with the overall population. However, no significant difference was found between JAKi vs. TNFi and OMA vs. TNFi.

Mr. Aymon said that the analysis is still ongoing, with additional registries being included.

Dr. Lauper, who is the principal investigator of the study presented by Mr. Aymon, noted that “the absence of a difference in MACE risk in the population resembling the ORAL Surveillance study is in contrast with the results from the ORAL Surveillance itself. This may be due to differences in the populations, with the ORAL Surveillance study having a more selected set of patients.”
 

The Dutch perspective

In line with the findings from the JAK-Pot study, a retrospective inception cohort study conducted on a Dutch RA population also revealed no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events between JAKi starters and bDMARD starters, according to Merel Opdam, MSc, of Sint Maartenskliniek in Ubbergen, the Netherlands, who reported the findings at the meeting. Two subanalyses of the cohort study, funded by Pfizer, also did not show any difference between tofacitinib and baricitinib (Olumiant), compared with DMARDs, or in patients above 65 years of age. The analysis was conducted on 15,191 patients with RA who were initiating treatment with a JAKi or a new bDMARD, selected from IQVIA’s Dutch Real-World Data Longitudinal Prescription database, which covers approximately 63% of outpatient prescriptions in the Netherlands.

“Not all DMARDs have similar effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and observational studies can contribute to understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with JAKi,” Ms. Opdam said.

“Real-world data holds significant importance as it provides insights into a broader spectrum of patients and reflects the actual clinical practice where treatment decisions are tailored to individual patient needs,” commented Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, and Charité University Medicine Berlin. She said that registries have a pivotal role in this regard.

Dr. Buch reports serving on a speakers bureau for AbbVie; serving as a consultant to AbbVie, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer; and receiving grant/research support from Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB. Mr. Aymon and Ms. Opdam report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pacing as a device therapy for heart failure (HF) is headed for what is probably its next big advance.
 

After decades of biventricular (BiV) pacemaker success in resynchronizing the ventricles and improving clinical outcomes, relatively new conduction-system pacing (CSP) techniques that avoid the pitfalls of right-ventricular (RV) pacing using BiV lead systems have been supplanting traditional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in selected patients at some major centers. In fact, they are solidly ensconced in a new guideline document addressing indications for CSP and BiV pacing in HF.

But in the new guideline, CSP, using an endocardial lead to the His bundle or left-bundle branch (LBB) area, is nearly always a second-tier option, an alternative when BiV pacing isn’t appropriate or can’t be engaged.

That’s mainly because the limited, mostly observational evidence supporting CSP in the document can’t measure up to the clinical experience and plethora of large, randomized trials behind BiV-CRT.

But that shortfall is headed for change. Several new comparative studies, including a small, randomized trial, have added significantly to evidence suggesting that CSP is at least as effective as traditional CRT for procedural, functional safety, and clinical outcomes.

The new studies “are inherently prone to bias, but their results are really good,” observed Juan C. Diaz, MD. They show improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and symptoms with CSP that are “outstanding compared to what we have been doing for the last 20 years,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Diaz, Clínica Las Vegas, Medellin, Colombia, is an investigator with the observational SYNCHRONY, which is among the new CSP studies formally presented at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society. He is also lead author on its same-day publication in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

Dr. Diaz said that CSP, which sustains pacing via the native conduction system, makes more “physiologic sense” than BiV pacing and represents “a step forward” for HF device therapy.

SYNCHRONY compared LBB-area with BiV pacing as the initial strategy for achieving cardiac resynchronization in patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

CSP is “a long way” from replacing conventional CRT, he said. But the new studies at the HRS sessions should help extend His-bundle and LBB-area pacing to more patients, he added, given the significant long-term “drawbacks” of BiV pacing. These include inevitable RV pacing, multiple leads, and the risks associated with chronic transvenous leads.

Zachary Goldberger, MD, University of Wisconsin–Madison, went a bit further in support of CSP as invited discussant for the SYNCHRONY presentation.

Given that it improved LVEF, heart failure class, HF hospitalizations (HFH), and mortality in that study and others, Dr. Goldberger said, CSP could potentially “become the dominant mode of resynchronization going forward.”

Other experts at the meeting saw CSP’s potential more as one of several pacing techniques that could be brought to bear for patients with CRT indications.

“Conduction system pacing is going to be a huge complement to biventricular pacing,” to which about 30% of patients have a “less than optimal response,” said Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman, MD, chief of clinical electrophysiology, Geisinger Heart Institute, Danville, Pa.

“I don’t think it needs to replace biventricular pacing, because biventricular pacing is a well-established, incredibly powerful therapy,” he told this news organization. But CSP is likely to provide “a good alternative option” in patients with poor responses to BiV-CRT.

It may, however, render some current BiV-pacing alternatives “obsolete,” Dr. Vijayaraman observed. “At our center, at least for the last 5 years, no patient has needed epicardial surgical left ventricular lead placement” because CSP was a better backup option.

Dr. Vijayaraman presented two of the meeting’s CSP vs. BiV pacing comparisons. In one, the 100-patient randomized HOT-CRT trial, contractile function improved significantly on CSP, which could be either His-bundle or LBB-area pacing.

He also presented an observational study of LBB-area pacing at 15 centers in Asia, Europe, and North America and led the authors of its simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“I think left-bundle conduction system pacing is the future, for sure,” Jagmeet P. Singh, MD, DPhil, told this news organization. Still, it doesn’t always work and when it does, it “doesn’t work equally in all patients,” he said.

“Conduction system pacing certainly makes a lot of sense,” especially in patients with left-bundle-branch block (LBBB), and “maybe not as a primary approach but certainly as a secondary approach,” said Dr. Singh, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who is not a coauthor on any of the three studies.

He acknowledged that CSP may work well as a first-line option in patients with LBBB at some experienced centers. For those without LBBB or who have an intraventricular conduction delay, who represent 45%-50% of current CRT cases, Dr. Singh observed, “there’s still more evidence” that BiV-CRT is a more appropriate initial approach.

Standard CRT may fail, however, even in some patients who otherwise meet guideline-based indications. “We don’t really understand all the mechanisms for nonresponse in conventional biventricular pacing,” observed Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, also not involved with any of the three studies.

In some groups, including “patients with larger ventricles,” for example, BiV-CRT doesn’t always narrow the electrocardiographic QRS complex or preexcite delayed left ventricular (LV) activation, hallmarks of successful CRT, he said in an interview.

“I think we need to understand why this occurs in both situations,” but in such cases, CSP alone or as an adjunct to direct LV pacing may be successful. “Sometimes we need both an LV lead and the conduction-system pacing lead.”

Narrower, more efficient use of CSP as a BiV-CRT alternative may also boost its chances for success, Dr. Varma added. “I think we need to refine patient selection.”
 

HOT-CRT: Randomized CSP vs. BiV pacing trial

Conducted at three centers in a single health system, the His-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy study (HOT-CRT) randomly assigned 100 patients with primary or secondary CRT indications to either to CSP – by either His-bundle or LBB-area pacing – or to standard BiV-CRT as the first-line resynchronization method.

Treatment crossovers, allowed for either pacing modality in the event of implantation failure, occurred in two patients and nine patients initially assigned to CSP and BiV pacing, respectively (4% vs. 18%), Dr. Vijayaraman reported.

International comparison of CSP and BiV pacing

In Dr. Vijayaraman’s other study, the observational comparison of LBB-area pacing and BiV-CRT, the CSP technique emerged as a “reasonable alternative to biventricular pacing, not only for improvement in LV function but also to reduce adverse clinical outcomes.”

Indeed, in the international study of 1,778 mostly male patients with primary or secondary CRT indications who received LBB-area or BiV pacing (797 and 981 patients, respectively), those on CSP saw a significant drop in risk for the primary endpoint, death or HFH.

Mean LVEF improved from 27% to 41% in the LBB-area pacing group and 27% to 37% with BiV pacing (P < .001 for both changes) over a follow-up averaging 33 months. The difference in improvement between CSP and BiV pacing was significant at P < .001.

In adjusted analysis, the risk for death or HFH was greater for BiV-pacing patients, a difference driven by HFH events.

• Death or HF: hazard ratio, 1.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.84; P < .001).
• Death: HR, 1.14 (95% CI, 0.88-1.48; P = .313).
• HFH: HR, 1.49 (95% CI, 1.16-1.92; P = .002)

The analysis has all the “inherent biases” of an observational study. The risk for patient-selection bias, however, was somewhat mitigated by consistent practice patterns at participating centers, Dr. Vijayaraman told this news organization.

For example, he said, operators at six of the institutions were most likely to use CSP as the first-line approach, and the same number of centers usually went with BiV pacing.
 

SYNCHRONY: First-line LBB-area pacing vs. BiV-CRT

Outcomes using the two approaches were similar in the prospective, international, observational study of 371 patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy and standard CRT indications. Allocation of 128 patients to LBB-area pacing and 243 to BiV-CRT was based on patient and operator preferences, reported Jorge Romero Jr, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, at the HRS sessions.

Risk for the death-HFH primary endpoint dropped 38% for those initially treated with LBB-area pacing, compared with BiV pacing, primarily because of a lower HFH risk:

• Death or HFH: HR, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.93; P = .02).
• Death: HR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.25-1.32; P = .19).
• HFH: HR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.34-0.93; P = .02)

Patients in the CSP group were also more likely to improve by at least one NYHA (New York Heart Association) class (80.4% vs. 67.9%; P < .001), consistent with their greater absolute change in LVEF (8.0 vs. 3.9 points; P < .01).

The findings “suggest that LBBAP [left-bundle branch area pacing] is an excellent alternative to BiV pacing,” with a comparable safety profile, write Jayanthi N. Koneru, MBBS, and Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, MD, in an editorial accompanying the published SYNCHRONY report.

“The differences in improvement of LVEF are encouraging for both groups,” but were superior for LBB-area pacing, continue Dr. Koneru and Dr. Ellenbogen, both with Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond. “Whether these results would have regressed to the mean over a longer period of follow-up or diverge further with LBB-area pacing continuing to be superior is unknown.”
 

Years for an answer?

A large randomized comparison of CSP and BiV-CRT, called Left vs. Left, is currently in early stages, Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in a media presentation on two of the presented studies. It has a planned enrollment of more than 2,100 patients on optimal meds with an LVEF of 50% or lower and either a QRS duration of at least 130 ms or an anticipated burden of RV pacing exceeding 40%.

The trial, she said, “will take years to give an answer, but it is actually designed to address the question of whether a composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization can be improved with conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing.”

Dr. Al-Khatib is a coauthor on the new guideline covering both CSP and BiV-CRT in HF, as are Dr. Cha, Dr. Varma, Dr. Singh, Dr. Vijayaraman, and Dr. Goldberger; Dr. Ellenbogen is one of the reviewers.

Dr. Diaz discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or teaching from Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Vijayaraman discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking, teaching, or consulting for Abbott, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific; and receiving research grants from Medtronic. Dr. Varma discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or consulting as an independent contractor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Impulse Dynamics USA, Cardiologs, Abbott, Pacemate, Implicity, and EP Solutions. Dr. Singh discloses receiving fees for consulting from EBR Systems, Merit Medical Systems, New Century Health, Biotronik, Abbott, Medtronic, MicroPort Scientific, Cardiologs, Sanofi, CVRx, Impulse Dynamics USA, Octagos, Implicity, Orchestra Biomed, Rhythm Management Group, and Biosense Webster; and receiving honoraria or fees for speaking and teaching from Medscape. Dr. Cha had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Romero discloses receiving research grants from Biosense Webster; and speaking or receiving honoraria or fees for consulting, speaking, or teaching, or serving on a board for Sanofi, Boston Scientific, and AtriCure. Dr. Koneru discloses consulting for Medtronic and receiving honoraria from Abbott. Dr. Ellenbogen discloses consulting or lecturing for or receiving honoraria from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr. Goldberger discloses receiving royalty income from and serving as an independent contractor for Elsevier. Dr. Al-Khatib discloses receiving research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific.

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

Pacing as a device therapy for heart failure (HF) is headed for what is probably its next big advance.
 

After decades of biventricular (BiV) pacemaker success in resynchronizing the ventricles and improving clinical outcomes, relatively new conduction-system pacing (CSP) techniques that avoid the pitfalls of right-ventricular (RV) pacing using BiV lead systems have been supplanting traditional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in selected patients at some major centers. In fact, they are solidly ensconced in a new guideline document addressing indications for CSP and BiV pacing in HF.

But in the new guideline, CSP, using an endocardial lead to the His bundle or left-bundle branch (LBB) area, is nearly always a second-tier option, an alternative when BiV pacing isn’t appropriate or can’t be engaged.

That’s mainly because the limited, mostly observational evidence supporting CSP in the document can’t measure up to the clinical experience and plethora of large, randomized trials behind BiV-CRT.

But that shortfall is headed for change. Several new comparative studies, including a small, randomized trial, have added significantly to evidence suggesting that CSP is at least as effective as traditional CRT for procedural, functional safety, and clinical outcomes.

The new studies “are inherently prone to bias, but their results are really good,” observed Juan C. Diaz, MD. They show improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and symptoms with CSP that are “outstanding compared to what we have been doing for the last 20 years,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Diaz, Clínica Las Vegas, Medellin, Colombia, is an investigator with the observational SYNCHRONY, which is among the new CSP studies formally presented at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society. He is also lead author on its same-day publication in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

Dr. Diaz said that CSP, which sustains pacing via the native conduction system, makes more “physiologic sense” than BiV pacing and represents “a step forward” for HF device therapy.

SYNCHRONY compared LBB-area with BiV pacing as the initial strategy for achieving cardiac resynchronization in patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

CSP is “a long way” from replacing conventional CRT, he said. But the new studies at the HRS sessions should help extend His-bundle and LBB-area pacing to more patients, he added, given the significant long-term “drawbacks” of BiV pacing. These include inevitable RV pacing, multiple leads, and the risks associated with chronic transvenous leads.

Zachary Goldberger, MD, University of Wisconsin–Madison, went a bit further in support of CSP as invited discussant for the SYNCHRONY presentation.

Given that it improved LVEF, heart failure class, HF hospitalizations (HFH), and mortality in that study and others, Dr. Goldberger said, CSP could potentially “become the dominant mode of resynchronization going forward.”

Other experts at the meeting saw CSP’s potential more as one of several pacing techniques that could be brought to bear for patients with CRT indications.

“Conduction system pacing is going to be a huge complement to biventricular pacing,” to which about 30% of patients have a “less than optimal response,” said Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman, MD, chief of clinical electrophysiology, Geisinger Heart Institute, Danville, Pa.

“I don’t think it needs to replace biventricular pacing, because biventricular pacing is a well-established, incredibly powerful therapy,” he told this news organization. But CSP is likely to provide “a good alternative option” in patients with poor responses to BiV-CRT.

It may, however, render some current BiV-pacing alternatives “obsolete,” Dr. Vijayaraman observed. “At our center, at least for the last 5 years, no patient has needed epicardial surgical left ventricular lead placement” because CSP was a better backup option.

Dr. Vijayaraman presented two of the meeting’s CSP vs. BiV pacing comparisons. In one, the 100-patient randomized HOT-CRT trial, contractile function improved significantly on CSP, which could be either His-bundle or LBB-area pacing.

He also presented an observational study of LBB-area pacing at 15 centers in Asia, Europe, and North America and led the authors of its simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“I think left-bundle conduction system pacing is the future, for sure,” Jagmeet P. Singh, MD, DPhil, told this news organization. Still, it doesn’t always work and when it does, it “doesn’t work equally in all patients,” he said.

“Conduction system pacing certainly makes a lot of sense,” especially in patients with left-bundle-branch block (LBBB), and “maybe not as a primary approach but certainly as a secondary approach,” said Dr. Singh, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who is not a coauthor on any of the three studies.

He acknowledged that CSP may work well as a first-line option in patients with LBBB at some experienced centers. For those without LBBB or who have an intraventricular conduction delay, who represent 45%-50% of current CRT cases, Dr. Singh observed, “there’s still more evidence” that BiV-CRT is a more appropriate initial approach.

Standard CRT may fail, however, even in some patients who otherwise meet guideline-based indications. “We don’t really understand all the mechanisms for nonresponse in conventional biventricular pacing,” observed Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, also not involved with any of the three studies.

In some groups, including “patients with larger ventricles,” for example, BiV-CRT doesn’t always narrow the electrocardiographic QRS complex or preexcite delayed left ventricular (LV) activation, hallmarks of successful CRT, he said in an interview.

“I think we need to understand why this occurs in both situations,” but in such cases, CSP alone or as an adjunct to direct LV pacing may be successful. “Sometimes we need both an LV lead and the conduction-system pacing lead.”

Narrower, more efficient use of CSP as a BiV-CRT alternative may also boost its chances for success, Dr. Varma added. “I think we need to refine patient selection.”
 

HOT-CRT: Randomized CSP vs. BiV pacing trial

Conducted at three centers in a single health system, the His-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy study (HOT-CRT) randomly assigned 100 patients with primary or secondary CRT indications to either to CSP – by either His-bundle or LBB-area pacing – or to standard BiV-CRT as the first-line resynchronization method.

Treatment crossovers, allowed for either pacing modality in the event of implantation failure, occurred in two patients and nine patients initially assigned to CSP and BiV pacing, respectively (4% vs. 18%), Dr. Vijayaraman reported.

International comparison of CSP and BiV pacing

In Dr. Vijayaraman’s other study, the observational comparison of LBB-area pacing and BiV-CRT, the CSP technique emerged as a “reasonable alternative to biventricular pacing, not only for improvement in LV function but also to reduce adverse clinical outcomes.”

Indeed, in the international study of 1,778 mostly male patients with primary or secondary CRT indications who received LBB-area or BiV pacing (797 and 981 patients, respectively), those on CSP saw a significant drop in risk for the primary endpoint, death or HFH.

Mean LVEF improved from 27% to 41% in the LBB-area pacing group and 27% to 37% with BiV pacing (P < .001 for both changes) over a follow-up averaging 33 months. The difference in improvement between CSP and BiV pacing was significant at P < .001.

In adjusted analysis, the risk for death or HFH was greater for BiV-pacing patients, a difference driven by HFH events.

• Death or HF: hazard ratio, 1.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.84; P < .001).
• Death: HR, 1.14 (95% CI, 0.88-1.48; P = .313).
• HFH: HR, 1.49 (95% CI, 1.16-1.92; P = .002)

The analysis has all the “inherent biases” of an observational study. The risk for patient-selection bias, however, was somewhat mitigated by consistent practice patterns at participating centers, Dr. Vijayaraman told this news organization.

For example, he said, operators at six of the institutions were most likely to use CSP as the first-line approach, and the same number of centers usually went with BiV pacing.
 

SYNCHRONY: First-line LBB-area pacing vs. BiV-CRT

Outcomes using the two approaches were similar in the prospective, international, observational study of 371 patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy and standard CRT indications. Allocation of 128 patients to LBB-area pacing and 243 to BiV-CRT was based on patient and operator preferences, reported Jorge Romero Jr, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, at the HRS sessions.

Risk for the death-HFH primary endpoint dropped 38% for those initially treated with LBB-area pacing, compared with BiV pacing, primarily because of a lower HFH risk:

• Death or HFH: HR, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.93; P = .02).
• Death: HR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.25-1.32; P = .19).
• HFH: HR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.34-0.93; P = .02)

Patients in the CSP group were also more likely to improve by at least one NYHA (New York Heart Association) class (80.4% vs. 67.9%; P < .001), consistent with their greater absolute change in LVEF (8.0 vs. 3.9 points; P < .01).

The findings “suggest that LBBAP [left-bundle branch area pacing] is an excellent alternative to BiV pacing,” with a comparable safety profile, write Jayanthi N. Koneru, MBBS, and Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, MD, in an editorial accompanying the published SYNCHRONY report.

“The differences in improvement of LVEF are encouraging for both groups,” but were superior for LBB-area pacing, continue Dr. Koneru and Dr. Ellenbogen, both with Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond. “Whether these results would have regressed to the mean over a longer period of follow-up or diverge further with LBB-area pacing continuing to be superior is unknown.”
 

Years for an answer?

A large randomized comparison of CSP and BiV-CRT, called Left vs. Left, is currently in early stages, Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in a media presentation on two of the presented studies. It has a planned enrollment of more than 2,100 patients on optimal meds with an LVEF of 50% or lower and either a QRS duration of at least 130 ms or an anticipated burden of RV pacing exceeding 40%.

The trial, she said, “will take years to give an answer, but it is actually designed to address the question of whether a composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization can be improved with conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing.”

Dr. Al-Khatib is a coauthor on the new guideline covering both CSP and BiV-CRT in HF, as are Dr. Cha, Dr. Varma, Dr. Singh, Dr. Vijayaraman, and Dr. Goldberger; Dr. Ellenbogen is one of the reviewers.

Dr. Diaz discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or teaching from Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Vijayaraman discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking, teaching, or consulting for Abbott, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific; and receiving research grants from Medtronic. Dr. Varma discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or consulting as an independent contractor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Impulse Dynamics USA, Cardiologs, Abbott, Pacemate, Implicity, and EP Solutions. Dr. Singh discloses receiving fees for consulting from EBR Systems, Merit Medical Systems, New Century Health, Biotronik, Abbott, Medtronic, MicroPort Scientific, Cardiologs, Sanofi, CVRx, Impulse Dynamics USA, Octagos, Implicity, Orchestra Biomed, Rhythm Management Group, and Biosense Webster; and receiving honoraria or fees for speaking and teaching from Medscape. Dr. Cha had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Romero discloses receiving research grants from Biosense Webster; and speaking or receiving honoraria or fees for consulting, speaking, or teaching, or serving on a board for Sanofi, Boston Scientific, and AtriCure. Dr. Koneru discloses consulting for Medtronic and receiving honoraria from Abbott. Dr. Ellenbogen discloses consulting or lecturing for or receiving honoraria from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr. Goldberger discloses receiving royalty income from and serving as an independent contractor for Elsevier. Dr. Al-Khatib discloses receiving research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific.

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

Pacing as a device therapy for heart failure (HF) is headed for what is probably its next big advance.
 

After decades of biventricular (BiV) pacemaker success in resynchronizing the ventricles and improving clinical outcomes, relatively new conduction-system pacing (CSP) techniques that avoid the pitfalls of right-ventricular (RV) pacing using BiV lead systems have been supplanting traditional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in selected patients at some major centers. In fact, they are solidly ensconced in a new guideline document addressing indications for CSP and BiV pacing in HF.

But in the new guideline, CSP, using an endocardial lead to the His bundle or left-bundle branch (LBB) area, is nearly always a second-tier option, an alternative when BiV pacing isn’t appropriate or can’t be engaged.

That’s mainly because the limited, mostly observational evidence supporting CSP in the document can’t measure up to the clinical experience and plethora of large, randomized trials behind BiV-CRT.

But that shortfall is headed for change. Several new comparative studies, including a small, randomized trial, have added significantly to evidence suggesting that CSP is at least as effective as traditional CRT for procedural, functional safety, and clinical outcomes.

The new studies “are inherently prone to bias, but their results are really good,” observed Juan C. Diaz, MD. They show improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and symptoms with CSP that are “outstanding compared to what we have been doing for the last 20 years,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Diaz, Clínica Las Vegas, Medellin, Colombia, is an investigator with the observational SYNCHRONY, which is among the new CSP studies formally presented at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society. He is also lead author on its same-day publication in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

Dr. Diaz said that CSP, which sustains pacing via the native conduction system, makes more “physiologic sense” than BiV pacing and represents “a step forward” for HF device therapy.

SYNCHRONY compared LBB-area with BiV pacing as the initial strategy for achieving cardiac resynchronization in patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

CSP is “a long way” from replacing conventional CRT, he said. But the new studies at the HRS sessions should help extend His-bundle and LBB-area pacing to more patients, he added, given the significant long-term “drawbacks” of BiV pacing. These include inevitable RV pacing, multiple leads, and the risks associated with chronic transvenous leads.

Zachary Goldberger, MD, University of Wisconsin–Madison, went a bit further in support of CSP as invited discussant for the SYNCHRONY presentation.

Given that it improved LVEF, heart failure class, HF hospitalizations (HFH), and mortality in that study and others, Dr. Goldberger said, CSP could potentially “become the dominant mode of resynchronization going forward.”

Other experts at the meeting saw CSP’s potential more as one of several pacing techniques that could be brought to bear for patients with CRT indications.

“Conduction system pacing is going to be a huge complement to biventricular pacing,” to which about 30% of patients have a “less than optimal response,” said Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman, MD, chief of clinical electrophysiology, Geisinger Heart Institute, Danville, Pa.

“I don’t think it needs to replace biventricular pacing, because biventricular pacing is a well-established, incredibly powerful therapy,” he told this news organization. But CSP is likely to provide “a good alternative option” in patients with poor responses to BiV-CRT.

It may, however, render some current BiV-pacing alternatives “obsolete,” Dr. Vijayaraman observed. “At our center, at least for the last 5 years, no patient has needed epicardial surgical left ventricular lead placement” because CSP was a better backup option.

Dr. Vijayaraman presented two of the meeting’s CSP vs. BiV pacing comparisons. In one, the 100-patient randomized HOT-CRT trial, contractile function improved significantly on CSP, which could be either His-bundle or LBB-area pacing.

He also presented an observational study of LBB-area pacing at 15 centers in Asia, Europe, and North America and led the authors of its simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“I think left-bundle conduction system pacing is the future, for sure,” Jagmeet P. Singh, MD, DPhil, told this news organization. Still, it doesn’t always work and when it does, it “doesn’t work equally in all patients,” he said.

“Conduction system pacing certainly makes a lot of sense,” especially in patients with left-bundle-branch block (LBBB), and “maybe not as a primary approach but certainly as a secondary approach,” said Dr. Singh, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who is not a coauthor on any of the three studies.

He acknowledged that CSP may work well as a first-line option in patients with LBBB at some experienced centers. For those without LBBB or who have an intraventricular conduction delay, who represent 45%-50% of current CRT cases, Dr. Singh observed, “there’s still more evidence” that BiV-CRT is a more appropriate initial approach.

Standard CRT may fail, however, even in some patients who otherwise meet guideline-based indications. “We don’t really understand all the mechanisms for nonresponse in conventional biventricular pacing,” observed Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, also not involved with any of the three studies.

In some groups, including “patients with larger ventricles,” for example, BiV-CRT doesn’t always narrow the electrocardiographic QRS complex or preexcite delayed left ventricular (LV) activation, hallmarks of successful CRT, he said in an interview.

“I think we need to understand why this occurs in both situations,” but in such cases, CSP alone or as an adjunct to direct LV pacing may be successful. “Sometimes we need both an LV lead and the conduction-system pacing lead.”

Narrower, more efficient use of CSP as a BiV-CRT alternative may also boost its chances for success, Dr. Varma added. “I think we need to refine patient selection.”
 

HOT-CRT: Randomized CSP vs. BiV pacing trial

Conducted at three centers in a single health system, the His-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy study (HOT-CRT) randomly assigned 100 patients with primary or secondary CRT indications to either to CSP – by either His-bundle or LBB-area pacing – or to standard BiV-CRT as the first-line resynchronization method.

Treatment crossovers, allowed for either pacing modality in the event of implantation failure, occurred in two patients and nine patients initially assigned to CSP and BiV pacing, respectively (4% vs. 18%), Dr. Vijayaraman reported.

International comparison of CSP and BiV pacing

In Dr. Vijayaraman’s other study, the observational comparison of LBB-area pacing and BiV-CRT, the CSP technique emerged as a “reasonable alternative to biventricular pacing, not only for improvement in LV function but also to reduce adverse clinical outcomes.”

Indeed, in the international study of 1,778 mostly male patients with primary or secondary CRT indications who received LBB-area or BiV pacing (797 and 981 patients, respectively), those on CSP saw a significant drop in risk for the primary endpoint, death or HFH.

Mean LVEF improved from 27% to 41% in the LBB-area pacing group and 27% to 37% with BiV pacing (P < .001 for both changes) over a follow-up averaging 33 months. The difference in improvement between CSP and BiV pacing was significant at P < .001.

In adjusted analysis, the risk for death or HFH was greater for BiV-pacing patients, a difference driven by HFH events.

• Death or HF: hazard ratio, 1.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.84; P < .001).
• Death: HR, 1.14 (95% CI, 0.88-1.48; P = .313).
• HFH: HR, 1.49 (95% CI, 1.16-1.92; P = .002)

The analysis has all the “inherent biases” of an observational study. The risk for patient-selection bias, however, was somewhat mitigated by consistent practice patterns at participating centers, Dr. Vijayaraman told this news organization.

For example, he said, operators at six of the institutions were most likely to use CSP as the first-line approach, and the same number of centers usually went with BiV pacing.
 

SYNCHRONY: First-line LBB-area pacing vs. BiV-CRT

Outcomes using the two approaches were similar in the prospective, international, observational study of 371 patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy and standard CRT indications. Allocation of 128 patients to LBB-area pacing and 243 to BiV-CRT was based on patient and operator preferences, reported Jorge Romero Jr, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, at the HRS sessions.

Risk for the death-HFH primary endpoint dropped 38% for those initially treated with LBB-area pacing, compared with BiV pacing, primarily because of a lower HFH risk:

• Death or HFH: HR, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.93; P = .02).
• Death: HR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.25-1.32; P = .19).
• HFH: HR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.34-0.93; P = .02)

Patients in the CSP group were also more likely to improve by at least one NYHA (New York Heart Association) class (80.4% vs. 67.9%; P < .001), consistent with their greater absolute change in LVEF (8.0 vs. 3.9 points; P < .01).

The findings “suggest that LBBAP [left-bundle branch area pacing] is an excellent alternative to BiV pacing,” with a comparable safety profile, write Jayanthi N. Koneru, MBBS, and Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, MD, in an editorial accompanying the published SYNCHRONY report.

“The differences in improvement of LVEF are encouraging for both groups,” but were superior for LBB-area pacing, continue Dr. Koneru and Dr. Ellenbogen, both with Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond. “Whether these results would have regressed to the mean over a longer period of follow-up or diverge further with LBB-area pacing continuing to be superior is unknown.”
 

Years for an answer?

A large randomized comparison of CSP and BiV-CRT, called Left vs. Left, is currently in early stages, Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in a media presentation on two of the presented studies. It has a planned enrollment of more than 2,100 patients on optimal meds with an LVEF of 50% or lower and either a QRS duration of at least 130 ms or an anticipated burden of RV pacing exceeding 40%.

The trial, she said, “will take years to give an answer, but it is actually designed to address the question of whether a composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization can be improved with conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing.”

Dr. Al-Khatib is a coauthor on the new guideline covering both CSP and BiV-CRT in HF, as are Dr. Cha, Dr. Varma, Dr. Singh, Dr. Vijayaraman, and Dr. Goldberger; Dr. Ellenbogen is one of the reviewers.

Dr. Diaz discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or teaching from Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Vijayaraman discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking, teaching, or consulting for Abbott, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific; and receiving research grants from Medtronic. Dr. Varma discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or consulting as an independent contractor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Impulse Dynamics USA, Cardiologs, Abbott, Pacemate, Implicity, and EP Solutions. Dr. Singh discloses receiving fees for consulting from EBR Systems, Merit Medical Systems, New Century Health, Biotronik, Abbott, Medtronic, MicroPort Scientific, Cardiologs, Sanofi, CVRx, Impulse Dynamics USA, Octagos, Implicity, Orchestra Biomed, Rhythm Management Group, and Biosense Webster; and receiving honoraria or fees for speaking and teaching from Medscape. Dr. Cha had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Romero discloses receiving research grants from Biosense Webster; and speaking or receiving honoraria or fees for consulting, speaking, or teaching, or serving on a board for Sanofi, Boston Scientific, and AtriCure. Dr. Koneru discloses consulting for Medtronic and receiving honoraria from Abbott. Dr. Ellenbogen discloses consulting or lecturing for or receiving honoraria from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr. Goldberger discloses receiving royalty income from and serving as an independent contractor for Elsevier. Dr. Al-Khatib discloses receiving research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific.

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

Dapagliflozin (Farxiga) appears to be no more effective than the “thiazide-like” diuretic metolazone at improving pulmonary congestion and fluid status in patients with acute heart failure (AHF), suggests a new randomized trial. The drugs were given to the study’s loop diuretic–resistant patients on top of furosemide.

Changes in volume status and measures of pulmonary congestion and risk for serious adverse events were similar for those assigned to take dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or metolazone, a quinazoline diuretic. Those on dapagliflozin zone ultimately received a larger cumulative furosemide dose in the 61-patient trial, called DAPA-RESIST.

“The next steps are to assess whether a strategy of using SGLT2 inhibitors up front in patients with HF reduces the incidence of diuretic resistance, and to test further combinations of diuretics such as thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, compared with acetazolamide, when used in addition to an IV loop diuretic and SGLT2 inhibitors together,” Ross T. Campbell, MBChB, PhD, University of Glasgow and Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, also in Glasgow, said in an interview.

Dr. Campbell presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology and is senior author on its simultaneous publication in the European Heart Journal.

The multicenter trial randomly assigned 61 patients with AHF to receive dapagliflozin at a fixed dose of 10 mg once daily or metolazone 5 mg or 10 mg (starting dosage at physician discretion) once daily for 3 days of treatment on an open-label basis.

Patients had entered the trial on furosemide at a mean daily dosage of 260 mg in the dapagliflozin group and 229 mg for those assigned metolazone; dosages for the loop diuretic in the trial weren’t prespecified.

Their median age was 79 and 54% were women; 44% had HF with reduced ejection fraction. Their mean glomerular filtration rate was below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² in 26%, 90% had chronic kidney disease, 98% had peripheral edema, and 46% had diabetes.

The mean cumulative furosemide dose was significantly higher among the dapagliflozin group’s 31 patients, 976 mg versus 704 mg for the 30 on acetazolamide (P < .05), 96 hours after the start of randomized therapy. However, patients on dapagliflozin experienced a lesser increase in creatinine (P < .05) and in blood urea (P < .01), a greater change in serum sodium (P < .05), and a smaller reduction in serum potassium (P < .01).

Although the trial wasn’t powered for those outcomes, Dr. Campbell said, “less biochemical upset could be associated with better outcomes in terms of less medium- to long-term renal impairment, and in the short-term length of stay.”

The mean decrease in weight at 96 hours, the primary endpoint, reached 3 kg on dapagliflozin, compared with 3.6 kg with metolazone (P = .082), a difference that fell short of significance.

Loop diuretic efficiency, that is weight change in kg per 40 mg furosemide, “was smaller with dapagliflozin than with metolazone at each time point after randomization, although the difference was only significant at 24 hours,” the published report states.

Changes in pulmonary congestion (by lung ultrasound) and fluid volume were similar between the groups.

“This trial further adds to the evidence base and safety profile for using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with acute heart failure,” and “gives further confidence to clinicians that this class can be started in ‘sicker’ patients with HF who also have diuretic resistance,” Dr. Campbell said.

Asked during his presentation’s question and answer whether dapagliflozin might have shown a greater effect had the dosage been higher, Dr. Campbell explained that the drug was investigational when the trial started. Adding a higher-dose dapagliflozin arm, he said, would have made for an excessively complex study. But “that’s a great research question for another trial.”

DAPA-RESIST was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Campbell disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca for speaking and from Bayer for serving on an advisory board.

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

Dapagliflozin (Farxiga) appears to be no more effective than the “thiazide-like” diuretic metolazone at improving pulmonary congestion and fluid status in patients with acute heart failure (AHF), suggests a new randomized trial. The drugs were given to the study’s loop diuretic–resistant patients on top of furosemide.

Changes in volume status and measures of pulmonary congestion and risk for serious adverse events were similar for those assigned to take dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or metolazone, a quinazoline diuretic. Those on dapagliflozin zone ultimately received a larger cumulative furosemide dose in the 61-patient trial, called DAPA-RESIST.

“The next steps are to assess whether a strategy of using SGLT2 inhibitors up front in patients with HF reduces the incidence of diuretic resistance, and to test further combinations of diuretics such as thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, compared with acetazolamide, when used in addition to an IV loop diuretic and SGLT2 inhibitors together,” Ross T. Campbell, MBChB, PhD, University of Glasgow and Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, also in Glasgow, said in an interview.

Dr. Campbell presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology and is senior author on its simultaneous publication in the European Heart Journal.

The multicenter trial randomly assigned 61 patients with AHF to receive dapagliflozin at a fixed dose of 10 mg once daily or metolazone 5 mg or 10 mg (starting dosage at physician discretion) once daily for 3 days of treatment on an open-label basis.

Patients had entered the trial on furosemide at a mean daily dosage of 260 mg in the dapagliflozin group and 229 mg for those assigned metolazone; dosages for the loop diuretic in the trial weren’t prespecified.

Their median age was 79 and 54% were women; 44% had HF with reduced ejection fraction. Their mean glomerular filtration rate was below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² in 26%, 90% had chronic kidney disease, 98% had peripheral edema, and 46% had diabetes.

The mean cumulative furosemide dose was significantly higher among the dapagliflozin group’s 31 patients, 976 mg versus 704 mg for the 30 on acetazolamide (P < .05), 96 hours after the start of randomized therapy. However, patients on dapagliflozin experienced a lesser increase in creatinine (P < .05) and in blood urea (P < .01), a greater change in serum sodium (P < .05), and a smaller reduction in serum potassium (P < .01).

Although the trial wasn’t powered for those outcomes, Dr. Campbell said, “less biochemical upset could be associated with better outcomes in terms of less medium- to long-term renal impairment, and in the short-term length of stay.”

The mean decrease in weight at 96 hours, the primary endpoint, reached 3 kg on dapagliflozin, compared with 3.6 kg with metolazone (P = .082), a difference that fell short of significance.

Loop diuretic efficiency, that is weight change in kg per 40 mg furosemide, “was smaller with dapagliflozin than with metolazone at each time point after randomization, although the difference was only significant at 24 hours,” the published report states.

Changes in pulmonary congestion (by lung ultrasound) and fluid volume were similar between the groups.

“This trial further adds to the evidence base and safety profile for using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with acute heart failure,” and “gives further confidence to clinicians that this class can be started in ‘sicker’ patients with HF who also have diuretic resistance,” Dr. Campbell said.

Asked during his presentation’s question and answer whether dapagliflozin might have shown a greater effect had the dosage been higher, Dr. Campbell explained that the drug was investigational when the trial started. Adding a higher-dose dapagliflozin arm, he said, would have made for an excessively complex study. But “that’s a great research question for another trial.”

DAPA-RESIST was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Campbell disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca for speaking and from Bayer for serving on an advisory board.

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

Dapagliflozin (Farxiga) appears to be no more effective than the “thiazide-like” diuretic metolazone at improving pulmonary congestion and fluid status in patients with acute heart failure (AHF), suggests a new randomized trial. The drugs were given to the study’s loop diuretic–resistant patients on top of furosemide.

Changes in volume status and measures of pulmonary congestion and risk for serious adverse events were similar for those assigned to take dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or metolazone, a quinazoline diuretic. Those on dapagliflozin zone ultimately received a larger cumulative furosemide dose in the 61-patient trial, called DAPA-RESIST.

“The next steps are to assess whether a strategy of using SGLT2 inhibitors up front in patients with HF reduces the incidence of diuretic resistance, and to test further combinations of diuretics such as thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, compared with acetazolamide, when used in addition to an IV loop diuretic and SGLT2 inhibitors together,” Ross T. Campbell, MBChB, PhD, University of Glasgow and Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, also in Glasgow, said in an interview.

Dr. Campbell presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology and is senior author on its simultaneous publication in the European Heart Journal.

The multicenter trial randomly assigned 61 patients with AHF to receive dapagliflozin at a fixed dose of 10 mg once daily or metolazone 5 mg or 10 mg (starting dosage at physician discretion) once daily for 3 days of treatment on an open-label basis.

Patients had entered the trial on furosemide at a mean daily dosage of 260 mg in the dapagliflozin group and 229 mg for those assigned metolazone; dosages for the loop diuretic in the trial weren’t prespecified.

Their median age was 79 and 54% were women; 44% had HF with reduced ejection fraction. Their mean glomerular filtration rate was below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² in 26%, 90% had chronic kidney disease, 98% had peripheral edema, and 46% had diabetes.

The mean cumulative furosemide dose was significantly higher among the dapagliflozin group’s 31 patients, 976 mg versus 704 mg for the 30 on acetazolamide (P < .05), 96 hours after the start of randomized therapy. However, patients on dapagliflozin experienced a lesser increase in creatinine (P < .05) and in blood urea (P < .01), a greater change in serum sodium (P < .05), and a smaller reduction in serum potassium (P < .01).

Although the trial wasn’t powered for those outcomes, Dr. Campbell said, “less biochemical upset could be associated with better outcomes in terms of less medium- to long-term renal impairment, and in the short-term length of stay.”

The mean decrease in weight at 96 hours, the primary endpoint, reached 3 kg on dapagliflozin, compared with 3.6 kg with metolazone (P = .082), a difference that fell short of significance.

Loop diuretic efficiency, that is weight change in kg per 40 mg furosemide, “was smaller with dapagliflozin than with metolazone at each time point after randomization, although the difference was only significant at 24 hours,” the published report states.

Changes in pulmonary congestion (by lung ultrasound) and fluid volume were similar between the groups.

“This trial further adds to the evidence base and safety profile for using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with acute heart failure,” and “gives further confidence to clinicians that this class can be started in ‘sicker’ patients with HF who also have diuretic resistance,” Dr. Campbell said.

Asked during his presentation’s question and answer whether dapagliflozin might have shown a greater effect had the dosage been higher, Dr. Campbell explained that the drug was investigational when the trial started. Adding a higher-dose dapagliflozin arm, he said, would have made for an excessively complex study. But “that’s a great research question for another trial.”

DAPA-RESIST was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Campbell disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca for speaking and from Bayer for serving on an advisory board.

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

CHICAGO – Patients with advanced estrogen receptor–positive, HER-negative breast cancer receiving first line treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) experienced no progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) advantages over those who received the same therapy as second line treatment.

That was the conclusion of the phase 3 SONIA study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The benefit from first line therapy is not maintained and almost completely disappears when patients in the control arm cross over to receive CDK4/6 inhibition in second line,” said Gabe Sonke, MD, PhD, during his presentation at the meeting.

CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown benefit in both the first-and second-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke, who is a medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. He added that most guidelines suggest use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first line, but there hasn’t been a direct comparison between use in the first and second line.

“Many patients do very well on endocrine therapy alone [in the first line]. Combination treatment leads to a higher risk of the emergence of resistant patterns such as ESR1 mutations, and CDK4/6 inhibitors also come with added costs and toxicities. Given the absence of comparative data between first line and second line, we designed the SONIA trial,” said Dr. Sonke.
 

Study methods and results

The researchers recruited 1,050 pre- and postmenopausal women who were randomized to a nonsteroidal AI in the first line followed by second-line CDK4/6i plus the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant, or a nonsteroidal AI plus a CDK4/6i in the first line and fulvestrant in the second line. The most commonly used CDK4/6i was palbociclib at 91%, followed by ribociclib at 8%, and abemaciclib at 1%.

After a median follow-up of 37.3 months, the median duration of CDK4/6i exposure was 24.6 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 8.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group.

The median PFS during first-line therapy was 24.7 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 16.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .0001), which was consistent with the results seen in CDK4/6i pivotal trials in the first-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke. However, PFS after two lines of therapy was not significantly different between the groups (31.0 months vs. 26.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.87; P =.10).

The safety profile was similar to what had been seen in previous trials with respect to adverse events like bone marrow and liver function abnormalities and fatigue, but there were 42% more grade 3 or higher adverse events in the first-line CDK4/6i group than in the second-line CDK4/6i group. Dr. Sonke estimated that the increase in costs related to adverse events amounted to about $200,000 per patient receiving CDK4/6i as first line.

There were no significant differences between the two groups in quality of life measurement.

Subgroup analyses of patient categories including prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, de novo metastatic disease, visceral disease, bone-only disease, and treatment with palbociclib or ribociclib showed no difference in outcome for first- versus second-line CDK4/6i treatment.
 

Are CDK4/6i costs and side effects worth it?

The findings challenge the need for using CDK4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment in this population, according to Dr. Sonke, who also raised the following related questions.

“If you were a patient, would you consider a treatment that offers no improvement in quality of life and does not improve overall survival? As a doctor or nurse, would you recommend such a treatment to your patient that nearly doubles the incidence of side effects? And if you were responsible for covering the costs of this treatment, whether as an individual or health care insurance, would you consider it worth $200,000?”

For many patients, particularly in the first line setting where resistance mechanisms are less prevalent, endocrine therapy alone remains an excellent option,” said Dr. Sonke during his presentation.

During the discussion portion of the session, Daniel Stover, MD, who is an associate professor of translational therapeutics at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, pointed out that the lack of differences in the subanalyses leaves little guidance for physicians.

“We really have a limited signal on who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitors. I think one of the most important outcomes of this study is the focus on the patient, as there were substantially fewer adverse events and of course we need to think about financial toxicity as well,” he said. “I think one of the things that is perhaps most exciting to think about is who are the very good risk patients who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitor [therapy]? I think for the majority of patients, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor is still the appropriate treatment, but I would argue we need additional biomarkers, be it RNA-based biomarkers, novel PET imaging, or perhaps [circulating tumor] DNA dynamics.”
 

Do cost savings and reduced side effects outweigh first-line PFS benefit?

During the question-and-answer session, William Sikov, MD, spoke up from the audience in support of Dr. Sonke’s conclusions.

“Clearly there are still patients who benefit from that approach, but I think that we have reached an inflection point: I posit that the question has now changed. [We should not ask] why a certain patient should not receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor, but why a certain patient should receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting,” said Dr. Sikov, who is professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Sonke agreed that first-line CDK4/6i is appropriate for some patients, and later echoed the need for biomarkers, but he said that researchers have so far had little luck in identifying any.

“Of course, it’s a shared decision-making between the patient and a doctor, but I think the baseline would be for all of us to consider first line single-agent endocrine therapy,” he said.

Session comoderator Michael Danso, MD, praised the trial but questioned whether the strategy would be adopted in places like the United States, where cost savings is not a major emphasis.

“Progression-free survival is so significant in the first line setting that I can’t imagine that many oncologists in the U.S. will adopt this approach. The other thing is that this was [almost] all palbociclib, so the question remains, would having a different cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor result in the same results? I think the jury’s still out,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.

The study was funded by the Dutch government and Dutch Health Insurers. Dr. Sonke has consulted for or advised Biovica, Novartis, and Seagen. He has received research support through his institution from Agendia, AstraZeneca/Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Seagen. Dr. Sikov has been a speaker for Lilly. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

CHICAGO – Patients with advanced estrogen receptor–positive, HER-negative breast cancer receiving first line treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) experienced no progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) advantages over those who received the same therapy as second line treatment.

That was the conclusion of the phase 3 SONIA study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The benefit from first line therapy is not maintained and almost completely disappears when patients in the control arm cross over to receive CDK4/6 inhibition in second line,” said Gabe Sonke, MD, PhD, during his presentation at the meeting.

CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown benefit in both the first-and second-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke, who is a medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. He added that most guidelines suggest use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first line, but there hasn’t been a direct comparison between use in the first and second line.

“Many patients do very well on endocrine therapy alone [in the first line]. Combination treatment leads to a higher risk of the emergence of resistant patterns such as ESR1 mutations, and CDK4/6 inhibitors also come with added costs and toxicities. Given the absence of comparative data between first line and second line, we designed the SONIA trial,” said Dr. Sonke.
 

Study methods and results

The researchers recruited 1,050 pre- and postmenopausal women who were randomized to a nonsteroidal AI in the first line followed by second-line CDK4/6i plus the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant, or a nonsteroidal AI plus a CDK4/6i in the first line and fulvestrant in the second line. The most commonly used CDK4/6i was palbociclib at 91%, followed by ribociclib at 8%, and abemaciclib at 1%.

After a median follow-up of 37.3 months, the median duration of CDK4/6i exposure was 24.6 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 8.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group.

The median PFS during first-line therapy was 24.7 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 16.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .0001), which was consistent with the results seen in CDK4/6i pivotal trials in the first-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke. However, PFS after two lines of therapy was not significantly different between the groups (31.0 months vs. 26.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.87; P =.10).

The safety profile was similar to what had been seen in previous trials with respect to adverse events like bone marrow and liver function abnormalities and fatigue, but there were 42% more grade 3 or higher adverse events in the first-line CDK4/6i group than in the second-line CDK4/6i group. Dr. Sonke estimated that the increase in costs related to adverse events amounted to about $200,000 per patient receiving CDK4/6i as first line.

There were no significant differences between the two groups in quality of life measurement.

Subgroup analyses of patient categories including prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, de novo metastatic disease, visceral disease, bone-only disease, and treatment with palbociclib or ribociclib showed no difference in outcome for first- versus second-line CDK4/6i treatment.
 

Are CDK4/6i costs and side effects worth it?

The findings challenge the need for using CDK4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment in this population, according to Dr. Sonke, who also raised the following related questions.

“If you were a patient, would you consider a treatment that offers no improvement in quality of life and does not improve overall survival? As a doctor or nurse, would you recommend such a treatment to your patient that nearly doubles the incidence of side effects? And if you were responsible for covering the costs of this treatment, whether as an individual or health care insurance, would you consider it worth $200,000?”

For many patients, particularly in the first line setting where resistance mechanisms are less prevalent, endocrine therapy alone remains an excellent option,” said Dr. Sonke during his presentation.

During the discussion portion of the session, Daniel Stover, MD, who is an associate professor of translational therapeutics at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, pointed out that the lack of differences in the subanalyses leaves little guidance for physicians.

“We really have a limited signal on who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitors. I think one of the most important outcomes of this study is the focus on the patient, as there were substantially fewer adverse events and of course we need to think about financial toxicity as well,” he said. “I think one of the things that is perhaps most exciting to think about is who are the very good risk patients who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitor [therapy]? I think for the majority of patients, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor is still the appropriate treatment, but I would argue we need additional biomarkers, be it RNA-based biomarkers, novel PET imaging, or perhaps [circulating tumor] DNA dynamics.”
 

Do cost savings and reduced side effects outweigh first-line PFS benefit?

During the question-and-answer session, William Sikov, MD, spoke up from the audience in support of Dr. Sonke’s conclusions.

“Clearly there are still patients who benefit from that approach, but I think that we have reached an inflection point: I posit that the question has now changed. [We should not ask] why a certain patient should not receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor, but why a certain patient should receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting,” said Dr. Sikov, who is professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Sonke agreed that first-line CDK4/6i is appropriate for some patients, and later echoed the need for biomarkers, but he said that researchers have so far had little luck in identifying any.

“Of course, it’s a shared decision-making between the patient and a doctor, but I think the baseline would be for all of us to consider first line single-agent endocrine therapy,” he said.

Session comoderator Michael Danso, MD, praised the trial but questioned whether the strategy would be adopted in places like the United States, where cost savings is not a major emphasis.

“Progression-free survival is so significant in the first line setting that I can’t imagine that many oncologists in the U.S. will adopt this approach. The other thing is that this was [almost] all palbociclib, so the question remains, would having a different cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor result in the same results? I think the jury’s still out,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.

The study was funded by the Dutch government and Dutch Health Insurers. Dr. Sonke has consulted for or advised Biovica, Novartis, and Seagen. He has received research support through his institution from Agendia, AstraZeneca/Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Seagen. Dr. Sikov has been a speaker for Lilly. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

CHICAGO – Patients with advanced estrogen receptor–positive, HER-negative breast cancer receiving first line treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) experienced no progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) advantages over those who received the same therapy as second line treatment.

That was the conclusion of the phase 3 SONIA study, which was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The benefit from first line therapy is not maintained and almost completely disappears when patients in the control arm cross over to receive CDK4/6 inhibition in second line,” said Gabe Sonke, MD, PhD, during his presentation at the meeting.

CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown benefit in both the first-and second-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke, who is a medical oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. He added that most guidelines suggest use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first line, but there hasn’t been a direct comparison between use in the first and second line.

“Many patients do very well on endocrine therapy alone [in the first line]. Combination treatment leads to a higher risk of the emergence of resistant patterns such as ESR1 mutations, and CDK4/6 inhibitors also come with added costs and toxicities. Given the absence of comparative data between first line and second line, we designed the SONIA trial,” said Dr. Sonke.
 

Study methods and results

The researchers recruited 1,050 pre- and postmenopausal women who were randomized to a nonsteroidal AI in the first line followed by second-line CDK4/6i plus the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant, or a nonsteroidal AI plus a CDK4/6i in the first line and fulvestrant in the second line. The most commonly used CDK4/6i was palbociclib at 91%, followed by ribociclib at 8%, and abemaciclib at 1%.

After a median follow-up of 37.3 months, the median duration of CDK4/6i exposure was 24.6 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 8.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group.

The median PFS during first-line therapy was 24.7 months in the first-line CDK4/6i group and 16.1 months in the second-line CDK4/6i group (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .0001), which was consistent with the results seen in CDK4/6i pivotal trials in the first-line setting, according to Dr. Sonke. However, PFS after two lines of therapy was not significantly different between the groups (31.0 months vs. 26.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.87; P =.10).

The safety profile was similar to what had been seen in previous trials with respect to adverse events like bone marrow and liver function abnormalities and fatigue, but there were 42% more grade 3 or higher adverse events in the first-line CDK4/6i group than in the second-line CDK4/6i group. Dr. Sonke estimated that the increase in costs related to adverse events amounted to about $200,000 per patient receiving CDK4/6i as first line.

There were no significant differences between the two groups in quality of life measurement.

Subgroup analyses of patient categories including prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or endocrine therapy, de novo metastatic disease, visceral disease, bone-only disease, and treatment with palbociclib or ribociclib showed no difference in outcome for first- versus second-line CDK4/6i treatment.
 

Are CDK4/6i costs and side effects worth it?

The findings challenge the need for using CDK4/6 inhibitors as first-line treatment in this population, according to Dr. Sonke, who also raised the following related questions.

“If you were a patient, would you consider a treatment that offers no improvement in quality of life and does not improve overall survival? As a doctor or nurse, would you recommend such a treatment to your patient that nearly doubles the incidence of side effects? And if you were responsible for covering the costs of this treatment, whether as an individual or health care insurance, would you consider it worth $200,000?”

For many patients, particularly in the first line setting where resistance mechanisms are less prevalent, endocrine therapy alone remains an excellent option,” said Dr. Sonke during his presentation.

During the discussion portion of the session, Daniel Stover, MD, who is an associate professor of translational therapeutics at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, pointed out that the lack of differences in the subanalyses leaves little guidance for physicians.

“We really have a limited signal on who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitors. I think one of the most important outcomes of this study is the focus on the patient, as there were substantially fewer adverse events and of course we need to think about financial toxicity as well,” he said. “I think one of the things that is perhaps most exciting to think about is who are the very good risk patients who can delay CDK4/6 inhibitor [therapy]? I think for the majority of patients, endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor is still the appropriate treatment, but I would argue we need additional biomarkers, be it RNA-based biomarkers, novel PET imaging, or perhaps [circulating tumor] DNA dynamics.”
 

Do cost savings and reduced side effects outweigh first-line PFS benefit?

During the question-and-answer session, William Sikov, MD, spoke up from the audience in support of Dr. Sonke’s conclusions.

“Clearly there are still patients who benefit from that approach, but I think that we have reached an inflection point: I posit that the question has now changed. [We should not ask] why a certain patient should not receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor, but why a certain patient should receive a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the first-line setting,” said Dr. Sikov, who is professor of medicine at Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Sonke agreed that first-line CDK4/6i is appropriate for some patients, and later echoed the need for biomarkers, but he said that researchers have so far had little luck in identifying any.

“Of course, it’s a shared decision-making between the patient and a doctor, but I think the baseline would be for all of us to consider first line single-agent endocrine therapy,” he said.

Session comoderator Michael Danso, MD, praised the trial but questioned whether the strategy would be adopted in places like the United States, where cost savings is not a major emphasis.

“Progression-free survival is so significant in the first line setting that I can’t imagine that many oncologists in the U.S. will adopt this approach. The other thing is that this was [almost] all palbociclib, so the question remains, would having a different cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor result in the same results? I think the jury’s still out,” said Dr. Danso, who is the research director at Virginia Oncology Associates, Norfolk.

The study was funded by the Dutch government and Dutch Health Insurers. Dr. Sonke has consulted for or advised Biovica, Novartis, and Seagen. He has received research support through his institution from Agendia, AstraZeneca/Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, and Seagen. Dr. Sikov has been a speaker for Lilly. Dr. Danso has received honoraria from Amgen and has consulted or advised Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Seagen.

Suicide risk in young people appears to follow a diurnal pattern, increasing at night, new research shows.

Investigators found that suicidal ideation and attempts were lowest in the mornings and highest in the evenings, particularly among youth with higher levels of self-critical rumination.

“These are preliminary findings, and there is a need for more data, but they signal potentially that there’s a need for support, particularly at nighttime, and that there might be a potential of targeting self-critical rumination in daily lives of youth,” said lead researcher Anastacia Kudinova, PhD, with the department of psychiatry and human behavior, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I.

The findings were presented at the late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Urgent need

Suicidal ideation (SI) is a “robust” predictor of suicidal behavior and, “alarmingly,” both suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior have been increasing, Dr. Kudinova said.

“There is an urgent need to describe proximal time-period risk factors for suicide so that we can identify who is at a greater suicide risk on the time scale of weeks, days, or even hours,” she told attendees.

The researchers asked 165 psychiatrically hospitalized youth aged 11-18 (72% female) about the time of day of their most recent suicide attempt.

More than half (58%) said it occurred in the evenings and nights, followed by daytime (35%) and mornings (7%).

They also assessed the timing of suicidal ideation at home in 61 youth aged 12-15 (61% female) who were discharged after a partial hospitalization program.

They did this using ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) three times a day over 2 weeks. EMAs study people’s thoughts and behavior in their daily lives by repeatedly collecting data in an individual’s normal environment at or close to the time they carry out that behavior.

As in the other sample, youth in this sample also experienced significantly more frequent suicidal ideation later in the day (P < .01).

There was also a significant moderating effect of self-criticism (P < .01), such that more self-critical youth evidenced the highest levels of suicidal ideation later in the day.
 

True variation or mechanics?

Reached for comment, Paul Nestadt, MD, with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted that EMA is becoming “an interesting way to track high-resolution temporal variation in suicidal ideation and other psych symptoms.”

Dr. Nestadt, who was not involved in the study, said that “it’s not surprising” that the majority of youth attempted suicide in evenings and nights, “as adolescents are generally being supervised in a school setting during daytime hours. It may not be the fluctuation in suicidality that impacts attempt timing so much as the mechanics – it is very hard to attempt suicide in math class.”

The same may be true for the youth in the second sample who were in the partial hospital program. “During the day, they were in therapy groups where feelings of suicidal ideation would have been solicited and addressed in real time,” Dr. Nestadt noted.

“Again, suicidal ideation later in the day may be a practical effect of how they are occupied in the partial hospital program, as opposed to some inherent suicidal ideation increase linked to something endogenous, such as circadian rhythm or cortisol level rises. That said, we do often see more attempts in the evenings in adults as well,” he added.
 

A vulnerable time

Also weighing in, Casey O’Brien, PsyD, a psychologist in the department of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the findings in this study “track” with what she sees in the clinic.

Teens often report in session that the “unstructured time of night – especially the time when they usually should be getting to bed but are kind of staying up – tends to be a very vulnerable time for them,” Dr. O’Brien said in an interview.

“It’s really nice to have research confirm a lot of what we see reported anecdotally from the teens we work with,” said Dr. O’Brien.

Dr. O’Brien heads the intensive adolescent dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) program at Columbia for young people struggling with mental health issues.

“Within the DBT framework, we try to really focus on accepting that this is a vulnerable time and then planning ahead for what the strategies are that they can use to help them transition to bed quickly and smoothly,” Dr. O’Brien said.

These strategies may include spending time with their parents before bed, reading, or building into their bedtime routines things that they find soothing and comforting, like taking a longer shower or having comfortable pajamas to change into, she explained.

“We also work a lot on sleep hygiene strategies to help develop a regular bedtime and have a consistent sleep-wake cycle. We also will plan ahead for using distress tolerance skills during times of emotional vulnerability,” Dr. O’Brien said.

The Columbia DBT program also offers phone coaching “so teens can reach out to a therapist for help using skills outside of a therapeutic hour, and we do find that we get more coaching calls closer to around bedtime,” Dr. O’Brien said.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute of Mental Health and Bradley Hospital COBRE Center. Dr. Kudinova, Dr. Nestadt, and Dr. O’Brien have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Suicide risk in young people appears to follow a diurnal pattern, increasing at night, new research shows.

Investigators found that suicidal ideation and attempts were lowest in the mornings and highest in the evenings, particularly among youth with higher levels of self-critical rumination.

“These are preliminary findings, and there is a need for more data, but they signal potentially that there’s a need for support, particularly at nighttime, and that there might be a potential of targeting self-critical rumination in daily lives of youth,” said lead researcher Anastacia Kudinova, PhD, with the department of psychiatry and human behavior, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I.

The findings were presented at the late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Urgent need

Suicidal ideation (SI) is a “robust” predictor of suicidal behavior and, “alarmingly,” both suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior have been increasing, Dr. Kudinova said.

“There is an urgent need to describe proximal time-period risk factors for suicide so that we can identify who is at a greater suicide risk on the time scale of weeks, days, or even hours,” she told attendees.

The researchers asked 165 psychiatrically hospitalized youth aged 11-18 (72% female) about the time of day of their most recent suicide attempt.

More than half (58%) said it occurred in the evenings and nights, followed by daytime (35%) and mornings (7%).

They also assessed the timing of suicidal ideation at home in 61 youth aged 12-15 (61% female) who were discharged after a partial hospitalization program.

They did this using ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) three times a day over 2 weeks. EMAs study people’s thoughts and behavior in their daily lives by repeatedly collecting data in an individual’s normal environment at or close to the time they carry out that behavior.

As in the other sample, youth in this sample also experienced significantly more frequent suicidal ideation later in the day (P < .01).

There was also a significant moderating effect of self-criticism (P < .01), such that more self-critical youth evidenced the highest levels of suicidal ideation later in the day.
 

True variation or mechanics?

Reached for comment, Paul Nestadt, MD, with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted that EMA is becoming “an interesting way to track high-resolution temporal variation in suicidal ideation and other psych symptoms.”

Dr. Nestadt, who was not involved in the study, said that “it’s not surprising” that the majority of youth attempted suicide in evenings and nights, “as adolescents are generally being supervised in a school setting during daytime hours. It may not be the fluctuation in suicidality that impacts attempt timing so much as the mechanics – it is very hard to attempt suicide in math class.”

The same may be true for the youth in the second sample who were in the partial hospital program. “During the day, they were in therapy groups where feelings of suicidal ideation would have been solicited and addressed in real time,” Dr. Nestadt noted.

“Again, suicidal ideation later in the day may be a practical effect of how they are occupied in the partial hospital program, as opposed to some inherent suicidal ideation increase linked to something endogenous, such as circadian rhythm or cortisol level rises. That said, we do often see more attempts in the evenings in adults as well,” he added.
 

A vulnerable time

Also weighing in, Casey O’Brien, PsyD, a psychologist in the department of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the findings in this study “track” with what she sees in the clinic.

Teens often report in session that the “unstructured time of night – especially the time when they usually should be getting to bed but are kind of staying up – tends to be a very vulnerable time for them,” Dr. O’Brien said in an interview.

“It’s really nice to have research confirm a lot of what we see reported anecdotally from the teens we work with,” said Dr. O’Brien.

Dr. O’Brien heads the intensive adolescent dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) program at Columbia for young people struggling with mental health issues.

“Within the DBT framework, we try to really focus on accepting that this is a vulnerable time and then planning ahead for what the strategies are that they can use to help them transition to bed quickly and smoothly,” Dr. O’Brien said.

These strategies may include spending time with their parents before bed, reading, or building into their bedtime routines things that they find soothing and comforting, like taking a longer shower or having comfortable pajamas to change into, she explained.

“We also work a lot on sleep hygiene strategies to help develop a regular bedtime and have a consistent sleep-wake cycle. We also will plan ahead for using distress tolerance skills during times of emotional vulnerability,” Dr. O’Brien said.

The Columbia DBT program also offers phone coaching “so teens can reach out to a therapist for help using skills outside of a therapeutic hour, and we do find that we get more coaching calls closer to around bedtime,” Dr. O’Brien said.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute of Mental Health and Bradley Hospital COBRE Center. Dr. Kudinova, Dr. Nestadt, and Dr. O’Brien have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Suicide risk in young people appears to follow a diurnal pattern, increasing at night, new research shows.

Investigators found that suicidal ideation and attempts were lowest in the mornings and highest in the evenings, particularly among youth with higher levels of self-critical rumination.

“These are preliminary findings, and there is a need for more data, but they signal potentially that there’s a need for support, particularly at nighttime, and that there might be a potential of targeting self-critical rumination in daily lives of youth,” said lead researcher Anastacia Kudinova, PhD, with the department of psychiatry and human behavior, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I.

The findings were presented at the late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Urgent need

Suicidal ideation (SI) is a “robust” predictor of suicidal behavior and, “alarmingly,” both suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior have been increasing, Dr. Kudinova said.

“There is an urgent need to describe proximal time-period risk factors for suicide so that we can identify who is at a greater suicide risk on the time scale of weeks, days, or even hours,” she told attendees.

The researchers asked 165 psychiatrically hospitalized youth aged 11-18 (72% female) about the time of day of their most recent suicide attempt.

More than half (58%) said it occurred in the evenings and nights, followed by daytime (35%) and mornings (7%).

They also assessed the timing of suicidal ideation at home in 61 youth aged 12-15 (61% female) who were discharged after a partial hospitalization program.

They did this using ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) three times a day over 2 weeks. EMAs study people’s thoughts and behavior in their daily lives by repeatedly collecting data in an individual’s normal environment at or close to the time they carry out that behavior.

As in the other sample, youth in this sample also experienced significantly more frequent suicidal ideation later in the day (P < .01).

There was also a significant moderating effect of self-criticism (P < .01), such that more self-critical youth evidenced the highest levels of suicidal ideation later in the day.
 

True variation or mechanics?

Reached for comment, Paul Nestadt, MD, with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted that EMA is becoming “an interesting way to track high-resolution temporal variation in suicidal ideation and other psych symptoms.”

Dr. Nestadt, who was not involved in the study, said that “it’s not surprising” that the majority of youth attempted suicide in evenings and nights, “as adolescents are generally being supervised in a school setting during daytime hours. It may not be the fluctuation in suicidality that impacts attempt timing so much as the mechanics – it is very hard to attempt suicide in math class.”

The same may be true for the youth in the second sample who were in the partial hospital program. “During the day, they were in therapy groups where feelings of suicidal ideation would have been solicited and addressed in real time,” Dr. Nestadt noted.

“Again, suicidal ideation later in the day may be a practical effect of how they are occupied in the partial hospital program, as opposed to some inherent suicidal ideation increase linked to something endogenous, such as circadian rhythm or cortisol level rises. That said, we do often see more attempts in the evenings in adults as well,” he added.
 

A vulnerable time

Also weighing in, Casey O’Brien, PsyD, a psychologist in the department of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the findings in this study “track” with what she sees in the clinic.

Teens often report in session that the “unstructured time of night – especially the time when they usually should be getting to bed but are kind of staying up – tends to be a very vulnerable time for them,” Dr. O’Brien said in an interview.

“It’s really nice to have research confirm a lot of what we see reported anecdotally from the teens we work with,” said Dr. O’Brien.

Dr. O’Brien heads the intensive adolescent dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) program at Columbia for young people struggling with mental health issues.

“Within the DBT framework, we try to really focus on accepting that this is a vulnerable time and then planning ahead for what the strategies are that they can use to help them transition to bed quickly and smoothly,” Dr. O’Brien said.

These strategies may include spending time with their parents before bed, reading, or building into their bedtime routines things that they find soothing and comforting, like taking a longer shower or having comfortable pajamas to change into, she explained.

“We also work a lot on sleep hygiene strategies to help develop a regular bedtime and have a consistent sleep-wake cycle. We also will plan ahead for using distress tolerance skills during times of emotional vulnerability,” Dr. O’Brien said.

The Columbia DBT program also offers phone coaching “so teens can reach out to a therapist for help using skills outside of a therapeutic hour, and we do find that we get more coaching calls closer to around bedtime,” Dr. O’Brien said.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute of Mental Health and Bradley Hospital COBRE Center. Dr. Kudinova, Dr. Nestadt, and Dr. O’Brien have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vulvodynia is a little-known condition that, according to some U.S. studies, affects 3%-14% of the female population. It is defined as chronic pain, present for at least 3 months, that generally involves the vulva or some of its specific areas such as the clitoris or vestibule and is not attributable to causes of an infectious, inflammatory, oncologic, or endocrine nature; skin trauma; or damage to nerve fibers.
 

“There are probably many more women who suffer from it who don’t talk about it out of shame, because they feel ‘wrong,’ ” said gynecologist Pina Belfiore, MD, chair of the Italian Interdisciplinary Society of Vulvology, at the annual conference of the Italian Society of Gender Medicine in Neurosciences. “It is a treatable condition, or at the very least, a patient’s quality of life can be significantly improved with a personalized therapeutic approach.”
 

The correct diagnosis

The first step for setting the patient on the right course toward recovery is to offer welcome and empathy, recognizing that the suffering, which can have psychological causes, is not imaginary. “We need to explain to patients that their condition has a name, that they are not alone in this situation, and, above all, that there is hope for solving the problem. They can get through it,” said Dr. Belfiore.

First, an accurate history of the pain is needed to correctly diagnose vulvodynia. How long has the pain been going on? Is it continuous or is it triggered by an environmental factor, for example by sexual intercourse or contact with underwear? Is it a burning or stinging sensation? Did it first occur after an infection or after a physical or psychological trauma? Does the patient suffer from other forms of chronic pain such as recurring headaches or fibromyalgia?

“It is then necessary to inspect the vulva to exclude other systematic conditions or injuries that may be responsible for the pain, as well as to locate hypersensitive areas and evaluate the intensity of the symptoms,” said Dr. Belfiore.” A swab test is performed for this purpose, which is carried out by applying light pressure on different points of the vulva with a cotton swab.”
 

CNS dysfunction

Vulvodynia is not a direct condition of the vulva. Instead, it involves the dysfunction of the central nervous system (CNS), which confuses signals coming from the peripheral area, interpreting signals of a different nature as painful stimuli.

“The origin of this dysfunction is an individual predisposition. In fact, often the women who suffer from it are also affected by other forms of chronic pain,” said Dr. Belfiore. “Triggers for vulvodynia can be bacterial infections, candidiasis, or traumatic events such as surgically assisted birth or psychological trauma.”

Because inflammatory mechanisms are not involved, anti-inflammatory drugs are not helpful in treating the problem. “Instead, it is necessary to reduce the sensitivity of the CNS. For this purpose, low-dose antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs are used,” said Dr. Belfiore. “Pelvic floor rehabilitation is another treatment that can be beneficial when combined with pharmacologic treatment. This should be conducted by a professional with specific experience in vulvodynia, because an excessive increase in the tone of the levator ani muscle can make the situation worse. Psychotherapy and the adoption of certain hygienic and behavioral measures can also help, such as using lubricant during sexual intercourse, wearing pure cotton underwear, and using gentle intimate body washes.”

“It is important that family doctors who see women with this problem refer them to an experienced specialist,” said Dr. Belfiore.

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

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

Vulvodynia is a little-known condition that, according to some U.S. studies, affects 3%-14% of the female population. It is defined as chronic pain, present for at least 3 months, that generally involves the vulva or some of its specific areas such as the clitoris or vestibule and is not attributable to causes of an infectious, inflammatory, oncologic, or endocrine nature; skin trauma; or damage to nerve fibers.
 

“There are probably many more women who suffer from it who don’t talk about it out of shame, because they feel ‘wrong,’ ” said gynecologist Pina Belfiore, MD, chair of the Italian Interdisciplinary Society of Vulvology, at the annual conference of the Italian Society of Gender Medicine in Neurosciences. “It is a treatable condition, or at the very least, a patient’s quality of life can be significantly improved with a personalized therapeutic approach.”
 

The correct diagnosis

The first step for setting the patient on the right course toward recovery is to offer welcome and empathy, recognizing that the suffering, which can have psychological causes, is not imaginary. “We need to explain to patients that their condition has a name, that they are not alone in this situation, and, above all, that there is hope for solving the problem. They can get through it,” said Dr. Belfiore.

First, an accurate history of the pain is needed to correctly diagnose vulvodynia. How long has the pain been going on? Is it continuous or is it triggered by an environmental factor, for example by sexual intercourse or contact with underwear? Is it a burning or stinging sensation? Did it first occur after an infection or after a physical or psychological trauma? Does the patient suffer from other forms of chronic pain such as recurring headaches or fibromyalgia?

“It is then necessary to inspect the vulva to exclude other systematic conditions or injuries that may be responsible for the pain, as well as to locate hypersensitive areas and evaluate the intensity of the symptoms,” said Dr. Belfiore.” A swab test is performed for this purpose, which is carried out by applying light pressure on different points of the vulva with a cotton swab.”
 

CNS dysfunction

Vulvodynia is not a direct condition of the vulva. Instead, it involves the dysfunction of the central nervous system (CNS), which confuses signals coming from the peripheral area, interpreting signals of a different nature as painful stimuli.

“The origin of this dysfunction is an individual predisposition. In fact, often the women who suffer from it are also affected by other forms of chronic pain,” said Dr. Belfiore. “Triggers for vulvodynia can be bacterial infections, candidiasis, or traumatic events such as surgically assisted birth or psychological trauma.”

Because inflammatory mechanisms are not involved, anti-inflammatory drugs are not helpful in treating the problem. “Instead, it is necessary to reduce the sensitivity of the CNS. For this purpose, low-dose antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs are used,” said Dr. Belfiore. “Pelvic floor rehabilitation is another treatment that can be beneficial when combined with pharmacologic treatment. This should be conducted by a professional with specific experience in vulvodynia, because an excessive increase in the tone of the levator ani muscle can make the situation worse. Psychotherapy and the adoption of certain hygienic and behavioral measures can also help, such as using lubricant during sexual intercourse, wearing pure cotton underwear, and using gentle intimate body washes.”

“It is important that family doctors who see women with this problem refer them to an experienced specialist,” said Dr. Belfiore.

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

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

Vulvodynia is a little-known condition that, according to some U.S. studies, affects 3%-14% of the female population. It is defined as chronic pain, present for at least 3 months, that generally involves the vulva or some of its specific areas such as the clitoris or vestibule and is not attributable to causes of an infectious, inflammatory, oncologic, or endocrine nature; skin trauma; or damage to nerve fibers.
 

“There are probably many more women who suffer from it who don’t talk about it out of shame, because they feel ‘wrong,’ ” said gynecologist Pina Belfiore, MD, chair of the Italian Interdisciplinary Society of Vulvology, at the annual conference of the Italian Society of Gender Medicine in Neurosciences. “It is a treatable condition, or at the very least, a patient’s quality of life can be significantly improved with a personalized therapeutic approach.”
 

The correct diagnosis

The first step for setting the patient on the right course toward recovery is to offer welcome and empathy, recognizing that the suffering, which can have psychological causes, is not imaginary. “We need to explain to patients that their condition has a name, that they are not alone in this situation, and, above all, that there is hope for solving the problem. They can get through it,” said Dr. Belfiore.

First, an accurate history of the pain is needed to correctly diagnose vulvodynia. How long has the pain been going on? Is it continuous or is it triggered by an environmental factor, for example by sexual intercourse or contact with underwear? Is it a burning or stinging sensation? Did it first occur after an infection or after a physical or psychological trauma? Does the patient suffer from other forms of chronic pain such as recurring headaches or fibromyalgia?

“It is then necessary to inspect the vulva to exclude other systematic conditions or injuries that may be responsible for the pain, as well as to locate hypersensitive areas and evaluate the intensity of the symptoms,” said Dr. Belfiore.” A swab test is performed for this purpose, which is carried out by applying light pressure on different points of the vulva with a cotton swab.”
 

CNS dysfunction

Vulvodynia is not a direct condition of the vulva. Instead, it involves the dysfunction of the central nervous system (CNS), which confuses signals coming from the peripheral area, interpreting signals of a different nature as painful stimuli.

“The origin of this dysfunction is an individual predisposition. In fact, often the women who suffer from it are also affected by other forms of chronic pain,” said Dr. Belfiore. “Triggers for vulvodynia can be bacterial infections, candidiasis, or traumatic events such as surgically assisted birth or psychological trauma.”

Because inflammatory mechanisms are not involved, anti-inflammatory drugs are not helpful in treating the problem. “Instead, it is necessary to reduce the sensitivity of the CNS. For this purpose, low-dose antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs are used,” said Dr. Belfiore. “Pelvic floor rehabilitation is another treatment that can be beneficial when combined with pharmacologic treatment. This should be conducted by a professional with specific experience in vulvodynia, because an excessive increase in the tone of the levator ani muscle can make the situation worse. Psychotherapy and the adoption of certain hygienic and behavioral measures can also help, such as using lubricant during sexual intercourse, wearing pure cotton underwear, and using gentle intimate body washes.”

“It is important that family doctors who see women with this problem refer them to an experienced specialist,” said Dr. Belfiore.

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

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network.

A system of personalized alerts via an electronic health record (EHR) network failed to boost discharge prescriptions for guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in a randomized trial conducted at several centers in the same health care system.

The results of the PROMPT-AHF trial, which assigned such patients to have or not have the GDMT-promoting physician nudges as part of their in-hospital management, were “not entirely surprising,” Tariq Ahmad, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

“We have created an environment in the hospital that makes care quite fractured for patients with heart failure,” he said. “They are cared for by many different clinicians, which leads to well-known behaviors such as diffusion of responsibility.”

Moreover, many clinicians focus on stabilizing patients “rather than starting them on a comprehensive set of medications, which most think should be done after discharge,” Dr. Ahmad added.

“Importantly, there has been a logarithmic increase in alerts while patients are hospitalized that has caused clinician burnout and is leading to even very important alerts being ignored.”

Likely as a result, the trial saw no significant difference between the alert and no-alert groups in how often the number of GDMT prescriptions rose by at least one drug class, whether beta blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, or SGLT2 inhibitors. That happened for 34% of patients in both groups, reported Dr. Ahmad at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions

Nor was there a difference in the secondary endpoint of increased number of GDMT meds or escalated dosage of prescribed GDMT drugs.
 

GDMT ‘uncommon’ in AHF

In an earlier trial in outpatients with chronic HF, conducted by many of the same researchers, use of a targeted EHR-based alert system was associated with significantly higher rates of GDMT prescriptions 30 days after discharge, compared with usual care, Dr. Ahmad observed in his presentation.

Because GDMT is similarly “uncommon” among patients hospitalized with acute HF, the team designed the current trial, a test of the hypothesis that a similar system of nudges would lead to higher rates of prescriptions of the four core GDMT drug classes.

The study enrolled 920 adults with acute HF, an EF of 40% or lower (their median was 28%), and NT-proBNP levels higher than 500 pg/mL. The patients received IV diuretics for the first 24 in-hospital hours and were not taking medications from any of the four core HF drug classes. Their mean age was 74, 36% were women, and 25% were Black.

Physicians of patients who were randomly assigned to the intervention received the alerts as they entered information that involved ejection fraction, blood pressure, potassium levels, heart rate, glomerular filtration rate, and meds they were currently or should be taking, “along with an order set that made ordering those medications very easy,” Dr. Ahmad said.

“There was absolutely no evidence that the alert made any difference. There were zero patients on all four classes of GDMT at baseline, and at the time of discharge, only 11.2% of patients were on all four pillars – essentially, one in nine patients,” Dr. Ahmad said. Nor were there any subgroup differences in age, sex, race, ejection fraction, type of health insurance, or whether care was provided by a cardiologist or noncardiologist physician.

The study was limited by having been conducted within a single health care network using only the Epic EHR system. The alerts did not go exclusively to cardiologists, and patient preferences were not considered in the analysis. Also, the study’s alerts represented only some of the many that were received by the clinicians during the course of the trial.
 

Better incentives needed

“We believe this shows that refinement of the nudges is needed, as well as changes to clinician incentives to overcome barriers to implementation of GDMT during hospitalizations for AHF,” Dr. Ahmad said.

Responding to a postpresentation question on whether the postdischarge phase might be a more effective time to intervene with nudges, Dr. Ahmad observed that many clinicians who care for patients in the hospital assume that someone else will have the patient receive appropriate meds after discharge. “But we know that things that are started in the hospital tend to stick better.

“I do think that a lot of the clinicians were thinking, ‘I’m just going to get this patient out and someone in the outside will get them on GDMT,’ ” he said.

In the United States there are many incentives to reduce hospital length of stay and to expedite discharge so more beds are available for incoming patients, Dr. Ahmad observed. “I think it’s a combination of these kinds of perverse incentives that are not allowing us to get patients on appropriate GDMT during hospitalization.”

Furthermore, Dr. Ahmad told this news organization, “additions to the EHR should be evaluated in an evidence-based manner. However, the opposite has occurred, with an unregulated data tsunami crushing clinicians, which has been bad both for the clinicians and for patients.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Ahmad discloses receiving research funding from and consulting for AstraZeneca; and receiving research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Three other coauthors are employees of AstraZeneca.

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

A system of personalized alerts via an electronic health record (EHR) network failed to boost discharge prescriptions for guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in a randomized trial conducted at several centers in the same health care system.

The results of the PROMPT-AHF trial, which assigned such patients to have or not have the GDMT-promoting physician nudges as part of their in-hospital management, were “not entirely surprising,” Tariq Ahmad, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

“We have created an environment in the hospital that makes care quite fractured for patients with heart failure,” he said. “They are cared for by many different clinicians, which leads to well-known behaviors such as diffusion of responsibility.”

Moreover, many clinicians focus on stabilizing patients “rather than starting them on a comprehensive set of medications, which most think should be done after discharge,” Dr. Ahmad added.

“Importantly, there has been a logarithmic increase in alerts while patients are hospitalized that has caused clinician burnout and is leading to even very important alerts being ignored.”

Likely as a result, the trial saw no significant difference between the alert and no-alert groups in how often the number of GDMT prescriptions rose by at least one drug class, whether beta blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, or SGLT2 inhibitors. That happened for 34% of patients in both groups, reported Dr. Ahmad at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions

Nor was there a difference in the secondary endpoint of increased number of GDMT meds or escalated dosage of prescribed GDMT drugs.
 

GDMT ‘uncommon’ in AHF

In an earlier trial in outpatients with chronic HF, conducted by many of the same researchers, use of a targeted EHR-based alert system was associated with significantly higher rates of GDMT prescriptions 30 days after discharge, compared with usual care, Dr. Ahmad observed in his presentation.

Because GDMT is similarly “uncommon” among patients hospitalized with acute HF, the team designed the current trial, a test of the hypothesis that a similar system of nudges would lead to higher rates of prescriptions of the four core GDMT drug classes.

The study enrolled 920 adults with acute HF, an EF of 40% or lower (their median was 28%), and NT-proBNP levels higher than 500 pg/mL. The patients received IV diuretics for the first 24 in-hospital hours and were not taking medications from any of the four core HF drug classes. Their mean age was 74, 36% were women, and 25% were Black.

Physicians of patients who were randomly assigned to the intervention received the alerts as they entered information that involved ejection fraction, blood pressure, potassium levels, heart rate, glomerular filtration rate, and meds they were currently or should be taking, “along with an order set that made ordering those medications very easy,” Dr. Ahmad said.

“There was absolutely no evidence that the alert made any difference. There were zero patients on all four classes of GDMT at baseline, and at the time of discharge, only 11.2% of patients were on all four pillars – essentially, one in nine patients,” Dr. Ahmad said. Nor were there any subgroup differences in age, sex, race, ejection fraction, type of health insurance, or whether care was provided by a cardiologist or noncardiologist physician.

The study was limited by having been conducted within a single health care network using only the Epic EHR system. The alerts did not go exclusively to cardiologists, and patient preferences were not considered in the analysis. Also, the study’s alerts represented only some of the many that were received by the clinicians during the course of the trial.
 

Better incentives needed

“We believe this shows that refinement of the nudges is needed, as well as changes to clinician incentives to overcome barriers to implementation of GDMT during hospitalizations for AHF,” Dr. Ahmad said.

Responding to a postpresentation question on whether the postdischarge phase might be a more effective time to intervene with nudges, Dr. Ahmad observed that many clinicians who care for patients in the hospital assume that someone else will have the patient receive appropriate meds after discharge. “But we know that things that are started in the hospital tend to stick better.

“I do think that a lot of the clinicians were thinking, ‘I’m just going to get this patient out and someone in the outside will get them on GDMT,’ ” he said.

In the United States there are many incentives to reduce hospital length of stay and to expedite discharge so more beds are available for incoming patients, Dr. Ahmad observed. “I think it’s a combination of these kinds of perverse incentives that are not allowing us to get patients on appropriate GDMT during hospitalization.”

Furthermore, Dr. Ahmad told this news organization, “additions to the EHR should be evaluated in an evidence-based manner. However, the opposite has occurred, with an unregulated data tsunami crushing clinicians, which has been bad both for the clinicians and for patients.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Ahmad discloses receiving research funding from and consulting for AstraZeneca; and receiving research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Three other coauthors are employees of AstraZeneca.

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

A system of personalized alerts via an electronic health record (EHR) network failed to boost discharge prescriptions for guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction in a randomized trial conducted at several centers in the same health care system.

The results of the PROMPT-AHF trial, which assigned such patients to have or not have the GDMT-promoting physician nudges as part of their in-hospital management, were “not entirely surprising,” Tariq Ahmad, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview.

“We have created an environment in the hospital that makes care quite fractured for patients with heart failure,” he said. “They are cared for by many different clinicians, which leads to well-known behaviors such as diffusion of responsibility.”

Moreover, many clinicians focus on stabilizing patients “rather than starting them on a comprehensive set of medications, which most think should be done after discharge,” Dr. Ahmad added.

“Importantly, there has been a logarithmic increase in alerts while patients are hospitalized that has caused clinician burnout and is leading to even very important alerts being ignored.”

Likely as a result, the trial saw no significant difference between the alert and no-alert groups in how often the number of GDMT prescriptions rose by at least one drug class, whether beta blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, or SGLT2 inhibitors. That happened for 34% of patients in both groups, reported Dr. Ahmad at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions

Nor was there a difference in the secondary endpoint of increased number of GDMT meds or escalated dosage of prescribed GDMT drugs.
 

GDMT ‘uncommon’ in AHF

In an earlier trial in outpatients with chronic HF, conducted by many of the same researchers, use of a targeted EHR-based alert system was associated with significantly higher rates of GDMT prescriptions 30 days after discharge, compared with usual care, Dr. Ahmad observed in his presentation.

Because GDMT is similarly “uncommon” among patients hospitalized with acute HF, the team designed the current trial, a test of the hypothesis that a similar system of nudges would lead to higher rates of prescriptions of the four core GDMT drug classes.

The study enrolled 920 adults with acute HF, an EF of 40% or lower (their median was 28%), and NT-proBNP levels higher than 500 pg/mL. The patients received IV diuretics for the first 24 in-hospital hours and were not taking medications from any of the four core HF drug classes. Their mean age was 74, 36% were women, and 25% were Black.

Physicians of patients who were randomly assigned to the intervention received the alerts as they entered information that involved ejection fraction, blood pressure, potassium levels, heart rate, glomerular filtration rate, and meds they were currently or should be taking, “along with an order set that made ordering those medications very easy,” Dr. Ahmad said.

“There was absolutely no evidence that the alert made any difference. There were zero patients on all four classes of GDMT at baseline, and at the time of discharge, only 11.2% of patients were on all four pillars – essentially, one in nine patients,” Dr. Ahmad said. Nor were there any subgroup differences in age, sex, race, ejection fraction, type of health insurance, or whether care was provided by a cardiologist or noncardiologist physician.

The study was limited by having been conducted within a single health care network using only the Epic EHR system. The alerts did not go exclusively to cardiologists, and patient preferences were not considered in the analysis. Also, the study’s alerts represented only some of the many that were received by the clinicians during the course of the trial.
 

Better incentives needed

“We believe this shows that refinement of the nudges is needed, as well as changes to clinician incentives to overcome barriers to implementation of GDMT during hospitalizations for AHF,” Dr. Ahmad said.

Responding to a postpresentation question on whether the postdischarge phase might be a more effective time to intervene with nudges, Dr. Ahmad observed that many clinicians who care for patients in the hospital assume that someone else will have the patient receive appropriate meds after discharge. “But we know that things that are started in the hospital tend to stick better.

“I do think that a lot of the clinicians were thinking, ‘I’m just going to get this patient out and someone in the outside will get them on GDMT,’ ” he said.

In the United States there are many incentives to reduce hospital length of stay and to expedite discharge so more beds are available for incoming patients, Dr. Ahmad observed. “I think it’s a combination of these kinds of perverse incentives that are not allowing us to get patients on appropriate GDMT during hospitalization.”

Furthermore, Dr. Ahmad told this news organization, “additions to the EHR should be evaluated in an evidence-based manner. However, the opposite has occurred, with an unregulated data tsunami crushing clinicians, which has been bad both for the clinicians and for patients.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Ahmad discloses receiving research funding from and consulting for AstraZeneca; and receiving research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa. Three other coauthors are employees of AstraZeneca.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – University of California, San Diego, psychiatrist Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, has heard the scary stories about monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs): Patients supposedly need to be on restrictive diets free of culinary joys like cheese, beer, and wine; they can’t take cold medicines; and they can just forget about anesthesia for dental work or surgery.

Waketonay via Creative Commons (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode)

Wrong, wrong, and wrong, Dr. Stahl told an audience at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. While the venerable antidepressants can transform the lives of patients with treatment-resistant depression, he said, MAOIs are plagued by myths that exaggerate their risks.

“These are good options,” he said. “Everybody who prescribes these today, without exception, has seen patients respond after nothing else has – including ECT (electroconvulsive therapy).”

Still, MAOIs, which were first developed in the 1950s, remain little-used in the United States. While an average of six selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are prescribed every second in the United States each day, Dr. Stahl said, “there are only a few hundred MAOI prescribers for a few thousand patients.”

The main barrier to the use of the drugs is unfamiliarity, he said. Despite their low profile, they’re appropriate to use after failures of monotherapy with SSRIs/serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and augmentation with atypical antipsychotics. And they can be used in conjunction with ketamine/esketamine and ECT, which are other options for treatment-resistant depression, he said.

As for the myths about MAOIs, Dr. Stahl said the drugs can indeed interact with tyramine, which is found in foods like cheese, beer, and wine. The interaction can lead to potentially fatal hypertensive crises, Dr. Stahl said, noting that patients should avoid aged cheeses, tap and unpasteurized beer, soy products, and certain other foods. (Patients taking 6 mg transdermal or low-dose oral selegiline can ignore these restrictions.)

But canned beer, certain wines, yogurt, fresh American cheese, mozzarella/pizza chain cheese, cream cheese, and fresh or processed meat/poultry/fish are fine, he said. “Selectively, you can have a pretty high tyramine diet,” he added, although it’s a good idea for patients to have a blood pressure monitor at home.

As for cold medicines, sympathomimetic decongestants and stimulants should be used cautiously with blood pressure monitoring or not at all, he said, but those with codeine or expectorants are OK. Dextromethorphan, a weak serotonin reuptake inhibitor in some cough medicine, should be avoided. However, antihistamines other than chlorpheniramine/brompheniramine are OK to use, he added, and they may be the ideal choice for cold relief.

As for anesthesia, he cautioned that local anesthetics with epinephrine and general anesthesia can disrupt blood pressure. Choose a local anesthetic that does not contain vasoconstrictors, he said, and if surgery with general anesthesia is needed, “you can wash [the MAOI] out if you want” ahead of time.

Benzodiazepines, mivacurium, rapacuronium, morphine, or codeine can be used cautiously, he said, in urgent or elective surgery in a patient on an MAOI.

As for other myths, he said tricyclic antidepressants and related drugs aren’t as troublesome as psychiatrists may assume. Clomipramine and imipramine should be avoided. But other tricyclic antidepressants can be used with caution.

As for painkillers, he said it’s not true that they must be avoided, although MAIOs shouldn’t be taken with meperidine, fentanyl, methadone, tramadol, or tapentadol. Other painkillers, including over-the-counter products like aspirin, NSAIDs, and acetaminophen, should be used with caution, he said. And expert guidance is advised for use of hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone, or oxymorphone.

In the big picture, he noted, myths are so prevalent “that you have more calls from patients – and other doctors, dentists, and anesthesiologists – about MAO inhibitors then you will ever have about any other drug there.”

Columbia University, New York, psychiatrist Jonathan W. Stewart, MD, also spoke at the presentation on MAIOs at the APA conference. He recommended that colleagues consider the drugs if two or more antidepressants that work in different ways fail to provide relief after 4 weeks at a sufficient dose. Start low with one pill a day, he recommended, and seek full remission – no depressed mood – instead of simply “better.”

Ultimately, he said, “we do patients a disservice” if MAOIs aren’t considered in the appropriate patients.

Dr. Stahl discloses grant/research support (Acadia, Allergan/AbbVie, Avanir, Boehringer Ingelheim Braeburn, Daiichi Sankyo-Brazil Eisai, Eli Lilly, Harmony, Indivior, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Ironshore, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Pear Therapeutics, Sage, Shire Sunovion, Supernus, and Torrent), consultant/advisor support (Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, AbbVie, Axsome, Clearview, Done, Eisai Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Karuna, Levo, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Neurawell, Otsuka, Relmada, Sage, Sunovion, Supernus, Taliaz, Teva, Tris Pharma, and VistaGen), speakers bureau payments (Acadia, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Servier, Sunovion, and Teva), and options in Genomind, Lipidio, Neurawell and Delix. Dr. Stewart discloses unspecified relationships with Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Merck, Boeringer- Ingleheim, Bristol-Myers, Sinolfi-Aventis, Amilyn, Novartis, Organon, GlaxoSmithKlein, Shire, and Somerset.

SAN FRANCISCO – University of California, San Diego, psychiatrist Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, has heard the scary stories about monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs): Patients supposedly need to be on restrictive diets free of culinary joys like cheese, beer, and wine; they can’t take cold medicines; and they can just forget about anesthesia for dental work or surgery.

Waketonay via Creative Commons (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode)

Wrong, wrong, and wrong, Dr. Stahl told an audience at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. While the venerable antidepressants can transform the lives of patients with treatment-resistant depression, he said, MAOIs are plagued by myths that exaggerate their risks.

“These are good options,” he said. “Everybody who prescribes these today, without exception, has seen patients respond after nothing else has – including ECT (electroconvulsive therapy).”

Still, MAOIs, which were first developed in the 1950s, remain little-used in the United States. While an average of six selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are prescribed every second in the United States each day, Dr. Stahl said, “there are only a few hundred MAOI prescribers for a few thousand patients.”

The main barrier to the use of the drugs is unfamiliarity, he said. Despite their low profile, they’re appropriate to use after failures of monotherapy with SSRIs/serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and augmentation with atypical antipsychotics. And they can be used in conjunction with ketamine/esketamine and ECT, which are other options for treatment-resistant depression, he said.

As for the myths about MAOIs, Dr. Stahl said the drugs can indeed interact with tyramine, which is found in foods like cheese, beer, and wine. The interaction can lead to potentially fatal hypertensive crises, Dr. Stahl said, noting that patients should avoid aged cheeses, tap and unpasteurized beer, soy products, and certain other foods. (Patients taking 6 mg transdermal or low-dose oral selegiline can ignore these restrictions.)

But canned beer, certain wines, yogurt, fresh American cheese, mozzarella/pizza chain cheese, cream cheese, and fresh or processed meat/poultry/fish are fine, he said. “Selectively, you can have a pretty high tyramine diet,” he added, although it’s a good idea for patients to have a blood pressure monitor at home.

As for cold medicines, sympathomimetic decongestants and stimulants should be used cautiously with blood pressure monitoring or not at all, he said, but those with codeine or expectorants are OK. Dextromethorphan, a weak serotonin reuptake inhibitor in some cough medicine, should be avoided. However, antihistamines other than chlorpheniramine/brompheniramine are OK to use, he added, and they may be the ideal choice for cold relief.

As for anesthesia, he cautioned that local anesthetics with epinephrine and general anesthesia can disrupt blood pressure. Choose a local anesthetic that does not contain vasoconstrictors, he said, and if surgery with general anesthesia is needed, “you can wash [the MAOI] out if you want” ahead of time.

Benzodiazepines, mivacurium, rapacuronium, morphine, or codeine can be used cautiously, he said, in urgent or elective surgery in a patient on an MAOI.

As for other myths, he said tricyclic antidepressants and related drugs aren’t as troublesome as psychiatrists may assume. Clomipramine and imipramine should be avoided. But other tricyclic antidepressants can be used with caution.

As for painkillers, he said it’s not true that they must be avoided, although MAIOs shouldn’t be taken with meperidine, fentanyl, methadone, tramadol, or tapentadol. Other painkillers, including over-the-counter products like aspirin, NSAIDs, and acetaminophen, should be used with caution, he said. And expert guidance is advised for use of hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone, or oxymorphone.

In the big picture, he noted, myths are so prevalent “that you have more calls from patients – and other doctors, dentists, and anesthesiologists – about MAO inhibitors then you will ever have about any other drug there.”

Columbia University, New York, psychiatrist Jonathan W. Stewart, MD, also spoke at the presentation on MAIOs at the APA conference. He recommended that colleagues consider the drugs if two or more antidepressants that work in different ways fail to provide relief after 4 weeks at a sufficient dose. Start low with one pill a day, he recommended, and seek full remission – no depressed mood – instead of simply “better.”

Ultimately, he said, “we do patients a disservice” if MAOIs aren’t considered in the appropriate patients.

Dr. Stahl discloses grant/research support (Acadia, Allergan/AbbVie, Avanir, Boehringer Ingelheim Braeburn, Daiichi Sankyo-Brazil Eisai, Eli Lilly, Harmony, Indivior, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Ironshore, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Pear Therapeutics, Sage, Shire Sunovion, Supernus, and Torrent), consultant/advisor support (Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, AbbVie, Axsome, Clearview, Done, Eisai Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Karuna, Levo, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Neurawell, Otsuka, Relmada, Sage, Sunovion, Supernus, Taliaz, Teva, Tris Pharma, and VistaGen), speakers bureau payments (Acadia, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Servier, Sunovion, and Teva), and options in Genomind, Lipidio, Neurawell and Delix. Dr. Stewart discloses unspecified relationships with Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Merck, Boeringer- Ingleheim, Bristol-Myers, Sinolfi-Aventis, Amilyn, Novartis, Organon, GlaxoSmithKlein, Shire, and Somerset.

SAN FRANCISCO – University of California, San Diego, psychiatrist Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, has heard the scary stories about monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs): Patients supposedly need to be on restrictive diets free of culinary joys like cheese, beer, and wine; they can’t take cold medicines; and they can just forget about anesthesia for dental work or surgery.

Waketonay via Creative Commons (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode)

Wrong, wrong, and wrong, Dr. Stahl told an audience at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. While the venerable antidepressants can transform the lives of patients with treatment-resistant depression, he said, MAOIs are plagued by myths that exaggerate their risks.

“These are good options,” he said. “Everybody who prescribes these today, without exception, has seen patients respond after nothing else has – including ECT (electroconvulsive therapy).”

Still, MAOIs, which were first developed in the 1950s, remain little-used in the United States. While an average of six selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are prescribed every second in the United States each day, Dr. Stahl said, “there are only a few hundred MAOI prescribers for a few thousand patients.”

The main barrier to the use of the drugs is unfamiliarity, he said. Despite their low profile, they’re appropriate to use after failures of monotherapy with SSRIs/serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) and augmentation with atypical antipsychotics. And they can be used in conjunction with ketamine/esketamine and ECT, which are other options for treatment-resistant depression, he said.

As for the myths about MAOIs, Dr. Stahl said the drugs can indeed interact with tyramine, which is found in foods like cheese, beer, and wine. The interaction can lead to potentially fatal hypertensive crises, Dr. Stahl said, noting that patients should avoid aged cheeses, tap and unpasteurized beer, soy products, and certain other foods. (Patients taking 6 mg transdermal or low-dose oral selegiline can ignore these restrictions.)

But canned beer, certain wines, yogurt, fresh American cheese, mozzarella/pizza chain cheese, cream cheese, and fresh or processed meat/poultry/fish are fine, he said. “Selectively, you can have a pretty high tyramine diet,” he added, although it’s a good idea for patients to have a blood pressure monitor at home.

As for cold medicines, sympathomimetic decongestants and stimulants should be used cautiously with blood pressure monitoring or not at all, he said, but those with codeine or expectorants are OK. Dextromethorphan, a weak serotonin reuptake inhibitor in some cough medicine, should be avoided. However, antihistamines other than chlorpheniramine/brompheniramine are OK to use, he added, and they may be the ideal choice for cold relief.

As for anesthesia, he cautioned that local anesthetics with epinephrine and general anesthesia can disrupt blood pressure. Choose a local anesthetic that does not contain vasoconstrictors, he said, and if surgery with general anesthesia is needed, “you can wash [the MAOI] out if you want” ahead of time.

Benzodiazepines, mivacurium, rapacuronium, morphine, or codeine can be used cautiously, he said, in urgent or elective surgery in a patient on an MAOI.

As for other myths, he said tricyclic antidepressants and related drugs aren’t as troublesome as psychiatrists may assume. Clomipramine and imipramine should be avoided. But other tricyclic antidepressants can be used with caution.

As for painkillers, he said it’s not true that they must be avoided, although MAIOs shouldn’t be taken with meperidine, fentanyl, methadone, tramadol, or tapentadol. Other painkillers, including over-the-counter products like aspirin, NSAIDs, and acetaminophen, should be used with caution, he said. And expert guidance is advised for use of hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone, or oxymorphone.

In the big picture, he noted, myths are so prevalent “that you have more calls from patients – and other doctors, dentists, and anesthesiologists – about MAO inhibitors then you will ever have about any other drug there.”

Columbia University, New York, psychiatrist Jonathan W. Stewart, MD, also spoke at the presentation on MAIOs at the APA conference. He recommended that colleagues consider the drugs if two or more antidepressants that work in different ways fail to provide relief after 4 weeks at a sufficient dose. Start low with one pill a day, he recommended, and seek full remission – no depressed mood – instead of simply “better.”

Ultimately, he said, “we do patients a disservice” if MAOIs aren’t considered in the appropriate patients.

Dr. Stahl discloses grant/research support (Acadia, Allergan/AbbVie, Avanir, Boehringer Ingelheim Braeburn, Daiichi Sankyo-Brazil Eisai, Eli Lilly, Harmony, Indivior, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Ironshore, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Pear Therapeutics, Sage, Shire Sunovion, Supernus, and Torrent), consultant/advisor support (Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, AbbVie, Axsome, Clearview, Done, Eisai Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Karuna, Levo, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Neurawell, Otsuka, Relmada, Sage, Sunovion, Supernus, Taliaz, Teva, Tris Pharma, and VistaGen), speakers bureau payments (Acadia, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Otsuka, Servier, Sunovion, and Teva), and options in Genomind, Lipidio, Neurawell and Delix. Dr. Stewart discloses unspecified relationships with Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Merck, Boeringer- Ingleheim, Bristol-Myers, Sinolfi-Aventis, Amilyn, Novartis, Organon, GlaxoSmithKlein, Shire, and Somerset.

For patients with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) who achieved a complete metabolic response after immunochemotherapy, radiation therapy may be safely omitted without heightening their risks of relapse or disease progression – thereby sparing them the toxicity and costs of this additional treatment.

“This study is the largest prospective study of PMBCL ever conducted,” said first author Emanuele Zucca, MD, consultant and head of the lymphoma unit at the Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland in Bellinzona. Dr. Zucca presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The results of the research underscore that “mediastinal radiation therapy in patients with complete remission after frontline immunochemotherapy can be safely omitted,” he said.

While PMBCL has a relatively low incidence, representing fewer than 5% of cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the cancer is over-represented in young White women between approximately 30 and 40 years of age, and is a notably aggressive form of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

However, in patients who rapidly achieve remission with dose-intensive immunochemotherapy, the prognosis is good.

In such cases, the use of mediastinal radiation therapy has been seen as a measure to further consolidate the immunochemotherapy response, but the additional treatment comes at the cost of an increased risk of second malignancies, as well as coronary or valvular heart disease.

Meanwhile, in recent decades promising data has shown that aggressive chemoimmunotherapy regimens alone, such as DA-EPOCH-R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab) can be enough for patients achieving a complete remission, while novel approaches such as checkpoint inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapy further show benefits in patients with lymphoma that relapses after treatment.

With ongoing controversy over whether to include the added radiation therapy among patients with a complete metabolic response, Dr. Zucca and his colleagues conducted the IELSG37 international study, enrolling 545 patients from 74 centers in 13 countries, including 336 women, with newly diagnosed PMBCL.

The patients were treated with induction chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab and anthracycline-based therapy based on local practice, and response assessed among of 530 of the 545 patients showed that 268 (50.6%) achieved a complete metabolic response.

Those patients were then randomized to either observation (n = 132) or consolidation radiation therapy (30 Gy; n = 136). The characteristics between the two groups were similar, with a mean age of 35.5, and about 65% female.

With a median follow-up of 63 months (range, 48-60 months), the primary endpoint of progression-free survival at 30 months was not significantly different between the observation arm (98.5%) and radiation therapy arm (96.2%; P = .278).

After adjustment for factors including sex, chemotherapy, country, and positron emission tomography (PET) response score, the estimated relative effect of radiotherapy versus observation was a hazard ratio of 0.68, and the absolute risk reduction associated with radiotherapy at 30 months was 1.2% after adjustment.

The number needed to treat is high, at 126.3 after stratification, and the 5-year overall survival was excellent in both arms, at 99%.

“What this tells us is that treatment with radiation therapy in well over 100 patients is needed just to avoid a single recurrence,” Dr. Zucca explained.

Overall survival after 3 years was excellent and identical in both arms, at about 99%.

To date, three severe cardiac events and three second cancers have been recorded in the study, all occurring among patients randomized to receive radiation therapy.

Dr. Zucca noted that longer follow-up is needed to better examine late toxicities.

“The long-term toxicities of mediastinal radiotherapy are well documented, particularly second breast, thyroid, and lung cancers and increased risk of coronary or valvular heart disease, in a patient group dominated by young adults,” Dr. Zucca said in a press statement.

“This study shows chemoimmunotherapy alone is an effective treatment for primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma and strongly supports omitting radiotherapy without impacting chances of cure.”

Commenting on the study, Corey W. Speers, MD, PhD, assistant professor, radiation oncology, department of surgery, University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor, said the findings have important clinical implications.

“We all should be encouraged by the low rates in this trial, which are lower than expected,” Dr. Speers said in a press briefing.

In further comments, he added that “these results will inform and likely change clinical practice.”

Dr. Speers said the study is notable for being the first of its kind.

“This clinical question has not previously been directly addressed, and this is the first study to do so,” he said.

“With more effective systemic therapies, many patients have their lymphoma disappear with early aggressive treatment, and although radiation is very effective at treating lymphoma, it has not been clear if it is needed in these patients that have an early rapid response to systemic therapy before starting radiation,” Dr. Speers explained.

“We have struggled as oncologists to know whether omitting this effective radiotherapy would compromise outcomes, and thus many were inclined to continue offering it to patients, even with the great early response. This study helps answer this critical question,” he said.

The results add reassuring evidence, buttressing efforts to avoid unnecessary interventions that may provide little or no benefit, Dr. Speers added.

“We are now in an era of ‘less being more’ as we seek ways to provide optimal quality and quantity of life to patients with cancer and their families, and this is just another example of the tremendous progress being made.”

Further commenting on the study at the press briefing, Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, said the research supports ASCO’s ongoing efforts to reduce the toxicities of cancer treatment.

“Our ASCO vision is a world where cancer is either prevented or cured, and every patient is cured – and every survivor is healthy, and that part about every survivor being healthy is what we’re working on here [in this study],” Dr. Gralow said.

The study was funded by the Swiss Cancer League and Cancer Research UK, with partial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Dr. Zucca reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Beigene, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Celltrion Healthcare, Kite, and Abbvie. Dr. Speers disclosed his coinvention of technology that assesses radiosensitivity and predicts benefits from adjutant radiotherapy.

For patients with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) who achieved a complete metabolic response after immunochemotherapy, radiation therapy may be safely omitted without heightening their risks of relapse or disease progression – thereby sparing them the toxicity and costs of this additional treatment.

“This study is the largest prospective study of PMBCL ever conducted,” said first author Emanuele Zucca, MD, consultant and head of the lymphoma unit at the Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland in Bellinzona. Dr. Zucca presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The results of the research underscore that “mediastinal radiation therapy in patients with complete remission after frontline immunochemotherapy can be safely omitted,” he said.

While PMBCL has a relatively low incidence, representing fewer than 5% of cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the cancer is over-represented in young White women between approximately 30 and 40 years of age, and is a notably aggressive form of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

However, in patients who rapidly achieve remission with dose-intensive immunochemotherapy, the prognosis is good.

In such cases, the use of mediastinal radiation therapy has been seen as a measure to further consolidate the immunochemotherapy response, but the additional treatment comes at the cost of an increased risk of second malignancies, as well as coronary or valvular heart disease.

Meanwhile, in recent decades promising data has shown that aggressive chemoimmunotherapy regimens alone, such as DA-EPOCH-R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab) can be enough for patients achieving a complete remission, while novel approaches such as checkpoint inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapy further show benefits in patients with lymphoma that relapses after treatment.

With ongoing controversy over whether to include the added radiation therapy among patients with a complete metabolic response, Dr. Zucca and his colleagues conducted the IELSG37 international study, enrolling 545 patients from 74 centers in 13 countries, including 336 women, with newly diagnosed PMBCL.

The patients were treated with induction chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab and anthracycline-based therapy based on local practice, and response assessed among of 530 of the 545 patients showed that 268 (50.6%) achieved a complete metabolic response.

Those patients were then randomized to either observation (n = 132) or consolidation radiation therapy (30 Gy; n = 136). The characteristics between the two groups were similar, with a mean age of 35.5, and about 65% female.

With a median follow-up of 63 months (range, 48-60 months), the primary endpoint of progression-free survival at 30 months was not significantly different between the observation arm (98.5%) and radiation therapy arm (96.2%; P = .278).

After adjustment for factors including sex, chemotherapy, country, and positron emission tomography (PET) response score, the estimated relative effect of radiotherapy versus observation was a hazard ratio of 0.68, and the absolute risk reduction associated with radiotherapy at 30 months was 1.2% after adjustment.

The number needed to treat is high, at 126.3 after stratification, and the 5-year overall survival was excellent in both arms, at 99%.

“What this tells us is that treatment with radiation therapy in well over 100 patients is needed just to avoid a single recurrence,” Dr. Zucca explained.

Overall survival after 3 years was excellent and identical in both arms, at about 99%.

To date, three severe cardiac events and three second cancers have been recorded in the study, all occurring among patients randomized to receive radiation therapy.

Dr. Zucca noted that longer follow-up is needed to better examine late toxicities.

“The long-term toxicities of mediastinal radiotherapy are well documented, particularly second breast, thyroid, and lung cancers and increased risk of coronary or valvular heart disease, in a patient group dominated by young adults,” Dr. Zucca said in a press statement.

“This study shows chemoimmunotherapy alone is an effective treatment for primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma and strongly supports omitting radiotherapy without impacting chances of cure.”

Commenting on the study, Corey W. Speers, MD, PhD, assistant professor, radiation oncology, department of surgery, University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor, said the findings have important clinical implications.

“We all should be encouraged by the low rates in this trial, which are lower than expected,” Dr. Speers said in a press briefing.

In further comments, he added that “these results will inform and likely change clinical practice.”

Dr. Speers said the study is notable for being the first of its kind.

“This clinical question has not previously been directly addressed, and this is the first study to do so,” he said.

“With more effective systemic therapies, many patients have their lymphoma disappear with early aggressive treatment, and although radiation is very effective at treating lymphoma, it has not been clear if it is needed in these patients that have an early rapid response to systemic therapy before starting radiation,” Dr. Speers explained.

“We have struggled as oncologists to know whether omitting this effective radiotherapy would compromise outcomes, and thus many were inclined to continue offering it to patients, even with the great early response. This study helps answer this critical question,” he said.

The results add reassuring evidence, buttressing efforts to avoid unnecessary interventions that may provide little or no benefit, Dr. Speers added.

“We are now in an era of ‘less being more’ as we seek ways to provide optimal quality and quantity of life to patients with cancer and their families, and this is just another example of the tremendous progress being made.”

Further commenting on the study at the press briefing, Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, said the research supports ASCO’s ongoing efforts to reduce the toxicities of cancer treatment.

“Our ASCO vision is a world where cancer is either prevented or cured, and every patient is cured – and every survivor is healthy, and that part about every survivor being healthy is what we’re working on here [in this study],” Dr. Gralow said.

The study was funded by the Swiss Cancer League and Cancer Research UK, with partial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Dr. Zucca reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Beigene, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Celltrion Healthcare, Kite, and Abbvie. Dr. Speers disclosed his coinvention of technology that assesses radiosensitivity and predicts benefits from adjutant radiotherapy.

For patients with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) who achieved a complete metabolic response after immunochemotherapy, radiation therapy may be safely omitted without heightening their risks of relapse or disease progression – thereby sparing them the toxicity and costs of this additional treatment.

“This study is the largest prospective study of PMBCL ever conducted,” said first author Emanuele Zucca, MD, consultant and head of the lymphoma unit at the Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland in Bellinzona. Dr. Zucca presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

The results of the research underscore that “mediastinal radiation therapy in patients with complete remission after frontline immunochemotherapy can be safely omitted,” he said.

While PMBCL has a relatively low incidence, representing fewer than 5% of cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the cancer is over-represented in young White women between approximately 30 and 40 years of age, and is a notably aggressive form of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

However, in patients who rapidly achieve remission with dose-intensive immunochemotherapy, the prognosis is good.

In such cases, the use of mediastinal radiation therapy has been seen as a measure to further consolidate the immunochemotherapy response, but the additional treatment comes at the cost of an increased risk of second malignancies, as well as coronary or valvular heart disease.

Meanwhile, in recent decades promising data has shown that aggressive chemoimmunotherapy regimens alone, such as DA-EPOCH-R (dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab) can be enough for patients achieving a complete remission, while novel approaches such as checkpoint inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapy further show benefits in patients with lymphoma that relapses after treatment.

With ongoing controversy over whether to include the added radiation therapy among patients with a complete metabolic response, Dr. Zucca and his colleagues conducted the IELSG37 international study, enrolling 545 patients from 74 centers in 13 countries, including 336 women, with newly diagnosed PMBCL.

The patients were treated with induction chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab and anthracycline-based therapy based on local practice, and response assessed among of 530 of the 545 patients showed that 268 (50.6%) achieved a complete metabolic response.

Those patients were then randomized to either observation (n = 132) or consolidation radiation therapy (30 Gy; n = 136). The characteristics between the two groups were similar, with a mean age of 35.5, and about 65% female.

With a median follow-up of 63 months (range, 48-60 months), the primary endpoint of progression-free survival at 30 months was not significantly different between the observation arm (98.5%) and radiation therapy arm (96.2%; P = .278).

After adjustment for factors including sex, chemotherapy, country, and positron emission tomography (PET) response score, the estimated relative effect of radiotherapy versus observation was a hazard ratio of 0.68, and the absolute risk reduction associated with radiotherapy at 30 months was 1.2% after adjustment.

The number needed to treat is high, at 126.3 after stratification, and the 5-year overall survival was excellent in both arms, at 99%.

“What this tells us is that treatment with radiation therapy in well over 100 patients is needed just to avoid a single recurrence,” Dr. Zucca explained.

Overall survival after 3 years was excellent and identical in both arms, at about 99%.

To date, three severe cardiac events and three second cancers have been recorded in the study, all occurring among patients randomized to receive radiation therapy.

Dr. Zucca noted that longer follow-up is needed to better examine late toxicities.

“The long-term toxicities of mediastinal radiotherapy are well documented, particularly second breast, thyroid, and lung cancers and increased risk of coronary or valvular heart disease, in a patient group dominated by young adults,” Dr. Zucca said in a press statement.

“This study shows chemoimmunotherapy alone is an effective treatment for primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma and strongly supports omitting radiotherapy without impacting chances of cure.”

Commenting on the study, Corey W. Speers, MD, PhD, assistant professor, radiation oncology, department of surgery, University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor, said the findings have important clinical implications.

“We all should be encouraged by the low rates in this trial, which are lower than expected,” Dr. Speers said in a press briefing.

In further comments, he added that “these results will inform and likely change clinical practice.”

Dr. Speers said the study is notable for being the first of its kind.

“This clinical question has not previously been directly addressed, and this is the first study to do so,” he said.

“With more effective systemic therapies, many patients have their lymphoma disappear with early aggressive treatment, and although radiation is very effective at treating lymphoma, it has not been clear if it is needed in these patients that have an early rapid response to systemic therapy before starting radiation,” Dr. Speers explained.

“We have struggled as oncologists to know whether omitting this effective radiotherapy would compromise outcomes, and thus many were inclined to continue offering it to patients, even with the great early response. This study helps answer this critical question,” he said.

The results add reassuring evidence, buttressing efforts to avoid unnecessary interventions that may provide little or no benefit, Dr. Speers added.

“We are now in an era of ‘less being more’ as we seek ways to provide optimal quality and quantity of life to patients with cancer and their families, and this is just another example of the tremendous progress being made.”

Further commenting on the study at the press briefing, Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, said the research supports ASCO’s ongoing efforts to reduce the toxicities of cancer treatment.

“Our ASCO vision is a world where cancer is either prevented or cured, and every patient is cured – and every survivor is healthy, and that part about every survivor being healthy is what we’re working on here [in this study],” Dr. Gralow said.

The study was funded by the Swiss Cancer League and Cancer Research UK, with partial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Dr. Zucca reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Beigene, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Celltrion Healthcare, Kite, and Abbvie. Dr. Speers disclosed his coinvention of technology that assesses radiosensitivity and predicts benefits from adjutant radiotherapy.