Guidelines

New proposed guidelines for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend that methotrexate (MTX) be used aggressively before other treatment options.

Previous guidelines, last updated in 2015, had not ranked the order of the treatments, said Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, principal investigator for the American College of Rheumatology’s treatment guidelines.

“There’s a strong emphasis on maximizing methotrexate using various means before switching to a biologic or JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor,” she said in a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The guidelines draft was developed collaboratively with clinicians, researchers, and patients. In addition, the authors conducted a comprehensive review of the literature.

Dr. Fraenkel, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., said the exception for maximizing MTX would be for patients with low disease activity for whom treatments with other medications, such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and sulfasalazine, are feasible, she said.
 

Stop defaulting to prednisone

Another recommendation urges against the use of prednisone as a default treatment.

“We should really be trying to maximize disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs] and try to push the needle away from using prednisone as frequently as we do,” she said.

Dr. Fraenkel said the panel wanted to emphasize that “even lower doses of prednisone can be harmful.”

She noted that patients on the guidelines panel said it’s hard to taper off prednisone.

Don Thomas, MD, who is in private rheumatology practice in Greenbelt, Md., said in an interview he loves the guidelines.

“Most of my patients are not on steroids,” he said, “which is a godsend because of the great therapies we have.”

He said he was glad to see support for exhausting methotrexate options first before trying new treatments.

“Too many of us are not as aggressive as we should be with using methotrexate initially,” he said.
 

Specific recommendations

In the proposed guidelines, MTX alone is strongly recommended over HCQ or sulfasalazine and is conditionally recommended over a conventional synthetic DMARD dual or triple combination. MTX alone is also conditionally recommended over MTX in combination with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and is strongly recommended over MTX in combination with a non-TNF inhibitor, a biologic, or a targeted synthetic DMARD.

For patients with low disease activity who have not taken DMARDs, HCQ is recommended over other conventional synthetic DMARDs. Sulfasalazine is recommended over MTX, and MTX is recommended over leflunomide.

For initial treatment, oral MTX is conditionally recommended over subcutaneous administration. For patients who are not tolerating the oral version, “recommend split-dose or subcutaneous or increasing folic acid over switching to a new DMARD,” she said.

Dr. Fraenkel said the oral recommendation was based largely on patient preference.
 

Use of glucocorticoids

For patients who need glucocorticoids to remain at target, adding or switching DMARDs is recommended over continuing glucocorticoids, the guidelines indicate.

“For patients on DMARDs and not at target, adding or switching DMARDs with or without the use of intraarticular glucocorticoids is conditionally recommended over the use of intraarticular glucocorticoids alone,” the proposed guidelines advise.
 

Tapering

Tapering should only be considered for patients “who have been at target for at least 6 months,” she said. “In these patients, continuation of all DMARDs at their current dose is conditionally recommended over any dose reduction.”

Dose reduction is recommended over gradual discontinuation, and gradual discontinuation is recommended over abruptly stopping.

Dr. Fraenkel acknowledged that the level of evidence is low to very low for many of the recommendations (only 7 of 44 recommendations were classified as strong), which, she said, underscores the importance of shared decision making for RA.

She added, “We really need trials to address clinically important questions driven by patients and not simply driven by [having] a new molecule to test.”

ACR says the final version of the proposed guidelines is expected to be simultaneously published in Arthritis Care and Research and Arthritis and Rheumatology by the end of the year.

These guidelines are focused on pharmacologic agents. Separate ACR guidelines will address nonpharmacologic management of RA and vaccine recommendations for inflammatory disease.

Dr. Fraenkel and Dr. Thomas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New proposed guidelines for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend that methotrexate (MTX) be used aggressively before other treatment options.

Previous guidelines, last updated in 2015, had not ranked the order of the treatments, said Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, principal investigator for the American College of Rheumatology’s treatment guidelines.

“There’s a strong emphasis on maximizing methotrexate using various means before switching to a biologic or JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor,” she said in a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The guidelines draft was developed collaboratively with clinicians, researchers, and patients. In addition, the authors conducted a comprehensive review of the literature.

Dr. Fraenkel, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., said the exception for maximizing MTX would be for patients with low disease activity for whom treatments with other medications, such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and sulfasalazine, are feasible, she said.
 

Stop defaulting to prednisone

Another recommendation urges against the use of prednisone as a default treatment.

“We should really be trying to maximize disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs] and try to push the needle away from using prednisone as frequently as we do,” she said.

Dr. Fraenkel said the panel wanted to emphasize that “even lower doses of prednisone can be harmful.”

She noted that patients on the guidelines panel said it’s hard to taper off prednisone.

Don Thomas, MD, who is in private rheumatology practice in Greenbelt, Md., said in an interview he loves the guidelines.

“Most of my patients are not on steroids,” he said, “which is a godsend because of the great therapies we have.”

He said he was glad to see support for exhausting methotrexate options first before trying new treatments.

“Too many of us are not as aggressive as we should be with using methotrexate initially,” he said.
 

Specific recommendations

In the proposed guidelines, MTX alone is strongly recommended over HCQ or sulfasalazine and is conditionally recommended over a conventional synthetic DMARD dual or triple combination. MTX alone is also conditionally recommended over MTX in combination with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and is strongly recommended over MTX in combination with a non-TNF inhibitor, a biologic, or a targeted synthetic DMARD.

For patients with low disease activity who have not taken DMARDs, HCQ is recommended over other conventional synthetic DMARDs. Sulfasalazine is recommended over MTX, and MTX is recommended over leflunomide.

For initial treatment, oral MTX is conditionally recommended over subcutaneous administration. For patients who are not tolerating the oral version, “recommend split-dose or subcutaneous or increasing folic acid over switching to a new DMARD,” she said.

Dr. Fraenkel said the oral recommendation was based largely on patient preference.
 

Use of glucocorticoids

For patients who need glucocorticoids to remain at target, adding or switching DMARDs is recommended over continuing glucocorticoids, the guidelines indicate.

“For patients on DMARDs and not at target, adding or switching DMARDs with or without the use of intraarticular glucocorticoids is conditionally recommended over the use of intraarticular glucocorticoids alone,” the proposed guidelines advise.
 

Tapering

Tapering should only be considered for patients “who have been at target for at least 6 months,” she said. “In these patients, continuation of all DMARDs at their current dose is conditionally recommended over any dose reduction.”

Dose reduction is recommended over gradual discontinuation, and gradual discontinuation is recommended over abruptly stopping.

Dr. Fraenkel acknowledged that the level of evidence is low to very low for many of the recommendations (only 7 of 44 recommendations were classified as strong), which, she said, underscores the importance of shared decision making for RA.

She added, “We really need trials to address clinically important questions driven by patients and not simply driven by [having] a new molecule to test.”

ACR says the final version of the proposed guidelines is expected to be simultaneously published in Arthritis Care and Research and Arthritis and Rheumatology by the end of the year.

These guidelines are focused on pharmacologic agents. Separate ACR guidelines will address nonpharmacologic management of RA and vaccine recommendations for inflammatory disease.

Dr. Fraenkel and Dr. Thomas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New proposed guidelines for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend that methotrexate (MTX) be used aggressively before other treatment options.

Previous guidelines, last updated in 2015, had not ranked the order of the treatments, said Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, principal investigator for the American College of Rheumatology’s treatment guidelines.

“There’s a strong emphasis on maximizing methotrexate using various means before switching to a biologic or JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor,” she said in a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The guidelines draft was developed collaboratively with clinicians, researchers, and patients. In addition, the authors conducted a comprehensive review of the literature.

Dr. Fraenkel, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., said the exception for maximizing MTX would be for patients with low disease activity for whom treatments with other medications, such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and sulfasalazine, are feasible, she said.
 

Stop defaulting to prednisone

Another recommendation urges against the use of prednisone as a default treatment.

“We should really be trying to maximize disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs] and try to push the needle away from using prednisone as frequently as we do,” she said.

Dr. Fraenkel said the panel wanted to emphasize that “even lower doses of prednisone can be harmful.”

She noted that patients on the guidelines panel said it’s hard to taper off prednisone.

Don Thomas, MD, who is in private rheumatology practice in Greenbelt, Md., said in an interview he loves the guidelines.

“Most of my patients are not on steroids,” he said, “which is a godsend because of the great therapies we have.”

He said he was glad to see support for exhausting methotrexate options first before trying new treatments.

“Too many of us are not as aggressive as we should be with using methotrexate initially,” he said.
 

Specific recommendations

In the proposed guidelines, MTX alone is strongly recommended over HCQ or sulfasalazine and is conditionally recommended over a conventional synthetic DMARD dual or triple combination. MTX alone is also conditionally recommended over MTX in combination with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and is strongly recommended over MTX in combination with a non-TNF inhibitor, a biologic, or a targeted synthetic DMARD.

For patients with low disease activity who have not taken DMARDs, HCQ is recommended over other conventional synthetic DMARDs. Sulfasalazine is recommended over MTX, and MTX is recommended over leflunomide.

For initial treatment, oral MTX is conditionally recommended over subcutaneous administration. For patients who are not tolerating the oral version, “recommend split-dose or subcutaneous or increasing folic acid over switching to a new DMARD,” she said.

Dr. Fraenkel said the oral recommendation was based largely on patient preference.
 

Use of glucocorticoids

For patients who need glucocorticoids to remain at target, adding or switching DMARDs is recommended over continuing glucocorticoids, the guidelines indicate.

“For patients on DMARDs and not at target, adding or switching DMARDs with or without the use of intraarticular glucocorticoids is conditionally recommended over the use of intraarticular glucocorticoids alone,” the proposed guidelines advise.
 

Tapering

Tapering should only be considered for patients “who have been at target for at least 6 months,” she said. “In these patients, continuation of all DMARDs at their current dose is conditionally recommended over any dose reduction.”

Dose reduction is recommended over gradual discontinuation, and gradual discontinuation is recommended over abruptly stopping.

Dr. Fraenkel acknowledged that the level of evidence is low to very low for many of the recommendations (only 7 of 44 recommendations were classified as strong), which, she said, underscores the importance of shared decision making for RA.

She added, “We really need trials to address clinically important questions driven by patients and not simply driven by [having] a new molecule to test.”

ACR says the final version of the proposed guidelines is expected to be simultaneously published in Arthritis Care and Research and Arthritis and Rheumatology by the end of the year.

These guidelines are focused on pharmacologic agents. Separate ACR guidelines will address nonpharmacologic management of RA and vaccine recommendations for inflammatory disease.

Dr. Fraenkel and Dr. Thomas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endocrine diseases of any type – not just diabetes – can represent a cardiovascular risk and patients with those disorders should be screened for high cholesterol, according to a new clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.

“The simple recommendation to check a lipid panel in patients with endocrine diseases and calculate cardiovascular risk may be practice changing because that is not done routinely,” Connie Newman, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society committee that developed the guideline, said in an interview.

“Usually the focus is on assessment and treatment of the endocrine disease, rather than on assessment and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said Newman, an adjunct professor of medicine in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, at New York University.

Whereas diabetes, well-known for its increased cardiovascular risk profile, is commonly addressed in other cardiovascular and cholesterol practice management guidelines, the array of other endocrine diseases are not typically included.

“This guideline is the first of its kind,” Dr. Newman said. “The Endocrine Society has not previously issued a guideline on lipid management in endocrine disorders [and] other organizations have not written guidelines on this topic. 

“Rather, guidelines have been written on cholesterol management, but these do not describe cholesterol management in patients with endocrine diseases such as thyroid disease [hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism], Cushing’s syndrome, acromegaly, growth hormone deficiency, menopause, male hypogonadism, and obesity,” she noted.

But these conditions carry a host of cardiovascular risk factors that may require careful monitoring and management.

“Although endocrine hormones, such as thyroid hormone, cortisol, estrogen, testosterone, growth hormone, and insulin, affect pathways for lipid metabolism, physicians lack guidance on lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular risk, and treatment to reduce lipids and cardiovascular risk in patients with endocrine diseases,” she explained.

Vinaya Simha, MD, an internal medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agrees that the guideline is notable in addressing an unmet need.

Recommendations that stand out to Dr. Simha include the suggestion of adding eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) ethyl ester to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who have elevated triglyceride levels despite statin treatment.

James L. Rosenzweig, MD, an endocrinologist at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston, agreed that this is an important addition to an area that needs more guidance.

“Many of these clinical situations can exacerbate dyslipidemia and some also increase the cardiovascular risk to a greater extent in combination with elevated cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” he said in an interview. 

“In many cases, treatment of the underlying disorder appropriately can have an important impact in resolving the lipid disorder. In others, more aggressive pharmacological treatment is indicated,” he said.

“I think that this will be a valuable resource, especially for endocrinologists, but it can be used as well by providers in other disciplines.”
 

Key recommendations for different endocrine conditions

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, details those risks and provides evidence-based recommendations on their management and treatment.

Key recommendations include:

• Obtain a lipid panel and evaluate cardiovascular risk factors in all adults with endocrine disorders.
• In patients with  and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, start statin therapy in addition to lifestyle modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. “This could mean earlier treatment because other guidelines recommend consideration of therapy at age 40,” Dr. Newman said.
• Statin therapy is also recommended for adults over 40 with  with a duration of diabetes of more than 20 years and/or microvascular complications, regardless of their cardiovascular risk score. “This means earlier treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes with statins in order to reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Newman noted.
• In patients with hyperlipidemia, rule out  as the cause before treating with lipid-lowering medications. And among patients who are found to have hypothyroidism, reevaluate the lipid profile when the patient has thyroid hormone levels in the normal range.
• Adults with persistent endogenous Cushing’s syndrome should have their lipid profile monitored. Statin therapy should be considered in addition to lifestyle modifications, irrespective of the cardiovascular risk score.
• In postmenopausal women, high cholesterol or triglycerides should be treated with statins rather than hormone therapy.
• Evaluate and treat lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in women who enter menopause early (before the age of 40-45 years).

Nice summary of ‘risk-enhancing’ endocrine disorders

Dr. Simha said in an interview that the new guideline is “probably the first comprehensive statement addressing lipid treatment in patients with a broad range of endocrine disorders besides diabetes.”

“Most of the treatment recommendations are congruent with other current guidelines such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [guidelines], but there is specific mention of which endocrine disorders represent enhanced cardiovascular risk,” she explained.

The new recommendations are notable for including “a nice summary of how different endocrine disorders affect lipid values, and also which endocrine disorders need to be considered as ‘risk-enhancing factors,’ ” Dr. Simha noted.

“The use of EPA in patients with hypertriglyceridemia is novel, compared to the ACC/AHA recommendation. This reflects new data which is now available,” she added.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists also just issued a new algorithm on lipid management and prevention of cardiovascular disease in which treatment of hypertriglyceridemia is emphasized.

In addition, the new Endocrine Society guideline “also mentions an LDL [cholesterol] treatment threshold of 70 mg/dL, and 55 mg/dL in some patient categories, which previous guidelines have not,” Dr. Simha noted.

Overall, Dr. Newman added that the goal of the guideline is to increase awareness of key issues with endocrine diseases that may not necessarily be on clinicians’ radars.

“We hope that it will make a lipid panel and cardiovascular risk evaluation routine in adults with endocrine diseases and cause a greater focus on therapies to reduce heart disease and stroke,” she said.

Dr. Newman, Dr. Simha, and Dr. Rosenzweig reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endocrine diseases of any type – not just diabetes – can represent a cardiovascular risk and patients with those disorders should be screened for high cholesterol, according to a new clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.

“The simple recommendation to check a lipid panel in patients with endocrine diseases and calculate cardiovascular risk may be practice changing because that is not done routinely,” Connie Newman, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society committee that developed the guideline, said in an interview.

“Usually the focus is on assessment and treatment of the endocrine disease, rather than on assessment and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said Newman, an adjunct professor of medicine in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, at New York University.

Whereas diabetes, well-known for its increased cardiovascular risk profile, is commonly addressed in other cardiovascular and cholesterol practice management guidelines, the array of other endocrine diseases are not typically included.

“This guideline is the first of its kind,” Dr. Newman said. “The Endocrine Society has not previously issued a guideline on lipid management in endocrine disorders [and] other organizations have not written guidelines on this topic. 

“Rather, guidelines have been written on cholesterol management, but these do not describe cholesterol management in patients with endocrine diseases such as thyroid disease [hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism], Cushing’s syndrome, acromegaly, growth hormone deficiency, menopause, male hypogonadism, and obesity,” she noted.

But these conditions carry a host of cardiovascular risk factors that may require careful monitoring and management.

“Although endocrine hormones, such as thyroid hormone, cortisol, estrogen, testosterone, growth hormone, and insulin, affect pathways for lipid metabolism, physicians lack guidance on lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular risk, and treatment to reduce lipids and cardiovascular risk in patients with endocrine diseases,” she explained.

Vinaya Simha, MD, an internal medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agrees that the guideline is notable in addressing an unmet need.

Recommendations that stand out to Dr. Simha include the suggestion of adding eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) ethyl ester to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who have elevated triglyceride levels despite statin treatment.

James L. Rosenzweig, MD, an endocrinologist at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston, agreed that this is an important addition to an area that needs more guidance.

“Many of these clinical situations can exacerbate dyslipidemia and some also increase the cardiovascular risk to a greater extent in combination with elevated cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” he said in an interview. 

“In many cases, treatment of the underlying disorder appropriately can have an important impact in resolving the lipid disorder. In others, more aggressive pharmacological treatment is indicated,” he said.

“I think that this will be a valuable resource, especially for endocrinologists, but it can be used as well by providers in other disciplines.”
 

Key recommendations for different endocrine conditions

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, details those risks and provides evidence-based recommendations on their management and treatment.

Key recommendations include:

• Obtain a lipid panel and evaluate cardiovascular risk factors in all adults with endocrine disorders.
• In patients with  and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, start statin therapy in addition to lifestyle modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. “This could mean earlier treatment because other guidelines recommend consideration of therapy at age 40,” Dr. Newman said.
• Statin therapy is also recommended for adults over 40 with  with a duration of diabetes of more than 20 years and/or microvascular complications, regardless of their cardiovascular risk score. “This means earlier treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes with statins in order to reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Newman noted.
• In patients with hyperlipidemia, rule out  as the cause before treating with lipid-lowering medications. And among patients who are found to have hypothyroidism, reevaluate the lipid profile when the patient has thyroid hormone levels in the normal range.
• Adults with persistent endogenous Cushing’s syndrome should have their lipid profile monitored. Statin therapy should be considered in addition to lifestyle modifications, irrespective of the cardiovascular risk score.
• In postmenopausal women, high cholesterol or triglycerides should be treated with statins rather than hormone therapy.
• Evaluate and treat lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in women who enter menopause early (before the age of 40-45 years).

Nice summary of ‘risk-enhancing’ endocrine disorders

Dr. Simha said in an interview that the new guideline is “probably the first comprehensive statement addressing lipid treatment in patients with a broad range of endocrine disorders besides diabetes.”

“Most of the treatment recommendations are congruent with other current guidelines such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [guidelines], but there is specific mention of which endocrine disorders represent enhanced cardiovascular risk,” she explained.

The new recommendations are notable for including “a nice summary of how different endocrine disorders affect lipid values, and also which endocrine disorders need to be considered as ‘risk-enhancing factors,’ ” Dr. Simha noted.

“The use of EPA in patients with hypertriglyceridemia is novel, compared to the ACC/AHA recommendation. This reflects new data which is now available,” she added.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists also just issued a new algorithm on lipid management and prevention of cardiovascular disease in which treatment of hypertriglyceridemia is emphasized.

In addition, the new Endocrine Society guideline “also mentions an LDL [cholesterol] treatment threshold of 70 mg/dL, and 55 mg/dL in some patient categories, which previous guidelines have not,” Dr. Simha noted.

Overall, Dr. Newman added that the goal of the guideline is to increase awareness of key issues with endocrine diseases that may not necessarily be on clinicians’ radars.

“We hope that it will make a lipid panel and cardiovascular risk evaluation routine in adults with endocrine diseases and cause a greater focus on therapies to reduce heart disease and stroke,” she said.

Dr. Newman, Dr. Simha, and Dr. Rosenzweig reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endocrine diseases of any type – not just diabetes – can represent a cardiovascular risk and patients with those disorders should be screened for high cholesterol, according to a new clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.

“The simple recommendation to check a lipid panel in patients with endocrine diseases and calculate cardiovascular risk may be practice changing because that is not done routinely,” Connie Newman, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society committee that developed the guideline, said in an interview.

“Usually the focus is on assessment and treatment of the endocrine disease, rather than on assessment and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said Newman, an adjunct professor of medicine in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, at New York University.

Whereas diabetes, well-known for its increased cardiovascular risk profile, is commonly addressed in other cardiovascular and cholesterol practice management guidelines, the array of other endocrine diseases are not typically included.

“This guideline is the first of its kind,” Dr. Newman said. “The Endocrine Society has not previously issued a guideline on lipid management in endocrine disorders [and] other organizations have not written guidelines on this topic. 

“Rather, guidelines have been written on cholesterol management, but these do not describe cholesterol management in patients with endocrine diseases such as thyroid disease [hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism], Cushing’s syndrome, acromegaly, growth hormone deficiency, menopause, male hypogonadism, and obesity,” she noted.

But these conditions carry a host of cardiovascular risk factors that may require careful monitoring and management.

“Although endocrine hormones, such as thyroid hormone, cortisol, estrogen, testosterone, growth hormone, and insulin, affect pathways for lipid metabolism, physicians lack guidance on lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular risk, and treatment to reduce lipids and cardiovascular risk in patients with endocrine diseases,” she explained.

Vinaya Simha, MD, an internal medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agrees that the guideline is notable in addressing an unmet need.

Recommendations that stand out to Dr. Simha include the suggestion of adding eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) ethyl ester to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who have elevated triglyceride levels despite statin treatment.

James L. Rosenzweig, MD, an endocrinologist at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston, agreed that this is an important addition to an area that needs more guidance.

“Many of these clinical situations can exacerbate dyslipidemia and some also increase the cardiovascular risk to a greater extent in combination with elevated cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” he said in an interview. 

“In many cases, treatment of the underlying disorder appropriately can have an important impact in resolving the lipid disorder. In others, more aggressive pharmacological treatment is indicated,” he said.

“I think that this will be a valuable resource, especially for endocrinologists, but it can be used as well by providers in other disciplines.”
 

Key recommendations for different endocrine conditions

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, details those risks and provides evidence-based recommendations on their management and treatment.

Key recommendations include:

• Obtain a lipid panel and evaluate cardiovascular risk factors in all adults with endocrine disorders.
• In patients with  and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, start statin therapy in addition to lifestyle modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. “This could mean earlier treatment because other guidelines recommend consideration of therapy at age 40,” Dr. Newman said.
• Statin therapy is also recommended for adults over 40 with  with a duration of diabetes of more than 20 years and/or microvascular complications, regardless of their cardiovascular risk score. “This means earlier treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes with statins in order to reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Newman noted.
• In patients with hyperlipidemia, rule out  as the cause before treating with lipid-lowering medications. And among patients who are found to have hypothyroidism, reevaluate the lipid profile when the patient has thyroid hormone levels in the normal range.
• Adults with persistent endogenous Cushing’s syndrome should have their lipid profile monitored. Statin therapy should be considered in addition to lifestyle modifications, irrespective of the cardiovascular risk score.
• In postmenopausal women, high cholesterol or triglycerides should be treated with statins rather than hormone therapy.
• Evaluate and treat lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in women who enter menopause early (before the age of 40-45 years).

Nice summary of ‘risk-enhancing’ endocrine disorders

Dr. Simha said in an interview that the new guideline is “probably the first comprehensive statement addressing lipid treatment in patients with a broad range of endocrine disorders besides diabetes.”

“Most of the treatment recommendations are congruent with other current guidelines such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [guidelines], but there is specific mention of which endocrine disorders represent enhanced cardiovascular risk,” she explained.

The new recommendations are notable for including “a nice summary of how different endocrine disorders affect lipid values, and also which endocrine disorders need to be considered as ‘risk-enhancing factors,’ ” Dr. Simha noted.

“The use of EPA in patients with hypertriglyceridemia is novel, compared to the ACC/AHA recommendation. This reflects new data which is now available,” she added.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists also just issued a new algorithm on lipid management and prevention of cardiovascular disease in which treatment of hypertriglyceridemia is emphasized.

In addition, the new Endocrine Society guideline “also mentions an LDL [cholesterol] treatment threshold of 70 mg/dL, and 55 mg/dL in some patient categories, which previous guidelines have not,” Dr. Simha noted.

Overall, Dr. Newman added that the goal of the guideline is to increase awareness of key issues with endocrine diseases that may not necessarily be on clinicians’ radars.

“We hope that it will make a lipid panel and cardiovascular risk evaluation routine in adults with endocrine diseases and cause a greater focus on therapies to reduce heart disease and stroke,” she said.

Dr. Newman, Dr. Simha, and Dr. Rosenzweig reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The latest recommendations from sports cardiologists on getting athletes with COVID-19 back on the playing field safely emphasize a more judicious approach to screening for cardiac injury.

The new recommendations, made by the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section, are for adult athletes in competitive sports and also for two important groups: younger athletes taking part in competitive high school sports and older athletes aged 35 and older, the Masters athletes, who continue to be active throughout their lives. The document was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Because of the evolving nature of knowledge about COVID-19, updates on recommendations for safe return to play for athletes of all ages will continue to be made, senior author Aaron L. Baggish, MD, director of the cardiovascular performance program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said.

“The recommendations we released in May were entirely based on our experience taking care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19; we had no athletes in this population. We used a lot of conservative guesswork around how this would apply to otherwise healthy athletes,” Dr. Baggish said in an interview.

“But as sports started to open up, and we started to see large numbers of first professional and then college athletes come back into training, we realized that we needed to stop and ask whether the recommendations we put forward back in May were still appropriate,” Dr. Baggish said.

“Once we started to actually get into the trenches with these athletes, literally hundreds of them, and applying the testing strategies that we had initially recommended in everybody, we realized that we probably had some room for improvement, and that’s why we reconvened, to make these revisions,” he said.

Essentially, the recommendations now urge less cardiac testing. “Cardiac injury is not as common as we may have originally thought,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In the early days of COVID, people who were hospitalized had evidence of heart injury, and so we wondered if that prevalence would also be applicable to otherwise young, healthy people who got COVID. If that had been the case, we would have been in big trouble with respect to getting people back into sports. So this is why we started with a conservative screening approach and a lot of testing in order to not miss a huge burden of disease,” he said.

“But what we’ve learned over the past few months is that young people who get either asymptomatic or mild infection appear to have very, very low risk of having associated heart injury, so the need for testing in that population, when people who have infections recover fully, is almost certainly not going to be high yield,” Dr. Baggish said.
 

First iteration of the recommendations

Published in May in the early weeks of the pandemic, the first recommendations for safe return to play said that all athletes should stop training for at least 2 weeks after their symptoms resolve, then undergo “careful, clinical cardiovascular evaluation in combination with cardiac biomarkers and imaging.”

Additional testing with cardiac MRI, exercise testing, or ambulatory rhythm monitoring was to be done “based on the clinical course and initial testing.”

But experts caution that monitoring on such a scale in everyone is unnecessary and could even be counterproductive.

“Sending young athletes for extensive testing is not warranted and could send them to unnecessary testing, cardiac imaging, and so on,” Dr. Baggish said.

Only those athletes who continue to have symptoms or whose symptoms return when they get back to their athletic activities should go on for more screening.

“There, in essence, is the single main change from May, and that is a move away from screening with testing everyone, [and instead] confining that to the people who had moderate or greater severity disease,” he said.

Both iterations of the recommendations end with the same message.

“We are at the beginning of our knowledge about the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 but we are gathering evidence every day,” said Dr. Baggish. “Just as they did earlier, we acknowledge that our approaches are subject to change when we learn more about how COVID affects the heart, and specifically the hearts of athletes. This will be an ongoing process.”
 

Something to lean on

The recommendations are welcome, said James E. Udelson, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, coauthor of an accompanying editorial.

“It was a bit of the wild west out there, because each university, each college, all with good intentions, had been all struggling to figure out what to do, and how much to do. Probably the most important message from this new paper is the fact that now there is something out there that all coaches, athletes, families, schools, trainers can get some guidance from,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.

Refining the cardiac screening criteria was a necessary step, Dr. Udelson said.

“How much cardiac imaging do you do? That is a matter of controversy,” said Dr. Udelson, who coauthored the commentary with Tufts cardiologist Ethan Rowin, MD, and Michael A. Curtis, MEd, a certified strength and conditioning specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “The problem is that if you use a very sensitive imaging test on a lot of people, sometimes you find things that you really didn’t need to know about. They’re really not important. And now, the athlete is told he or she cannot play for 3 months because they might have myocarditis.

“Should we be too sensitive, meaning do we want to pick up anything no matter whether it’s important or not?” he added. “There will be a lot of false positives, and we are going to disqualify a lot of people. Or do you tune it a different way?”

Dr. Udelson said he would like to see commercial sports donate money to support research into the potential cardiotoxicity of COVID-19.

“If the organizations that benefit from these athletes, like the National Collegiate Athletic Association and professional sports leagues, can fund some of this research, that would be a huge help,” Dr. Udelson said.

“These are the top sports cardiologists in the country, and they have to start somewhere, and these are all based on what we know right now, as well as their own extensive experience. We all know that we are just at the beginning of our knowledge of this. But we have to have something to guide this huge community out there that is really thirsty for help.”

Dr. Baggish reports receiving research funding for the study of athletes in competitive sports from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Football League Players Association; and the American Heart Association and receiving compensation for his role as team cardiologist from the US Olympic Committee/US Olympic Training Centers, US Soccer, US Rowing, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, the New England Revolution, and Harvard University. Dr. Udelson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The latest recommendations from sports cardiologists on getting athletes with COVID-19 back on the playing field safely emphasize a more judicious approach to screening for cardiac injury.

The new recommendations, made by the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section, are for adult athletes in competitive sports and also for two important groups: younger athletes taking part in competitive high school sports and older athletes aged 35 and older, the Masters athletes, who continue to be active throughout their lives. The document was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Because of the evolving nature of knowledge about COVID-19, updates on recommendations for safe return to play for athletes of all ages will continue to be made, senior author Aaron L. Baggish, MD, director of the cardiovascular performance program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said.

“The recommendations we released in May were entirely based on our experience taking care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19; we had no athletes in this population. We used a lot of conservative guesswork around how this would apply to otherwise healthy athletes,” Dr. Baggish said in an interview.

“But as sports started to open up, and we started to see large numbers of first professional and then college athletes come back into training, we realized that we needed to stop and ask whether the recommendations we put forward back in May were still appropriate,” Dr. Baggish said.

“Once we started to actually get into the trenches with these athletes, literally hundreds of them, and applying the testing strategies that we had initially recommended in everybody, we realized that we probably had some room for improvement, and that’s why we reconvened, to make these revisions,” he said.

Essentially, the recommendations now urge less cardiac testing. “Cardiac injury is not as common as we may have originally thought,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In the early days of COVID, people who were hospitalized had evidence of heart injury, and so we wondered if that prevalence would also be applicable to otherwise young, healthy people who got COVID. If that had been the case, we would have been in big trouble with respect to getting people back into sports. So this is why we started with a conservative screening approach and a lot of testing in order to not miss a huge burden of disease,” he said.

“But what we’ve learned over the past few months is that young people who get either asymptomatic or mild infection appear to have very, very low risk of having associated heart injury, so the need for testing in that population, when people who have infections recover fully, is almost certainly not going to be high yield,” Dr. Baggish said.
 

First iteration of the recommendations

Published in May in the early weeks of the pandemic, the first recommendations for safe return to play said that all athletes should stop training for at least 2 weeks after their symptoms resolve, then undergo “careful, clinical cardiovascular evaluation in combination with cardiac biomarkers and imaging.”

Additional testing with cardiac MRI, exercise testing, or ambulatory rhythm monitoring was to be done “based on the clinical course and initial testing.”

But experts caution that monitoring on such a scale in everyone is unnecessary and could even be counterproductive.

“Sending young athletes for extensive testing is not warranted and could send them to unnecessary testing, cardiac imaging, and so on,” Dr. Baggish said.

Only those athletes who continue to have symptoms or whose symptoms return when they get back to their athletic activities should go on for more screening.

“There, in essence, is the single main change from May, and that is a move away from screening with testing everyone, [and instead] confining that to the people who had moderate or greater severity disease,” he said.

Both iterations of the recommendations end with the same message.

“We are at the beginning of our knowledge about the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 but we are gathering evidence every day,” said Dr. Baggish. “Just as they did earlier, we acknowledge that our approaches are subject to change when we learn more about how COVID affects the heart, and specifically the hearts of athletes. This will be an ongoing process.”
 

Something to lean on

The recommendations are welcome, said James E. Udelson, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, coauthor of an accompanying editorial.

“It was a bit of the wild west out there, because each university, each college, all with good intentions, had been all struggling to figure out what to do, and how much to do. Probably the most important message from this new paper is the fact that now there is something out there that all coaches, athletes, families, schools, trainers can get some guidance from,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.

Refining the cardiac screening criteria was a necessary step, Dr. Udelson said.

“How much cardiac imaging do you do? That is a matter of controversy,” said Dr. Udelson, who coauthored the commentary with Tufts cardiologist Ethan Rowin, MD, and Michael A. Curtis, MEd, a certified strength and conditioning specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “The problem is that if you use a very sensitive imaging test on a lot of people, sometimes you find things that you really didn’t need to know about. They’re really not important. And now, the athlete is told he or she cannot play for 3 months because they might have myocarditis.

“Should we be too sensitive, meaning do we want to pick up anything no matter whether it’s important or not?” he added. “There will be a lot of false positives, and we are going to disqualify a lot of people. Or do you tune it a different way?”

Dr. Udelson said he would like to see commercial sports donate money to support research into the potential cardiotoxicity of COVID-19.

“If the organizations that benefit from these athletes, like the National Collegiate Athletic Association and professional sports leagues, can fund some of this research, that would be a huge help,” Dr. Udelson said.

“These are the top sports cardiologists in the country, and they have to start somewhere, and these are all based on what we know right now, as well as their own extensive experience. We all know that we are just at the beginning of our knowledge of this. But we have to have something to guide this huge community out there that is really thirsty for help.”

Dr. Baggish reports receiving research funding for the study of athletes in competitive sports from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Football League Players Association; and the American Heart Association and receiving compensation for his role as team cardiologist from the US Olympic Committee/US Olympic Training Centers, US Soccer, US Rowing, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, the New England Revolution, and Harvard University. Dr. Udelson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The latest recommendations from sports cardiologists on getting athletes with COVID-19 back on the playing field safely emphasize a more judicious approach to screening for cardiac injury.

The new recommendations, made by the American College of Cardiology’s Sports and Exercise Cardiology Section, are for adult athletes in competitive sports and also for two important groups: younger athletes taking part in competitive high school sports and older athletes aged 35 and older, the Masters athletes, who continue to be active throughout their lives. The document was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Because of the evolving nature of knowledge about COVID-19, updates on recommendations for safe return to play for athletes of all ages will continue to be made, senior author Aaron L. Baggish, MD, director of the cardiovascular performance program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said.

“The recommendations we released in May were entirely based on our experience taking care of hospitalized patients with COVID-19; we had no athletes in this population. We used a lot of conservative guesswork around how this would apply to otherwise healthy athletes,” Dr. Baggish said in an interview.

“But as sports started to open up, and we started to see large numbers of first professional and then college athletes come back into training, we realized that we needed to stop and ask whether the recommendations we put forward back in May were still appropriate,” Dr. Baggish said.

“Once we started to actually get into the trenches with these athletes, literally hundreds of them, and applying the testing strategies that we had initially recommended in everybody, we realized that we probably had some room for improvement, and that’s why we reconvened, to make these revisions,” he said.

Essentially, the recommendations now urge less cardiac testing. “Cardiac injury is not as common as we may have originally thought,” said Dr. Baggish.

“In the early days of COVID, people who were hospitalized had evidence of heart injury, and so we wondered if that prevalence would also be applicable to otherwise young, healthy people who got COVID. If that had been the case, we would have been in big trouble with respect to getting people back into sports. So this is why we started with a conservative screening approach and a lot of testing in order to not miss a huge burden of disease,” he said.

“But what we’ve learned over the past few months is that young people who get either asymptomatic or mild infection appear to have very, very low risk of having associated heart injury, so the need for testing in that population, when people who have infections recover fully, is almost certainly not going to be high yield,” Dr. Baggish said.
 

First iteration of the recommendations

Published in May in the early weeks of the pandemic, the first recommendations for safe return to play said that all athletes should stop training for at least 2 weeks after their symptoms resolve, then undergo “careful, clinical cardiovascular evaluation in combination with cardiac biomarkers and imaging.”

Additional testing with cardiac MRI, exercise testing, or ambulatory rhythm monitoring was to be done “based on the clinical course and initial testing.”

But experts caution that monitoring on such a scale in everyone is unnecessary and could even be counterproductive.

“Sending young athletes for extensive testing is not warranted and could send them to unnecessary testing, cardiac imaging, and so on,” Dr. Baggish said.

Only those athletes who continue to have symptoms or whose symptoms return when they get back to their athletic activities should go on for more screening.

“There, in essence, is the single main change from May, and that is a move away from screening with testing everyone, [and instead] confining that to the people who had moderate or greater severity disease,” he said.

Both iterations of the recommendations end with the same message.

“We are at the beginning of our knowledge about the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 but we are gathering evidence every day,” said Dr. Baggish. “Just as they did earlier, we acknowledge that our approaches are subject to change when we learn more about how COVID affects the heart, and specifically the hearts of athletes. This will be an ongoing process.”
 

Something to lean on

The recommendations are welcome, said James E. Udelson, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, coauthor of an accompanying editorial.

“It was a bit of the wild west out there, because each university, each college, all with good intentions, had been all struggling to figure out what to do, and how much to do. Probably the most important message from this new paper is the fact that now there is something out there that all coaches, athletes, families, schools, trainers can get some guidance from,” Dr. Udelson said in an interview.

Refining the cardiac screening criteria was a necessary step, Dr. Udelson said.

“How much cardiac imaging do you do? That is a matter of controversy,” said Dr. Udelson, who coauthored the commentary with Tufts cardiologist Ethan Rowin, MD, and Michael A. Curtis, MEd, a certified strength and conditioning specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “The problem is that if you use a very sensitive imaging test on a lot of people, sometimes you find things that you really didn’t need to know about. They’re really not important. And now, the athlete is told he or she cannot play for 3 months because they might have myocarditis.

“Should we be too sensitive, meaning do we want to pick up anything no matter whether it’s important or not?” he added. “There will be a lot of false positives, and we are going to disqualify a lot of people. Or do you tune it a different way?”

Dr. Udelson said he would like to see commercial sports donate money to support research into the potential cardiotoxicity of COVID-19.

“If the organizations that benefit from these athletes, like the National Collegiate Athletic Association and professional sports leagues, can fund some of this research, that would be a huge help,” Dr. Udelson said.

“These are the top sports cardiologists in the country, and they have to start somewhere, and these are all based on what we know right now, as well as their own extensive experience. We all know that we are just at the beginning of our knowledge of this. But we have to have something to guide this huge community out there that is really thirsty for help.”

Dr. Baggish reports receiving research funding for the study of athletes in competitive sports from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Football League Players Association; and the American Heart Association and receiving compensation for his role as team cardiologist from the US Olympic Committee/US Olympic Training Centers, US Soccer, US Rowing, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, the New England Revolution, and Harvard University. Dr. Udelson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Safety measures for lab monitoring of mineralocorticoid receptor agonist therapy, performance measures for sacubitril/valsartan, cardiac resynchronization therapy and titration of medications, and quality measures based on patient-reported outcomes are among the updates the joint task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have made to performance and quality measures for managing adults with heart failure.

The revisions, published online Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, update the 2011 ACC/AHA heart failure measure set, writing committee vice chair Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said in an interview. The 2011 measure set predates the 2015 approval of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure in adults.
 

Measures stress dosages, strength of evidence

“For the first time the heart failure performance measure sets also focus on not just the use of guideline-recommended medication at any dose, but on utilizing the doses that are evidence-based and guideline recommended so long as they are well tolerated,” said Dr. Fonarow, interim chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The measure set now includes assessment of patients being treated with doses of medications at 50% or greater of target dose in the absence of contraindications or documented intolerance.”

The update includes seven new performance measures, two quality measures, and one structural measure. The performance measures come from the strongest recommendations – that is, a class of recommendation of 1 (strong) or 3 (no benefit or harmful, process to be avoided) – in the 2017 ACC/AHA/Heart Failure Society of American heart failure guideline update published in Circulation.

In addition to the 2017 update, the writing committee also reviewed existing performance measures. “Those management strategies, diagnostic testing, medications, and devices with the strongest evidence and highest level of guideline recommendations were further considered for inclusion in the performance measure set,” Dr. Fonarow said. “The measures went through extensive review by peer reviewers and approval from the organizations represented.”

Specifically, the update includes measures for monitoring serum potassium after starting mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists therapy, and cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction already on guideline-directed therapy. “This therapy can significantly improve functional capacity and outcomes in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Fonarow said.
 

New and retired measures

The update adds two performance measures for titration of medications based on dose, either reaching 50% of the recommended dose for a variety of medications, including ARNI, or documenting that the dose wasn’t tolerated for other reason for not using the dose.

The new structural measure calls for facility participation in a heart failure registry. The revised measure set now consists of 18 measures in all.

The update retired one measure from the 2011 set: left ventricular ejection fraction assessment for inpatients. The committee cited its use above 97% as the reason, but LVEF in outpatients remains a measure.

The following tree measures have been revised:

• Patient self-care education has moved from performance measure to quality measure because of concerns about the accuracy of self-care education documentation and limited evidence of improved outcomes with better documentation.
• ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy for left ventricular systolic dysfunction adds ARNI therapy to align with the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA update.
• Postdischarge appointments shifts from performance to quality measure and include a 7-day limit.

Measures future research should focus on, noted Dr. Fonarow, include the use of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for heart failure, including in patients without diabetes. “Since the ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines had not yet been updated to recommend these therapies they could not be included in this performance measure set,” he said.

He also said “an urgent need” exists for further research into treatments for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction along with optimal implementation strategies.  

“If these ACC/AHA heart failure performance measures were applied in all settings in which patients with heart failure in the United States are being cared for, and optimal and equitable conformity with each of these measures were achieved, over 100,000 lives a year of patients with heart failure could be saved,” he said. “There’s in an urgent need to measure and improve heart failure care quality.”

Dr. Fonarow reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 2;76:2527-64.

Safety measures for lab monitoring of mineralocorticoid receptor agonist therapy, performance measures for sacubitril/valsartan, cardiac resynchronization therapy and titration of medications, and quality measures based on patient-reported outcomes are among the updates the joint task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have made to performance and quality measures for managing adults with heart failure.

The revisions, published online Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, update the 2011 ACC/AHA heart failure measure set, writing committee vice chair Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said in an interview. The 2011 measure set predates the 2015 approval of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure in adults.
 

Measures stress dosages, strength of evidence

“For the first time the heart failure performance measure sets also focus on not just the use of guideline-recommended medication at any dose, but on utilizing the doses that are evidence-based and guideline recommended so long as they are well tolerated,” said Dr. Fonarow, interim chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The measure set now includes assessment of patients being treated with doses of medications at 50% or greater of target dose in the absence of contraindications or documented intolerance.”

The update includes seven new performance measures, two quality measures, and one structural measure. The performance measures come from the strongest recommendations – that is, a class of recommendation of 1 (strong) or 3 (no benefit or harmful, process to be avoided) – in the 2017 ACC/AHA/Heart Failure Society of American heart failure guideline update published in Circulation.

In addition to the 2017 update, the writing committee also reviewed existing performance measures. “Those management strategies, diagnostic testing, medications, and devices with the strongest evidence and highest level of guideline recommendations were further considered for inclusion in the performance measure set,” Dr. Fonarow said. “The measures went through extensive review by peer reviewers and approval from the organizations represented.”

Specifically, the update includes measures for monitoring serum potassium after starting mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists therapy, and cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction already on guideline-directed therapy. “This therapy can significantly improve functional capacity and outcomes in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Fonarow said.
 

New and retired measures

The update adds two performance measures for titration of medications based on dose, either reaching 50% of the recommended dose for a variety of medications, including ARNI, or documenting that the dose wasn’t tolerated for other reason for not using the dose.

The new structural measure calls for facility participation in a heart failure registry. The revised measure set now consists of 18 measures in all.

The update retired one measure from the 2011 set: left ventricular ejection fraction assessment for inpatients. The committee cited its use above 97% as the reason, but LVEF in outpatients remains a measure.

The following tree measures have been revised:

• Patient self-care education has moved from performance measure to quality measure because of concerns about the accuracy of self-care education documentation and limited evidence of improved outcomes with better documentation.
• ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy for left ventricular systolic dysfunction adds ARNI therapy to align with the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA update.
• Postdischarge appointments shifts from performance to quality measure and include a 7-day limit.

Measures future research should focus on, noted Dr. Fonarow, include the use of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for heart failure, including in patients without diabetes. “Since the ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines had not yet been updated to recommend these therapies they could not be included in this performance measure set,” he said.

He also said “an urgent need” exists for further research into treatments for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction along with optimal implementation strategies.  

“If these ACC/AHA heart failure performance measures were applied in all settings in which patients with heart failure in the United States are being cared for, and optimal and equitable conformity with each of these measures were achieved, over 100,000 lives a year of patients with heart failure could be saved,” he said. “There’s in an urgent need to measure and improve heart failure care quality.”

Dr. Fonarow reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 2;76:2527-64.

Safety measures for lab monitoring of mineralocorticoid receptor agonist therapy, performance measures for sacubitril/valsartan, cardiac resynchronization therapy and titration of medications, and quality measures based on patient-reported outcomes are among the updates the joint task force of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have made to performance and quality measures for managing adults with heart failure.

The revisions, published online Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, update the 2011 ACC/AHA heart failure measure set, writing committee vice chair Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said in an interview. The 2011 measure set predates the 2015 approval of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure in adults.
 

Measures stress dosages, strength of evidence

“For the first time the heart failure performance measure sets also focus on not just the use of guideline-recommended medication at any dose, but on utilizing the doses that are evidence-based and guideline recommended so long as they are well tolerated,” said Dr. Fonarow, interim chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The measure set now includes assessment of patients being treated with doses of medications at 50% or greater of target dose in the absence of contraindications or documented intolerance.”

The update includes seven new performance measures, two quality measures, and one structural measure. The performance measures come from the strongest recommendations – that is, a class of recommendation of 1 (strong) or 3 (no benefit or harmful, process to be avoided) – in the 2017 ACC/AHA/Heart Failure Society of American heart failure guideline update published in Circulation.

In addition to the 2017 update, the writing committee also reviewed existing performance measures. “Those management strategies, diagnostic testing, medications, and devices with the strongest evidence and highest level of guideline recommendations were further considered for inclusion in the performance measure set,” Dr. Fonarow said. “The measures went through extensive review by peer reviewers and approval from the organizations represented.”

Specifically, the update includes measures for monitoring serum potassium after starting mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists therapy, and cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction already on guideline-directed therapy. “This therapy can significantly improve functional capacity and outcomes in appropriately selected patients,” Dr. Fonarow said.
 

New and retired measures

The update adds two performance measures for titration of medications based on dose, either reaching 50% of the recommended dose for a variety of medications, including ARNI, or documenting that the dose wasn’t tolerated for other reason for not using the dose.

The new structural measure calls for facility participation in a heart failure registry. The revised measure set now consists of 18 measures in all.

The update retired one measure from the 2011 set: left ventricular ejection fraction assessment for inpatients. The committee cited its use above 97% as the reason, but LVEF in outpatients remains a measure.

The following tree measures have been revised:

• Patient self-care education has moved from performance measure to quality measure because of concerns about the accuracy of self-care education documentation and limited evidence of improved outcomes with better documentation.
• ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy for left ventricular systolic dysfunction adds ARNI therapy to align with the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA update.
• Postdischarge appointments shifts from performance to quality measure and include a 7-day limit.

Measures future research should focus on, noted Dr. Fonarow, include the use of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for heart failure, including in patients without diabetes. “Since the ACC/AHA heart failure guidelines had not yet been updated to recommend these therapies they could not be included in this performance measure set,” he said.

He also said “an urgent need” exists for further research into treatments for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction along with optimal implementation strategies.  

“If these ACC/AHA heart failure performance measures were applied in all settings in which patients with heart failure in the United States are being cared for, and optimal and equitable conformity with each of these measures were achieved, over 100,000 lives a year of patients with heart failure could be saved,” he said. “There’s in an urgent need to measure and improve heart failure care quality.”

Dr. Fonarow reported financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CHF Solutions, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

SOURCE: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 2;76:2527-64.

New guidelines recommend against retreatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in women with epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC). However, trials investigating retreatment are underway, so this recommendation may change.

The guidelines, from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), do not recommend PARP inhibitors for the initial treatment of stage I-II EOC.

However, PARP inhibitor maintenance should be offered to women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV EOC who achieved a complete or partial response with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, according to the guidelines. Niraparib can be offered to all women meeting those criteria, while olaparib can be considered for patients with mutations in BRCA1/2.

The guidelines, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, are based on a systematic review of recent randomized PARP inhibitor trials, including PRIMA and SOLO1, among others.

What’s not available now is overall survival results from key clinical trials, the guideline authors noted. They added that further research is needed to address the issue of conserving platinum sensitivity in patients with disease progression on or after PARP inhibitor maintenance.

“Given the expectation that early treatment may confer the best outcome, maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors should be offered, with these caveats,” the authors wrote.

Olaparib can also be added to bevacizumab maintenance therapy following response to first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, according to the guidelines, which also address PARP inhibitor use for women with recurrent EOC, as well as management of adverse events.

The guidelines recommend against pairing PARP inhibitors with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy outside a clinical trial.
 

Which drug, which setting, which dose?

This new ASCO guidelines may help cut through the complexity of treatment decision-making for women with EOC, according to Roisin E. O’Cearbhaill, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Today as clinicians, we have a whole range of opportunities to give our patients PARP inhibitors in the upfront and recurrent setting,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “It is quite complicated to know which PARP inhibitor should be used in which setting and which patients.”

“We want to make sure that patients who would derive the most benefit from PARP inhibitors are offered these agents but also that we’re careful not to use PARP inhibitors in settings where there is little or no data,” added Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who was not involved in the drafting of the guidelines.

The ASCO guidelines provide a detailed review of 17 clinical trials to address key issues, including the histologic types of EOC and biomarker subsets for which PARP inhibitors are recommended in the newly diagnosed setting, as well as the settings, dose, and duration of treatment that are recommended for patients with recurrent EOC who have not yet received a PARP inhibitor.

While PARP inhibitors are generally well tolerated, some characteristic toxicities – such as anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, persistent cytopenias, and nausea – may warrant dose reductions, the guidelines state.

Special attention must be paid to low-grade adverse events since PARP inhibitors are administered continuously on a daily basis, according to the guidelines. If a dose is held because of a grade 2 adverse event, the subsequent dose should be reduced to avoid a second dose hold.

“Reescalation or resumption of the initial dose is never recommended,” the guidelines state.
 

Retreatment

Dr. O’Cearbhaill said she is eager to see future guidelines addressing PARP inhibitor retreatment following disease progression, especially since more and more patients will receive these agents in the upfront setting.

Right now, there is little data available to address PARP inhibitor retreatment. However, the ASCO guidelines do mention the ongoing OReO/ENGOT OV-38 phase 3 trial of maintenance retreatment with olaparib in women with EOC.

This study, which includes patients who previously received a PARP inhibitor and who are responding to additional platinum-based chemotherapy, has an estimated completion date in May 2021, according to details on ClinicalTrials.gov.

That’s one of several trials designed to determine how best to incorporate PARP inhibitor retreatment into the treatment paradigm, according to Dr. O’Cearbhaill.

“Even if a high proportion of patients aren’t ultimately cured by this approach, if we can delay progression of disease by the order of months or even years, whilst proactively managing side effects, it would make such a big difference for patients,” she said. “It allows them to have a better quality of life and go about their daily activities without symptomatic ovarian cancer.”

Cochairs of the ASCO expert panel for the guidelines were William P. Tew, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Elise C. Kohn, MD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Dr. Tew and Dr. Kohn provided no disclosures, while their coauthors reported disclosures related to Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Seattle Genetics, and other companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill disclosed that she is a coauthor on the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 phase 3 clinical trial (NCT02655016) and serves on the steering committee for DUO-O (NCT0373643). She reported personal fees from Clovis, Tesaro, Regeneron, and GlaxoSmithKline.

SOURCE: Tew WP et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01924.

New guidelines recommend against retreatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in women with epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC). However, trials investigating retreatment are underway, so this recommendation may change.

The guidelines, from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), do not recommend PARP inhibitors for the initial treatment of stage I-II EOC.

However, PARP inhibitor maintenance should be offered to women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV EOC who achieved a complete or partial response with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, according to the guidelines. Niraparib can be offered to all women meeting those criteria, while olaparib can be considered for patients with mutations in BRCA1/2.

The guidelines, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, are based on a systematic review of recent randomized PARP inhibitor trials, including PRIMA and SOLO1, among others.

What’s not available now is overall survival results from key clinical trials, the guideline authors noted. They added that further research is needed to address the issue of conserving platinum sensitivity in patients with disease progression on or after PARP inhibitor maintenance.

“Given the expectation that early treatment may confer the best outcome, maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors should be offered, with these caveats,” the authors wrote.

Olaparib can also be added to bevacizumab maintenance therapy following response to first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, according to the guidelines, which also address PARP inhibitor use for women with recurrent EOC, as well as management of adverse events.

The guidelines recommend against pairing PARP inhibitors with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy outside a clinical trial.
 

Which drug, which setting, which dose?

This new ASCO guidelines may help cut through the complexity of treatment decision-making for women with EOC, according to Roisin E. O’Cearbhaill, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Today as clinicians, we have a whole range of opportunities to give our patients PARP inhibitors in the upfront and recurrent setting,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “It is quite complicated to know which PARP inhibitor should be used in which setting and which patients.”

“We want to make sure that patients who would derive the most benefit from PARP inhibitors are offered these agents but also that we’re careful not to use PARP inhibitors in settings where there is little or no data,” added Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who was not involved in the drafting of the guidelines.

The ASCO guidelines provide a detailed review of 17 clinical trials to address key issues, including the histologic types of EOC and biomarker subsets for which PARP inhibitors are recommended in the newly diagnosed setting, as well as the settings, dose, and duration of treatment that are recommended for patients with recurrent EOC who have not yet received a PARP inhibitor.

While PARP inhibitors are generally well tolerated, some characteristic toxicities – such as anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, persistent cytopenias, and nausea – may warrant dose reductions, the guidelines state.

Special attention must be paid to low-grade adverse events since PARP inhibitors are administered continuously on a daily basis, according to the guidelines. If a dose is held because of a grade 2 adverse event, the subsequent dose should be reduced to avoid a second dose hold.

“Reescalation or resumption of the initial dose is never recommended,” the guidelines state.
 

Retreatment

Dr. O’Cearbhaill said she is eager to see future guidelines addressing PARP inhibitor retreatment following disease progression, especially since more and more patients will receive these agents in the upfront setting.

Right now, there is little data available to address PARP inhibitor retreatment. However, the ASCO guidelines do mention the ongoing OReO/ENGOT OV-38 phase 3 trial of maintenance retreatment with olaparib in women with EOC.

This study, which includes patients who previously received a PARP inhibitor and who are responding to additional platinum-based chemotherapy, has an estimated completion date in May 2021, according to details on ClinicalTrials.gov.

That’s one of several trials designed to determine how best to incorporate PARP inhibitor retreatment into the treatment paradigm, according to Dr. O’Cearbhaill.

“Even if a high proportion of patients aren’t ultimately cured by this approach, if we can delay progression of disease by the order of months or even years, whilst proactively managing side effects, it would make such a big difference for patients,” she said. “It allows them to have a better quality of life and go about their daily activities without symptomatic ovarian cancer.”

Cochairs of the ASCO expert panel for the guidelines were William P. Tew, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Elise C. Kohn, MD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Dr. Tew and Dr. Kohn provided no disclosures, while their coauthors reported disclosures related to Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Seattle Genetics, and other companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill disclosed that she is a coauthor on the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 phase 3 clinical trial (NCT02655016) and serves on the steering committee for DUO-O (NCT0373643). She reported personal fees from Clovis, Tesaro, Regeneron, and GlaxoSmithKline.

SOURCE: Tew WP et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01924.

New guidelines recommend against retreatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in women with epithelial ovarian, tubal, or primary peritoneal cancer (EOC). However, trials investigating retreatment are underway, so this recommendation may change.

The guidelines, from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), do not recommend PARP inhibitors for the initial treatment of stage I-II EOC.

However, PARP inhibitor maintenance should be offered to women with newly diagnosed stage III-IV EOC who achieved a complete or partial response with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, according to the guidelines. Niraparib can be offered to all women meeting those criteria, while olaparib can be considered for patients with mutations in BRCA1/2.

The guidelines, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, are based on a systematic review of recent randomized PARP inhibitor trials, including PRIMA and SOLO1, among others.

What’s not available now is overall survival results from key clinical trials, the guideline authors noted. They added that further research is needed to address the issue of conserving platinum sensitivity in patients with disease progression on or after PARP inhibitor maintenance.

“Given the expectation that early treatment may confer the best outcome, maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors should be offered, with these caveats,” the authors wrote.

Olaparib can also be added to bevacizumab maintenance therapy following response to first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, according to the guidelines, which also address PARP inhibitor use for women with recurrent EOC, as well as management of adverse events.

The guidelines recommend against pairing PARP inhibitors with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy outside a clinical trial.
 

Which drug, which setting, which dose?

This new ASCO guidelines may help cut through the complexity of treatment decision-making for women with EOC, according to Roisin E. O’Cearbhaill, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Today as clinicians, we have a whole range of opportunities to give our patients PARP inhibitors in the upfront and recurrent setting,” Dr. O’Cearbhaill said in an interview. “It is quite complicated to know which PARP inhibitor should be used in which setting and which patients.”

“We want to make sure that patients who would derive the most benefit from PARP inhibitors are offered these agents but also that we’re careful not to use PARP inhibitors in settings where there is little or no data,” added Dr. O’Cearbhaill, who was not involved in the drafting of the guidelines.

The ASCO guidelines provide a detailed review of 17 clinical trials to address key issues, including the histologic types of EOC and biomarker subsets for which PARP inhibitors are recommended in the newly diagnosed setting, as well as the settings, dose, and duration of treatment that are recommended for patients with recurrent EOC who have not yet received a PARP inhibitor.

While PARP inhibitors are generally well tolerated, some characteristic toxicities – such as anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, persistent cytopenias, and nausea – may warrant dose reductions, the guidelines state.

Special attention must be paid to low-grade adverse events since PARP inhibitors are administered continuously on a daily basis, according to the guidelines. If a dose is held because of a grade 2 adverse event, the subsequent dose should be reduced to avoid a second dose hold.

“Reescalation or resumption of the initial dose is never recommended,” the guidelines state.
 

Retreatment

Dr. O’Cearbhaill said she is eager to see future guidelines addressing PARP inhibitor retreatment following disease progression, especially since more and more patients will receive these agents in the upfront setting.

Right now, there is little data available to address PARP inhibitor retreatment. However, the ASCO guidelines do mention the ongoing OReO/ENGOT OV-38 phase 3 trial of maintenance retreatment with olaparib in women with EOC.

This study, which includes patients who previously received a PARP inhibitor and who are responding to additional platinum-based chemotherapy, has an estimated completion date in May 2021, according to details on ClinicalTrials.gov.

That’s one of several trials designed to determine how best to incorporate PARP inhibitor retreatment into the treatment paradigm, according to Dr. O’Cearbhaill.

“Even if a high proportion of patients aren’t ultimately cured by this approach, if we can delay progression of disease by the order of months or even years, whilst proactively managing side effects, it would make such a big difference for patients,” she said. “It allows them to have a better quality of life and go about their daily activities without symptomatic ovarian cancer.”

Cochairs of the ASCO expert panel for the guidelines were William P. Tew, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Elise C. Kohn, MD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Dr. Tew and Dr. Kohn provided no disclosures, while their coauthors reported disclosures related to Roche, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Seattle Genetics, and other companies. Dr. O’Cearbhaill disclosed that she is a coauthor on the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 phase 3 clinical trial (NCT02655016) and serves on the steering committee for DUO-O (NCT0373643). She reported personal fees from Clovis, Tesaro, Regeneron, and GlaxoSmithKline.

SOURCE: Tew WP et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01924.

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) should begin at age 45 years instead of 50 years, as recommended in the current guideline, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a draft recommendation that is open for public comment.

“This is the only change that was made,” said task force member Michael Barry, MD, director of the Informed Medical Decisions Program in the Health Decision Sciences Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The recommendation is that all adults aged 45-75 years be screened for CRC.

This is an “A” recommendation for adults aged 50-75 and a “B” recommendation for adults aged 45-49. Dr. Barry explained that the reason for this difference is that the benefit is smaller for the 45- to 49-years age group. “But there’s not much difference between A and B from a practical standpoint,” he explained.

For adults aged 76-85, the benefits and harms of screening need to be weighed against the individual’s overall health and personal circumstances. This is a “C” recommendation.

Barry emphasized that the USPSTF document is not final. The draft recommendation and supporting evidence is posted on the task force website and will be available for public comments until Nov. 23.
 

Mounting pressure

The move comes after mounting evidence of an increase in CRC among younger adults and mounting pressure to lower the starting age.

Two years ago, the American Cancer Society (ACS) revised its own screening guidelines and lowered the starting age to 45 years. Soon afterward, a coalition of 22 public health and patient advocacy groups joined the ACS in submitting a letter to the USPSTF asking that the task force reconsider its 2016 guidance (which recommends starting at age 50 years).

The starting age for screening is an important issue, commented Judy Yee, MD, chair of radiology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the Montefiore Health System in New York and chair of the Colon Cancer Committee of the American College of Radiology.

“Right now it is very confusing to physicians and to the public,” Dr. Yee said in an interview at that time. “The USPSTF and the ACS differ as far as the age to begin screening, and insurers may not cover the cost of colorectal cancer screening before age 50.”

Dr. Barry said that the Task Force took notice of recent data showing an increase in the incidence of CRC among younger adults. “The risk now for age 45 to 49 is pretty similar to the risk for people in their early 50s. So in some ways, today’s late 40-year-olds are like yesterday’s 50-year-olds,” he commented.

The task force used simulation models that confirmed what the epidemiologic data suggested and “that we could prevent some additional colorectal cancer deaths by starting screening at age 45,” he said.

The rest of the new draft recommendation is similar to the 2016 guidelines, in which the task force says there is convincing evidence that CRC screening substantially reduces disease-related mortality. However, it does not recommend any one screening approach over another. It recommends both direct visualization, such as colonoscopy, as well as noninvasive stool-based tests. It does not recommend serum tests, urine tests, or capsule endoscopy because there is not yet enough evidence about the benefits and harms of these tests.

“The right test is the one a patient will do,” Dr. Barry commented.

Defining populations

CRC in young adults made the news in August 2020 when Chadwick Boseman, known for his role as King T’Challa in Marvel’s “Black Panther,” died of colon cancer. Diagnosed in 2016, he was only 43 years old.

“The recent passing of Chadwick Boseman is tragic, and our thoughts are with his loved ones during this difficult time,” said Dr. Barry. “As a Black man, the data show that Chadwick was at higher risk for developing colorectal cancer.”

Unfortunately, there is currently not enough evidence that screening Black men younger than 45 could help prevent tragic deaths such as Chadwick’s, he commented. “The task force is calling for more research on colorectal cancer screening in Black adults,” he added.
 

Limit screening to those at higher risk

In contrast to the USPSTF and ACS guidelines, which recommend screening for CRC for everyone over a certain age, a set of recommendations developed by an international panel of experts suggests screening only for individuals who are at higher risk for CRC.

As previously reported, these guidelines suggest restricting screening to adults whose cumulative cancer risk is 3% or more in the next 15 years, the point at which the balance between benefits and harms favors screening.

The authors, led by Lise Helsingen, MD, Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, said “the optimal choice for each person requires shared decision-making.”

Such a risk-based approach is “increasingly regarded as the most appropriate way to discuss cancer screening.” That approach is already used in prostate and lung cancer screening, they noted.
 

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

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) should begin at age 45 years instead of 50 years, as recommended in the current guideline, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a draft recommendation that is open for public comment.

“This is the only change that was made,” said task force member Michael Barry, MD, director of the Informed Medical Decisions Program in the Health Decision Sciences Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The recommendation is that all adults aged 45-75 years be screened for CRC.

This is an “A” recommendation for adults aged 50-75 and a “B” recommendation for adults aged 45-49. Dr. Barry explained that the reason for this difference is that the benefit is smaller for the 45- to 49-years age group. “But there’s not much difference between A and B from a practical standpoint,” he explained.

For adults aged 76-85, the benefits and harms of screening need to be weighed against the individual’s overall health and personal circumstances. This is a “C” recommendation.

Barry emphasized that the USPSTF document is not final. The draft recommendation and supporting evidence is posted on the task force website and will be available for public comments until Nov. 23.
 

Mounting pressure

The move comes after mounting evidence of an increase in CRC among younger adults and mounting pressure to lower the starting age.

Two years ago, the American Cancer Society (ACS) revised its own screening guidelines and lowered the starting age to 45 years. Soon afterward, a coalition of 22 public health and patient advocacy groups joined the ACS in submitting a letter to the USPSTF asking that the task force reconsider its 2016 guidance (which recommends starting at age 50 years).

The starting age for screening is an important issue, commented Judy Yee, MD, chair of radiology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the Montefiore Health System in New York and chair of the Colon Cancer Committee of the American College of Radiology.

“Right now it is very confusing to physicians and to the public,” Dr. Yee said in an interview at that time. “The USPSTF and the ACS differ as far as the age to begin screening, and insurers may not cover the cost of colorectal cancer screening before age 50.”

Dr. Barry said that the Task Force took notice of recent data showing an increase in the incidence of CRC among younger adults. “The risk now for age 45 to 49 is pretty similar to the risk for people in their early 50s. So in some ways, today’s late 40-year-olds are like yesterday’s 50-year-olds,” he commented.

The task force used simulation models that confirmed what the epidemiologic data suggested and “that we could prevent some additional colorectal cancer deaths by starting screening at age 45,” he said.

The rest of the new draft recommendation is similar to the 2016 guidelines, in which the task force says there is convincing evidence that CRC screening substantially reduces disease-related mortality. However, it does not recommend any one screening approach over another. It recommends both direct visualization, such as colonoscopy, as well as noninvasive stool-based tests. It does not recommend serum tests, urine tests, or capsule endoscopy because there is not yet enough evidence about the benefits and harms of these tests.

“The right test is the one a patient will do,” Dr. Barry commented.

Defining populations

CRC in young adults made the news in August 2020 when Chadwick Boseman, known for his role as King T’Challa in Marvel’s “Black Panther,” died of colon cancer. Diagnosed in 2016, he was only 43 years old.

“The recent passing of Chadwick Boseman is tragic, and our thoughts are with his loved ones during this difficult time,” said Dr. Barry. “As a Black man, the data show that Chadwick was at higher risk for developing colorectal cancer.”

Unfortunately, there is currently not enough evidence that screening Black men younger than 45 could help prevent tragic deaths such as Chadwick’s, he commented. “The task force is calling for more research on colorectal cancer screening in Black adults,” he added.
 

Limit screening to those at higher risk

In contrast to the USPSTF and ACS guidelines, which recommend screening for CRC for everyone over a certain age, a set of recommendations developed by an international panel of experts suggests screening only for individuals who are at higher risk for CRC.

As previously reported, these guidelines suggest restricting screening to adults whose cumulative cancer risk is 3% or more in the next 15 years, the point at which the balance between benefits and harms favors screening.

The authors, led by Lise Helsingen, MD, Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, said “the optimal choice for each person requires shared decision-making.”

Such a risk-based approach is “increasingly regarded as the most appropriate way to discuss cancer screening.” That approach is already used in prostate and lung cancer screening, they noted.
 

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

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) should begin at age 45 years instead of 50 years, as recommended in the current guideline, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) said in a draft recommendation that is open for public comment.

“This is the only change that was made,” said task force member Michael Barry, MD, director of the Informed Medical Decisions Program in the Health Decision Sciences Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The recommendation is that all adults aged 45-75 years be screened for CRC.

This is an “A” recommendation for adults aged 50-75 and a “B” recommendation for adults aged 45-49. Dr. Barry explained that the reason for this difference is that the benefit is smaller for the 45- to 49-years age group. “But there’s not much difference between A and B from a practical standpoint,” he explained.

For adults aged 76-85, the benefits and harms of screening need to be weighed against the individual’s overall health and personal circumstances. This is a “C” recommendation.

Barry emphasized that the USPSTF document is not final. The draft recommendation and supporting evidence is posted on the task force website and will be available for public comments until Nov. 23.
 

Mounting pressure

The move comes after mounting evidence of an increase in CRC among younger adults and mounting pressure to lower the starting age.

Two years ago, the American Cancer Society (ACS) revised its own screening guidelines and lowered the starting age to 45 years. Soon afterward, a coalition of 22 public health and patient advocacy groups joined the ACS in submitting a letter to the USPSTF asking that the task force reconsider its 2016 guidance (which recommends starting at age 50 years).

The starting age for screening is an important issue, commented Judy Yee, MD, chair of radiology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the Montefiore Health System in New York and chair of the Colon Cancer Committee of the American College of Radiology.

“Right now it is very confusing to physicians and to the public,” Dr. Yee said in an interview at that time. “The USPSTF and the ACS differ as far as the age to begin screening, and insurers may not cover the cost of colorectal cancer screening before age 50.”

Dr. Barry said that the Task Force took notice of recent data showing an increase in the incidence of CRC among younger adults. “The risk now for age 45 to 49 is pretty similar to the risk for people in their early 50s. So in some ways, today’s late 40-year-olds are like yesterday’s 50-year-olds,” he commented.

The task force used simulation models that confirmed what the epidemiologic data suggested and “that we could prevent some additional colorectal cancer deaths by starting screening at age 45,” he said.

The rest of the new draft recommendation is similar to the 2016 guidelines, in which the task force says there is convincing evidence that CRC screening substantially reduces disease-related mortality. However, it does not recommend any one screening approach over another. It recommends both direct visualization, such as colonoscopy, as well as noninvasive stool-based tests. It does not recommend serum tests, urine tests, or capsule endoscopy because there is not yet enough evidence about the benefits and harms of these tests.

“The right test is the one a patient will do,” Dr. Barry commented.

Defining populations

CRC in young adults made the news in August 2020 when Chadwick Boseman, known for his role as King T’Challa in Marvel’s “Black Panther,” died of colon cancer. Diagnosed in 2016, he was only 43 years old.

“The recent passing of Chadwick Boseman is tragic, and our thoughts are with his loved ones during this difficult time,” said Dr. Barry. “As a Black man, the data show that Chadwick was at higher risk for developing colorectal cancer.”

Unfortunately, there is currently not enough evidence that screening Black men younger than 45 could help prevent tragic deaths such as Chadwick’s, he commented. “The task force is calling for more research on colorectal cancer screening in Black adults,” he added.
 

Limit screening to those at higher risk

In contrast to the USPSTF and ACS guidelines, which recommend screening for CRC for everyone over a certain age, a set of recommendations developed by an international panel of experts suggests screening only for individuals who are at higher risk for CRC.

As previously reported, these guidelines suggest restricting screening to adults whose cumulative cancer risk is 3% or more in the next 15 years, the point at which the balance between benefits and harms favors screening.

The authors, led by Lise Helsingen, MD, Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, said “the optimal choice for each person requires shared decision-making.”

Such a risk-based approach is “increasingly regarded as the most appropriate way to discuss cancer screening.” That approach is already used in prostate and lung cancer screening, they noted.
 

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

A diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is particularly challenging in older adults, whose age makes them highly susceptible to the disease and treatment-related toxicity. To help patients and practitioners navigate the clinical decision-making process, the American Society of Hematology convened a panel of experts who conducted a thorough review of the literature. The result of their work can be found in a new set of guidelines for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML in older adults.

In an interview, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chair of the ASH AML guideline panel and director of the Leukemia Program at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, shared the rationale behind the panel’s key recommendations and the importance of keeping the patient’s goals in mind.

Question: What is the average life expectancy of a 75-year-old developing AML compared with someone of the same age without AML?

Dr. Sekeres: A 75-year-old developing AML has an average life expectancy measured in fewer than 6 months. Somebody who is 75 without leukemia in the United States has a life expectancy that can be measured in a decade or more. AML is a really serious diagnosis when someone is older and significantly truncates expected survival.

Q: What is the median age at AML diagnosis in the United States?

Dr. Sekeres: About 67 years.

Q: What are the biological underpinnings for poor outcomes in older AML patients?

Dr. Sekeres: There are a few of them. Older adults with AML tend to have a leukemia that has evolved from a known or unknown previous bone marrow condition such as myelodysplastic syndrome. Older adults also have worse genetics driving their leukemia, which makes the leukemia cells more resistant to chemotherapy. And the leukemia cells may even have drug efflux pumps that extrude chemotherapy that tries to enter the cell. Finally, older adults are more likely to have comorbidities that make their ability to tolerate chemotherapy much lower than for younger adults.

Q: In someone who is newly diagnosed with AML, what initial options are they routinely given?

Dr. Sekeres: For someone who is older, we divide those options into three main categories.

The first is to take intensive chemotherapy, which requires a 4-6 week hospitalization and has a chance of getting somebody who is older into a remission of approximately 50%-60%. But this also carries with it significant treatment-related mortality that may be as high as 10%-20%. So I have to look my older patients in the eyes when I talk about intensive chemotherapy and say, “There is a 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 chance that you might not make it out of the hospital alive.”

The second prong is lower-dose therapy. While the more-intensive therapy requiring hospitalization does have a low, but real, chance of curing that person, less-intensive therapy is not curative. Our best hope with less-intensive therapy is that our patients enter a remission and live longer. With less-intensive therapy, the chance that someone will go into remission is probably around 20%, but again it is not curative. The flip side to that is that it improves a person’s immediate quality of life because they’re not in the hospital for 4-6 weeks.

The final prong is to discuss palliative care or hospice upfront. We designed these guidelines to be focused on a patient’s goals of therapy and to constantly revisit those goals to make sure that the treatment options we are offering are aligning with them.

Q: The panel’s first recommendation is to offer antileukemic therapy over best supportive care in patients who are appropriate candidates. Can you provide some context for this recommendation?

Dr. Sekeres: Doesn’t that strike you as funny that we even have to make a recommendation about getting chemotherapy? Some database studies conducted over the past 2 decades show that, as recently as 15 years ago, only one-third of patients who were over the age of 65 years received any type of chemotherapy for AML. More recently, as we have had a few more drugs available that allow us to use lower-dose approaches, that number has crept up to probably about 50%. We still have half the patients offered no therapy at all. So we felt that we had to deliberately make a recommendation saying that, if it aligns with the patients’ goals, they should be offered chemotherapy.

Q: The second recommendation is that patients considered candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy should receive it over less-intensive antileukemic therapy. How did you get to that recommendation?

Dr. Sekeres: There is a debate in our field about whether older adults should be offered intensive inpatient chemotherapy at all or whether we should be treating all of them with less-intensive therapy. There is not a huge amount of high-quality studies out there to answer some of these questions, in particular whether intensive chemotherapy should be recommended over less-intensive therapy. But with the available evidence, what we believe is that patients live longer if they are offered intensive antileukemic chemotherapy. So again, if it aligns with a patient’s goals, we support that patient receiving more-intensive therapy in the hospital.

Q: What does the panel recommend for patients who achieve remission after at least a single cycle of intensive antileukemic therapy and who are not candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation?

Dr. Sekeres: Once again, this may seem at first blush to be an obvious recommendation. The standard treatment of someone who is younger with AML is to offer intensive inpatient chemotherapy to induce remission. This is followed by a few cycles of chemotherapy, mostly in an outpatient setting, to consolidate that remission.

Q: What is the underlying philosophy for this approach?

Dr. Sekeres: Every time we give chemotherapy, we probably get about a 3-4 log kill of leukemia cells. Imagine when patients first present with AML, they may have 10 billion leukemia cells in their body. We are reducing that 3-4 log with the first course of chemotherapy.

When we then look at a bone marrow biopsy, it may appear to be normal. When leukemia is at a lower level in the body, we simply can’t see it using standard techniques. But that doesn’t mean the leukemia is gone. For younger patients, we give another cycle of chemotherapy, then another, then another, and then even another to reduce the number of leukemia cells left over in the body until that person has a durable remission and hopefully cure.

For someone who is older, the data are less clear. While some studies have shown that, if you give too much chemotherapy after the initial course, it doesn’t help that much, there is a paucity of studies that show that any chemotherapy at all after the first induction course is helpful. Consequently, we have to use indirect data. Older people who are long-term survivors from their acute leukemia always seem to have gotten more than one course of chemotherapy. In other words, the initial course of chemotherapy that a patient receives in the hospital isn’t enough. They should receive more than that.

Q: What about older adults with AML considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy but not for intensive antileukemic therapy?

Dr. Sekeres: This again gets to the question of what are a patient’s goals. It takes a very involved conversation with patients at the time of their AML diagnosis to determine whether they would want to pursue an aggressive approach or a less-aggressive approach. If a patients want a less-aggressive approach, and want nothing to do with a hospital stay, then they are also prioritizing initial quality of life. In this recommendation, based on existing studies, we didn’t have a preference for which of the available less-aggressive chemotherapies a person selects.

There’s also debate about what to do in those considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy, such as hypomethylating agents (azacitidine and decitabine) or low-dose cytarabine, but not for intensive antileukemic therapy. What did the available evidence seem to indicate about this issue?

There has been a lot of studies trying to add two drugs together to see if those do better than one drug alone in patients who are older and who choose less-intensive therapy. The majority of those studies have shown no advantage to getting two drugs over one drug.

Our recommendation is that in these situations a patient gets one drug, not two, but there are a couple of caveats. One caveat is that there has been a small study showing the effectiveness of one of those low-dose chemotherapies combined with the drug glasdegib. The second caveat is that there have been results presented combining one of these low-dose chemotherapies with the drug venetoclax. One of those was a negative study, and another was a positive study showing a survival advantage to the combination vs. the low-dose therapy alone. We had to couch our recommendation a little bit because we knew this other study had been presented at a conference, but it hadn’t come out in final form yet. It did recently, however, and we will now revisit this recommendation.

The other complicated aspect to this is that we weren’t 100% convinced that the combination of venetoclax with one of these lower-dose therapies is truly less-intensive therapy. We think it is starting to creep up toward more-intensive chemotherapy, even though it is commonly given to patients in the outpatient setting. It gets into the very complicated area of what are we defining as more-intensive therapy and less-intensive therapy.

Q: Is there a recommended strategy for older adults with AML who achieve a response after receiving less-intensive therapy?

Dr. Sekeres: This is also challenging because there are no randomized studies in which patients received less-intensive therapy for a finite period of time vs. receiving those therapies ad infinitum. Given the lack of data and also given a lot of anecdotal data out there about patients who stopped a certain therapy and relapsed thereafter, we recommended that patients continue the less-intensive therapy ad infinitum. So as long as they are receiving a response to that therapy, they continue on the drug.

Q: Of course, there are also unique considerations faced by older patients who are no longer receiving antileukemic therapy and have moved on to receiving end-of-life care or hospice care. What advice do the guidelines offer in this situation?

Dr. Sekeres: There are a lot of aspects of these recommendations that I think are special. The first is the focus on patient goals of care at every point in these guidelines. The second is that the guidelines follow the real disease course and a real conversation that doctors and patients have at every step of the way to help guide the decisions that have to be made in real time.

A problem we have in the United States is that once patients enter a hospice, most will not allow blood transfusions. One reason is that some say it is antithetical to their philosophy and consider it aggressive care. The second reason is that, to be completely blunt, economically it doesn’t make sense for hospices to allow blood transfusions. The amount that they are reimbursed by Medicare is much lower than the cost of receiving blood in an infusion center.

We wanted to make a clear recommendation that we consider transfusions in a patient who is in a palliative care or hospice mode to be supportive and necessary, and that these should be provided to patients even if they are in hospice and, as always, if consistent with a patient’s goals of care.

Q: How does a patient’s age inform the discussion surrounding what intensity treatment to offer?

Dr. Sekeres: With younger adults, this is not as complicated a conversation. A younger person has a better chance of being cured with intensive chemotherapy and is much more likely to tolerate that intensive chemotherapy. For someone who is younger, we offer intensive chemotherapy and the chance of going into remission is higher, at 70%-80%. The chance of dying is lower, usually less than 5%. It is an easy decision to make.

For an older adult, the risk-benefit ratio shifts and it becomes a more complicated option. Less-intensive therapy or best supportive care or hospice become viable.

Q: Are there other factors confounding the treatment decision-making process in older adults with AML that practitioners should consider?

Dr. Sekeres: Someone who is older is making a different decision than I would. I have school-aged children and believe that my job as a parent is to successfully get them to adulthood, so I would take any treatment under the sun to make sure that happens. People who have lived a longer life than I have may have children and even grandchildren who are adults, and they might have different goals of care. My goals are not going to be the same as my patient’s goals.

It is also harder because patients who are older may feel that they have lived a good life and don’t need to go through heroic measures to try to be around as long as possible, and those goals may not align with the goals of that person’s children who want their parent to be around as long as possible. One of the confounding factors in this is navigating the different goals of the different family members.

Dr. Sekeres has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is particularly challenging in older adults, whose age makes them highly susceptible to the disease and treatment-related toxicity. To help patients and practitioners navigate the clinical decision-making process, the American Society of Hematology convened a panel of experts who conducted a thorough review of the literature. The result of their work can be found in a new set of guidelines for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML in older adults.

In an interview, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chair of the ASH AML guideline panel and director of the Leukemia Program at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, shared the rationale behind the panel’s key recommendations and the importance of keeping the patient’s goals in mind.

Question: What is the average life expectancy of a 75-year-old developing AML compared with someone of the same age without AML?

Dr. Sekeres: A 75-year-old developing AML has an average life expectancy measured in fewer than 6 months. Somebody who is 75 without leukemia in the United States has a life expectancy that can be measured in a decade or more. AML is a really serious diagnosis when someone is older and significantly truncates expected survival.

Q: What is the median age at AML diagnosis in the United States?

Dr. Sekeres: About 67 years.

Q: What are the biological underpinnings for poor outcomes in older AML patients?

Dr. Sekeres: There are a few of them. Older adults with AML tend to have a leukemia that has evolved from a known or unknown previous bone marrow condition such as myelodysplastic syndrome. Older adults also have worse genetics driving their leukemia, which makes the leukemia cells more resistant to chemotherapy. And the leukemia cells may even have drug efflux pumps that extrude chemotherapy that tries to enter the cell. Finally, older adults are more likely to have comorbidities that make their ability to tolerate chemotherapy much lower than for younger adults.

Q: In someone who is newly diagnosed with AML, what initial options are they routinely given?

Dr. Sekeres: For someone who is older, we divide those options into three main categories.

The first is to take intensive chemotherapy, which requires a 4-6 week hospitalization and has a chance of getting somebody who is older into a remission of approximately 50%-60%. But this also carries with it significant treatment-related mortality that may be as high as 10%-20%. So I have to look my older patients in the eyes when I talk about intensive chemotherapy and say, “There is a 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 chance that you might not make it out of the hospital alive.”

The second prong is lower-dose therapy. While the more-intensive therapy requiring hospitalization does have a low, but real, chance of curing that person, less-intensive therapy is not curative. Our best hope with less-intensive therapy is that our patients enter a remission and live longer. With less-intensive therapy, the chance that someone will go into remission is probably around 20%, but again it is not curative. The flip side to that is that it improves a person’s immediate quality of life because they’re not in the hospital for 4-6 weeks.

The final prong is to discuss palliative care or hospice upfront. We designed these guidelines to be focused on a patient’s goals of therapy and to constantly revisit those goals to make sure that the treatment options we are offering are aligning with them.

Q: The panel’s first recommendation is to offer antileukemic therapy over best supportive care in patients who are appropriate candidates. Can you provide some context for this recommendation?

Dr. Sekeres: Doesn’t that strike you as funny that we even have to make a recommendation about getting chemotherapy? Some database studies conducted over the past 2 decades show that, as recently as 15 years ago, only one-third of patients who were over the age of 65 years received any type of chemotherapy for AML. More recently, as we have had a few more drugs available that allow us to use lower-dose approaches, that number has crept up to probably about 50%. We still have half the patients offered no therapy at all. So we felt that we had to deliberately make a recommendation saying that, if it aligns with the patients’ goals, they should be offered chemotherapy.

Q: The second recommendation is that patients considered candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy should receive it over less-intensive antileukemic therapy. How did you get to that recommendation?

Dr. Sekeres: There is a debate in our field about whether older adults should be offered intensive inpatient chemotherapy at all or whether we should be treating all of them with less-intensive therapy. There is not a huge amount of high-quality studies out there to answer some of these questions, in particular whether intensive chemotherapy should be recommended over less-intensive therapy. But with the available evidence, what we believe is that patients live longer if they are offered intensive antileukemic chemotherapy. So again, if it aligns with a patient’s goals, we support that patient receiving more-intensive therapy in the hospital.

Q: What does the panel recommend for patients who achieve remission after at least a single cycle of intensive antileukemic therapy and who are not candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation?

Dr. Sekeres: Once again, this may seem at first blush to be an obvious recommendation. The standard treatment of someone who is younger with AML is to offer intensive inpatient chemotherapy to induce remission. This is followed by a few cycles of chemotherapy, mostly in an outpatient setting, to consolidate that remission.

Q: What is the underlying philosophy for this approach?

Dr. Sekeres: Every time we give chemotherapy, we probably get about a 3-4 log kill of leukemia cells. Imagine when patients first present with AML, they may have 10 billion leukemia cells in their body. We are reducing that 3-4 log with the first course of chemotherapy.

When we then look at a bone marrow biopsy, it may appear to be normal. When leukemia is at a lower level in the body, we simply can’t see it using standard techniques. But that doesn’t mean the leukemia is gone. For younger patients, we give another cycle of chemotherapy, then another, then another, and then even another to reduce the number of leukemia cells left over in the body until that person has a durable remission and hopefully cure.

For someone who is older, the data are less clear. While some studies have shown that, if you give too much chemotherapy after the initial course, it doesn’t help that much, there is a paucity of studies that show that any chemotherapy at all after the first induction course is helpful. Consequently, we have to use indirect data. Older people who are long-term survivors from their acute leukemia always seem to have gotten more than one course of chemotherapy. In other words, the initial course of chemotherapy that a patient receives in the hospital isn’t enough. They should receive more than that.

Q: What about older adults with AML considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy but not for intensive antileukemic therapy?

Dr. Sekeres: This again gets to the question of what are a patient’s goals. It takes a very involved conversation with patients at the time of their AML diagnosis to determine whether they would want to pursue an aggressive approach or a less-aggressive approach. If a patients want a less-aggressive approach, and want nothing to do with a hospital stay, then they are also prioritizing initial quality of life. In this recommendation, based on existing studies, we didn’t have a preference for which of the available less-aggressive chemotherapies a person selects.

There’s also debate about what to do in those considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy, such as hypomethylating agents (azacitidine and decitabine) or low-dose cytarabine, but not for intensive antileukemic therapy. What did the available evidence seem to indicate about this issue?

There has been a lot of studies trying to add two drugs together to see if those do better than one drug alone in patients who are older and who choose less-intensive therapy. The majority of those studies have shown no advantage to getting two drugs over one drug.

Our recommendation is that in these situations a patient gets one drug, not two, but there are a couple of caveats. One caveat is that there has been a small study showing the effectiveness of one of those low-dose chemotherapies combined with the drug glasdegib. The second caveat is that there have been results presented combining one of these low-dose chemotherapies with the drug venetoclax. One of those was a negative study, and another was a positive study showing a survival advantage to the combination vs. the low-dose therapy alone. We had to couch our recommendation a little bit because we knew this other study had been presented at a conference, but it hadn’t come out in final form yet. It did recently, however, and we will now revisit this recommendation.

The other complicated aspect to this is that we weren’t 100% convinced that the combination of venetoclax with one of these lower-dose therapies is truly less-intensive therapy. We think it is starting to creep up toward more-intensive chemotherapy, even though it is commonly given to patients in the outpatient setting. It gets into the very complicated area of what are we defining as more-intensive therapy and less-intensive therapy.

Q: Is there a recommended strategy for older adults with AML who achieve a response after receiving less-intensive therapy?

Dr. Sekeres: This is also challenging because there are no randomized studies in which patients received less-intensive therapy for a finite period of time vs. receiving those therapies ad infinitum. Given the lack of data and also given a lot of anecdotal data out there about patients who stopped a certain therapy and relapsed thereafter, we recommended that patients continue the less-intensive therapy ad infinitum. So as long as they are receiving a response to that therapy, they continue on the drug.

Q: Of course, there are also unique considerations faced by older patients who are no longer receiving antileukemic therapy and have moved on to receiving end-of-life care or hospice care. What advice do the guidelines offer in this situation?

Dr. Sekeres: There are a lot of aspects of these recommendations that I think are special. The first is the focus on patient goals of care at every point in these guidelines. The second is that the guidelines follow the real disease course and a real conversation that doctors and patients have at every step of the way to help guide the decisions that have to be made in real time.

A problem we have in the United States is that once patients enter a hospice, most will not allow blood transfusions. One reason is that some say it is antithetical to their philosophy and consider it aggressive care. The second reason is that, to be completely blunt, economically it doesn’t make sense for hospices to allow blood transfusions. The amount that they are reimbursed by Medicare is much lower than the cost of receiving blood in an infusion center.

We wanted to make a clear recommendation that we consider transfusions in a patient who is in a palliative care or hospice mode to be supportive and necessary, and that these should be provided to patients even if they are in hospice and, as always, if consistent with a patient’s goals of care.

Q: How does a patient’s age inform the discussion surrounding what intensity treatment to offer?

Dr. Sekeres: With younger adults, this is not as complicated a conversation. A younger person has a better chance of being cured with intensive chemotherapy and is much more likely to tolerate that intensive chemotherapy. For someone who is younger, we offer intensive chemotherapy and the chance of going into remission is higher, at 70%-80%. The chance of dying is lower, usually less than 5%. It is an easy decision to make.

For an older adult, the risk-benefit ratio shifts and it becomes a more complicated option. Less-intensive therapy or best supportive care or hospice become viable.

Q: Are there other factors confounding the treatment decision-making process in older adults with AML that practitioners should consider?

Dr. Sekeres: Someone who is older is making a different decision than I would. I have school-aged children and believe that my job as a parent is to successfully get them to adulthood, so I would take any treatment under the sun to make sure that happens. People who have lived a longer life than I have may have children and even grandchildren who are adults, and they might have different goals of care. My goals are not going to be the same as my patient’s goals.

It is also harder because patients who are older may feel that they have lived a good life and don’t need to go through heroic measures to try to be around as long as possible, and those goals may not align with the goals of that person’s children who want their parent to be around as long as possible. One of the confounding factors in this is navigating the different goals of the different family members.

Dr. Sekeres has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is particularly challenging in older adults, whose age makes them highly susceptible to the disease and treatment-related toxicity. To help patients and practitioners navigate the clinical decision-making process, the American Society of Hematology convened a panel of experts who conducted a thorough review of the literature. The result of their work can be found in a new set of guidelines for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML in older adults.

In an interview, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chair of the ASH AML guideline panel and director of the Leukemia Program at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, shared the rationale behind the panel’s key recommendations and the importance of keeping the patient’s goals in mind.

Question: What is the average life expectancy of a 75-year-old developing AML compared with someone of the same age without AML?

Dr. Sekeres: A 75-year-old developing AML has an average life expectancy measured in fewer than 6 months. Somebody who is 75 without leukemia in the United States has a life expectancy that can be measured in a decade or more. AML is a really serious diagnosis when someone is older and significantly truncates expected survival.

Q: What is the median age at AML diagnosis in the United States?

Dr. Sekeres: About 67 years.

Q: What are the biological underpinnings for poor outcomes in older AML patients?

Dr. Sekeres: There are a few of them. Older adults with AML tend to have a leukemia that has evolved from a known or unknown previous bone marrow condition such as myelodysplastic syndrome. Older adults also have worse genetics driving their leukemia, which makes the leukemia cells more resistant to chemotherapy. And the leukemia cells may even have drug efflux pumps that extrude chemotherapy that tries to enter the cell. Finally, older adults are more likely to have comorbidities that make their ability to tolerate chemotherapy much lower than for younger adults.

Q: In someone who is newly diagnosed with AML, what initial options are they routinely given?

Dr. Sekeres: For someone who is older, we divide those options into three main categories.

The first is to take intensive chemotherapy, which requires a 4-6 week hospitalization and has a chance of getting somebody who is older into a remission of approximately 50%-60%. But this also carries with it significant treatment-related mortality that may be as high as 10%-20%. So I have to look my older patients in the eyes when I talk about intensive chemotherapy and say, “There is a 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 chance that you might not make it out of the hospital alive.”

The second prong is lower-dose therapy. While the more-intensive therapy requiring hospitalization does have a low, but real, chance of curing that person, less-intensive therapy is not curative. Our best hope with less-intensive therapy is that our patients enter a remission and live longer. With less-intensive therapy, the chance that someone will go into remission is probably around 20%, but again it is not curative. The flip side to that is that it improves a person’s immediate quality of life because they’re not in the hospital for 4-6 weeks.

The final prong is to discuss palliative care or hospice upfront. We designed these guidelines to be focused on a patient’s goals of therapy and to constantly revisit those goals to make sure that the treatment options we are offering are aligning with them.

Q: The panel’s first recommendation is to offer antileukemic therapy over best supportive care in patients who are appropriate candidates. Can you provide some context for this recommendation?

Dr. Sekeres: Doesn’t that strike you as funny that we even have to make a recommendation about getting chemotherapy? Some database studies conducted over the past 2 decades show that, as recently as 15 years ago, only one-third of patients who were over the age of 65 years received any type of chemotherapy for AML. More recently, as we have had a few more drugs available that allow us to use lower-dose approaches, that number has crept up to probably about 50%. We still have half the patients offered no therapy at all. So we felt that we had to deliberately make a recommendation saying that, if it aligns with the patients’ goals, they should be offered chemotherapy.

Q: The second recommendation is that patients considered candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy should receive it over less-intensive antileukemic therapy. How did you get to that recommendation?

Dr. Sekeres: There is a debate in our field about whether older adults should be offered intensive inpatient chemotherapy at all or whether we should be treating all of them with less-intensive therapy. There is not a huge amount of high-quality studies out there to answer some of these questions, in particular whether intensive chemotherapy should be recommended over less-intensive therapy. But with the available evidence, what we believe is that patients live longer if they are offered intensive antileukemic chemotherapy. So again, if it aligns with a patient’s goals, we support that patient receiving more-intensive therapy in the hospital.

Q: What does the panel recommend for patients who achieve remission after at least a single cycle of intensive antileukemic therapy and who are not candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation?

Dr. Sekeres: Once again, this may seem at first blush to be an obvious recommendation. The standard treatment of someone who is younger with AML is to offer intensive inpatient chemotherapy to induce remission. This is followed by a few cycles of chemotherapy, mostly in an outpatient setting, to consolidate that remission.

Q: What is the underlying philosophy for this approach?

Dr. Sekeres: Every time we give chemotherapy, we probably get about a 3-4 log kill of leukemia cells. Imagine when patients first present with AML, they may have 10 billion leukemia cells in their body. We are reducing that 3-4 log with the first course of chemotherapy.

When we then look at a bone marrow biopsy, it may appear to be normal. When leukemia is at a lower level in the body, we simply can’t see it using standard techniques. But that doesn’t mean the leukemia is gone. For younger patients, we give another cycle of chemotherapy, then another, then another, and then even another to reduce the number of leukemia cells left over in the body until that person has a durable remission and hopefully cure.

For someone who is older, the data are less clear. While some studies have shown that, if you give too much chemotherapy after the initial course, it doesn’t help that much, there is a paucity of studies that show that any chemotherapy at all after the first induction course is helpful. Consequently, we have to use indirect data. Older people who are long-term survivors from their acute leukemia always seem to have gotten more than one course of chemotherapy. In other words, the initial course of chemotherapy that a patient receives in the hospital isn’t enough. They should receive more than that.

Q: What about older adults with AML considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy but not for intensive antileukemic therapy?

Dr. Sekeres: This again gets to the question of what are a patient’s goals. It takes a very involved conversation with patients at the time of their AML diagnosis to determine whether they would want to pursue an aggressive approach or a less-aggressive approach. If a patients want a less-aggressive approach, and want nothing to do with a hospital stay, then they are also prioritizing initial quality of life. In this recommendation, based on existing studies, we didn’t have a preference for which of the available less-aggressive chemotherapies a person selects.

There’s also debate about what to do in those considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy, such as hypomethylating agents (azacitidine and decitabine) or low-dose cytarabine, but not for intensive antileukemic therapy. What did the available evidence seem to indicate about this issue?

There has been a lot of studies trying to add two drugs together to see if those do better than one drug alone in patients who are older and who choose less-intensive therapy. The majority of those studies have shown no advantage to getting two drugs over one drug.

Our recommendation is that in these situations a patient gets one drug, not two, but there are a couple of caveats. One caveat is that there has been a small study showing the effectiveness of one of those low-dose chemotherapies combined with the drug glasdegib. The second caveat is that there have been results presented combining one of these low-dose chemotherapies with the drug venetoclax. One of those was a negative study, and another was a positive study showing a survival advantage to the combination vs. the low-dose therapy alone. We had to couch our recommendation a little bit because we knew this other study had been presented at a conference, but it hadn’t come out in final form yet. It did recently, however, and we will now revisit this recommendation.

The other complicated aspect to this is that we weren’t 100% convinced that the combination of venetoclax with one of these lower-dose therapies is truly less-intensive therapy. We think it is starting to creep up toward more-intensive chemotherapy, even though it is commonly given to patients in the outpatient setting. It gets into the very complicated area of what are we defining as more-intensive therapy and less-intensive therapy.

Q: Is there a recommended strategy for older adults with AML who achieve a response after receiving less-intensive therapy?

Dr. Sekeres: This is also challenging because there are no randomized studies in which patients received less-intensive therapy for a finite period of time vs. receiving those therapies ad infinitum. Given the lack of data and also given a lot of anecdotal data out there about patients who stopped a certain therapy and relapsed thereafter, we recommended that patients continue the less-intensive therapy ad infinitum. So as long as they are receiving a response to that therapy, they continue on the drug.

Q: Of course, there are also unique considerations faced by older patients who are no longer receiving antileukemic therapy and have moved on to receiving end-of-life care or hospice care. What advice do the guidelines offer in this situation?

Dr. Sekeres: There are a lot of aspects of these recommendations that I think are special. The first is the focus on patient goals of care at every point in these guidelines. The second is that the guidelines follow the real disease course and a real conversation that doctors and patients have at every step of the way to help guide the decisions that have to be made in real time.

A problem we have in the United States is that once patients enter a hospice, most will not allow blood transfusions. One reason is that some say it is antithetical to their philosophy and consider it aggressive care. The second reason is that, to be completely blunt, economically it doesn’t make sense for hospices to allow blood transfusions. The amount that they are reimbursed by Medicare is much lower than the cost of receiving blood in an infusion center.

We wanted to make a clear recommendation that we consider transfusions in a patient who is in a palliative care or hospice mode to be supportive and necessary, and that these should be provided to patients even if they are in hospice and, as always, if consistent with a patient’s goals of care.

Q: How does a patient’s age inform the discussion surrounding what intensity treatment to offer?

Dr. Sekeres: With younger adults, this is not as complicated a conversation. A younger person has a better chance of being cured with intensive chemotherapy and is much more likely to tolerate that intensive chemotherapy. For someone who is younger, we offer intensive chemotherapy and the chance of going into remission is higher, at 70%-80%. The chance of dying is lower, usually less than 5%. It is an easy decision to make.

For an older adult, the risk-benefit ratio shifts and it becomes a more complicated option. Less-intensive therapy or best supportive care or hospice become viable.

Q: Are there other factors confounding the treatment decision-making process in older adults with AML that practitioners should consider?

Dr. Sekeres: Someone who is older is making a different decision than I would. I have school-aged children and believe that my job as a parent is to successfully get them to adulthood, so I would take any treatment under the sun to make sure that happens. People who have lived a longer life than I have may have children and even grandchildren who are adults, and they might have different goals of care. My goals are not going to be the same as my patient’s goals.

It is also harder because patients who are older may feel that they have lived a good life and don’t need to go through heroic measures to try to be around as long as possible, and those goals may not align with the goals of that person’s children who want their parent to be around as long as possible. One of the confounding factors in this is navigating the different goals of the different family members.

Dr. Sekeres has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

To protect the heart and kidneys, sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists should be considered for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), the American Heart Association advised in a new scientific statement.

Taken together, the results of relevant clinical trials indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists safely and significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, death, and the slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease, including the risks for dialysis, transplantation, and death, the writing group says.

The scientific statement was published online Sept. 28 in Circulation.

“There has been rapid reporting of high-quality data in the cardio-renal-metabolic space with significant heart and kidney benefits, particularly with these two newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents,” Janani Rangaswami, MD, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“More recent data show benefits in chronic kidney disease and heart failure even in patients without diabetes,” said Dr. Rangaswami, Einstein Medical Center and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, both in Philadelphia.

“These data are practice-changing in both cardiology and nephrology, and usher in a new era of disease-modifying therapies in heart and kidney disease,” Dr. Rangaswami added.
 

Recommendations at a glance

• Provide early and ongoing assessment of risks for CVD and CKD to patients who may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
• Tailor medication choices that meet the needs of individual patients. Realize that, given “consistent class-wide effects,” the choice of a specific SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist may be dictated by affordability, coverage, and formulary considerations.
• Adjust all medications in tandem with these medicines and consider the burden of polypharmacy, which is common among people with type 2 diabetes. Adjust concomitant therapies and deprescribe where possible.
• Identify risks for hypoglycemia and educate patients on the signs so they can seek treatment quickly.
• Monitor and control high blood pressure.
• Counsel patients about the risks for and symptoms of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis when taking SGLT2 inhibitors, as well as classic DKA, which can be fatal.
• Regularly screen and counsel patients about foot care to prevent foot ulcers or blisters that can quickly become infected and lead to amputation.

The writing group identified two additional patient subgroups that may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists: those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with or without diabetes; and those with CKD who do not have diabetes. They say more data are anticipated to validate the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these “at-risk” patients.
 

Collaborative care model

The writing group proposed a collaborative care model, bridging cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, to help facilitate the “prompt and appropriate” integration of these new classes of medications in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

There is “an unmet need for a cardio-renal-metabolic care model that incorporates best practices in the real world to help align these therapies, especially with vulnerable high-risk patients with cardiorenal disease, and to overcome barriers toward uptake of these agents. Hopefully this statement provides some guidance to the cardiology and nephrology communities in that area,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.

But old habits die hard, as research continues to show the slow adoption of these newer medications in the real world.

For example, a large observational study published last year showed a “striking” discordance between evidence-based, guideline-recommended use of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and their actual uptake in clinical practice.

Paradoxically, patients with CVD, heart failure, hypertension, CKD, and those at risk for hypoglycemia were less apt to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor than other patients.

“The relatively slow uptake of these agents is multifactorial,” Dr. Rangaswami said. “Cardiologists and nephrologists may suffer from some level of ‘therapeutic inertia’ when using new agents they are unfamiliar with and originally branded as ‘antidiabetic’ agents, with the perception of these agents being outside the scope of their practice.”

Two other factors are also at play. “The current health care system is based on ‘specialty silos,’ where specialists tend to stick to the traditional scope of their specialty and are reluctant to view these agents as part of their therapeutic armamentarium. Finally, insurance coverage barriers and affordability also limit the use on a widespread basis,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

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

To protect the heart and kidneys, sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists should be considered for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), the American Heart Association advised in a new scientific statement.

Taken together, the results of relevant clinical trials indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists safely and significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, death, and the slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease, including the risks for dialysis, transplantation, and death, the writing group says.

The scientific statement was published online Sept. 28 in Circulation.

“There has been rapid reporting of high-quality data in the cardio-renal-metabolic space with significant heart and kidney benefits, particularly with these two newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents,” Janani Rangaswami, MD, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“More recent data show benefits in chronic kidney disease and heart failure even in patients without diabetes,” said Dr. Rangaswami, Einstein Medical Center and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, both in Philadelphia.

“These data are practice-changing in both cardiology and nephrology, and usher in a new era of disease-modifying therapies in heart and kidney disease,” Dr. Rangaswami added.
 

Recommendations at a glance

• Provide early and ongoing assessment of risks for CVD and CKD to patients who may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
• Tailor medication choices that meet the needs of individual patients. Realize that, given “consistent class-wide effects,” the choice of a specific SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist may be dictated by affordability, coverage, and formulary considerations.
• Adjust all medications in tandem with these medicines and consider the burden of polypharmacy, which is common among people with type 2 diabetes. Adjust concomitant therapies and deprescribe where possible.
• Identify risks for hypoglycemia and educate patients on the signs so they can seek treatment quickly.
• Monitor and control high blood pressure.
• Counsel patients about the risks for and symptoms of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis when taking SGLT2 inhibitors, as well as classic DKA, which can be fatal.
• Regularly screen and counsel patients about foot care to prevent foot ulcers or blisters that can quickly become infected and lead to amputation.

The writing group identified two additional patient subgroups that may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists: those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with or without diabetes; and those with CKD who do not have diabetes. They say more data are anticipated to validate the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these “at-risk” patients.
 

Collaborative care model

The writing group proposed a collaborative care model, bridging cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, to help facilitate the “prompt and appropriate” integration of these new classes of medications in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

There is “an unmet need for a cardio-renal-metabolic care model that incorporates best practices in the real world to help align these therapies, especially with vulnerable high-risk patients with cardiorenal disease, and to overcome barriers toward uptake of these agents. Hopefully this statement provides some guidance to the cardiology and nephrology communities in that area,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.

But old habits die hard, as research continues to show the slow adoption of these newer medications in the real world.

For example, a large observational study published last year showed a “striking” discordance between evidence-based, guideline-recommended use of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and their actual uptake in clinical practice.

Paradoxically, patients with CVD, heart failure, hypertension, CKD, and those at risk for hypoglycemia were less apt to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor than other patients.

“The relatively slow uptake of these agents is multifactorial,” Dr. Rangaswami said. “Cardiologists and nephrologists may suffer from some level of ‘therapeutic inertia’ when using new agents they are unfamiliar with and originally branded as ‘antidiabetic’ agents, with the perception of these agents being outside the scope of their practice.”

Two other factors are also at play. “The current health care system is based on ‘specialty silos,’ where specialists tend to stick to the traditional scope of their specialty and are reluctant to view these agents as part of their therapeutic armamentarium. Finally, insurance coverage barriers and affordability also limit the use on a widespread basis,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

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

To protect the heart and kidneys, sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists should be considered for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), the American Heart Association advised in a new scientific statement.

Taken together, the results of relevant clinical trials indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists safely and significantly reduce the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, death, and the slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease, including the risks for dialysis, transplantation, and death, the writing group says.

The scientific statement was published online Sept. 28 in Circulation.

“There has been rapid reporting of high-quality data in the cardio-renal-metabolic space with significant heart and kidney benefits, particularly with these two newer classes of antihyperglycemic agents,” Janani Rangaswami, MD, who chaired the writing group, said in an interview.

“More recent data show benefits in chronic kidney disease and heart failure even in patients without diabetes,” said Dr. Rangaswami, Einstein Medical Center and Sidney Kimmel Medical College, both in Philadelphia.

“These data are practice-changing in both cardiology and nephrology, and usher in a new era of disease-modifying therapies in heart and kidney disease,” Dr. Rangaswami added.
 

Recommendations at a glance

• Provide early and ongoing assessment of risks for CVD and CKD to patients who may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
• Tailor medication choices that meet the needs of individual patients. Realize that, given “consistent class-wide effects,” the choice of a specific SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist may be dictated by affordability, coverage, and formulary considerations.
• Adjust all medications in tandem with these medicines and consider the burden of polypharmacy, which is common among people with type 2 diabetes. Adjust concomitant therapies and deprescribe where possible.
• Identify risks for hypoglycemia and educate patients on the signs so they can seek treatment quickly.
• Monitor and control high blood pressure.
• Counsel patients about the risks for and symptoms of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis when taking SGLT2 inhibitors, as well as classic DKA, which can be fatal.
• Regularly screen and counsel patients about foot care to prevent foot ulcers or blisters that can quickly become infected and lead to amputation.

The writing group identified two additional patient subgroups that may benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists: those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with or without diabetes; and those with CKD who do not have diabetes. They say more data are anticipated to validate the use of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in these “at-risk” patients.
 

Collaborative care model

The writing group proposed a collaborative care model, bridging cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, to help facilitate the “prompt and appropriate” integration of these new classes of medications in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

There is “an unmet need for a cardio-renal-metabolic care model that incorporates best practices in the real world to help align these therapies, especially with vulnerable high-risk patients with cardiorenal disease, and to overcome barriers toward uptake of these agents. Hopefully this statement provides some guidance to the cardiology and nephrology communities in that area,” Dr. Rangaswami said in an interview.

But old habits die hard, as research continues to show the slow adoption of these newer medications in the real world.

For example, a large observational study published last year showed a “striking” discordance between evidence-based, guideline-recommended use of SGLT2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and their actual uptake in clinical practice.

Paradoxically, patients with CVD, heart failure, hypertension, CKD, and those at risk for hypoglycemia were less apt to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor than other patients.

“The relatively slow uptake of these agents is multifactorial,” Dr. Rangaswami said. “Cardiologists and nephrologists may suffer from some level of ‘therapeutic inertia’ when using new agents they are unfamiliar with and originally branded as ‘antidiabetic’ agents, with the perception of these agents being outside the scope of their practice.”

Two other factors are also at play. “The current health care system is based on ‘specialty silos,’ where specialists tend to stick to the traditional scope of their specialty and are reluctant to view these agents as part of their therapeutic armamentarium. Finally, insurance coverage barriers and affordability also limit the use on a widespread basis,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

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

Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

Case

A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?

The Guideline in context

Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.¹

It is imperative that tobacco cessation is addressed with patients in the most effective and comprehensive ways possible. In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.

This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.¹ Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.² This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.¹

In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.¹

Suggested treatment

This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.

2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
 

Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

Case

A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?

The Guideline in context

Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.¹

It is imperative that tobacco cessation is addressed with patients in the most effective and comprehensive ways possible. In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.

This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.¹ Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.² This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.¹

In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.¹

Suggested treatment

This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.

2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
 

Below is a case involving a patient who is not yet ready to quit smoking. We later provide treatment recommendations for this patient based on a new guideline from the American Thoracic Society.

Case

A 58-year-old female comes into the office for a physical exam. She has been smoking two packs a day since she was 23 years of age. You have tried at previous visits to get her to quit, but she hasn’t been interested. The patient says she has a lot of stress, and that it is still not the right time for her to stop smoking. You tell her she needs to quit and, though the patient understands that quitting would be beneficial for her health, she just isn’t ready to try to kick the habit. How do you proceed?

The Guideline in context

Even though this patient stated that she is not ready to stop smoking, she is still a candidate for pharmacological treatment for her tobacco dependence and can be offered varenicline, according to the ATS guideline.¹

It is imperative that tobacco cessation is addressed with patients in the most effective and comprehensive ways possible. In a previously published column, we have discussed the ATS’ recommended approaches for treating patients who are ready to stop smoking cigarettes. The reality is that many patients, if not most, are not ready to quit when we speak to them during any given office visit. The ATS guideline addresses this critical issue by recommending treatment with varenicline in patients who are not ready to stop smoking. It also states that this is a better strategy than waiting to start treatment until patients say they are ready for it.

This recommendation – to prescribe varenicline to smokers even when they are not ready to quit smoking – is based on solid clinical trial evidence. Research has shown that behavior change is dynamic and that the decision to stop smoking is not always a planned one.¹ Patients often make quit attempts between office visits, and are often successful in those attempts. Because the decision to try to stop smoking is influenced by the satisfaction and physical addiction that comes from smoking, a medication such as varenicline that is a partial agonist/antagonist at the alpha4-beta2 nicotinic receptor might increase the likelihood that a patient would decide to try to stop smoking. This is because taking this type of a drug would lead the patient to no longer experience the reinforcing effects of nicotine.² This hypothesis was examined in five randomized trials.¹

In these studies, regular smokers who were not ready to make a quit attempt were randomized to varenicline versus placebo. Twice as many individuals who took varenicline stopped smoking 6 months after starting treatment.¹

Suggested treatment

This patient should be offered varenicline. This individual meets the criteria for this treatment according to the ATS guideline in that the patient is a regular smoker who doesn’t think she is ready to stop smoking but understands she needs to stop and is open to taking medication to assist her with quitting.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a third-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. For questions or comments, feel free to contact Dr. Skolnik on Twitter @NeilSkolnik.

References

1. Leone F T et al. Initiating pharmacologic treatment in tobacco-dependent adults: An official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Jul 15;202(2):e5–e31.

2. Ebbert JO et al. Varenicline for smoking cessation: Efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2010;4:355-62.
 

The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting. While their recommendations mirror what most clinicians currently do in their medical practices, they don’t address the multiple components of pain that include sensory, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes in addition to the physical discomfort.

According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.

In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.

Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.

When physical therapy is needed

Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.

Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.

Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
 

How pain affects mental health

Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.

Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.

Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.

They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.

We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.

SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.

The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting. While their recommendations mirror what most clinicians currently do in their medical practices, they don’t address the multiple components of pain that include sensory, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes in addition to the physical discomfort.

According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.

In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.

Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.

When physical therapy is needed

Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.

Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.

Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
 

How pain affects mental health

Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.

Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.

Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.

They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.

We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.

SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.

The American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians recently authored a guideline regarding the treatment of acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outpatient setting. While their recommendations mirror what most clinicians currently do in their medical practices, they don’t address the multiple components of pain that include sensory, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes in addition to the physical discomfort.

According to the authors, musculoskeletal injuries result in more than 65 million medical visits a year with an annual estimated cost of $176.1 billion in 2010.

In summary, the guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, is based on a review of the best available evidence. The research reviewed by the guideline authors showed favorable results with topical NSAIDs, oral NSAIDs, oral acetaminophen, acupressure, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in reducing pain and/or improving function. The guideline authors “recommend that clinicians treat patients with acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical [NSAIDs] with or without gel as first-line therapy to reduce or relieve symptoms, including pain; improve physical function; and improve the patient’s treatment satisfaction (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence).” Additionally, the guideline recommends against treating acute pain from non–low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, including tramadol (Grade: conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence).

The guideline also mentions improving function in relation to decreasing pain, which can be multifactorial.

Treating pain requires a multipronged approach. Many patients require more than one therapy to treat their pain, such as NSAIDs plus physical therapy. The ACP and AAFP did not make any recommendations for combination therapies in this guideline.

When physical therapy is needed

Nonopioid pain medications can do a great job of reducing a patient’s physical discomfort, which the evidence for these guideline demonstrates. However, much of the dysfunction caused by musculoskeletal injuries will not improve by reducing the pain alone. Physical therapy, exercise, and mobilization did not show a significant benefit in reducing symptoms in the systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that appeared alongside the guideline. The type of pain, however, was not evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of these treatments. A fractured bone, for example, may heal just fine with casting and pain management, without the need for additional therapies. However, the muscles surrounding that bone can atrophy and become weak from not being used. Physical therapy may be needed to restrengthen those muscles. Therefore, a multifaceted approach is often needed, even for uncomplicated conditions.

Mental pain often comes with physical pain, and this is an aspect of care that is often neglected. It can be quite devastating for patients to not be able to do the things they were previously able to do. While this is easily recognized in professional athletes when they can no longer play, it is not so readily apparent with a mother who is just trying to take care of her kids. As doctors, especially those of us in family medicine, we should be addressing more than just physical pain.

Patients can also do activities that exacerbate their pain. As doctors, we need to be asking questions that help us determine whether a patient’s pain is caused by a particular action. Maybe that increase in shoulder pain is due to nothing more than lifting something heavy rather than a failure in a prescribed medication. Pain diaries are helpful, and clinicians don’t use them often enough.
 

How pain affects mental health

Acute injuries can also lead to disability. Many patients become quite distressed about being unable to work. They often need Famiy & Medical Leave Act forms filled out, and this task usually falls to the primary care doctor. In addition to assessing the pain, we need to be evaluating, at each visit, a patient’s level of functioning and their ability to do their job.

Every patient responds to pain differently, and it is important to evaluate patients’ mindsets regarding theirs. A patient may be in severe pain and may try to ignore it for a variety of reasons. A patient may “catastrophize” their pain, believing only the worst outcome will happen to them. Helping patients set appropriate expectations and having a positive mindset can help.

Overall, the new recommendations are a great tool as a guideline, but they are not complete enough to be the only ones used in managing acute, non–low back, musculoskeletal pain in adults.

They are very important for clinicians who may be prescribing opioid medications for patients with this type of pain. Amid an opioid crisis, it is the responsibility of every doctor to prescribe these medications appropriately. The evidence clearly shows they provide little benefit and place patients at risk of addiction.

We should all be following these recommendations as the baseline of care for acute pain. However, we need to delve deeper and manage all the components involved. We would be ignoring very real suffering in our patients if we limited our focus to only the physical discomfort.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Rutgers RWJ Medical School.

SOURCE: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18. doi: 10.7326/M19-3602.