Guidelines

In new guidelines, the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends offering germline genetic testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, and other ovarian cancer susceptibility genes to all women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer, regardless of their clinical features or family history.

Testing should be offered at diagnosis or as soon as possible after that, Panagiotis A. Konstantinopoulos, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

For patients who do not carry a germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant, the guidelines recommend offering somatic tumor testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This testing can be offered at the time of disease recurrence after up-front therapy.

The guidelines also recommend somatic tumor testing for mismatch repair deficiency in patients diagnosed with clear cell, endometrioid, or mucinous ovarian cancer. This testing may be offered to patients with other histologic types of epithelial ovarian cancer as well.

Genetic testing, as well as genetic risk evaluation and counseling, should be offered to first- or second-degree blood relatives of a patient with ovarian cancer and a known germline pathogenic cancer susceptibility gene variant, according to the guidelines.

According to the guidelines, genetic evaluations should be conducted in cooperation with other health care providers who are “familiar with the diagnosis and management of hereditary cancer syndromes to determine the most appropriate testing strategy and discuss implications of the findings.”

Patients with identified germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants should receive treatments approved for them by the Food and Drug Administration, according to the guidelines. The authors note that patients with these variants have responded well to FDA-approved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, including niraparib (Zejula), olaparib (Lynparza), and rucaparib (Rubraca).

The guidelines also state that mismatch repair deficiency qualifies for FDA-approved treatment, so patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer and mismatch repair deficiency should receive FDA-approved treatments under their labeled indications.

The guidelines note that clinical decisions should not be based on a variant of uncertain significance. When a patient has such a variant, “clinical features and family history should inform clinical decision making,” according to the guidelines.

Dr. Konstantinopoulos and colleagues formulated the guidelines after reviewing data from 19 studies, including 6 meta-analyses; 11 randomized, controlled trials; and 2 observational studies.

The authors reported relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies, including those that market drugs for epithelial ovarian cancer.

SOURCE: Konstantinopoulos PA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02960.

In new guidelines, the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends offering germline genetic testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, and other ovarian cancer susceptibility genes to all women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer, regardless of their clinical features or family history.

Testing should be offered at diagnosis or as soon as possible after that, Panagiotis A. Konstantinopoulos, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

For patients who do not carry a germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant, the guidelines recommend offering somatic tumor testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This testing can be offered at the time of disease recurrence after up-front therapy.

The guidelines also recommend somatic tumor testing for mismatch repair deficiency in patients diagnosed with clear cell, endometrioid, or mucinous ovarian cancer. This testing may be offered to patients with other histologic types of epithelial ovarian cancer as well.

Genetic testing, as well as genetic risk evaluation and counseling, should be offered to first- or second-degree blood relatives of a patient with ovarian cancer and a known germline pathogenic cancer susceptibility gene variant, according to the guidelines.

According to the guidelines, genetic evaluations should be conducted in cooperation with other health care providers who are “familiar with the diagnosis and management of hereditary cancer syndromes to determine the most appropriate testing strategy and discuss implications of the findings.”

Patients with identified germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants should receive treatments approved for them by the Food and Drug Administration, according to the guidelines. The authors note that patients with these variants have responded well to FDA-approved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, including niraparib (Zejula), olaparib (Lynparza), and rucaparib (Rubraca).

The guidelines also state that mismatch repair deficiency qualifies for FDA-approved treatment, so patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer and mismatch repair deficiency should receive FDA-approved treatments under their labeled indications.

The guidelines note that clinical decisions should not be based on a variant of uncertain significance. When a patient has such a variant, “clinical features and family history should inform clinical decision making,” according to the guidelines.

Dr. Konstantinopoulos and colleagues formulated the guidelines after reviewing data from 19 studies, including 6 meta-analyses; 11 randomized, controlled trials; and 2 observational studies.

The authors reported relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies, including those that market drugs for epithelial ovarian cancer.

SOURCE: Konstantinopoulos PA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02960.

In new guidelines, the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends offering germline genetic testing for BRCA1, BRCA2, and other ovarian cancer susceptibility genes to all women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer, regardless of their clinical features or family history.

Testing should be offered at diagnosis or as soon as possible after that, Panagiotis A. Konstantinopoulos, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

For patients who do not carry a germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variant, the guidelines recommend offering somatic tumor testing for BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This testing can be offered at the time of disease recurrence after up-front therapy.

The guidelines also recommend somatic tumor testing for mismatch repair deficiency in patients diagnosed with clear cell, endometrioid, or mucinous ovarian cancer. This testing may be offered to patients with other histologic types of epithelial ovarian cancer as well.

Genetic testing, as well as genetic risk evaluation and counseling, should be offered to first- or second-degree blood relatives of a patient with ovarian cancer and a known germline pathogenic cancer susceptibility gene variant, according to the guidelines.

According to the guidelines, genetic evaluations should be conducted in cooperation with other health care providers who are “familiar with the diagnosis and management of hereditary cancer syndromes to determine the most appropriate testing strategy and discuss implications of the findings.”

Patients with identified germline or somatic pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants should receive treatments approved for them by the Food and Drug Administration, according to the guidelines. The authors note that patients with these variants have responded well to FDA-approved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, including niraparib (Zejula), olaparib (Lynparza), and rucaparib (Rubraca).

The guidelines also state that mismatch repair deficiency qualifies for FDA-approved treatment, so patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer and mismatch repair deficiency should receive FDA-approved treatments under their labeled indications.

The guidelines note that clinical decisions should not be based on a variant of uncertain significance. When a patient has such a variant, “clinical features and family history should inform clinical decision making,” according to the guidelines.

Dr. Konstantinopoulos and colleagues formulated the guidelines after reviewing data from 19 studies, including 6 meta-analyses; 11 randomized, controlled trials; and 2 observational studies.

The authors reported relationships with a range of pharmaceutical companies, including those that market drugs for epithelial ovarian cancer.

SOURCE: Konstantinopoulos PA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02960.

The prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is decreasing, thought to be caused by a decrease in smoking. But the risk of death if one ruptures is as high as 81%. So, screening is still an important part of preventive medicine.

When the abdominal aorta enlarges to greater than 3.0 cm, it is considered an aneurysm. Risk factors that can lead to an enlarged aorta include older age, male sex, smoking, history of AAA in a first-degree relative, hypertension, history of other aneurysms, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerosis, and hypercholesterolemia.

History of AAA in a first-degree relative puts patients at double the risk of developing an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Interestingly, diabetes has been associated with a reduced risk of AAA. People of African American, Asian, and Hispanic descent have a reduced risk of AAA.
 

Screening

Screening is performed using abdominal duplex ultrasound. It has high sensitivity (94%-100%) and specificity (98%-100%), is low cost, and has low risk to the patient. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force breaks its screening recommendations into four categories:

1. Men aged 65-75 years who have ever smoked (at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime): One-time screening (grade B, moderate net benefit).

2. Men aged 65-75 years who have never smoked: Selectively offer screening (grade C, small net benefit). “To determine whether this service is appropriate, patients and clinicians should consider the patient’s medical history, family history, other risk factors, and personal values.”

3. Women without a smoking history or family history of AAA: Do not perform screening (grade D, recommendation against the service).

4. Women aged 65-75 years who have a smoking history or family history of AAA: There is insufficient evidence on whether or not to screen for AAA (grade I, insufficient evidence).

To assess screening and treatment of AAAs, the USPSTF looked at four randomized, controlled trials largely focused on men older than 65 years. With the combined data, they found 246 men would need to be screened to prevent 1 AAA rupture, and 305 men would need to be screened to prevent 1 death from AAA.

The USPSTF does note that, while the risk of death is lower for elective AAA repair than ruptured AAA, there is still increased risk with elective surgery. In addition, increased screening and detection increases the rate of elective surgery. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment could represent a harm.
 

Treatment

Surgical repair of AAA in men depends on the size of the aneurysm and rate of growth.

For men, surgical repair is standard when the AAA reaches 5.5 cm or if the AAA is growing faster than 1.0 cm per year and is larger than 4.0 cm. For women, surgical repair is often recommended between 5.0 cm and 5.4 cm in size.

Surgical repair is not recommended for AAAs that are less than 5.0 cm because the annual risk of rupture is 0%-1% below 5.0 cm. The risk increases to 11% for aneurysms that are 5.0-5.9 cm in size.

There are two methods of surgical repair: endovascular aneurysm repair and open repair. Recommendations for the surveillance of AAA between 3.0 cm and 5.5 cm is regular ultrasound surveillance, with the interval becoming shorter as the aneurysm size becomes larger. Exact intervals differ from one guideline group to another.
 

Screening and treatment in women

While it is true that AAAs in women are more likely to rupture at smaller sizes than AAAs in men, the AAAs that rupture in women are more likely to rupture at an older age than AAAs rupture in men.

The prevalence of AAAs in women is thought to be one-sixth of the prevalence of men. In addition, women had a higher 30-day mortality after surgical repair. They also had higher rates of complications for elective surgical repair of AAAs.

For these reasons, it is unclear that the benefits of AAA screening and treatment in women outweigh the risks, and the USPSTF cannot come to a conclusive recommendation for women who have ever smoked or women who have a family history of AAA.

The USPSTF is able to state definitively that they do not recommend screening in women with no smoking history or family history of AAA.
 

Bottom line

The USPSTF recommends screening men aged 65-75 years who have ever smoked and selectively screening men aged 65-75 years with no smoking history. The USPSTF recommends against screening women aged 65-75 years who have never smoked and have no family history of AAA. There is insufficient evidence to either recommend for or against screening women aged 65-75 years who have smoked or have a family history of AAA.

Reference

Owens DK et al. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322(22):2211-18.

Dr. Sprogell is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. 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 Hospital–Jefferson Health.

The prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is decreasing, thought to be caused by a decrease in smoking. But the risk of death if one ruptures is as high as 81%. So, screening is still an important part of preventive medicine.

When the abdominal aorta enlarges to greater than 3.0 cm, it is considered an aneurysm. Risk factors that can lead to an enlarged aorta include older age, male sex, smoking, history of AAA in a first-degree relative, hypertension, history of other aneurysms, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerosis, and hypercholesterolemia.

History of AAA in a first-degree relative puts patients at double the risk of developing an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Interestingly, diabetes has been associated with a reduced risk of AAA. People of African American, Asian, and Hispanic descent have a reduced risk of AAA.
 

Screening

Screening is performed using abdominal duplex ultrasound. It has high sensitivity (94%-100%) and specificity (98%-100%), is low cost, and has low risk to the patient. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force breaks its screening recommendations into four categories:

1. Men aged 65-75 years who have ever smoked (at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime): One-time screening (grade B, moderate net benefit).

2. Men aged 65-75 years who have never smoked: Selectively offer screening (grade C, small net benefit). “To determine whether this service is appropriate, patients and clinicians should consider the patient’s medical history, family history, other risk factors, and personal values.”

3. Women without a smoking history or family history of AAA: Do not perform screening (grade D, recommendation against the service).

4. Women aged 65-75 years who have a smoking history or family history of AAA: There is insufficient evidence on whether or not to screen for AAA (grade I, insufficient evidence).

To assess screening and treatment of AAAs, the USPSTF looked at four randomized, controlled trials largely focused on men older than 65 years. With the combined data, they found 246 men would need to be screened to prevent 1 AAA rupture, and 305 men would need to be screened to prevent 1 death from AAA.

The USPSTF does note that, while the risk of death is lower for elective AAA repair than ruptured AAA, there is still increased risk with elective surgery. In addition, increased screening and detection increases the rate of elective surgery. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment could represent a harm.
 

Treatment

Surgical repair of AAA in men depends on the size of the aneurysm and rate of growth.

For men, surgical repair is standard when the AAA reaches 5.5 cm or if the AAA is growing faster than 1.0 cm per year and is larger than 4.0 cm. For women, surgical repair is often recommended between 5.0 cm and 5.4 cm in size.

Surgical repair is not recommended for AAAs that are less than 5.0 cm because the annual risk of rupture is 0%-1% below 5.0 cm. The risk increases to 11% for aneurysms that are 5.0-5.9 cm in size.

There are two methods of surgical repair: endovascular aneurysm repair and open repair. Recommendations for the surveillance of AAA between 3.0 cm and 5.5 cm is regular ultrasound surveillance, with the interval becoming shorter as the aneurysm size becomes larger. Exact intervals differ from one guideline group to another.
 

Screening and treatment in women

While it is true that AAAs in women are more likely to rupture at smaller sizes than AAAs in men, the AAAs that rupture in women are more likely to rupture at an older age than AAAs rupture in men.

The prevalence of AAAs in women is thought to be one-sixth of the prevalence of men. In addition, women had a higher 30-day mortality after surgical repair. They also had higher rates of complications for elective surgical repair of AAAs.

For these reasons, it is unclear that the benefits of AAA screening and treatment in women outweigh the risks, and the USPSTF cannot come to a conclusive recommendation for women who have ever smoked or women who have a family history of AAA.

The USPSTF is able to state definitively that they do not recommend screening in women with no smoking history or family history of AAA.
 

Bottom line

The USPSTF recommends screening men aged 65-75 years who have ever smoked and selectively screening men aged 65-75 years with no smoking history. The USPSTF recommends against screening women aged 65-75 years who have never smoked and have no family history of AAA. There is insufficient evidence to either recommend for or against screening women aged 65-75 years who have smoked or have a family history of AAA.

Reference

Owens DK et al. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322(22):2211-18.

Dr. Sprogell is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. 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 Hospital–Jefferson Health.

The prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is decreasing, thought to be caused by a decrease in smoking. But the risk of death if one ruptures is as high as 81%. So, screening is still an important part of preventive medicine.

When the abdominal aorta enlarges to greater than 3.0 cm, it is considered an aneurysm. Risk factors that can lead to an enlarged aorta include older age, male sex, smoking, history of AAA in a first-degree relative, hypertension, history of other aneurysms, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerosis, and hypercholesterolemia.

History of AAA in a first-degree relative puts patients at double the risk of developing an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Interestingly, diabetes has been associated with a reduced risk of AAA. People of African American, Asian, and Hispanic descent have a reduced risk of AAA.
 

Screening

Screening is performed using abdominal duplex ultrasound. It has high sensitivity (94%-100%) and specificity (98%-100%), is low cost, and has low risk to the patient. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force breaks its screening recommendations into four categories:

1. Men aged 65-75 years who have ever smoked (at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime): One-time screening (grade B, moderate net benefit).

2. Men aged 65-75 years who have never smoked: Selectively offer screening (grade C, small net benefit). “To determine whether this service is appropriate, patients and clinicians should consider the patient’s medical history, family history, other risk factors, and personal values.”

3. Women without a smoking history or family history of AAA: Do not perform screening (grade D, recommendation against the service).

4. Women aged 65-75 years who have a smoking history or family history of AAA: There is insufficient evidence on whether or not to screen for AAA (grade I, insufficient evidence).

To assess screening and treatment of AAAs, the USPSTF looked at four randomized, controlled trials largely focused on men older than 65 years. With the combined data, they found 246 men would need to be screened to prevent 1 AAA rupture, and 305 men would need to be screened to prevent 1 death from AAA.

The USPSTF does note that, while the risk of death is lower for elective AAA repair than ruptured AAA, there is still increased risk with elective surgery. In addition, increased screening and detection increases the rate of elective surgery. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment could represent a harm.
 

Treatment

Surgical repair of AAA in men depends on the size of the aneurysm and rate of growth.

For men, surgical repair is standard when the AAA reaches 5.5 cm or if the AAA is growing faster than 1.0 cm per year and is larger than 4.0 cm. For women, surgical repair is often recommended between 5.0 cm and 5.4 cm in size.

Surgical repair is not recommended for AAAs that are less than 5.0 cm because the annual risk of rupture is 0%-1% below 5.0 cm. The risk increases to 11% for aneurysms that are 5.0-5.9 cm in size.

There are two methods of surgical repair: endovascular aneurysm repair and open repair. Recommendations for the surveillance of AAA between 3.0 cm and 5.5 cm is regular ultrasound surveillance, with the interval becoming shorter as the aneurysm size becomes larger. Exact intervals differ from one guideline group to another.
 

Screening and treatment in women

While it is true that AAAs in women are more likely to rupture at smaller sizes than AAAs in men, the AAAs that rupture in women are more likely to rupture at an older age than AAAs rupture in men.

The prevalence of AAAs in women is thought to be one-sixth of the prevalence of men. In addition, women had a higher 30-day mortality after surgical repair. They also had higher rates of complications for elective surgical repair of AAAs.

For these reasons, it is unclear that the benefits of AAA screening and treatment in women outweigh the risks, and the USPSTF cannot come to a conclusive recommendation for women who have ever smoked or women who have a family history of AAA.

The USPSTF is able to state definitively that they do not recommend screening in women with no smoking history or family history of AAA.
 

Bottom line

The USPSTF recommends screening men aged 65-75 years who have ever smoked and selectively screening men aged 65-75 years with no smoking history. The USPSTF recommends against screening women aged 65-75 years who have never smoked and have no family history of AAA. There is insufficient evidence to either recommend for or against screening women aged 65-75 years who have smoked or have a family history of AAA.

Reference

Owens DK et al. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322(22):2211-18.

Dr. Sprogell is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. 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 Hospital–Jefferson Health.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has released its first set of guidelines for managing pediatric aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas.

The guidelines highlight the complexities of treating pediatric Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), as recommendations include a range of multiagent regimens for different patient groups at various time points.

“The treatment of this disease is relatively complicated,” said Kimberly J. Davies, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and chair of the guidelines panel. “The chemotherapy regimens have a lot of drugs, a lot of nuances to how they’re supposed to be given. These guidelines delineate that treatment and help the provider … make sure they are delivering the treatment a patient needs.”

The guidelines recommend different regimens according to a patient’s risk group, but the same treatment approach should be used for patients with BL and those with DLBCL.

“The biggest difference between pediatric and adult patients is that pediatric patients are more uniformly treated, regardless of what type of aggressive B-cell lymphoma they have,” said Matthew Barth, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel.

“Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma are generally treated with different chemotherapy regimens, but, in pediatrics, we use the same treatment regimens for both diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma,” he added.

As an example, the new guidelines recommend that pediatric patients with low-risk BL/DLBCL receive the POG9219 regimen (N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 30;337[18]:1259-66) or FAB/LMB96 regimen A (Br J Haematol. 2008 Jun;141[6]:840-7) as induction, or they should be enrolled in a clinical trial.

On the other hand, induction for high-risk pediatric BL/DLBCL patients should consist of rituximab and a chemotherapy regimen used in the COG ANHL1131 trial. The recommendation to incorporate rituximab in high-risk pediatric patients is based on results from that trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.10507).

“Until recent clinical trial data was available, we weren’t really sure how to incorporate rituximab into the treatment of pediatric patients with mature B-cell lymphomas,” Dr. Barth said. “We now have evidence that rituximab is clearly beneficial for patients who are in higher-risk groups.”

Dr. Barth and Dr. Davies both noted that pediatric BL and DLBCL have high cure rates. Long-term survival rates range from about 80% to more than 90%, according to the American Cancer Society. However, the patients who do relapse or progress can be difficult to treat.

“We have quite good cure rates at this point in time, which is a great success, but that means that a very small population of patients don’t respond to initial therapy, and … it’s hard to know what the best treatment for those patients is,” Dr. Davies said.

She noted that studies are underway to determine if immunotherapies, including chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, might improve outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.

For now, the NCCN guidelines recommend clinical trial enrollment for relapsed/refractory patients. Alternatively, these patients can receive additional chemotherapy, and responders can proceed to transplant. Patients who don’t achieve at least a partial response may go on to a clinical trial or receive best supportive care.

Dr. Davies and Dr. Barth reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has released its first set of guidelines for managing pediatric aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas.

The guidelines highlight the complexities of treating pediatric Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), as recommendations include a range of multiagent regimens for different patient groups at various time points.

“The treatment of this disease is relatively complicated,” said Kimberly J. Davies, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and chair of the guidelines panel. “The chemotherapy regimens have a lot of drugs, a lot of nuances to how they’re supposed to be given. These guidelines delineate that treatment and help the provider … make sure they are delivering the treatment a patient needs.”

The guidelines recommend different regimens according to a patient’s risk group, but the same treatment approach should be used for patients with BL and those with DLBCL.

“The biggest difference between pediatric and adult patients is that pediatric patients are more uniformly treated, regardless of what type of aggressive B-cell lymphoma they have,” said Matthew Barth, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel.

“Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma are generally treated with different chemotherapy regimens, but, in pediatrics, we use the same treatment regimens for both diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma,” he added.

As an example, the new guidelines recommend that pediatric patients with low-risk BL/DLBCL receive the POG9219 regimen (N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 30;337[18]:1259-66) or FAB/LMB96 regimen A (Br J Haematol. 2008 Jun;141[6]:840-7) as induction, or they should be enrolled in a clinical trial.

On the other hand, induction for high-risk pediatric BL/DLBCL patients should consist of rituximab and a chemotherapy regimen used in the COG ANHL1131 trial. The recommendation to incorporate rituximab in high-risk pediatric patients is based on results from that trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.10507).

“Until recent clinical trial data was available, we weren’t really sure how to incorporate rituximab into the treatment of pediatric patients with mature B-cell lymphomas,” Dr. Barth said. “We now have evidence that rituximab is clearly beneficial for patients who are in higher-risk groups.”

Dr. Barth and Dr. Davies both noted that pediatric BL and DLBCL have high cure rates. Long-term survival rates range from about 80% to more than 90%, according to the American Cancer Society. However, the patients who do relapse or progress can be difficult to treat.

“We have quite good cure rates at this point in time, which is a great success, but that means that a very small population of patients don’t respond to initial therapy, and … it’s hard to know what the best treatment for those patients is,” Dr. Davies said.

She noted that studies are underway to determine if immunotherapies, including chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, might improve outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.

For now, the NCCN guidelines recommend clinical trial enrollment for relapsed/refractory patients. Alternatively, these patients can receive additional chemotherapy, and responders can proceed to transplant. Patients who don’t achieve at least a partial response may go on to a clinical trial or receive best supportive care.

Dr. Davies and Dr. Barth reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has released its first set of guidelines for managing pediatric aggressive mature B-cell lymphomas.

The guidelines highlight the complexities of treating pediatric Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), as recommendations include a range of multiagent regimens for different patient groups at various time points.

“The treatment of this disease is relatively complicated,” said Kimberly J. Davies, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and chair of the guidelines panel. “The chemotherapy regimens have a lot of drugs, a lot of nuances to how they’re supposed to be given. These guidelines delineate that treatment and help the provider … make sure they are delivering the treatment a patient needs.”

The guidelines recommend different regimens according to a patient’s risk group, but the same treatment approach should be used for patients with BL and those with DLBCL.

“The biggest difference between pediatric and adult patients is that pediatric patients are more uniformly treated, regardless of what type of aggressive B-cell lymphoma they have,” said Matthew Barth, MD, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., and vice chair of the NCCN guidelines panel.

“Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma are generally treated with different chemotherapy regimens, but, in pediatrics, we use the same treatment regimens for both diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Burkitt lymphoma,” he added.

As an example, the new guidelines recommend that pediatric patients with low-risk BL/DLBCL receive the POG9219 regimen (N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 30;337[18]:1259-66) or FAB/LMB96 regimen A (Br J Haematol. 2008 Jun;141[6]:840-7) as induction, or they should be enrolled in a clinical trial.

On the other hand, induction for high-risk pediatric BL/DLBCL patients should consist of rituximab and a chemotherapy regimen used in the COG ANHL1131 trial. The recommendation to incorporate rituximab in high-risk pediatric patients is based on results from that trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 20. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.10507).

“Until recent clinical trial data was available, we weren’t really sure how to incorporate rituximab into the treatment of pediatric patients with mature B-cell lymphomas,” Dr. Barth said. “We now have evidence that rituximab is clearly beneficial for patients who are in higher-risk groups.”

Dr. Barth and Dr. Davies both noted that pediatric BL and DLBCL have high cure rates. Long-term survival rates range from about 80% to more than 90%, according to the American Cancer Society. However, the patients who do relapse or progress can be difficult to treat.

“We have quite good cure rates at this point in time, which is a great success, but that means that a very small population of patients don’t respond to initial therapy, and … it’s hard to know what the best treatment for those patients is,” Dr. Davies said.

She noted that studies are underway to determine if immunotherapies, including chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, might improve outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory disease.

For now, the NCCN guidelines recommend clinical trial enrollment for relapsed/refractory patients. Alternatively, these patients can receive additional chemotherapy, and responders can proceed to transplant. Patients who don’t achieve at least a partial response may go on to a clinical trial or receive best supportive care.

Dr. Davies and Dr. Barth reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – One of the goals in soon-to-be-published Takayasu’s arteritis guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology is to wean patients off high-dose steroids once they are in remission.

M. Alexander Otto

This recommendation is in opposition to another option – namely, switching these patients to low-dose glucocorticoids. The idea is to prevent long-term side effects, particularly in children. The guidelines also recommend against escalating immunotherapy for asymptomatic increases in inflammatory markers and generally recommend against surgery – stenting in most cases – unless there is threat to life, limb, or organ and also if limb pain is so severe it cramps quality of life and dose escalation doesn’t get the job done. If surgery is planned, patients should be on perioperative steroids if there’s active disease.

It’s draft guidance for now, but it’s probably what the final document will say when it’s published in 2020, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by one of the authors, Anisha Dua, MD, an associate professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. She gave a sneak preview at the meeting.

In general, severe, active Takayasu’s calls for high-dose oral steroids in conjunction with a nonsteroid immunosuppressive, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, leflunomide, or mycophenolate mofetil. There’s evidence that dual therapy gives a more durable remission and also reduces the need for steroids.

When that approach doesn’t do the trick, the next step is a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. There’s evidence for infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Dr. Dua noted, “We still can consider” tocilizumab, but it failed to meet its primary endpoint in a randomized trial, and evidence for other biologics is sparse or nonexistent. “TNF inhibitors are the first line” for refractory disease, Dr. Dua said.

The steroid taper comes after 6-12 months of remission. Given their toxicity, “our goal for steroids is zero,” especially in pediatric populations. Even in remission, patients should have a clinical assessment, including inflammatory markers, every 3-12 months.

A rise in C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate, with no new symptoms, might be a reason for more frequent monitoring, but it’s not a reason to escalate immunosuppression. That should be kept in reserve for new vascular lesions, rapid progression on an old one, or worsening of organ or limb ischemia.

“We recommend [escalation] over surgical intervention” because patients often develop collateral circulation that solves the problem; it also gives the disease time to quiet down should the patient eventually go into surgery. Immediate surgery is reserved for organ or life-threatening disease, Dr. Dua said.

“Takayasu’s is different from other vasculitides in the sense that patients often present with certain nonspecific constitutional symptoms,” and there’s not a lot of pathology or histology to work with, “so we do tend to rely on imaging a lot,” Dr. Dua said.

Angiography has fallen out of favor because it’s invasive and exposes patients to radiation, among other problems. The field has moved to noninvasive imaging such as color Doppler ultrasound, CT angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, and PET CT.

“We do recommend regularly scheduled, noninvasive imaging every 6-12 months, in addition to the routine clinical assessment,” except in children with inactive disease; the risk of sedation outweighs the imaging benefit, Dr. Dua said.

In patients with single-vessel cranial or cervical stenosis, without symptoms, “we recommend medical over surgical management because of the risk of surgery. Surgery can be considered for multivessel involvement,” she said.

She and her colleagues also recommend medical management for renal artery stenosis, including antihypertensives and immunotherapy escalation for active disease. Surgery is considered for refractory hypertension or worsening kidney function

Dr. Dua is a primary investigator and adviser for Chemocentryx and an adviser for Novartis and AbbVie.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – One of the goals in soon-to-be-published Takayasu’s arteritis guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology is to wean patients off high-dose steroids once they are in remission.

M. Alexander Otto

This recommendation is in opposition to another option – namely, switching these patients to low-dose glucocorticoids. The idea is to prevent long-term side effects, particularly in children. The guidelines also recommend against escalating immunotherapy for asymptomatic increases in inflammatory markers and generally recommend against surgery – stenting in most cases – unless there is threat to life, limb, or organ and also if limb pain is so severe it cramps quality of life and dose escalation doesn’t get the job done. If surgery is planned, patients should be on perioperative steroids if there’s active disease.

It’s draft guidance for now, but it’s probably what the final document will say when it’s published in 2020, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by one of the authors, Anisha Dua, MD, an associate professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. She gave a sneak preview at the meeting.

In general, severe, active Takayasu’s calls for high-dose oral steroids in conjunction with a nonsteroid immunosuppressive, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, leflunomide, or mycophenolate mofetil. There’s evidence that dual therapy gives a more durable remission and also reduces the need for steroids.

When that approach doesn’t do the trick, the next step is a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. There’s evidence for infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Dr. Dua noted, “We still can consider” tocilizumab, but it failed to meet its primary endpoint in a randomized trial, and evidence for other biologics is sparse or nonexistent. “TNF inhibitors are the first line” for refractory disease, Dr. Dua said.

The steroid taper comes after 6-12 months of remission. Given their toxicity, “our goal for steroids is zero,” especially in pediatric populations. Even in remission, patients should have a clinical assessment, including inflammatory markers, every 3-12 months.

A rise in C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate, with no new symptoms, might be a reason for more frequent monitoring, but it’s not a reason to escalate immunosuppression. That should be kept in reserve for new vascular lesions, rapid progression on an old one, or worsening of organ or limb ischemia.

“We recommend [escalation] over surgical intervention” because patients often develop collateral circulation that solves the problem; it also gives the disease time to quiet down should the patient eventually go into surgery. Immediate surgery is reserved for organ or life-threatening disease, Dr. Dua said.

“Takayasu’s is different from other vasculitides in the sense that patients often present with certain nonspecific constitutional symptoms,” and there’s not a lot of pathology or histology to work with, “so we do tend to rely on imaging a lot,” Dr. Dua said.

Angiography has fallen out of favor because it’s invasive and exposes patients to radiation, among other problems. The field has moved to noninvasive imaging such as color Doppler ultrasound, CT angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, and PET CT.

“We do recommend regularly scheduled, noninvasive imaging every 6-12 months, in addition to the routine clinical assessment,” except in children with inactive disease; the risk of sedation outweighs the imaging benefit, Dr. Dua said.

In patients with single-vessel cranial or cervical stenosis, without symptoms, “we recommend medical over surgical management because of the risk of surgery. Surgery can be considered for multivessel involvement,” she said.

She and her colleagues also recommend medical management for renal artery stenosis, including antihypertensives and immunotherapy escalation for active disease. Surgery is considered for refractory hypertension or worsening kidney function

Dr. Dua is a primary investigator and adviser for Chemocentryx and an adviser for Novartis and AbbVie.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – One of the goals in soon-to-be-published Takayasu’s arteritis guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology is to wean patients off high-dose steroids once they are in remission.

M. Alexander Otto

This recommendation is in opposition to another option – namely, switching these patients to low-dose glucocorticoids. The idea is to prevent long-term side effects, particularly in children. The guidelines also recommend against escalating immunotherapy for asymptomatic increases in inflammatory markers and generally recommend against surgery – stenting in most cases – unless there is threat to life, limb, or organ and also if limb pain is so severe it cramps quality of life and dose escalation doesn’t get the job done. If surgery is planned, patients should be on perioperative steroids if there’s active disease.

It’s draft guidance for now, but it’s probably what the final document will say when it’s published in 2020, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by one of the authors, Anisha Dua, MD, an associate professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. She gave a sneak preview at the meeting.

In general, severe, active Takayasu’s calls for high-dose oral steroids in conjunction with a nonsteroid immunosuppressive, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, leflunomide, or mycophenolate mofetil. There’s evidence that dual therapy gives a more durable remission and also reduces the need for steroids.

When that approach doesn’t do the trick, the next step is a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. There’s evidence for infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Dr. Dua noted, “We still can consider” tocilizumab, but it failed to meet its primary endpoint in a randomized trial, and evidence for other biologics is sparse or nonexistent. “TNF inhibitors are the first line” for refractory disease, Dr. Dua said.

The steroid taper comes after 6-12 months of remission. Given their toxicity, “our goal for steroids is zero,” especially in pediatric populations. Even in remission, patients should have a clinical assessment, including inflammatory markers, every 3-12 months.

A rise in C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate, with no new symptoms, might be a reason for more frequent monitoring, but it’s not a reason to escalate immunosuppression. That should be kept in reserve for new vascular lesions, rapid progression on an old one, or worsening of organ or limb ischemia.

“We recommend [escalation] over surgical intervention” because patients often develop collateral circulation that solves the problem; it also gives the disease time to quiet down should the patient eventually go into surgery. Immediate surgery is reserved for organ or life-threatening disease, Dr. Dua said.

“Takayasu’s is different from other vasculitides in the sense that patients often present with certain nonspecific constitutional symptoms,” and there’s not a lot of pathology or histology to work with, “so we do tend to rely on imaging a lot,” Dr. Dua said.

Angiography has fallen out of favor because it’s invasive and exposes patients to radiation, among other problems. The field has moved to noninvasive imaging such as color Doppler ultrasound, CT angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, and PET CT.

“We do recommend regularly scheduled, noninvasive imaging every 6-12 months, in addition to the routine clinical assessment,” except in children with inactive disease; the risk of sedation outweighs the imaging benefit, Dr. Dua said.

In patients with single-vessel cranial or cervical stenosis, without symptoms, “we recommend medical over surgical management because of the risk of surgery. Surgery can be considered for multivessel involvement,” she said.

She and her colleagues also recommend medical management for renal artery stenosis, including antihypertensives and immunotherapy escalation for active disease. Surgery is considered for refractory hypertension or worsening kidney function

Dr. Dua is a primary investigator and adviser for Chemocentryx and an adviser for Novartis and AbbVie.

[email protected]

With much of the public now wearing devices on their wrists or elsewhere capable of recording a range of vital signs, including heart rate abnormalities, the Heart Rhythm Society launched a guide for American consumers about wearables and the data they collect during a session on Jan. 9 at CES 2020 in Las Vegas.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

While providing a succinct but comprehensive overview of the types of wearables and the health metrics they can record, the main and recurring message of the 10-page e-pamphlet is that, when a layperson has a question or concern about their data, the best course is to consult a clinician.

The “Guidance for Wearable Health Solutions,” produced by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) along with the Consumer Technology Association (CTA, which presents the annual CES exhibition), cautions that “most wearables are primarily suited for fitness and wellness,” and stresses that wearables “are not a substitute for medical devices prescribed by a clinician.” And in all cases, the document advises, when questions arise about the data – including an apparently high heart rate; a reading the device identifies as abnormal; and when symptoms appear such as a rapid heart rate, dizziness, or fluttering or flopping of the heart – the response that the guidance advocates is consistent: Talk with your clinician.

“Heart Rhythm Society members are seeing more and more patients with their own data collected by wearables,” said Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, professor of medicine and director of electrophysiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, and a member of the panel that wrote the guidance document for the HRS and CTA. “Every provider is dealing with consumer wearable data. The need is important for consumers to be supported. Consumers and patients are buying over-the-counter devices and using them for diagnosis and management, with little to no guidance, and we want to help them feel supported in managing their data and understand what to do with it,” Dr. Marrouche said in an interview.

“This is a new reality in medicine; the direction of information is changing. Consumers are collecting data themselves and coming to physicians already informed. There is a new shift in how information is collected, shared, and used.” Dr. Marrouche was 1 of 5 cardiac electrophysiologists who served on the 11-member writing group.

The new document for consumers “addresses an unmet need,” and the HRS collaboration with the CTA was “a unique opportunity to develop useful guidance that supports education and empowers consumers,” said Christina Wurster, chief strategy officer for the HRS in Washington and a member of the writing panel. “The questions outlined in the document are questions our members receive daily. The document is a resource they can direct people to.”

The HRS and CTA will “partner with consumer advocacy groups and professional societies to further disseminate the document,” added Ms. Wurster. “We’ll also have a strong push on social media to reach consumer audiences and drive awareness of this new resource,” she said in an interview. In addition, HRS “has strategic partnerships with other societies and will aim to work with them for dissemination, including societies related to internal medicine, emergency medicine, cardiology, and nursing, as well as also working with patient and consumer advocacy groups to reach the public.” The CTA will also actively publicize and disseminate the guidance document through their members.
 

Clinical guidelines play catch-up

Ironically, the HRS has issued this guidance to the public and has told people to take their wearable-collected heart data to clinicians before the HRS or any other medical group has advised clinicians on how they should handle, interpret, and use heart rhythm data collected this way.

Presumably, many if not most of the people with questions about their heart data from wearables are asymptomatic, because symptoms are what usually drive patients with a cardiac arrhythmia to consult a physician – they don’t wait to see what their device tells them. But the best way to manage asymptomatic arrhythmias like atrial fibrillation (AFib) remains a big clinical uncertainty today, with no evidence base as a guide, although several studies exploring this question are in progress.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“There are no clear and definitive data showing that treating subclinical atrial fibrillation improves outcomes. That’s what we need, and until we get these data you won’t see strong recommendations in guidelines” to screen patients for asymptomatic AFib or other arrhythmias, said Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., during the 2019 American Heart Association scientific sessions in Philadelphia in a talk about wearables and guidelines.

“If you intervene with silent AFib, do you improve outcomes? That evidence is lacking,” she said. Another shortcoming of current evidence is a clear understanding of what AFib burden warrants intervention, added Dr. Al-Khatib. “We see high-rate AFib episodes recorded in patients with implanted cardiac devices [and no symptoms], and we don’t know what to do with that either.”

The closest any existing guideline from a medical society comes to currently endorsing screening for AFib by a wearable is the 2016 European Society of Cardiology’s AFib management guidelines, which give “opportunistic screening” among people aged older than 65 years a IB recommendation, but specifically for screening by taking a patient’s pulse or with a ECG recording, with no mention of the screening role for wearables (Eur Heart J. 2016 Oct 7;37[38]:2893-967), Dr. Al-Khatib noted.

The most extensive data on screening for asymptomatic AFib in an unselected population came in the recently reported results from the Apple Heart Study, which enrolled more than 419,000 people monitored by a smart watch for a median of 117 days. During this screening, 2,161 people (0.52%) received a notification of having an irregular pulse (including 3.1% of those who were aged at least 65 years), which triggered more intensive assessment with an ECG patch for a median of 13 days in 450 of the 2,161 screening positives (21%) who agreed to participate in this follow-up. Among those 450 people, the patch test identified 34% as having actual AFib (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 14;381[20]:1909-17). But while this study provided evidence that screening for an irregular heartbeat with a wearable can identify AFib with some level of success, the results did not address whether this approach improved short- or long-term patient outcomes.

In addition, what the Apple Heart Study results showed was that this sort of screening results in a relatively large volume of follow-up testing. Of the 2,161 participants who received an irregular pulse notification, 1,376 (64%) returned a 90-day survey. Of these, 787 (57%) reported contact with a health care provider outside the study, 28% were prescribed a new medication, 33% were recommended to see a specialist (such as a cardiologist), and 36% were recommended to have additional testing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results raise the question that a lot of resources were used,” to assess patients with a positive screening result, noted Paul A. Heidenreich, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University who studies quality of care for patients with heart disease. He estimated that, in the Apple Heart Study, each of the more than 2,000 patients who screening positive for an irregular heartbeat and underwent subsequent assessment ran up about $700 worth of follow-up testing. But he added that, in the case of AFib, the primary intervention that many previously undiagnosed AFib patients receive is some sort of anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Moreover, because this intervention is so effective there is a lot of money to play with to make AFib screening cost effective, as judged by typical, contemporary metrics of cost efficacy that value a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain as reasonable for society to pay if the cost of an incremental QALY is $50,000-$150,000.

If the benchmark is a cost that’s within $50,000/QALY, then an average follow-up cost of $116/person to assess screened positives can fall within this cost ceiling. If the benchmark is $150,000/QALY, then follow-up costs can run as high as $491/person screened, said Dr. Heidenreich during the same AHA session where Dr. Al-Khatib spoke last November.

Despite this good news for screening for AFib with a wearable from a cost-effectiveness perspective, “there is so much uncertainty regarding the benefit and the consequences of incidental findings that we need an outcomes study before widespread implementation” of this type of screening, Dr. Heidenreich concluded. “We need an outcomes study to feel comfortable” with screening. “There is a huge potential for extra care that we don’t understand.”

Dr. Marrouche agreed that collecting adequate evidence to drive changes in clinical guidelines on how to use data from wearables has lagged behind the rapid spread of wearables and the information they can produce among the American public. “Outcomes and evidence will support guidelines development, but in the meantime, we’re offering education to clinicians, patients, and consumers. Consumers own their data, and they can share them with whomever they choose.”

The document notes that people who use wearables are, in general, “enthusiastic about tracking their data, not only for their own use, but also to share” with others, often on social media websites.

“We cannot control that, but our goal in the document is focused on the clinical relevance [of the data] and to help people better understand their data and use it in a meaningful and safe way,” Dr. Marrouche said.

Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to, advisor to, or received research support from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, GE Healthcare, Medtronic, Preventice, Sanofi-Aventis, Siemens, and Vytronus. Ms. Wurster is an employee of the Heart Rhythm Society. Dr. Al-Khatib has been a consultant to Milestone Pharmaceuticals and Medtronic, and she has also received other financial benefits from Medtronic. Dr. Heidenreich had no disclosures,

[email protected]

With much of the public now wearing devices on their wrists or elsewhere capable of recording a range of vital signs, including heart rate abnormalities, the Heart Rhythm Society launched a guide for American consumers about wearables and the data they collect during a session on Jan. 9 at CES 2020 in Las Vegas.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

While providing a succinct but comprehensive overview of the types of wearables and the health metrics they can record, the main and recurring message of the 10-page e-pamphlet is that, when a layperson has a question or concern about their data, the best course is to consult a clinician.

The “Guidance for Wearable Health Solutions,” produced by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) along with the Consumer Technology Association (CTA, which presents the annual CES exhibition), cautions that “most wearables are primarily suited for fitness and wellness,” and stresses that wearables “are not a substitute for medical devices prescribed by a clinician.” And in all cases, the document advises, when questions arise about the data – including an apparently high heart rate; a reading the device identifies as abnormal; and when symptoms appear such as a rapid heart rate, dizziness, or fluttering or flopping of the heart – the response that the guidance advocates is consistent: Talk with your clinician.

“Heart Rhythm Society members are seeing more and more patients with their own data collected by wearables,” said Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, professor of medicine and director of electrophysiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, and a member of the panel that wrote the guidance document for the HRS and CTA. “Every provider is dealing with consumer wearable data. The need is important for consumers to be supported. Consumers and patients are buying over-the-counter devices and using them for diagnosis and management, with little to no guidance, and we want to help them feel supported in managing their data and understand what to do with it,” Dr. Marrouche said in an interview.

“This is a new reality in medicine; the direction of information is changing. Consumers are collecting data themselves and coming to physicians already informed. There is a new shift in how information is collected, shared, and used.” Dr. Marrouche was 1 of 5 cardiac electrophysiologists who served on the 11-member writing group.

The new document for consumers “addresses an unmet need,” and the HRS collaboration with the CTA was “a unique opportunity to develop useful guidance that supports education and empowers consumers,” said Christina Wurster, chief strategy officer for the HRS in Washington and a member of the writing panel. “The questions outlined in the document are questions our members receive daily. The document is a resource they can direct people to.”

The HRS and CTA will “partner with consumer advocacy groups and professional societies to further disseminate the document,” added Ms. Wurster. “We’ll also have a strong push on social media to reach consumer audiences and drive awareness of this new resource,” she said in an interview. In addition, HRS “has strategic partnerships with other societies and will aim to work with them for dissemination, including societies related to internal medicine, emergency medicine, cardiology, and nursing, as well as also working with patient and consumer advocacy groups to reach the public.” The CTA will also actively publicize and disseminate the guidance document through their members.
 

Clinical guidelines play catch-up

Ironically, the HRS has issued this guidance to the public and has told people to take their wearable-collected heart data to clinicians before the HRS or any other medical group has advised clinicians on how they should handle, interpret, and use heart rhythm data collected this way.

Presumably, many if not most of the people with questions about their heart data from wearables are asymptomatic, because symptoms are what usually drive patients with a cardiac arrhythmia to consult a physician – they don’t wait to see what their device tells them. But the best way to manage asymptomatic arrhythmias like atrial fibrillation (AFib) remains a big clinical uncertainty today, with no evidence base as a guide, although several studies exploring this question are in progress.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“There are no clear and definitive data showing that treating subclinical atrial fibrillation improves outcomes. That’s what we need, and until we get these data you won’t see strong recommendations in guidelines” to screen patients for asymptomatic AFib or other arrhythmias, said Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., during the 2019 American Heart Association scientific sessions in Philadelphia in a talk about wearables and guidelines.

“If you intervene with silent AFib, do you improve outcomes? That evidence is lacking,” she said. Another shortcoming of current evidence is a clear understanding of what AFib burden warrants intervention, added Dr. Al-Khatib. “We see high-rate AFib episodes recorded in patients with implanted cardiac devices [and no symptoms], and we don’t know what to do with that either.”

The closest any existing guideline from a medical society comes to currently endorsing screening for AFib by a wearable is the 2016 European Society of Cardiology’s AFib management guidelines, which give “opportunistic screening” among people aged older than 65 years a IB recommendation, but specifically for screening by taking a patient’s pulse or with a ECG recording, with no mention of the screening role for wearables (Eur Heart J. 2016 Oct 7;37[38]:2893-967), Dr. Al-Khatib noted.

The most extensive data on screening for asymptomatic AFib in an unselected population came in the recently reported results from the Apple Heart Study, which enrolled more than 419,000 people monitored by a smart watch for a median of 117 days. During this screening, 2,161 people (0.52%) received a notification of having an irregular pulse (including 3.1% of those who were aged at least 65 years), which triggered more intensive assessment with an ECG patch for a median of 13 days in 450 of the 2,161 screening positives (21%) who agreed to participate in this follow-up. Among those 450 people, the patch test identified 34% as having actual AFib (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 14;381[20]:1909-17). But while this study provided evidence that screening for an irregular heartbeat with a wearable can identify AFib with some level of success, the results did not address whether this approach improved short- or long-term patient outcomes.

In addition, what the Apple Heart Study results showed was that this sort of screening results in a relatively large volume of follow-up testing. Of the 2,161 participants who received an irregular pulse notification, 1,376 (64%) returned a 90-day survey. Of these, 787 (57%) reported contact with a health care provider outside the study, 28% were prescribed a new medication, 33% were recommended to see a specialist (such as a cardiologist), and 36% were recommended to have additional testing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results raise the question that a lot of resources were used,” to assess patients with a positive screening result, noted Paul A. Heidenreich, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University who studies quality of care for patients with heart disease. He estimated that, in the Apple Heart Study, each of the more than 2,000 patients who screening positive for an irregular heartbeat and underwent subsequent assessment ran up about $700 worth of follow-up testing. But he added that, in the case of AFib, the primary intervention that many previously undiagnosed AFib patients receive is some sort of anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Moreover, because this intervention is so effective there is a lot of money to play with to make AFib screening cost effective, as judged by typical, contemporary metrics of cost efficacy that value a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain as reasonable for society to pay if the cost of an incremental QALY is $50,000-$150,000.

If the benchmark is a cost that’s within $50,000/QALY, then an average follow-up cost of $116/person to assess screened positives can fall within this cost ceiling. If the benchmark is $150,000/QALY, then follow-up costs can run as high as $491/person screened, said Dr. Heidenreich during the same AHA session where Dr. Al-Khatib spoke last November.

Despite this good news for screening for AFib with a wearable from a cost-effectiveness perspective, “there is so much uncertainty regarding the benefit and the consequences of incidental findings that we need an outcomes study before widespread implementation” of this type of screening, Dr. Heidenreich concluded. “We need an outcomes study to feel comfortable” with screening. “There is a huge potential for extra care that we don’t understand.”

Dr. Marrouche agreed that collecting adequate evidence to drive changes in clinical guidelines on how to use data from wearables has lagged behind the rapid spread of wearables and the information they can produce among the American public. “Outcomes and evidence will support guidelines development, but in the meantime, we’re offering education to clinicians, patients, and consumers. Consumers own their data, and they can share them with whomever they choose.”

The document notes that people who use wearables are, in general, “enthusiastic about tracking their data, not only for their own use, but also to share” with others, often on social media websites.

“We cannot control that, but our goal in the document is focused on the clinical relevance [of the data] and to help people better understand their data and use it in a meaningful and safe way,” Dr. Marrouche said.

Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to, advisor to, or received research support from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, GE Healthcare, Medtronic, Preventice, Sanofi-Aventis, Siemens, and Vytronus. Ms. Wurster is an employee of the Heart Rhythm Society. Dr. Al-Khatib has been a consultant to Milestone Pharmaceuticals and Medtronic, and she has also received other financial benefits from Medtronic. Dr. Heidenreich had no disclosures,

[email protected]

With much of the public now wearing devices on their wrists or elsewhere capable of recording a range of vital signs, including heart rate abnormalities, the Heart Rhythm Society launched a guide for American consumers about wearables and the data they collect during a session on Jan. 9 at CES 2020 in Las Vegas.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

While providing a succinct but comprehensive overview of the types of wearables and the health metrics they can record, the main and recurring message of the 10-page e-pamphlet is that, when a layperson has a question or concern about their data, the best course is to consult a clinician.

The “Guidance for Wearable Health Solutions,” produced by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) along with the Consumer Technology Association (CTA, which presents the annual CES exhibition), cautions that “most wearables are primarily suited for fitness and wellness,” and stresses that wearables “are not a substitute for medical devices prescribed by a clinician.” And in all cases, the document advises, when questions arise about the data – including an apparently high heart rate; a reading the device identifies as abnormal; and when symptoms appear such as a rapid heart rate, dizziness, or fluttering or flopping of the heart – the response that the guidance advocates is consistent: Talk with your clinician.

“Heart Rhythm Society members are seeing more and more patients with their own data collected by wearables,” said Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, professor of medicine and director of electrophysiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, and a member of the panel that wrote the guidance document for the HRS and CTA. “Every provider is dealing with consumer wearable data. The need is important for consumers to be supported. Consumers and patients are buying over-the-counter devices and using them for diagnosis and management, with little to no guidance, and we want to help them feel supported in managing their data and understand what to do with it,” Dr. Marrouche said in an interview.

“This is a new reality in medicine; the direction of information is changing. Consumers are collecting data themselves and coming to physicians already informed. There is a new shift in how information is collected, shared, and used.” Dr. Marrouche was 1 of 5 cardiac electrophysiologists who served on the 11-member writing group.

The new document for consumers “addresses an unmet need,” and the HRS collaboration with the CTA was “a unique opportunity to develop useful guidance that supports education and empowers consumers,” said Christina Wurster, chief strategy officer for the HRS in Washington and a member of the writing panel. “The questions outlined in the document are questions our members receive daily. The document is a resource they can direct people to.”

The HRS and CTA will “partner with consumer advocacy groups and professional societies to further disseminate the document,” added Ms. Wurster. “We’ll also have a strong push on social media to reach consumer audiences and drive awareness of this new resource,” she said in an interview. In addition, HRS “has strategic partnerships with other societies and will aim to work with them for dissemination, including societies related to internal medicine, emergency medicine, cardiology, and nursing, as well as also working with patient and consumer advocacy groups to reach the public.” The CTA will also actively publicize and disseminate the guidance document through their members.
 

Clinical guidelines play catch-up

Ironically, the HRS has issued this guidance to the public and has told people to take their wearable-collected heart data to clinicians before the HRS or any other medical group has advised clinicians on how they should handle, interpret, and use heart rhythm data collected this way.

Presumably, many if not most of the people with questions about their heart data from wearables are asymptomatic, because symptoms are what usually drive patients with a cardiac arrhythmia to consult a physician – they don’t wait to see what their device tells them. But the best way to manage asymptomatic arrhythmias like atrial fibrillation (AFib) remains a big clinical uncertainty today, with no evidence base as a guide, although several studies exploring this question are in progress.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“There are no clear and definitive data showing that treating subclinical atrial fibrillation improves outcomes. That’s what we need, and until we get these data you won’t see strong recommendations in guidelines” to screen patients for asymptomatic AFib or other arrhythmias, said Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., during the 2019 American Heart Association scientific sessions in Philadelphia in a talk about wearables and guidelines.

“If you intervene with silent AFib, do you improve outcomes? That evidence is lacking,” she said. Another shortcoming of current evidence is a clear understanding of what AFib burden warrants intervention, added Dr. Al-Khatib. “We see high-rate AFib episodes recorded in patients with implanted cardiac devices [and no symptoms], and we don’t know what to do with that either.”

The closest any existing guideline from a medical society comes to currently endorsing screening for AFib by a wearable is the 2016 European Society of Cardiology’s AFib management guidelines, which give “opportunistic screening” among people aged older than 65 years a IB recommendation, but specifically for screening by taking a patient’s pulse or with a ECG recording, with no mention of the screening role for wearables (Eur Heart J. 2016 Oct 7;37[38]:2893-967), Dr. Al-Khatib noted.

The most extensive data on screening for asymptomatic AFib in an unselected population came in the recently reported results from the Apple Heart Study, which enrolled more than 419,000 people monitored by a smart watch for a median of 117 days. During this screening, 2,161 people (0.52%) received a notification of having an irregular pulse (including 3.1% of those who were aged at least 65 years), which triggered more intensive assessment with an ECG patch for a median of 13 days in 450 of the 2,161 screening positives (21%) who agreed to participate in this follow-up. Among those 450 people, the patch test identified 34% as having actual AFib (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 14;381[20]:1909-17). But while this study provided evidence that screening for an irregular heartbeat with a wearable can identify AFib with some level of success, the results did not address whether this approach improved short- or long-term patient outcomes.

In addition, what the Apple Heart Study results showed was that this sort of screening results in a relatively large volume of follow-up testing. Of the 2,161 participants who received an irregular pulse notification, 1,376 (64%) returned a 90-day survey. Of these, 787 (57%) reported contact with a health care provider outside the study, 28% were prescribed a new medication, 33% were recommended to see a specialist (such as a cardiologist), and 36% were recommended to have additional testing.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The results raise the question that a lot of resources were used,” to assess patients with a positive screening result, noted Paul A. Heidenreich, MD, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University who studies quality of care for patients with heart disease. He estimated that, in the Apple Heart Study, each of the more than 2,000 patients who screening positive for an irregular heartbeat and underwent subsequent assessment ran up about $700 worth of follow-up testing. But he added that, in the case of AFib, the primary intervention that many previously undiagnosed AFib patients receive is some sort of anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Moreover, because this intervention is so effective there is a lot of money to play with to make AFib screening cost effective, as judged by typical, contemporary metrics of cost efficacy that value a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain as reasonable for society to pay if the cost of an incremental QALY is $50,000-$150,000.

If the benchmark is a cost that’s within $50,000/QALY, then an average follow-up cost of $116/person to assess screened positives can fall within this cost ceiling. If the benchmark is $150,000/QALY, then follow-up costs can run as high as $491/person screened, said Dr. Heidenreich during the same AHA session where Dr. Al-Khatib spoke last November.

Despite this good news for screening for AFib with a wearable from a cost-effectiveness perspective, “there is so much uncertainty regarding the benefit and the consequences of incidental findings that we need an outcomes study before widespread implementation” of this type of screening, Dr. Heidenreich concluded. “We need an outcomes study to feel comfortable” with screening. “There is a huge potential for extra care that we don’t understand.”

Dr. Marrouche agreed that collecting adequate evidence to drive changes in clinical guidelines on how to use data from wearables has lagged behind the rapid spread of wearables and the information they can produce among the American public. “Outcomes and evidence will support guidelines development, but in the meantime, we’re offering education to clinicians, patients, and consumers. Consumers own their data, and they can share them with whomever they choose.”

The document notes that people who use wearables are, in general, “enthusiastic about tracking their data, not only for their own use, but also to share” with others, often on social media websites.

“We cannot control that, but our goal in the document is focused on the clinical relevance [of the data] and to help people better understand their data and use it in a meaningful and safe way,” Dr. Marrouche said.

Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to, advisor to, or received research support from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, GE Healthcare, Medtronic, Preventice, Sanofi-Aventis, Siemens, and Vytronus. Ms. Wurster is an employee of the Heart Rhythm Society. Dr. Al-Khatib has been a consultant to Milestone Pharmaceuticals and Medtronic, and she has also received other financial benefits from Medtronic. Dr. Heidenreich had no disclosures,

[email protected]

The American College of Physicians has released new clinical guidelines providing practical recommendations for testosterone therapy in adult men with age-related low testosterone.

The evidence-based recommendations target all clinicians and were published online January 6, 2020, in Annals of Internal Medicine, highlighting data from a systematic review of evidence on the efficacy and safety of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone.

Serum testosterone levels drop as men age, starting in their mid-30s, and approximately 20% of American men older than 60 years have low testosterone.

However, no widely accepted testosterone threshold level exists that represents a measure below which symptoms of androgen deficiency and adverse health outcomes occur.

In addition, the role of testosterone therapy in managing this patient population is controversial.

“The purpose of this American College of Physicians guideline is to present recommendations based on the best available evidence on the benefits, harms, and costs of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone,” write Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, from the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“This guideline does not address screening or diagnosis of hypogonadism or monitoring of testosterone levels,” the authors note.

In particular, the recommendations suggest that clinicians should initiate testosterone treatment in these patients only to help them improve their sexual function.

According to the authors, moderate-certainty evidence from seven trials involving testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone showed a small improvement in global sexual function, whereas low-certainty evidence from seven trials showed a small improvement in erectile function.

By contrast, the guideline emphasizes that clinicians should avoid prescribing testosterone treatment for any other concern in this population. Available evidence demonstrates little to no improvement in physical function, depressive symptoms, energy and vitality, or cognition among these men after receiving testosterone treatment, the authors stress.

ACP recommends that clinicians should reassess men’s symptoms within 12 months of testosterone treatment initiation, with regular reevaluations during subsequent follow up. Clinicians should discontinue treatment in men if sexual function fails to improve.

The guideline also recommends using intramuscular formulations of testosterone treatment for this patient population instead of transdermal ones, because intramuscular formulations cost less and have similar clinical effectiveness and harms.

“The annual cost in 2016 per beneficiary for TRT [testosterone replacement therapy] was $2,135.32 for the transdermal and $156.24 for the intramuscular formulation, according to paid pharmaceutical claims provided in the 2016 Medicare Part D Drug Claims data,” the authors write.

In an accompanying editorial, E. Victor Adlin, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, notes that these new ACP guidelines mostly mirror those recently proposed by both the Endocrine Society and the American Urological Association.

However, he predicts that many clinicians will question the ACP’s recommendation to favor use of intramuscular over transdermal formulations of testosterone.

Although Dr. Adlin acknowledges the lower cost of intramuscular preparations as a major consideration, he explains that “the need for an intramuscular injection every 1-4 weeks is a potential barrier to adherence, and some patients require visits to a health care facility for the injections, which may add to the expense.”

Fluctuating blood testosterone levels after each injection may also result in irregular symptom relief and difficulty achieving the desired blood level, he adds. “Individual preference may vary widely in the choice of testosterone therapy.”

Overall, Dr. Adlin stresses that a patient-clinician discussion should serve as the foundation for starting testosterone therapy in men with age-related low testosterone, with the patient playing a central role in treatment decision making.

This guideline was developed with financial support from the American College of Physicians’ operating budget. Study author Carrie Horwitch reports serving as a fiduciary officer for the Washington State Medical Association. Jennifer S. Lin, a member of the ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee, reports being an employee of Kaiser Permanente. Robert McLean, another member of the committee, reports being an employee of Northeast Medical Group. The remaining authors and the editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this story appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Physicians has released new clinical guidelines providing practical recommendations for testosterone therapy in adult men with age-related low testosterone.

The evidence-based recommendations target all clinicians and were published online January 6, 2020, in Annals of Internal Medicine, highlighting data from a systematic review of evidence on the efficacy and safety of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone.

Serum testosterone levels drop as men age, starting in their mid-30s, and approximately 20% of American men older than 60 years have low testosterone.

However, no widely accepted testosterone threshold level exists that represents a measure below which symptoms of androgen deficiency and adverse health outcomes occur.

In addition, the role of testosterone therapy in managing this patient population is controversial.

“The purpose of this American College of Physicians guideline is to present recommendations based on the best available evidence on the benefits, harms, and costs of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone,” write Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, from the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“This guideline does not address screening or diagnosis of hypogonadism or monitoring of testosterone levels,” the authors note.

In particular, the recommendations suggest that clinicians should initiate testosterone treatment in these patients only to help them improve their sexual function.

According to the authors, moderate-certainty evidence from seven trials involving testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone showed a small improvement in global sexual function, whereas low-certainty evidence from seven trials showed a small improvement in erectile function.

By contrast, the guideline emphasizes that clinicians should avoid prescribing testosterone treatment for any other concern in this population. Available evidence demonstrates little to no improvement in physical function, depressive symptoms, energy and vitality, or cognition among these men after receiving testosterone treatment, the authors stress.

ACP recommends that clinicians should reassess men’s symptoms within 12 months of testosterone treatment initiation, with regular reevaluations during subsequent follow up. Clinicians should discontinue treatment in men if sexual function fails to improve.

The guideline also recommends using intramuscular formulations of testosterone treatment for this patient population instead of transdermal ones, because intramuscular formulations cost less and have similar clinical effectiveness and harms.

“The annual cost in 2016 per beneficiary for TRT [testosterone replacement therapy] was $2,135.32 for the transdermal and $156.24 for the intramuscular formulation, according to paid pharmaceutical claims provided in the 2016 Medicare Part D Drug Claims data,” the authors write.

In an accompanying editorial, E. Victor Adlin, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, notes that these new ACP guidelines mostly mirror those recently proposed by both the Endocrine Society and the American Urological Association.

However, he predicts that many clinicians will question the ACP’s recommendation to favor use of intramuscular over transdermal formulations of testosterone.

Although Dr. Adlin acknowledges the lower cost of intramuscular preparations as a major consideration, he explains that “the need for an intramuscular injection every 1-4 weeks is a potential barrier to adherence, and some patients require visits to a health care facility for the injections, which may add to the expense.”

Fluctuating blood testosterone levels after each injection may also result in irregular symptom relief and difficulty achieving the desired blood level, he adds. “Individual preference may vary widely in the choice of testosterone therapy.”

Overall, Dr. Adlin stresses that a patient-clinician discussion should serve as the foundation for starting testosterone therapy in men with age-related low testosterone, with the patient playing a central role in treatment decision making.

This guideline was developed with financial support from the American College of Physicians’ operating budget. Study author Carrie Horwitch reports serving as a fiduciary officer for the Washington State Medical Association. Jennifer S. Lin, a member of the ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee, reports being an employee of Kaiser Permanente. Robert McLean, another member of the committee, reports being an employee of Northeast Medical Group. The remaining authors and the editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this story appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Physicians has released new clinical guidelines providing practical recommendations for testosterone therapy in adult men with age-related low testosterone.

The evidence-based recommendations target all clinicians and were published online January 6, 2020, in Annals of Internal Medicine, highlighting data from a systematic review of evidence on the efficacy and safety of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone.

Serum testosterone levels drop as men age, starting in their mid-30s, and approximately 20% of American men older than 60 years have low testosterone.

However, no widely accepted testosterone threshold level exists that represents a measure below which symptoms of androgen deficiency and adverse health outcomes occur.

In addition, the role of testosterone therapy in managing this patient population is controversial.

“The purpose of this American College of Physicians guideline is to present recommendations based on the best available evidence on the benefits, harms, and costs of testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone,” write Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, from the American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

“This guideline does not address screening or diagnosis of hypogonadism or monitoring of testosterone levels,” the authors note.

In particular, the recommendations suggest that clinicians should initiate testosterone treatment in these patients only to help them improve their sexual function.

According to the authors, moderate-certainty evidence from seven trials involving testosterone treatment in adult men with age-related low testosterone showed a small improvement in global sexual function, whereas low-certainty evidence from seven trials showed a small improvement in erectile function.

By contrast, the guideline emphasizes that clinicians should avoid prescribing testosterone treatment for any other concern in this population. Available evidence demonstrates little to no improvement in physical function, depressive symptoms, energy and vitality, or cognition among these men after receiving testosterone treatment, the authors stress.

ACP recommends that clinicians should reassess men’s symptoms within 12 months of testosterone treatment initiation, with regular reevaluations during subsequent follow up. Clinicians should discontinue treatment in men if sexual function fails to improve.

The guideline also recommends using intramuscular formulations of testosterone treatment for this patient population instead of transdermal ones, because intramuscular formulations cost less and have similar clinical effectiveness and harms.

“The annual cost in 2016 per beneficiary for TRT [testosterone replacement therapy] was $2,135.32 for the transdermal and $156.24 for the intramuscular formulation, according to paid pharmaceutical claims provided in the 2016 Medicare Part D Drug Claims data,” the authors write.

In an accompanying editorial, E. Victor Adlin, MD, of Temple University, Philadelphia, notes that these new ACP guidelines mostly mirror those recently proposed by both the Endocrine Society and the American Urological Association.

However, he predicts that many clinicians will question the ACP’s recommendation to favor use of intramuscular over transdermal formulations of testosterone.

Although Dr. Adlin acknowledges the lower cost of intramuscular preparations as a major consideration, he explains that “the need for an intramuscular injection every 1-4 weeks is a potential barrier to adherence, and some patients require visits to a health care facility for the injections, which may add to the expense.”

Fluctuating blood testosterone levels after each injection may also result in irregular symptom relief and difficulty achieving the desired blood level, he adds. “Individual preference may vary widely in the choice of testosterone therapy.”

Overall, Dr. Adlin stresses that a patient-clinician discussion should serve as the foundation for starting testosterone therapy in men with age-related low testosterone, with the patient playing a central role in treatment decision making.

This guideline was developed with financial support from the American College of Physicians’ operating budget. Study author Carrie Horwitch reports serving as a fiduciary officer for the Washington State Medical Association. Jennifer S. Lin, a member of the ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee, reports being an employee of Kaiser Permanente. Robert McLean, another member of the committee, reports being an employee of Northeast Medical Group. The remaining authors and the editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this story appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently released a clinical practice update for endoscopic treatment of Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and/or early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The update offers best practice advice for a range of clinical scenarios based on published evidence, including guidelines and recent systematic reviews, reported lead author Prateek Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City. Dr. Sharma was accompanied on the authoring review team by three other expert gastroenterologists from the United States and the Netherlands.

Beyond practice advice, the investigators highlighted a research focus for the future.

“Given the expense and time required for careful and continual surveillance after Barrett’s endoscopic therapy, the future must define improved means of risk-stratifying patients for therapy who are at highest risk for cancer development and for risk of recurrence after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia,” they wrote in Gastroenterology. “Potentially, we may use a panel of patient characteristics (such as the [Progression in Barrett’s] score), preablation tissue characteristics (e.g., baseline grade of dysplasia) and the posttherapy molecular makeup of the epithelium to help risk stratify our patients.”

For now, many of the treatment principles in the update depend upon histologic features.

For instance, either endoscopic therapy or continued surveillance are reasonable options for patients with Barrett’s esophagus who have confirmed and persistent low-grade dysplasia. In contrast, the update recommends that all patients with high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a) undergo endoscopic therapy, highlighting that this method is preferred over esophagectomy for patients with T1a cancer. Along the same lines, the investigators noted that endoscopic therapy is a “reasonable alternative” to esophagectomy in cases of T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma in the presence of minimal invasion and good to moderate differentiation, particularly in patients who are poor candidates for surgery.

During the decision-making process, patients with dysplasia should be advised that not undergoing endoscopic therapy may increase cancer risk, the investigators wrote, adding that patients should also be informed about endoscopic therapy–related risks of bleeding and perforation, which occur in less than 1% of patients, and the risk of postprocedural stricture formation, which occurs in approximately 6% of patients.

If endoscopic therapy is elected, the update suggests that the procedure be done by experts who perform at least 10 new cases per year.

Concerning specifics of therapy, the investigators advised that mucosal ablation be applied to all visible esophageal columnar mucosa, 5-10 mm proximal to the squamocolumnar junction, and 5-10 mm distal to the gastroesophageal junction. Ablation should only be performed in cases of flat Barrett’s esophagus in which no visible abnormalities or signs of inflammation are present, the review team wrote.

The investigators went on to lay out some “practical ground rules” for endoscopic therapy, including a potential pitfall.

“Ablation therapy may consist of multiple 2-3 monthly ablation sessions that may extend over a period of more than a year,” the investigators wrote. “The worst adverse outcome during the treatment period is failing to recognize and treat an invasive cancer while continuing the ablation sessions. This occurrence may place the patient outside of the window of opportunity for curative endoscopic treatment. Therefore, every ablation session starts with careful endoscopic inspection using [high-definition white-light endoscopy] and preferably optical chromoendoscopy to exclude the presence of visible abnormalities that require an endoscopic resection instead of the scheduled ablation. Routine biopsies of flat Barrett’s esophagus are not necessary or recommended prior to ablation at these sessions, as the blood may inhibit optimal energy transfer to the tissue.”

Following successfully achieved complete endoscopic and histologic eradication of intestinal metaplasia, the update calls for surveillance endoscopy with biopsies at intervals of 1 and 3 years for cases of low-grade dysplasia and at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months for high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma, followed by annual checks thereafter.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Olympus, Ironwood, Erbe, and others.

SOURCE: Sharma P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.051.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently released a clinical practice update for endoscopic treatment of Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and/or early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The update offers best practice advice for a range of clinical scenarios based on published evidence, including guidelines and recent systematic reviews, reported lead author Prateek Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City. Dr. Sharma was accompanied on the authoring review team by three other expert gastroenterologists from the United States and the Netherlands.

Beyond practice advice, the investigators highlighted a research focus for the future.

“Given the expense and time required for careful and continual surveillance after Barrett’s endoscopic therapy, the future must define improved means of risk-stratifying patients for therapy who are at highest risk for cancer development and for risk of recurrence after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia,” they wrote in Gastroenterology. “Potentially, we may use a panel of patient characteristics (such as the [Progression in Barrett’s] score), preablation tissue characteristics (e.g., baseline grade of dysplasia) and the posttherapy molecular makeup of the epithelium to help risk stratify our patients.”

For now, many of the treatment principles in the update depend upon histologic features.

For instance, either endoscopic therapy or continued surveillance are reasonable options for patients with Barrett’s esophagus who have confirmed and persistent low-grade dysplasia. In contrast, the update recommends that all patients with high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a) undergo endoscopic therapy, highlighting that this method is preferred over esophagectomy for patients with T1a cancer. Along the same lines, the investigators noted that endoscopic therapy is a “reasonable alternative” to esophagectomy in cases of T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma in the presence of minimal invasion and good to moderate differentiation, particularly in patients who are poor candidates for surgery.

During the decision-making process, patients with dysplasia should be advised that not undergoing endoscopic therapy may increase cancer risk, the investigators wrote, adding that patients should also be informed about endoscopic therapy–related risks of bleeding and perforation, which occur in less than 1% of patients, and the risk of postprocedural stricture formation, which occurs in approximately 6% of patients.

If endoscopic therapy is elected, the update suggests that the procedure be done by experts who perform at least 10 new cases per year.

Concerning specifics of therapy, the investigators advised that mucosal ablation be applied to all visible esophageal columnar mucosa, 5-10 mm proximal to the squamocolumnar junction, and 5-10 mm distal to the gastroesophageal junction. Ablation should only be performed in cases of flat Barrett’s esophagus in which no visible abnormalities or signs of inflammation are present, the review team wrote.

The investigators went on to lay out some “practical ground rules” for endoscopic therapy, including a potential pitfall.

“Ablation therapy may consist of multiple 2-3 monthly ablation sessions that may extend over a period of more than a year,” the investigators wrote. “The worst adverse outcome during the treatment period is failing to recognize and treat an invasive cancer while continuing the ablation sessions. This occurrence may place the patient outside of the window of opportunity for curative endoscopic treatment. Therefore, every ablation session starts with careful endoscopic inspection using [high-definition white-light endoscopy] and preferably optical chromoendoscopy to exclude the presence of visible abnormalities that require an endoscopic resection instead of the scheduled ablation. Routine biopsies of flat Barrett’s esophagus are not necessary or recommended prior to ablation at these sessions, as the blood may inhibit optimal energy transfer to the tissue.”

Following successfully achieved complete endoscopic and histologic eradication of intestinal metaplasia, the update calls for surveillance endoscopy with biopsies at intervals of 1 and 3 years for cases of low-grade dysplasia and at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months for high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma, followed by annual checks thereafter.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Olympus, Ironwood, Erbe, and others.

SOURCE: Sharma P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.051.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently released a clinical practice update for endoscopic treatment of Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and/or early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The update offers best practice advice for a range of clinical scenarios based on published evidence, including guidelines and recent systematic reviews, reported lead author Prateek Sharma, MD, of the University of Kansas, Kansas City. Dr. Sharma was accompanied on the authoring review team by three other expert gastroenterologists from the United States and the Netherlands.

Beyond practice advice, the investigators highlighted a research focus for the future.

“Given the expense and time required for careful and continual surveillance after Barrett’s endoscopic therapy, the future must define improved means of risk-stratifying patients for therapy who are at highest risk for cancer development and for risk of recurrence after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia,” they wrote in Gastroenterology. “Potentially, we may use a panel of patient characteristics (such as the [Progression in Barrett’s] score), preablation tissue characteristics (e.g., baseline grade of dysplasia) and the posttherapy molecular makeup of the epithelium to help risk stratify our patients.”

For now, many of the treatment principles in the update depend upon histologic features.

For instance, either endoscopic therapy or continued surveillance are reasonable options for patients with Barrett’s esophagus who have confirmed and persistent low-grade dysplasia. In contrast, the update recommends that all patients with high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a) undergo endoscopic therapy, highlighting that this method is preferred over esophagectomy for patients with T1a cancer. Along the same lines, the investigators noted that endoscopic therapy is a “reasonable alternative” to esophagectomy in cases of T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma in the presence of minimal invasion and good to moderate differentiation, particularly in patients who are poor candidates for surgery.

During the decision-making process, patients with dysplasia should be advised that not undergoing endoscopic therapy may increase cancer risk, the investigators wrote, adding that patients should also be informed about endoscopic therapy–related risks of bleeding and perforation, which occur in less than 1% of patients, and the risk of postprocedural stricture formation, which occurs in approximately 6% of patients.

If endoscopic therapy is elected, the update suggests that the procedure be done by experts who perform at least 10 new cases per year.

Concerning specifics of therapy, the investigators advised that mucosal ablation be applied to all visible esophageal columnar mucosa, 5-10 mm proximal to the squamocolumnar junction, and 5-10 mm distal to the gastroesophageal junction. Ablation should only be performed in cases of flat Barrett’s esophagus in which no visible abnormalities or signs of inflammation are present, the review team wrote.

The investigators went on to lay out some “practical ground rules” for endoscopic therapy, including a potential pitfall.

“Ablation therapy may consist of multiple 2-3 monthly ablation sessions that may extend over a period of more than a year,” the investigators wrote. “The worst adverse outcome during the treatment period is failing to recognize and treat an invasive cancer while continuing the ablation sessions. This occurrence may place the patient outside of the window of opportunity for curative endoscopic treatment. Therefore, every ablation session starts with careful endoscopic inspection using [high-definition white-light endoscopy] and preferably optical chromoendoscopy to exclude the presence of visible abnormalities that require an endoscopic resection instead of the scheduled ablation. Routine biopsies of flat Barrett’s esophagus are not necessary or recommended prior to ablation at these sessions, as the blood may inhibit optimal energy transfer to the tissue.”

Following successfully achieved complete endoscopic and histologic eradication of intestinal metaplasia, the update calls for surveillance endoscopy with biopsies at intervals of 1 and 3 years for cases of low-grade dysplasia and at intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months for high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma, followed by annual checks thereafter.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Olympus, Ironwood, Erbe, and others.

SOURCE: Sharma P et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.051.

ORLANDO – It is good practice to consult with a pulmonary hypertension (PH) expert before referring a patient with sickle cell disease (SCD) for right-heart catheterization or PH evaluation, according to new American Society of Hematology guidelines for the screening and management of cardiopulmonary and kidney disease in patients with SCD.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

That “Good Practice” recommendation is one of several included in the evidence-based guidelines published Dec. 10 in Blood Advances and highlighted during a Special Education Session at the annual ASH meeting.

The guidelines provide 10 main recommendations intended to “support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about screening, diagnosis, and management of cardiopulmonary and renal complications of SCD,” wrote Robert I. Liem, MD, of Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and colleagues.

The recommendations, agreed upon by a multidisciplinary guideline panel, relate to screening, diagnosis, and management of PH, pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), hypertension, proteinuria and chronic kidney disease, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Most are “conditional,” as opposed to “strong,” because of a paucity of direct, high-quality outcomes data, and they are accompanied by the Good Practice Statements, descriptive remarks and caveats based on the available data, as well as suggestions for future research.

At the special ASH session, Ankit A. Desai, MD, highlighted some of the recommendations and discussed considerations for their practical application.

The Good Practice Statement on consulting a specialist before referring a patient for PH relates specifically to Recommendations 2a and 2b on the management of abnormal echocardiography, explained Dr. Desai of Indiana University, Indianapolis.

For asymptomatic children and adults with SCD and an isolated peak tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity (TRJV) of at least 2.5-2.9 m/s on echocardiography, the panel recommends against right-heart catheterization (Recommendation 2a, conditional), he said.

For children and adults with SCD and a peak TRJV of at least 2.5 m/s who also have a reduced 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and/or elevated N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), the panel supports right-heart catheterization (Recommendation 2b, conditional).

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Dr. Desai noted that the 2.5 m/s threshold was found to be suboptimal when used as the sole criteria for right-heart catheterization. Using that threshold alone is associated with “moderate to large” harms, such as starting inappropriate PH-specific therapies and/or performing unnecessary right-heart catheterization. However, when used in combination with 6MWD, the predictive capacity improved significantly, and the risk for potential harm was low, he explained.

Another Good Practice Statement included in the guidelines, and relevant to these recommendations on managing abnormal echocardiography, addresses the importance of basing decisions about the need for right-heart catheterization on echocardiograms obtained at steady state rather than during acute illness, such as during hospitalization for pain or acute chest syndrome.

This is in part because of technical factors, Dr. Desai said.

“We know that repeating [echocardiography] is something that should be considered in patients because ... results vary – sometimes quite a bit – from study to study,” he said.

As for the cutoff values for 6MWD and NT-proBNP, “a decent amount of literature” suggests that less than 333 m and less than 160 pg/ml, respectively, are good thresholds, he said.

“Importantly, this should all be taken in the context of good clinical judgment ... along with discussion with a PH expert,” he added.

The full guidelines are available, along with additional ASH guidelines on immune thrombocytopenia and prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients, at the ASH publications website.

Of note, the SCD guidelines on cardiopulmonary disease and kidney disease are one of five sets of SCD guidelines that have been in development; these are the first of those to be published. The remaining four sets of guidelines will address pain, cerebrovascular complications, transfusion, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. All will be published in Blood Advances, and according to Dr. Liem, the transfusion medicine guidelines have been accepted and should be published in January 2020, followed by those for cerebrovascular complications. Publication of the pain and transplant guidelines are anticipated later in 2020.

Dr. Liem and Dr. Desai reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – It is good practice to consult with a pulmonary hypertension (PH) expert before referring a patient with sickle cell disease (SCD) for right-heart catheterization or PH evaluation, according to new American Society of Hematology guidelines for the screening and management of cardiopulmonary and kidney disease in patients with SCD.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

That “Good Practice” recommendation is one of several included in the evidence-based guidelines published Dec. 10 in Blood Advances and highlighted during a Special Education Session at the annual ASH meeting.

The guidelines provide 10 main recommendations intended to “support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about screening, diagnosis, and management of cardiopulmonary and renal complications of SCD,” wrote Robert I. Liem, MD, of Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and colleagues.

The recommendations, agreed upon by a multidisciplinary guideline panel, relate to screening, diagnosis, and management of PH, pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), hypertension, proteinuria and chronic kidney disease, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Most are “conditional,” as opposed to “strong,” because of a paucity of direct, high-quality outcomes data, and they are accompanied by the Good Practice Statements, descriptive remarks and caveats based on the available data, as well as suggestions for future research.

At the special ASH session, Ankit A. Desai, MD, highlighted some of the recommendations and discussed considerations for their practical application.

The Good Practice Statement on consulting a specialist before referring a patient for PH relates specifically to Recommendations 2a and 2b on the management of abnormal echocardiography, explained Dr. Desai of Indiana University, Indianapolis.

For asymptomatic children and adults with SCD and an isolated peak tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity (TRJV) of at least 2.5-2.9 m/s on echocardiography, the panel recommends against right-heart catheterization (Recommendation 2a, conditional), he said.

For children and adults with SCD and a peak TRJV of at least 2.5 m/s who also have a reduced 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and/or elevated N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), the panel supports right-heart catheterization (Recommendation 2b, conditional).

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Dr. Desai noted that the 2.5 m/s threshold was found to be suboptimal when used as the sole criteria for right-heart catheterization. Using that threshold alone is associated with “moderate to large” harms, such as starting inappropriate PH-specific therapies and/or performing unnecessary right-heart catheterization. However, when used in combination with 6MWD, the predictive capacity improved significantly, and the risk for potential harm was low, he explained.

Another Good Practice Statement included in the guidelines, and relevant to these recommendations on managing abnormal echocardiography, addresses the importance of basing decisions about the need for right-heart catheterization on echocardiograms obtained at steady state rather than during acute illness, such as during hospitalization for pain or acute chest syndrome.

This is in part because of technical factors, Dr. Desai said.

“We know that repeating [echocardiography] is something that should be considered in patients because ... results vary – sometimes quite a bit – from study to study,” he said.

As for the cutoff values for 6MWD and NT-proBNP, “a decent amount of literature” suggests that less than 333 m and less than 160 pg/ml, respectively, are good thresholds, he said.

“Importantly, this should all be taken in the context of good clinical judgment ... along with discussion with a PH expert,” he added.

The full guidelines are available, along with additional ASH guidelines on immune thrombocytopenia and prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients, at the ASH publications website.

Of note, the SCD guidelines on cardiopulmonary disease and kidney disease are one of five sets of SCD guidelines that have been in development; these are the first of those to be published. The remaining four sets of guidelines will address pain, cerebrovascular complications, transfusion, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. All will be published in Blood Advances, and according to Dr. Liem, the transfusion medicine guidelines have been accepted and should be published in January 2020, followed by those for cerebrovascular complications. Publication of the pain and transplant guidelines are anticipated later in 2020.

Dr. Liem and Dr. Desai reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – It is good practice to consult with a pulmonary hypertension (PH) expert before referring a patient with sickle cell disease (SCD) for right-heart catheterization or PH evaluation, according to new American Society of Hematology guidelines for the screening and management of cardiopulmonary and kidney disease in patients with SCD.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

That “Good Practice” recommendation is one of several included in the evidence-based guidelines published Dec. 10 in Blood Advances and highlighted during a Special Education Session at the annual ASH meeting.

The guidelines provide 10 main recommendations intended to “support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about screening, diagnosis, and management of cardiopulmonary and renal complications of SCD,” wrote Robert I. Liem, MD, of Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and colleagues.

The recommendations, agreed upon by a multidisciplinary guideline panel, relate to screening, diagnosis, and management of PH, pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), hypertension, proteinuria and chronic kidney disease, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Most are “conditional,” as opposed to “strong,” because of a paucity of direct, high-quality outcomes data, and they are accompanied by the Good Practice Statements, descriptive remarks and caveats based on the available data, as well as suggestions for future research.

At the special ASH session, Ankit A. Desai, MD, highlighted some of the recommendations and discussed considerations for their practical application.

The Good Practice Statement on consulting a specialist before referring a patient for PH relates specifically to Recommendations 2a and 2b on the management of abnormal echocardiography, explained Dr. Desai of Indiana University, Indianapolis.

For asymptomatic children and adults with SCD and an isolated peak tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity (TRJV) of at least 2.5-2.9 m/s on echocardiography, the panel recommends against right-heart catheterization (Recommendation 2a, conditional), he said.

For children and adults with SCD and a peak TRJV of at least 2.5 m/s who also have a reduced 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and/or elevated N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), the panel supports right-heart catheterization (Recommendation 2b, conditional).

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Dr. Desai noted that the 2.5 m/s threshold was found to be suboptimal when used as the sole criteria for right-heart catheterization. Using that threshold alone is associated with “moderate to large” harms, such as starting inappropriate PH-specific therapies and/or performing unnecessary right-heart catheterization. However, when used in combination with 6MWD, the predictive capacity improved significantly, and the risk for potential harm was low, he explained.

Another Good Practice Statement included in the guidelines, and relevant to these recommendations on managing abnormal echocardiography, addresses the importance of basing decisions about the need for right-heart catheterization on echocardiograms obtained at steady state rather than during acute illness, such as during hospitalization for pain or acute chest syndrome.

This is in part because of technical factors, Dr. Desai said.

“We know that repeating [echocardiography] is something that should be considered in patients because ... results vary – sometimes quite a bit – from study to study,” he said.

As for the cutoff values for 6MWD and NT-proBNP, “a decent amount of literature” suggests that less than 333 m and less than 160 pg/ml, respectively, are good thresholds, he said.

“Importantly, this should all be taken in the context of good clinical judgment ... along with discussion with a PH expert,” he added.

The full guidelines are available, along with additional ASH guidelines on immune thrombocytopenia and prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients, at the ASH publications website.

Of note, the SCD guidelines on cardiopulmonary disease and kidney disease are one of five sets of SCD guidelines that have been in development; these are the first of those to be published. The remaining four sets of guidelines will address pain, cerebrovascular complications, transfusion, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant. All will be published in Blood Advances, and according to Dr. Liem, the transfusion medicine guidelines have been accepted and should be published in January 2020, followed by those for cerebrovascular complications. Publication of the pain and transplant guidelines are anticipated later in 2020.

Dr. Liem and Dr. Desai reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – The latest American Society of Hematology guideline on venous thromboembolism (VTE) tackles 30 key questions regarding prophylaxis in hospitalized patients undergoing surgery, according to the chair of the guideline panel, who highlighted 9 of those questions during a special session at the society’s annual meeting.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The clinical practice guideline, published just about a week before the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, focuses mainly on pharmacologic prophylaxis in specific surgical settings, said David R. Anderson, MD, dean of the faculty of medicine of Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S.

“Our guidelines focused upon clinically important symptomatic outcomes, with less emphasis being placed on asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis detected by screening tests,” Dr. Anderson said.

At the special education session, Dr. Anderson highlighted several specific recommendations on prophylaxis in surgical patients.

Pharmacologic prophylaxis is not recommended for patients experiencing major trauma deemed to be at high risk of bleeding. Its use does reduce risk of symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by about 10 events per 1,000 patients treated; however, Dr. Anderson said, the panel’s opinion was that this benefit was outweighed by increased risk of major bleeding, at 24 events per 1,000 patients treated.

“We do recommend, however that this risk of bleeding must be reevaluated over the course of recovery of patients, and this may change the decision around this intervention over time,” Dr. Anderson told attendees at the special session.

That’s because pharmacologic prophylaxis is recommended in surgical patients at low to moderate risk of bleeding. In this scenario, the incremental risk of major bleeding (14 events per 1,000 patients treated) is outweighed by the benefit of the reduction of symptomatic VTE events, according to Dr. Anderson.

When pharmacologic prophylaxis is used, the panel recommends combined prophylaxis – mechanical prophylaxis in addition to pharmacologic prophylaxis – especially in those patients at high or very high risk of VTE. Evidence shows that the combination approach significantly reduces risk of PE, and strongly suggests it may also reduce risk of symptomatic proximal DVT, Dr. Anderson said.

In surgical patients not receiving pharmacologic prophylaxis, mechanical prophylaxis is recommended over no mechanical prophylaxis, he added. Moreover, in those patients receiving mechanical prophylaxis, the ASH panel recommends use of intermittent compression devices over graduated compression stockings.

The panel comes out against prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion in the guidelines. Dr. Anderson said that the “small reduction” in PE risk seen in observational studies is outweighed by increased risk of DVT, and a resulting trend for increased mortality, associated with insertion of the devices.

“We did not consider other risks of IVC filters such as filter embolization or perforation, which again would be complications that would support our recommendation against routine use of these devices in patients undergoing major surgery,” he said.

In terms of the type of pharmacologic prophylaxis to use, the panel said low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin would be reasonable choices in this setting. Available data do not demonstrate any significant differences between these choices for major clinical outcomes, Dr. Anderson added.

The guideline also addresses duration of pharmacologic prophylaxis, stating that extended prophylaxis – of at least 3 weeks – is favored over short-term prophylaxis, or up to 2 weeks of treatment. The extended approach significantly reduces risk of symptomatic PE and proximal DVT, though most of the supporting data come from studies of major joint arthroplasty and major general surgical procedures for patients with cancer. “We need more studies in other clinical areas to examine this particular question,” Dr. Anderson said.

The guideline on prophylaxis in surgical patients was published in Blood Advances (2019 Dec 3;3[23]:3898-944). Six other ASH VTE guidelines, all published in 2018, covered prophylaxis in medical patients, diagnosis, VTE in pregnancy, optimal anticoagulation, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and pediatric considerations. The guidelines are available on the ASH website.

Dr. Anderson reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

ORLANDO – The latest American Society of Hematology guideline on venous thromboembolism (VTE) tackles 30 key questions regarding prophylaxis in hospitalized patients undergoing surgery, according to the chair of the guideline panel, who highlighted 9 of those questions during a special session at the society’s annual meeting.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The clinical practice guideline, published just about a week before the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, focuses mainly on pharmacologic prophylaxis in specific surgical settings, said David R. Anderson, MD, dean of the faculty of medicine of Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S.

“Our guidelines focused upon clinically important symptomatic outcomes, with less emphasis being placed on asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis detected by screening tests,” Dr. Anderson said.

At the special education session, Dr. Anderson highlighted several specific recommendations on prophylaxis in surgical patients.

Pharmacologic prophylaxis is not recommended for patients experiencing major trauma deemed to be at high risk of bleeding. Its use does reduce risk of symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by about 10 events per 1,000 patients treated; however, Dr. Anderson said, the panel’s opinion was that this benefit was outweighed by increased risk of major bleeding, at 24 events per 1,000 patients treated.

“We do recommend, however that this risk of bleeding must be reevaluated over the course of recovery of patients, and this may change the decision around this intervention over time,” Dr. Anderson told attendees at the special session.

That’s because pharmacologic prophylaxis is recommended in surgical patients at low to moderate risk of bleeding. In this scenario, the incremental risk of major bleeding (14 events per 1,000 patients treated) is outweighed by the benefit of the reduction of symptomatic VTE events, according to Dr. Anderson.

When pharmacologic prophylaxis is used, the panel recommends combined prophylaxis – mechanical prophylaxis in addition to pharmacologic prophylaxis – especially in those patients at high or very high risk of VTE. Evidence shows that the combination approach significantly reduces risk of PE, and strongly suggests it may also reduce risk of symptomatic proximal DVT, Dr. Anderson said.

In surgical patients not receiving pharmacologic prophylaxis, mechanical prophylaxis is recommended over no mechanical prophylaxis, he added. Moreover, in those patients receiving mechanical prophylaxis, the ASH panel recommends use of intermittent compression devices over graduated compression stockings.

The panel comes out against prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion in the guidelines. Dr. Anderson said that the “small reduction” in PE risk seen in observational studies is outweighed by increased risk of DVT, and a resulting trend for increased mortality, associated with insertion of the devices.

“We did not consider other risks of IVC filters such as filter embolization or perforation, which again would be complications that would support our recommendation against routine use of these devices in patients undergoing major surgery,” he said.

In terms of the type of pharmacologic prophylaxis to use, the panel said low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin would be reasonable choices in this setting. Available data do not demonstrate any significant differences between these choices for major clinical outcomes, Dr. Anderson added.

The guideline also addresses duration of pharmacologic prophylaxis, stating that extended prophylaxis – of at least 3 weeks – is favored over short-term prophylaxis, or up to 2 weeks of treatment. The extended approach significantly reduces risk of symptomatic PE and proximal DVT, though most of the supporting data come from studies of major joint arthroplasty and major general surgical procedures for patients with cancer. “We need more studies in other clinical areas to examine this particular question,” Dr. Anderson said.

The guideline on prophylaxis in surgical patients was published in Blood Advances (2019 Dec 3;3[23]:3898-944). Six other ASH VTE guidelines, all published in 2018, covered prophylaxis in medical patients, diagnosis, VTE in pregnancy, optimal anticoagulation, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and pediatric considerations. The guidelines are available on the ASH website.

Dr. Anderson reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

ORLANDO – The latest American Society of Hematology guideline on venous thromboembolism (VTE) tackles 30 key questions regarding prophylaxis in hospitalized patients undergoing surgery, according to the chair of the guideline panel, who highlighted 9 of those questions during a special session at the society’s annual meeting.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The clinical practice guideline, published just about a week before the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, focuses mainly on pharmacologic prophylaxis in specific surgical settings, said David R. Anderson, MD, dean of the faculty of medicine of Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S.

“Our guidelines focused upon clinically important symptomatic outcomes, with less emphasis being placed on asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis detected by screening tests,” Dr. Anderson said.

At the special education session, Dr. Anderson highlighted several specific recommendations on prophylaxis in surgical patients.

Pharmacologic prophylaxis is not recommended for patients experiencing major trauma deemed to be at high risk of bleeding. Its use does reduce risk of symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by about 10 events per 1,000 patients treated; however, Dr. Anderson said, the panel’s opinion was that this benefit was outweighed by increased risk of major bleeding, at 24 events per 1,000 patients treated.

“We do recommend, however that this risk of bleeding must be reevaluated over the course of recovery of patients, and this may change the decision around this intervention over time,” Dr. Anderson told attendees at the special session.

That’s because pharmacologic prophylaxis is recommended in surgical patients at low to moderate risk of bleeding. In this scenario, the incremental risk of major bleeding (14 events per 1,000 patients treated) is outweighed by the benefit of the reduction of symptomatic VTE events, according to Dr. Anderson.

When pharmacologic prophylaxis is used, the panel recommends combined prophylaxis – mechanical prophylaxis in addition to pharmacologic prophylaxis – especially in those patients at high or very high risk of VTE. Evidence shows that the combination approach significantly reduces risk of PE, and strongly suggests it may also reduce risk of symptomatic proximal DVT, Dr. Anderson said.

In surgical patients not receiving pharmacologic prophylaxis, mechanical prophylaxis is recommended over no mechanical prophylaxis, he added. Moreover, in those patients receiving mechanical prophylaxis, the ASH panel recommends use of intermittent compression devices over graduated compression stockings.

The panel comes out against prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion in the guidelines. Dr. Anderson said that the “small reduction” in PE risk seen in observational studies is outweighed by increased risk of DVT, and a resulting trend for increased mortality, associated with insertion of the devices.

“We did not consider other risks of IVC filters such as filter embolization or perforation, which again would be complications that would support our recommendation against routine use of these devices in patients undergoing major surgery,” he said.

In terms of the type of pharmacologic prophylaxis to use, the panel said low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin would be reasonable choices in this setting. Available data do not demonstrate any significant differences between these choices for major clinical outcomes, Dr. Anderson added.

The guideline also addresses duration of pharmacologic prophylaxis, stating that extended prophylaxis – of at least 3 weeks – is favored over short-term prophylaxis, or up to 2 weeks of treatment. The extended approach significantly reduces risk of symptomatic PE and proximal DVT, though most of the supporting data come from studies of major joint arthroplasty and major general surgical procedures for patients with cancer. “We need more studies in other clinical areas to examine this particular question,” Dr. Anderson said.

The guideline on prophylaxis in surgical patients was published in Blood Advances (2019 Dec 3;3[23]:3898-944). Six other ASH VTE guidelines, all published in 2018, covered prophylaxis in medical patients, diagnosis, VTE in pregnancy, optimal anticoagulation, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and pediatric considerations. The guidelines are available on the ASH website.

Dr. Anderson reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

PHILADELPHIA – The definition and treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should change based on recent findings and analyses from major trials, said a key heart failure leader at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The people charged with writing U.S. guidelines for heart failure management already have enough evidence to change the recommended way of using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), said Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Accumulated evidence from studies and more than 5 years of experience in routine practice with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) combination sacubitril/valsartan for treating HFrEF patients justifies striking the existing recommendation to first start patients on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and only after that switching to sacubitril/valsartan, a sequence that has rankled some clinicians as an unnecessary delay and barrier to starting patients on the ARNI regimen.

U.S. guidelines should now suggest that ARNI treatment start immediately, suggested Dr. Yancy, who chaired the AHA/American College of Cardiology panel that updated U.S. guidelines for heart failure management in 2013 (Circulation. 2013 Oct 15;128[16]:e240-327), 2016 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep;68[13]:1476-88), and 2017 (Circulation. 2017 Aug 8; 136[6]:e137-61).

Expanding the heart failure group for sacubitril/valsartan

Dr. Yancy also proposed a second major and immediate change to the existing heart failure guideline based on a new appreciation of a heart failure population that could benefit from ARNI treatment: patients with “mid-range” heart failure, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 41%-49% that places them between patients with HFrEF with an ejection fraction of 40% or less, and those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) of 50% or more. As yet unchanged in the 2013 AHA/ACC heart failure guideline is the proposition that patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 41%-49% have “borderline” heart failure with characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes “similar to patients with HFpEF.”

That premise should now go out the window, urged Dr. Yancy, based on a new analysis of data collected from both the recent PARAGON-HF trial of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF and ejection fractions of 45% or higher (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20) and the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial that established sacubitril/valsartan as a treatment for patients with HFrEF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). A combined analysis of the more than 13,000 total patients in both studies suggested that “patients with ejection fraction lower than normal, which includes those with so-called heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or borderline ejection fraction, would likely benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with RAS inhibition,” concluded the authors of the new analysis (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044586).

Dr. Yancy argued that, based on this new analysis, a further revision to the 2013 guideline should say that patients with heart failure with a LVEF of 41%-49% have characteristics, treatment responses, and outcomes that “appear similar to those of patient with HFrEF,” a sharp departure from the existing text that lumps these patients with the HFpEF subgroup. “There appears to be a signal that extends the benefit of ARNI to patients with ejection fractions above the current threshold for HFrEF but below what is typically HFpEF,” he said.

Bringing SGLT2 inhibitors into heart failure management

Dr. Yancy also cited recently reported data from another landmark trial, DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure), as an impetus for both another immediate change to the guideline and for a potential second change pending a report of confirmatory evidence that may arrive in 2020.

The DAPA-HF results showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) was just as effective for preventing all-cause death and heart failure hospitalizations and urgent visits in patients without type 2 diabetes as it is in patients with type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008), a remarkable finding for an agent that came onto the U.S. market as a diabetes drug specifically aimed at reducing levels of glycosylated hemoglobin.

Dr. Yancy proposed an immediate guideline change to acknowledge the proven protection against incident heart failure that treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor gives patients with type 2 diabetes. There is now “a strong opportunity to use an SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes to reduce the incidence of heart failure,” he said.

And he added that, if results from EMPEROR REDUCED (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), studying the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in HFrEF patients with and without type 2 diabetes, can confirm the efficacy of a second drug from this class in preventing heart failure events in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes, then the time will have arrived for another guideline change to establish the SGLT2 inhibitors as a new “foundational” drug for the management of all HFrEF patients, regardless of their level of glycemic control. The SGLT2 inhibitors are a particularly attractive additional drug because they are taken once daily orally with no need for dosage adjustment, so far they have shown excellent safety in patients without diabetes with no episodes of hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis, and they have even shown evidence for heart failure benefit in patients older than 75 years, Dr. Yancy noted.

Dr. Yancy had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – The definition and treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should change based on recent findings and analyses from major trials, said a key heart failure leader at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The people charged with writing U.S. guidelines for heart failure management already have enough evidence to change the recommended way of using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), said Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Accumulated evidence from studies and more than 5 years of experience in routine practice with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) combination sacubitril/valsartan for treating HFrEF patients justifies striking the existing recommendation to first start patients on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and only after that switching to sacubitril/valsartan, a sequence that has rankled some clinicians as an unnecessary delay and barrier to starting patients on the ARNI regimen.

U.S. guidelines should now suggest that ARNI treatment start immediately, suggested Dr. Yancy, who chaired the AHA/American College of Cardiology panel that updated U.S. guidelines for heart failure management in 2013 (Circulation. 2013 Oct 15;128[16]:e240-327), 2016 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep;68[13]:1476-88), and 2017 (Circulation. 2017 Aug 8; 136[6]:e137-61).

Expanding the heart failure group for sacubitril/valsartan

Dr. Yancy also proposed a second major and immediate change to the existing heart failure guideline based on a new appreciation of a heart failure population that could benefit from ARNI treatment: patients with “mid-range” heart failure, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 41%-49% that places them between patients with HFrEF with an ejection fraction of 40% or less, and those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) of 50% or more. As yet unchanged in the 2013 AHA/ACC heart failure guideline is the proposition that patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 41%-49% have “borderline” heart failure with characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes “similar to patients with HFpEF.”

That premise should now go out the window, urged Dr. Yancy, based on a new analysis of data collected from both the recent PARAGON-HF trial of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF and ejection fractions of 45% or higher (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20) and the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial that established sacubitril/valsartan as a treatment for patients with HFrEF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). A combined analysis of the more than 13,000 total patients in both studies suggested that “patients with ejection fraction lower than normal, which includes those with so-called heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or borderline ejection fraction, would likely benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with RAS inhibition,” concluded the authors of the new analysis (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044586).

Dr. Yancy argued that, based on this new analysis, a further revision to the 2013 guideline should say that patients with heart failure with a LVEF of 41%-49% have characteristics, treatment responses, and outcomes that “appear similar to those of patient with HFrEF,” a sharp departure from the existing text that lumps these patients with the HFpEF subgroup. “There appears to be a signal that extends the benefit of ARNI to patients with ejection fractions above the current threshold for HFrEF but below what is typically HFpEF,” he said.

Bringing SGLT2 inhibitors into heart failure management

Dr. Yancy also cited recently reported data from another landmark trial, DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure), as an impetus for both another immediate change to the guideline and for a potential second change pending a report of confirmatory evidence that may arrive in 2020.

The DAPA-HF results showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) was just as effective for preventing all-cause death and heart failure hospitalizations and urgent visits in patients without type 2 diabetes as it is in patients with type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008), a remarkable finding for an agent that came onto the U.S. market as a diabetes drug specifically aimed at reducing levels of glycosylated hemoglobin.

Dr. Yancy proposed an immediate guideline change to acknowledge the proven protection against incident heart failure that treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor gives patients with type 2 diabetes. There is now “a strong opportunity to use an SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes to reduce the incidence of heart failure,” he said.

And he added that, if results from EMPEROR REDUCED (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), studying the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in HFrEF patients with and without type 2 diabetes, can confirm the efficacy of a second drug from this class in preventing heart failure events in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes, then the time will have arrived for another guideline change to establish the SGLT2 inhibitors as a new “foundational” drug for the management of all HFrEF patients, regardless of their level of glycemic control. The SGLT2 inhibitors are a particularly attractive additional drug because they are taken once daily orally with no need for dosage adjustment, so far they have shown excellent safety in patients without diabetes with no episodes of hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis, and they have even shown evidence for heart failure benefit in patients older than 75 years, Dr. Yancy noted.

Dr. Yancy had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – The definition and treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should change based on recent findings and analyses from major trials, said a key heart failure leader at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The people charged with writing U.S. guidelines for heart failure management already have enough evidence to change the recommended way of using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), said Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Accumulated evidence from studies and more than 5 years of experience in routine practice with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) combination sacubitril/valsartan for treating HFrEF patients justifies striking the existing recommendation to first start patients on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and only after that switching to sacubitril/valsartan, a sequence that has rankled some clinicians as an unnecessary delay and barrier to starting patients on the ARNI regimen.

U.S. guidelines should now suggest that ARNI treatment start immediately, suggested Dr. Yancy, who chaired the AHA/American College of Cardiology panel that updated U.S. guidelines for heart failure management in 2013 (Circulation. 2013 Oct 15;128[16]:e240-327), 2016 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep;68[13]:1476-88), and 2017 (Circulation. 2017 Aug 8; 136[6]:e137-61).

Expanding the heart failure group for sacubitril/valsartan

Dr. Yancy also proposed a second major and immediate change to the existing heart failure guideline based on a new appreciation of a heart failure population that could benefit from ARNI treatment: patients with “mid-range” heart failure, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 41%-49% that places them between patients with HFrEF with an ejection fraction of 40% or less, and those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) of 50% or more. As yet unchanged in the 2013 AHA/ACC heart failure guideline is the proposition that patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 41%-49% have “borderline” heart failure with characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes “similar to patients with HFpEF.”

That premise should now go out the window, urged Dr. Yancy, based on a new analysis of data collected from both the recent PARAGON-HF trial of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF and ejection fractions of 45% or higher (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20) and the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial that established sacubitril/valsartan as a treatment for patients with HFrEF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). A combined analysis of the more than 13,000 total patients in both studies suggested that “patients with ejection fraction lower than normal, which includes those with so-called heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or borderline ejection fraction, would likely benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with RAS inhibition,” concluded the authors of the new analysis (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044586).

Dr. Yancy argued that, based on this new analysis, a further revision to the 2013 guideline should say that patients with heart failure with a LVEF of 41%-49% have characteristics, treatment responses, and outcomes that “appear similar to those of patient with HFrEF,” a sharp departure from the existing text that lumps these patients with the HFpEF subgroup. “There appears to be a signal that extends the benefit of ARNI to patients with ejection fractions above the current threshold for HFrEF but below what is typically HFpEF,” he said.

Bringing SGLT2 inhibitors into heart failure management

Dr. Yancy also cited recently reported data from another landmark trial, DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure), as an impetus for both another immediate change to the guideline and for a potential second change pending a report of confirmatory evidence that may arrive in 2020.

The DAPA-HF results showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) was just as effective for preventing all-cause death and heart failure hospitalizations and urgent visits in patients without type 2 diabetes as it is in patients with type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008), a remarkable finding for an agent that came onto the U.S. market as a diabetes drug specifically aimed at reducing levels of glycosylated hemoglobin.

Dr. Yancy proposed an immediate guideline change to acknowledge the proven protection against incident heart failure that treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor gives patients with type 2 diabetes. There is now “a strong opportunity to use an SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes to reduce the incidence of heart failure,” he said.

And he added that, if results from EMPEROR REDUCED (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), studying the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in HFrEF patients with and without type 2 diabetes, can confirm the efficacy of a second drug from this class in preventing heart failure events in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes, then the time will have arrived for another guideline change to establish the SGLT2 inhibitors as a new “foundational” drug for the management of all HFrEF patients, regardless of their level of glycemic control. The SGLT2 inhibitors are a particularly attractive additional drug because they are taken once daily orally with no need for dosage adjustment, so far they have shown excellent safety in patients without diabetes with no episodes of hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis, and they have even shown evidence for heart failure benefit in patients older than 75 years, Dr. Yancy noted.

Dr. Yancy had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]