User login
New guideline conditionally recommends long-term home NIV for COPD patients
from a European Respiratory Society task force.
“Our recommendations, based on the best available evidence, can guide the management of chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure in COPD patients aimed at improving patient outcomes,” wrote Begum Ergan, MD, of Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey, and coauthors. The guideline was published in the European Respiratory Journal.
To provide insight into the clinical application of LTH-NIV, the European Respiratory Society convened a task force of 20 clinicians, methodologists, and experts. Their four recommendations were developed based on the GRADE (Grading, Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.
The first recommendation was to use LTH-NIV for patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD. Though an analysis of randomized, controlled trials showed little effect on mortality or hospitalizations, pooled analyses showed that NIV may decrease dyspnea scores (standardized mean difference, –0.51; 95% confidence interval, –0.06 to –0.95) and increase health-related quality of life (SMD, 0.49; 95% CI, –0.01 to 0.98).
The second was to use LTH-NIV in patients with COPD following a life-threatening episode of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure requiring acute NIV, if hypercapnia persists. Though it was not associated with a reduction in mortality (risk ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67-1.25), it was found to potentially reduce exacerbations (SMD, 0.19; 95% CI, –0.40 to 0.01) and hospitalizations (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.30-1.24).
The third was to titrate LTH-NIV to normalize or reduce PaCO2 levels in patients with COPD. While this recommendation was issued with a very low certainty of evidence, it was driven by the “minimal potential harms of targeted PaCO2 reduction.”
The fourth was to use fixed pressure support mode as first-choice ventilator mode in patients with COPD using LTH-NIV. The six trials on this subject did not provide insight into long-term outcomes, nor were there significant improvements seen in health-related quality of life, sleep quality, or exercise tolerance. As such, it was also issued with a very low certainty of evidence.
The authors acknowledged all four recommendations as weak and conditional, “due to limitations in the certainty of the available evidence.” As such, they noted that their recommendations “require consideration of individual preferences, resource considerations, technical expertise, and clinical circumstances prior to implementation in clinical practice.”
The authors reported numerous disclosures, including receiving grants and personal fees from various medical supply companies.
SOURCE: Ergan B et al. Eur Respir J. 2019 Aug 29. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01003-2019.
from a European Respiratory Society task force.
“Our recommendations, based on the best available evidence, can guide the management of chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure in COPD patients aimed at improving patient outcomes,” wrote Begum Ergan, MD, of Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey, and coauthors. The guideline was published in the European Respiratory Journal.
To provide insight into the clinical application of LTH-NIV, the European Respiratory Society convened a task force of 20 clinicians, methodologists, and experts. Their four recommendations were developed based on the GRADE (Grading, Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.
The first recommendation was to use LTH-NIV for patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD. Though an analysis of randomized, controlled trials showed little effect on mortality or hospitalizations, pooled analyses showed that NIV may decrease dyspnea scores (standardized mean difference, –0.51; 95% confidence interval, –0.06 to –0.95) and increase health-related quality of life (SMD, 0.49; 95% CI, –0.01 to 0.98).
The second was to use LTH-NIV in patients with COPD following a life-threatening episode of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure requiring acute NIV, if hypercapnia persists. Though it was not associated with a reduction in mortality (risk ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67-1.25), it was found to potentially reduce exacerbations (SMD, 0.19; 95% CI, –0.40 to 0.01) and hospitalizations (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.30-1.24).
The third was to titrate LTH-NIV to normalize or reduce PaCO2 levels in patients with COPD. While this recommendation was issued with a very low certainty of evidence, it was driven by the “minimal potential harms of targeted PaCO2 reduction.”
The fourth was to use fixed pressure support mode as first-choice ventilator mode in patients with COPD using LTH-NIV. The six trials on this subject did not provide insight into long-term outcomes, nor were there significant improvements seen in health-related quality of life, sleep quality, or exercise tolerance. As such, it was also issued with a very low certainty of evidence.
The authors acknowledged all four recommendations as weak and conditional, “due to limitations in the certainty of the available evidence.” As such, they noted that their recommendations “require consideration of individual preferences, resource considerations, technical expertise, and clinical circumstances prior to implementation in clinical practice.”
The authors reported numerous disclosures, including receiving grants and personal fees from various medical supply companies.
SOURCE: Ergan B et al. Eur Respir J. 2019 Aug 29. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01003-2019.
from a European Respiratory Society task force.
“Our recommendations, based on the best available evidence, can guide the management of chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure in COPD patients aimed at improving patient outcomes,” wrote Begum Ergan, MD, of Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey, and coauthors. The guideline was published in the European Respiratory Journal.
To provide insight into the clinical application of LTH-NIV, the European Respiratory Society convened a task force of 20 clinicians, methodologists, and experts. Their four recommendations were developed based on the GRADE (Grading, Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.
The first recommendation was to use LTH-NIV for patients with chronic stable hypercapnic COPD. Though an analysis of randomized, controlled trials showed little effect on mortality or hospitalizations, pooled analyses showed that NIV may decrease dyspnea scores (standardized mean difference, –0.51; 95% confidence interval, –0.06 to –0.95) and increase health-related quality of life (SMD, 0.49; 95% CI, –0.01 to 0.98).
The second was to use LTH-NIV in patients with COPD following a life-threatening episode of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure requiring acute NIV, if hypercapnia persists. Though it was not associated with a reduction in mortality (risk ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67-1.25), it was found to potentially reduce exacerbations (SMD, 0.19; 95% CI, –0.40 to 0.01) and hospitalizations (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.30-1.24).
The third was to titrate LTH-NIV to normalize or reduce PaCO2 levels in patients with COPD. While this recommendation was issued with a very low certainty of evidence, it was driven by the “minimal potential harms of targeted PaCO2 reduction.”
The fourth was to use fixed pressure support mode as first-choice ventilator mode in patients with COPD using LTH-NIV. The six trials on this subject did not provide insight into long-term outcomes, nor were there significant improvements seen in health-related quality of life, sleep quality, or exercise tolerance. As such, it was also issued with a very low certainty of evidence.
The authors acknowledged all four recommendations as weak and conditional, “due to limitations in the certainty of the available evidence.” As such, they noted that their recommendations “require consideration of individual preferences, resource considerations, technical expertise, and clinical circumstances prior to implementation in clinical practice.”
The authors reported numerous disclosures, including receiving grants and personal fees from various medical supply companies.
SOURCE: Ergan B et al. Eur Respir J. 2019 Aug 29. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01003-2019.
FROM THE EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Try testosterone for some women with sexual dysfunction, but not others
A new international position statement on testosterone therapy for women concludes that a trial of testosterone is appropriate for postmenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire dysfunction (HSDD) and that its use for any other condition, symptom, or reason is not supported by available evidence.
The seven-page position statement, developed by an international task force of experts from the Endocrine Society, the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, and multiple other medical societies, also emphasized that blood concentrations of testosterone should approximate premenopausal physiological conditions.
“When testosterone therapy is given, the resultant blood levels should not be above those seen in healthy young women,” said lead author Susan Ruth Davis, PhD, MBBS, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, in a press release issued by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Davis is president of the International Menopause Society, which coordinated the panel.
The statement was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism and three other medical journals.
Margaret E. Wierman, MD, who represented the Endocrine Society on the task force, said in an interview that there has been “growing concern about testosterone being prescribed for a variety of signs and symptoms without data to support” such use. At the same time, there is significant concern about the ongoing lack of approved formulations licensed specifically for women, she said.
In part, the statement is about a renewed “call to industry to make some [female-specific] formulations so that we can examine other potential roles of testosterone in women,” said Dr. Wierman, professor of medicine and physiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology at the Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Aurora.
“Testosterone may be useful [for indications other than HSDD], but we don’t know. There may be no [breast or cardiovascular disease risk], but we don’t know,” she said. “And without a formulation to study potential benefits and risks, it’s good to be cautious. It’s good to really outline where we have data and where we don’t.”
The Endocrine Society’s 2014 clinical practice guideline on androgen therapy in women, for which Dr. Wierman was the lead author, also recommended against the off-label use of testosterone for sexual dysfunction other than HSDD or for any other reason, such as cognitive, cardiovascular, metabolic, or bone health. As with the new statement, the society’s position statement was guided by an international, multisociety task force, albeit a smaller one.
For the new global position statement, the task force’s review of evidence includes a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial data – of at least 12 weeks’ duration – on the use of testosterone for sexual function, cardiometabolic variables, cognitive measures, and musculoskeletal health. Some of the data from the randomized controlled trials were unpublished.
The meta-analysis, led by Dr. Davis and published in July in the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, found that, compared with placebo or a comparator (such as estrogen, with or without progesterone), testosterone in either oral or transdermal form significantly improved sexual function in postmenopausal women. However, data about the effects of testosterone for other indications, its long-term safety, and its use in premenopausal women, were insufficient for drawing any conclusions (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30189-5).
In addition, testosterone administered orally – but not nonorally (patch or cream) – was associated with adverse lipid profiles, Dr. Davis and her colleagues reported.
Another systematic review and meta-analysis, published in Fertility and Sterility in 2017 and included in the task force’s evidence review, focused specifically on transdermal testosterone for menopausal women with HSDD, with or without estrogen and progestin therapy. It also showed short-term efficacy in terms of improvement in sexual function, as well as short-term safety (Fertil Steril. 2017;107(2):475-82).
The new position statement warns about the lack of long-term safety data, stating that “safety data for testosterone in physiologic doses are not available beyond 24 months of treatment.”
In the short term, testosterone therapy for postmenopausal women (in doses approximating testosterone concentrations for premenopausal women), is associated with mild increases in acne and body/facial hair growth in some women, but not with alopecia, clitoromegaly, or voice change. Short-term transdermal therapy also does not seem to affect breast cancer risk or have any significant effects on lipid profiles, the statement says.
The panel points out, however, that randomized controlled trials with testosterone therapy have excluded women who are at high risk of cardiometabolic disease, and that women with a previous diagnosis of breast cancer have also been excluded from randomized trials of testosterone in women with HSDD. This is a “big issue,” said Dr. Wierman, and means that recommendations regarding the effect of testosterone in postmenopausal women with HSDD may not be generalizable to possible at-risk subpopulations.
The panel endorsed testosterone therapy specifically for women with HSDD because most of the studies reporting on sexual function have recruited women with diagnosed HSDD. Demonstrated benefits of testosterone in these cases include improved sexual desire, arousal, orgasm, and pleasure, and reduced concerns and distress about sex. HSDD should be diagnosed after formal biopsychosocial assessment, the statement notes.
“We don’t completely understand the control of sexual function in women, but it’s very dependent on estrogen status. And it’s also dependent on psychosocial factors, emotional health, relationship issues, and physical issues,” Dr. Wierman said in the interview.
“In practice, we look at all these issues, and we first optimize estrogen status. Once that’s done, and we’ve looked at all the other components of sexual function, then we can consider off-label use of testosterone,” she said. “If there’s no response in 3-6 months, we stop it.”
Testosterone levels do not correlate with sexual dysfunction, Dr. Wierman emphasized, and direct assays for the measurement of total and free testosterone are unreliable. The statement acknowledges that but still recommends measurement of testosterone using direct assays, in cases in which liquid/gas chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry assay (which has “high accuracy and reproducibility”) are not available. This is “to exclude high baseline concentrations and also to exclude supraphysiological concentrations during treatment,” the panel said.
Most endocrinologists and other experts who prescribe testosterone therapy for women use an approved male formulation off label and adjust it – an approach that the panel says is reasonable as long as hormone concentrations are “maintained in the physiologic female range.”
Compounded “bioidentical” testosterone therapy “cannot be recommended for the treatment of HSDD because of the lack of evidence for safety and efficacy,” the statement says.
“A big concern of many endocrinologists,” Dr. Wierman added, “is the recent explosion of using pharmacological levels of both estrogen and testosterone in either [injections] or pellets.” The Endocrine Society and other societies have alerted the Food and Drug Administration to “this new cottage industry, which may have significant side effects and risks for our patients,” she said.
Dr. Wierman reported received funding from Corcept Therapeutics, Novartis, and the Cancer League of Colorado, and honoraria or consultation fees from Pfizer to review ASPIRE grant applications for studies of acromegaly as well as Endocrine Society honorarium for teaching in the Endocrine Board Review and Clinical Endocrine Update. Dr. Davis reported receiving funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, a National Breast Foundation accelerator grant, and the Grollo-Ruzenne Foundation, as well as honoraria from Besins and Pfizer Australia. She has been a consultant to Besins Healthcare, Mayne Pharmaceuticals, Lawley Pharmaceuticals, and Que Oncology. Disclosures for other authors of the position statement are listed with the statement.
SOURCE: Davis SR et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019 Sep 2. doi: 10.1210/jc.2019-01603.
A new international position statement on testosterone therapy for women concludes that a trial of testosterone is appropriate for postmenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire dysfunction (HSDD) and that its use for any other condition, symptom, or reason is not supported by available evidence.
The seven-page position statement, developed by an international task force of experts from the Endocrine Society, the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, and multiple other medical societies, also emphasized that blood concentrations of testosterone should approximate premenopausal physiological conditions.
“When testosterone therapy is given, the resultant blood levels should not be above those seen in healthy young women,” said lead author Susan Ruth Davis, PhD, MBBS, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, in a press release issued by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Davis is president of the International Menopause Society, which coordinated the panel.
The statement was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism and three other medical journals.
Margaret E. Wierman, MD, who represented the Endocrine Society on the task force, said in an interview that there has been “growing concern about testosterone being prescribed for a variety of signs and symptoms without data to support” such use. At the same time, there is significant concern about the ongoing lack of approved formulations licensed specifically for women, she said.
In part, the statement is about a renewed “call to industry to make some [female-specific] formulations so that we can examine other potential roles of testosterone in women,” said Dr. Wierman, professor of medicine and physiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology at the Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Aurora.
“Testosterone may be useful [for indications other than HSDD], but we don’t know. There may be no [breast or cardiovascular disease risk], but we don’t know,” she said. “And without a formulation to study potential benefits and risks, it’s good to be cautious. It’s good to really outline where we have data and where we don’t.”
The Endocrine Society’s 2014 clinical practice guideline on androgen therapy in women, for which Dr. Wierman was the lead author, also recommended against the off-label use of testosterone for sexual dysfunction other than HSDD or for any other reason, such as cognitive, cardiovascular, metabolic, or bone health. As with the new statement, the society’s position statement was guided by an international, multisociety task force, albeit a smaller one.
For the new global position statement, the task force’s review of evidence includes a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial data – of at least 12 weeks’ duration – on the use of testosterone for sexual function, cardiometabolic variables, cognitive measures, and musculoskeletal health. Some of the data from the randomized controlled trials were unpublished.
The meta-analysis, led by Dr. Davis and published in July in the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, found that, compared with placebo or a comparator (such as estrogen, with or without progesterone), testosterone in either oral or transdermal form significantly improved sexual function in postmenopausal women. However, data about the effects of testosterone for other indications, its long-term safety, and its use in premenopausal women, were insufficient for drawing any conclusions (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30189-5).
In addition, testosterone administered orally – but not nonorally (patch or cream) – was associated with adverse lipid profiles, Dr. Davis and her colleagues reported.
Another systematic review and meta-analysis, published in Fertility and Sterility in 2017 and included in the task force’s evidence review, focused specifically on transdermal testosterone for menopausal women with HSDD, with or without estrogen and progestin therapy. It also showed short-term efficacy in terms of improvement in sexual function, as well as short-term safety (Fertil Steril. 2017;107(2):475-82).
The new position statement warns about the lack of long-term safety data, stating that “safety data for testosterone in physiologic doses are not available beyond 24 months of treatment.”
In the short term, testosterone therapy for postmenopausal women (in doses approximating testosterone concentrations for premenopausal women), is associated with mild increases in acne and body/facial hair growth in some women, but not with alopecia, clitoromegaly, or voice change. Short-term transdermal therapy also does not seem to affect breast cancer risk or have any significant effects on lipid profiles, the statement says.
The panel points out, however, that randomized controlled trials with testosterone therapy have excluded women who are at high risk of cardiometabolic disease, and that women with a previous diagnosis of breast cancer have also been excluded from randomized trials of testosterone in women with HSDD. This is a “big issue,” said Dr. Wierman, and means that recommendations regarding the effect of testosterone in postmenopausal women with HSDD may not be generalizable to possible at-risk subpopulations.
The panel endorsed testosterone therapy specifically for women with HSDD because most of the studies reporting on sexual function have recruited women with diagnosed HSDD. Demonstrated benefits of testosterone in these cases include improved sexual desire, arousal, orgasm, and pleasure, and reduced concerns and distress about sex. HSDD should be diagnosed after formal biopsychosocial assessment, the statement notes.
“We don’t completely understand the control of sexual function in women, but it’s very dependent on estrogen status. And it’s also dependent on psychosocial factors, emotional health, relationship issues, and physical issues,” Dr. Wierman said in the interview.
“In practice, we look at all these issues, and we first optimize estrogen status. Once that’s done, and we’ve looked at all the other components of sexual function, then we can consider off-label use of testosterone,” she said. “If there’s no response in 3-6 months, we stop it.”
Testosterone levels do not correlate with sexual dysfunction, Dr. Wierman emphasized, and direct assays for the measurement of total and free testosterone are unreliable. The statement acknowledges that but still recommends measurement of testosterone using direct assays, in cases in which liquid/gas chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry assay (which has “high accuracy and reproducibility”) are not available. This is “to exclude high baseline concentrations and also to exclude supraphysiological concentrations during treatment,” the panel said.
Most endocrinologists and other experts who prescribe testosterone therapy for women use an approved male formulation off label and adjust it – an approach that the panel says is reasonable as long as hormone concentrations are “maintained in the physiologic female range.”
Compounded “bioidentical” testosterone therapy “cannot be recommended for the treatment of HSDD because of the lack of evidence for safety and efficacy,” the statement says.
“A big concern of many endocrinologists,” Dr. Wierman added, “is the recent explosion of using pharmacological levels of both estrogen and testosterone in either [injections] or pellets.” The Endocrine Society and other societies have alerted the Food and Drug Administration to “this new cottage industry, which may have significant side effects and risks for our patients,” she said.
Dr. Wierman reported received funding from Corcept Therapeutics, Novartis, and the Cancer League of Colorado, and honoraria or consultation fees from Pfizer to review ASPIRE grant applications for studies of acromegaly as well as Endocrine Society honorarium for teaching in the Endocrine Board Review and Clinical Endocrine Update. Dr. Davis reported receiving funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, a National Breast Foundation accelerator grant, and the Grollo-Ruzenne Foundation, as well as honoraria from Besins and Pfizer Australia. She has been a consultant to Besins Healthcare, Mayne Pharmaceuticals, Lawley Pharmaceuticals, and Que Oncology. Disclosures for other authors of the position statement are listed with the statement.
SOURCE: Davis SR et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019 Sep 2. doi: 10.1210/jc.2019-01603.
A new international position statement on testosterone therapy for women concludes that a trial of testosterone is appropriate for postmenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire dysfunction (HSDD) and that its use for any other condition, symptom, or reason is not supported by available evidence.
The seven-page position statement, developed by an international task force of experts from the Endocrine Society, the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, and multiple other medical societies, also emphasized that blood concentrations of testosterone should approximate premenopausal physiological conditions.
“When testosterone therapy is given, the resultant blood levels should not be above those seen in healthy young women,” said lead author Susan Ruth Davis, PhD, MBBS, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, in a press release issued by the Endocrine Society. Dr. Davis is president of the International Menopause Society, which coordinated the panel.
The statement was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism and three other medical journals.
Margaret E. Wierman, MD, who represented the Endocrine Society on the task force, said in an interview that there has been “growing concern about testosterone being prescribed for a variety of signs and symptoms without data to support” such use. At the same time, there is significant concern about the ongoing lack of approved formulations licensed specifically for women, she said.
In part, the statement is about a renewed “call to industry to make some [female-specific] formulations so that we can examine other potential roles of testosterone in women,” said Dr. Wierman, professor of medicine and physiology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chief of endocrinology at the Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Aurora.
“Testosterone may be useful [for indications other than HSDD], but we don’t know. There may be no [breast or cardiovascular disease risk], but we don’t know,” she said. “And without a formulation to study potential benefits and risks, it’s good to be cautious. It’s good to really outline where we have data and where we don’t.”
The Endocrine Society’s 2014 clinical practice guideline on androgen therapy in women, for which Dr. Wierman was the lead author, also recommended against the off-label use of testosterone for sexual dysfunction other than HSDD or for any other reason, such as cognitive, cardiovascular, metabolic, or bone health. As with the new statement, the society’s position statement was guided by an international, multisociety task force, albeit a smaller one.
For the new global position statement, the task force’s review of evidence includes a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial data – of at least 12 weeks’ duration – on the use of testosterone for sexual function, cardiometabolic variables, cognitive measures, and musculoskeletal health. Some of the data from the randomized controlled trials were unpublished.
The meta-analysis, led by Dr. Davis and published in July in the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, found that, compared with placebo or a comparator (such as estrogen, with or without progesterone), testosterone in either oral or transdermal form significantly improved sexual function in postmenopausal women. However, data about the effects of testosterone for other indications, its long-term safety, and its use in premenopausal women, were insufficient for drawing any conclusions (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30189-5).
In addition, testosterone administered orally – but not nonorally (patch or cream) – was associated with adverse lipid profiles, Dr. Davis and her colleagues reported.
Another systematic review and meta-analysis, published in Fertility and Sterility in 2017 and included in the task force’s evidence review, focused specifically on transdermal testosterone for menopausal women with HSDD, with or without estrogen and progestin therapy. It also showed short-term efficacy in terms of improvement in sexual function, as well as short-term safety (Fertil Steril. 2017;107(2):475-82).
The new position statement warns about the lack of long-term safety data, stating that “safety data for testosterone in physiologic doses are not available beyond 24 months of treatment.”
In the short term, testosterone therapy for postmenopausal women (in doses approximating testosterone concentrations for premenopausal women), is associated with mild increases in acne and body/facial hair growth in some women, but not with alopecia, clitoromegaly, or voice change. Short-term transdermal therapy also does not seem to affect breast cancer risk or have any significant effects on lipid profiles, the statement says.
The panel points out, however, that randomized controlled trials with testosterone therapy have excluded women who are at high risk of cardiometabolic disease, and that women with a previous diagnosis of breast cancer have also been excluded from randomized trials of testosterone in women with HSDD. This is a “big issue,” said Dr. Wierman, and means that recommendations regarding the effect of testosterone in postmenopausal women with HSDD may not be generalizable to possible at-risk subpopulations.
The panel endorsed testosterone therapy specifically for women with HSDD because most of the studies reporting on sexual function have recruited women with diagnosed HSDD. Demonstrated benefits of testosterone in these cases include improved sexual desire, arousal, orgasm, and pleasure, and reduced concerns and distress about sex. HSDD should be diagnosed after formal biopsychosocial assessment, the statement notes.
“We don’t completely understand the control of sexual function in women, but it’s very dependent on estrogen status. And it’s also dependent on psychosocial factors, emotional health, relationship issues, and physical issues,” Dr. Wierman said in the interview.
“In practice, we look at all these issues, and we first optimize estrogen status. Once that’s done, and we’ve looked at all the other components of sexual function, then we can consider off-label use of testosterone,” she said. “If there’s no response in 3-6 months, we stop it.”
Testosterone levels do not correlate with sexual dysfunction, Dr. Wierman emphasized, and direct assays for the measurement of total and free testosterone are unreliable. The statement acknowledges that but still recommends measurement of testosterone using direct assays, in cases in which liquid/gas chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry assay (which has “high accuracy and reproducibility”) are not available. This is “to exclude high baseline concentrations and also to exclude supraphysiological concentrations during treatment,” the panel said.
Most endocrinologists and other experts who prescribe testosterone therapy for women use an approved male formulation off label and adjust it – an approach that the panel says is reasonable as long as hormone concentrations are “maintained in the physiologic female range.”
Compounded “bioidentical” testosterone therapy “cannot be recommended for the treatment of HSDD because of the lack of evidence for safety and efficacy,” the statement says.
“A big concern of many endocrinologists,” Dr. Wierman added, “is the recent explosion of using pharmacological levels of both estrogen and testosterone in either [injections] or pellets.” The Endocrine Society and other societies have alerted the Food and Drug Administration to “this new cottage industry, which may have significant side effects and risks for our patients,” she said.
Dr. Wierman reported received funding from Corcept Therapeutics, Novartis, and the Cancer League of Colorado, and honoraria or consultation fees from Pfizer to review ASPIRE grant applications for studies of acromegaly as well as Endocrine Society honorarium for teaching in the Endocrine Board Review and Clinical Endocrine Update. Dr. Davis reported receiving funding from a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, a National Breast Foundation accelerator grant, and the Grollo-Ruzenne Foundation, as well as honoraria from Besins and Pfizer Australia. She has been a consultant to Besins Healthcare, Mayne Pharmaceuticals, Lawley Pharmaceuticals, and Que Oncology. Disclosures for other authors of the position statement are listed with the statement.
SOURCE: Davis SR et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019 Sep 2. doi: 10.1210/jc.2019-01603.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Summary: Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection USPSTF recommendation statement
It is estimated that there are 1.1 million people in the United States living with HIV and that 15% of those people do not know they have HIV. Although the number of new cases reported each year is decreasing, there were still 38,281 new diagnoses in 2017. New cases might be decreasing overall, but the incidence of HIV is rising in some groups including people aged 25-29 years old and American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian populations. In addition, HIV disproportionately affects men who have sex with men, black/African American populations, and Hispanic/Latino populations, according to the USPSTF statement.
Given the prevalence of HIV and rising new cases in certain groups, it is thought that preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is being underutilized. The CDC reported that, in 2015, 1.2 million people were candidates for PrEP, but in 2017, only 100,282 people were using PrEP. The USPSTF performed a meta-analysis of 12 RCTs comparing rates of HIV infection in groups treated with PrEP versus those treated with placebo or no treatment and found a risk ratio of 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.66) and absolute risk reduction of –2% (95% CI, –2.8% to –1.2%) after 4 months and 4 years.
With this epidemiologic data and the meta-analysis, the USPSTF offered the following recommendations.
Screening
In order to decrease the rates of transmission and incidence of HIV infection, we must appropriately identify those who would be good candidates for PrEP. That begins with taking a complete and thorough sexual and injection drug use history in a manner that does not make patients feel stigmatized or discriminated against. The USPSTF recommends screening for HIV infection in patients aged 15-65 years old, in younger and older patients who have increased risk factors, and all pregnant patients. PrEP is not an appropriate choice in those who have HIV because it can lead to drug resistance.
When screening for HIV and considering starting PrEP, it is recommended that clinicians also test for kidney function, hepatitis B and C, other STIs, and pregnancy. The USPSTF suggests that the following groups be considered for PrEP given the increased risk of HIV infection:
- Men who have sex with men, are sexually active, and have one of these additional characteristics: a serodiscordant sex partner, inconsistent use of condoms during receptive or insertive anal sex, or infection with syphilis, gonorrhea, or chlamydia in the past 6 months.
- Heterosexual men or women who are sexually active with one or more of these additional characteristics: a serodiscordant sex partner, inconsistent use of condoms during sex with a partner whose HIV status is unknown and who is at high risk, and infection with syphilis or gonorrhea in the past 6 months.
- Patients who inject drugs with one or more of the following characteristics: shared use of drug injection equipment and risk of sexual acquisition (as in the categories above).
The USPSTF also notes that those who engage in transactional sex (for money, drugs, or housing) and transgender patients are at an increased risk of HIV infection.
Treatment
The only FDA approved treatment for the prevention HIV infection is once daily oral combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine; however, some studies have found that tenofovir disproxil fumarate monotherapy is also effective. Considering these trials, the CDC has suggested that tenofovir disoproxil fumarate monotherapy can be used as an alternative for men and women at high risk and those who inject drugs.
Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine can also be used in pregnant patients, however the USPSTF notes that no PrEP trials included pregnant women. Additionally, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine can be used in adolescents who weigh more than 35 kg. It is unknown how much time it takes to achieve protection against HIV infection after starting PrEP, and there is no clear timeline for how long patients should be on PrEP. Patients may discontinue medication because of preference, decreased risk of HIV exposure, or side effects.
Side effects include renal adverse events (serum creatinine rise), gastrointestinal adverse events (mostly nausea), and bone loss and increased fracture risk, although none were statistically significant when PrEP and placebo groups were compared. The USPSTF’s recommendations note that the effectiveness of PrEP is dependent on medication adherence.
While PrEP is an important part of preventing HIV, it is always important to counsel patients on other ways to reduce risk. The USPSTF notes that consistent condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by around 80% in addition to reducing the risk of other STIs. All trials studied by the USPSTF for these recommendations included counseling on behavior, adherence, and condom use.
Bottom Line
It is estimated that 1.1 million Americans are living with HIV and 15% are unaware that they are positive for HIV. Overall cases of new HIV diagnoses are down, but they are rising in some groups. Every patient should be screened for high-risk sexual behavior and drug use with a thorough history. Patients aged 15-65 years should be screened for HIV. If patients are negative for HIV, but participate in high-risk sexual behaviors and drug injection, they should be offered PrEP along with counseling on, medication adherence, condom use, and reduction of high-risk behaviors.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington Jefferson Health
Reference
Owens DK et al. “Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.” JAMA. 2019 Jun 11;321(22):2203-13.
It is estimated that there are 1.1 million people in the United States living with HIV and that 15% of those people do not know they have HIV. Although the number of new cases reported each year is decreasing, there were still 38,281 new diagnoses in 2017. New cases might be decreasing overall, but the incidence of HIV is rising in some groups including people aged 25-29 years old and American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian populations. In addition, HIV disproportionately affects men who have sex with men, black/African American populations, and Hispanic/Latino populations, according to the USPSTF statement.
Given the prevalence of HIV and rising new cases in certain groups, it is thought that preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is being underutilized. The CDC reported that, in 2015, 1.2 million people were candidates for PrEP, but in 2017, only 100,282 people were using PrEP. The USPSTF performed a meta-analysis of 12 RCTs comparing rates of HIV infection in groups treated with PrEP versus those treated with placebo or no treatment and found a risk ratio of 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.66) and absolute risk reduction of –2% (95% CI, –2.8% to –1.2%) after 4 months and 4 years.
With this epidemiologic data and the meta-analysis, the USPSTF offered the following recommendations.
Screening
In order to decrease the rates of transmission and incidence of HIV infection, we must appropriately identify those who would be good candidates for PrEP. That begins with taking a complete and thorough sexual and injection drug use history in a manner that does not make patients feel stigmatized or discriminated against. The USPSTF recommends screening for HIV infection in patients aged 15-65 years old, in younger and older patients who have increased risk factors, and all pregnant patients. PrEP is not an appropriate choice in those who have HIV because it can lead to drug resistance.
When screening for HIV and considering starting PrEP, it is recommended that clinicians also test for kidney function, hepatitis B and C, other STIs, and pregnancy. The USPSTF suggests that the following groups be considered for PrEP given the increased risk of HIV infection:
- Men who have sex with men, are sexually active, and have one of these additional characteristics: a serodiscordant sex partner, inconsistent use of condoms during receptive or insertive anal sex, or infection with syphilis, gonorrhea, or chlamydia in the past 6 months.
- Heterosexual men or women who are sexually active with one or more of these additional characteristics: a serodiscordant sex partner, inconsistent use of condoms during sex with a partner whose HIV status is unknown and who is at high risk, and infection with syphilis or gonorrhea in the past 6 months.
- Patients who inject drugs with one or more of the following characteristics: shared use of drug injection equipment and risk of sexual acquisition (as in the categories above).
The USPSTF also notes that those who engage in transactional sex (for money, drugs, or housing) and transgender patients are at an increased risk of HIV infection.
Treatment
The only FDA approved treatment for the prevention HIV infection is once daily oral combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine; however, some studies have found that tenofovir disproxil fumarate monotherapy is also effective. Considering these trials, the CDC has suggested that tenofovir disoproxil fumarate monotherapy can be used as an alternative for men and women at high risk and those who inject drugs.
Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine can also be used in pregnant patients, however the USPSTF notes that no PrEP trials included pregnant women. Additionally, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine can be used in adolescents who weigh more than 35 kg. It is unknown how much time it takes to achieve protection against HIV infection after starting PrEP, and there is no clear timeline for how long patients should be on PrEP. Patients may discontinue medication because of preference, decreased risk of HIV exposure, or side effects.
Side effects include renal adverse events (serum creatinine rise), gastrointestinal adverse events (mostly nausea), and bone loss and increased fracture risk, although none were statistically significant when PrEP and placebo groups were compared. The USPSTF’s recommendations note that the effectiveness of PrEP is dependent on medication adherence.
While PrEP is an important part of preventing HIV, it is always important to counsel patients on other ways to reduce risk. The USPSTF notes that consistent condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by around 80% in addition to reducing the risk of other STIs. All trials studied by the USPSTF for these recommendations included counseling on behavior, adherence, and condom use.
Bottom Line
It is estimated that 1.1 million Americans are living with HIV and 15% are unaware that they are positive for HIV. Overall cases of new HIV diagnoses are down, but they are rising in some groups. Every patient should be screened for high-risk sexual behavior and drug use with a thorough history. Patients aged 15-65 years should be screened for HIV. If patients are negative for HIV, but participate in high-risk sexual behaviors and drug injection, they should be offered PrEP along with counseling on, medication adherence, condom use, and reduction of high-risk behaviors.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington Jefferson Health
Reference
Owens DK et al. “Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.” JAMA. 2019 Jun 11;321(22):2203-13.
It is estimated that there are 1.1 million people in the United States living with HIV and that 15% of those people do not know they have HIV. Although the number of new cases reported each year is decreasing, there were still 38,281 new diagnoses in 2017. New cases might be decreasing overall, but the incidence of HIV is rising in some groups including people aged 25-29 years old and American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian populations. In addition, HIV disproportionately affects men who have sex with men, black/African American populations, and Hispanic/Latino populations, according to the USPSTF statement.
Given the prevalence of HIV and rising new cases in certain groups, it is thought that preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is being underutilized. The CDC reported that, in 2015, 1.2 million people were candidates for PrEP, but in 2017, only 100,282 people were using PrEP. The USPSTF performed a meta-analysis of 12 RCTs comparing rates of HIV infection in groups treated with PrEP versus those treated with placebo or no treatment and found a risk ratio of 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.66) and absolute risk reduction of –2% (95% CI, –2.8% to –1.2%) after 4 months and 4 years.
With this epidemiologic data and the meta-analysis, the USPSTF offered the following recommendations.
Screening
In order to decrease the rates of transmission and incidence of HIV infection, we must appropriately identify those who would be good candidates for PrEP. That begins with taking a complete and thorough sexual and injection drug use history in a manner that does not make patients feel stigmatized or discriminated against. The USPSTF recommends screening for HIV infection in patients aged 15-65 years old, in younger and older patients who have increased risk factors, and all pregnant patients. PrEP is not an appropriate choice in those who have HIV because it can lead to drug resistance.
When screening for HIV and considering starting PrEP, it is recommended that clinicians also test for kidney function, hepatitis B and C, other STIs, and pregnancy. The USPSTF suggests that the following groups be considered for PrEP given the increased risk of HIV infection:
- Men who have sex with men, are sexually active, and have one of these additional characteristics: a serodiscordant sex partner, inconsistent use of condoms during receptive or insertive anal sex, or infection with syphilis, gonorrhea, or chlamydia in the past 6 months.
- Heterosexual men or women who are sexually active with one or more of these additional characteristics: a serodiscordant sex partner, inconsistent use of condoms during sex with a partner whose HIV status is unknown and who is at high risk, and infection with syphilis or gonorrhea in the past 6 months.
- Patients who inject drugs with one or more of the following characteristics: shared use of drug injection equipment and risk of sexual acquisition (as in the categories above).
The USPSTF also notes that those who engage in transactional sex (for money, drugs, or housing) and transgender patients are at an increased risk of HIV infection.
Treatment
The only FDA approved treatment for the prevention HIV infection is once daily oral combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine; however, some studies have found that tenofovir disproxil fumarate monotherapy is also effective. Considering these trials, the CDC has suggested that tenofovir disoproxil fumarate monotherapy can be used as an alternative for men and women at high risk and those who inject drugs.
Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine can also be used in pregnant patients, however the USPSTF notes that no PrEP trials included pregnant women. Additionally, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine can be used in adolescents who weigh more than 35 kg. It is unknown how much time it takes to achieve protection against HIV infection after starting PrEP, and there is no clear timeline for how long patients should be on PrEP. Patients may discontinue medication because of preference, decreased risk of HIV exposure, or side effects.
Side effects include renal adverse events (serum creatinine rise), gastrointestinal adverse events (mostly nausea), and bone loss and increased fracture risk, although none were statistically significant when PrEP and placebo groups were compared. The USPSTF’s recommendations note that the effectiveness of PrEP is dependent on medication adherence.
While PrEP is an important part of preventing HIV, it is always important to counsel patients on other ways to reduce risk. The USPSTF notes that consistent condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by around 80% in addition to reducing the risk of other STIs. All trials studied by the USPSTF for these recommendations included counseling on behavior, adherence, and condom use.
Bottom Line
It is estimated that 1.1 million Americans are living with HIV and 15% are unaware that they are positive for HIV. Overall cases of new HIV diagnoses are down, but they are rising in some groups. Every patient should be screened for high-risk sexual behavior and drug use with a thorough history. Patients aged 15-65 years should be screened for HIV. If patients are negative for HIV, but participate in high-risk sexual behaviors and drug injection, they should be offered PrEP along with counseling on, medication adherence, condom use, and reduction of high-risk behaviors.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Sprogell is a second-year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington Jefferson Health
Reference
Owens DK et al. “Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.” JAMA. 2019 Jun 11;321(22):2203-13.
Axial SpA guidelines updated with best practices for new drugs, imaging
The American College of Rheumatology, Spondylitis Association of America, and Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network have updated their guidelines on management of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis.
These guidelines serve as an update to the previous guidelines that were first published in 2015 (Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68:151–66). While the new guidelines did not review all recommendations from the 2015 guidelines, 20 questions on pharmacologic treatment were re-reviewed in addition to 26 new questions and recommendations.
Michael M. Ward, MD, chief of the Clinical Trials and Outcomes Branch at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, said in an interview that the availability of new medications to treat axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) prompted the updated guidelines.
“We took the opportunity to revisit some previous recommendations for which substantial new evidence was available, and also included new recommendations on some other topics, such as imaging,” said Dr. Ward, who is also first author of the new guidelines.
The panel that developed the questions focused on scenarios that a clinician would likely encounter in clinical practice, or situations in which how to manage a case is not clear. “Given this perspective, there were many questions that had limited evidence, but recommendations were made for all questions. For those questions that had less evidence in the literature, we relied more on the expertise of the panel,” Dr. Ward said.
The questions and recommendations for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axSpA centered around use of interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitors, tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and biosimilars of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi), as well as when to taper and discontinue these medications.
Strong recommendations for patients with AS included using NSAIDs (low level of evidence), using TNFi when active disease remains despite NSAID treatment (high level of evidence), and using secukinumab (Cosentyx) or ixekizumab (Taltz) when active disease remains despite NSAID treatment over no treatment (high level of evidence). The guidelines also strongly recommend the use of physical therapy for adults with stable AS over no physical therapy (low level of evidence), as well as total hip arthroplasty in cases of advanced hip arthritis. The writing panel also strongly advised that adults with AS-related comorbidities should receive treatment by an ophthalmologist in cases of acute iritis. Strong recommendations were made against switching to a biosimilar of a TNFi after receiving treatment with an originator TNFi (regardless of whether it is for active or stable AS), use of systemic glucocorticoids in adults with active AS, treatment with spinal manipulation in patients with spinal fusion or advanced spinal osteoporosis, and screening for cardiac conduction defects and valvular heart disease with electrocardiograms.
Strong recommendations for nonradiographic axSpA were similar to those made for patients with AS, and the panel made strong recommendations for use of NSAIDs in patients with active disease; for TNFi treatment when NSAIDs fail; against switching to a biosimilar of a TNFi after starting the originator TNFi; against using systemic glucocorticoids; and in favor of using physical therapy rather than not.
The panel also made a number of conditional recommendations for AS and nonradiographic axSpA patients with regard to biologic preference and imaging. TNFis were conditionally recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab in patients with active disease despite NSAIDs treatment, and in cases where a patient is not responding to a first TNFi treatment, the panel conditionally recommended secukinumab or ixekizumab over a second TNFi (very low evidence for all). Secukinumab or ixekizumab were also conditionally recommended over tofacitinib (very low evidence). Sulfasalazine, methotrexate, and tofacitinib were conditionally recommended in cases where patients had prominent peripheral arthritis or when TNFis are not available (very low to moderate evidence). The panel recommended against adding sulfasalazine or methotrexate to existing TNFi treatment (very low evidence), and they also advised against tapering as a standard treatment approach or discontinuing the biologic (very low evidence). MRI of the spine or pelvis was conditionally recommended to examine disease activity in unclear cases, but the panel recommended against ordering MRI scans to monitor disease inactivity (very low evidence).
“Most of the recommendations are conditional, primarily because of the relatively low level of evidence in the literature that addressed many of the questions,” while stronger recommendations came from larger clinical trials, Dr. Ward said. “The need for this update demonstrates the rapid progress in treatment that is occurring in axial spondyloarthritis, but the low level of evidence for many questions indicates that much more research is needed.”
Nine authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of consultancies, educational advisory board memberships, and site investigator appointments for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ward MM et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Aug 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24025.
The American College of Rheumatology, Spondylitis Association of America, and Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network have updated their guidelines on management of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis.
These guidelines serve as an update to the previous guidelines that were first published in 2015 (Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68:151–66). While the new guidelines did not review all recommendations from the 2015 guidelines, 20 questions on pharmacologic treatment were re-reviewed in addition to 26 new questions and recommendations.
Michael M. Ward, MD, chief of the Clinical Trials and Outcomes Branch at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, said in an interview that the availability of new medications to treat axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) prompted the updated guidelines.
“We took the opportunity to revisit some previous recommendations for which substantial new evidence was available, and also included new recommendations on some other topics, such as imaging,” said Dr. Ward, who is also first author of the new guidelines.
The panel that developed the questions focused on scenarios that a clinician would likely encounter in clinical practice, or situations in which how to manage a case is not clear. “Given this perspective, there were many questions that had limited evidence, but recommendations were made for all questions. For those questions that had less evidence in the literature, we relied more on the expertise of the panel,” Dr. Ward said.
The questions and recommendations for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axSpA centered around use of interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitors, tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and biosimilars of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi), as well as when to taper and discontinue these medications.
Strong recommendations for patients with AS included using NSAIDs (low level of evidence), using TNFi when active disease remains despite NSAID treatment (high level of evidence), and using secukinumab (Cosentyx) or ixekizumab (Taltz) when active disease remains despite NSAID treatment over no treatment (high level of evidence). The guidelines also strongly recommend the use of physical therapy for adults with stable AS over no physical therapy (low level of evidence), as well as total hip arthroplasty in cases of advanced hip arthritis. The writing panel also strongly advised that adults with AS-related comorbidities should receive treatment by an ophthalmologist in cases of acute iritis. Strong recommendations were made against switching to a biosimilar of a TNFi after receiving treatment with an originator TNFi (regardless of whether it is for active or stable AS), use of systemic glucocorticoids in adults with active AS, treatment with spinal manipulation in patients with spinal fusion or advanced spinal osteoporosis, and screening for cardiac conduction defects and valvular heart disease with electrocardiograms.
Strong recommendations for nonradiographic axSpA were similar to those made for patients with AS, and the panel made strong recommendations for use of NSAIDs in patients with active disease; for TNFi treatment when NSAIDs fail; against switching to a biosimilar of a TNFi after starting the originator TNFi; against using systemic glucocorticoids; and in favor of using physical therapy rather than not.
The panel also made a number of conditional recommendations for AS and nonradiographic axSpA patients with regard to biologic preference and imaging. TNFis were conditionally recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab in patients with active disease despite NSAIDs treatment, and in cases where a patient is not responding to a first TNFi treatment, the panel conditionally recommended secukinumab or ixekizumab over a second TNFi (very low evidence for all). Secukinumab or ixekizumab were also conditionally recommended over tofacitinib (very low evidence). Sulfasalazine, methotrexate, and tofacitinib were conditionally recommended in cases where patients had prominent peripheral arthritis or when TNFis are not available (very low to moderate evidence). The panel recommended against adding sulfasalazine or methotrexate to existing TNFi treatment (very low evidence), and they also advised against tapering as a standard treatment approach or discontinuing the biologic (very low evidence). MRI of the spine or pelvis was conditionally recommended to examine disease activity in unclear cases, but the panel recommended against ordering MRI scans to monitor disease inactivity (very low evidence).
“Most of the recommendations are conditional, primarily because of the relatively low level of evidence in the literature that addressed many of the questions,” while stronger recommendations came from larger clinical trials, Dr. Ward said. “The need for this update demonstrates the rapid progress in treatment that is occurring in axial spondyloarthritis, but the low level of evidence for many questions indicates that much more research is needed.”
Nine authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of consultancies, educational advisory board memberships, and site investigator appointments for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ward MM et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Aug 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24025.
The American College of Rheumatology, Spondylitis Association of America, and Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network have updated their guidelines on management of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis.
These guidelines serve as an update to the previous guidelines that were first published in 2015 (Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68:151–66). While the new guidelines did not review all recommendations from the 2015 guidelines, 20 questions on pharmacologic treatment were re-reviewed in addition to 26 new questions and recommendations.
Michael M. Ward, MD, chief of the Clinical Trials and Outcomes Branch at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, said in an interview that the availability of new medications to treat axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) prompted the updated guidelines.
“We took the opportunity to revisit some previous recommendations for which substantial new evidence was available, and also included new recommendations on some other topics, such as imaging,” said Dr. Ward, who is also first author of the new guidelines.
The panel that developed the questions focused on scenarios that a clinician would likely encounter in clinical practice, or situations in which how to manage a case is not clear. “Given this perspective, there were many questions that had limited evidence, but recommendations were made for all questions. For those questions that had less evidence in the literature, we relied more on the expertise of the panel,” Dr. Ward said.
The questions and recommendations for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axSpA centered around use of interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitors, tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and biosimilars of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi), as well as when to taper and discontinue these medications.
Strong recommendations for patients with AS included using NSAIDs (low level of evidence), using TNFi when active disease remains despite NSAID treatment (high level of evidence), and using secukinumab (Cosentyx) or ixekizumab (Taltz) when active disease remains despite NSAID treatment over no treatment (high level of evidence). The guidelines also strongly recommend the use of physical therapy for adults with stable AS over no physical therapy (low level of evidence), as well as total hip arthroplasty in cases of advanced hip arthritis. The writing panel also strongly advised that adults with AS-related comorbidities should receive treatment by an ophthalmologist in cases of acute iritis. Strong recommendations were made against switching to a biosimilar of a TNFi after receiving treatment with an originator TNFi (regardless of whether it is for active or stable AS), use of systemic glucocorticoids in adults with active AS, treatment with spinal manipulation in patients with spinal fusion or advanced spinal osteoporosis, and screening for cardiac conduction defects and valvular heart disease with electrocardiograms.
Strong recommendations for nonradiographic axSpA were similar to those made for patients with AS, and the panel made strong recommendations for use of NSAIDs in patients with active disease; for TNFi treatment when NSAIDs fail; against switching to a biosimilar of a TNFi after starting the originator TNFi; against using systemic glucocorticoids; and in favor of using physical therapy rather than not.
The panel also made a number of conditional recommendations for AS and nonradiographic axSpA patients with regard to biologic preference and imaging. TNFis were conditionally recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab in patients with active disease despite NSAIDs treatment, and in cases where a patient is not responding to a first TNFi treatment, the panel conditionally recommended secukinumab or ixekizumab over a second TNFi (very low evidence for all). Secukinumab or ixekizumab were also conditionally recommended over tofacitinib (very low evidence). Sulfasalazine, methotrexate, and tofacitinib were conditionally recommended in cases where patients had prominent peripheral arthritis or when TNFis are not available (very low to moderate evidence). The panel recommended against adding sulfasalazine or methotrexate to existing TNFi treatment (very low evidence), and they also advised against tapering as a standard treatment approach or discontinuing the biologic (very low evidence). MRI of the spine or pelvis was conditionally recommended to examine disease activity in unclear cases, but the panel recommended against ordering MRI scans to monitor disease inactivity (very low evidence).
“Most of the recommendations are conditional, primarily because of the relatively low level of evidence in the literature that addressed many of the questions,” while stronger recommendations came from larger clinical trials, Dr. Ward said. “The need for this update demonstrates the rapid progress in treatment that is occurring in axial spondyloarthritis, but the low level of evidence for many questions indicates that much more research is needed.”
Nine authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of consultancies, educational advisory board memberships, and site investigator appointments for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Ward MM et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Aug 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24025.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
AAN guideline encourages vaccinations for MS patients
according to an American Academy of Neurology practice guideline.
A summary of the guideline on vaccine-preventable infections and immunization in MS was published online Aug. 28 in Neurology. The new effort updates a 2002 guideline on this topic and incorporates new evidence, vaccines, and disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The guideline was endorsed by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and by the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America.
To create the guideline, lead author Mauricio F. Farez, MD, of the Raúl Carrea Institute for Neurological Research (FLENI) in Buenos Aires and colleagues on the 17-member guideline panel performed a systematic review of the evidence and reached consensus on recommendations using a modified Delphi voting process. The review included randomized, controlled trials; cohort studies; and case-control studies published between 1990 and March 2018.
“Immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agents used to treat MS may suppress or modulate normal immune function. These drugs may increase susceptibility to infections and may reduce vaccine effectiveness because of a decreased ability to mount an immune response,” the authors said.
Based on its review of the evidence, principles of care, and inferences, the authors made the following eight recommendations:
- Clinicians should discuss with patients the evidence regarding immunization in MS (Level B). In addition, clinicians should examine patients’ opinions, preferences, and questions regarding immunizations (Level B).
- Clinicians should recommend that patients with MS follow all local vaccine standards in the absence of specific contraindications (Level B).
- Clinicians should consider local risks of vaccine-preventable diseases when counseling patients (Level B).
- Clinicians should recommend that patients with MS receive the influenza vaccination if there is no specific contraindication, such as a previous severe reaction (Level B).
- When treatment with an immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agent is considered, clinicians should counsel patients about infection risks associated with the specific medication and the treatment-specific vaccination guidance in the medication’s prescribing instructions (Level B). In addition, physicians should assess patients’ vaccination status before prescribing immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapy and vaccinate patients according to local regulatory standards and treatment-specific infectious risks at least 4-6 weeks before initiating therapy, as advised by the prescribing information (Level B). Furthermore, clinicians may discuss the advantages of vaccination soon after MS diagnosis, regardless of initial therapeutic plans, to prevent delays should immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapies be initiated in the future (Level C, based on variation in patient preferences).
- Clinicians must screen for certain infections (such as hepatitis, tuberculosis, and varicella zoster virus) according to a medication’s prescribing information before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating treatment (Level A) and should treat patients who have latent infections before MS treatment according to the medication prescribing information (Level B, based on feasibility and cost relative to benefit). Further, in high-risk populations or in countries with a high burden of infectious disease, clinicians must screen for latent infections before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating medications, even when such screening is not specifically mentioned in the prescribing information (Level A). Clinicians should consult infectious disease or other specialists about treating patients with latent infection before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating medications (Level B).
- Clinicians should recommend against live-attenuated vaccines in people with MS who receive immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapies or have recently discontinued these therapies (Level B, based on importance of outcomes). When the risk of infection is high, clinicians may recommend live-attenuated vaccines if killed vaccines are unavailable (Level C, based on variation in patient preferences, benefit relative to harm, and importance of outcomes).
- If a patient with MS is experiencing a relapse, clinicians should delay vaccination until the relapse has clinically resolved or is no longer active, often many weeks after relapse onset (Level B).
Personal and population-level benefits
“There is no evidence that vaccination increases the risk of MS exacerbation, although the literature is sparse,” the authors said. “In addition to conferring personal benefits, vaccination of the MS patient population contributes to the well-established phenomenon of herd immunity for the communities in which patients with MS live,” the authors wrote.
Because influenza infection has known risks of exacerbation and morbidity, whereas influenza vaccine has no identified risks of exacerbation, “benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios, although patients with MS receiving some [immunosuppressive or immunomodulating] treatments (fingolimod [Gilenya], glatiramer acetate [Copaxone], and mitoxantrone) may have a reduced response to influenza vaccination,” the authors said. Studies in patients with diseases other than MS suggest that rituximab (Rituxan) also may be associated with reduced influenza vaccine responsiveness.
Immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory medications including alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), fingolimod, mitoxantrone, natalizumab (Tysabri), ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), rituximab, and teriflunomide (Aubagio) have been associated with severe occurrences or recurrences of vaccine-preventable infections, and many package inserts approved by the Food and Drug Administration provide guidance regarding immunization with live vaccines and treatment.
Prescribing information for alemtuzumab, fingolimod, ocrelizumab, and teriflunomide recommends against the use of live vaccines during and immediately preceding treatment. Furthermore, the prescribing information recommends waiting 2-6 months after treatment to immunize with live vaccines, depending on the half-life of the specific therapy.
“The guideline panel identified no evidence that vaccines increase the risk of relapse or worsen relapse severity, but studies are limited,” Dr. Farez and colleagues wrote. “Experts remain concerned that vaccines may worsen relapse severity if given to patients who are actively experiencing an MS relapse.” In addition, use of glucocorticoids may raise concerns about the safety of live-virus vaccines. “Immunization is not typically an urgent need and, in most cases, can be temporarily delayed without a marked increase in infection risk,” the guideline says.
Few high-quality studies
Data were lacking or insufficient to assess whether most vaccine-preventable diseases increase the risk of MS exacerbations. “It is probable that individuals with active MS exacerbations have higher odds of varicella zoster virus viral DNA present in peripheral blood mononuclear cells than individuals with MS in remission,” the guideline says.
Human papillomavirus, pertussis, and tetanus toxoid vaccinations probably are associated with a lower likelihood of a subsequent MS diagnosis, and smallpox vaccination is possibly associated with a lower likelihood of a subsequent MS diagnosis, the review found.
Studies included in the systematic review did not address whether live-attenuated vaccines are as effective in patients with MS as they are in the general population. With regard to the effectiveness of inactivated vaccines, patients with MS possibly are less likely to have a sufficient response to influenza vaccination, compared with controls.
The systematic review “found few high-quality studies to inform recommendations,” the authors said. “As more [immunosuppressive or immunomodulating] agents are developed to manage chronic diseases such as MS, long-term prospective cohort studies are required to evaluate both the safety and effectiveness of immunizations in MS.”
Dr. Farez has received funding for travel from Teva Argentina, Novartis Argentina, and Merck Serono Argentina and has received research support from Biogen. Coauthors’ disclosures included financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Farez M et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 28. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008157.
according to an American Academy of Neurology practice guideline.
A summary of the guideline on vaccine-preventable infections and immunization in MS was published online Aug. 28 in Neurology. The new effort updates a 2002 guideline on this topic and incorporates new evidence, vaccines, and disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The guideline was endorsed by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and by the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America.
To create the guideline, lead author Mauricio F. Farez, MD, of the Raúl Carrea Institute for Neurological Research (FLENI) in Buenos Aires and colleagues on the 17-member guideline panel performed a systematic review of the evidence and reached consensus on recommendations using a modified Delphi voting process. The review included randomized, controlled trials; cohort studies; and case-control studies published between 1990 and March 2018.
“Immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agents used to treat MS may suppress or modulate normal immune function. These drugs may increase susceptibility to infections and may reduce vaccine effectiveness because of a decreased ability to mount an immune response,” the authors said.
Based on its review of the evidence, principles of care, and inferences, the authors made the following eight recommendations:
- Clinicians should discuss with patients the evidence regarding immunization in MS (Level B). In addition, clinicians should examine patients’ opinions, preferences, and questions regarding immunizations (Level B).
- Clinicians should recommend that patients with MS follow all local vaccine standards in the absence of specific contraindications (Level B).
- Clinicians should consider local risks of vaccine-preventable diseases when counseling patients (Level B).
- Clinicians should recommend that patients with MS receive the influenza vaccination if there is no specific contraindication, such as a previous severe reaction (Level B).
- When treatment with an immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agent is considered, clinicians should counsel patients about infection risks associated with the specific medication and the treatment-specific vaccination guidance in the medication’s prescribing instructions (Level B). In addition, physicians should assess patients’ vaccination status before prescribing immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapy and vaccinate patients according to local regulatory standards and treatment-specific infectious risks at least 4-6 weeks before initiating therapy, as advised by the prescribing information (Level B). Furthermore, clinicians may discuss the advantages of vaccination soon after MS diagnosis, regardless of initial therapeutic plans, to prevent delays should immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapies be initiated in the future (Level C, based on variation in patient preferences).
- Clinicians must screen for certain infections (such as hepatitis, tuberculosis, and varicella zoster virus) according to a medication’s prescribing information before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating treatment (Level A) and should treat patients who have latent infections before MS treatment according to the medication prescribing information (Level B, based on feasibility and cost relative to benefit). Further, in high-risk populations or in countries with a high burden of infectious disease, clinicians must screen for latent infections before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating medications, even when such screening is not specifically mentioned in the prescribing information (Level A). Clinicians should consult infectious disease or other specialists about treating patients with latent infection before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating medications (Level B).
- Clinicians should recommend against live-attenuated vaccines in people with MS who receive immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapies or have recently discontinued these therapies (Level B, based on importance of outcomes). When the risk of infection is high, clinicians may recommend live-attenuated vaccines if killed vaccines are unavailable (Level C, based on variation in patient preferences, benefit relative to harm, and importance of outcomes).
- If a patient with MS is experiencing a relapse, clinicians should delay vaccination until the relapse has clinically resolved or is no longer active, often many weeks after relapse onset (Level B).
Personal and population-level benefits
“There is no evidence that vaccination increases the risk of MS exacerbation, although the literature is sparse,” the authors said. “In addition to conferring personal benefits, vaccination of the MS patient population contributes to the well-established phenomenon of herd immunity for the communities in which patients with MS live,” the authors wrote.
Because influenza infection has known risks of exacerbation and morbidity, whereas influenza vaccine has no identified risks of exacerbation, “benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios, although patients with MS receiving some [immunosuppressive or immunomodulating] treatments (fingolimod [Gilenya], glatiramer acetate [Copaxone], and mitoxantrone) may have a reduced response to influenza vaccination,” the authors said. Studies in patients with diseases other than MS suggest that rituximab (Rituxan) also may be associated with reduced influenza vaccine responsiveness.
Immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory medications including alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), fingolimod, mitoxantrone, natalizumab (Tysabri), ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), rituximab, and teriflunomide (Aubagio) have been associated with severe occurrences or recurrences of vaccine-preventable infections, and many package inserts approved by the Food and Drug Administration provide guidance regarding immunization with live vaccines and treatment.
Prescribing information for alemtuzumab, fingolimod, ocrelizumab, and teriflunomide recommends against the use of live vaccines during and immediately preceding treatment. Furthermore, the prescribing information recommends waiting 2-6 months after treatment to immunize with live vaccines, depending on the half-life of the specific therapy.
“The guideline panel identified no evidence that vaccines increase the risk of relapse or worsen relapse severity, but studies are limited,” Dr. Farez and colleagues wrote. “Experts remain concerned that vaccines may worsen relapse severity if given to patients who are actively experiencing an MS relapse.” In addition, use of glucocorticoids may raise concerns about the safety of live-virus vaccines. “Immunization is not typically an urgent need and, in most cases, can be temporarily delayed without a marked increase in infection risk,” the guideline says.
Few high-quality studies
Data were lacking or insufficient to assess whether most vaccine-preventable diseases increase the risk of MS exacerbations. “It is probable that individuals with active MS exacerbations have higher odds of varicella zoster virus viral DNA present in peripheral blood mononuclear cells than individuals with MS in remission,” the guideline says.
Human papillomavirus, pertussis, and tetanus toxoid vaccinations probably are associated with a lower likelihood of a subsequent MS diagnosis, and smallpox vaccination is possibly associated with a lower likelihood of a subsequent MS diagnosis, the review found.
Studies included in the systematic review did not address whether live-attenuated vaccines are as effective in patients with MS as they are in the general population. With regard to the effectiveness of inactivated vaccines, patients with MS possibly are less likely to have a sufficient response to influenza vaccination, compared with controls.
The systematic review “found few high-quality studies to inform recommendations,” the authors said. “As more [immunosuppressive or immunomodulating] agents are developed to manage chronic diseases such as MS, long-term prospective cohort studies are required to evaluate both the safety and effectiveness of immunizations in MS.”
Dr. Farez has received funding for travel from Teva Argentina, Novartis Argentina, and Merck Serono Argentina and has received research support from Biogen. Coauthors’ disclosures included financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Farez M et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 28. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008157.
according to an American Academy of Neurology practice guideline.
A summary of the guideline on vaccine-preventable infections and immunization in MS was published online Aug. 28 in Neurology. The new effort updates a 2002 guideline on this topic and incorporates new evidence, vaccines, and disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The guideline was endorsed by the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and by the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America.
To create the guideline, lead author Mauricio F. Farez, MD, of the Raúl Carrea Institute for Neurological Research (FLENI) in Buenos Aires and colleagues on the 17-member guideline panel performed a systematic review of the evidence and reached consensus on recommendations using a modified Delphi voting process. The review included randomized, controlled trials; cohort studies; and case-control studies published between 1990 and March 2018.
“Immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agents used to treat MS may suppress or modulate normal immune function. These drugs may increase susceptibility to infections and may reduce vaccine effectiveness because of a decreased ability to mount an immune response,” the authors said.
Based on its review of the evidence, principles of care, and inferences, the authors made the following eight recommendations:
- Clinicians should discuss with patients the evidence regarding immunization in MS (Level B). In addition, clinicians should examine patients’ opinions, preferences, and questions regarding immunizations (Level B).
- Clinicians should recommend that patients with MS follow all local vaccine standards in the absence of specific contraindications (Level B).
- Clinicians should consider local risks of vaccine-preventable diseases when counseling patients (Level B).
- Clinicians should recommend that patients with MS receive the influenza vaccination if there is no specific contraindication, such as a previous severe reaction (Level B).
- When treatment with an immunosuppressive or immunomodulating agent is considered, clinicians should counsel patients about infection risks associated with the specific medication and the treatment-specific vaccination guidance in the medication’s prescribing instructions (Level B). In addition, physicians should assess patients’ vaccination status before prescribing immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapy and vaccinate patients according to local regulatory standards and treatment-specific infectious risks at least 4-6 weeks before initiating therapy, as advised by the prescribing information (Level B). Furthermore, clinicians may discuss the advantages of vaccination soon after MS diagnosis, regardless of initial therapeutic plans, to prevent delays should immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapies be initiated in the future (Level C, based on variation in patient preferences).
- Clinicians must screen for certain infections (such as hepatitis, tuberculosis, and varicella zoster virus) according to a medication’s prescribing information before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating treatment (Level A) and should treat patients who have latent infections before MS treatment according to the medication prescribing information (Level B, based on feasibility and cost relative to benefit). Further, in high-risk populations or in countries with a high burden of infectious disease, clinicians must screen for latent infections before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating medications, even when such screening is not specifically mentioned in the prescribing information (Level A). Clinicians should consult infectious disease or other specialists about treating patients with latent infection before starting immunosuppressive or immunomodulating medications (Level B).
- Clinicians should recommend against live-attenuated vaccines in people with MS who receive immunosuppressive or immunomodulating therapies or have recently discontinued these therapies (Level B, based on importance of outcomes). When the risk of infection is high, clinicians may recommend live-attenuated vaccines if killed vaccines are unavailable (Level C, based on variation in patient preferences, benefit relative to harm, and importance of outcomes).
- If a patient with MS is experiencing a relapse, clinicians should delay vaccination until the relapse has clinically resolved or is no longer active, often many weeks after relapse onset (Level B).
Personal and population-level benefits
“There is no evidence that vaccination increases the risk of MS exacerbation, although the literature is sparse,” the authors said. “In addition to conferring personal benefits, vaccination of the MS patient population contributes to the well-established phenomenon of herd immunity for the communities in which patients with MS live,” the authors wrote.
Because influenza infection has known risks of exacerbation and morbidity, whereas influenza vaccine has no identified risks of exacerbation, “benefits of influenza vaccination outweigh the risks in most scenarios, although patients with MS receiving some [immunosuppressive or immunomodulating] treatments (fingolimod [Gilenya], glatiramer acetate [Copaxone], and mitoxantrone) may have a reduced response to influenza vaccination,” the authors said. Studies in patients with diseases other than MS suggest that rituximab (Rituxan) also may be associated with reduced influenza vaccine responsiveness.
Immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory medications including alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera), fingolimod, mitoxantrone, natalizumab (Tysabri), ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), rituximab, and teriflunomide (Aubagio) have been associated with severe occurrences or recurrences of vaccine-preventable infections, and many package inserts approved by the Food and Drug Administration provide guidance regarding immunization with live vaccines and treatment.
Prescribing information for alemtuzumab, fingolimod, ocrelizumab, and teriflunomide recommends against the use of live vaccines during and immediately preceding treatment. Furthermore, the prescribing information recommends waiting 2-6 months after treatment to immunize with live vaccines, depending on the half-life of the specific therapy.
“The guideline panel identified no evidence that vaccines increase the risk of relapse or worsen relapse severity, but studies are limited,” Dr. Farez and colleagues wrote. “Experts remain concerned that vaccines may worsen relapse severity if given to patients who are actively experiencing an MS relapse.” In addition, use of glucocorticoids may raise concerns about the safety of live-virus vaccines. “Immunization is not typically an urgent need and, in most cases, can be temporarily delayed without a marked increase in infection risk,” the guideline says.
Few high-quality studies
Data were lacking or insufficient to assess whether most vaccine-preventable diseases increase the risk of MS exacerbations. “It is probable that individuals with active MS exacerbations have higher odds of varicella zoster virus viral DNA present in peripheral blood mononuclear cells than individuals with MS in remission,” the guideline says.
Human papillomavirus, pertussis, and tetanus toxoid vaccinations probably are associated with a lower likelihood of a subsequent MS diagnosis, and smallpox vaccination is possibly associated with a lower likelihood of a subsequent MS diagnosis, the review found.
Studies included in the systematic review did not address whether live-attenuated vaccines are as effective in patients with MS as they are in the general population. With regard to the effectiveness of inactivated vaccines, patients with MS possibly are less likely to have a sufficient response to influenza vaccination, compared with controls.
The systematic review “found few high-quality studies to inform recommendations,” the authors said. “As more [immunosuppressive or immunomodulating] agents are developed to manage chronic diseases such as MS, long-term prospective cohort studies are required to evaluate both the safety and effectiveness of immunizations in MS.”
Dr. Farez has received funding for travel from Teva Argentina, Novartis Argentina, and Merck Serono Argentina and has received research support from Biogen. Coauthors’ disclosures included financial ties to pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Farez M et al. Neurology. 2019 Aug 28. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008157.
FROM NEUROLOGY
ACOG advises bleeding disorder screening for teens with heavy menstruation
Adolescent girls with heavy menstrual bleeding should be assessed for bleeding disorders, according to a Committee Opinion issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
A bleeding disorder is secondary only to anovulation as a cause of heavy menstrual bleeding in adolescents.
Bleeding disorders affect 1%-2% of the general population, but are “found in approximately 20% of adolescent girls who present for evaluation of heavy menstrual bleeding and in 33% of adolescent girls hospitalized for heavy menstrual bleeding,” wrote Oluyemisi Adeyemi-Fowode, MD, and Judith Simms-Cendan, MD, and members of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care in the opinion, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The committee advised that physical examination of teens with acute heavy menstrual bleeding should include assessment of hemodynamic stability with orthostatic blood pressure and pulse measurements. A speculum exam is not usually needed in teen girls with heavy menstrual bleeding. Evaluation should include screening for anemia attributable to blood loss with serum ferritin, endocrine disorders, and bleeding disorders. In suspected cases of bleeding disorders, laboratory evaluation and medical management should be done in consultation with a hematologist.
Those who are actively bleeding or hemodynamically unstable should be hospitalized for medical management, they said.
Ultrasonography is not necessary for an initial work-up of teens with heavy menstrual bleeding, but could be useful in patients who fail to respond to medical management.
Adolescent girls without contraindications to estrogen can be treated with hormone therapy in various forms including intravenous conjugated estrogen every 4-6 hours or oral 30-50 mg ethinyl estradiol every 6-8 hours until cessation of bleeding. Antifibrinolytics also can be used to stop bleeding.
Maintenance therapy after correction of acute heavy bleeding can include a combination of treatments such as hormonal contraceptives, oral and injectable progestins, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, the committee wrote. They also recommended oral iron replacement therapy for all women of reproductive age with anemia caused by menstrual bleeding.
If a patient fails to respond to medical therapy, nonmedical options or surgery may be considered, according to the committee. In addition, all teen girls with bleeding disorders should be advised about safe medication use, including the use of aspirin or NSAIDs only on the recommendation of a hematologist.
Patients and their families need education on menstrual issues including possible options for surgery in the future if heavy menstruation does not resolve. If a patient has a known bleeding disorder and is considering surgery, preoperative evaluation should include a consultation with a hematologist and an anesthesiologist, the committee noted.
Melissa Kottke, MD, MPH, said in an interview, “Every ob.gyn. will see a young patient with ‘heavy menstrual bleeding.’ And it becomes part of the art and challenge to work with the patient and family to collectively explore if this is, indeed, ‘heavy’ and of concern … or is it is a ‘normal’ menstrual period and simply reflects a newer life experience that would benefit from some education? And the stakes are high. Young people who have heavy menstrual cycles are much more likely to have an underlying bleeding disorder than the general population (20% vs. 1%-2%), and 75%-80% of adolescents with bleeding disorders report heavy menses as the most common clinical manifestation of their disorder.
“Fortunately, Committee Opinion 785, ‘Screening and Management of Bleeding Disorders in Adolescents with Heavy Menstrual Bleeding’ from the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care is detailed and pragmatic. It outlines how to translate everyday conversations with young people about their menses into a quantifiable estimate of bleeding, including a very teen-friendly Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart. It also gives ob.gyns. ever-important guidance about what to do next for evaluation and diagnosis. This committee opinion nicely outlines how to help manage heavy bleeding in an adolescent with a detailed algorithm. And very importantly, it gives clear management guidance and encourages ob.gyns. to avoid frequently unnecessary (speculum exams and ultrasounds) and excessive (early transfusion or surgical interventions) approaches to management for the young patient. I think it will be a great resource for any provider who is taking care of heavy menstrual bleeding for a young person,” said Dr. Kottke, who is director of the Jane Fonda Center for Adolescent Reproductive Health and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics, both at Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Kottke is not a member of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health and was asked to comment on the opinion.*
The complete opinion, ACOG Committee Opinion number 785, includes recommended laboratory tests, an eight-question screening tool, and a management algorithm.
The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kottke said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Adeyemi-Fowode O and Simms-Cendan J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep. 134:e71-83.
*This article was updated on 9/9/2019.
Adolescent girls with heavy menstrual bleeding should be assessed for bleeding disorders, according to a Committee Opinion issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
A bleeding disorder is secondary only to anovulation as a cause of heavy menstrual bleeding in adolescents.
Bleeding disorders affect 1%-2% of the general population, but are “found in approximately 20% of adolescent girls who present for evaluation of heavy menstrual bleeding and in 33% of adolescent girls hospitalized for heavy menstrual bleeding,” wrote Oluyemisi Adeyemi-Fowode, MD, and Judith Simms-Cendan, MD, and members of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care in the opinion, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The committee advised that physical examination of teens with acute heavy menstrual bleeding should include assessment of hemodynamic stability with orthostatic blood pressure and pulse measurements. A speculum exam is not usually needed in teen girls with heavy menstrual bleeding. Evaluation should include screening for anemia attributable to blood loss with serum ferritin, endocrine disorders, and bleeding disorders. In suspected cases of bleeding disorders, laboratory evaluation and medical management should be done in consultation with a hematologist.
Those who are actively bleeding or hemodynamically unstable should be hospitalized for medical management, they said.
Ultrasonography is not necessary for an initial work-up of teens with heavy menstrual bleeding, but could be useful in patients who fail to respond to medical management.
Adolescent girls without contraindications to estrogen can be treated with hormone therapy in various forms including intravenous conjugated estrogen every 4-6 hours or oral 30-50 mg ethinyl estradiol every 6-8 hours until cessation of bleeding. Antifibrinolytics also can be used to stop bleeding.
Maintenance therapy after correction of acute heavy bleeding can include a combination of treatments such as hormonal contraceptives, oral and injectable progestins, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, the committee wrote. They also recommended oral iron replacement therapy for all women of reproductive age with anemia caused by menstrual bleeding.
If a patient fails to respond to medical therapy, nonmedical options or surgery may be considered, according to the committee. In addition, all teen girls with bleeding disorders should be advised about safe medication use, including the use of aspirin or NSAIDs only on the recommendation of a hematologist.
Patients and their families need education on menstrual issues including possible options for surgery in the future if heavy menstruation does not resolve. If a patient has a known bleeding disorder and is considering surgery, preoperative evaluation should include a consultation with a hematologist and an anesthesiologist, the committee noted.
Melissa Kottke, MD, MPH, said in an interview, “Every ob.gyn. will see a young patient with ‘heavy menstrual bleeding.’ And it becomes part of the art and challenge to work with the patient and family to collectively explore if this is, indeed, ‘heavy’ and of concern … or is it is a ‘normal’ menstrual period and simply reflects a newer life experience that would benefit from some education? And the stakes are high. Young people who have heavy menstrual cycles are much more likely to have an underlying bleeding disorder than the general population (20% vs. 1%-2%), and 75%-80% of adolescents with bleeding disorders report heavy menses as the most common clinical manifestation of their disorder.
“Fortunately, Committee Opinion 785, ‘Screening and Management of Bleeding Disorders in Adolescents with Heavy Menstrual Bleeding’ from the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care is detailed and pragmatic. It outlines how to translate everyday conversations with young people about their menses into a quantifiable estimate of bleeding, including a very teen-friendly Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart. It also gives ob.gyns. ever-important guidance about what to do next for evaluation and diagnosis. This committee opinion nicely outlines how to help manage heavy bleeding in an adolescent with a detailed algorithm. And very importantly, it gives clear management guidance and encourages ob.gyns. to avoid frequently unnecessary (speculum exams and ultrasounds) and excessive (early transfusion or surgical interventions) approaches to management for the young patient. I think it will be a great resource for any provider who is taking care of heavy menstrual bleeding for a young person,” said Dr. Kottke, who is director of the Jane Fonda Center for Adolescent Reproductive Health and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics, both at Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Kottke is not a member of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health and was asked to comment on the opinion.*
The complete opinion, ACOG Committee Opinion number 785, includes recommended laboratory tests, an eight-question screening tool, and a management algorithm.
The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kottke said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Adeyemi-Fowode O and Simms-Cendan J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep. 134:e71-83.
*This article was updated on 9/9/2019.
Adolescent girls with heavy menstrual bleeding should be assessed for bleeding disorders, according to a Committee Opinion issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
A bleeding disorder is secondary only to anovulation as a cause of heavy menstrual bleeding in adolescents.
Bleeding disorders affect 1%-2% of the general population, but are “found in approximately 20% of adolescent girls who present for evaluation of heavy menstrual bleeding and in 33% of adolescent girls hospitalized for heavy menstrual bleeding,” wrote Oluyemisi Adeyemi-Fowode, MD, and Judith Simms-Cendan, MD, and members of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care in the opinion, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The committee advised that physical examination of teens with acute heavy menstrual bleeding should include assessment of hemodynamic stability with orthostatic blood pressure and pulse measurements. A speculum exam is not usually needed in teen girls with heavy menstrual bleeding. Evaluation should include screening for anemia attributable to blood loss with serum ferritin, endocrine disorders, and bleeding disorders. In suspected cases of bleeding disorders, laboratory evaluation and medical management should be done in consultation with a hematologist.
Those who are actively bleeding or hemodynamically unstable should be hospitalized for medical management, they said.
Ultrasonography is not necessary for an initial work-up of teens with heavy menstrual bleeding, but could be useful in patients who fail to respond to medical management.
Adolescent girls without contraindications to estrogen can be treated with hormone therapy in various forms including intravenous conjugated estrogen every 4-6 hours or oral 30-50 mg ethinyl estradiol every 6-8 hours until cessation of bleeding. Antifibrinolytics also can be used to stop bleeding.
Maintenance therapy after correction of acute heavy bleeding can include a combination of treatments such as hormonal contraceptives, oral and injectable progestins, and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices, the committee wrote. They also recommended oral iron replacement therapy for all women of reproductive age with anemia caused by menstrual bleeding.
If a patient fails to respond to medical therapy, nonmedical options or surgery may be considered, according to the committee. In addition, all teen girls with bleeding disorders should be advised about safe medication use, including the use of aspirin or NSAIDs only on the recommendation of a hematologist.
Patients and their families need education on menstrual issues including possible options for surgery in the future if heavy menstruation does not resolve. If a patient has a known bleeding disorder and is considering surgery, preoperative evaluation should include a consultation with a hematologist and an anesthesiologist, the committee noted.
Melissa Kottke, MD, MPH, said in an interview, “Every ob.gyn. will see a young patient with ‘heavy menstrual bleeding.’ And it becomes part of the art and challenge to work with the patient and family to collectively explore if this is, indeed, ‘heavy’ and of concern … or is it is a ‘normal’ menstrual period and simply reflects a newer life experience that would benefit from some education? And the stakes are high. Young people who have heavy menstrual cycles are much more likely to have an underlying bleeding disorder than the general population (20% vs. 1%-2%), and 75%-80% of adolescents with bleeding disorders report heavy menses as the most common clinical manifestation of their disorder.
“Fortunately, Committee Opinion 785, ‘Screening and Management of Bleeding Disorders in Adolescents with Heavy Menstrual Bleeding’ from the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care is detailed and pragmatic. It outlines how to translate everyday conversations with young people about their menses into a quantifiable estimate of bleeding, including a very teen-friendly Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart. It also gives ob.gyns. ever-important guidance about what to do next for evaluation and diagnosis. This committee opinion nicely outlines how to help manage heavy bleeding in an adolescent with a detailed algorithm. And very importantly, it gives clear management guidance and encourages ob.gyns. to avoid frequently unnecessary (speculum exams and ultrasounds) and excessive (early transfusion or surgical interventions) approaches to management for the young patient. I think it will be a great resource for any provider who is taking care of heavy menstrual bleeding for a young person,” said Dr. Kottke, who is director of the Jane Fonda Center for Adolescent Reproductive Health and associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics, both at Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Kottke is not a member of the ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health and was asked to comment on the opinion.*
The complete opinion, ACOG Committee Opinion number 785, includes recommended laboratory tests, an eight-question screening tool, and a management algorithm.
The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kottke said she had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Adeyemi-Fowode O and Simms-Cendan J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Sep. 134:e71-83.
*This article was updated on 9/9/2019.
FROM OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
USPSTF issues draft recommendation statement for HCV screening in adults
and now suggests that all adults aged 18-79 years receive screening.
This proposal represents an update and expansion of its current recommendation for screening for HCV infection. The draft recommendation incorporates new evidence and would replace the recommendation made in 2013, which calls for screening in persons at high risk for infection and one-time screening in adults born between 1945 and 1965 (Grade B).
“Today, more people are infected with hepatitis C than there were a decade ago, but there are now better treatments available. The evidence now shows more people can benefit from screening; therefore, we are recommending to screen all adults ages 18-79 for hepatitis C,” task force chair Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS, said in a bulletin issued by the USPSTF.
To update the previous recommendation, the USPSTF conducted a systematic review that included a total of 97 studies. No direct evidence was found regarding the benefits of HCV screening versus no screening or repeat versus one-time screening, and no new studies analyzed the psychological and social consequences of HCV screening.
Evidence concerning direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment was more compelling given that 49 trials found DAA therapy to be associated with pooled sustained virologic response (SVR) rates between 95.5% and 98.9% across genotypes. The rate of serious adverse events caused by DAA treatment was 1.9%, and the discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events was 0.4%. In seven trials involving adolescents, SVR rates after antiviral treatment were similar to those in adults.
Achieving an SVR after DAA treatment was associated with a decreased risk in those treated of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.56), liver mortality (HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.27), cirrhosis (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.33-0.40), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.23-0.38), compared with those who did not respond.
Because of the evidence collected, the USPSTF issued a B recommendation for HCV screening in adults and recommended screening for all people aged 18-79 years in the draft recommendation statement. “Clinicians may want to consider screening in adolescents younger than age 18 years and in adults older than age 79 years who are at high risk [for HCV],” the proposal says.
The draft recommendation statement and evidence review is available at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org. The public comment period will last until Sept. 23, 2019.
and now suggests that all adults aged 18-79 years receive screening.
This proposal represents an update and expansion of its current recommendation for screening for HCV infection. The draft recommendation incorporates new evidence and would replace the recommendation made in 2013, which calls for screening in persons at high risk for infection and one-time screening in adults born between 1945 and 1965 (Grade B).
“Today, more people are infected with hepatitis C than there were a decade ago, but there are now better treatments available. The evidence now shows more people can benefit from screening; therefore, we are recommending to screen all adults ages 18-79 for hepatitis C,” task force chair Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS, said in a bulletin issued by the USPSTF.
To update the previous recommendation, the USPSTF conducted a systematic review that included a total of 97 studies. No direct evidence was found regarding the benefits of HCV screening versus no screening or repeat versus one-time screening, and no new studies analyzed the psychological and social consequences of HCV screening.
Evidence concerning direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment was more compelling given that 49 trials found DAA therapy to be associated with pooled sustained virologic response (SVR) rates between 95.5% and 98.9% across genotypes. The rate of serious adverse events caused by DAA treatment was 1.9%, and the discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events was 0.4%. In seven trials involving adolescents, SVR rates after antiviral treatment were similar to those in adults.
Achieving an SVR after DAA treatment was associated with a decreased risk in those treated of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.56), liver mortality (HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.27), cirrhosis (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.33-0.40), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.23-0.38), compared with those who did not respond.
Because of the evidence collected, the USPSTF issued a B recommendation for HCV screening in adults and recommended screening for all people aged 18-79 years in the draft recommendation statement. “Clinicians may want to consider screening in adolescents younger than age 18 years and in adults older than age 79 years who are at high risk [for HCV],” the proposal says.
The draft recommendation statement and evidence review is available at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org. The public comment period will last until Sept. 23, 2019.
and now suggests that all adults aged 18-79 years receive screening.
This proposal represents an update and expansion of its current recommendation for screening for HCV infection. The draft recommendation incorporates new evidence and would replace the recommendation made in 2013, which calls for screening in persons at high risk for infection and one-time screening in adults born between 1945 and 1965 (Grade B).
“Today, more people are infected with hepatitis C than there were a decade ago, but there are now better treatments available. The evidence now shows more people can benefit from screening; therefore, we are recommending to screen all adults ages 18-79 for hepatitis C,” task force chair Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS, said in a bulletin issued by the USPSTF.
To update the previous recommendation, the USPSTF conducted a systematic review that included a total of 97 studies. No direct evidence was found regarding the benefits of HCV screening versus no screening or repeat versus one-time screening, and no new studies analyzed the psychological and social consequences of HCV screening.
Evidence concerning direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment was more compelling given that 49 trials found DAA therapy to be associated with pooled sustained virologic response (SVR) rates between 95.5% and 98.9% across genotypes. The rate of serious adverse events caused by DAA treatment was 1.9%, and the discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events was 0.4%. In seven trials involving adolescents, SVR rates after antiviral treatment were similar to those in adults.
Achieving an SVR after DAA treatment was associated with a decreased risk in those treated of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.56), liver mortality (HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.27), cirrhosis (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.33-0.40), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.23-0.38), compared with those who did not respond.
Because of the evidence collected, the USPSTF issued a B recommendation for HCV screening in adults and recommended screening for all people aged 18-79 years in the draft recommendation statement. “Clinicians may want to consider screening in adolescents younger than age 18 years and in adults older than age 79 years who are at high risk [for HCV],” the proposal says.
The draft recommendation statement and evidence review is available at www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org. The public comment period will last until Sept. 23, 2019.
EULAR updates vaccination recommendations for autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease patients
Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.
Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).
The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.
“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.
These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.
Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.
The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.
AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.
In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”
Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.
Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.
Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).
The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.
“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.
These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.
Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.
The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.
AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.
In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”
Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.
Vaccination status should be reviewed annually for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases, according to updated recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism.
Patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD) are at increased risk for infections, and vaccination has been shown to reduce risk by “potentially translating into a lower rate of hospital admissions due to infections, emergency room visits, and the rate of invasive infectious diseases,” wrote Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, and members of the task force that updated the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
However, AIIRD patients often go unvaccinated because of a lack of awareness or concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, they said (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Aug 14. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215882).
The task force consisted of 21 experts, including patients, rheumatologists, immunologists, an infectious disease specialist, and health professionals in rheumatology representing eight countries. They evaluated data from four systematic literature reviews and developed nine recommendations based on six key principles.
“For each recommendation, the level of evidence for the incidence/prevalence of vaccine preventable infection in AIIRD, and efficacy/immunogenicity/safety of vaccination were stated, when available, followed by the strength of recommendation and the level of agreement,” the task force wrote.
These overarching principles start with an annual assessment of vaccination status by the AIIRD patient’s rheumatology team. Other principles include explanation of an individualized vaccination program to the patient as a foundation for joint decision-making, vaccinating patients during quiescent disease periods, vaccinating in advance of planned immunosuppression when possible, considering non-live vaccines for AIIRD patients also treated with systemic glucocorticoids and DMARDs, and considering live-attenuated vaccines with caution.
Several of the nine recommendations developed by the task force are modified from the previous recommendations issued in 2011. The task force made its recommendations with an eye toward optimizing individual risk stratification and avoiding “unnecessary” vaccination in AIIRD patients with low risk of infection as part of the update process. A notable change from the 2011 guidelines is the recommendation of both influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for the majority of patients with AIIRD as opposed to all patients to emphasize the importance of individualized risk assessment, the task force noted.
The recommendations state that influenza vaccination and pneumococcal vaccination should be “strongly considered” for patients with AIIRD, and patients also should receive tetanus toxoid vaccination according to recommendations for the general population. However, clinicians should consider passive immunization for patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy, the task force wrote.
AIIRD patients at risk for hepatitis A and B should receive vaccinations for those diseases, with boosters or passive immunization if indicated, and high-risk patients may consider herpes zoster vaccination, according to the recommendations.
In addition, AIIRD patients – especially patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – should receive human papilloma virus vaccination according to recommendations for the general population, but AIIRD patients should avoid yellow fever vaccination, the task force stated. However, for AIIRD patients traveling to areas of yellow fever risk, “withholding immunosuppressive therapy to allow a safe vaccination or measuring serology in previously exposed patients may be considered.”
Finally, mothers treated with biologics during the second half of pregnancy should avoid live-attenuated vaccines for their newborns, and immunocompetent household members of AIIRD patients should be encouraged to follow national guidelines for routine vaccination with the exception of the oral polio vaccine, the task force concluded.
FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
USPSTF expands BRCA1/2 testing recommendations
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.
In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.
The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).
“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.
Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.
By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.
Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.
Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
Important step forward
Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.
“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.
While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.
“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.
Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
More research needed
Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.
Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.
In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.
“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.
Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.
Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
Treatment implications
While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH
Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.
The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.
“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
Addressing disparities in care
The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.
“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.
Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.
Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.
“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.
The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.
In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.
The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).
“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.
Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.
By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.
Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.
Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
Important step forward
Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.
“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.
While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.
“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.
Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
More research needed
Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.
Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.
In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.
“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.
Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.
Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
Treatment implications
While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH
Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.
The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.
“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
Addressing disparities in care
The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.
“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.
Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.
Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.
“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.
The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its recommendations on assessment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-related cancer, substantially expanding the pool of individuals for whom risk assessment, testing, and counseling would be warranted.
In its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF said referral for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA1/2 testing was warranted for women who had a family history linked to increased risk of potentially harmful BRCA1/2 mutations.
The updated recommendations, just published in JAMA, expand the screening-eligible population to include those with personal cancer history, and more specifically call out ancestry linked to BRCA1/2 mutations as a risk factor (JAMA. 2019;322[7]:652-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10987).
“The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians assess women with a personal or family history of breast, ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer or who have an ancestry associated with BRCA1/2 gene mutations with an appropriate brief familial risk assessment tool,” wrote Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and coauthors of the task force report.
Positive results on the risk assessment tool should prompt genetic counseling, and genetic testing if indicated after counseling, the USPSTF added in its statement.
By contrast, the task force recommends against routine assessment, counseling, and testing in women with no family history, personal history, or ancestry linked to possibly harmful BRCA1/2 gene mutations, consistent with their previous recommendation.
Mutations of BRCA1/2 genes occur in an estimated 1 in 300-500 women in the general population, and account for 15% of ovarian cancer and up to 10% of breast cancer cases, according to the USPSTF.
Breast cancer risk is increased up to 65% by 70 years in those women with clinically significant BRCA1/2 mutations, while risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer are increased by up to 39%, according to studies cited by the USPSTF.
Important step forward
Including women with prior breast and ovarian cancer in the screening-eligible population is an “important step forward,” Susan Domcheck, MD, and Mark Robson, MD, said in a related editorial.
“While further expansion of the USPSTF recommendation should be considered, the importance is clear: Identification of individuals at risk of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation can be lifesaving and should be a part of routine medical care,” Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson said in their editorial, which appears in JAMA.
While the updated recommendations explicitly call out ancestry as a risk factor, they stop short of endorsing testing for unaffected Ashkenazi Jewish women with no family history, the authors said.
“However, the statement may be interpreted as a step toward supporting unselected testing in this group,” they added.
Among unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, 1 in 40 have 1 of 3 specific BRCA1 or BRCA2 founder mutations, according to one study cited by Dr. Domcheck and Dr. Robson.
More research needed
Current research is still “limited or lacking” to address many key questions about the benefits and harms of risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing in women without BRCA1/2-related cancer, according to authors of a literature review used by the USPSTF.
Notably, the ability of risk assessment, testing, and counseling to reduce cancer incidence and mortality among such women has not been directly evaluated by studies to date, said the review authors, led by Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
“Without effectiveness trials of intensive screening, practice standards have preceded supporting evidence,” said Dr. Nelson and coauthors noted in a report on the review findings.
In observational studies, mastectomy and oophorectomy have been associated with substantial reductions in subsequent cancer incidence and mortality; however, they are invasive procedures with potential complications, the authors noted.
“To determine the appropriateness of risk assessment and genetic testing for BRCA1/2 mutations as a preventive service in primary care, more information is needed about mutation prevalence and the effect of testing in the general population,” they added.
Researchers studying BRCA1/2 assessment as preventive service in primary care have generally looked at highly selected patient populations in referral centers, and have reported relatively short-term outcomes, they said.
Research is additionally needed on access to genetic testing and follow-up, effectiveness of risk stratification and multigene panels, and the impact of direct-to-consumer genetic testing, among other key questions, the authors of the review added.
Treatment implications
While the USPSTF recommendations do not mention systemic therapy, finding a BRCA mutation in a cancer patient today has important implications for treatment, said Rachel L. Yung, MD, and Larissa A. Korde, MD, MPH
Specifically, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have proved effective in certain BRCA-related cancers, Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde said in an editorial on the updated recommendations appearing in JAMA Oncology.
The Food and Drug Administration has already approved several PARP inhibitors for treatment of BRCA-linked metastatic breast or ovarian cancers, and studies are underway for other tumor types, including prostate and pancreatic cancers that harbor a BRCA mutation.
“Increasing awareness of BRCA mutation as a target for treatment will likely lead to an increase in the identification of patients with cancer harboring germline BRCA mutations, which in turn will increase the need for cascade testing for relatives of affected probands,” wrote Dr. Yung and Dr. Korde.
Addressing disparities in care
The USPSTF recommendations for BRCA risk assessment do not address disparities in testing referral and variation in breast cancer phenotypes among women of African ancestry, owing to lack of evidence, according to Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of the Interdisciplinary Breast Program at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.
“Paradoxically, the data-driven basis for the USPSTF recommendation statement may magnify existing genetic testing disparities,” Dr. Newman wrote in an editorial that appears in JAMA Surgery.
Non-Hispanic black women in the United States have a twofold higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer, which is a well documented risk factor for BRCA1 mutation carrier status, according to Dr. Newman.
Despite this, she added, genetic counseling and testing referrals remain “disproportionately low” among U.S. patients of African ancestry.
“It remains imperative for clinicians to exercise clinical judgment and to be mindful of patient subsets that do not necessarily fit into recommendations designed for the majority or general populations,” Dr. Newman concluded in her editorial.
The USPSTF is funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Members of the task force receive travel reimbursement and honoraria for participating in USPSTF meetings.
FROM JAMA
ASCO VTE guideline update: DOACs now an option for prevention, treatment
The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban and rivaroxaban are now among the options for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk cancer outpatients with low risk for bleeding and drug interactions, according to a practice guideline update from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Rivaroxaban also has been added as an option for initial anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and both rivaroxaban and edoxaban are now options for long-term anticoagulation, Nigel S. Key, MB ChB, and colleagues wrote in the updated guideline on the prophylaxis and treatment of VTE – including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) – in cancer patients (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.19.01461).
The addition of DOACs as options for VTE prophylaxis and treatment represents the most notable change to the guideline.
“Oral anticoagulants that target thrombin (direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran) or activated factor X (antifactor Xa inhibitors, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) are now approved for treatment of DVT or PE as well as for DVT prophylaxis following orthopedic surgery and for reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” the guideline panel wrote.
A systematic review of PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from Aug. 1, 2014, through Dec. 4, 2018, identified 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment, including 2 RCTs of DOACs for prophylaxis and 2 others of DOAC treatment, as well as 8 publications on VTE risk assessment. A multidisciplinary expert panel appointed by ASCO and cochaired by Dr. Key of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, used this evidence to develop the updated guideline.
The work was guided by “the ‘signals’ approach that is designed to identify only new, potentially practice-changing data – signals – that might translate into revised practice recommendations,” the authors explained.
DOAC-related updates
VTE prophylaxis. Based in part on findings from the recently published AVERT trial of apixaban in patients initiating a new course of chemotherapy and from the CASSINI trial of rivaroxaban in patients with solid tumors or lymphoma starting systemic antineoplastic therapy, the panel added both agents as thromboprophylactic options that can be offered to high-risk cancer outpatients with no significant risk factors for bleeding or drug interactions (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:711-19; N Engl J Med. 2019;380:720-8).
Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) also remains an option in such patients; consideration of therapy should involve discussion with the patient about relative benefits and harms, drug costs, and “the uncertainty surrounding duration of prophylaxis in this setting,” they wrote.
Anticoagulation for VTE. Options for initial anticoagulation include LMWH, unfractionated heparin (UFH), fondaparinux, and now rivaroxaban, with the latter added based on findings from two RCTs – the SELECT-D trial and the Hokusai VTE-Cancer study – and multiple meta-analyses (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2017-23; N Engl J Med. 2018;378:615-24).
Long-term anticoagulation can involve treatment with LMWH, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban for at least 6 months, all of which have improved efficacy versus vitamin K agonists (VKAs), the panel noted. However, VKAs may be used if LMWH and DOACs are not accessible.
Importantly, the literature indicates an increased risk of major bleeding with DOACs, particularly in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies and potentially in those with genitourinary malignancies. “Caution with DOACs is also warranted in other settings with high risk for mucosal bleeding,” the panel wrote.
Additional updates
CNS metastases. The anticoagulation recommendations were also updated to include patients with metastatic central nervous system malignancies (those with primary CNS malignancies were included previously). Both those with primary and metastatic CNS malignancy should be offered anticoagulation for established VTE as described for patients with other types of cancer. However, the panel stressed that “uncertainties remain about choice of agents and selection of patients most likely to benefit.”
“Patients with intracranial tumors are at increased risk for thrombotic complications and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), but the presence of a stable or active primary intracranial malignancy or brain metastases is not an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation,” they wrote.
Limited evidence suggests that therapeutic anticoagulation does not increase ICH risk in patients with brain metastases, but it may increase risk in those with primary brain tumors, the panel added.
Additionally, preliminary data from a retrospective cohort of patients with metastatic brain disease and venous thrombosis suggest that DOACs may be associated with a lower risk of ICH than is LMWH in this population.
Long-term postoperative LMWH. Extended prophylaxis with LMWH for up to 4 weeks is recommended after major open or laparoscopic abdominal or pelvic surgery in cancer patients with high-risk features, such as restricted mobility, obesity, history of VTE, or with additional risk factors. Lower-risk surgical settings require case-by-case decision making about appropriate thromboprophylaxis duration, according to the update.
A 2014 RCT looking at thromboprophylaxis duration in 225 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer prompted the addition of laparoscopic surgery to this recommendation. In that study, VTE occurred by 4 weeks in nearly 10% of patients receiving 1 week of prophylaxis and in no patients in the 4-week arm. Major bleeding occurred in one versus zero patients in the thromboprophylaxis arms, respectively (Ann Surg. April 2014;259[4]:665-9).
Reaffirmed recommendations
Based on the latest available data, the panel reaffirmed that most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis for the duration of their hospitalization and that thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer.
The panel also reaffirmed the need for thromboprophylaxis starting preoperatively and continuing for at least 7-10 days in patients undergoing major cancer surgery, the need for periodic assessment of VTE risk in cancer patients, and the importance of patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.
Perspective and future directions
In an interview, David H. Henry, MD, said he was pleased to see ASCO incorporate the latest DOAC data into the VTE guideline.
The AVERT and CASSINI studies, in particular, highlight the value of using the Khorana Risk Score, which considers cancer type, blood counts, and body mass index to predict the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients and to guide decisions regarding prophylaxis, said Dr. Henry, vice chair of the department of medicine and clinical professor of medicine at Penn Medicine’s Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia.
The DOACs also represent “a nice new development in the treatment setting,” he said, adding that it’s been long known – since the 2003 CLOT trial – that cancer patients with VTE had much lower recurrence rates with LMWH versus warfarin (Coumadin).
“Now fast forward to the modern era ... and DOACs now appear to be a good idea,” he said.
Dr. Henry also addressed the recommendation for expanded postoperative LMWH use.
“That I found interesting; I’m not sure what took them so long,” he said, explaining that National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society of Medical Oncology recommendations have long stated that, for patients with abdominal cancers who undergo abdominopelvic surgery, DVT prophylaxis should continue for 4 weeks.
Dr. Henry said that a survey at his center showed that those recommendations were “very poorly followed,” with surgeons giving 4 weeks of prophylaxis in just 5% of cases.
“The good news from our survey was that not many people had a VTE, despite not many people following the recommendations, but I must say I think our surgeons are catching on,” he said.
Overall, the updated guideline highlights the importance of considering the “cancer variable” when it comes to VTE prevention and treatment.
“We’ve known forever that when we diagnose a DVT or PE in the outpatient setting – and this is independent of cancer – that you should treat it. Add the cancer variable and we now know that we should worry and try to prevent the VTE in certain high-risk patients, and there are some drugs to do it with,” he said, adding that “you should worry about the person you’ve just provoked [with surgery] as well.”
An important question not addressed in the guideline update is the indefinite use of DOACs in cancer patients with ongoing risk, he said.
“When we see DVT or PE, we usually treat for 3 months – that’s the industry standard – and at the end of 3 months ... you do a time out and you say to yourself, ‘Was this person provoked?’ ” he said.
For example, if they took a long flight or if pregnancy was a factor, treatment can usually be safely stopped. However, in a cancer patient who still has cancer, the provocation continues, and the patient may require indefinite treatment.
Questions that remain involve defining “indefinite” and include whether (and which of) these drugs can be used indefinitely in such patients, Dr. Henry said.
Dr. Key reported receiving honoraria from Novo Nordisk, research funding to his institution from Baxter Biosciences, Grifols, and Pfizer, and serving as a consultant or advisor for Genentech, Roche, Uniqure, Seattle Genetics, and Shire Human Genetic Therapies. Numerous disclosures were also reported by other expert panel members.
The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban and rivaroxaban are now among the options for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk cancer outpatients with low risk for bleeding and drug interactions, according to a practice guideline update from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Rivaroxaban also has been added as an option for initial anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and both rivaroxaban and edoxaban are now options for long-term anticoagulation, Nigel S. Key, MB ChB, and colleagues wrote in the updated guideline on the prophylaxis and treatment of VTE – including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) – in cancer patients (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.19.01461).
The addition of DOACs as options for VTE prophylaxis and treatment represents the most notable change to the guideline.
“Oral anticoagulants that target thrombin (direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran) or activated factor X (antifactor Xa inhibitors, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) are now approved for treatment of DVT or PE as well as for DVT prophylaxis following orthopedic surgery and for reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” the guideline panel wrote.
A systematic review of PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from Aug. 1, 2014, through Dec. 4, 2018, identified 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment, including 2 RCTs of DOACs for prophylaxis and 2 others of DOAC treatment, as well as 8 publications on VTE risk assessment. A multidisciplinary expert panel appointed by ASCO and cochaired by Dr. Key of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, used this evidence to develop the updated guideline.
The work was guided by “the ‘signals’ approach that is designed to identify only new, potentially practice-changing data – signals – that might translate into revised practice recommendations,” the authors explained.
DOAC-related updates
VTE prophylaxis. Based in part on findings from the recently published AVERT trial of apixaban in patients initiating a new course of chemotherapy and from the CASSINI trial of rivaroxaban in patients with solid tumors or lymphoma starting systemic antineoplastic therapy, the panel added both agents as thromboprophylactic options that can be offered to high-risk cancer outpatients with no significant risk factors for bleeding or drug interactions (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:711-19; N Engl J Med. 2019;380:720-8).
Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) also remains an option in such patients; consideration of therapy should involve discussion with the patient about relative benefits and harms, drug costs, and “the uncertainty surrounding duration of prophylaxis in this setting,” they wrote.
Anticoagulation for VTE. Options for initial anticoagulation include LMWH, unfractionated heparin (UFH), fondaparinux, and now rivaroxaban, with the latter added based on findings from two RCTs – the SELECT-D trial and the Hokusai VTE-Cancer study – and multiple meta-analyses (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2017-23; N Engl J Med. 2018;378:615-24).
Long-term anticoagulation can involve treatment with LMWH, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban for at least 6 months, all of which have improved efficacy versus vitamin K agonists (VKAs), the panel noted. However, VKAs may be used if LMWH and DOACs are not accessible.
Importantly, the literature indicates an increased risk of major bleeding with DOACs, particularly in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies and potentially in those with genitourinary malignancies. “Caution with DOACs is also warranted in other settings with high risk for mucosal bleeding,” the panel wrote.
Additional updates
CNS metastases. The anticoagulation recommendations were also updated to include patients with metastatic central nervous system malignancies (those with primary CNS malignancies were included previously). Both those with primary and metastatic CNS malignancy should be offered anticoagulation for established VTE as described for patients with other types of cancer. However, the panel stressed that “uncertainties remain about choice of agents and selection of patients most likely to benefit.”
“Patients with intracranial tumors are at increased risk for thrombotic complications and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), but the presence of a stable or active primary intracranial malignancy or brain metastases is not an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation,” they wrote.
Limited evidence suggests that therapeutic anticoagulation does not increase ICH risk in patients with brain metastases, but it may increase risk in those with primary brain tumors, the panel added.
Additionally, preliminary data from a retrospective cohort of patients with metastatic brain disease and venous thrombosis suggest that DOACs may be associated with a lower risk of ICH than is LMWH in this population.
Long-term postoperative LMWH. Extended prophylaxis with LMWH for up to 4 weeks is recommended after major open or laparoscopic abdominal or pelvic surgery in cancer patients with high-risk features, such as restricted mobility, obesity, history of VTE, or with additional risk factors. Lower-risk surgical settings require case-by-case decision making about appropriate thromboprophylaxis duration, according to the update.
A 2014 RCT looking at thromboprophylaxis duration in 225 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer prompted the addition of laparoscopic surgery to this recommendation. In that study, VTE occurred by 4 weeks in nearly 10% of patients receiving 1 week of prophylaxis and in no patients in the 4-week arm. Major bleeding occurred in one versus zero patients in the thromboprophylaxis arms, respectively (Ann Surg. April 2014;259[4]:665-9).
Reaffirmed recommendations
Based on the latest available data, the panel reaffirmed that most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis for the duration of their hospitalization and that thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer.
The panel also reaffirmed the need for thromboprophylaxis starting preoperatively and continuing for at least 7-10 days in patients undergoing major cancer surgery, the need for periodic assessment of VTE risk in cancer patients, and the importance of patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.
Perspective and future directions
In an interview, David H. Henry, MD, said he was pleased to see ASCO incorporate the latest DOAC data into the VTE guideline.
The AVERT and CASSINI studies, in particular, highlight the value of using the Khorana Risk Score, which considers cancer type, blood counts, and body mass index to predict the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients and to guide decisions regarding prophylaxis, said Dr. Henry, vice chair of the department of medicine and clinical professor of medicine at Penn Medicine’s Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia.
The DOACs also represent “a nice new development in the treatment setting,” he said, adding that it’s been long known – since the 2003 CLOT trial – that cancer patients with VTE had much lower recurrence rates with LMWH versus warfarin (Coumadin).
“Now fast forward to the modern era ... and DOACs now appear to be a good idea,” he said.
Dr. Henry also addressed the recommendation for expanded postoperative LMWH use.
“That I found interesting; I’m not sure what took them so long,” he said, explaining that National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society of Medical Oncology recommendations have long stated that, for patients with abdominal cancers who undergo abdominopelvic surgery, DVT prophylaxis should continue for 4 weeks.
Dr. Henry said that a survey at his center showed that those recommendations were “very poorly followed,” with surgeons giving 4 weeks of prophylaxis in just 5% of cases.
“The good news from our survey was that not many people had a VTE, despite not many people following the recommendations, but I must say I think our surgeons are catching on,” he said.
Overall, the updated guideline highlights the importance of considering the “cancer variable” when it comes to VTE prevention and treatment.
“We’ve known forever that when we diagnose a DVT or PE in the outpatient setting – and this is independent of cancer – that you should treat it. Add the cancer variable and we now know that we should worry and try to prevent the VTE in certain high-risk patients, and there are some drugs to do it with,” he said, adding that “you should worry about the person you’ve just provoked [with surgery] as well.”
An important question not addressed in the guideline update is the indefinite use of DOACs in cancer patients with ongoing risk, he said.
“When we see DVT or PE, we usually treat for 3 months – that’s the industry standard – and at the end of 3 months ... you do a time out and you say to yourself, ‘Was this person provoked?’ ” he said.
For example, if they took a long flight or if pregnancy was a factor, treatment can usually be safely stopped. However, in a cancer patient who still has cancer, the provocation continues, and the patient may require indefinite treatment.
Questions that remain involve defining “indefinite” and include whether (and which of) these drugs can be used indefinitely in such patients, Dr. Henry said.
Dr. Key reported receiving honoraria from Novo Nordisk, research funding to his institution from Baxter Biosciences, Grifols, and Pfizer, and serving as a consultant or advisor for Genentech, Roche, Uniqure, Seattle Genetics, and Shire Human Genetic Therapies. Numerous disclosures were also reported by other expert panel members.
The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban and rivaroxaban are now among the options for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk cancer outpatients with low risk for bleeding and drug interactions, according to a practice guideline update from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Rivaroxaban also has been added as an option for initial anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and both rivaroxaban and edoxaban are now options for long-term anticoagulation, Nigel S. Key, MB ChB, and colleagues wrote in the updated guideline on the prophylaxis and treatment of VTE – including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) – in cancer patients (J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.19.01461).
The addition of DOACs as options for VTE prophylaxis and treatment represents the most notable change to the guideline.
“Oral anticoagulants that target thrombin (direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran) or activated factor X (antifactor Xa inhibitors, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) are now approved for treatment of DVT or PE as well as for DVT prophylaxis following orthopedic surgery and for reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” the guideline panel wrote.
A systematic review of PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from Aug. 1, 2014, through Dec. 4, 2018, identified 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment, including 2 RCTs of DOACs for prophylaxis and 2 others of DOAC treatment, as well as 8 publications on VTE risk assessment. A multidisciplinary expert panel appointed by ASCO and cochaired by Dr. Key of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, used this evidence to develop the updated guideline.
The work was guided by “the ‘signals’ approach that is designed to identify only new, potentially practice-changing data – signals – that might translate into revised practice recommendations,” the authors explained.
DOAC-related updates
VTE prophylaxis. Based in part on findings from the recently published AVERT trial of apixaban in patients initiating a new course of chemotherapy and from the CASSINI trial of rivaroxaban in patients with solid tumors or lymphoma starting systemic antineoplastic therapy, the panel added both agents as thromboprophylactic options that can be offered to high-risk cancer outpatients with no significant risk factors for bleeding or drug interactions (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:711-19; N Engl J Med. 2019;380:720-8).
Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) also remains an option in such patients; consideration of therapy should involve discussion with the patient about relative benefits and harms, drug costs, and “the uncertainty surrounding duration of prophylaxis in this setting,” they wrote.
Anticoagulation for VTE. Options for initial anticoagulation include LMWH, unfractionated heparin (UFH), fondaparinux, and now rivaroxaban, with the latter added based on findings from two RCTs – the SELECT-D trial and the Hokusai VTE-Cancer study – and multiple meta-analyses (J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2017-23; N Engl J Med. 2018;378:615-24).
Long-term anticoagulation can involve treatment with LMWH, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban for at least 6 months, all of which have improved efficacy versus vitamin K agonists (VKAs), the panel noted. However, VKAs may be used if LMWH and DOACs are not accessible.
Importantly, the literature indicates an increased risk of major bleeding with DOACs, particularly in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies and potentially in those with genitourinary malignancies. “Caution with DOACs is also warranted in other settings with high risk for mucosal bleeding,” the panel wrote.
Additional updates
CNS metastases. The anticoagulation recommendations were also updated to include patients with metastatic central nervous system malignancies (those with primary CNS malignancies were included previously). Both those with primary and metastatic CNS malignancy should be offered anticoagulation for established VTE as described for patients with other types of cancer. However, the panel stressed that “uncertainties remain about choice of agents and selection of patients most likely to benefit.”
“Patients with intracranial tumors are at increased risk for thrombotic complications and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), but the presence of a stable or active primary intracranial malignancy or brain metastases is not an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation,” they wrote.
Limited evidence suggests that therapeutic anticoagulation does not increase ICH risk in patients with brain metastases, but it may increase risk in those with primary brain tumors, the panel added.
Additionally, preliminary data from a retrospective cohort of patients with metastatic brain disease and venous thrombosis suggest that DOACs may be associated with a lower risk of ICH than is LMWH in this population.
Long-term postoperative LMWH. Extended prophylaxis with LMWH for up to 4 weeks is recommended after major open or laparoscopic abdominal or pelvic surgery in cancer patients with high-risk features, such as restricted mobility, obesity, history of VTE, or with additional risk factors. Lower-risk surgical settings require case-by-case decision making about appropriate thromboprophylaxis duration, according to the update.
A 2014 RCT looking at thromboprophylaxis duration in 225 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer prompted the addition of laparoscopic surgery to this recommendation. In that study, VTE occurred by 4 weeks in nearly 10% of patients receiving 1 week of prophylaxis and in no patients in the 4-week arm. Major bleeding occurred in one versus zero patients in the thromboprophylaxis arms, respectively (Ann Surg. April 2014;259[4]:665-9).
Reaffirmed recommendations
Based on the latest available data, the panel reaffirmed that most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis for the duration of their hospitalization and that thromboprophylaxis should not be routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer.
The panel also reaffirmed the need for thromboprophylaxis starting preoperatively and continuing for at least 7-10 days in patients undergoing major cancer surgery, the need for periodic assessment of VTE risk in cancer patients, and the importance of patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.
Perspective and future directions
In an interview, David H. Henry, MD, said he was pleased to see ASCO incorporate the latest DOAC data into the VTE guideline.
The AVERT and CASSINI studies, in particular, highlight the value of using the Khorana Risk Score, which considers cancer type, blood counts, and body mass index to predict the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients and to guide decisions regarding prophylaxis, said Dr. Henry, vice chair of the department of medicine and clinical professor of medicine at Penn Medicine’s Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia.
The DOACs also represent “a nice new development in the treatment setting,” he said, adding that it’s been long known – since the 2003 CLOT trial – that cancer patients with VTE had much lower recurrence rates with LMWH versus warfarin (Coumadin).
“Now fast forward to the modern era ... and DOACs now appear to be a good idea,” he said.
Dr. Henry also addressed the recommendation for expanded postoperative LMWH use.
“That I found interesting; I’m not sure what took them so long,” he said, explaining that National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society of Medical Oncology recommendations have long stated that, for patients with abdominal cancers who undergo abdominopelvic surgery, DVT prophylaxis should continue for 4 weeks.
Dr. Henry said that a survey at his center showed that those recommendations were “very poorly followed,” with surgeons giving 4 weeks of prophylaxis in just 5% of cases.
“The good news from our survey was that not many people had a VTE, despite not many people following the recommendations, but I must say I think our surgeons are catching on,” he said.
Overall, the updated guideline highlights the importance of considering the “cancer variable” when it comes to VTE prevention and treatment.
“We’ve known forever that when we diagnose a DVT or PE in the outpatient setting – and this is independent of cancer – that you should treat it. Add the cancer variable and we now know that we should worry and try to prevent the VTE in certain high-risk patients, and there are some drugs to do it with,” he said, adding that “you should worry about the person you’ve just provoked [with surgery] as well.”
An important question not addressed in the guideline update is the indefinite use of DOACs in cancer patients with ongoing risk, he said.
“When we see DVT or PE, we usually treat for 3 months – that’s the industry standard – and at the end of 3 months ... you do a time out and you say to yourself, ‘Was this person provoked?’ ” he said.
For example, if they took a long flight or if pregnancy was a factor, treatment can usually be safely stopped. However, in a cancer patient who still has cancer, the provocation continues, and the patient may require indefinite treatment.
Questions that remain involve defining “indefinite” and include whether (and which of) these drugs can be used indefinitely in such patients, Dr. Henry said.
Dr. Key reported receiving honoraria from Novo Nordisk, research funding to his institution from Baxter Biosciences, Grifols, and Pfizer, and serving as a consultant or advisor for Genentech, Roche, Uniqure, Seattle Genetics, and Shire Human Genetic Therapies. Numerous disclosures were also reported by other expert panel members.