User login
VA/DOD elevate psychotherapy over medication in updated PTSD guidelines
MIAMI – New federal clinical practice guidelines for treating posttraumatic stress disorder move trauma-focused psychotherapy ahead of pharmacotherapy as first-line treatment.
“That is quite a statement that is being made, and it’s a big shift in our treatment guidelines,” Lori L. Davis, MD, said at a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology, formerly the New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit meeting. Dr. Davis, who coauthored the update for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and of Defense, discussed the guidelines at the meeting in advance of their release this summer.
The guidelines, dated June 2017 and based on evidence reviewed through March 2016, specify that evidence is strong for first-line psychotherapy that includes some form of exposure and/or cognitive restructuring. Such therapies include prolonged exposure, cognitive processing, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, narrative exposure therapy, brief eclectic psychotherapy, and PTSD-specific cognitive-behavioral therapy.
The Management of Posttraumatic Stress Work Group found that evidence was weakest for non–trauma-focused therapies, such as stress inoculation training and present-centered and interpersonal psychotherapy. Manualized group therapy also was rated as weak, but insufficient evidence was found to rate one type of group therapy over another.
Insufficient evidence also was cited for psychotherapies not specified in other recommendations, such as dialectical behavior therapy, skills training in affect and interpersonal regulation, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), seeking safety therapy, or supportive counseling.
“Some of these treatments have been found to be effective for the treatment of other disorders (e.g., ACT for [major depressive disorder]),” the work group members wrote, “but do not have evidence of efficacy in patients with PTSD.”
The recommendations are based on a review of literature from the past 20 years and are congruent with other treatment guidelines internationally, according to Sheila A.M. Rausch, PhD, who directs mental health research and program evaluation for the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System in Michigan, is a work group member, and served as a panelist at the meeting.
“What is striking is that, based on people reviewing all the evidence out there – and there are different methodologies for doing so – regardless, [the different groups] tend to come to the same conclusions,” Dr. Rausch said.
The updated guidelines cite insufficient evidence for making any recommendations for augmented or combined treatments of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy.
Medications considered to have a strong evidence base for monotherapy were sertraline, paroxetine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine. In cases in which a person declines psychotherapy, those medications are recommended as first-line treatment.
Prazosin, typically used to managing nightmares tied to PTSD, received a “suggest against” recommendation, in part because of the discovery of a publication bias, according to Dr. Davis, who is associate chief of staff for research and development at the Tuscaloosa (Ala.) VA Medical Center and a clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurobiology at the University of Alabama in Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. She noted that the work group remained unsure of “how to grapple with this” news that the study drug did not break from placebo in the treatment of nightmares in more than 300 combat veterans with PTSD.
“We are not trying to tell you not to use antidepressants for major depressive disorder or panic disorders that are often comorbid with PTSD, so you have to keep that in mind as you read these guidelines,” Dr. Davis said. Many patients already take antidepressants because they are easily accessed in primary care practices, she added.
The work group found that evidence generally was weak against atypical antipsychotics – particularly in light of the known adverse side effects of those drugs. However, the group singled out risperidone. “We suggest against treatment of PTSD with quetiapine, olanzapine, and other atypical antipsychotics (except for risperidone, which is a ‘strong against,’ see recommendation 20),” the guidelines suggest.
They also “suggested against” two antidepressants – citalopram and amitriptyline, a tricyclic. The quality of evidence for those drugs was deemed low. Two drugs – lamotrigine and topiramate – also received “suggested against” rankings, and the evidence for the use of those drugs was deemed very low.
Meanwhile, the work group wrote that the quality of evidence was low and “recommended against” the use of three other drugs: divalproex, tiagabine, and guanfacine. They also found the quality of evidence to be very low for the drug class of benzodiazepines and four drugs – risperidone, D-cycloserine, ketamine, and hydrocortisone. They also found insufficient evidence to recommend complementary and integrative health (CIH) practices such as meditation and yoga for treating PTSD. The work group did offer a caveat, however. “It is important to clarify that we are not recommending against the treatments but rather are saying that, at this time, the research does not support the use of any CIH practice for the primary treatment of PTSD.”
Cannabis and its derivatives also were recommended against by the work group because of a “lack of evidence for their efficacy, known adverse effects, and associated risks.”
Dr. Davis said the work group’s findings underscored a crisis in pharmacotherapeutic research in PTSD. Since 2006, there have been only four industry-sponsored drugs for PTSD. “I find it kind of sad,” she said.
Currently, Dr. Rausch’s own study for the VA focuses on comparing the effects of combination therapies for PTSD in the context of patient preferences, in order to tailor the treatments accordingly. In 223 returning veterans with PTSD, she and her colleagues are conducting a head-to-head comparison of prolonged exposure therapy plus placebo, prolonged exposure plus sertraline, and sertraline plus emotion memory management therapy to determine how starting a patient on both kinds of treatments simultaneously affect response.
“It’s clinically important to find out what is really going on in the brain and body,” she said. “Although we know we have therapies that work, we need to find answers for partial responders ... and how to increase the speed and magnitude of response.”
Dr. Davis’s research is funded in part by the VA, Forest, Merck, Tonix, and Otsuka, for whom she also acts as a consultant. Dr. Rausch did not have any disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
MIAMI – New federal clinical practice guidelines for treating posttraumatic stress disorder move trauma-focused psychotherapy ahead of pharmacotherapy as first-line treatment.
“That is quite a statement that is being made, and it’s a big shift in our treatment guidelines,” Lori L. Davis, MD, said at a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology, formerly the New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit meeting. Dr. Davis, who coauthored the update for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and of Defense, discussed the guidelines at the meeting in advance of their release this summer.
The guidelines, dated June 2017 and based on evidence reviewed through March 2016, specify that evidence is strong for first-line psychotherapy that includes some form of exposure and/or cognitive restructuring. Such therapies include prolonged exposure, cognitive processing, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, narrative exposure therapy, brief eclectic psychotherapy, and PTSD-specific cognitive-behavioral therapy.
The Management of Posttraumatic Stress Work Group found that evidence was weakest for non–trauma-focused therapies, such as stress inoculation training and present-centered and interpersonal psychotherapy. Manualized group therapy also was rated as weak, but insufficient evidence was found to rate one type of group therapy over another.
Insufficient evidence also was cited for psychotherapies not specified in other recommendations, such as dialectical behavior therapy, skills training in affect and interpersonal regulation, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), seeking safety therapy, or supportive counseling.
“Some of these treatments have been found to be effective for the treatment of other disorders (e.g., ACT for [major depressive disorder]),” the work group members wrote, “but do not have evidence of efficacy in patients with PTSD.”
The recommendations are based on a review of literature from the past 20 years and are congruent with other treatment guidelines internationally, according to Sheila A.M. Rausch, PhD, who directs mental health research and program evaluation for the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System in Michigan, is a work group member, and served as a panelist at the meeting.
“What is striking is that, based on people reviewing all the evidence out there – and there are different methodologies for doing so – regardless, [the different groups] tend to come to the same conclusions,” Dr. Rausch said.
The updated guidelines cite insufficient evidence for making any recommendations for augmented or combined treatments of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy.
Medications considered to have a strong evidence base for monotherapy were sertraline, paroxetine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine. In cases in which a person declines psychotherapy, those medications are recommended as first-line treatment.
Prazosin, typically used to managing nightmares tied to PTSD, received a “suggest against” recommendation, in part because of the discovery of a publication bias, according to Dr. Davis, who is associate chief of staff for research and development at the Tuscaloosa (Ala.) VA Medical Center and a clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurobiology at the University of Alabama in Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. She noted that the work group remained unsure of “how to grapple with this” news that the study drug did not break from placebo in the treatment of nightmares in more than 300 combat veterans with PTSD.
“We are not trying to tell you not to use antidepressants for major depressive disorder or panic disorders that are often comorbid with PTSD, so you have to keep that in mind as you read these guidelines,” Dr. Davis said. Many patients already take antidepressants because they are easily accessed in primary care practices, she added.
The work group found that evidence generally was weak against atypical antipsychotics – particularly in light of the known adverse side effects of those drugs. However, the group singled out risperidone. “We suggest against treatment of PTSD with quetiapine, olanzapine, and other atypical antipsychotics (except for risperidone, which is a ‘strong against,’ see recommendation 20),” the guidelines suggest.
They also “suggested against” two antidepressants – citalopram and amitriptyline, a tricyclic. The quality of evidence for those drugs was deemed low. Two drugs – lamotrigine and topiramate – also received “suggested against” rankings, and the evidence for the use of those drugs was deemed very low.
Meanwhile, the work group wrote that the quality of evidence was low and “recommended against” the use of three other drugs: divalproex, tiagabine, and guanfacine. They also found the quality of evidence to be very low for the drug class of benzodiazepines and four drugs – risperidone, D-cycloserine, ketamine, and hydrocortisone. They also found insufficient evidence to recommend complementary and integrative health (CIH) practices such as meditation and yoga for treating PTSD. The work group did offer a caveat, however. “It is important to clarify that we are not recommending against the treatments but rather are saying that, at this time, the research does not support the use of any CIH practice for the primary treatment of PTSD.”
Cannabis and its derivatives also were recommended against by the work group because of a “lack of evidence for their efficacy, known adverse effects, and associated risks.”
Dr. Davis said the work group’s findings underscored a crisis in pharmacotherapeutic research in PTSD. Since 2006, there have been only four industry-sponsored drugs for PTSD. “I find it kind of sad,” she said.
Currently, Dr. Rausch’s own study for the VA focuses on comparing the effects of combination therapies for PTSD in the context of patient preferences, in order to tailor the treatments accordingly. In 223 returning veterans with PTSD, she and her colleagues are conducting a head-to-head comparison of prolonged exposure therapy plus placebo, prolonged exposure plus sertraline, and sertraline plus emotion memory management therapy to determine how starting a patient on both kinds of treatments simultaneously affect response.
“It’s clinically important to find out what is really going on in the brain and body,” she said. “Although we know we have therapies that work, we need to find answers for partial responders ... and how to increase the speed and magnitude of response.”
Dr. Davis’s research is funded in part by the VA, Forest, Merck, Tonix, and Otsuka, for whom she also acts as a consultant. Dr. Rausch did not have any disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
MIAMI – New federal clinical practice guidelines for treating posttraumatic stress disorder move trauma-focused psychotherapy ahead of pharmacotherapy as first-line treatment.
“That is quite a statement that is being made, and it’s a big shift in our treatment guidelines,” Lori L. Davis, MD, said at a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology, formerly the New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit meeting. Dr. Davis, who coauthored the update for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and of Defense, discussed the guidelines at the meeting in advance of their release this summer.
The guidelines, dated June 2017 and based on evidence reviewed through March 2016, specify that evidence is strong for first-line psychotherapy that includes some form of exposure and/or cognitive restructuring. Such therapies include prolonged exposure, cognitive processing, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, narrative exposure therapy, brief eclectic psychotherapy, and PTSD-specific cognitive-behavioral therapy.
The Management of Posttraumatic Stress Work Group found that evidence was weakest for non–trauma-focused therapies, such as stress inoculation training and present-centered and interpersonal psychotherapy. Manualized group therapy also was rated as weak, but insufficient evidence was found to rate one type of group therapy over another.
Insufficient evidence also was cited for psychotherapies not specified in other recommendations, such as dialectical behavior therapy, skills training in affect and interpersonal regulation, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), seeking safety therapy, or supportive counseling.
“Some of these treatments have been found to be effective for the treatment of other disorders (e.g., ACT for [major depressive disorder]),” the work group members wrote, “but do not have evidence of efficacy in patients with PTSD.”
The recommendations are based on a review of literature from the past 20 years and are congruent with other treatment guidelines internationally, according to Sheila A.M. Rausch, PhD, who directs mental health research and program evaluation for the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System in Michigan, is a work group member, and served as a panelist at the meeting.
“What is striking is that, based on people reviewing all the evidence out there – and there are different methodologies for doing so – regardless, [the different groups] tend to come to the same conclusions,” Dr. Rausch said.
The updated guidelines cite insufficient evidence for making any recommendations for augmented or combined treatments of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy.
Medications considered to have a strong evidence base for monotherapy were sertraline, paroxetine, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine. In cases in which a person declines psychotherapy, those medications are recommended as first-line treatment.
Prazosin, typically used to managing nightmares tied to PTSD, received a “suggest against” recommendation, in part because of the discovery of a publication bias, according to Dr. Davis, who is associate chief of staff for research and development at the Tuscaloosa (Ala.) VA Medical Center and a clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurobiology at the University of Alabama in Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. She noted that the work group remained unsure of “how to grapple with this” news that the study drug did not break from placebo in the treatment of nightmares in more than 300 combat veterans with PTSD.
“We are not trying to tell you not to use antidepressants for major depressive disorder or panic disorders that are often comorbid with PTSD, so you have to keep that in mind as you read these guidelines,” Dr. Davis said. Many patients already take antidepressants because they are easily accessed in primary care practices, she added.
The work group found that evidence generally was weak against atypical antipsychotics – particularly in light of the known adverse side effects of those drugs. However, the group singled out risperidone. “We suggest against treatment of PTSD with quetiapine, olanzapine, and other atypical antipsychotics (except for risperidone, which is a ‘strong against,’ see recommendation 20),” the guidelines suggest.
They also “suggested against” two antidepressants – citalopram and amitriptyline, a tricyclic. The quality of evidence for those drugs was deemed low. Two drugs – lamotrigine and topiramate – also received “suggested against” rankings, and the evidence for the use of those drugs was deemed very low.
Meanwhile, the work group wrote that the quality of evidence was low and “recommended against” the use of three other drugs: divalproex, tiagabine, and guanfacine. They also found the quality of evidence to be very low for the drug class of benzodiazepines and four drugs – risperidone, D-cycloserine, ketamine, and hydrocortisone. They also found insufficient evidence to recommend complementary and integrative health (CIH) practices such as meditation and yoga for treating PTSD. The work group did offer a caveat, however. “It is important to clarify that we are not recommending against the treatments but rather are saying that, at this time, the research does not support the use of any CIH practice for the primary treatment of PTSD.”
Cannabis and its derivatives also were recommended against by the work group because of a “lack of evidence for their efficacy, known adverse effects, and associated risks.”
Dr. Davis said the work group’s findings underscored a crisis in pharmacotherapeutic research in PTSD. Since 2006, there have been only four industry-sponsored drugs for PTSD. “I find it kind of sad,” she said.
Currently, Dr. Rausch’s own study for the VA focuses on comparing the effects of combination therapies for PTSD in the context of patient preferences, in order to tailor the treatments accordingly. In 223 returning veterans with PTSD, she and her colleagues are conducting a head-to-head comparison of prolonged exposure therapy plus placebo, prolonged exposure plus sertraline, and sertraline plus emotion memory management therapy to determine how starting a patient on both kinds of treatments simultaneously affect response.
“It’s clinically important to find out what is really going on in the brain and body,” she said. “Although we know we have therapies that work, we need to find answers for partial responders ... and how to increase the speed and magnitude of response.”
Dr. Davis’s research is funded in part by the VA, Forest, Merck, Tonix, and Otsuka, for whom she also acts as a consultant. Dr. Rausch did not have any disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE ASCP ANNUAL MEETING
Isotretinoin patients need not postpone skin surgery
Skin procedures including superficial chemical peels, laser hair removal, minor cutaneous surgery, manual dermabrasion, and fractional ablative and fractional nonablative laser procedures can be performed safely on patients who have recently been or are currently being treated with isotretinoin, according to new recommendations from a consensus panel.
The recommendations were published online in JAMA Dermatology.
Postponing surgical procedures in patients taking isotretinoin because of the potential for keloid formation and delayed wound healing “has persisted despite increasing reports to the contrary,” wrote Leah K. Spring, DO, of Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune, Camp Lejeune, N.C., and her colleagues (JAMA Dermatol. 2017. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.2077).
This protocol is based on 11 patients with delayed healing and keloids, the researchers noted. “In our consensus-based assessment, these initial cases presented a hypothesis to be tested, rather than the foundation for medical dogma on which more than 30 years of clinical practice was built,” they wrote.
To establish the current level of evidence for delaying procedures in isotretinoin patients and to make recommendations, an expert panel reviewed data from 32 publications and more than 1,485 procedures. The literature was divided into five areas: dermabrasion, chemical peels, cutaneous surgery, laser hair removal, and ablative/nonablative laser treatments.
The researchers determined that evidence does not support the safety of mechanical dermabrasion or fully ablative laser surgeries for current or recent isotretinoin users. Manual dermabrasion and microdermabrasion were deemed safe for isotretinoin patients based on the latest evidence, however, as were fractional ablative and fractional nonablative procedures.
In addition, the evidence did not support refraining from chemical peels, laser hair removal, or cutaneous surgery for current and recent isotretinoin patients, although the panel recommended additional prospective, controlled clinical trials in these areas.
In the area of cutaneous surgery, the consensus panel also noted the need for “a rigorous evaluation of the aforementioned specific warning that muscle flap insertion should be delayed until the patient displays normal [creatine phosphokinase (CPK)] levels or, at least, CPK levels below twofold of normal.”
The recommendations can be a resource for discussions with patients about the risks of procedures concurrent with isotretinoin, Dr. Spring and her associates emphasized. “For some patients and some conditions, an informed decision may lead to earlier and potentially more effective interventions.”
Lead author Dr. Spring had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Several members of the consensus group disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Allergan, Merz, Leo, Promius, Lumenis, Cynosure, and Valeant.
Skin procedures including superficial chemical peels, laser hair removal, minor cutaneous surgery, manual dermabrasion, and fractional ablative and fractional nonablative laser procedures can be performed safely on patients who have recently been or are currently being treated with isotretinoin, according to new recommendations from a consensus panel.
The recommendations were published online in JAMA Dermatology.
Postponing surgical procedures in patients taking isotretinoin because of the potential for keloid formation and delayed wound healing “has persisted despite increasing reports to the contrary,” wrote Leah K. Spring, DO, of Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune, Camp Lejeune, N.C., and her colleagues (JAMA Dermatol. 2017. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.2077).
This protocol is based on 11 patients with delayed healing and keloids, the researchers noted. “In our consensus-based assessment, these initial cases presented a hypothesis to be tested, rather than the foundation for medical dogma on which more than 30 years of clinical practice was built,” they wrote.
To establish the current level of evidence for delaying procedures in isotretinoin patients and to make recommendations, an expert panel reviewed data from 32 publications and more than 1,485 procedures. The literature was divided into five areas: dermabrasion, chemical peels, cutaneous surgery, laser hair removal, and ablative/nonablative laser treatments.
The researchers determined that evidence does not support the safety of mechanical dermabrasion or fully ablative laser surgeries for current or recent isotretinoin users. Manual dermabrasion and microdermabrasion were deemed safe for isotretinoin patients based on the latest evidence, however, as were fractional ablative and fractional nonablative procedures.
In addition, the evidence did not support refraining from chemical peels, laser hair removal, or cutaneous surgery for current and recent isotretinoin patients, although the panel recommended additional prospective, controlled clinical trials in these areas.
In the area of cutaneous surgery, the consensus panel also noted the need for “a rigorous evaluation of the aforementioned specific warning that muscle flap insertion should be delayed until the patient displays normal [creatine phosphokinase (CPK)] levels or, at least, CPK levels below twofold of normal.”
The recommendations can be a resource for discussions with patients about the risks of procedures concurrent with isotretinoin, Dr. Spring and her associates emphasized. “For some patients and some conditions, an informed decision may lead to earlier and potentially more effective interventions.”
Lead author Dr. Spring had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Several members of the consensus group disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Allergan, Merz, Leo, Promius, Lumenis, Cynosure, and Valeant.
Skin procedures including superficial chemical peels, laser hair removal, minor cutaneous surgery, manual dermabrasion, and fractional ablative and fractional nonablative laser procedures can be performed safely on patients who have recently been or are currently being treated with isotretinoin, according to new recommendations from a consensus panel.
The recommendations were published online in JAMA Dermatology.
Postponing surgical procedures in patients taking isotretinoin because of the potential for keloid formation and delayed wound healing “has persisted despite increasing reports to the contrary,” wrote Leah K. Spring, DO, of Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune, Camp Lejeune, N.C., and her colleagues (JAMA Dermatol. 2017. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.2077).
This protocol is based on 11 patients with delayed healing and keloids, the researchers noted. “In our consensus-based assessment, these initial cases presented a hypothesis to be tested, rather than the foundation for medical dogma on which more than 30 years of clinical practice was built,” they wrote.
To establish the current level of evidence for delaying procedures in isotretinoin patients and to make recommendations, an expert panel reviewed data from 32 publications and more than 1,485 procedures. The literature was divided into five areas: dermabrasion, chemical peels, cutaneous surgery, laser hair removal, and ablative/nonablative laser treatments.
The researchers determined that evidence does not support the safety of mechanical dermabrasion or fully ablative laser surgeries for current or recent isotretinoin users. Manual dermabrasion and microdermabrasion were deemed safe for isotretinoin patients based on the latest evidence, however, as were fractional ablative and fractional nonablative procedures.
In addition, the evidence did not support refraining from chemical peels, laser hair removal, or cutaneous surgery for current and recent isotretinoin patients, although the panel recommended additional prospective, controlled clinical trials in these areas.
In the area of cutaneous surgery, the consensus panel also noted the need for “a rigorous evaluation of the aforementioned specific warning that muscle flap insertion should be delayed until the patient displays normal [creatine phosphokinase (CPK)] levels or, at least, CPK levels below twofold of normal.”
The recommendations can be a resource for discussions with patients about the risks of procedures concurrent with isotretinoin, Dr. Spring and her associates emphasized. “For some patients and some conditions, an informed decision may lead to earlier and potentially more effective interventions.”
Lead author Dr. Spring had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Several members of the consensus group disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Allergan, Merz, Leo, Promius, Lumenis, Cynosure, and Valeant.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Experts found insufficient evidence to postpone manual dermabrasion, superficial chemical peels, fractional ablative or nonablative laser resurfacing, laser hair removal, or cutaneous surgery in patients taking isotretinoin or those who have taken it within the past 6 to 12 months.
Data source: The data come from 32 clinical publications and a total of 1,485 procedures.
Disclosures: Lead author Dr. Spring had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. Several members of the consensus group disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Allergan, Merz, Leo, Promius, Lumenis, Cynosure, and Valeant.
Treatment of low bone density or osteoporosis to prevent fractures in men and women
Osteoporosis is defined by a clinically diagnosed fragility fracture or a bone mineral density (BMD) of at least 2.5 SD below the mean for young female adults, usually measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Risk factors include age, female sex, post-menopause, hypogonadism or premature ovarian failure, history of cigarette smoking or alcohol consumption (3 or more drinks daily), rheumatoid arthritis, or medications including glucocorticoids, anticoagulants, anticonvulsants, and aromatase inhibitors.
This guideline update focuses on treatment with bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, zoledronic acid) and denosumab. Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody against RANK-ligand, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of osteoporosis, has been added to the list of allowed medications since publication of the 2008 guideline. Several therapies have been excluded from the update, including calcitonin, which is no longer widely used for osteoporosis treatment, and etidronate and pamidronate, neither of which are FDA-approved for the prevention of fractures or treatment of osteoporosis. It should be noted that the evidence continues to be insufficient regarding the effectiveness of therapies to prevent fractures or to treat osteoporosis in men.
Bisphosphonates are associated with mild upper GI symptoms, atypical subtrochanteric fracture, and rare osteonecrosis of the jaw. There is no significant association between bisphosphonate use and total cardiovascular adverse events. Evidence is insufficient to associate bisphosphonates with increased cancer risk. Zoledronic acid is associated with atrial fibrillation, arthritis/arthralgias, headaches, hypocalcemia, influenza-like symptoms, and an increased incidence of uveitis/episcleritis. Denosumab is associated with mild upper GI symptoms, rash/eczema, and cellulitis.
While in the past additional medications were recommended for osteoporosis, the current guidelines recommend against using raloxifene, ibandronate, teriparatide, menopausal estrogen therapy, or menopausal estrogen plus progesterone therapy for first-line pharmacologic treatment.
The overall effect of calcium, vitamin D, or exercise alone on fracture risk is uncertain. Calcium and vitamin D may be added to treatment regimens, as a majority of trials with bisphosphonate therapy added this supplementation. Dosages should be considered because excessive dosing has been associated with hypercalcemia. Although previous data suggested an association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for myocardial infarction, moderate-quality evidence shows no association, though there is a risk of kidney stones.
Recommendation: Women who have osteoporosis and receive pharmacologic treatment should be treated for 5 years (weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). The evidence to determine the length of treatment is not strong, so recommendation is an extrapolation from existing evidence. High-risk patients may benefit from more than 5 years of treatment. Data suggests that patients treated with alendronate who had preexisting fractures or those with a BMD of –2.5 or less after 5 years of initial therapy may benefit from continued treatment, because these patients experienced a decreased incidence of new clinical vertebral fractures.
Recommendation: Pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonates to reduce the risk for vertebral fracture can be offered to men who have clinically recognized osteoporosis (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). No evidence suggests that outcomes associated with pharmacologic treatment would differ between men and women if based on similar BMDs.
Recommendation: Bone density monitoring is not recommended during the 5-year pharmacologic treatment period for osteoporosis in women (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). Data showed that most women with normal dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scores did not progress to osteoporosis within 15 years. Data also does not support monitoring BMD during the initial 5 years of treatment in patients taking pharmacologic agents to treat osteoporosis. Several studies showed that women treated with antiresorptive treatment benefited from reduced fractures with treatment even if BMD did not increase.
Only 10% of women with normal or mild osteopenia develop osteoporosis within 15 years; 10% of women with moderate osteopenia develop osteoporosis within 5 years, and 10% of women with advanced osteopenia develop osteoporosis within 1 year.
Recommendation: The decision about whether to treat osteopenic women older then 65 years of age who are at a high risk for fracture should be based on a discussion of with the patient about their risk of fracture and the risk and benefits of treatment. Clinicians can use their judgment regarding the qualitative risk for fracture, or a validated tool such as the FRAX tool that gives 10-year risk of any major osteoporotic fracture and of hip fracture. The FRAX site recommends consideration of treatment for individuals with low bone mass (T-score between –1.0 and –2.5 at the femoral neck or spine) and a 10-year probability of a hip fracture of at least 3% or a 10-year probability of a major osteoporosis-related fracture greater than 20%.
Bottom line:
Clinicians should offer pharmacologic treatment with alendronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid, or denosumab to reduce the risk of hip and vertebral fractures in women who have known osteoporosis diagnosed as a T score less than –2.5 or those with a fragility fracture. Pharmacologic therapy should be used for 5 years; however, high risk patients may benefit from longer treatment. There is no benefit to bone density monitoring during the 5-year pharmacologic treatment period. In addition, bisphosphonates should be considered in men who have clinically recognized osteoporosis.
Reference:
Qaseem, A, Forciea, MA, McLean RM, Denberg TD. Treatment of Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures in Men and Women: A Clinical Practice Guideline Update From the American College of Physicians. Ann Int Med. 2017;166(11):818-39.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Meizinger is a second year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington Jefferson Health.
Osteoporosis is defined by a clinically diagnosed fragility fracture or a bone mineral density (BMD) of at least 2.5 SD below the mean for young female adults, usually measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Risk factors include age, female sex, post-menopause, hypogonadism or premature ovarian failure, history of cigarette smoking or alcohol consumption (3 or more drinks daily), rheumatoid arthritis, or medications including glucocorticoids, anticoagulants, anticonvulsants, and aromatase inhibitors.
This guideline update focuses on treatment with bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, zoledronic acid) and denosumab. Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody against RANK-ligand, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of osteoporosis, has been added to the list of allowed medications since publication of the 2008 guideline. Several therapies have been excluded from the update, including calcitonin, which is no longer widely used for osteoporosis treatment, and etidronate and pamidronate, neither of which are FDA-approved for the prevention of fractures or treatment of osteoporosis. It should be noted that the evidence continues to be insufficient regarding the effectiveness of therapies to prevent fractures or to treat osteoporosis in men.
Bisphosphonates are associated with mild upper GI symptoms, atypical subtrochanteric fracture, and rare osteonecrosis of the jaw. There is no significant association between bisphosphonate use and total cardiovascular adverse events. Evidence is insufficient to associate bisphosphonates with increased cancer risk. Zoledronic acid is associated with atrial fibrillation, arthritis/arthralgias, headaches, hypocalcemia, influenza-like symptoms, and an increased incidence of uveitis/episcleritis. Denosumab is associated with mild upper GI symptoms, rash/eczema, and cellulitis.
While in the past additional medications were recommended for osteoporosis, the current guidelines recommend against using raloxifene, ibandronate, teriparatide, menopausal estrogen therapy, or menopausal estrogen plus progesterone therapy for first-line pharmacologic treatment.
The overall effect of calcium, vitamin D, or exercise alone on fracture risk is uncertain. Calcium and vitamin D may be added to treatment regimens, as a majority of trials with bisphosphonate therapy added this supplementation. Dosages should be considered because excessive dosing has been associated with hypercalcemia. Although previous data suggested an association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for myocardial infarction, moderate-quality evidence shows no association, though there is a risk of kidney stones.
Recommendation: Women who have osteoporosis and receive pharmacologic treatment should be treated for 5 years (weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). The evidence to determine the length of treatment is not strong, so recommendation is an extrapolation from existing evidence. High-risk patients may benefit from more than 5 years of treatment. Data suggests that patients treated with alendronate who had preexisting fractures or those with a BMD of –2.5 or less after 5 years of initial therapy may benefit from continued treatment, because these patients experienced a decreased incidence of new clinical vertebral fractures.
Recommendation: Pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonates to reduce the risk for vertebral fracture can be offered to men who have clinically recognized osteoporosis (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). No evidence suggests that outcomes associated with pharmacologic treatment would differ between men and women if based on similar BMDs.
Recommendation: Bone density monitoring is not recommended during the 5-year pharmacologic treatment period for osteoporosis in women (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). Data showed that most women with normal dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scores did not progress to osteoporosis within 15 years. Data also does not support monitoring BMD during the initial 5 years of treatment in patients taking pharmacologic agents to treat osteoporosis. Several studies showed that women treated with antiresorptive treatment benefited from reduced fractures with treatment even if BMD did not increase.
Only 10% of women with normal or mild osteopenia develop osteoporosis within 15 years; 10% of women with moderate osteopenia develop osteoporosis within 5 years, and 10% of women with advanced osteopenia develop osteoporosis within 1 year.
Recommendation: The decision about whether to treat osteopenic women older then 65 years of age who are at a high risk for fracture should be based on a discussion of with the patient about their risk of fracture and the risk and benefits of treatment. Clinicians can use their judgment regarding the qualitative risk for fracture, or a validated tool such as the FRAX tool that gives 10-year risk of any major osteoporotic fracture and of hip fracture. The FRAX site recommends consideration of treatment for individuals with low bone mass (T-score between –1.0 and –2.5 at the femoral neck or spine) and a 10-year probability of a hip fracture of at least 3% or a 10-year probability of a major osteoporosis-related fracture greater than 20%.
Bottom line:
Clinicians should offer pharmacologic treatment with alendronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid, or denosumab to reduce the risk of hip and vertebral fractures in women who have known osteoporosis diagnosed as a T score less than –2.5 or those with a fragility fracture. Pharmacologic therapy should be used for 5 years; however, high risk patients may benefit from longer treatment. There is no benefit to bone density monitoring during the 5-year pharmacologic treatment period. In addition, bisphosphonates should be considered in men who have clinically recognized osteoporosis.
Reference:
Qaseem, A, Forciea, MA, McLean RM, Denberg TD. Treatment of Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures in Men and Women: A Clinical Practice Guideline Update From the American College of Physicians. Ann Int Med. 2017;166(11):818-39.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Meizinger is a second year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington Jefferson Health.
Osteoporosis is defined by a clinically diagnosed fragility fracture or a bone mineral density (BMD) of at least 2.5 SD below the mean for young female adults, usually measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Risk factors include age, female sex, post-menopause, hypogonadism or premature ovarian failure, history of cigarette smoking or alcohol consumption (3 or more drinks daily), rheumatoid arthritis, or medications including glucocorticoids, anticoagulants, anticonvulsants, and aromatase inhibitors.
This guideline update focuses on treatment with bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, zoledronic acid) and denosumab. Denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody against RANK-ligand, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of osteoporosis, has been added to the list of allowed medications since publication of the 2008 guideline. Several therapies have been excluded from the update, including calcitonin, which is no longer widely used for osteoporosis treatment, and etidronate and pamidronate, neither of which are FDA-approved for the prevention of fractures or treatment of osteoporosis. It should be noted that the evidence continues to be insufficient regarding the effectiveness of therapies to prevent fractures or to treat osteoporosis in men.
Bisphosphonates are associated with mild upper GI symptoms, atypical subtrochanteric fracture, and rare osteonecrosis of the jaw. There is no significant association between bisphosphonate use and total cardiovascular adverse events. Evidence is insufficient to associate bisphosphonates with increased cancer risk. Zoledronic acid is associated with atrial fibrillation, arthritis/arthralgias, headaches, hypocalcemia, influenza-like symptoms, and an increased incidence of uveitis/episcleritis. Denosumab is associated with mild upper GI symptoms, rash/eczema, and cellulitis.
While in the past additional medications were recommended for osteoporosis, the current guidelines recommend against using raloxifene, ibandronate, teriparatide, menopausal estrogen therapy, or menopausal estrogen plus progesterone therapy for first-line pharmacologic treatment.
The overall effect of calcium, vitamin D, or exercise alone on fracture risk is uncertain. Calcium and vitamin D may be added to treatment regimens, as a majority of trials with bisphosphonate therapy added this supplementation. Dosages should be considered because excessive dosing has been associated with hypercalcemia. Although previous data suggested an association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for myocardial infarction, moderate-quality evidence shows no association, though there is a risk of kidney stones.
Recommendation: Women who have osteoporosis and receive pharmacologic treatment should be treated for 5 years (weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). The evidence to determine the length of treatment is not strong, so recommendation is an extrapolation from existing evidence. High-risk patients may benefit from more than 5 years of treatment. Data suggests that patients treated with alendronate who had preexisting fractures or those with a BMD of –2.5 or less after 5 years of initial therapy may benefit from continued treatment, because these patients experienced a decreased incidence of new clinical vertebral fractures.
Recommendation: Pharmacologic treatment with bisphosphonates to reduce the risk for vertebral fracture can be offered to men who have clinically recognized osteoporosis (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). No evidence suggests that outcomes associated with pharmacologic treatment would differ between men and women if based on similar BMDs.
Recommendation: Bone density monitoring is not recommended during the 5-year pharmacologic treatment period for osteoporosis in women (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). Data showed that most women with normal dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scores did not progress to osteoporosis within 15 years. Data also does not support monitoring BMD during the initial 5 years of treatment in patients taking pharmacologic agents to treat osteoporosis. Several studies showed that women treated with antiresorptive treatment benefited from reduced fractures with treatment even if BMD did not increase.
Only 10% of women with normal or mild osteopenia develop osteoporosis within 15 years; 10% of women with moderate osteopenia develop osteoporosis within 5 years, and 10% of women with advanced osteopenia develop osteoporosis within 1 year.
Recommendation: The decision about whether to treat osteopenic women older then 65 years of age who are at a high risk for fracture should be based on a discussion of with the patient about their risk of fracture and the risk and benefits of treatment. Clinicians can use their judgment regarding the qualitative risk for fracture, or a validated tool such as the FRAX tool that gives 10-year risk of any major osteoporotic fracture and of hip fracture. The FRAX site recommends consideration of treatment for individuals with low bone mass (T-score between –1.0 and –2.5 at the femoral neck or spine) and a 10-year probability of a hip fracture of at least 3% or a 10-year probability of a major osteoporosis-related fracture greater than 20%.
Bottom line:
Clinicians should offer pharmacologic treatment with alendronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid, or denosumab to reduce the risk of hip and vertebral fractures in women who have known osteoporosis diagnosed as a T score less than –2.5 or those with a fragility fracture. Pharmacologic therapy should be used for 5 years; however, high risk patients may benefit from longer treatment. There is no benefit to bone density monitoring during the 5-year pharmacologic treatment period. In addition, bisphosphonates should be considered in men who have clinically recognized osteoporosis.
Reference:
Qaseem, A, Forciea, MA, McLean RM, Denberg TD. Treatment of Low Bone Density or Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures in Men and Women: A Clinical Practice Guideline Update From the American College of Physicians. Ann Int Med. 2017;166(11):818-39.
Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Dr. Meizinger is a second year resident in the Family Medicine Residency Program at Abington Jefferson Health.
GOLD guidelines for the management of COPD – 2017 update
Chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the United States1 and a major cause of mortality and morbidity around the world. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) released a new “2017 Report”2 with modified recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. The report contains several changes that are relevant to the primary care provider that will be outlined below.
Redefining COPD
GOLD’s definition of COPD was changed in its 2017 Report: “COPD is a common, preventable, and treatable disease that is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitations that are due to airway and/or alveolar abnormalities usually caused by significant exposure to noxious particles or gases.” The report emphasizes that “COPD may be punctuated by periods of acute worsening of respiratory symptoms, called exacerbations.” Note that the terms “emphysema” and “chronic bronchitis” have been removed in favor of a more comprehensive description of the pathophysiology of COPD. Importantly, the report states that cough and sputum production for at least 3 months in each of 2 consecutive years, previously accepted as diagnostic criteria, are present in only a minority of patients. It is noted that chronic respiratory symptoms may exist without spirometric changes and many patients (usually smokers) have structural evidence of COPD without airflow limitation.
Changes to COPD initial assessment
The primary criterion for diagnosis is unchanged: post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) less than 0.70. Spirometry remains important to confirm the diagnosis in those with classic symptoms of dyspnea, chronic cough, and/or sputum production with a history of exposure to noxious particles or gases.
The GOLD assessment system previously incorporated spirometry and included an “ABCD” system such that patients in group A are least severe. Spirometry has been progressively deemphasized in favor of symptom-based classification and the 2017 Report, for the first time, dissociates spirometric findings from severity classification.
The new system uses symptom severity and exacerbation risk to classify COPD. Two specific standardized COPD symptom measurement tools, The Modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test (CAT), are reported by GOLD as the most widely used. Low symptom severity is considered an mMRC less than or equal to 1 or CAT less than or equal to 9, high symptom severity is considered an mMRC greater than or equal to 2 or CAT greater than or equal to 10. Low risk of exacerbation is defined as no more than one exacerbation not resulting in hospital admission in the last 12 months; high risk of exacerbation is defined as at least two exacerbations or any exacerbations resulting in hospital admission in the last 12 months. Symptom severity and exacerbation risk is divided into four quadrants:
• GOLD group A: Low symptom severity, low exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group B: High symptom severity, low exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group C: Low symptom severity, high exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group D: High symptom severity, high exacerbation risk.
Changes to prevention and management of stable COPD
Smoking cessation remains important in the prevention of COPD. The 2017 Report reflects the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s guidelines for smoking cessation: Offer nicotine replacement, cessation counseling, and pharmacotherapy (varenicline, bupropion or nortriptyline). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of e-cigarettes. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations are recommended. Pulmonary rehabilitation remains important.
The 2017 Report includes an expanded discussion of COPD medications. The role of short-acting bronchodilators (SABD) in COPD remains prominent. Changes include a stronger recommendation to use combination short-acting beta-agonists and short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SABA/SAMA) as these seem to be superior to SABD monotherapy in improving symptoms and FEV1.
There were several changes to the pharmacologic treatment algorithm. For the first time, GOLD proposes escalation strategies. Preference is given to LABA/LAMA (long-acting beta-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonists) combinations over LABA/ICS (long-acting beta-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid) combinations as a mainstay of treatment. The rationale for this change is that LABA/LAMAs give greater bronchodilation compared with LABA/ICS, and one study showed a decreased rate of exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS in patients with a history of exacerbations. In addition, patients with COPD who receive ICS appear to have a higher risk of developing pneumonia. GOLD recommendations are:
• Group A: Start with single bronchodilator (short- or long-acting), escalate to alternative class of bronchodilator if necessary.
• Group B: Start with LABA or LAMA, escalate to LABA/LAMA if symptoms persist.
• Group C: Start with LAMA, escalate to LABA/LAMA (preferred) or LABA/ICS if exacerbations continue.
• Group D: Start with LABA/LAMA (preferred) or LAMA monotherapy, escalate to LABA/LAMA/ICS (preferred) or try LABA/ICS before escalating to LAMA/LABA/ICS if symptoms persist or exacerbations continue; roflumilast and/or a macrolide may be considered if further exacerbations occur with LABA/LAMA/ICS.
Bottom line
1. GOLD classification of COPD severity is now based on clinical criteria alone: symptom assessment and risk for exacerbation.
2. SABA/SAMA combination therapy seems to be superior to either SABA or SAMA alone.
3. Patients in group A (milder symptoms, low exacerbation risk) may be initiated on either short- or long-acting bronchodilator therapy.
4. Patients in group B (milder symptoms, increased exacerbation risk) should be initiated on LAMA monotherapy.
5. LABA/LAMA combination therapy seems to be superior to LABA/ICS combination therapy and should be used when long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy fails to control symptoms or reduce exacerbations.
References
1. CDC MMWR 11/23/12
2. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017 at http://goldcopd.org (accessed 3/10/2017)
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. Dr. Lent is chief resident in the program.
Chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the United States1 and a major cause of mortality and morbidity around the world. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) released a new “2017 Report”2 with modified recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. The report contains several changes that are relevant to the primary care provider that will be outlined below.
Redefining COPD
GOLD’s definition of COPD was changed in its 2017 Report: “COPD is a common, preventable, and treatable disease that is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitations that are due to airway and/or alveolar abnormalities usually caused by significant exposure to noxious particles or gases.” The report emphasizes that “COPD may be punctuated by periods of acute worsening of respiratory symptoms, called exacerbations.” Note that the terms “emphysema” and “chronic bronchitis” have been removed in favor of a more comprehensive description of the pathophysiology of COPD. Importantly, the report states that cough and sputum production for at least 3 months in each of 2 consecutive years, previously accepted as diagnostic criteria, are present in only a minority of patients. It is noted that chronic respiratory symptoms may exist without spirometric changes and many patients (usually smokers) have structural evidence of COPD without airflow limitation.
Changes to COPD initial assessment
The primary criterion for diagnosis is unchanged: post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) less than 0.70. Spirometry remains important to confirm the diagnosis in those with classic symptoms of dyspnea, chronic cough, and/or sputum production with a history of exposure to noxious particles or gases.
The GOLD assessment system previously incorporated spirometry and included an “ABCD” system such that patients in group A are least severe. Spirometry has been progressively deemphasized in favor of symptom-based classification and the 2017 Report, for the first time, dissociates spirometric findings from severity classification.
The new system uses symptom severity and exacerbation risk to classify COPD. Two specific standardized COPD symptom measurement tools, The Modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test (CAT), are reported by GOLD as the most widely used. Low symptom severity is considered an mMRC less than or equal to 1 or CAT less than or equal to 9, high symptom severity is considered an mMRC greater than or equal to 2 or CAT greater than or equal to 10. Low risk of exacerbation is defined as no more than one exacerbation not resulting in hospital admission in the last 12 months; high risk of exacerbation is defined as at least two exacerbations or any exacerbations resulting in hospital admission in the last 12 months. Symptom severity and exacerbation risk is divided into four quadrants:
• GOLD group A: Low symptom severity, low exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group B: High symptom severity, low exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group C: Low symptom severity, high exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group D: High symptom severity, high exacerbation risk.
Changes to prevention and management of stable COPD
Smoking cessation remains important in the prevention of COPD. The 2017 Report reflects the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s guidelines for smoking cessation: Offer nicotine replacement, cessation counseling, and pharmacotherapy (varenicline, bupropion or nortriptyline). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of e-cigarettes. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations are recommended. Pulmonary rehabilitation remains important.
The 2017 Report includes an expanded discussion of COPD medications. The role of short-acting bronchodilators (SABD) in COPD remains prominent. Changes include a stronger recommendation to use combination short-acting beta-agonists and short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SABA/SAMA) as these seem to be superior to SABD monotherapy in improving symptoms and FEV1.
There were several changes to the pharmacologic treatment algorithm. For the first time, GOLD proposes escalation strategies. Preference is given to LABA/LAMA (long-acting beta-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonists) combinations over LABA/ICS (long-acting beta-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid) combinations as a mainstay of treatment. The rationale for this change is that LABA/LAMAs give greater bronchodilation compared with LABA/ICS, and one study showed a decreased rate of exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS in patients with a history of exacerbations. In addition, patients with COPD who receive ICS appear to have a higher risk of developing pneumonia. GOLD recommendations are:
• Group A: Start with single bronchodilator (short- or long-acting), escalate to alternative class of bronchodilator if necessary.
• Group B: Start with LABA or LAMA, escalate to LABA/LAMA if symptoms persist.
• Group C: Start with LAMA, escalate to LABA/LAMA (preferred) or LABA/ICS if exacerbations continue.
• Group D: Start with LABA/LAMA (preferred) or LAMA monotherapy, escalate to LABA/LAMA/ICS (preferred) or try LABA/ICS before escalating to LAMA/LABA/ICS if symptoms persist or exacerbations continue; roflumilast and/or a macrolide may be considered if further exacerbations occur with LABA/LAMA/ICS.
Bottom line
1. GOLD classification of COPD severity is now based on clinical criteria alone: symptom assessment and risk for exacerbation.
2. SABA/SAMA combination therapy seems to be superior to either SABA or SAMA alone.
3. Patients in group A (milder symptoms, low exacerbation risk) may be initiated on either short- or long-acting bronchodilator therapy.
4. Patients in group B (milder symptoms, increased exacerbation risk) should be initiated on LAMA monotherapy.
5. LABA/LAMA combination therapy seems to be superior to LABA/ICS combination therapy and should be used when long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy fails to control symptoms or reduce exacerbations.
References
1. CDC MMWR 11/23/12
2. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017 at http://goldcopd.org (accessed 3/10/2017)
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. Dr. Lent is chief resident in the program.
Chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the United States1 and a major cause of mortality and morbidity around the world. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) released a new “2017 Report”2 with modified recommendations for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. The report contains several changes that are relevant to the primary care provider that will be outlined below.
Redefining COPD
GOLD’s definition of COPD was changed in its 2017 Report: “COPD is a common, preventable, and treatable disease that is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitations that are due to airway and/or alveolar abnormalities usually caused by significant exposure to noxious particles or gases.” The report emphasizes that “COPD may be punctuated by periods of acute worsening of respiratory symptoms, called exacerbations.” Note that the terms “emphysema” and “chronic bronchitis” have been removed in favor of a more comprehensive description of the pathophysiology of COPD. Importantly, the report states that cough and sputum production for at least 3 months in each of 2 consecutive years, previously accepted as diagnostic criteria, are present in only a minority of patients. It is noted that chronic respiratory symptoms may exist without spirometric changes and many patients (usually smokers) have structural evidence of COPD without airflow limitation.
Changes to COPD initial assessment
The primary criterion for diagnosis is unchanged: post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) less than 0.70. Spirometry remains important to confirm the diagnosis in those with classic symptoms of dyspnea, chronic cough, and/or sputum production with a history of exposure to noxious particles or gases.
The GOLD assessment system previously incorporated spirometry and included an “ABCD” system such that patients in group A are least severe. Spirometry has been progressively deemphasized in favor of symptom-based classification and the 2017 Report, for the first time, dissociates spirometric findings from severity classification.
The new system uses symptom severity and exacerbation risk to classify COPD. Two specific standardized COPD symptom measurement tools, The Modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) questionnaire and COPD Assessment Test (CAT), are reported by GOLD as the most widely used. Low symptom severity is considered an mMRC less than or equal to 1 or CAT less than or equal to 9, high symptom severity is considered an mMRC greater than or equal to 2 or CAT greater than or equal to 10. Low risk of exacerbation is defined as no more than one exacerbation not resulting in hospital admission in the last 12 months; high risk of exacerbation is defined as at least two exacerbations or any exacerbations resulting in hospital admission in the last 12 months. Symptom severity and exacerbation risk is divided into four quadrants:
• GOLD group A: Low symptom severity, low exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group B: High symptom severity, low exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group C: Low symptom severity, high exacerbation risk.
• GOLD group D: High symptom severity, high exacerbation risk.
Changes to prevention and management of stable COPD
Smoking cessation remains important in the prevention of COPD. The 2017 Report reflects the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s guidelines for smoking cessation: Offer nicotine replacement, cessation counseling, and pharmacotherapy (varenicline, bupropion or nortriptyline). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of e-cigarettes. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations are recommended. Pulmonary rehabilitation remains important.
The 2017 Report includes an expanded discussion of COPD medications. The role of short-acting bronchodilators (SABD) in COPD remains prominent. Changes include a stronger recommendation to use combination short-acting beta-agonists and short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SABA/SAMA) as these seem to be superior to SABD monotherapy in improving symptoms and FEV1.
There were several changes to the pharmacologic treatment algorithm. For the first time, GOLD proposes escalation strategies. Preference is given to LABA/LAMA (long-acting beta-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonists) combinations over LABA/ICS (long-acting beta-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid) combinations as a mainstay of treatment. The rationale for this change is that LABA/LAMAs give greater bronchodilation compared with LABA/ICS, and one study showed a decreased rate of exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS in patients with a history of exacerbations. In addition, patients with COPD who receive ICS appear to have a higher risk of developing pneumonia. GOLD recommendations are:
• Group A: Start with single bronchodilator (short- or long-acting), escalate to alternative class of bronchodilator if necessary.
• Group B: Start with LABA or LAMA, escalate to LABA/LAMA if symptoms persist.
• Group C: Start with LAMA, escalate to LABA/LAMA (preferred) or LABA/ICS if exacerbations continue.
• Group D: Start with LABA/LAMA (preferred) or LAMA monotherapy, escalate to LABA/LAMA/ICS (preferred) or try LABA/ICS before escalating to LAMA/LABA/ICS if symptoms persist or exacerbations continue; roflumilast and/or a macrolide may be considered if further exacerbations occur with LABA/LAMA/ICS.
Bottom line
1. GOLD classification of COPD severity is now based on clinical criteria alone: symptom assessment and risk for exacerbation.
2. SABA/SAMA combination therapy seems to be superior to either SABA or SAMA alone.
3. Patients in group A (milder symptoms, low exacerbation risk) may be initiated on either short- or long-acting bronchodilator therapy.
4. Patients in group B (milder symptoms, increased exacerbation risk) should be initiated on LAMA monotherapy.
5. LABA/LAMA combination therapy seems to be superior to LABA/ICS combination therapy and should be used when long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy fails to control symptoms or reduce exacerbations.
References
1. CDC MMWR 11/23/12
2. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017 at http://goldcopd.org (accessed 3/10/2017)
Dr. Skolnik is associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Memorial Hospital. Dr. Lent is chief resident in the program.
AGA Guideline: Transient elastography in liver fibrosis, most used and most accurate
Vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) can accurately diagnose cirrhosis in most patients with chronic liver disease, particularly those with chronic hepatitis B or C, states a new guideline from the AGA Institute, published in the May issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.03.017).
However, magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is somewhat more accurate for detecting cirrhosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, wrote Joseph K. Lim, MD, AGAF, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., with his associates from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the AGA. VCTE is convenient but performs unevenly in some liver conditions and is especially unreliable in patients with acute hepatitis, alcohol abuse, food intake within 2-3 hours, congestive heart failure, or extrahepatic cholestasis, the guideline notes. Yet, VCTE remains the most common imaging tool for diagnosing fibrosis in the United States, and the guideline addresses “focused, clinically relevant questions” to guide its use.
When possible, clinicians should use VCTE instead of noninvasive serum tests for cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C, the guideline asserts. In pooled analyses of 62 studies, VCTE detected about 89% of cirrhosis cases (95% confidence interval, 84%-92%), Fibrosis-4 test (FIB-4) detected 87% (95% CI, 74%-94%), and aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (APRI) detected 77% (95% CI, 73%-81%). The specificity of VCTE (91%) also equaled or exceeded that of FIB-4 (91%) or APRI (78%), the guideline noted.
For chronic hepatitis C, MRE had “poorer specificity with higher false-positive rates, suggesting poorer diagnostic performance,” compared with VCTE. Lower cost and lower point-of-care availability make VCTE “an attractive solution compared to MRE,” the guideline adds. It conditionally recommends VCTE cutoffs of 12.5 kPa for cirrhosis and 9.5 kPa for advanced (F3-F4) liver fibrosis after patients have a sustained virologic response to therapy. The 9.5-kPa cutoff would misclassify only 1% of low-risk patients and 7% of high-risk patients, but noncirrhotic patients (less than 9.5 kPa) may reasonably choose to continue specialty care if they prioritize avoiding “the small risk” of hepatocellular carcinoma over the “inconvenience and risks of continued laboratory and fibrosis testing.”
For chronic hepatitis B, the guideline conditionally recommends VCTE with an 11.0-kPa cutoff over APRI or FIB-4. In a pooled analysis of 28 studies, VCTE detected cirrhosis with a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 85%, compared with 66% and 74%, respectively, for APRI, and 87% and 65%, respectively, for FIB-4. However, the overall diagnostic performance of VCTE resembled that of the serum tests, and clinicians should interpret VCTE in the context of other clinical cirrhosis data, the guideline states.
Among 17 studies of VCTE cutoffs in hepatitis B, an 11.0-kPa threshold diagnosed cirrhosis with a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 83%. This cutoff would miss cirrhosis in less than 1% of low-risk patients and about 5% of high-risk patients and would yield false positives in 10%-15% of patients. Thus, its cutoff minimizes false negatives, reflecting “a judgment that the harm of missing cirrhosis is greater than the harm of over diagnosis,” the authors write.
For chronic alcoholic liver disease, the AGA conditionally recommends VCTE with a cirrhosis cutoff of 12.5 kPa. In pooled analyses, this value had a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 71%. For suspected compensated cirrhosis, the guideline conditionally suggests a 19.5-kPa cutoff when assessing the need for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to identify high-risk esophageal varices. Patients who fall below this cutoff can reasonably pursue screening endoscopy if they are concerned about the small risk of acute variceal hemorrhage, the guideline adds.
The guideline also conditionally recommends a 17-kPa cutoff to detect clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with suspected chronic liver disease who are undergoing elective nonhepatic surgeries. This cutoff will miss about 0.1% of very low-risk patients, 0.8% of low-risk patients, and 7% of high-risk patients. Because the failure to detect portal hypertension contributes to operative morbidity and mortality, higher-risk patients might “reasonably” pursue screening endoscopy even if their kPa is below the cutoff, the guideline states.
The guideline made no recommendation about VCTE versus APRI or FIB-4 in adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), citing “unacceptable bias” in 12 studies that excluded obese patients, used per-protocol rather than intention-to-diagnose analyses, and ignored “unsuccessful or inadequate” liver stiffness measurements, which are relatively common in NAFLD, the guideline notes. It conditionally recommends MRE over VCTE in high-risk adults with NAFLD, including those who are older, diabetic, or obese (especially with central adiposity) or who have alanine levels more than twice the upper limit of normal. However, it cites insufficient evidence to extend this recommendation to low-risk patients who only have imaging evidence of fatty liver.
Overall, the guideline focuses on “routine clinical management issues, and [does] not address comparisons with proprietary serum fibrosis assays, other emerging imaging-based fibrosis assessment techniques, or combinations of more than one noninvasive fibrosis test,” the authors note. They also limited VCTE cutoffs to single thresholds that prioritized sensitivity over specificity. “Additional studies are needed to further define the role of VCTE, MRE, and emerging diagnostic studies in the assessment of liver fibrosis, for which a significant unmet medical need remains, particularly in conditions such as NAFLD/[nonalcoholic steatohepatitis],” they add. “In particular, defining the implications for serial liver stiffness measurements over time on management decisions is of great interest.”
Dr. Muir has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, and Merck. Dr. Lim has served as a consultant for Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Flamm has served as a consultant or received research support from Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Intercept Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Dieterich has presented lectures for Gilead and Merck products. The rest of the authors disclosed no conflicts related to the content of this guideline.
Vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) can accurately diagnose cirrhosis in most patients with chronic liver disease, particularly those with chronic hepatitis B or C, states a new guideline from the AGA Institute, published in the May issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.03.017).
However, magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is somewhat more accurate for detecting cirrhosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, wrote Joseph K. Lim, MD, AGAF, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., with his associates from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the AGA. VCTE is convenient but performs unevenly in some liver conditions and is especially unreliable in patients with acute hepatitis, alcohol abuse, food intake within 2-3 hours, congestive heart failure, or extrahepatic cholestasis, the guideline notes. Yet, VCTE remains the most common imaging tool for diagnosing fibrosis in the United States, and the guideline addresses “focused, clinically relevant questions” to guide its use.
When possible, clinicians should use VCTE instead of noninvasive serum tests for cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C, the guideline asserts. In pooled analyses of 62 studies, VCTE detected about 89% of cirrhosis cases (95% confidence interval, 84%-92%), Fibrosis-4 test (FIB-4) detected 87% (95% CI, 74%-94%), and aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (APRI) detected 77% (95% CI, 73%-81%). The specificity of VCTE (91%) also equaled or exceeded that of FIB-4 (91%) or APRI (78%), the guideline noted.
For chronic hepatitis C, MRE had “poorer specificity with higher false-positive rates, suggesting poorer diagnostic performance,” compared with VCTE. Lower cost and lower point-of-care availability make VCTE “an attractive solution compared to MRE,” the guideline adds. It conditionally recommends VCTE cutoffs of 12.5 kPa for cirrhosis and 9.5 kPa for advanced (F3-F4) liver fibrosis after patients have a sustained virologic response to therapy. The 9.5-kPa cutoff would misclassify only 1% of low-risk patients and 7% of high-risk patients, but noncirrhotic patients (less than 9.5 kPa) may reasonably choose to continue specialty care if they prioritize avoiding “the small risk” of hepatocellular carcinoma over the “inconvenience and risks of continued laboratory and fibrosis testing.”
For chronic hepatitis B, the guideline conditionally recommends VCTE with an 11.0-kPa cutoff over APRI or FIB-4. In a pooled analysis of 28 studies, VCTE detected cirrhosis with a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 85%, compared with 66% and 74%, respectively, for APRI, and 87% and 65%, respectively, for FIB-4. However, the overall diagnostic performance of VCTE resembled that of the serum tests, and clinicians should interpret VCTE in the context of other clinical cirrhosis data, the guideline states.
Among 17 studies of VCTE cutoffs in hepatitis B, an 11.0-kPa threshold diagnosed cirrhosis with a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 83%. This cutoff would miss cirrhosis in less than 1% of low-risk patients and about 5% of high-risk patients and would yield false positives in 10%-15% of patients. Thus, its cutoff minimizes false negatives, reflecting “a judgment that the harm of missing cirrhosis is greater than the harm of over diagnosis,” the authors write.
For chronic alcoholic liver disease, the AGA conditionally recommends VCTE with a cirrhosis cutoff of 12.5 kPa. In pooled analyses, this value had a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 71%. For suspected compensated cirrhosis, the guideline conditionally suggests a 19.5-kPa cutoff when assessing the need for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to identify high-risk esophageal varices. Patients who fall below this cutoff can reasonably pursue screening endoscopy if they are concerned about the small risk of acute variceal hemorrhage, the guideline adds.
The guideline also conditionally recommends a 17-kPa cutoff to detect clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with suspected chronic liver disease who are undergoing elective nonhepatic surgeries. This cutoff will miss about 0.1% of very low-risk patients, 0.8% of low-risk patients, and 7% of high-risk patients. Because the failure to detect portal hypertension contributes to operative morbidity and mortality, higher-risk patients might “reasonably” pursue screening endoscopy even if their kPa is below the cutoff, the guideline states.
The guideline made no recommendation about VCTE versus APRI or FIB-4 in adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), citing “unacceptable bias” in 12 studies that excluded obese patients, used per-protocol rather than intention-to-diagnose analyses, and ignored “unsuccessful or inadequate” liver stiffness measurements, which are relatively common in NAFLD, the guideline notes. It conditionally recommends MRE over VCTE in high-risk adults with NAFLD, including those who are older, diabetic, or obese (especially with central adiposity) or who have alanine levels more than twice the upper limit of normal. However, it cites insufficient evidence to extend this recommendation to low-risk patients who only have imaging evidence of fatty liver.
Overall, the guideline focuses on “routine clinical management issues, and [does] not address comparisons with proprietary serum fibrosis assays, other emerging imaging-based fibrosis assessment techniques, or combinations of more than one noninvasive fibrosis test,” the authors note. They also limited VCTE cutoffs to single thresholds that prioritized sensitivity over specificity. “Additional studies are needed to further define the role of VCTE, MRE, and emerging diagnostic studies in the assessment of liver fibrosis, for which a significant unmet medical need remains, particularly in conditions such as NAFLD/[nonalcoholic steatohepatitis],” they add. “In particular, defining the implications for serial liver stiffness measurements over time on management decisions is of great interest.”
Dr. Muir has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, and Merck. Dr. Lim has served as a consultant for Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Flamm has served as a consultant or received research support from Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Intercept Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Dieterich has presented lectures for Gilead and Merck products. The rest of the authors disclosed no conflicts related to the content of this guideline.
Vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) can accurately diagnose cirrhosis in most patients with chronic liver disease, particularly those with chronic hepatitis B or C, states a new guideline from the AGA Institute, published in the May issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.03.017).
However, magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is somewhat more accurate for detecting cirrhosis in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, wrote Joseph K. Lim, MD, AGAF, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., with his associates from the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the AGA. VCTE is convenient but performs unevenly in some liver conditions and is especially unreliable in patients with acute hepatitis, alcohol abuse, food intake within 2-3 hours, congestive heart failure, or extrahepatic cholestasis, the guideline notes. Yet, VCTE remains the most common imaging tool for diagnosing fibrosis in the United States, and the guideline addresses “focused, clinically relevant questions” to guide its use.
When possible, clinicians should use VCTE instead of noninvasive serum tests for cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C, the guideline asserts. In pooled analyses of 62 studies, VCTE detected about 89% of cirrhosis cases (95% confidence interval, 84%-92%), Fibrosis-4 test (FIB-4) detected 87% (95% CI, 74%-94%), and aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (APRI) detected 77% (95% CI, 73%-81%). The specificity of VCTE (91%) also equaled or exceeded that of FIB-4 (91%) or APRI (78%), the guideline noted.
For chronic hepatitis C, MRE had “poorer specificity with higher false-positive rates, suggesting poorer diagnostic performance,” compared with VCTE. Lower cost and lower point-of-care availability make VCTE “an attractive solution compared to MRE,” the guideline adds. It conditionally recommends VCTE cutoffs of 12.5 kPa for cirrhosis and 9.5 kPa for advanced (F3-F4) liver fibrosis after patients have a sustained virologic response to therapy. The 9.5-kPa cutoff would misclassify only 1% of low-risk patients and 7% of high-risk patients, but noncirrhotic patients (less than 9.5 kPa) may reasonably choose to continue specialty care if they prioritize avoiding “the small risk” of hepatocellular carcinoma over the “inconvenience and risks of continued laboratory and fibrosis testing.”
For chronic hepatitis B, the guideline conditionally recommends VCTE with an 11.0-kPa cutoff over APRI or FIB-4. In a pooled analysis of 28 studies, VCTE detected cirrhosis with a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 85%, compared with 66% and 74%, respectively, for APRI, and 87% and 65%, respectively, for FIB-4. However, the overall diagnostic performance of VCTE resembled that of the serum tests, and clinicians should interpret VCTE in the context of other clinical cirrhosis data, the guideline states.
Among 17 studies of VCTE cutoffs in hepatitis B, an 11.0-kPa threshold diagnosed cirrhosis with a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 83%. This cutoff would miss cirrhosis in less than 1% of low-risk patients and about 5% of high-risk patients and would yield false positives in 10%-15% of patients. Thus, its cutoff minimizes false negatives, reflecting “a judgment that the harm of missing cirrhosis is greater than the harm of over diagnosis,” the authors write.
For chronic alcoholic liver disease, the AGA conditionally recommends VCTE with a cirrhosis cutoff of 12.5 kPa. In pooled analyses, this value had a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 71%. For suspected compensated cirrhosis, the guideline conditionally suggests a 19.5-kPa cutoff when assessing the need for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to identify high-risk esophageal varices. Patients who fall below this cutoff can reasonably pursue screening endoscopy if they are concerned about the small risk of acute variceal hemorrhage, the guideline adds.
The guideline also conditionally recommends a 17-kPa cutoff to detect clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with suspected chronic liver disease who are undergoing elective nonhepatic surgeries. This cutoff will miss about 0.1% of very low-risk patients, 0.8% of low-risk patients, and 7% of high-risk patients. Because the failure to detect portal hypertension contributes to operative morbidity and mortality, higher-risk patients might “reasonably” pursue screening endoscopy even if their kPa is below the cutoff, the guideline states.
The guideline made no recommendation about VCTE versus APRI or FIB-4 in adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), citing “unacceptable bias” in 12 studies that excluded obese patients, used per-protocol rather than intention-to-diagnose analyses, and ignored “unsuccessful or inadequate” liver stiffness measurements, which are relatively common in NAFLD, the guideline notes. It conditionally recommends MRE over VCTE in high-risk adults with NAFLD, including those who are older, diabetic, or obese (especially with central adiposity) or who have alanine levels more than twice the upper limit of normal. However, it cites insufficient evidence to extend this recommendation to low-risk patients who only have imaging evidence of fatty liver.
Overall, the guideline focuses on “routine clinical management issues, and [does] not address comparisons with proprietary serum fibrosis assays, other emerging imaging-based fibrosis assessment techniques, or combinations of more than one noninvasive fibrosis test,” the authors note. They also limited VCTE cutoffs to single thresholds that prioritized sensitivity over specificity. “Additional studies are needed to further define the role of VCTE, MRE, and emerging diagnostic studies in the assessment of liver fibrosis, for which a significant unmet medical need remains, particularly in conditions such as NAFLD/[nonalcoholic steatohepatitis],” they add. “In particular, defining the implications for serial liver stiffness measurements over time on management decisions is of great interest.”
Dr. Muir has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, and Merck. Dr. Lim has served as a consultant for Bristol Myers-Squibb, Gilead, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Flamm has served as a consultant or received research support from Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Intercept Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Dieterich has presented lectures for Gilead and Merck products. The rest of the authors disclosed no conflicts related to the content of this guideline.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
AGA Clinical Practice Update: Expert review recommendations on post-SVR hepatitis C care
The AGA Institute issued a clinical practice update for managing hepatitis C virus–infected patients who achieve a sustained virologic response after antiviral therapy, who still require ongoing care for their liver disease. The expert review appears in the May issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.03.018).
Even though direct-acting antiviral regimens have produced remarkably high sustained virologic response (SVR) rates and it appears that fewer than 1% of patients relapse, and even though liver fibrosis and cirrhosis may regress with this therapy, continued surveillance and even intervention may be needed “to reduce complications arising from liver damage that has already accrued by the time SVR was attained,” said Ira M. Jacobson, MD, AGAF, chair of the department of medicine, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, and his associates.
Dr. Jacobson and his associates at the AGA Institute reviewed the current literature and expert opinion to formulate 11 best-practice recommendations for managing this patient population. Among their recommendations:
SVR should be confirmed by hepatitis C virus RNA testing at 12 weeks after completion of an all-oral direct-acting antiviral regimen, and routine confirmation after 48 weeks is also “prudent.” Further testing for later virologic relapse is not supported by the available evidence. However, further periodic testing is advised for patients at risk for reinfection, such as those who continue to use IV drugs.
All patients with stage 3 or higher liver fibrosis or cirrhosis before achieving SVR should continue to be monitored by liver imaging (with or without serum alpha fetoprotein testing) twice a year “for an indefinite duration.” At present, there is no evidence of a finite point beyond which the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma is reduced to the level of people who don’t have a history of liver disease. And there have been documented cases of hepatocellular carcinoma developing more than 5 years after attaining SVR.
Regardless of SVR status, all patients with liver cirrhosis should undergo endoscopic screening for esophagogastric varices. If no varices or only small varices are detected, repeat endoscopy should be done 2-3 years after achieving SVR. If no varices are identified then, “cessation of further endoscopic screening may be considered on an individual patient basis if there are no risk factors for progressive cirrhosis.”
Noninvasive assessment of fibrosis, such as liver elastography, may be considered on an individual basis after SVR is attained, to assess whether fibrosis has progressed or regressed or to guide clinical management.
All patients who achieve SVR must be counseled regarding factors that could further injure the liver and contribute to the progression of fibrosis, hepatic decompensation, or the development of hepatocellular carcinoma. These include alcohol consumption, fatty liver, diabetes, and potential toxins. If serum liver enzyme levels rise, all patients should be evaluated for possible liver injury.
The AGA Institute issued a clinical practice update for managing hepatitis C virus–infected patients who achieve a sustained virologic response after antiviral therapy, who still require ongoing care for their liver disease. The expert review appears in the May issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.03.018).
Even though direct-acting antiviral regimens have produced remarkably high sustained virologic response (SVR) rates and it appears that fewer than 1% of patients relapse, and even though liver fibrosis and cirrhosis may regress with this therapy, continued surveillance and even intervention may be needed “to reduce complications arising from liver damage that has already accrued by the time SVR was attained,” said Ira M. Jacobson, MD, AGAF, chair of the department of medicine, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, and his associates.
Dr. Jacobson and his associates at the AGA Institute reviewed the current literature and expert opinion to formulate 11 best-practice recommendations for managing this patient population. Among their recommendations:
SVR should be confirmed by hepatitis C virus RNA testing at 12 weeks after completion of an all-oral direct-acting antiviral regimen, and routine confirmation after 48 weeks is also “prudent.” Further testing for later virologic relapse is not supported by the available evidence. However, further periodic testing is advised for patients at risk for reinfection, such as those who continue to use IV drugs.
All patients with stage 3 or higher liver fibrosis or cirrhosis before achieving SVR should continue to be monitored by liver imaging (with or without serum alpha fetoprotein testing) twice a year “for an indefinite duration.” At present, there is no evidence of a finite point beyond which the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma is reduced to the level of people who don’t have a history of liver disease. And there have been documented cases of hepatocellular carcinoma developing more than 5 years after attaining SVR.
Regardless of SVR status, all patients with liver cirrhosis should undergo endoscopic screening for esophagogastric varices. If no varices or only small varices are detected, repeat endoscopy should be done 2-3 years after achieving SVR. If no varices are identified then, “cessation of further endoscopic screening may be considered on an individual patient basis if there are no risk factors for progressive cirrhosis.”
Noninvasive assessment of fibrosis, such as liver elastography, may be considered on an individual basis after SVR is attained, to assess whether fibrosis has progressed or regressed or to guide clinical management.
All patients who achieve SVR must be counseled regarding factors that could further injure the liver and contribute to the progression of fibrosis, hepatic decompensation, or the development of hepatocellular carcinoma. These include alcohol consumption, fatty liver, diabetes, and potential toxins. If serum liver enzyme levels rise, all patients should be evaluated for possible liver injury.
The AGA Institute issued a clinical practice update for managing hepatitis C virus–infected patients who achieve a sustained virologic response after antiviral therapy, who still require ongoing care for their liver disease. The expert review appears in the May issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.03.018).
Even though direct-acting antiviral regimens have produced remarkably high sustained virologic response (SVR) rates and it appears that fewer than 1% of patients relapse, and even though liver fibrosis and cirrhosis may regress with this therapy, continued surveillance and even intervention may be needed “to reduce complications arising from liver damage that has already accrued by the time SVR was attained,” said Ira M. Jacobson, MD, AGAF, chair of the department of medicine, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, and his associates.
Dr. Jacobson and his associates at the AGA Institute reviewed the current literature and expert opinion to formulate 11 best-practice recommendations for managing this patient population. Among their recommendations:
SVR should be confirmed by hepatitis C virus RNA testing at 12 weeks after completion of an all-oral direct-acting antiviral regimen, and routine confirmation after 48 weeks is also “prudent.” Further testing for later virologic relapse is not supported by the available evidence. However, further periodic testing is advised for patients at risk for reinfection, such as those who continue to use IV drugs.
All patients with stage 3 or higher liver fibrosis or cirrhosis before achieving SVR should continue to be monitored by liver imaging (with or without serum alpha fetoprotein testing) twice a year “for an indefinite duration.” At present, there is no evidence of a finite point beyond which the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma is reduced to the level of people who don’t have a history of liver disease. And there have been documented cases of hepatocellular carcinoma developing more than 5 years after attaining SVR.
Regardless of SVR status, all patients with liver cirrhosis should undergo endoscopic screening for esophagogastric varices. If no varices or only small varices are detected, repeat endoscopy should be done 2-3 years after achieving SVR. If no varices are identified then, “cessation of further endoscopic screening may be considered on an individual patient basis if there are no risk factors for progressive cirrhosis.”
Noninvasive assessment of fibrosis, such as liver elastography, may be considered on an individual basis after SVR is attained, to assess whether fibrosis has progressed or regressed or to guide clinical management.
All patients who achieve SVR must be counseled regarding factors that could further injure the liver and contribute to the progression of fibrosis, hepatic decompensation, or the development of hepatocellular carcinoma. These include alcohol consumption, fatty liver, diabetes, and potential toxins. If serum liver enzyme levels rise, all patients should be evaluated for possible liver injury.
Key clinical point: The AGA Institute issued a clinical practice update for managing HCV patients who achieve a sustained virologic response after antiviral therapy, who still require ongoing care for their liver disease.
Major finding: SVR should be confirmed by HCV RNA testing at 12 weeks after completion of an all-oral direct-acting antiviral regimen, and routine confirmation after 48 weeks is also “prudent.”
Data source: A review of the literature and of expert opinion to compile 11 best-practice recommendations for managing post-SVR HCV care.
Disclosures: This work was supported by the AGA Institute. Dr. Jacobson reported ties to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Intercept, Janssen, Merck, and Trek; one of his associates reported ties to those groups and to Target PharmaSolutions.
New guideline: Address GTCS frequency to reduce SUDEP risk
BOSTON – Generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) are a major risk factor for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), which underscores the importance of advising people with epilepsy about controlling such seizures, according to a new practice guideline from the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society.
Though SUDEP is rare, with an incidence rate of 0.22/1,000 patient-years in children with epilepsy and 1.2/1,000 patient-years in adults with epilepsy, the guideline committee found that people with three or more GTCS per year are 15 times more likely to die suddenly than are those without this seizure type. The risk increases with increasing GTCS frequency. This translates to an absolute risk of up to 18 deaths per 1,000 patient-years for people with epilepsy who have frequent GTCS.
Specifically, the guideline recommends that , she said, adding that the guideline shows that “being free of seizures, particularly tonic-clonic seizures, is strongly associated with a decreased risk.”
Guideline coauthor, Elizabeth Donner, MD, added that, for this reason, the guideline recommends “that health professionals work with people who continue to have, specifically, these kind of seizures to try and reduce them with medications or with epilepsy surgery, actively weighing the risks and benefits of any new approach to seizure management.”
The recommendations are based on moderate (Level B) evidence.
The team also looked at numerous other risk factors for SUDEP and found that the strength of the evidence was too weak to support additional recommendations, said Dr. Donner, director of the comprehensive epilepsy program at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and chair of the American Epilepsy Society SUDEP Task Force.
“More research is now needed to identify other preventable risk factors for SUDEP so that we can focus future studies on finding ways to reduce how often SUDEP occurs,” she added.
While the message regarding the importance of reducing seizure frequency is not new, it is important that this message be reiterated in the context of SUDEP, Dr. Donner said.
“It’s very important for it to be clear that the risk of frequent generalized tonic-clonic seizures – and we’re not talking about really frequent here; we’re talking about significant increased risk of death with only three per year – is not related only to maintaining a driver’s license, maintaining work, or other outcomes like that. It’s actually related to risk of death,” she said, noting that she hopes this is a motivator for pursuing treatments beyond medication when medication isn’t successful for treating seizures.
The guideline, which is endorsed by the International Child Neurology Association, is available online and in print (Neurology. 2017;88:1674–80).
Dr. Harden receives royalties from Wiley and Up-to-Date. Dr. Donner has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Dravet Canada, and SUDEP Aware. Other guideline authors reported numerous disclosures, including many industry sources.
BOSTON – Generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) are a major risk factor for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), which underscores the importance of advising people with epilepsy about controlling such seizures, according to a new practice guideline from the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society.
Though SUDEP is rare, with an incidence rate of 0.22/1,000 patient-years in children with epilepsy and 1.2/1,000 patient-years in adults with epilepsy, the guideline committee found that people with three or more GTCS per year are 15 times more likely to die suddenly than are those without this seizure type. The risk increases with increasing GTCS frequency. This translates to an absolute risk of up to 18 deaths per 1,000 patient-years for people with epilepsy who have frequent GTCS.
Specifically, the guideline recommends that , she said, adding that the guideline shows that “being free of seizures, particularly tonic-clonic seizures, is strongly associated with a decreased risk.”
Guideline coauthor, Elizabeth Donner, MD, added that, for this reason, the guideline recommends “that health professionals work with people who continue to have, specifically, these kind of seizures to try and reduce them with medications or with epilepsy surgery, actively weighing the risks and benefits of any new approach to seizure management.”
The recommendations are based on moderate (Level B) evidence.
The team also looked at numerous other risk factors for SUDEP and found that the strength of the evidence was too weak to support additional recommendations, said Dr. Donner, director of the comprehensive epilepsy program at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and chair of the American Epilepsy Society SUDEP Task Force.
“More research is now needed to identify other preventable risk factors for SUDEP so that we can focus future studies on finding ways to reduce how often SUDEP occurs,” she added.
While the message regarding the importance of reducing seizure frequency is not new, it is important that this message be reiterated in the context of SUDEP, Dr. Donner said.
“It’s very important for it to be clear that the risk of frequent generalized tonic-clonic seizures – and we’re not talking about really frequent here; we’re talking about significant increased risk of death with only three per year – is not related only to maintaining a driver’s license, maintaining work, or other outcomes like that. It’s actually related to risk of death,” she said, noting that she hopes this is a motivator for pursuing treatments beyond medication when medication isn’t successful for treating seizures.
The guideline, which is endorsed by the International Child Neurology Association, is available online and in print (Neurology. 2017;88:1674–80).
Dr. Harden receives royalties from Wiley and Up-to-Date. Dr. Donner has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Dravet Canada, and SUDEP Aware. Other guideline authors reported numerous disclosures, including many industry sources.
BOSTON – Generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS) are a major risk factor for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), which underscores the importance of advising people with epilepsy about controlling such seizures, according to a new practice guideline from the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society.
Though SUDEP is rare, with an incidence rate of 0.22/1,000 patient-years in children with epilepsy and 1.2/1,000 patient-years in adults with epilepsy, the guideline committee found that people with three or more GTCS per year are 15 times more likely to die suddenly than are those without this seizure type. The risk increases with increasing GTCS frequency. This translates to an absolute risk of up to 18 deaths per 1,000 patient-years for people with epilepsy who have frequent GTCS.
Specifically, the guideline recommends that , she said, adding that the guideline shows that “being free of seizures, particularly tonic-clonic seizures, is strongly associated with a decreased risk.”
Guideline coauthor, Elizabeth Donner, MD, added that, for this reason, the guideline recommends “that health professionals work with people who continue to have, specifically, these kind of seizures to try and reduce them with medications or with epilepsy surgery, actively weighing the risks and benefits of any new approach to seizure management.”
The recommendations are based on moderate (Level B) evidence.
The team also looked at numerous other risk factors for SUDEP and found that the strength of the evidence was too weak to support additional recommendations, said Dr. Donner, director of the comprehensive epilepsy program at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and chair of the American Epilepsy Society SUDEP Task Force.
“More research is now needed to identify other preventable risk factors for SUDEP so that we can focus future studies on finding ways to reduce how often SUDEP occurs,” she added.
While the message regarding the importance of reducing seizure frequency is not new, it is important that this message be reiterated in the context of SUDEP, Dr. Donner said.
“It’s very important for it to be clear that the risk of frequent generalized tonic-clonic seizures – and we’re not talking about really frequent here; we’re talking about significant increased risk of death with only three per year – is not related only to maintaining a driver’s license, maintaining work, or other outcomes like that. It’s actually related to risk of death,” she said, noting that she hopes this is a motivator for pursuing treatments beyond medication when medication isn’t successful for treating seizures.
The guideline, which is endorsed by the International Child Neurology Association, is available online and in print (Neurology. 2017;88:1674–80).
Dr. Harden receives royalties from Wiley and Up-to-Date. Dr. Donner has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Dravet Canada, and SUDEP Aware. Other guideline authors reported numerous disclosures, including many industry sources.
AT AAN 2017
Guideline endorses doublet therapy after pancreatic cancer surgery in chemo-naive patients
A recommendation on postop adjuvant chemotherapy has been updated in the Potentially Curable Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline, according to an article published online on April 11 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
In the absence of medical or surgical contraindications, all patients who have resected pancreatic cancer and did not receive preoperative therapy should be offered 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, according to the new recommendation. “The doublet regimen of gemcitabine and capecitabine is preferred in the absence of concerns for toxicity or tolerance; alternatively, monotherapy with gemcitabine or fluorouracil plus folinic acid can be offered. Adjuvant treatment should be initiated within 8 weeks of surgical resection, assuming complete recovery,” Alok A. Khorana, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, and members of the guideline committee wrote.
The recommendation was based on results of the ESPAC-4 study, a multicenter, international, open-label randomized controlled phase III trial (Lancet. 2017;389:1011-24). ESPAC-4 compared adjuvant combination chemotherapy of gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in 730 evaluable patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Median overall survival was 28 months (95% confidence interval, 23.5-31.5 months) in the doublet arm and 25.5 months (95% CI, 22.7 to 27.9 months) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98; P = .032). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were similar in both arms, although higher rates of hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea occurred in patients randomly assigned to the doublet arm.
The remaining recommendations from the original 2016 ASCO guideline are unchanged.
The revised guideline is available at this link.
[email protected]
On Twitter @maryjodales
A recommendation on postop adjuvant chemotherapy has been updated in the Potentially Curable Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline, according to an article published online on April 11 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
In the absence of medical or surgical contraindications, all patients who have resected pancreatic cancer and did not receive preoperative therapy should be offered 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, according to the new recommendation. “The doublet regimen of gemcitabine and capecitabine is preferred in the absence of concerns for toxicity or tolerance; alternatively, monotherapy with gemcitabine or fluorouracil plus folinic acid can be offered. Adjuvant treatment should be initiated within 8 weeks of surgical resection, assuming complete recovery,” Alok A. Khorana, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, and members of the guideline committee wrote.
The recommendation was based on results of the ESPAC-4 study, a multicenter, international, open-label randomized controlled phase III trial (Lancet. 2017;389:1011-24). ESPAC-4 compared adjuvant combination chemotherapy of gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in 730 evaluable patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Median overall survival was 28 months (95% confidence interval, 23.5-31.5 months) in the doublet arm and 25.5 months (95% CI, 22.7 to 27.9 months) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98; P = .032). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were similar in both arms, although higher rates of hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea occurred in patients randomly assigned to the doublet arm.
The remaining recommendations from the original 2016 ASCO guideline are unchanged.
The revised guideline is available at this link.
[email protected]
On Twitter @maryjodales
A recommendation on postop adjuvant chemotherapy has been updated in the Potentially Curable Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline, according to an article published online on April 11 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
In the absence of medical or surgical contraindications, all patients who have resected pancreatic cancer and did not receive preoperative therapy should be offered 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, according to the new recommendation. “The doublet regimen of gemcitabine and capecitabine is preferred in the absence of concerns for toxicity or tolerance; alternatively, monotherapy with gemcitabine or fluorouracil plus folinic acid can be offered. Adjuvant treatment should be initiated within 8 weeks of surgical resection, assuming complete recovery,” Alok A. Khorana, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, and members of the guideline committee wrote.
The recommendation was based on results of the ESPAC-4 study, a multicenter, international, open-label randomized controlled phase III trial (Lancet. 2017;389:1011-24). ESPAC-4 compared adjuvant combination chemotherapy of gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy in 730 evaluable patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Median overall survival was 28 months (95% confidence interval, 23.5-31.5 months) in the doublet arm and 25.5 months (95% CI, 22.7 to 27.9 months) for gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98; P = .032). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were similar in both arms, although higher rates of hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea occurred in patients randomly assigned to the doublet arm.
The remaining recommendations from the original 2016 ASCO guideline are unchanged.
The revised guideline is available at this link.
[email protected]
On Twitter @maryjodales
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
NCCN myelofibrosis guideline: Patient voice is key
ORLANDO – Referral to a specialized center with expertise in the management of myeloproliferative neoplasms is strongly recommended for all patients diagnosed with myelofibrosis, according to a new treatment guideline from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
The guideline is the first in a series addressing myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), and it focuses on the diagnostic work-up of MPNs, as well as the treatment of myelofibrosis. The guideline panel, led by panel chair Ruben A. Mesa, MD, is working next on guidelines for the other two “core classic” Philadelphia chromosome–negative MPNs: polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia.
Nearly two-thirds of myelofibrosis patients have intermediate-risk 2 or high-risk disease, and treatment decisions in these patients are complex and require patient input – particularly in candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, he said.
“These diseases can be a little different than other malignant diseases,” Dr. Mesa said, explaining that while there is a clear risk of progression to acute myeloid leukemia, and from polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia to myelofibrosis, and while the diseases can be fatal, the burden patients face is not solely related to mortality.
There are implications in terms of health that are independent of that, such as the risk of thrombosis and bleeding, the potential for cytopenia, and severe splenomegaly that results in significant symptoms, he said.
Further, while molecular mutations and their implications for prognosis are a “rapidly moving part of the discussion,” the care of patients with MPNs involves far more than a molecular understanding of the disease.
In fact, the role of molecular changes in these patients is speculative, he said.
While such changes can be assessed and used for patient stratification, their role in myelofibrosis – unlike in other diseases such as chronic myeloid leukemia where the level of change in a target gene is highly relevant and prognostic, is not yet clear.
Thus, a core aspect of the guideline is inclusion of the voice of the patient in individualizing care, he said, noting that many factors should be considered, including how well the patient metabolizes drugs, and the symptom profile, psychosocial circumstances, support structure, and personal beliefs.
“It’s not solely about the tumor,” he stressed.
In fact, the answer to the question of whether a patient can be symptomatic enough to require a specific treatment is “no,” because of the potential for side effects, risk, expense, and other considerations.
“So the voice of the patient is always a key part [of the decision],” he said, noting also that as with all NCCN guidelines, this guideline is a partnership with the treating physician; deciding who is a transplant candidate is a nuanced issue for which the panel provides “discussion and guidance.”
“But clearly, these guidelines are the most useful and helpful in the setting of experienced providers bringing all of their experiences to bear,” he said.
In general, however, the guidelines call for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) in those with intermediate-risk 2 or high-risk disease who are transplant candidates, and treatment based on assessment of symptom burden (using the MPN–Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score–10 Items) in those who are not HCT candidates. Those with platelets at 50,000 or below should be considered for clinical trial enrollment, and those with platelets above 50,000 should be considered for a clinical trial or treatment with the oral JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib, which has been shown to have beneficial effects on both symptoms and survival and which is approved for patients with platelets above 50,000. .
Treated patients should be monitored for response and for signs and symptoms of disease progression every 3-6 months. Treatment should continue in those who respond, as well as in those who do not – as long as there is no disease progression.
Those with progressive disease include patients who are moving toward acute leukemia, and those with overt acute leukemia.
“Here is where the key decision occurs. Are they or are they not a transplant candidate? If they are a candidate, we have a potentially curative track which would include cytoreduction followed by transplant,” Dr. Mesa said.
Cytoreduction can involve hypomethylating agents if the patient doesn’t have excess blast cells or too high a burden of disease.
Acute myeloid leukemia–like induction chemotherapy followed by allogeneic HCT is also an option in these patients.
As for treatment of low-risk myelofibrosis, the guideline states that asymptomatic patients can be observed or enrolled in a clinical trial and monitored for progression every 3-6 months, and that symptomatic patients should receive ruxolitinib or interferons (which are used off label), or be enrolled in a clinical trial. Treatment is important for patients with particularly difficult symptoms, he said, noting that some patients have had pruritus so severe that they have committed suicide. Treatment should continue unless monitoring shows signs of progression to intermediate risk 1, intermediate risk 2/high-risk, or advanced stage disease.
For those with intermediate risk 1 disease, the guideline calls for observation or ruxolitinib in those who are symptomatic, or clinical trial enrollment or allogeneic HCT. Treatment should continue unless monitoring shows disease progression, in which case the appropriate algorithm should be considered.
The guideline also addresses several special circumstances, including the management of anemia in myelofibrosis patients, which can be a difficult issue, he said.
Since the guideline was first published in December, two updates have been incorporated, and Dr. Mesa said that he anticipates regular updates given the rapidly evolving understanding of MPNs and new findings with respect to potential treatment strategies.
He noted that a number of drugs are currently in clinical trials involving patients with myelofibrosis, including the JAK2/FLT3 inhibitor pacritinib, the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor momelotinib, the active antifibrosing agent PRM-151, and the telomerase inhibitor imetelstat, as well as numerous drug combinations.
Going forward, the guideline panel will be focusing on four different areas of assessment, including new therapies and new genetic therapies, improving transplant outcomes, MPN symptom and quality of life assessment, and nonpharmacologic interventions such as yoga.
“We certainly hope to complement things over time, to look not only at pharmacologic interventions, but others that patients may be able to utilize from a toolkit of resources,” he said.
COMFORT-1 update: ruxolitinib responses durable in myelofibrosis
To date, ruxolitinib is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for the treatment of myelofibrosis.
The randomized controlled phase III COMFORT I and II trials conducted in the United States and Europe, respectively, demonstrated that the oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor has a rapid, beneficial impact on both survival and disease-associated enlargement of the spleen and improvement in related symptoms, Dr. Mesa said.
A 5-year update on data from 309 patients in the COMFORT-1 trial, as reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2016, confirmed the durability of treatment responses to ruxolitinib in patients initially randomized to receive the drug, he said.
“We were able to demonstrate a continued survival advantage for those individuals receiving ruxolitinib,” he added.
At weeks 24 and 264, the mean spleen volume reduction was 31.6% and 37.6%, respectively, in those originally randomized to ruxolitinib. The median duration of at least 35% spleen volume reduction was 168.3 weeks.
Overall survival favored ruxolitinib (hazard ratio, 0.69). Median overall survival in the ruxolitinib group had not yet been reached.
“But we realize our work is not done. The survival curve does not plateau; we are not curing these patients. We’re having meaningful impact, but we have room to continue to improve,” he said.
Also, there is an initial drop in platelet counts that tends to stabilize, but not improve, and there is worsening of anemia (new onset grade 3 or 4 anemia was 25.2% with ruxolitinib, and 26.1% in 111 of 154 patients who crossed over from the placebo group), and although this tends to improve, these are among areas of unmet need, he added.
Further, long-term risks of treatment include cutaneous malignancies (basal cell carcinoma occurred in 7.7% and 9.0% of treatment and crossover patients, respectively), which are difficult to separate from baseline hydroxyurea use, and increased risk of herpes zoster (which occurred in 10.3% and 13.5% of treated and crossover patients).
However, there appears to be no increased risk – and there may be a slight decreased risk – of progression to acute leukemia, Dr. Mesa said.
Dr. Mesa disclosed that he has received consulting fees, honoraria, and/or grant/research support from ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, CTI BioPharma, Galena Biopharma, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Promedior.
A step toward harmonizing treatment
Myelofibrosis is a rare chronic leukemia with a complex biology. Disease heterogeneity poses several challenges in the appropriate selection and timing of treatments in this disorder. The NCCN Practice Guidelines in Myelofibrosis is an important step towards harmonizing clinical practice for treating this disease and improving the care of patients.
Vikas Gupta, MD, FRCP, FRCPath, is Director of The Elizabeth and Tony Comper MPN Program at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto and a member of the editorial advisory board of Hematology News.
A step toward harmonizing treatment
Myelofibrosis is a rare chronic leukemia with a complex biology. Disease heterogeneity poses several challenges in the appropriate selection and timing of treatments in this disorder. The NCCN Practice Guidelines in Myelofibrosis is an important step towards harmonizing clinical practice for treating this disease and improving the care of patients.
Vikas Gupta, MD, FRCP, FRCPath, is Director of The Elizabeth and Tony Comper MPN Program at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto and a member of the editorial advisory board of Hematology News.
A step toward harmonizing treatment
Myelofibrosis is a rare chronic leukemia with a complex biology. Disease heterogeneity poses several challenges in the appropriate selection and timing of treatments in this disorder. The NCCN Practice Guidelines in Myelofibrosis is an important step towards harmonizing clinical practice for treating this disease and improving the care of patients.
Vikas Gupta, MD, FRCP, FRCPath, is Director of The Elizabeth and Tony Comper MPN Program at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto and a member of the editorial advisory board of Hematology News.
ORLANDO – Referral to a specialized center with expertise in the management of myeloproliferative neoplasms is strongly recommended for all patients diagnosed with myelofibrosis, according to a new treatment guideline from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
The guideline is the first in a series addressing myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), and it focuses on the diagnostic work-up of MPNs, as well as the treatment of myelofibrosis. The guideline panel, led by panel chair Ruben A. Mesa, MD, is working next on guidelines for the other two “core classic” Philadelphia chromosome–negative MPNs: polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia.
Nearly two-thirds of myelofibrosis patients have intermediate-risk 2 or high-risk disease, and treatment decisions in these patients are complex and require patient input – particularly in candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, he said.
“These diseases can be a little different than other malignant diseases,” Dr. Mesa said, explaining that while there is a clear risk of progression to acute myeloid leukemia, and from polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia to myelofibrosis, and while the diseases can be fatal, the burden patients face is not solely related to mortality.
There are implications in terms of health that are independent of that, such as the risk of thrombosis and bleeding, the potential for cytopenia, and severe splenomegaly that results in significant symptoms, he said.
Further, while molecular mutations and their implications for prognosis are a “rapidly moving part of the discussion,” the care of patients with MPNs involves far more than a molecular understanding of the disease.
In fact, the role of molecular changes in these patients is speculative, he said.
While such changes can be assessed and used for patient stratification, their role in myelofibrosis – unlike in other diseases such as chronic myeloid leukemia where the level of change in a target gene is highly relevant and prognostic, is not yet clear.
Thus, a core aspect of the guideline is inclusion of the voice of the patient in individualizing care, he said, noting that many factors should be considered, including how well the patient metabolizes drugs, and the symptom profile, psychosocial circumstances, support structure, and personal beliefs.
“It’s not solely about the tumor,” he stressed.
In fact, the answer to the question of whether a patient can be symptomatic enough to require a specific treatment is “no,” because of the potential for side effects, risk, expense, and other considerations.
“So the voice of the patient is always a key part [of the decision],” he said, noting also that as with all NCCN guidelines, this guideline is a partnership with the treating physician; deciding who is a transplant candidate is a nuanced issue for which the panel provides “discussion and guidance.”
“But clearly, these guidelines are the most useful and helpful in the setting of experienced providers bringing all of their experiences to bear,” he said.
In general, however, the guidelines call for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) in those with intermediate-risk 2 or high-risk disease who are transplant candidates, and treatment based on assessment of symptom burden (using the MPN–Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score–10 Items) in those who are not HCT candidates. Those with platelets at 50,000 or below should be considered for clinical trial enrollment, and those with platelets above 50,000 should be considered for a clinical trial or treatment with the oral JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib, which has been shown to have beneficial effects on both symptoms and survival and which is approved for patients with platelets above 50,000. .
Treated patients should be monitored for response and for signs and symptoms of disease progression every 3-6 months. Treatment should continue in those who respond, as well as in those who do not – as long as there is no disease progression.
Those with progressive disease include patients who are moving toward acute leukemia, and those with overt acute leukemia.
“Here is where the key decision occurs. Are they or are they not a transplant candidate? If they are a candidate, we have a potentially curative track which would include cytoreduction followed by transplant,” Dr. Mesa said.
Cytoreduction can involve hypomethylating agents if the patient doesn’t have excess blast cells or too high a burden of disease.
Acute myeloid leukemia–like induction chemotherapy followed by allogeneic HCT is also an option in these patients.
As for treatment of low-risk myelofibrosis, the guideline states that asymptomatic patients can be observed or enrolled in a clinical trial and monitored for progression every 3-6 months, and that symptomatic patients should receive ruxolitinib or interferons (which are used off label), or be enrolled in a clinical trial. Treatment is important for patients with particularly difficult symptoms, he said, noting that some patients have had pruritus so severe that they have committed suicide. Treatment should continue unless monitoring shows signs of progression to intermediate risk 1, intermediate risk 2/high-risk, or advanced stage disease.
For those with intermediate risk 1 disease, the guideline calls for observation or ruxolitinib in those who are symptomatic, or clinical trial enrollment or allogeneic HCT. Treatment should continue unless monitoring shows disease progression, in which case the appropriate algorithm should be considered.
The guideline also addresses several special circumstances, including the management of anemia in myelofibrosis patients, which can be a difficult issue, he said.
Since the guideline was first published in December, two updates have been incorporated, and Dr. Mesa said that he anticipates regular updates given the rapidly evolving understanding of MPNs and new findings with respect to potential treatment strategies.
He noted that a number of drugs are currently in clinical trials involving patients with myelofibrosis, including the JAK2/FLT3 inhibitor pacritinib, the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor momelotinib, the active antifibrosing agent PRM-151, and the telomerase inhibitor imetelstat, as well as numerous drug combinations.
Going forward, the guideline panel will be focusing on four different areas of assessment, including new therapies and new genetic therapies, improving transplant outcomes, MPN symptom and quality of life assessment, and nonpharmacologic interventions such as yoga.
“We certainly hope to complement things over time, to look not only at pharmacologic interventions, but others that patients may be able to utilize from a toolkit of resources,” he said.
COMFORT-1 update: ruxolitinib responses durable in myelofibrosis
To date, ruxolitinib is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for the treatment of myelofibrosis.
The randomized controlled phase III COMFORT I and II trials conducted in the United States and Europe, respectively, demonstrated that the oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor has a rapid, beneficial impact on both survival and disease-associated enlargement of the spleen and improvement in related symptoms, Dr. Mesa said.
A 5-year update on data from 309 patients in the COMFORT-1 trial, as reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2016, confirmed the durability of treatment responses to ruxolitinib in patients initially randomized to receive the drug, he said.
“We were able to demonstrate a continued survival advantage for those individuals receiving ruxolitinib,” he added.
At weeks 24 and 264, the mean spleen volume reduction was 31.6% and 37.6%, respectively, in those originally randomized to ruxolitinib. The median duration of at least 35% spleen volume reduction was 168.3 weeks.
Overall survival favored ruxolitinib (hazard ratio, 0.69). Median overall survival in the ruxolitinib group had not yet been reached.
“But we realize our work is not done. The survival curve does not plateau; we are not curing these patients. We’re having meaningful impact, but we have room to continue to improve,” he said.
Also, there is an initial drop in platelet counts that tends to stabilize, but not improve, and there is worsening of anemia (new onset grade 3 or 4 anemia was 25.2% with ruxolitinib, and 26.1% in 111 of 154 patients who crossed over from the placebo group), and although this tends to improve, these are among areas of unmet need, he added.
Further, long-term risks of treatment include cutaneous malignancies (basal cell carcinoma occurred in 7.7% and 9.0% of treatment and crossover patients, respectively), which are difficult to separate from baseline hydroxyurea use, and increased risk of herpes zoster (which occurred in 10.3% and 13.5% of treated and crossover patients).
However, there appears to be no increased risk – and there may be a slight decreased risk – of progression to acute leukemia, Dr. Mesa said.
Dr. Mesa disclosed that he has received consulting fees, honoraria, and/or grant/research support from ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, CTI BioPharma, Galena Biopharma, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Promedior.
ORLANDO – Referral to a specialized center with expertise in the management of myeloproliferative neoplasms is strongly recommended for all patients diagnosed with myelofibrosis, according to a new treatment guideline from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
The guideline is the first in a series addressing myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), and it focuses on the diagnostic work-up of MPNs, as well as the treatment of myelofibrosis. The guideline panel, led by panel chair Ruben A. Mesa, MD, is working next on guidelines for the other two “core classic” Philadelphia chromosome–negative MPNs: polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia.
Nearly two-thirds of myelofibrosis patients have intermediate-risk 2 or high-risk disease, and treatment decisions in these patients are complex and require patient input – particularly in candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, he said.
“These diseases can be a little different than other malignant diseases,” Dr. Mesa said, explaining that while there is a clear risk of progression to acute myeloid leukemia, and from polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia to myelofibrosis, and while the diseases can be fatal, the burden patients face is not solely related to mortality.
There are implications in terms of health that are independent of that, such as the risk of thrombosis and bleeding, the potential for cytopenia, and severe splenomegaly that results in significant symptoms, he said.
Further, while molecular mutations and their implications for prognosis are a “rapidly moving part of the discussion,” the care of patients with MPNs involves far more than a molecular understanding of the disease.
In fact, the role of molecular changes in these patients is speculative, he said.
While such changes can be assessed and used for patient stratification, their role in myelofibrosis – unlike in other diseases such as chronic myeloid leukemia where the level of change in a target gene is highly relevant and prognostic, is not yet clear.
Thus, a core aspect of the guideline is inclusion of the voice of the patient in individualizing care, he said, noting that many factors should be considered, including how well the patient metabolizes drugs, and the symptom profile, psychosocial circumstances, support structure, and personal beliefs.
“It’s not solely about the tumor,” he stressed.
In fact, the answer to the question of whether a patient can be symptomatic enough to require a specific treatment is “no,” because of the potential for side effects, risk, expense, and other considerations.
“So the voice of the patient is always a key part [of the decision],” he said, noting also that as with all NCCN guidelines, this guideline is a partnership with the treating physician; deciding who is a transplant candidate is a nuanced issue for which the panel provides “discussion and guidance.”
“But clearly, these guidelines are the most useful and helpful in the setting of experienced providers bringing all of their experiences to bear,” he said.
In general, however, the guidelines call for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) in those with intermediate-risk 2 or high-risk disease who are transplant candidates, and treatment based on assessment of symptom burden (using the MPN–Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score–10 Items) in those who are not HCT candidates. Those with platelets at 50,000 or below should be considered for clinical trial enrollment, and those with platelets above 50,000 should be considered for a clinical trial or treatment with the oral JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib, which has been shown to have beneficial effects on both symptoms and survival and which is approved for patients with platelets above 50,000. .
Treated patients should be monitored for response and for signs and symptoms of disease progression every 3-6 months. Treatment should continue in those who respond, as well as in those who do not – as long as there is no disease progression.
Those with progressive disease include patients who are moving toward acute leukemia, and those with overt acute leukemia.
“Here is where the key decision occurs. Are they or are they not a transplant candidate? If they are a candidate, we have a potentially curative track which would include cytoreduction followed by transplant,” Dr. Mesa said.
Cytoreduction can involve hypomethylating agents if the patient doesn’t have excess blast cells or too high a burden of disease.
Acute myeloid leukemia–like induction chemotherapy followed by allogeneic HCT is also an option in these patients.
As for treatment of low-risk myelofibrosis, the guideline states that asymptomatic patients can be observed or enrolled in a clinical trial and monitored for progression every 3-6 months, and that symptomatic patients should receive ruxolitinib or interferons (which are used off label), or be enrolled in a clinical trial. Treatment is important for patients with particularly difficult symptoms, he said, noting that some patients have had pruritus so severe that they have committed suicide. Treatment should continue unless monitoring shows signs of progression to intermediate risk 1, intermediate risk 2/high-risk, or advanced stage disease.
For those with intermediate risk 1 disease, the guideline calls for observation or ruxolitinib in those who are symptomatic, or clinical trial enrollment or allogeneic HCT. Treatment should continue unless monitoring shows disease progression, in which case the appropriate algorithm should be considered.
The guideline also addresses several special circumstances, including the management of anemia in myelofibrosis patients, which can be a difficult issue, he said.
Since the guideline was first published in December, two updates have been incorporated, and Dr. Mesa said that he anticipates regular updates given the rapidly evolving understanding of MPNs and new findings with respect to potential treatment strategies.
He noted that a number of drugs are currently in clinical trials involving patients with myelofibrosis, including the JAK2/FLT3 inhibitor pacritinib, the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor momelotinib, the active antifibrosing agent PRM-151, and the telomerase inhibitor imetelstat, as well as numerous drug combinations.
Going forward, the guideline panel will be focusing on four different areas of assessment, including new therapies and new genetic therapies, improving transplant outcomes, MPN symptom and quality of life assessment, and nonpharmacologic interventions such as yoga.
“We certainly hope to complement things over time, to look not only at pharmacologic interventions, but others that patients may be able to utilize from a toolkit of resources,” he said.
COMFORT-1 update: ruxolitinib responses durable in myelofibrosis
To date, ruxolitinib is the only Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for the treatment of myelofibrosis.
The randomized controlled phase III COMFORT I and II trials conducted in the United States and Europe, respectively, demonstrated that the oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor has a rapid, beneficial impact on both survival and disease-associated enlargement of the spleen and improvement in related symptoms, Dr. Mesa said.
A 5-year update on data from 309 patients in the COMFORT-1 trial, as reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2016, confirmed the durability of treatment responses to ruxolitinib in patients initially randomized to receive the drug, he said.
“We were able to demonstrate a continued survival advantage for those individuals receiving ruxolitinib,” he added.
At weeks 24 and 264, the mean spleen volume reduction was 31.6% and 37.6%, respectively, in those originally randomized to ruxolitinib. The median duration of at least 35% spleen volume reduction was 168.3 weeks.
Overall survival favored ruxolitinib (hazard ratio, 0.69). Median overall survival in the ruxolitinib group had not yet been reached.
“But we realize our work is not done. The survival curve does not plateau; we are not curing these patients. We’re having meaningful impact, but we have room to continue to improve,” he said.
Also, there is an initial drop in platelet counts that tends to stabilize, but not improve, and there is worsening of anemia (new onset grade 3 or 4 anemia was 25.2% with ruxolitinib, and 26.1% in 111 of 154 patients who crossed over from the placebo group), and although this tends to improve, these are among areas of unmet need, he added.
Further, long-term risks of treatment include cutaneous malignancies (basal cell carcinoma occurred in 7.7% and 9.0% of treatment and crossover patients, respectively), which are difficult to separate from baseline hydroxyurea use, and increased risk of herpes zoster (which occurred in 10.3% and 13.5% of treated and crossover patients).
However, there appears to be no increased risk – and there may be a slight decreased risk – of progression to acute leukemia, Dr. Mesa said.
Dr. Mesa disclosed that he has received consulting fees, honoraria, and/or grant/research support from ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, CTI BioPharma, Galena Biopharma, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Promedior.
EXPERT ANALYSIS AT THE NCCN ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Eliminating hepatitis in the United States: A road map
An ambitious new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine lays out a detailed path by which some 90,000 deaths from hepatitis B and C infection could be prevented by 2030.
The National Academies, a group of nongovernmental advisory bodies that includes the former Institute of Medicine, said that “the tools to prevent these deaths” exist – namely vaccination to prevent new hepatitis B infections and antiviral drugs, including new oral medications that can cure chronic hepatitis C infections within months.
The authors of the 200-plus-page report, led by Brian Strom, MD, MPH, of Rutgers University in Newark, NJ, calculate that deaths from hepatitis B infection could be halved by 2030 if 90% of patients are diagnosed, if 90% of those diagnosed are connected to care, and if 80% of those for whom treatment is indicated receive it. Treating everyone with chronic hepatitis C would reduce new infections by 90% by 2030, while reducing related deaths by 65%, Dr. Strom and his colleagues estimate.
But the authors also concede that drastic changes to current health policy would be required to reach these goals. These include the adoption of “aggressive testing, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention methods, such as needle exchange.”
They propose that the federal government seek a unique licensing arrangement with one or more manufacturers to bring down the notoriously high cost of direct-acting drugs used in hepatitis C, as a way of raising treatment rates. Currently, fewer than half the patients on Medicaid who are eligible for hepatitis C treatment receive it, and fewer than 1% of prisoners, who have high rates of infection.
Dr. Joseph Lim, director of the viral hepatitis program at Yale University in New Haven. Conn., who was not involved in the National Academies report, called it helpful in the sense that “it casts a spotlight on something that those of us involved in the care of people with viral hepatitis have long known – which is that this is a national and global public health burden that has been under the radar and in the shadow of other important health priorities.”
Both hepatitis B and C increase the risk of liver cancer and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Though approximately 4 million people in the United States are estimated to be infected with chronic hepatitis B (1.3 million) or C (2.7 million), these diseases account for less than 1% of the research budget at the National Institutes of Health, the report said. This compares unfavorably to funding for HIV, which affects about 1 million Americans.
As the report states, the tools to radically reduce hepatitis B and C deaths already exist. However, Dr. Lim cautioned in an interview, “the public health infrastructure to address viral hepatitis has been woefully inadequate.” In the United States, he noted, most states receive federal funding for at most a single person in charge of viral hepatitis epidemiology. “The resources currently available are in no way adequate to achieve the very aggressive goals described in the report,” he said.
Even among people with a known diagnosis of hepatitis B or C, only some receive confirmatory testing, Dr. Lim said. And of those with confirmed infections, “only a fraction are linked to care from the diagnosing clinician to a provider with the capacity to assess the state of liver disease and determine whether antiviral therapy is warranted.” Finally, he said, “many patients continue to face barriers to curative therapy due to cost and restrictions by public and private payers.”
Among the recommendations contained in the report is that unrestricted, mass treatment of hepatitis C infections be undertaken – regardless of disease stage. Currently, direct-acting antiviral agents remain costly and are poorly covered, notably by Medicaid. The National Academies advise that the government rectify this by purchasing “a license or assignment to the patent on a direct-acting antiviral drug, and use it only in those market segments where the government pays for treatment and access is now limited, such as Medicaid and prisons.”
Dr. Lim called the licensing proposal “very novel and bold,” but noted that there is no precedent in the United States for diseases such as hepatitis C. “If it could be done it would be an incredible model of government-pharma partnership for the public health good, and have a very significant impact.”
Steven Flamm, MD, chief of the liver transplantation program at Northwestern University in Chicago, who like Dr. Lim was not involved in the creation of the report, said in an interview that it contained innovative ideas and helped underscore the fact that “hepatitis has been given short shrift. The NIH and other agencies do not devote time and energy to this particular medical issue for reasons that are not completely clear.”
But “the problem with these kinds of analyses,” he said, “is that carrying them out is harder than making the recommendations.”
Dr. Flamm echoed Dr. Lim’s concerns about the practicability of implementing some of the recommendations in what he considers a resource-deprived health care environment for viral hepatitis.
“Is elimination possible or can you take a big bite out of it? The answer to that question is yes. We now have agents that can treat chronic viral hepatitis well, which we didn’t have a few years ago.”
Still, he emphasized, having the tools is only one part of the picture. Hepatitis C diagnostic tests have been available since the early 1990s. Yet, Dr. Flamm pointed out, fewer than half of patients have been diagnosed. “If the new CDC screening guidelines gain traction, we will do better than that.”
Dr. Flamm said that he considered the report’s call for a unique government licensing agreement for hepatitis C drugs a tall order. The drugs are already heavily discounted by manufacturers in many cases, he said, yet remain unavailable to those in need of them. In Illinois, Dr. Flamm said, few Medicaid patients with confirmed hepatitis C are given the short-acting antivirals that have revolutionized treatment. “The vast majority have no access to the therapy at all,” he said.
One of the report’s strengths, he said, is in detailing innovative prevention strategies such as delivering and promoting hepatitis B vaccinations to adults through local pharmacies, after the model of influenza vaccinations, and also conducting needle exchanges through pharmacies for intravenous drug users, who are at high risk of contracting both hepatitis B and C.
“Many of these strategies are not very costly,” he said. “The problem is you run into moral platitudes – to eliminate hepatitis, we will have to overcome that,” Dr. Flamm said, something that cannot be taken for granted in the current political environment.
But even if the goals outlined in the report seem ambitious, its authors have done an important service in underscoring the burden of viral hepatitis and laying out how some barriers to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment might be broken, he said.
Viral hepatitis “is a big deal, and it does cost a tremendous amount of money,” he added. “Everybody focuses on the therapeutic cost, but nobody focuses on the costs, direct and indirect, of all the sick people that are out there.”
An ambitious new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine lays out a detailed path by which some 90,000 deaths from hepatitis B and C infection could be prevented by 2030.
The National Academies, a group of nongovernmental advisory bodies that includes the former Institute of Medicine, said that “the tools to prevent these deaths” exist – namely vaccination to prevent new hepatitis B infections and antiviral drugs, including new oral medications that can cure chronic hepatitis C infections within months.
The authors of the 200-plus-page report, led by Brian Strom, MD, MPH, of Rutgers University in Newark, NJ, calculate that deaths from hepatitis B infection could be halved by 2030 if 90% of patients are diagnosed, if 90% of those diagnosed are connected to care, and if 80% of those for whom treatment is indicated receive it. Treating everyone with chronic hepatitis C would reduce new infections by 90% by 2030, while reducing related deaths by 65%, Dr. Strom and his colleagues estimate.
But the authors also concede that drastic changes to current health policy would be required to reach these goals. These include the adoption of “aggressive testing, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention methods, such as needle exchange.”
They propose that the federal government seek a unique licensing arrangement with one or more manufacturers to bring down the notoriously high cost of direct-acting drugs used in hepatitis C, as a way of raising treatment rates. Currently, fewer than half the patients on Medicaid who are eligible for hepatitis C treatment receive it, and fewer than 1% of prisoners, who have high rates of infection.
Dr. Joseph Lim, director of the viral hepatitis program at Yale University in New Haven. Conn., who was not involved in the National Academies report, called it helpful in the sense that “it casts a spotlight on something that those of us involved in the care of people with viral hepatitis have long known – which is that this is a national and global public health burden that has been under the radar and in the shadow of other important health priorities.”
Both hepatitis B and C increase the risk of liver cancer and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Though approximately 4 million people in the United States are estimated to be infected with chronic hepatitis B (1.3 million) or C (2.7 million), these diseases account for less than 1% of the research budget at the National Institutes of Health, the report said. This compares unfavorably to funding for HIV, which affects about 1 million Americans.
As the report states, the tools to radically reduce hepatitis B and C deaths already exist. However, Dr. Lim cautioned in an interview, “the public health infrastructure to address viral hepatitis has been woefully inadequate.” In the United States, he noted, most states receive federal funding for at most a single person in charge of viral hepatitis epidemiology. “The resources currently available are in no way adequate to achieve the very aggressive goals described in the report,” he said.
Even among people with a known diagnosis of hepatitis B or C, only some receive confirmatory testing, Dr. Lim said. And of those with confirmed infections, “only a fraction are linked to care from the diagnosing clinician to a provider with the capacity to assess the state of liver disease and determine whether antiviral therapy is warranted.” Finally, he said, “many patients continue to face barriers to curative therapy due to cost and restrictions by public and private payers.”
Among the recommendations contained in the report is that unrestricted, mass treatment of hepatitis C infections be undertaken – regardless of disease stage. Currently, direct-acting antiviral agents remain costly and are poorly covered, notably by Medicaid. The National Academies advise that the government rectify this by purchasing “a license or assignment to the patent on a direct-acting antiviral drug, and use it only in those market segments where the government pays for treatment and access is now limited, such as Medicaid and prisons.”
Dr. Lim called the licensing proposal “very novel and bold,” but noted that there is no precedent in the United States for diseases such as hepatitis C. “If it could be done it would be an incredible model of government-pharma partnership for the public health good, and have a very significant impact.”
Steven Flamm, MD, chief of the liver transplantation program at Northwestern University in Chicago, who like Dr. Lim was not involved in the creation of the report, said in an interview that it contained innovative ideas and helped underscore the fact that “hepatitis has been given short shrift. The NIH and other agencies do not devote time and energy to this particular medical issue for reasons that are not completely clear.”
But “the problem with these kinds of analyses,” he said, “is that carrying them out is harder than making the recommendations.”
Dr. Flamm echoed Dr. Lim’s concerns about the practicability of implementing some of the recommendations in what he considers a resource-deprived health care environment for viral hepatitis.
“Is elimination possible or can you take a big bite out of it? The answer to that question is yes. We now have agents that can treat chronic viral hepatitis well, which we didn’t have a few years ago.”
Still, he emphasized, having the tools is only one part of the picture. Hepatitis C diagnostic tests have been available since the early 1990s. Yet, Dr. Flamm pointed out, fewer than half of patients have been diagnosed. “If the new CDC screening guidelines gain traction, we will do better than that.”
Dr. Flamm said that he considered the report’s call for a unique government licensing agreement for hepatitis C drugs a tall order. The drugs are already heavily discounted by manufacturers in many cases, he said, yet remain unavailable to those in need of them. In Illinois, Dr. Flamm said, few Medicaid patients with confirmed hepatitis C are given the short-acting antivirals that have revolutionized treatment. “The vast majority have no access to the therapy at all,” he said.
One of the report’s strengths, he said, is in detailing innovative prevention strategies such as delivering and promoting hepatitis B vaccinations to adults through local pharmacies, after the model of influenza vaccinations, and also conducting needle exchanges through pharmacies for intravenous drug users, who are at high risk of contracting both hepatitis B and C.
“Many of these strategies are not very costly,” he said. “The problem is you run into moral platitudes – to eliminate hepatitis, we will have to overcome that,” Dr. Flamm said, something that cannot be taken for granted in the current political environment.
But even if the goals outlined in the report seem ambitious, its authors have done an important service in underscoring the burden of viral hepatitis and laying out how some barriers to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment might be broken, he said.
Viral hepatitis “is a big deal, and it does cost a tremendous amount of money,” he added. “Everybody focuses on the therapeutic cost, but nobody focuses on the costs, direct and indirect, of all the sick people that are out there.”
An ambitious new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine lays out a detailed path by which some 90,000 deaths from hepatitis B and C infection could be prevented by 2030.
The National Academies, a group of nongovernmental advisory bodies that includes the former Institute of Medicine, said that “the tools to prevent these deaths” exist – namely vaccination to prevent new hepatitis B infections and antiviral drugs, including new oral medications that can cure chronic hepatitis C infections within months.
The authors of the 200-plus-page report, led by Brian Strom, MD, MPH, of Rutgers University in Newark, NJ, calculate that deaths from hepatitis B infection could be halved by 2030 if 90% of patients are diagnosed, if 90% of those diagnosed are connected to care, and if 80% of those for whom treatment is indicated receive it. Treating everyone with chronic hepatitis C would reduce new infections by 90% by 2030, while reducing related deaths by 65%, Dr. Strom and his colleagues estimate.
But the authors also concede that drastic changes to current health policy would be required to reach these goals. These include the adoption of “aggressive testing, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention methods, such as needle exchange.”
They propose that the federal government seek a unique licensing arrangement with one or more manufacturers to bring down the notoriously high cost of direct-acting drugs used in hepatitis C, as a way of raising treatment rates. Currently, fewer than half the patients on Medicaid who are eligible for hepatitis C treatment receive it, and fewer than 1% of prisoners, who have high rates of infection.
Dr. Joseph Lim, director of the viral hepatitis program at Yale University in New Haven. Conn., who was not involved in the National Academies report, called it helpful in the sense that “it casts a spotlight on something that those of us involved in the care of people with viral hepatitis have long known – which is that this is a national and global public health burden that has been under the radar and in the shadow of other important health priorities.”
Both hepatitis B and C increase the risk of liver cancer and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Though approximately 4 million people in the United States are estimated to be infected with chronic hepatitis B (1.3 million) or C (2.7 million), these diseases account for less than 1% of the research budget at the National Institutes of Health, the report said. This compares unfavorably to funding for HIV, which affects about 1 million Americans.
As the report states, the tools to radically reduce hepatitis B and C deaths already exist. However, Dr. Lim cautioned in an interview, “the public health infrastructure to address viral hepatitis has been woefully inadequate.” In the United States, he noted, most states receive federal funding for at most a single person in charge of viral hepatitis epidemiology. “The resources currently available are in no way adequate to achieve the very aggressive goals described in the report,” he said.
Even among people with a known diagnosis of hepatitis B or C, only some receive confirmatory testing, Dr. Lim said. And of those with confirmed infections, “only a fraction are linked to care from the diagnosing clinician to a provider with the capacity to assess the state of liver disease and determine whether antiviral therapy is warranted.” Finally, he said, “many patients continue to face barriers to curative therapy due to cost and restrictions by public and private payers.”
Among the recommendations contained in the report is that unrestricted, mass treatment of hepatitis C infections be undertaken – regardless of disease stage. Currently, direct-acting antiviral agents remain costly and are poorly covered, notably by Medicaid. The National Academies advise that the government rectify this by purchasing “a license or assignment to the patent on a direct-acting antiviral drug, and use it only in those market segments where the government pays for treatment and access is now limited, such as Medicaid and prisons.”
Dr. Lim called the licensing proposal “very novel and bold,” but noted that there is no precedent in the United States for diseases such as hepatitis C. “If it could be done it would be an incredible model of government-pharma partnership for the public health good, and have a very significant impact.”
Steven Flamm, MD, chief of the liver transplantation program at Northwestern University in Chicago, who like Dr. Lim was not involved in the creation of the report, said in an interview that it contained innovative ideas and helped underscore the fact that “hepatitis has been given short shrift. The NIH and other agencies do not devote time and energy to this particular medical issue for reasons that are not completely clear.”
But “the problem with these kinds of analyses,” he said, “is that carrying them out is harder than making the recommendations.”
Dr. Flamm echoed Dr. Lim’s concerns about the practicability of implementing some of the recommendations in what he considers a resource-deprived health care environment for viral hepatitis.
“Is elimination possible or can you take a big bite out of it? The answer to that question is yes. We now have agents that can treat chronic viral hepatitis well, which we didn’t have a few years ago.”
Still, he emphasized, having the tools is only one part of the picture. Hepatitis C diagnostic tests have been available since the early 1990s. Yet, Dr. Flamm pointed out, fewer than half of patients have been diagnosed. “If the new CDC screening guidelines gain traction, we will do better than that.”
Dr. Flamm said that he considered the report’s call for a unique government licensing agreement for hepatitis C drugs a tall order. The drugs are already heavily discounted by manufacturers in many cases, he said, yet remain unavailable to those in need of them. In Illinois, Dr. Flamm said, few Medicaid patients with confirmed hepatitis C are given the short-acting antivirals that have revolutionized treatment. “The vast majority have no access to the therapy at all,” he said.
One of the report’s strengths, he said, is in detailing innovative prevention strategies such as delivering and promoting hepatitis B vaccinations to adults through local pharmacies, after the model of influenza vaccinations, and also conducting needle exchanges through pharmacies for intravenous drug users, who are at high risk of contracting both hepatitis B and C.
“Many of these strategies are not very costly,” he said. “The problem is you run into moral platitudes – to eliminate hepatitis, we will have to overcome that,” Dr. Flamm said, something that cannot be taken for granted in the current political environment.
But even if the goals outlined in the report seem ambitious, its authors have done an important service in underscoring the burden of viral hepatitis and laying out how some barriers to prevention, diagnosis, and treatment might be broken, he said.
Viral hepatitis “is a big deal, and it does cost a tremendous amount of money,” he added. “Everybody focuses on the therapeutic cost, but nobody focuses on the costs, direct and indirect, of all the sick people that are out there.”
FROM THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE