Video

ORLANDO – Results from a large Danish epidemiologic study published in 2017 upended the traditional view that obesity directly contributes to new onset atrial fibrillation by instead fingering lean body mass as the key body-habitus culprit.

“It’s a very different way of thinking about obesity” and it’s relationship to the etiology of atrial fibrillation, Stanley Nattel, MD, said in a video interview at the annual International AF Symposium. “I wouldn’t qualify it yet as a complete shift,” because the results came from a single study, “but the results are quite persuasive and very interesting,” said Dr. Nattel, professor of medicine and director of the electrophysiology research program at the Montreal Heart Institute.

The study he cited tracked the incidence of atrial fibrillation during median of 17 years in more than 55,000 Danish people who were aged 50-64 years old at baseline, and showed that lean body mass was the predominant anthropometric risk factor for new-onset atrial fibrillation (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 May;69[20]:2488-97). When the article appeared, it was accompanied by an editorial written by Dr. Nattel (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 May;69[20]2498-501).

“People had not thought a lot in the past” about lean body mass and atrial fibrillation, he noted.

If the finding is confirmed, it might make sense to target screening for atrial fibrillation to people with higher levels of lean body mass, Dr. Nattel suggested.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – Results from a large Danish epidemiologic study published in 2017 upended the traditional view that obesity directly contributes to new onset atrial fibrillation by instead fingering lean body mass as the key body-habitus culprit.

“It’s a very different way of thinking about obesity” and it’s relationship to the etiology of atrial fibrillation, Stanley Nattel, MD, said in a video interview at the annual International AF Symposium. “I wouldn’t qualify it yet as a complete shift,” because the results came from a single study, “but the results are quite persuasive and very interesting,” said Dr. Nattel, professor of medicine and director of the electrophysiology research program at the Montreal Heart Institute.

The study he cited tracked the incidence of atrial fibrillation during median of 17 years in more than 55,000 Danish people who were aged 50-64 years old at baseline, and showed that lean body mass was the predominant anthropometric risk factor for new-onset atrial fibrillation (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 May;69[20]:2488-97). When the article appeared, it was accompanied by an editorial written by Dr. Nattel (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 May;69[20]2498-501).

“People had not thought a lot in the past” about lean body mass and atrial fibrillation, he noted.

If the finding is confirmed, it might make sense to target screening for atrial fibrillation to people with higher levels of lean body mass, Dr. Nattel suggested.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – Results from a large Danish epidemiologic study published in 2017 upended the traditional view that obesity directly contributes to new onset atrial fibrillation by instead fingering lean body mass as the key body-habitus culprit.

“It’s a very different way of thinking about obesity” and it’s relationship to the etiology of atrial fibrillation, Stanley Nattel, MD, said in a video interview at the annual International AF Symposium. “I wouldn’t qualify it yet as a complete shift,” because the results came from a single study, “but the results are quite persuasive and very interesting,” said Dr. Nattel, professor of medicine and director of the electrophysiology research program at the Montreal Heart Institute.

The study he cited tracked the incidence of atrial fibrillation during median of 17 years in more than 55,000 Danish people who were aged 50-64 years old at baseline, and showed that lean body mass was the predominant anthropometric risk factor for new-onset atrial fibrillation (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 May;69[20]:2488-97). When the article appeared, it was accompanied by an editorial written by Dr. Nattel (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 May;69[20]2498-501).

“People had not thought a lot in the past” about lean body mass and atrial fibrillation, he noted.

If the finding is confirmed, it might make sense to target screening for atrial fibrillation to people with higher levels of lean body mass, Dr. Nattel suggested.

[email protected]

If you haven’t started reporting quality data for the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), there’s still time to avoid a 4% cut to your Medicare payments.

Under the Pick Your Pace approach being offered this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services allows clinicians to test the system by reporting on one quality measure for one patient through paper-based claims. Be sure to append a Quality Data Code (QDC) to the claim form for care provided up to Dec. 31, 2017, in order to avoid a penalty in payment year 2019.

Consider this measure:

Measure #134: Preventive Care and Screening: Screening for Depression and Follow-Up Plan

This measure aims to capture the percentage of patients aged 12 years and older who have been screened for depression and have a documented follow-up plan of care, if appropriate.

What you need to do: Use an age-appropriate, standardized tool to screen patients for depression during the visit. If they screen positive, develop a follow-up plan during the visit and document it.

Eligible cases include patients who were aged 12 years or older on the date of the encounter and have a patient encounter during the performance period. Applicable codes include (CPT or HCPCS): 90791, 90792, 90832, 90834, 90837, 92625, 96116, 96118, 96150, 96151, 97165, 97166, 97167, 99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205, 99212, 99213, 99214, 99215, G0101, G0402, G0438, G0439, G0444.

To get credit under MIPS, be sure to include a QDC that shows that you successfully performed the measure or had a good reason for not doing so. For instance, G8431 indicates that depression screening was positive and a follow-up plan was documented, while G8510 indicates that the depression screening was negative and a follow-up plan is not required. Use exclusion code G9717 if the patient has an active diagnosis of depression for bipolar disorder.

CMS has a full list measures available for claims-based reporting at qpp.cms.gov. The American Medical Association has also created a step-by-step guide for reporting on one quality measure.

Certain clinicians are exempt from reporting and do not face a penalty under MIPS:

• Those who enrolled in Medicare for the first time during a performance period.
• Those who have Medicare Part B allowed charges of $30,000 or less.
• Those who have 100 or fewer Medicare Part B patients.
• Those who are significantly participating in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM).

If you haven’t started reporting quality data for the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), there’s still time to avoid a 4% cut to your Medicare payments.

Under the Pick Your Pace approach being offered this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services allows clinicians to test the system by reporting on one quality measure for one patient through paper-based claims. Be sure to append a Quality Data Code (QDC) to the claim form for care provided up to Dec. 31, 2017, in order to avoid a penalty in payment year 2019.

Consider this measure:

Measure #134: Preventive Care and Screening: Screening for Depression and Follow-Up Plan

This measure aims to capture the percentage of patients aged 12 years and older who have been screened for depression and have a documented follow-up plan of care, if appropriate.

What you need to do: Use an age-appropriate, standardized tool to screen patients for depression during the visit. If they screen positive, develop a follow-up plan during the visit and document it.

Eligible cases include patients who were aged 12 years or older on the date of the encounter and have a patient encounter during the performance period. Applicable codes include (CPT or HCPCS): 90791, 90792, 90832, 90834, 90837, 92625, 96116, 96118, 96150, 96151, 97165, 97166, 97167, 99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205, 99212, 99213, 99214, 99215, G0101, G0402, G0438, G0439, G0444.

To get credit under MIPS, be sure to include a QDC that shows that you successfully performed the measure or had a good reason for not doing so. For instance, G8431 indicates that depression screening was positive and a follow-up plan was documented, while G8510 indicates that the depression screening was negative and a follow-up plan is not required. Use exclusion code G9717 if the patient has an active diagnosis of depression for bipolar disorder.

CMS has a full list measures available for claims-based reporting at qpp.cms.gov. The American Medical Association has also created a step-by-step guide for reporting on one quality measure.

Certain clinicians are exempt from reporting and do not face a penalty under MIPS:

• Those who enrolled in Medicare for the first time during a performance period.
• Those who have Medicare Part B allowed charges of $30,000 or less.
• Those who have 100 or fewer Medicare Part B patients.
• Those who are significantly participating in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM).

If you haven’t started reporting quality data for the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), there’s still time to avoid a 4% cut to your Medicare payments.

Under the Pick Your Pace approach being offered this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services allows clinicians to test the system by reporting on one quality measure for one patient through paper-based claims. Be sure to append a Quality Data Code (QDC) to the claim form for care provided up to Dec. 31, 2017, in order to avoid a penalty in payment year 2019.

Consider this measure:

Measure #134: Preventive Care and Screening: Screening for Depression and Follow-Up Plan

This measure aims to capture the percentage of patients aged 12 years and older who have been screened for depression and have a documented follow-up plan of care, if appropriate.

What you need to do: Use an age-appropriate, standardized tool to screen patients for depression during the visit. If they screen positive, develop a follow-up plan during the visit and document it.

Eligible cases include patients who were aged 12 years or older on the date of the encounter and have a patient encounter during the performance period. Applicable codes include (CPT or HCPCS): 90791, 90792, 90832, 90834, 90837, 92625, 96116, 96118, 96150, 96151, 97165, 97166, 97167, 99201, 99202, 99203, 99204, 99205, 99212, 99213, 99214, 99215, G0101, G0402, G0438, G0439, G0444.

To get credit under MIPS, be sure to include a QDC that shows that you successfully performed the measure or had a good reason for not doing so. For instance, G8431 indicates that depression screening was positive and a follow-up plan was documented, while G8510 indicates that the depression screening was negative and a follow-up plan is not required. Use exclusion code G9717 if the patient has an active diagnosis of depression for bipolar disorder.

CMS has a full list measures available for claims-based reporting at qpp.cms.gov. The American Medical Association has also created a step-by-step guide for reporting on one quality measure.

Certain clinicians are exempt from reporting and do not face a penalty under MIPS:

• Those who enrolled in Medicare for the first time during a performance period.
• Those who have Medicare Part B allowed charges of $30,000 or less.
• Those who have 100 or fewer Medicare Part B patients.
• Those who are significantly participating in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM).

ATLANTA – 2017 was a banner year for the approval of new drugs to treat hematologic disorders.

At a special interest session at the annual meeting of American Society of Hematology, representatives from the Food and Drug Administration joined forces with clinicians to discuss the use of the newly approved treatments in the real-world setting.

In this video interview, Helen Heslop, MD, provided her perspective on the current use and future directions of three of these treatments: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), acalabrutinib (Calquence), and copanlisib (Aliqopa).

“This is extremely exciting,” she said regarding the pace of new approvals for hematologic malignancies.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel, a CAR T-cell product approved in October for the treatment of relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adults, is particularly interesting, she said.

“The data shows that if you look at a population of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients, that historically have a very poor outcome, there is definitely an impressive response rate and improved survival, compared to the natural history cohort,” said Dr. Heslop of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

However, while the findings are encouraging, only 30%-40% are having a durable response, she added.

“So I think there’ll be lots of efforts to try and improve the response rate by combination with other agents such as checkpoint inhibitors or other immunomodulators,” she said.

With respect to the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor acalabrutinib, which was approved in October for adults with mantle cell lymphoma who have been treated with at least one prior therapy, she discussed the potential for improved outcomes and the importance of looking further into its use in patients who have failed ibrutinib therapy, as well as its use in combination with other agents, such as bendamustine and rituximab early in the course of disease.

Copanlisib, a PI3 kinase inhibitor approved in September, is an addition to the armamentarium for adult patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma after two lines of previous therapy.

“It still does have some side effects, as do other drugs in this class, so I think it’s place will still need to be defined,” Dr. Heslop said.

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – 2017 was a banner year for the approval of new drugs to treat hematologic disorders.

At a special interest session at the annual meeting of American Society of Hematology, representatives from the Food and Drug Administration joined forces with clinicians to discuss the use of the newly approved treatments in the real-world setting.

In this video interview, Helen Heslop, MD, provided her perspective on the current use and future directions of three of these treatments: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), acalabrutinib (Calquence), and copanlisib (Aliqopa).

“This is extremely exciting,” she said regarding the pace of new approvals for hematologic malignancies.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel, a CAR T-cell product approved in October for the treatment of relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adults, is particularly interesting, she said.

“The data shows that if you look at a population of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients, that historically have a very poor outcome, there is definitely an impressive response rate and improved survival, compared to the natural history cohort,” said Dr. Heslop of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

However, while the findings are encouraging, only 30%-40% are having a durable response, she added.

“So I think there’ll be lots of efforts to try and improve the response rate by combination with other agents such as checkpoint inhibitors or other immunomodulators,” she said.

With respect to the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor acalabrutinib, which was approved in October for adults with mantle cell lymphoma who have been treated with at least one prior therapy, she discussed the potential for improved outcomes and the importance of looking further into its use in patients who have failed ibrutinib therapy, as well as its use in combination with other agents, such as bendamustine and rituximab early in the course of disease.

Copanlisib, a PI3 kinase inhibitor approved in September, is an addition to the armamentarium for adult patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma after two lines of previous therapy.

“It still does have some side effects, as do other drugs in this class, so I think it’s place will still need to be defined,” Dr. Heslop said.

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – 2017 was a banner year for the approval of new drugs to treat hematologic disorders.

At a special interest session at the annual meeting of American Society of Hematology, representatives from the Food and Drug Administration joined forces with clinicians to discuss the use of the newly approved treatments in the real-world setting.

In this video interview, Helen Heslop, MD, provided her perspective on the current use and future directions of three of these treatments: axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), acalabrutinib (Calquence), and copanlisib (Aliqopa).

“This is extremely exciting,” she said regarding the pace of new approvals for hematologic malignancies.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel, a CAR T-cell product approved in October for the treatment of relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adults, is particularly interesting, she said.

“The data shows that if you look at a population of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients, that historically have a very poor outcome, there is definitely an impressive response rate and improved survival, compared to the natural history cohort,” said Dr. Heslop of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

However, while the findings are encouraging, only 30%-40% are having a durable response, she added.

“So I think there’ll be lots of efforts to try and improve the response rate by combination with other agents such as checkpoint inhibitors or other immunomodulators,” she said.

With respect to the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor acalabrutinib, which was approved in October for adults with mantle cell lymphoma who have been treated with at least one prior therapy, she discussed the potential for improved outcomes and the importance of looking further into its use in patients who have failed ibrutinib therapy, as well as its use in combination with other agents, such as bendamustine and rituximab early in the course of disease.

Copanlisib, a PI3 kinase inhibitor approved in September, is an addition to the armamentarium for adult patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma after two lines of previous therapy.

“It still does have some side effects, as do other drugs in this class, so I think it’s place will still need to be defined,” Dr. Heslop said.

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – The past year brought a flurry of new drug approvals for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), including CPX-351, midostaurin, gemtuzumab ozogamicin, and enasidenib.

During a special interest session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Food and Drug Administration representatives discussed the available data and approval process for these drugs, and clinicians discussed their use in the real-world setting.

In this video interview, Laura C. Michaelis, MD, discusses clinical considerations regarding the use of CPX-351 (Vyxeos) – a liposome-encapsulated combination of daunorubicin and cytarabine approved in August for patients with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes, and midostaurin (Rydapt), which was approved in April for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML patients who are FLT3 mutation-positive. She also discussed future directions for these agents.

“So what clinicians are faced with is, all of a sudden, a number of new agents, and no particularly vetted or data-based algorithm by which to assign patients from one to the other,” said Dr. Michaelis, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, adding that none of the drugs have been compared against one another.

In her own practice, when it comes to CPX-351, she said she first discusses the pros and cons with patients.

“This drug is used for older individuals ... with very adverse risk disease, and so the first question is do you fit the trial entry criteria, do you want to go through induction, do you understand what that’s going to mean, and am I going to take you to transplant after we go through this.”

As for midostaurin, she said she tries to use it on anyone who fits the trial criteria and is FLT-3 positive.

“The trick with that is that we don’t know the FLT-3 status at the time we have to start induction, so it’s hard to determine the exact right doses of your induction regimen knowing that you’re not going to get the test back until day 6, 7, 8, and you’re supposed to start delivering the drug on day 8, so we still have a ways as a care community to catch up with being able to give these drugs in a manner that was the same as what was delivered in the trials that led to approval.”

She also discussed the potential for combining treatments.

“I think there’s really room for studies on combinations of inhibitors plus the CPX, the safety of using a variety of induction regimens alongside midostaurin, and safety of combining things, like with midostaurin for example, with some of our antifungals ... and to make sure that that’s safe. So yeah, we’ve got a lot more to do,” she said.

Dr. Michaelis serves on an advisory board for Novartis.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – The past year brought a flurry of new drug approvals for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), including CPX-351, midostaurin, gemtuzumab ozogamicin, and enasidenib.

During a special interest session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Food and Drug Administration representatives discussed the available data and approval process for these drugs, and clinicians discussed their use in the real-world setting.

In this video interview, Laura C. Michaelis, MD, discusses clinical considerations regarding the use of CPX-351 (Vyxeos) – a liposome-encapsulated combination of daunorubicin and cytarabine approved in August for patients with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes, and midostaurin (Rydapt), which was approved in April for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML patients who are FLT3 mutation-positive. She also discussed future directions for these agents.

“So what clinicians are faced with is, all of a sudden, a number of new agents, and no particularly vetted or data-based algorithm by which to assign patients from one to the other,” said Dr. Michaelis, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, adding that none of the drugs have been compared against one another.

In her own practice, when it comes to CPX-351, she said she first discusses the pros and cons with patients.

“This drug is used for older individuals ... with very adverse risk disease, and so the first question is do you fit the trial entry criteria, do you want to go through induction, do you understand what that’s going to mean, and am I going to take you to transplant after we go through this.”

As for midostaurin, she said she tries to use it on anyone who fits the trial criteria and is FLT-3 positive.

“The trick with that is that we don’t know the FLT-3 status at the time we have to start induction, so it’s hard to determine the exact right doses of your induction regimen knowing that you’re not going to get the test back until day 6, 7, 8, and you’re supposed to start delivering the drug on day 8, so we still have a ways as a care community to catch up with being able to give these drugs in a manner that was the same as what was delivered in the trials that led to approval.”

She also discussed the potential for combining treatments.

“I think there’s really room for studies on combinations of inhibitors plus the CPX, the safety of using a variety of induction regimens alongside midostaurin, and safety of combining things, like with midostaurin for example, with some of our antifungals ... and to make sure that that’s safe. So yeah, we’ve got a lot more to do,” she said.

Dr. Michaelis serves on an advisory board for Novartis.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – The past year brought a flurry of new drug approvals for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), including CPX-351, midostaurin, gemtuzumab ozogamicin, and enasidenib.

During a special interest session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Food and Drug Administration representatives discussed the available data and approval process for these drugs, and clinicians discussed their use in the real-world setting.

In this video interview, Laura C. Michaelis, MD, discusses clinical considerations regarding the use of CPX-351 (Vyxeos) – a liposome-encapsulated combination of daunorubicin and cytarabine approved in August for patients with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes, and midostaurin (Rydapt), which was approved in April for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML patients who are FLT3 mutation-positive. She also discussed future directions for these agents.

“So what clinicians are faced with is, all of a sudden, a number of new agents, and no particularly vetted or data-based algorithm by which to assign patients from one to the other,” said Dr. Michaelis, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, adding that none of the drugs have been compared against one another.

In her own practice, when it comes to CPX-351, she said she first discusses the pros and cons with patients.

“This drug is used for older individuals ... with very adverse risk disease, and so the first question is do you fit the trial entry criteria, do you want to go through induction, do you understand what that’s going to mean, and am I going to take you to transplant after we go through this.”

As for midostaurin, she said she tries to use it on anyone who fits the trial criteria and is FLT-3 positive.

“The trick with that is that we don’t know the FLT-3 status at the time we have to start induction, so it’s hard to determine the exact right doses of your induction regimen knowing that you’re not going to get the test back until day 6, 7, 8, and you’re supposed to start delivering the drug on day 8, so we still have a ways as a care community to catch up with being able to give these drugs in a manner that was the same as what was delivered in the trials that led to approval.”

She also discussed the potential for combining treatments.

“I think there’s really room for studies on combinations of inhibitors plus the CPX, the safety of using a variety of induction regimens alongside midostaurin, and safety of combining things, like with midostaurin for example, with some of our antifungals ... and to make sure that that’s safe. So yeah, we’ve got a lot more to do,” she said.

Dr. Michaelis serves on an advisory board for Novartis.

[email protected]