Guidelines

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

167862_Moots_Robert_web.jpg

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

167862_Moots_Robert_web.jpg

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.

The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.

With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.

The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.

167862_Moots_Robert_web.jpg

Importance of Raising Awareness

“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”

Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.

“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.

“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
 

Patient Perspective

Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.

“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”

Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
 

Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management

Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.

“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.

“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
 

Management of Manifestations

One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.

“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”

The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.

With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.

To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
 

Future Work and Revision

“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.

More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.

“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.

“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.

The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Just weeks after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) published its updated acne management guidelines, a dermatologist who helped write the recommendations provided colleagues with insight into recently approved topical therapies, the importance of multimodal therapy, and a controversial report linking benzoyl peroxide (BP) to the carcinogen benzene.

In regard to topical treatments, the guidelines make a “strong” recommendation for topical retinoids based on “moderate” evidence, Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Penn State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The recommendation was based on a pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials that found patients with acne who used the medications were more likely to have improvement via the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scale at 12 weeks than were those treated with a vehicle (risk ratio [RR], 1.57; 1.21-2.04).

The updated guidelines were published on January 30 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The previous guidelines were issued in 2016.

“We have four current retinoids that we use: adapalene, tretinoin, tazarotene, and trifarotene,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “Typically, when we think about retinoids, we think of adapalene as being more tolerable and tazarotene as being more effective. But we also know that they can work to prevent and treat scarring, and they work against comedonal lesions and inflammatory lesions.”

Newer concentrations include tretinoin 0.05% lotion, tazarotene 0.045% lotion, and trifarotene 0.005% cream. She noted that this trifarotene concentration can be helpful for moderate truncal acne and also referred to evidence that whey protein appears to exacerbate that condition. “I always ask teenage kids about that: Are they using those protein powders?”
 

Recommendations for ‘Multimodal Therapy,’ Especially With Antibiotics

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a “good practice statement” in the new guidelines that says, “when managing acne with topical medications, we recommend multimodal therapy combining multiple mechanisms of action.”

Topical antibiotics are effective treatments on their own and include erythromycin, clindamycin, and minocycline (Minocin), she said. But the guidelines, which refer to evidence supporting them as “moderate,” do not recommend them as monotherapy because of the risk for antibiotic resistance.

The oral retinoid isotretinoin may be appropriate in conjunction with topical medications, she said, “and we also recommend fixed combination products because they’re associated with increased adherence.”

Dermatologists are familiar with several of these products because “we’ve been using them for years and years,” she said. The guidelines note that “compared to vehicle at 12 weeks, a greater proportion of patients treated with combined BP and topical retinoid achieved IGA success in three RCTs (RR, 2.19; 1.77-2.72).”

Dr. Zaenglein noted that the guidelines recommend that patients taking antibiotics also use benzoyl peroxide, which has “moderate” evidence regarding preventing the development of antibiotic resistance. “Lower strengths tend to be less irritating, and over-the-counter formulations are readily available,” she said, adding that colleagues should make sure to warn patients about the risk of bleaching clothes and towels with BP.

Now, there’s a newly approved treatment, the first fixed-dose triple combination therapy for acne, she said. It combines 1.2% clindamycin, 3.1% benzoyl peroxide, and 0.15% adapalene (Cabtreo) and is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for treating acne in patients ages 12 and up.

The new AAD guidelines note that “potential adverse effect profiles of the fixed-dose combinations generally reflect those of the individual agents in summation. Some fixed-dose combination products may be less expensive than prescribing their individual components separately.” The evidence supporting fixed-dose combinations in conjunction with benzoyl peroxide is considered “moderate.”

Dapsone gel, 7.5% (Aczone) is another option for acne. “It’s a topical so you don’t need to do G6PD [glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase] testing,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “It’s well tolerated, and mean total lesions fell by 48.9% vs 43.2% for vehicle,” in a 2018 study, which she said also found that females benefited more than males from this treatment.

Clascoterone 1% cream (Winlevi), approved in 2020, is appropriate for males and females aged 12 and up, Dr. Zaenglein said. She noted that it’s the only topical anti-androgen that can be used in males. However, while it has a “high” level of evidence because of phase 3 clinical trials showing benefits in moderate to severe acne, the AAD guidelines only conditionally recommend this option because the high price of clascoterone “may impact equitable acne treatment access.” The price listed on the website GoodRx (accessed on March 12) lists drugstore prices for a single 60-gram tube as ranging from $590 to $671.

“One of the harder things is trying to figure out where clascoterone fits in our kind of standard combination therapy,” she said. “Much like other hormonal therapies, it works better over the long term.”

Two more topical options per the AAD guidelines are salicylic acid, based on one randomized controlled trial, and azelaic acid (Azelex, Finacea), based on three randomized controlled trials. Both of these recommendations are conditional because of limited evidence: Evidence is considered “low” for salicylic acid and “moderate” for azelaic acid, the guidelines say, and azelaic acid “may be particularly helpful for patients with sensitive skin or darker skin types due to its lightening effect on dyspigmentation.”

As for risk for topical treatments during pregnancy/lactation, the guidelines note that topical therapies other than topical retinoids are “preferred” during pregnancy. Tazarotene is contraindicated during pregnancy, and salicylic acid should be used only in limited areas of exposure. There are no data for dapsone and clascoterone during pregnancy/lactation, and minocycline is “not recommended.”

The guideline authors noted that “available evidence is insufficient to develop a recommendation on the use of topical glycolic acid, sulfur, sodium sulfacetamide, and resorcinol for acne treatment or to make recommendations that compare topical BP, retinoids, antibiotics, and their combinations directly against each other.”
 

Could BP Post a Risk From Benzene?

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a recently released report by Valisure, an independent laboratory, which reported finding high levels of the cancer-causing chemical benzene in several acne treatments, including brands such as Clearasil. “They didn’t release all of the ones that they evaluated, but there were a lot ... that we commonly recommend for our patients,” she said.

On March 6, CBS News reported that Valisure “ran tests at various temperatures over 18 days and found some products ‘can form over 800 times the conditionally restricted FDA concentration limit of two parts per million (ppm) for benzene’ in 2 weeks at 50° C (122° F),” but that benzene levels “at room temperature were more modest, ranging from about one to 24 parts per million.”

Dr. Zaenglein said she’s not ready to urge patients to discontinue BP, although in light of the findings, “I will tell them to store it at room temperature or lower.”

For now, it’s important to wait for independent verification of the results, she said. “And then it’s up to the manufacturers to reevaluate the stability of their benzoyl peroxide products with heat.”

Dr. Zaenglein disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Biofrontera, Galderma, and Incyte (grants/research funding), Church & Dwight (consulting fees), and UCB (consulting honoraria).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Just weeks after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) published its updated acne management guidelines, a dermatologist who helped write the recommendations provided colleagues with insight into recently approved topical therapies, the importance of multimodal therapy, and a controversial report linking benzoyl peroxide (BP) to the carcinogen benzene.

In regard to topical treatments, the guidelines make a “strong” recommendation for topical retinoids based on “moderate” evidence, Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Penn State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The recommendation was based on a pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials that found patients with acne who used the medications were more likely to have improvement via the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scale at 12 weeks than were those treated with a vehicle (risk ratio [RR], 1.57; 1.21-2.04).

The updated guidelines were published on January 30 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The previous guidelines were issued in 2016.

“We have four current retinoids that we use: adapalene, tretinoin, tazarotene, and trifarotene,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “Typically, when we think about retinoids, we think of adapalene as being more tolerable and tazarotene as being more effective. But we also know that they can work to prevent and treat scarring, and they work against comedonal lesions and inflammatory lesions.”

Newer concentrations include tretinoin 0.05% lotion, tazarotene 0.045% lotion, and trifarotene 0.005% cream. She noted that this trifarotene concentration can be helpful for moderate truncal acne and also referred to evidence that whey protein appears to exacerbate that condition. “I always ask teenage kids about that: Are they using those protein powders?”
 

Recommendations for ‘Multimodal Therapy,’ Especially With Antibiotics

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a “good practice statement” in the new guidelines that says, “when managing acne with topical medications, we recommend multimodal therapy combining multiple mechanisms of action.”

Topical antibiotics are effective treatments on their own and include erythromycin, clindamycin, and minocycline (Minocin), she said. But the guidelines, which refer to evidence supporting them as “moderate,” do not recommend them as monotherapy because of the risk for antibiotic resistance.

The oral retinoid isotretinoin may be appropriate in conjunction with topical medications, she said, “and we also recommend fixed combination products because they’re associated with increased adherence.”

Dermatologists are familiar with several of these products because “we’ve been using them for years and years,” she said. The guidelines note that “compared to vehicle at 12 weeks, a greater proportion of patients treated with combined BP and topical retinoid achieved IGA success in three RCTs (RR, 2.19; 1.77-2.72).”

Dr. Zaenglein noted that the guidelines recommend that patients taking antibiotics also use benzoyl peroxide, which has “moderate” evidence regarding preventing the development of antibiotic resistance. “Lower strengths tend to be less irritating, and over-the-counter formulations are readily available,” she said, adding that colleagues should make sure to warn patients about the risk of bleaching clothes and towels with BP.

Now, there’s a newly approved treatment, the first fixed-dose triple combination therapy for acne, she said. It combines 1.2% clindamycin, 3.1% benzoyl peroxide, and 0.15% adapalene (Cabtreo) and is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for treating acne in patients ages 12 and up.

The new AAD guidelines note that “potential adverse effect profiles of the fixed-dose combinations generally reflect those of the individual agents in summation. Some fixed-dose combination products may be less expensive than prescribing their individual components separately.” The evidence supporting fixed-dose combinations in conjunction with benzoyl peroxide is considered “moderate.”

Dapsone gel, 7.5% (Aczone) is another option for acne. “It’s a topical so you don’t need to do G6PD [glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase] testing,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “It’s well tolerated, and mean total lesions fell by 48.9% vs 43.2% for vehicle,” in a 2018 study, which she said also found that females benefited more than males from this treatment.

Clascoterone 1% cream (Winlevi), approved in 2020, is appropriate for males and females aged 12 and up, Dr. Zaenglein said. She noted that it’s the only topical anti-androgen that can be used in males. However, while it has a “high” level of evidence because of phase 3 clinical trials showing benefits in moderate to severe acne, the AAD guidelines only conditionally recommend this option because the high price of clascoterone “may impact equitable acne treatment access.” The price listed on the website GoodRx (accessed on March 12) lists drugstore prices for a single 60-gram tube as ranging from $590 to $671.

“One of the harder things is trying to figure out where clascoterone fits in our kind of standard combination therapy,” she said. “Much like other hormonal therapies, it works better over the long term.”

Two more topical options per the AAD guidelines are salicylic acid, based on one randomized controlled trial, and azelaic acid (Azelex, Finacea), based on three randomized controlled trials. Both of these recommendations are conditional because of limited evidence: Evidence is considered “low” for salicylic acid and “moderate” for azelaic acid, the guidelines say, and azelaic acid “may be particularly helpful for patients with sensitive skin or darker skin types due to its lightening effect on dyspigmentation.”

As for risk for topical treatments during pregnancy/lactation, the guidelines note that topical therapies other than topical retinoids are “preferred” during pregnancy. Tazarotene is contraindicated during pregnancy, and salicylic acid should be used only in limited areas of exposure. There are no data for dapsone and clascoterone during pregnancy/lactation, and minocycline is “not recommended.”

The guideline authors noted that “available evidence is insufficient to develop a recommendation on the use of topical glycolic acid, sulfur, sodium sulfacetamide, and resorcinol for acne treatment or to make recommendations that compare topical BP, retinoids, antibiotics, and their combinations directly against each other.”
 

Could BP Post a Risk From Benzene?

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a recently released report by Valisure, an independent laboratory, which reported finding high levels of the cancer-causing chemical benzene in several acne treatments, including brands such as Clearasil. “They didn’t release all of the ones that they evaluated, but there were a lot ... that we commonly recommend for our patients,” she said.

On March 6, CBS News reported that Valisure “ran tests at various temperatures over 18 days and found some products ‘can form over 800 times the conditionally restricted FDA concentration limit of two parts per million (ppm) for benzene’ in 2 weeks at 50° C (122° F),” but that benzene levels “at room temperature were more modest, ranging from about one to 24 parts per million.”

Dr. Zaenglein said she’s not ready to urge patients to discontinue BP, although in light of the findings, “I will tell them to store it at room temperature or lower.”

For now, it’s important to wait for independent verification of the results, she said. “And then it’s up to the manufacturers to reevaluate the stability of their benzoyl peroxide products with heat.”

Dr. Zaenglein disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Biofrontera, Galderma, and Incyte (grants/research funding), Church & Dwight (consulting fees), and UCB (consulting honoraria).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Just weeks after the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) published its updated acne management guidelines, a dermatologist who helped write the recommendations provided colleagues with insight into recently approved topical therapies, the importance of multimodal therapy, and a controversial report linking benzoyl peroxide (BP) to the carcinogen benzene.

In regard to topical treatments, the guidelines make a “strong” recommendation for topical retinoids based on “moderate” evidence, Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Penn State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The recommendation was based on a pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials that found patients with acne who used the medications were more likely to have improvement via the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scale at 12 weeks than were those treated with a vehicle (risk ratio [RR], 1.57; 1.21-2.04).

The updated guidelines were published on January 30 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. The previous guidelines were issued in 2016.

“We have four current retinoids that we use: adapalene, tretinoin, tazarotene, and trifarotene,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “Typically, when we think about retinoids, we think of adapalene as being more tolerable and tazarotene as being more effective. But we also know that they can work to prevent and treat scarring, and they work against comedonal lesions and inflammatory lesions.”

Newer concentrations include tretinoin 0.05% lotion, tazarotene 0.045% lotion, and trifarotene 0.005% cream. She noted that this trifarotene concentration can be helpful for moderate truncal acne and also referred to evidence that whey protein appears to exacerbate that condition. “I always ask teenage kids about that: Are they using those protein powders?”
 

Recommendations for ‘Multimodal Therapy,’ Especially With Antibiotics

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a “good practice statement” in the new guidelines that says, “when managing acne with topical medications, we recommend multimodal therapy combining multiple mechanisms of action.”

Topical antibiotics are effective treatments on their own and include erythromycin, clindamycin, and minocycline (Minocin), she said. But the guidelines, which refer to evidence supporting them as “moderate,” do not recommend them as monotherapy because of the risk for antibiotic resistance.

The oral retinoid isotretinoin may be appropriate in conjunction with topical medications, she said, “and we also recommend fixed combination products because they’re associated with increased adherence.”

Dermatologists are familiar with several of these products because “we’ve been using them for years and years,” she said. The guidelines note that “compared to vehicle at 12 weeks, a greater proportion of patients treated with combined BP and topical retinoid achieved IGA success in three RCTs (RR, 2.19; 1.77-2.72).”

Dr. Zaenglein noted that the guidelines recommend that patients taking antibiotics also use benzoyl peroxide, which has “moderate” evidence regarding preventing the development of antibiotic resistance. “Lower strengths tend to be less irritating, and over-the-counter formulations are readily available,” she said, adding that colleagues should make sure to warn patients about the risk of bleaching clothes and towels with BP.

Now, there’s a newly approved treatment, the first fixed-dose triple combination therapy for acne, she said. It combines 1.2% clindamycin, 3.1% benzoyl peroxide, and 0.15% adapalene (Cabtreo) and is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for treating acne in patients ages 12 and up.

The new AAD guidelines note that “potential adverse effect profiles of the fixed-dose combinations generally reflect those of the individual agents in summation. Some fixed-dose combination products may be less expensive than prescribing their individual components separately.” The evidence supporting fixed-dose combinations in conjunction with benzoyl peroxide is considered “moderate.”

Dapsone gel, 7.5% (Aczone) is another option for acne. “It’s a topical so you don’t need to do G6PD [glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase] testing,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “It’s well tolerated, and mean total lesions fell by 48.9% vs 43.2% for vehicle,” in a 2018 study, which she said also found that females benefited more than males from this treatment.

Clascoterone 1% cream (Winlevi), approved in 2020, is appropriate for males and females aged 12 and up, Dr. Zaenglein said. She noted that it’s the only topical anti-androgen that can be used in males. However, while it has a “high” level of evidence because of phase 3 clinical trials showing benefits in moderate to severe acne, the AAD guidelines only conditionally recommend this option because the high price of clascoterone “may impact equitable acne treatment access.” The price listed on the website GoodRx (accessed on March 12) lists drugstore prices for a single 60-gram tube as ranging from $590 to $671.

“One of the harder things is trying to figure out where clascoterone fits in our kind of standard combination therapy,” she said. “Much like other hormonal therapies, it works better over the long term.”

Two more topical options per the AAD guidelines are salicylic acid, based on one randomized controlled trial, and azelaic acid (Azelex, Finacea), based on three randomized controlled trials. Both of these recommendations are conditional because of limited evidence: Evidence is considered “low” for salicylic acid and “moderate” for azelaic acid, the guidelines say, and azelaic acid “may be particularly helpful for patients with sensitive skin or darker skin types due to its lightening effect on dyspigmentation.”

As for risk for topical treatments during pregnancy/lactation, the guidelines note that topical therapies other than topical retinoids are “preferred” during pregnancy. Tazarotene is contraindicated during pregnancy, and salicylic acid should be used only in limited areas of exposure. There are no data for dapsone and clascoterone during pregnancy/lactation, and minocycline is “not recommended.”

The guideline authors noted that “available evidence is insufficient to develop a recommendation on the use of topical glycolic acid, sulfur, sodium sulfacetamide, and resorcinol for acne treatment or to make recommendations that compare topical BP, retinoids, antibiotics, and their combinations directly against each other.”
 

Could BP Post a Risk From Benzene?

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a recently released report by Valisure, an independent laboratory, which reported finding high levels of the cancer-causing chemical benzene in several acne treatments, including brands such as Clearasil. “They didn’t release all of the ones that they evaluated, but there were a lot ... that we commonly recommend for our patients,” she said.

On March 6, CBS News reported that Valisure “ran tests at various temperatures over 18 days and found some products ‘can form over 800 times the conditionally restricted FDA concentration limit of two parts per million (ppm) for benzene’ in 2 weeks at 50° C (122° F),” but that benzene levels “at room temperature were more modest, ranging from about one to 24 parts per million.”

Dr. Zaenglein said she’s not ready to urge patients to discontinue BP, although in light of the findings, “I will tell them to store it at room temperature or lower.”

For now, it’s important to wait for independent verification of the results, she said. “And then it’s up to the manufacturers to reevaluate the stability of their benzoyl peroxide products with heat.”

Dr. Zaenglein disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Biofrontera, Galderma, and Incyte (grants/research funding), Church & Dwight (consulting fees), and UCB (consulting honoraria).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new position statement from the Endocrine Society aims to help clinicians prioritize patient experiences in the management of diabetes to optimize outcomes.

The statement reflects consensus from two virtual roundtables held in 2022, with participation from representatives of the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

“Although we’ve had many new classes of medications and many new technologies introduced into the care of people with diabetes over the past decade, there continues to be significant gaps between what our clinical guidelines recommend needs to be done in order to attain optimal health outcomes and what is actually able to be implemented in practice,” writing panel chair Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

The roundtable discussions addressed existing gaps in diabetes care and available tools to support patient-centered care in practice, focusing on the importance of acknowledging the experience of the person living with diabetes, said Dr. Kalyani, professor of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “What is most important to them? What are the challenges they have in their day-to-day life, and what is being communicated or understood?”

The statement is targeted at all individuals involved in the care of people with diabetes, including endocrinologists, primary care providers, other specialists such as cardiologists and nephrologists, as well as pharmacists, educators, and nutritionists, she noted.

Asked to comment, David T. Ahn, MD, chief of diabetes services at Mary & Dick Allen Diabetes Center at Hoag, Newport Beach, California, said “the statement importantly emphasizes that optimally supporting a person with diabetes is about the entire patient experience and not simply their glycemic performance. People with diabetes are truly the biggest stakeholders in diabetes management, and their perspectives should matter.”

Published on February 21, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the statement covers the following topics in separate sections:

• The importance of effective patient-provider communication at the time of diagnosis and at every clinic visit
• Addressing emotional and psychosocial needs, including helping people through diabetes distress or “burnout”
• Referring patients for diabetes self-management education and support
• Navigating available therapeutic options and explaining complex regimens to patients
• Minimizing therapeutic and clinical inertia
• Reducing cardiovascular, kidney, and other complication risks, including with the use of newer medications
• Discussing strategies to minimize hypoglycemia when relevant
• Using telehealth when appropriate
• Integrating diabetes technologies into routine diabetes management

Each section begins with an illustrative clinical patient vignette. For example, one describes a 42-year-old man with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin who experienced hyperglycemia during illness. His provider advises him to dramatically increase his insulin dose, but he doesn’t because he remembers his father had a severe hypoglycemia episode when he did that. The man ends up hospitalized with dehydration and renal failure.

In another, a doctor hesitates to share test results with a patient during a telehealth visit because family members are in the room. During the same visit, the patient is unable to show the doctor her swollen foot because “If I move from this spot, the Internet connection will be lost.”

Dr. Ahn said, “I like the structure of the statement because the case-based format should help clinicians better identify potential blind spots in their own practice, as sometimes it can be easy to assume that we are immune to these potential pitfalls. I found the vignettes to be very realistic, and the discussions around them were extremely detailed, with many practical suggestions for improvement.”

Also scattered through the document are graphics to help visualize the content. Tables include a list of common psychosocial conditions in diabetes, a list of questions to ask people to help determine if they need additional psychosocial screening or resources, and questionnaires to assess an individual’s risk for hypoglycemia and the appropriateness of telehealth.

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “I agree with all the major recommendations from the statement. Unfortunately, as the authors point out, practically implementing all the recommendations in this article may not be feasible in a traditional busy clinic, especially for primary care providers managing juggling multiple acute and chronic conditions ... The biggest challenge is being able to have the time and resources to actually implement these suggestions.”

Kalyani said, “tools to support patient-centered care cannot be burdensome for people with diabetes or the healthcare provider who already has limited time in order to be effective. They have to meet the ever-changing demands of new medications, new recommendations, and new technologies. New tools and resources will continue to need to be developed in the future.”

The position statement is a summary of discussions that occurred during two consensus roundtables in 2022 that were supported by educational grants to the Endocrine Society from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Vertex. However, this position statement was developed by the authors independently. Dr. Kalyani had no disclosures. Dr. Ahn consults for Lilly Diabetes and Ascensia Diabetes Care and is on the speakers bureau for Abbott, Ascensia, Insulet, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo, and Xeris.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new position statement from the Endocrine Society aims to help clinicians prioritize patient experiences in the management of diabetes to optimize outcomes.

The statement reflects consensus from two virtual roundtables held in 2022, with participation from representatives of the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

“Although we’ve had many new classes of medications and many new technologies introduced into the care of people with diabetes over the past decade, there continues to be significant gaps between what our clinical guidelines recommend needs to be done in order to attain optimal health outcomes and what is actually able to be implemented in practice,” writing panel chair Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

The roundtable discussions addressed existing gaps in diabetes care and available tools to support patient-centered care in practice, focusing on the importance of acknowledging the experience of the person living with diabetes, said Dr. Kalyani, professor of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “What is most important to them? What are the challenges they have in their day-to-day life, and what is being communicated or understood?”

The statement is targeted at all individuals involved in the care of people with diabetes, including endocrinologists, primary care providers, other specialists such as cardiologists and nephrologists, as well as pharmacists, educators, and nutritionists, she noted.

Asked to comment, David T. Ahn, MD, chief of diabetes services at Mary & Dick Allen Diabetes Center at Hoag, Newport Beach, California, said “the statement importantly emphasizes that optimally supporting a person with diabetes is about the entire patient experience and not simply their glycemic performance. People with diabetes are truly the biggest stakeholders in diabetes management, and their perspectives should matter.”

Published on February 21, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the statement covers the following topics in separate sections:

• The importance of effective patient-provider communication at the time of diagnosis and at every clinic visit
• Addressing emotional and psychosocial needs, including helping people through diabetes distress or “burnout”
• Referring patients for diabetes self-management education and support
• Navigating available therapeutic options and explaining complex regimens to patients
• Minimizing therapeutic and clinical inertia
• Reducing cardiovascular, kidney, and other complication risks, including with the use of newer medications
• Discussing strategies to minimize hypoglycemia when relevant
• Using telehealth when appropriate
• Integrating diabetes technologies into routine diabetes management

Each section begins with an illustrative clinical patient vignette. For example, one describes a 42-year-old man with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin who experienced hyperglycemia during illness. His provider advises him to dramatically increase his insulin dose, but he doesn’t because he remembers his father had a severe hypoglycemia episode when he did that. The man ends up hospitalized with dehydration and renal failure.

In another, a doctor hesitates to share test results with a patient during a telehealth visit because family members are in the room. During the same visit, the patient is unable to show the doctor her swollen foot because “If I move from this spot, the Internet connection will be lost.”

Dr. Ahn said, “I like the structure of the statement because the case-based format should help clinicians better identify potential blind spots in their own practice, as sometimes it can be easy to assume that we are immune to these potential pitfalls. I found the vignettes to be very realistic, and the discussions around them were extremely detailed, with many practical suggestions for improvement.”

Also scattered through the document are graphics to help visualize the content. Tables include a list of common psychosocial conditions in diabetes, a list of questions to ask people to help determine if they need additional psychosocial screening or resources, and questionnaires to assess an individual’s risk for hypoglycemia and the appropriateness of telehealth.

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “I agree with all the major recommendations from the statement. Unfortunately, as the authors point out, practically implementing all the recommendations in this article may not be feasible in a traditional busy clinic, especially for primary care providers managing juggling multiple acute and chronic conditions ... The biggest challenge is being able to have the time and resources to actually implement these suggestions.”

Kalyani said, “tools to support patient-centered care cannot be burdensome for people with diabetes or the healthcare provider who already has limited time in order to be effective. They have to meet the ever-changing demands of new medications, new recommendations, and new technologies. New tools and resources will continue to need to be developed in the future.”

The position statement is a summary of discussions that occurred during two consensus roundtables in 2022 that were supported by educational grants to the Endocrine Society from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Vertex. However, this position statement was developed by the authors independently. Dr. Kalyani had no disclosures. Dr. Ahn consults for Lilly Diabetes and Ascensia Diabetes Care and is on the speakers bureau for Abbott, Ascensia, Insulet, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo, and Xeris.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new position statement from the Endocrine Society aims to help clinicians prioritize patient experiences in the management of diabetes to optimize outcomes.

The statement reflects consensus from two virtual roundtables held in 2022, with participation from representatives of the American Diabetes Association, the American College of Cardiology, the American College of Physicians, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others.

“Although we’ve had many new classes of medications and many new technologies introduced into the care of people with diabetes over the past decade, there continues to be significant gaps between what our clinical guidelines recommend needs to be done in order to attain optimal health outcomes and what is actually able to be implemented in practice,” writing panel chair Rita R. Kalyani, MD, told this news organization.

The roundtable discussions addressed existing gaps in diabetes care and available tools to support patient-centered care in practice, focusing on the importance of acknowledging the experience of the person living with diabetes, said Dr. Kalyani, professor of medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “What is most important to them? What are the challenges they have in their day-to-day life, and what is being communicated or understood?”

The statement is targeted at all individuals involved in the care of people with diabetes, including endocrinologists, primary care providers, other specialists such as cardiologists and nephrologists, as well as pharmacists, educators, and nutritionists, she noted.

Asked to comment, David T. Ahn, MD, chief of diabetes services at Mary & Dick Allen Diabetes Center at Hoag, Newport Beach, California, said “the statement importantly emphasizes that optimally supporting a person with diabetes is about the entire patient experience and not simply their glycemic performance. People with diabetes are truly the biggest stakeholders in diabetes management, and their perspectives should matter.”

Published on February 21, 2024, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the statement covers the following topics in separate sections:

• The importance of effective patient-provider communication at the time of diagnosis and at every clinic visit
• Addressing emotional and psychosocial needs, including helping people through diabetes distress or “burnout”
• Referring patients for diabetes self-management education and support
• Navigating available therapeutic options and explaining complex regimens to patients
• Minimizing therapeutic and clinical inertia
• Reducing cardiovascular, kidney, and other complication risks, including with the use of newer medications
• Discussing strategies to minimize hypoglycemia when relevant
• Using telehealth when appropriate
• Integrating diabetes technologies into routine diabetes management

Each section begins with an illustrative clinical patient vignette. For example, one describes a 42-year-old man with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin who experienced hyperglycemia during illness. His provider advises him to dramatically increase his insulin dose, but he doesn’t because he remembers his father had a severe hypoglycemia episode when he did that. The man ends up hospitalized with dehydration and renal failure.

In another, a doctor hesitates to share test results with a patient during a telehealth visit because family members are in the room. During the same visit, the patient is unable to show the doctor her swollen foot because “If I move from this spot, the Internet connection will be lost.”

Dr. Ahn said, “I like the structure of the statement because the case-based format should help clinicians better identify potential blind spots in their own practice, as sometimes it can be easy to assume that we are immune to these potential pitfalls. I found the vignettes to be very realistic, and the discussions around them were extremely detailed, with many practical suggestions for improvement.”

Also scattered through the document are graphics to help visualize the content. Tables include a list of common psychosocial conditions in diabetes, a list of questions to ask people to help determine if they need additional psychosocial screening or resources, and questionnaires to assess an individual’s risk for hypoglycemia and the appropriateness of telehealth.

However, Dr. Ahn also noted, “I agree with all the major recommendations from the statement. Unfortunately, as the authors point out, practically implementing all the recommendations in this article may not be feasible in a traditional busy clinic, especially for primary care providers managing juggling multiple acute and chronic conditions ... The biggest challenge is being able to have the time and resources to actually implement these suggestions.”

Kalyani said, “tools to support patient-centered care cannot be burdensome for people with diabetes or the healthcare provider who already has limited time in order to be effective. They have to meet the ever-changing demands of new medications, new recommendations, and new technologies. New tools and resources will continue to need to be developed in the future.”

The position statement is a summary of discussions that occurred during two consensus roundtables in 2022 that were supported by educational grants to the Endocrine Society from Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Vertex. However, this position statement was developed by the authors independently. Dr. Kalyani had no disclosures. Dr. Ahn consults for Lilly Diabetes and Ascensia Diabetes Care and is on the speakers bureau for Abbott, Ascensia, Insulet, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo, and Xeris.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To curb alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), alcohol consumption should be avoided among those with underlying obesity, chronic hepatitis C infection, hepatitis B virus infection, or a history of gastric bypass, according to a new clinical guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology.

In addition, health systems need to overcome barriers to treating alcohol use disorder (AUD) and commit to creating a multidisciplinary care model with behavioral interventions and pharmacotherapy for patients.

Experts were convened to develop these guidelines because it was “imperative to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based blueprint for how to care for patients, as well as guide prevention and research efforts in the field of ALD for the coming years,” said the first author, Loretta Jophlin, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

“In recent years, perhaps fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol use has been normalized in an increasing number of situations,” she said. “Drinking was normalized as a coping mechanism to deal with many of the sorrows we experienced during the pandemic, including loss of purposeful work and social isolation, and many more people are struggling with AUD. So many aspects of our culture have been inundated by the presence of alcohol use, and we need to work hard to denormalize this, first focusing on at-risk populations.”

The guideline was published in the January issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Updating ALD Recommendations

With ALD as the most common cause of advanced hepatic disease and a frequent indicator of eventual liver transplantation, the rising incidence of alcohol use during the past decade has led to rapid growth in ALD-related healthcare burdens, the guideline authors wrote.

In particular, those with ALD tend to present at an advanced stage and progress faster, which can lead to progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. This can include alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), which often presents with a rapid onset or worsening of jaundice and can lead to acute or chronic liver failure.

To update the guideline, Dr. Jophlin and colleagues analyzed data based on a patient-intervention-comparison-outcome format, resulting in 34 key concepts or statements and 21 recommendations.

Among them, the authors recommended screening and treating AUD with the goal of helping patients who have not yet developed significant liver injury and preventing progression to advanced stages of ALD, particularly among at-risk groups who have had an increasing prevalence of severe AUD, including women, younger people, and Hispanic and American Indian patients.

“So many patients are still told to ‘stop drinking’ or ‘cut back’ but are provided no additional resources. Without offering referrals to treatment programs or pharmacologic therapies to assist in abstinence, many patients are not successful,” Dr. Jophlin said. “We hope these guidelines empower providers to consider selected [Food and Drug Administration]-approved medications, well-studied off-label therapies, and nonpharmacologic interventions to aid their patients’ journeys to abstinence and hopefully avert the progression of ALD.”

In addition, the guidelines provide recommendations for AH treatment. In patients with severe AH, the authors offered strong recommendations against the use of pentoxifylline and prophylactic antibiotics, and in support of corticosteroid therapy and intravenous N-acetyl cysteine as an adjuvant to corticosteroids.

Liver transplantation, which may be recommended for carefully selected patients, is being performed at many centers but remains relatively controversial, Dr. Jophlin said.

“Questions remain about ideal patient selection as center practices vary considerably, yet we have started to realize the impacts of relapse after transplantation,” she said. “The guidelines highlight the knowns and unknowns in this area and will hopefully serve as a catalyst for the dissemination of centers’ experiences and the development of a universal set of ethically sound, evidence-based guidelines to be used by all transplant centers.”
 

Policy Implications

Dr. Jophlin and colleagues noted the importance of policy aimed at alcohol use reduction, multidisciplinary care for AUD and ALD, and additional research around severe AH.

“As a practicing transplant hepatologist and medical director of a liver transplant program in the heart of Bourbon country, I am a part of just one healthcare team experiencing ALD, particularly AH, as a mass casualty event. Healthcare teams are fighting an unrelenting fire that the alcohol industry is pouring gasoline on,” Dr. Jophlin said. “It is imperative that healthcare providers have a voice in the policies that shape this preventable disease. We hope these guidelines inspire practitioners to explore our influence on how alcohol is regulated, marketed, and distributed.”

Additional interventions and public policy considerations could help reduce alcohol-related morbidity and mortality at a moment when the characteristics of those who present with AUD appear to be evolving.

“The typical person I’m seeing now is not someone who has been drinking heavily for decades. Rather, it’s a young person who has been drinking heavily for many months or a couple of years,” said James Burton, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Colorado Hospital’s Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

Dr. Burton, who wasn’t involved with the guideline, noted it’s become more common for people to drink multiple alcoholic drinks per day for multiple times per week. Patients often don’t think it’s a problem, even as he discusses their liver-related issues.

“We can’t just keep living and working the way we were 10 years ago,” he said. “We’ve got to change how we approach treatment. We have to treat liver disease and AUD.”

The guideline was supported by several National Institutes of Health grants and an American College of Gastroenterology faculty development grant. The authors declared potential competing interests with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Burton reported no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To curb alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), alcohol consumption should be avoided among those with underlying obesity, chronic hepatitis C infection, hepatitis B virus infection, or a history of gastric bypass, according to a new clinical guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology.

In addition, health systems need to overcome barriers to treating alcohol use disorder (AUD) and commit to creating a multidisciplinary care model with behavioral interventions and pharmacotherapy for patients.

Experts were convened to develop these guidelines because it was “imperative to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based blueprint for how to care for patients, as well as guide prevention and research efforts in the field of ALD for the coming years,” said the first author, Loretta Jophlin, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

“In recent years, perhaps fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol use has been normalized in an increasing number of situations,” she said. “Drinking was normalized as a coping mechanism to deal with many of the sorrows we experienced during the pandemic, including loss of purposeful work and social isolation, and many more people are struggling with AUD. So many aspects of our culture have been inundated by the presence of alcohol use, and we need to work hard to denormalize this, first focusing on at-risk populations.”

The guideline was published in the January issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Updating ALD Recommendations

With ALD as the most common cause of advanced hepatic disease and a frequent indicator of eventual liver transplantation, the rising incidence of alcohol use during the past decade has led to rapid growth in ALD-related healthcare burdens, the guideline authors wrote.

In particular, those with ALD tend to present at an advanced stage and progress faster, which can lead to progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. This can include alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), which often presents with a rapid onset or worsening of jaundice and can lead to acute or chronic liver failure.

To update the guideline, Dr. Jophlin and colleagues analyzed data based on a patient-intervention-comparison-outcome format, resulting in 34 key concepts or statements and 21 recommendations.

Among them, the authors recommended screening and treating AUD with the goal of helping patients who have not yet developed significant liver injury and preventing progression to advanced stages of ALD, particularly among at-risk groups who have had an increasing prevalence of severe AUD, including women, younger people, and Hispanic and American Indian patients.

“So many patients are still told to ‘stop drinking’ or ‘cut back’ but are provided no additional resources. Without offering referrals to treatment programs or pharmacologic therapies to assist in abstinence, many patients are not successful,” Dr. Jophlin said. “We hope these guidelines empower providers to consider selected [Food and Drug Administration]-approved medications, well-studied off-label therapies, and nonpharmacologic interventions to aid their patients’ journeys to abstinence and hopefully avert the progression of ALD.”

In addition, the guidelines provide recommendations for AH treatment. In patients with severe AH, the authors offered strong recommendations against the use of pentoxifylline and prophylactic antibiotics, and in support of corticosteroid therapy and intravenous N-acetyl cysteine as an adjuvant to corticosteroids.

Liver transplantation, which may be recommended for carefully selected patients, is being performed at many centers but remains relatively controversial, Dr. Jophlin said.

“Questions remain about ideal patient selection as center practices vary considerably, yet we have started to realize the impacts of relapse after transplantation,” she said. “The guidelines highlight the knowns and unknowns in this area and will hopefully serve as a catalyst for the dissemination of centers’ experiences and the development of a universal set of ethically sound, evidence-based guidelines to be used by all transplant centers.”
 

Policy Implications

Dr. Jophlin and colleagues noted the importance of policy aimed at alcohol use reduction, multidisciplinary care for AUD and ALD, and additional research around severe AH.

“As a practicing transplant hepatologist and medical director of a liver transplant program in the heart of Bourbon country, I am a part of just one healthcare team experiencing ALD, particularly AH, as a mass casualty event. Healthcare teams are fighting an unrelenting fire that the alcohol industry is pouring gasoline on,” Dr. Jophlin said. “It is imperative that healthcare providers have a voice in the policies that shape this preventable disease. We hope these guidelines inspire practitioners to explore our influence on how alcohol is regulated, marketed, and distributed.”

Additional interventions and public policy considerations could help reduce alcohol-related morbidity and mortality at a moment when the characteristics of those who present with AUD appear to be evolving.

“The typical person I’m seeing now is not someone who has been drinking heavily for decades. Rather, it’s a young person who has been drinking heavily for many months or a couple of years,” said James Burton, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Colorado Hospital’s Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

Dr. Burton, who wasn’t involved with the guideline, noted it’s become more common for people to drink multiple alcoholic drinks per day for multiple times per week. Patients often don’t think it’s a problem, even as he discusses their liver-related issues.

“We can’t just keep living and working the way we were 10 years ago,” he said. “We’ve got to change how we approach treatment. We have to treat liver disease and AUD.”

The guideline was supported by several National Institutes of Health grants and an American College of Gastroenterology faculty development grant. The authors declared potential competing interests with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Burton reported no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To curb alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), alcohol consumption should be avoided among those with underlying obesity, chronic hepatitis C infection, hepatitis B virus infection, or a history of gastric bypass, according to a new clinical guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology.

In addition, health systems need to overcome barriers to treating alcohol use disorder (AUD) and commit to creating a multidisciplinary care model with behavioral interventions and pharmacotherapy for patients.

Experts were convened to develop these guidelines because it was “imperative to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based blueprint for how to care for patients, as well as guide prevention and research efforts in the field of ALD for the coming years,” said the first author, Loretta Jophlin, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

“In recent years, perhaps fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, alcohol use has been normalized in an increasing number of situations,” she said. “Drinking was normalized as a coping mechanism to deal with many of the sorrows we experienced during the pandemic, including loss of purposeful work and social isolation, and many more people are struggling with AUD. So many aspects of our culture have been inundated by the presence of alcohol use, and we need to work hard to denormalize this, first focusing on at-risk populations.”

The guideline was published in the January issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Updating ALD Recommendations

With ALD as the most common cause of advanced hepatic disease and a frequent indicator of eventual liver transplantation, the rising incidence of alcohol use during the past decade has led to rapid growth in ALD-related healthcare burdens, the guideline authors wrote.

In particular, those with ALD tend to present at an advanced stage and progress faster, which can lead to progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. This can include alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), which often presents with a rapid onset or worsening of jaundice and can lead to acute or chronic liver failure.

To update the guideline, Dr. Jophlin and colleagues analyzed data based on a patient-intervention-comparison-outcome format, resulting in 34 key concepts or statements and 21 recommendations.

Among them, the authors recommended screening and treating AUD with the goal of helping patients who have not yet developed significant liver injury and preventing progression to advanced stages of ALD, particularly among at-risk groups who have had an increasing prevalence of severe AUD, including women, younger people, and Hispanic and American Indian patients.

“So many patients are still told to ‘stop drinking’ or ‘cut back’ but are provided no additional resources. Without offering referrals to treatment programs or pharmacologic therapies to assist in abstinence, many patients are not successful,” Dr. Jophlin said. “We hope these guidelines empower providers to consider selected [Food and Drug Administration]-approved medications, well-studied off-label therapies, and nonpharmacologic interventions to aid their patients’ journeys to abstinence and hopefully avert the progression of ALD.”

In addition, the guidelines provide recommendations for AH treatment. In patients with severe AH, the authors offered strong recommendations against the use of pentoxifylline and prophylactic antibiotics, and in support of corticosteroid therapy and intravenous N-acetyl cysteine as an adjuvant to corticosteroids.

Liver transplantation, which may be recommended for carefully selected patients, is being performed at many centers but remains relatively controversial, Dr. Jophlin said.

“Questions remain about ideal patient selection as center practices vary considerably, yet we have started to realize the impacts of relapse after transplantation,” she said. “The guidelines highlight the knowns and unknowns in this area and will hopefully serve as a catalyst for the dissemination of centers’ experiences and the development of a universal set of ethically sound, evidence-based guidelines to be used by all transplant centers.”
 

Policy Implications

Dr. Jophlin and colleagues noted the importance of policy aimed at alcohol use reduction, multidisciplinary care for AUD and ALD, and additional research around severe AH.

“As a practicing transplant hepatologist and medical director of a liver transplant program in the heart of Bourbon country, I am a part of just one healthcare team experiencing ALD, particularly AH, as a mass casualty event. Healthcare teams are fighting an unrelenting fire that the alcohol industry is pouring gasoline on,” Dr. Jophlin said. “It is imperative that healthcare providers have a voice in the policies that shape this preventable disease. We hope these guidelines inspire practitioners to explore our influence on how alcohol is regulated, marketed, and distributed.”

Additional interventions and public policy considerations could help reduce alcohol-related morbidity and mortality at a moment when the characteristics of those who present with AUD appear to be evolving.

“The typical person I’m seeing now is not someone who has been drinking heavily for decades. Rather, it’s a young person who has been drinking heavily for many months or a couple of years,” said James Burton, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and medical director of liver transplantation at the University of Colorado Hospital’s Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora.

Dr. Burton, who wasn’t involved with the guideline, noted it’s become more common for people to drink multiple alcoholic drinks per day for multiple times per week. Patients often don’t think it’s a problem, even as he discusses their liver-related issues.

“We can’t just keep living and working the way we were 10 years ago,” he said. “We’ve got to change how we approach treatment. We have to treat liver disease and AUD.”

The guideline was supported by several National Institutes of Health grants and an American College of Gastroenterology faculty development grant. The authors declared potential competing interests with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Burton reported no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations to screen for heart failure, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and type 1 diabetes risk, along with new obesity management guidance, are among many updates to the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) Standards of Care for 2024.

“The Standards of Care are essentially the global guidelines for the care of individuals with diabetes and those at risk,” ADA chief scientific and medical officer Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, said during a briefing announcing the new Standards.

The document was developed via a scientific literature review by the ADA’s Professional Practice Committee. The panel comprises 21 professionals, including physicians from many specialties, nurse practitioners, certified diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, and pharmacists. The chair is Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, ADA’s senior vice president of healthcare improvement.

Specific sections of the 2024 document have been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, and the Obesity Society. It was published on December 11, 2023, as a supplement in Diabetes Care.

An introductory section summarizing the changes for 2024 spans six pages. Those addressed during the briefing included the following:

Heart Failure Screening: Two new recommendations have been added to include screening of adults with diabetes for asymptomatic heart failure by measuring natriuretic peptide levels to facilitate the prevention or progression to symptomatic stages of heart failure.

“This is a really important and exciting area. We know that people with type 2 diabetes in particular are at high risk for heart failure,” Dr. Gabbay said, adding that these recommendations “are to really more aggressively screen those at high risk for heart failure with a simple blood test and, based on those values, then be able to move on to further evaluation and echocardiography, for example. The recommendations are really to screen a broad number of individuals with type 2 diabetes because many are at risk, [particularly] those without symptoms.”

PAD Screening: A new strong recommendation is to screen for PAD with ankle-brachial index testing in asymptomatic people with diabetes who are aged ≥ 50 years and have microvascular disease in any location, foot complications, or any end-organ damage from diabetes. The document also advises consideration of PAD screening for all individuals who have had diabetes for ≥ 10 years.

Dr. Gabbay commented, “We know that amputation rates are rising, unlike many other complications. We know that there are incredible health disparities. Blacks are two to four times more likely than Whites to have an amputation.”

Dr. El Sayed added, “Many patients don’t show the common symptoms of peripheral arterial disease. Screening is the most important way to find out if they have it or not because it can be a very devastating disease.”

Type 1 Diabetes Screening: This involves several new recommendations, including a framework for investigating suspected type 1 diabetes in newly diagnosed adults using islet autoantibody tests and diagnostic criteria for preclinical stages based on the recent approval of teplizumab for delaying the onset of type 1 diabetes.

“Screening and capturing disease earlier so that we can intervene is really an important consideration here. That includes screening for type 1 diabetes and thinking about therapeutic options to delay the development of frank type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Screening first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes is a high priority because they’re at an elevated risk, he added.

Obesity Management: New recommendations here include the use of anthropomorphic measurements beyond body mass index to include waist circumference and waist:hip ratio and individual assessment of body fat mass and distribution.

Individualization of obesity management including behavioral, pharmacologic, and surgical approaches is encouraged. The use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist with greater weight loss efficacy is preferred for obesity management in people with diabetes.

“Obesity management is one of the biggest changes over this last year,” Dr. Gabbay commented.

Other New Recommendations: Among the many other revisions in the 2024 document are new recommendations about regular evaluation and treatment for bone health, assessment of disability and guidance for referral, and alignment of guidance for liver disease screening and management with those of other professional societies. Regarding the last item, Dr. Gabbay noted, “I don’t think it’s gotten the attention it deserves. Diabetes and obesity are becoming the leading causes of liver disease.”

Clinicians can also download the Standards of Care app on their smartphones. “That can be really helpful when questions come up since you can’t remember everything in there. Here you can look it up in a matter of seconds,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Dr. El Sayed added that asking patients about their priorities is also important. “If they aren’t brought up during the visit, it’s unlikely to be as fruitful as it should be.”

Dr. El Sayed has no disclosures. Dr. Gabbay serves as a consultant and/or advisor for HealthReveal, Lark Technologies, Onduo, StartUp Health, Sweetech, and Vida Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new Clinical Practice Guideline from American Gastroenterological Association points to a stronger and better defined role for fecal and blood biomarkers in the management of Crohn’s disease, offering the most specific evidence-based recommendations yet for the use of fecal calprotectin (FCP) and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) in assessing disease activity.

Repeated monitoring with endoscopy allows for an objective assessment of inflammation and mucosal healing compared with symptoms alone. However, relying solely on endoscopy to guide management is an approach “limited by cost and resource utilization, invasiveness, and reduced patient acceptability,” wrote guideline authors on behalf of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee. The guideline was published online Nov. 17 in Gastroenterology.

“Use of biomarkers is no longer considered experimental and should be an integral part of IBD care and monitoring,” said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and first author of the guideline. “We need further studies to define their optimal longitudinal use, but at a given time point, there is now abundant evidence that biomarkers provide significant incremental benefit over symptoms alone in assessing a patient’s status.”

Using evidence from randomized controlled trials and observational studies, and applying it to common clinical scenarios, there are conditional recommendations on the use of biomarkers in patients with established, diagnosed disease who were asymptomatic, symptomatic, or in surgically induced remission. Those recommendations, laid out in a detailed Clinical Decision Support Tool, include the following:

For asymptomatic patients: Check CRP and FCP every 6-12 months. Patients with normal levels, and who have endoscopically confirmed remission within the last 3 years without any subsequent change in symptoms or treatment, need not undergo endoscopy and can be followed with biomarker and clinical checks alone. If CRP or FCP are elevated (defined as CRP ≥ 5 mg/L, FCP ≥ 150 mcg/g), consider repeating biomarkers and/or performing endoscopic assessment of disease activity before adjusting treatment.

For mildly symptomatic patients: Role of biomarker testing may be limited and endoscopic or radiologic assessment may be required to assess active inflammation given the higher rate of false positive and false negative results with biomarkers in this population.

For patients with more severe symptoms: Elevated CRP or FCP can be used to guide treatment adjustment without endoscopic confirmation in certain situations. Normal levels may be false negative and should be confirmed by endoscopic assessment of disease activity.

For patients in surgically induced remission with a low likelihood of recurrence: FCP levels below 50 mcg/g can be used in lieu of routine endoscopic assessment within the first year after surgery. Higher FCP levels should prompt endoscopic assessment.

For patients in surgically induced remission with a high risk of recurrence: Do not rely on biomarkers. Perform endoscopic assessment.

All recommendations were deemed of low to moderate certainty based on results from randomized clinical trials and observational studies that utilized these biomarkers in patients with Crohn’s disease. Citing a dearth of quality evidence, the guideline authors determined they could not make recommendations on the use of a third proprietary biomarker — the endoscopic healing index (EHI).

Recent AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on the role of biomarkers in ulcerative colitis, published in March, also support a strong role for fecal and blood biomarkers, determining when these can be used to avoid unneeded endoscopic assessments. However, in patients with Crohn’s disease, symptoms correlate less well with endoscopic activity.

As a result, “biomarker performance was acceptable only in asymptomatic individuals who had recently confirmed endoscopic remission; in those without recent endoscopic assessment, test performance was suboptimal.” In addition, the weaker correlation between symptoms and endoscopic activity in Crohn’s “reduced the utility of biomarker measurement to infer disease activity in those with mild symptoms.”

The guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. The authors disclosed a number of potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants, as well as consulting and speaking fees, from pharmaceutical companies.

A new Clinical Practice Guideline from American Gastroenterological Association points to a stronger and better defined role for fecal and blood biomarkers in the management of Crohn’s disease, offering the most specific evidence-based recommendations yet for the use of fecal calprotectin (FCP) and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) in assessing disease activity.

Repeated monitoring with endoscopy allows for an objective assessment of inflammation and mucosal healing compared with symptoms alone. However, relying solely on endoscopy to guide management is an approach “limited by cost and resource utilization, invasiveness, and reduced patient acceptability,” wrote guideline authors on behalf of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee. The guideline was published online Nov. 17 in Gastroenterology.

“Use of biomarkers is no longer considered experimental and should be an integral part of IBD care and monitoring,” said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and first author of the guideline. “We need further studies to define their optimal longitudinal use, but at a given time point, there is now abundant evidence that biomarkers provide significant incremental benefit over symptoms alone in assessing a patient’s status.”

Using evidence from randomized controlled trials and observational studies, and applying it to common clinical scenarios, there are conditional recommendations on the use of biomarkers in patients with established, diagnosed disease who were asymptomatic, symptomatic, or in surgically induced remission. Those recommendations, laid out in a detailed Clinical Decision Support Tool, include the following:

For asymptomatic patients: Check CRP and FCP every 6-12 months. Patients with normal levels, and who have endoscopically confirmed remission within the last 3 years without any subsequent change in symptoms or treatment, need not undergo endoscopy and can be followed with biomarker and clinical checks alone. If CRP or FCP are elevated (defined as CRP ≥ 5 mg/L, FCP ≥ 150 mcg/g), consider repeating biomarkers and/or performing endoscopic assessment of disease activity before adjusting treatment.

For mildly symptomatic patients: Role of biomarker testing may be limited and endoscopic or radiologic assessment may be required to assess active inflammation given the higher rate of false positive and false negative results with biomarkers in this population.

For patients with more severe symptoms: Elevated CRP or FCP can be used to guide treatment adjustment without endoscopic confirmation in certain situations. Normal levels may be false negative and should be confirmed by endoscopic assessment of disease activity.

For patients in surgically induced remission with a low likelihood of recurrence: FCP levels below 50 mcg/g can be used in lieu of routine endoscopic assessment within the first year after surgery. Higher FCP levels should prompt endoscopic assessment.

For patients in surgically induced remission with a high risk of recurrence: Do not rely on biomarkers. Perform endoscopic assessment.

All recommendations were deemed of low to moderate certainty based on results from randomized clinical trials and observational studies that utilized these biomarkers in patients with Crohn’s disease. Citing a dearth of quality evidence, the guideline authors determined they could not make recommendations on the use of a third proprietary biomarker — the endoscopic healing index (EHI).

Recent AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on the role of biomarkers in ulcerative colitis, published in March, also support a strong role for fecal and blood biomarkers, determining when these can be used to avoid unneeded endoscopic assessments. However, in patients with Crohn’s disease, symptoms correlate less well with endoscopic activity.

As a result, “biomarker performance was acceptable only in asymptomatic individuals who had recently confirmed endoscopic remission; in those without recent endoscopic assessment, test performance was suboptimal.” In addition, the weaker correlation between symptoms and endoscopic activity in Crohn’s “reduced the utility of biomarker measurement to infer disease activity in those with mild symptoms.”

The guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. The authors disclosed a number of potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants, as well as consulting and speaking fees, from pharmaceutical companies.

A new Clinical Practice Guideline from American Gastroenterological Association points to a stronger and better defined role for fecal and blood biomarkers in the management of Crohn’s disease, offering the most specific evidence-based recommendations yet for the use of fecal calprotectin (FCP) and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) in assessing disease activity.

Repeated monitoring with endoscopy allows for an objective assessment of inflammation and mucosal healing compared with symptoms alone. However, relying solely on endoscopy to guide management is an approach “limited by cost and resource utilization, invasiveness, and reduced patient acceptability,” wrote guideline authors on behalf of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee. The guideline was published online Nov. 17 in Gastroenterology.

“Use of biomarkers is no longer considered experimental and should be an integral part of IBD care and monitoring,” said Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and first author of the guideline. “We need further studies to define their optimal longitudinal use, but at a given time point, there is now abundant evidence that biomarkers provide significant incremental benefit over symptoms alone in assessing a patient’s status.”

Using evidence from randomized controlled trials and observational studies, and applying it to common clinical scenarios, there are conditional recommendations on the use of biomarkers in patients with established, diagnosed disease who were asymptomatic, symptomatic, or in surgically induced remission. Those recommendations, laid out in a detailed Clinical Decision Support Tool, include the following:

For asymptomatic patients: Check CRP and FCP every 6-12 months. Patients with normal levels, and who have endoscopically confirmed remission within the last 3 years without any subsequent change in symptoms or treatment, need not undergo endoscopy and can be followed with biomarker and clinical checks alone. If CRP or FCP are elevated (defined as CRP ≥ 5 mg/L, FCP ≥ 150 mcg/g), consider repeating biomarkers and/or performing endoscopic assessment of disease activity before adjusting treatment.

For mildly symptomatic patients: Role of biomarker testing may be limited and endoscopic or radiologic assessment may be required to assess active inflammation given the higher rate of false positive and false negative results with biomarkers in this population.

For patients with more severe symptoms: Elevated CRP or FCP can be used to guide treatment adjustment without endoscopic confirmation in certain situations. Normal levels may be false negative and should be confirmed by endoscopic assessment of disease activity.

For patients in surgically induced remission with a low likelihood of recurrence: FCP levels below 50 mcg/g can be used in lieu of routine endoscopic assessment within the first year after surgery. Higher FCP levels should prompt endoscopic assessment.

For patients in surgically induced remission with a high risk of recurrence: Do not rely on biomarkers. Perform endoscopic assessment.

All recommendations were deemed of low to moderate certainty based on results from randomized clinical trials and observational studies that utilized these biomarkers in patients with Crohn’s disease. Citing a dearth of quality evidence, the guideline authors determined they could not make recommendations on the use of a third proprietary biomarker — the endoscopic healing index (EHI).

Recent AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on the role of biomarkers in ulcerative colitis, published in March, also support a strong role for fecal and blood biomarkers, determining when these can be used to avoid unneeded endoscopic assessments. However, in patients with Crohn’s disease, symptoms correlate less well with endoscopic activity.

As a result, “biomarker performance was acceptable only in asymptomatic individuals who had recently confirmed endoscopic remission; in those without recent endoscopic assessment, test performance was suboptimal.” In addition, the weaker correlation between symptoms and endoscopic activity in Crohn’s “reduced the utility of biomarker measurement to infer disease activity in those with mild symptoms.”

The guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. The authors disclosed a number of potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants, as well as consulting and speaking fees, from pharmaceutical companies.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued an updated clinical practice guideline on partial breast irradiation for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The 2023 guideline, which replaces the 2017 recommendations, factors in new clinical trial data that consistently show no significant differences in overall survival, cancer-free survival, and recurrence in the same breast among patients who receive partial breast irradiation compared with whole breast irradiation. The data also indicate similar or improved side effects with partial vs whole breast irradiation.

To develop the 2023 recommendations, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) conducted a systematic review assessing the latest clinical trial evidence, and ASTRO assembled an expert task force to determine best practices for using partial breast irradiation.

“There have been more than 10,000 women included in these randomized controlled trials, with 10 years of follow-up showing equivalency in tumor control between partial breast and whole breast radiation for appropriately selected patients,” Simona Shaitelman, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force, said in a news release.

“These data should be driving a change in practice, and partial breast radiation should be a larger part of the dialogue when we consult with patients on decisions about how best to treat their early-stage breast cancer,” added Dr. Shaitelman, professor of breast radiation oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

What’s in the New Guidelines?

For patients with early-stage, node-negative invasive breast cancer, the updated guideline strongly recommends partial breast irradiation instead of whole breast irradiation if the patient has favorable clinical features and tumor characteristics, including grade 1 or 2 disease, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive status, small tumor size, and age 40 or older.

In contrast, the 2017 guideline considered patients aged 50 and older suitable for partial breast irradiation and considered those in their 40s who met certain pathologic criteria “cautionary.”The updated guideline also conditionally recommends partial over whole breast irradiation if the patient has risk factors that indicate a higher likelihood of recurrence, such as grade 3 disease, ER-negative histology, or larger tumor size.

The task force does not recommend partial breast irradiation for patients with positive lymph nodes, positive surgical margins, or germline BRCA1/2 mutations or patients under 40.

Given the lack of robust data in patients with less favorable risk features, such as lymphovascular invasion or lobular histology, partial breast irradiation is conditionally not recommended for these patients.

For DCIS, the updated recommendations mirror those for early-stage breast cancer, with partial breast irradiation strongly recommended as an alternative to whole breast irradiation among patients with favorable clinical and tumor features, such as grade 1 or 2 disease and ER-positive status. Partial breast irradiation is conditionally recommended for higher grade disease or larger tumors, and not recommended for patients with positive surgical margins, BRCA mutations or those younger than 40.

In addition to relevant patient populations, the updated guidelines also address techniques and best practices for delivering partial breast irradiation.

Recommended partial breast irradiation techniques include 3-D conformal radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, and multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy, given the evidence showing similar long-term rates of ipsilateral breast recurrence compared with whole breast irradiation.

Single-entry catheter brachytherapy is conditionally recommended, and intraoperative radiation therapy techniques are not recommended unless integrated into a prospective clinical trial or multi-institutional registry.

The guideline also outlines optimal dose, fractionation, target volume, and treatment modality with different partial breast irradiation techniques, taking toxicities and cosmesis into consideration.

“We hope that by laying out the evidence from these major trials and providing guidance on how to administer partial breast radiation, the guideline can help more oncologists feel comfortable offering this option to their patients as an alternative to whole breast radiation,” Janice Lyons, MD, of University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, and chair of the guideline task force, said in the news release.

The guideline, developed in collaboration with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Society of Surgical Oncology, has been endorsed by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology, the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. Guideline development was funded by ASTRO and the systematic evidence review was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Disclosures for the task force are available with the original article.
 

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued an updated clinical practice guideline on partial breast irradiation for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The 2023 guideline, which replaces the 2017 recommendations, factors in new clinical trial data that consistently show no significant differences in overall survival, cancer-free survival, and recurrence in the same breast among patients who receive partial breast irradiation compared with whole breast irradiation. The data also indicate similar or improved side effects with partial vs whole breast irradiation.

To develop the 2023 recommendations, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) conducted a systematic review assessing the latest clinical trial evidence, and ASTRO assembled an expert task force to determine best practices for using partial breast irradiation.

“There have been more than 10,000 women included in these randomized controlled trials, with 10 years of follow-up showing equivalency in tumor control between partial breast and whole breast radiation for appropriately selected patients,” Simona Shaitelman, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force, said in a news release.

“These data should be driving a change in practice, and partial breast radiation should be a larger part of the dialogue when we consult with patients on decisions about how best to treat their early-stage breast cancer,” added Dr. Shaitelman, professor of breast radiation oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

What’s in the New Guidelines?

For patients with early-stage, node-negative invasive breast cancer, the updated guideline strongly recommends partial breast irradiation instead of whole breast irradiation if the patient has favorable clinical features and tumor characteristics, including grade 1 or 2 disease, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive status, small tumor size, and age 40 or older.

In contrast, the 2017 guideline considered patients aged 50 and older suitable for partial breast irradiation and considered those in their 40s who met certain pathologic criteria “cautionary.”The updated guideline also conditionally recommends partial over whole breast irradiation if the patient has risk factors that indicate a higher likelihood of recurrence, such as grade 3 disease, ER-negative histology, or larger tumor size.

The task force does not recommend partial breast irradiation for patients with positive lymph nodes, positive surgical margins, or germline BRCA1/2 mutations or patients under 40.

Given the lack of robust data in patients with less favorable risk features, such as lymphovascular invasion or lobular histology, partial breast irradiation is conditionally not recommended for these patients.

For DCIS, the updated recommendations mirror those for early-stage breast cancer, with partial breast irradiation strongly recommended as an alternative to whole breast irradiation among patients with favorable clinical and tumor features, such as grade 1 or 2 disease and ER-positive status. Partial breast irradiation is conditionally recommended for higher grade disease or larger tumors, and not recommended for patients with positive surgical margins, BRCA mutations or those younger than 40.

In addition to relevant patient populations, the updated guidelines also address techniques and best practices for delivering partial breast irradiation.

Recommended partial breast irradiation techniques include 3-D conformal radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, and multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy, given the evidence showing similar long-term rates of ipsilateral breast recurrence compared with whole breast irradiation.

Single-entry catheter brachytherapy is conditionally recommended, and intraoperative radiation therapy techniques are not recommended unless integrated into a prospective clinical trial or multi-institutional registry.

The guideline also outlines optimal dose, fractionation, target volume, and treatment modality with different partial breast irradiation techniques, taking toxicities and cosmesis into consideration.

“We hope that by laying out the evidence from these major trials and providing guidance on how to administer partial breast radiation, the guideline can help more oncologists feel comfortable offering this option to their patients as an alternative to whole breast radiation,” Janice Lyons, MD, of University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, and chair of the guideline task force, said in the news release.

The guideline, developed in collaboration with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Society of Surgical Oncology, has been endorsed by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology, the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. Guideline development was funded by ASTRO and the systematic evidence review was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Disclosures for the task force are available with the original article.
 

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has issued an updated clinical practice guideline on partial breast irradiation for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The 2023 guideline, which replaces the 2017 recommendations, factors in new clinical trial data that consistently show no significant differences in overall survival, cancer-free survival, and recurrence in the same breast among patients who receive partial breast irradiation compared with whole breast irradiation. The data also indicate similar or improved side effects with partial vs whole breast irradiation.

To develop the 2023 recommendations, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) conducted a systematic review assessing the latest clinical trial evidence, and ASTRO assembled an expert task force to determine best practices for using partial breast irradiation.

“There have been more than 10,000 women included in these randomized controlled trials, with 10 years of follow-up showing equivalency in tumor control between partial breast and whole breast radiation for appropriately selected patients,” Simona Shaitelman, MD, vice chair of the guideline task force, said in a news release.

“These data should be driving a change in practice, and partial breast radiation should be a larger part of the dialogue when we consult with patients on decisions about how best to treat their early-stage breast cancer,” added Dr. Shaitelman, professor of breast radiation oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

What’s in the New Guidelines?

For patients with early-stage, node-negative invasive breast cancer, the updated guideline strongly recommends partial breast irradiation instead of whole breast irradiation if the patient has favorable clinical features and tumor characteristics, including grade 1 or 2 disease, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive status, small tumor size, and age 40 or older.

In contrast, the 2017 guideline considered patients aged 50 and older suitable for partial breast irradiation and considered those in their 40s who met certain pathologic criteria “cautionary.”The updated guideline also conditionally recommends partial over whole breast irradiation if the patient has risk factors that indicate a higher likelihood of recurrence, such as grade 3 disease, ER-negative histology, or larger tumor size.

The task force does not recommend partial breast irradiation for patients with positive lymph nodes, positive surgical margins, or germline BRCA1/2 mutations or patients under 40.

Given the lack of robust data in patients with less favorable risk features, such as lymphovascular invasion or lobular histology, partial breast irradiation is conditionally not recommended for these patients.

For DCIS, the updated recommendations mirror those for early-stage breast cancer, with partial breast irradiation strongly recommended as an alternative to whole breast irradiation among patients with favorable clinical and tumor features, such as grade 1 or 2 disease and ER-positive status. Partial breast irradiation is conditionally recommended for higher grade disease or larger tumors, and not recommended for patients with positive surgical margins, BRCA mutations or those younger than 40.

In addition to relevant patient populations, the updated guidelines also address techniques and best practices for delivering partial breast irradiation.

Recommended partial breast irradiation techniques include 3-D conformal radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, and multicatheter interstitial brachytherapy, given the evidence showing similar long-term rates of ipsilateral breast recurrence compared with whole breast irradiation.

Single-entry catheter brachytherapy is conditionally recommended, and intraoperative radiation therapy techniques are not recommended unless integrated into a prospective clinical trial or multi-institutional registry.

The guideline also outlines optimal dose, fractionation, target volume, and treatment modality with different partial breast irradiation techniques, taking toxicities and cosmesis into consideration.

“We hope that by laying out the evidence from these major trials and providing guidance on how to administer partial breast radiation, the guideline can help more oncologists feel comfortable offering this option to their patients as an alternative to whole breast radiation,” Janice Lyons, MD, of University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, and chair of the guideline task force, said in the news release.

The guideline, developed in collaboration with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Society of Surgical Oncology, has been endorsed by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology, the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. Guideline development was funded by ASTRO and the systematic evidence review was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Disclosures for the task force are available with the original article.
 

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association (AHA) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have issued a focused update to the 2020 neonatal resuscitation guidelines.

The 2023 focused update was prompted by four systematic literature reviews by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Neonatal Life Support Task Force.

“Evidence evaluations by the ILCOR play a large role in the group’s process and timing of updates,” Henry Lee, MD, co-chair of the writing group, said in an interview.

He noted that updated recommendations do not change prior recommendations from the 2020 guidelines.

“However, they provide additional details to consider in neonatal resuscitation that could lead to changes in some practice in various settings,” said Dr. Lee, medical director of the University of California San Diego neonatal intensive care unit. 

The focused update was simultaneously published online November 16 in Circulation and in Pediatrics.

Dr. Lee noted that effective positive-pressure ventilation (PPV) is the priority in newborn infants who need support after birth.

And while the 2020 update provided some details on devices to be used for PPV, the 2023 focused update gives guidance on use of T-piece resuscitators for providing PPV, which may be particularly helpful for preterm infants, and the use of supraglottic airways as a primary interface to deliver PPV, he explained.

Specifically, the updated guidelines state that use of a T-piece resuscitator to deliver PPV is preferred to the use of a self-inflating bag.

Because both T-piece resuscitators and flow-inflating bags require a compressed gas source to function, a self-inflating bag should be available as a backup in the event of compressed gas failure when using either of these devices.

Use of a supraglottic airway may be considered as the primary interface to administer PPV instead of a face mask for newborn infants delivered at 34 0/7 weeks’ gestation or later.


 

Continued Emphasis on Delayed Cord Clamping

The updated guidelines “continue to emphasize delayed cord clamping for both term and preterm newborn infants when clinically possible. There is also a new recommendation for nonvigorous infants born 35-42 weeks’ gestational age to consider umbilical cord milking,” Dr. Lee said in an interview.

Specifically, the guidelines state: 

• For term and late preterm newborn infants ≥34 weeks’ gestation, and preterm newborn infants <34 weeks’ gestation, who do not require resuscitation, delayed cord clamping (≥30 seconds) can be beneficial compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds).
• For term and late preterm newborn infants ≥34 weeks’ gestation who do not require resuscitation, intact cord milking is not known to be beneficial compared with delayed cord clamping (≥30 seconds).
• For preterm newborn infants between 28- and 34-weeks’ gestation who do not require resuscitation and in whom delayed cord clamping cannot be performed, intact cord milking may be reasonable.
• For preterm newborn infants <28 weeks’ gestation, intact cord milking is not recommended.
• For nonvigorous term and late preterm infants (35-42 weeks’ gestation), intact cord milking may be reasonable compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds).

The guidelines also highlight the following knowledge gaps that require further research:

• Optimal management of the umbilical cord in term, late preterm, and preterm infants who require resuscitation at delivery
• Longer-term outcome data, such as anemia during infancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes, for all umbilical cord management strategies
• Cost-effectiveness of a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag
• The effect of a self-inflating bag with a positive end-expiratory pressure valve on outcomes in preterm newborn infants
• Comparison of either a T-piece resuscitator or a self-inflating bag with a flow-inflating bag for administering PPV
• Comparison of clinical outcomes by gestational age for any PPV device
• Comparison of supraglottic airway devices and face masks as the primary interface for PPV in high-resourced settings
• The amount and type of training required for successful supraglottic airway insertion and the potential for skill decay
• The utility of supraglottic airway devices for suctioning secretions from the airway
• The efficacy of a supraglottic airway during advanced neonatal resuscitation requiring chest compressions or the delivery of intratracheal medications

This research had no commercial funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association (AHA) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have issued a focused update to the 2020 neonatal resuscitation guidelines.

The 2023 focused update was prompted by four systematic literature reviews by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Neonatal Life Support Task Force.

“Evidence evaluations by the ILCOR play a large role in the group’s process and timing of updates,” Henry Lee, MD, co-chair of the writing group, said in an interview.

He noted that updated recommendations do not change prior recommendations from the 2020 guidelines.

“However, they provide additional details to consider in neonatal resuscitation that could lead to changes in some practice in various settings,” said Dr. Lee, medical director of the University of California San Diego neonatal intensive care unit. 

The focused update was simultaneously published online November 16 in Circulation and in Pediatrics.

Dr. Lee noted that effective positive-pressure ventilation (PPV) is the priority in newborn infants who need support after birth.

And while the 2020 update provided some details on devices to be used for PPV, the 2023 focused update gives guidance on use of T-piece resuscitators for providing PPV, which may be particularly helpful for preterm infants, and the use of supraglottic airways as a primary interface to deliver PPV, he explained.

Specifically, the updated guidelines state that use of a T-piece resuscitator to deliver PPV is preferred to the use of a self-inflating bag.

Because both T-piece resuscitators and flow-inflating bags require a compressed gas source to function, a self-inflating bag should be available as a backup in the event of compressed gas failure when using either of these devices.

Use of a supraglottic airway may be considered as the primary interface to administer PPV instead of a face mask for newborn infants delivered at 34 0/7 weeks’ gestation or later.


 

Continued Emphasis on Delayed Cord Clamping

The updated guidelines “continue to emphasize delayed cord clamping for both term and preterm newborn infants when clinically possible. There is also a new recommendation for nonvigorous infants born 35-42 weeks’ gestational age to consider umbilical cord milking,” Dr. Lee said in an interview.

Specifically, the guidelines state: 

• For term and late preterm newborn infants ≥34 weeks’ gestation, and preterm newborn infants <34 weeks’ gestation, who do not require resuscitation, delayed cord clamping (≥30 seconds) can be beneficial compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds).
• For term and late preterm newborn infants ≥34 weeks’ gestation who do not require resuscitation, intact cord milking is not known to be beneficial compared with delayed cord clamping (≥30 seconds).
• For preterm newborn infants between 28- and 34-weeks’ gestation who do not require resuscitation and in whom delayed cord clamping cannot be performed, intact cord milking may be reasonable.
• For preterm newborn infants <28 weeks’ gestation, intact cord milking is not recommended.
• For nonvigorous term and late preterm infants (35-42 weeks’ gestation), intact cord milking may be reasonable compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds).

The guidelines also highlight the following knowledge gaps that require further research:

• Optimal management of the umbilical cord in term, late preterm, and preterm infants who require resuscitation at delivery
• Longer-term outcome data, such as anemia during infancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes, for all umbilical cord management strategies
• Cost-effectiveness of a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag
• The effect of a self-inflating bag with a positive end-expiratory pressure valve on outcomes in preterm newborn infants
• Comparison of either a T-piece resuscitator or a self-inflating bag with a flow-inflating bag for administering PPV
• Comparison of clinical outcomes by gestational age for any PPV device
• Comparison of supraglottic airway devices and face masks as the primary interface for PPV in high-resourced settings
• The amount and type of training required for successful supraglottic airway insertion and the potential for skill decay
• The utility of supraglottic airway devices for suctioning secretions from the airway
• The efficacy of a supraglottic airway during advanced neonatal resuscitation requiring chest compressions or the delivery of intratracheal medications

This research had no commercial funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association (AHA) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have issued a focused update to the 2020 neonatal resuscitation guidelines.

The 2023 focused update was prompted by four systematic literature reviews by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) Neonatal Life Support Task Force.

“Evidence evaluations by the ILCOR play a large role in the group’s process and timing of updates,” Henry Lee, MD, co-chair of the writing group, said in an interview.

He noted that updated recommendations do not change prior recommendations from the 2020 guidelines.

“However, they provide additional details to consider in neonatal resuscitation that could lead to changes in some practice in various settings,” said Dr. Lee, medical director of the University of California San Diego neonatal intensive care unit. 

The focused update was simultaneously published online November 16 in Circulation and in Pediatrics.

Dr. Lee noted that effective positive-pressure ventilation (PPV) is the priority in newborn infants who need support after birth.

And while the 2020 update provided some details on devices to be used for PPV, the 2023 focused update gives guidance on use of T-piece resuscitators for providing PPV, which may be particularly helpful for preterm infants, and the use of supraglottic airways as a primary interface to deliver PPV, he explained.

Specifically, the updated guidelines state that use of a T-piece resuscitator to deliver PPV is preferred to the use of a self-inflating bag.

Because both T-piece resuscitators and flow-inflating bags require a compressed gas source to function, a self-inflating bag should be available as a backup in the event of compressed gas failure when using either of these devices.

Use of a supraglottic airway may be considered as the primary interface to administer PPV instead of a face mask for newborn infants delivered at 34 0/7 weeks’ gestation or later.


 

Continued Emphasis on Delayed Cord Clamping

The updated guidelines “continue to emphasize delayed cord clamping for both term and preterm newborn infants when clinically possible. There is also a new recommendation for nonvigorous infants born 35-42 weeks’ gestational age to consider umbilical cord milking,” Dr. Lee said in an interview.

Specifically, the guidelines state: 

• For term and late preterm newborn infants ≥34 weeks’ gestation, and preterm newborn infants <34 weeks’ gestation, who do not require resuscitation, delayed cord clamping (≥30 seconds) can be beneficial compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds).
• For term and late preterm newborn infants ≥34 weeks’ gestation who do not require resuscitation, intact cord milking is not known to be beneficial compared with delayed cord clamping (≥30 seconds).
• For preterm newborn infants between 28- and 34-weeks’ gestation who do not require resuscitation and in whom delayed cord clamping cannot be performed, intact cord milking may be reasonable.
• For preterm newborn infants <28 weeks’ gestation, intact cord milking is not recommended.
• For nonvigorous term and late preterm infants (35-42 weeks’ gestation), intact cord milking may be reasonable compared with early cord clamping (<30 seconds).

The guidelines also highlight the following knowledge gaps that require further research:

• Optimal management of the umbilical cord in term, late preterm, and preterm infants who require resuscitation at delivery
• Longer-term outcome data, such as anemia during infancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes, for all umbilical cord management strategies
• Cost-effectiveness of a T-piece resuscitator compared with a self-inflating bag
• The effect of a self-inflating bag with a positive end-expiratory pressure valve on outcomes in preterm newborn infants
• Comparison of either a T-piece resuscitator or a self-inflating bag with a flow-inflating bag for administering PPV
• Comparison of clinical outcomes by gestational age for any PPV device
• Comparison of supraglottic airway devices and face masks as the primary interface for PPV in high-resourced settings
• The amount and type of training required for successful supraglottic airway insertion and the potential for skill decay
• The utility of supraglottic airway devices for suctioning secretions from the airway
• The efficacy of a supraglottic airway during advanced neonatal resuscitation requiring chest compressions or the delivery of intratracheal medications

This research had no commercial funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) have issued an updated guideline for preventing and optimally managing atrial fibrillation (AF).

The 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation.

“The new guideline has important changes,” including a new way to classify AF, Jose Joglar, MD, professor of cardiac electrophysiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and chair of the writing committee, said in an interview.

The previous classification was largely based only on arrhythmia duration and tended to emphasize specific therapeutic interventions rather than a more holistic and multidisciplinary management approach, Dr. Joglar explained.

The new proposed classification, using four stages, recognizes AF as a disease continuum that requires a variety of strategies at different stages, from prevention, lifestyle and risk factor modification, screening, and therapy.

Stage 1: At risk for AF due to the presence of risk factors

Stage 2: Pre-AF, with evidence of structural or electrical findings predisposing to AF

Stage 3: AF, including paroxysmal (3A), persistent (3B), long-standing persistent (3C), successful AF ablation (3D)

Stage 4: Permanent AF

The updated guideline recognizes lifestyle and risk factor modification as a “pillar” of AF management and offers “more prescriptive” recommendations, including management of obesity, weight loss, physical activity, smoking cessation, alcohol moderation, hypertension, and other comorbidities.

“We should not only be telling patients they need to be healthy, which doesn’t mean much to a patient, we need to tell them precisely what they need to do. For example, how much exercise to do or how much weight to lose to have a benefit,” Dr. Joglar said in an interview.

The good news for many people, he noted, is that coffee, which has had a “bad reputation,” is okay, as the latest data show it doesn’t seem to exacerbate AF.

The new guideline continues to endorse use of the CHA2DS2-VASc score as the predictor of choice to determine the risk of stroke, but it also allows for flexibility to use other calculators when uncertainty exists or when other risk factors, such as kidney disease, need to be included.

With the emergence of “new and consistent” evidence, the guideline also emphasizes the importance of early and continued management of patients with AF with a focus on maintaining sinus rhythm and minimizing AF burden.

Catheter ablation of AF is given a class 1 indication as first-line therapy in selected patients, including those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

That’s based on recent randomized studies that have shown catheter ablation to be “superior to pharmacological therapy” for rhythm control in appropriately selected patients, Dr. Joglar told this news organization.

“There’s no need to try pharmacological therapies after a discussion between the patient and doctor and they decide that they want to proceed with the most effective intervention,” he added.

The new guideline also upgrades the class of recommendation for left atrial appendage occlusion devices to 2a, compared with the 2019 AF Focused Update, for use of these devices in patients with long-term contraindications to anticoagulation.

It also provides updated recommendations for AF detected via implantable devices and wearables as well as recommendations for patients with AF identified during medical illness or surgery.

Development of the guideline had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the writing group are available with the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) have issued an updated guideline for preventing and optimally managing atrial fibrillation (AF).

The 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation.

“The new guideline has important changes,” including a new way to classify AF, Jose Joglar, MD, professor of cardiac electrophysiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and chair of the writing committee, said in an interview.

The previous classification was largely based only on arrhythmia duration and tended to emphasize specific therapeutic interventions rather than a more holistic and multidisciplinary management approach, Dr. Joglar explained.

The new proposed classification, using four stages, recognizes AF as a disease continuum that requires a variety of strategies at different stages, from prevention, lifestyle and risk factor modification, screening, and therapy.

Stage 1: At risk for AF due to the presence of risk factors

Stage 2: Pre-AF, with evidence of structural or electrical findings predisposing to AF

Stage 3: AF, including paroxysmal (3A), persistent (3B), long-standing persistent (3C), successful AF ablation (3D)

Stage 4: Permanent AF

The updated guideline recognizes lifestyle and risk factor modification as a “pillar” of AF management and offers “more prescriptive” recommendations, including management of obesity, weight loss, physical activity, smoking cessation, alcohol moderation, hypertension, and other comorbidities.

“We should not only be telling patients they need to be healthy, which doesn’t mean much to a patient, we need to tell them precisely what they need to do. For example, how much exercise to do or how much weight to lose to have a benefit,” Dr. Joglar said in an interview.

The good news for many people, he noted, is that coffee, which has had a “bad reputation,” is okay, as the latest data show it doesn’t seem to exacerbate AF.

The new guideline continues to endorse use of the CHA2DS2-VASc score as the predictor of choice to determine the risk of stroke, but it also allows for flexibility to use other calculators when uncertainty exists or when other risk factors, such as kidney disease, need to be included.

With the emergence of “new and consistent” evidence, the guideline also emphasizes the importance of early and continued management of patients with AF with a focus on maintaining sinus rhythm and minimizing AF burden.

Catheter ablation of AF is given a class 1 indication as first-line therapy in selected patients, including those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

That’s based on recent randomized studies that have shown catheter ablation to be “superior to pharmacological therapy” for rhythm control in appropriately selected patients, Dr. Joglar told this news organization.

“There’s no need to try pharmacological therapies after a discussion between the patient and doctor and they decide that they want to proceed with the most effective intervention,” he added.

The new guideline also upgrades the class of recommendation for left atrial appendage occlusion devices to 2a, compared with the 2019 AF Focused Update, for use of these devices in patients with long-term contraindications to anticoagulation.

It also provides updated recommendations for AF detected via implantable devices and wearables as well as recommendations for patients with AF identified during medical illness or surgery.

Development of the guideline had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the writing group are available with the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) have issued an updated guideline for preventing and optimally managing atrial fibrillation (AF).

The 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation.

“The new guideline has important changes,” including a new way to classify AF, Jose Joglar, MD, professor of cardiac electrophysiology at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and chair of the writing committee, said in an interview.

The previous classification was largely based only on arrhythmia duration and tended to emphasize specific therapeutic interventions rather than a more holistic and multidisciplinary management approach, Dr. Joglar explained.

The new proposed classification, using four stages, recognizes AF as a disease continuum that requires a variety of strategies at different stages, from prevention, lifestyle and risk factor modification, screening, and therapy.

Stage 1: At risk for AF due to the presence of risk factors

Stage 2: Pre-AF, with evidence of structural or electrical findings predisposing to AF

Stage 3: AF, including paroxysmal (3A), persistent (3B), long-standing persistent (3C), successful AF ablation (3D)

Stage 4: Permanent AF

The updated guideline recognizes lifestyle and risk factor modification as a “pillar” of AF management and offers “more prescriptive” recommendations, including management of obesity, weight loss, physical activity, smoking cessation, alcohol moderation, hypertension, and other comorbidities.

“We should not only be telling patients they need to be healthy, which doesn’t mean much to a patient, we need to tell them precisely what they need to do. For example, how much exercise to do or how much weight to lose to have a benefit,” Dr. Joglar said in an interview.

The good news for many people, he noted, is that coffee, which has had a “bad reputation,” is okay, as the latest data show it doesn’t seem to exacerbate AF.

The new guideline continues to endorse use of the CHA2DS2-VASc score as the predictor of choice to determine the risk of stroke, but it also allows for flexibility to use other calculators when uncertainty exists or when other risk factors, such as kidney disease, need to be included.

With the emergence of “new and consistent” evidence, the guideline also emphasizes the importance of early and continued management of patients with AF with a focus on maintaining sinus rhythm and minimizing AF burden.

Catheter ablation of AF is given a class 1 indication as first-line therapy in selected patients, including those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

That’s based on recent randomized studies that have shown catheter ablation to be “superior to pharmacological therapy” for rhythm control in appropriately selected patients, Dr. Joglar told this news organization.

“There’s no need to try pharmacological therapies after a discussion between the patient and doctor and they decide that they want to proceed with the most effective intervention,” he added.

The new guideline also upgrades the class of recommendation for left atrial appendage occlusion devices to 2a, compared with the 2019 AF Focused Update, for use of these devices in patients with long-term contraindications to anticoagulation.

It also provides updated recommendations for AF detected via implantable devices and wearables as well as recommendations for patients with AF identified during medical illness or surgery.

Development of the guideline had no commercial funding. Disclosures for the writing group are available with the original articles.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – In the spring of 2024, the American College of Rheumatology is expected to release guidelines to help inform the screening, monitoring, and treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs).

The guidelines, which were previewed during a session at the ACR’s annual meeting, will include 50 recommendations, 3 of which met criteria for a strong rating:

• For people with SARDs at increased risk of developing ILD, the authors strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy.
• For people with systemic sclerosis (SSc)-related ILD, the authors strongly recommend against glucocorticoids as a first-line ILD treatment.
• For people with SSc-related ILD progression despite an initial ILD treatment, the authors strongly recommend against using long-term glucocorticoids.

Elana J. Bernstein, MD, MSc, a rheumatologist who directs the Columbia/New York-Presbyterian Scleroderma Center, and Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, a rheumatologist who directs the Toronto Scleroderma Program at the University of Toronto, provided a sneak peek of the recommendations to attendees before anticipated publication in Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care & Research. For now, guideline summaries for screening and monitoring and treatment are currently available, and three manuscripts are under peer review: one about screening and monitoring, one about treatment, and one about the patient panel that participated in the effort.

Bernstein_Elana_NY_web.jpg

Pediatric patients with SARDs excluded

The guidelines’ population of interest was people 17 years of age and older who were diagnosed with SARDs with a high risk of ILD. Pediatric patients with SARDs were excluded from the endeavor, as were those with systemic lupus erythematosus, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, sarcoidosis, ankylosing spondylitis, undifferentiated connective tissue disease, interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features, and those with unclassifiable ILD.

In the realm of screening, the guideline authors conditionally recommend two screening tests for patients considered at increased risk of ILD: pulmonary function tests and high-resolution chest CT (HRCT). Pulmonary function tests should include spirometry, lung volumes, and diffusion capacity. “Office spirometry alone is insufficient,” said Dr. Johnson, who served as lead author of the guidelines. And while a HRCT scan is recommended, “some patients may present to the emergency room with acute onset shortness of breath, and they may receive a CT angiogram to screen for pulmonary embolism,” she said. “It’s important to note that CT angiograms are performed in incomplete inspiration to maximize pulmonary artery enhancement. This may produce atelectasis that may obscure or mimic ILD. As a result, CTA studies are often inadequate to screen for ILD.”

Once a patient is diagnosed with ILD, three tests are recommended for monitoring: pulmonary function testing (every 3-6 months the first year in patients with IIM and SSc, then less frequently once stable, and every 3-12 months in the first year in patients with RA, SjD, and MCTD, then less frequently once stable); ambulatory desaturation testing every 3-12 months; and HRCT as needed. Dr. Johnson noted that while that the screening of ILD lies within the realm of rheumatologists, “once a patient is diagnosed, we are encouraged to comanage these patients with pulmonologists,” she said. “Ambulatory desaturation testing is not an infrequent test in the hands of pulmonologists. This is where co-management can be helpful.” She characterized a 6-minute walk test with continuous oximetry as “insufficient and is not synonymous with ambulatory desaturation testing. Ambulatory desaturation testing includes up titration of oxygen if a patient desaturates.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend against using chest radiography, 6-minute walk test distance, ambulatory desaturation testing, and bronchoscopy for ILD screening, and there is a strong recommendation against surgical lung biopsy. “However, there are unique circumstances where these tests may be considered,” Dr. Johnson said. “For example, ambulatory desaturation testing may be helpful if a patient is unable to perform a pulmonary function test. Bronchoscopy may be used to rule out infection, sarcoidosis, lymphoma, or alveolar hemorrhage, and surgical lung biopsy may be considered if you’re trying to rule out a malignancy.”

Similarly, several tests are conditionally recommended against for the monitoring of ILD, including chest radiography, the 6-minute walk test distance, and bronchoscopy. “But there are unique circumstances where they may be considered,” she said. “The 6-minute walk test may be used if a patient is unable to perform a pulmonary function test or if they’re being assessed for lung transplantation. Bronchoscopy may be used to rule out infection or alveolar hemorrhage.”
 

Preferred treatment options described

First-line treatment recommendations for ILD were based on the best available published evidence, voting panel expertise, and patient preferences. For SSc, the preferred treatment options include mycophenolate (CellCept), tocilizumab (Actemra), or rituximab (Rituxan and biosimilars), while additional options include cyclophosphamide, nintedanib (Ofev), and azathioprine. For myositis, the preferred treatment options include mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, or calcineurin inhibitors, while additional options include a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor or cyclophosphamide. For MCTD, the preferred treatment options include mycophenolate, azathioprine, or rituximab, while additional options include tocilizumab or cyclophosphamide. For RA and Sjögren’s, the preferred treatment options include mycophenolate, azathioprine, or rituximab, while additional options include cyclophosphamide. Dr. Johnson emphasized that there was low certainty evidence to recommend one treatment over another. “Many situations might lead a provider to choose a different option for ILD treatment, such as the presence of comorbidities or extra-pulmonary disease,” she said. “So, while our guidelines were focused on effectiveness for ILD, providers may choose therapies that will help ILD and other disease manifestations.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend a short course of glucocorticoids as a bridging therapy or for treatment of a flare of ILD in patients with myositis, MCTD, RA, and Sjögren’s. The panel strongly recommends against the use of glucocorticoids in patients with SSc due to the concern for inducing a scleroderma renal crisis. “While this may be common knowledge for rheumatologists, it may not be common knowledge for pulmonologists,” she said. “So here is an opportunity to educate our pulmonology colleagues in our consultation notes.”

The guidelines also include recommendations for progression of ILD, which was defined using the INBUILD trial criteria. Mycophenolate is conditionally recommended to be the first ILD treatment for all SARDs when progression occurs, if it wasn’t the first ILD treatment used. “If it was, then other medications that rheumatologists are used to can be considered as the next ILD treatment in the face of progression: rituximab, nintedanib, tocilizumab, and cyclophosphamide,” she said. The guidelines include a conditional recommendation against long-term glucocorticoid use in myositis, MCTD, RA, and Sjögren’s, plus a strong recommendation against long-term glucocorticoid use in SSc. Finally, there is a conditional recommendation of referral for lung transplant evaluation at the appropriate time at experienced centers.

Johnson_Sindhu_CANADA_3_web.jpg

A patient panel provided input

For the undertaking, a core team that included six rheumatologists; one pulmonologist; one thoracic radiologist; one expert on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology; and two literature review experts developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. The literature review team included 13 rheumatologists, 8 pulmonologists, and 3 methodologists. Finally, a 21-member patient panel was convened to share their values and preferences regarding screening, monitoring, and treatment of SARD-related ILD. Of these, Dr. Bernstein said that 4 were at risk for ILD and 17 had been diagnosed with ILD. Next, the literature review team conducted a systematic review and used the GRADE methodology to rate the available evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. Then, a voting panel comprising 13 rheumatologists, 10 pulmonologists, 1 radiologist, and 3 patients from the patient panel cast votes for each PICO question and made final recommendations.

The review of evidence left the guidelines authors with 241 PICO questions, “which is a lot,” Dr. Bernstein said. “To put this in perspective, some guidelines address only 10 or 15 PICO questions. Fortunately, we had a dedicated group of experts who were up to the challenge.” Dr. Johnson emphasized that the forthcoming guidelines should not be used by insurers to mandate a specific order of prescribing. “Clinicians must retain the latitude to prescribe medications based on individual patient factors and preferences,” she said.

Dr. Bernstein disclosed that she is an adviser to, a consultant for, and has received grant or research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and has also received grant or research support from Kadmon and Pfizer. Dr. Johnson disclosed that she has received research support from the American College of Rheumatology to develop these guidelines. She has also been an investigator for trials sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Boehringer Ingelheim and has mitigated these relevant conflicts of interest 1 year prior to the development of these guidelines, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

SAN DIEGO – In the spring of 2024, the American College of Rheumatology is expected to release guidelines to help inform the screening, monitoring, and treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs).

The guidelines, which were previewed during a session at the ACR’s annual meeting, will include 50 recommendations, 3 of which met criteria for a strong rating:

• For people with SARDs at increased risk of developing ILD, the authors strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy.
• For people with systemic sclerosis (SSc)-related ILD, the authors strongly recommend against glucocorticoids as a first-line ILD treatment.
• For people with SSc-related ILD progression despite an initial ILD treatment, the authors strongly recommend against using long-term glucocorticoids.

Elana J. Bernstein, MD, MSc, a rheumatologist who directs the Columbia/New York-Presbyterian Scleroderma Center, and Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, a rheumatologist who directs the Toronto Scleroderma Program at the University of Toronto, provided a sneak peek of the recommendations to attendees before anticipated publication in Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care & Research. For now, guideline summaries for screening and monitoring and treatment are currently available, and three manuscripts are under peer review: one about screening and monitoring, one about treatment, and one about the patient panel that participated in the effort.

Bernstein_Elana_NY_web.jpg

Pediatric patients with SARDs excluded

The guidelines’ population of interest was people 17 years of age and older who were diagnosed with SARDs with a high risk of ILD. Pediatric patients with SARDs were excluded from the endeavor, as were those with systemic lupus erythematosus, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, sarcoidosis, ankylosing spondylitis, undifferentiated connective tissue disease, interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features, and those with unclassifiable ILD.

In the realm of screening, the guideline authors conditionally recommend two screening tests for patients considered at increased risk of ILD: pulmonary function tests and high-resolution chest CT (HRCT). Pulmonary function tests should include spirometry, lung volumes, and diffusion capacity. “Office spirometry alone is insufficient,” said Dr. Johnson, who served as lead author of the guidelines. And while a HRCT scan is recommended, “some patients may present to the emergency room with acute onset shortness of breath, and they may receive a CT angiogram to screen for pulmonary embolism,” she said. “It’s important to note that CT angiograms are performed in incomplete inspiration to maximize pulmonary artery enhancement. This may produce atelectasis that may obscure or mimic ILD. As a result, CTA studies are often inadequate to screen for ILD.”

Once a patient is diagnosed with ILD, three tests are recommended for monitoring: pulmonary function testing (every 3-6 months the first year in patients with IIM and SSc, then less frequently once stable, and every 3-12 months in the first year in patients with RA, SjD, and MCTD, then less frequently once stable); ambulatory desaturation testing every 3-12 months; and HRCT as needed. Dr. Johnson noted that while that the screening of ILD lies within the realm of rheumatologists, “once a patient is diagnosed, we are encouraged to comanage these patients with pulmonologists,” she said. “Ambulatory desaturation testing is not an infrequent test in the hands of pulmonologists. This is where co-management can be helpful.” She characterized a 6-minute walk test with continuous oximetry as “insufficient and is not synonymous with ambulatory desaturation testing. Ambulatory desaturation testing includes up titration of oxygen if a patient desaturates.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend against using chest radiography, 6-minute walk test distance, ambulatory desaturation testing, and bronchoscopy for ILD screening, and there is a strong recommendation against surgical lung biopsy. “However, there are unique circumstances where these tests may be considered,” Dr. Johnson said. “For example, ambulatory desaturation testing may be helpful if a patient is unable to perform a pulmonary function test. Bronchoscopy may be used to rule out infection, sarcoidosis, lymphoma, or alveolar hemorrhage, and surgical lung biopsy may be considered if you’re trying to rule out a malignancy.”

Similarly, several tests are conditionally recommended against for the monitoring of ILD, including chest radiography, the 6-minute walk test distance, and bronchoscopy. “But there are unique circumstances where they may be considered,” she said. “The 6-minute walk test may be used if a patient is unable to perform a pulmonary function test or if they’re being assessed for lung transplantation. Bronchoscopy may be used to rule out infection or alveolar hemorrhage.”
 

Preferred treatment options described

First-line treatment recommendations for ILD were based on the best available published evidence, voting panel expertise, and patient preferences. For SSc, the preferred treatment options include mycophenolate (CellCept), tocilizumab (Actemra), or rituximab (Rituxan and biosimilars), while additional options include cyclophosphamide, nintedanib (Ofev), and azathioprine. For myositis, the preferred treatment options include mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, or calcineurin inhibitors, while additional options include a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor or cyclophosphamide. For MCTD, the preferred treatment options include mycophenolate, azathioprine, or rituximab, while additional options include tocilizumab or cyclophosphamide. For RA and Sjögren’s, the preferred treatment options include mycophenolate, azathioprine, or rituximab, while additional options include cyclophosphamide. Dr. Johnson emphasized that there was low certainty evidence to recommend one treatment over another. “Many situations might lead a provider to choose a different option for ILD treatment, such as the presence of comorbidities or extra-pulmonary disease,” she said. “So, while our guidelines were focused on effectiveness for ILD, providers may choose therapies that will help ILD and other disease manifestations.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend a short course of glucocorticoids as a bridging therapy or for treatment of a flare of ILD in patients with myositis, MCTD, RA, and Sjögren’s. The panel strongly recommends against the use of glucocorticoids in patients with SSc due to the concern for inducing a scleroderma renal crisis. “While this may be common knowledge for rheumatologists, it may not be common knowledge for pulmonologists,” she said. “So here is an opportunity to educate our pulmonology colleagues in our consultation notes.”

The guidelines also include recommendations for progression of ILD, which was defined using the INBUILD trial criteria. Mycophenolate is conditionally recommended to be the first ILD treatment for all SARDs when progression occurs, if it wasn’t the first ILD treatment used. “If it was, then other medications that rheumatologists are used to can be considered as the next ILD treatment in the face of progression: rituximab, nintedanib, tocilizumab, and cyclophosphamide,” she said. The guidelines include a conditional recommendation against long-term glucocorticoid use in myositis, MCTD, RA, and Sjögren’s, plus a strong recommendation against long-term glucocorticoid use in SSc. Finally, there is a conditional recommendation of referral for lung transplant evaluation at the appropriate time at experienced centers.

Johnson_Sindhu_CANADA_3_web.jpg

A patient panel provided input

For the undertaking, a core team that included six rheumatologists; one pulmonologist; one thoracic radiologist; one expert on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology; and two literature review experts developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. The literature review team included 13 rheumatologists, 8 pulmonologists, and 3 methodologists. Finally, a 21-member patient panel was convened to share their values and preferences regarding screening, monitoring, and treatment of SARD-related ILD. Of these, Dr. Bernstein said that 4 were at risk for ILD and 17 had been diagnosed with ILD. Next, the literature review team conducted a systematic review and used the GRADE methodology to rate the available evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. Then, a voting panel comprising 13 rheumatologists, 10 pulmonologists, 1 radiologist, and 3 patients from the patient panel cast votes for each PICO question and made final recommendations.

The review of evidence left the guidelines authors with 241 PICO questions, “which is a lot,” Dr. Bernstein said. “To put this in perspective, some guidelines address only 10 or 15 PICO questions. Fortunately, we had a dedicated group of experts who were up to the challenge.” Dr. Johnson emphasized that the forthcoming guidelines should not be used by insurers to mandate a specific order of prescribing. “Clinicians must retain the latitude to prescribe medications based on individual patient factors and preferences,” she said.

Dr. Bernstein disclosed that she is an adviser to, a consultant for, and has received grant or research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and has also received grant or research support from Kadmon and Pfizer. Dr. Johnson disclosed that she has received research support from the American College of Rheumatology to develop these guidelines. She has also been an investigator for trials sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Boehringer Ingelheim and has mitigated these relevant conflicts of interest 1 year prior to the development of these guidelines, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

SAN DIEGO – In the spring of 2024, the American College of Rheumatology is expected to release guidelines to help inform the screening, monitoring, and treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs).

The guidelines, which were previewed during a session at the ACR’s annual meeting, will include 50 recommendations, 3 of which met criteria for a strong rating:

• For people with SARDs at increased risk of developing ILD, the authors strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy.
• For people with systemic sclerosis (SSc)-related ILD, the authors strongly recommend against glucocorticoids as a first-line ILD treatment.
• For people with SSc-related ILD progression despite an initial ILD treatment, the authors strongly recommend against using long-term glucocorticoids.

Elana J. Bernstein, MD, MSc, a rheumatologist who directs the Columbia/New York-Presbyterian Scleroderma Center, and Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, a rheumatologist who directs the Toronto Scleroderma Program at the University of Toronto, provided a sneak peek of the recommendations to attendees before anticipated publication in Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care & Research. For now, guideline summaries for screening and monitoring and treatment are currently available, and three manuscripts are under peer review: one about screening and monitoring, one about treatment, and one about the patient panel that participated in the effort.

Bernstein_Elana_NY_web.jpg

Pediatric patients with SARDs excluded

The guidelines’ population of interest was people 17 years of age and older who were diagnosed with SARDs with a high risk of ILD. Pediatric patients with SARDs were excluded from the endeavor, as were those with systemic lupus erythematosus, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, sarcoidosis, ankylosing spondylitis, undifferentiated connective tissue disease, interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features, and those with unclassifiable ILD.

In the realm of screening, the guideline authors conditionally recommend two screening tests for patients considered at increased risk of ILD: pulmonary function tests and high-resolution chest CT (HRCT). Pulmonary function tests should include spirometry, lung volumes, and diffusion capacity. “Office spirometry alone is insufficient,” said Dr. Johnson, who served as lead author of the guidelines. And while a HRCT scan is recommended, “some patients may present to the emergency room with acute onset shortness of breath, and they may receive a CT angiogram to screen for pulmonary embolism,” she said. “It’s important to note that CT angiograms are performed in incomplete inspiration to maximize pulmonary artery enhancement. This may produce atelectasis that may obscure or mimic ILD. As a result, CTA studies are often inadequate to screen for ILD.”

Once a patient is diagnosed with ILD, three tests are recommended for monitoring: pulmonary function testing (every 3-6 months the first year in patients with IIM and SSc, then less frequently once stable, and every 3-12 months in the first year in patients with RA, SjD, and MCTD, then less frequently once stable); ambulatory desaturation testing every 3-12 months; and HRCT as needed. Dr. Johnson noted that while that the screening of ILD lies within the realm of rheumatologists, “once a patient is diagnosed, we are encouraged to comanage these patients with pulmonologists,” she said. “Ambulatory desaturation testing is not an infrequent test in the hands of pulmonologists. This is where co-management can be helpful.” She characterized a 6-minute walk test with continuous oximetry as “insufficient and is not synonymous with ambulatory desaturation testing. Ambulatory desaturation testing includes up titration of oxygen if a patient desaturates.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend against using chest radiography, 6-minute walk test distance, ambulatory desaturation testing, and bronchoscopy for ILD screening, and there is a strong recommendation against surgical lung biopsy. “However, there are unique circumstances where these tests may be considered,” Dr. Johnson said. “For example, ambulatory desaturation testing may be helpful if a patient is unable to perform a pulmonary function test. Bronchoscopy may be used to rule out infection, sarcoidosis, lymphoma, or alveolar hemorrhage, and surgical lung biopsy may be considered if you’re trying to rule out a malignancy.”

Similarly, several tests are conditionally recommended against for the monitoring of ILD, including chest radiography, the 6-minute walk test distance, and bronchoscopy. “But there are unique circumstances where they may be considered,” she said. “The 6-minute walk test may be used if a patient is unable to perform a pulmonary function test or if they’re being assessed for lung transplantation. Bronchoscopy may be used to rule out infection or alveolar hemorrhage.”
 

Preferred treatment options described

First-line treatment recommendations for ILD were based on the best available published evidence, voting panel expertise, and patient preferences. For SSc, the preferred treatment options include mycophenolate (CellCept), tocilizumab (Actemra), or rituximab (Rituxan and biosimilars), while additional options include cyclophosphamide, nintedanib (Ofev), and azathioprine. For myositis, the preferred treatment options include mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, or calcineurin inhibitors, while additional options include a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor or cyclophosphamide. For MCTD, the preferred treatment options include mycophenolate, azathioprine, or rituximab, while additional options include tocilizumab or cyclophosphamide. For RA and Sjögren’s, the preferred treatment options include mycophenolate, azathioprine, or rituximab, while additional options include cyclophosphamide. Dr. Johnson emphasized that there was low certainty evidence to recommend one treatment over another. “Many situations might lead a provider to choose a different option for ILD treatment, such as the presence of comorbidities or extra-pulmonary disease,” she said. “So, while our guidelines were focused on effectiveness for ILD, providers may choose therapies that will help ILD and other disease manifestations.”

The guidelines conditionally recommend a short course of glucocorticoids as a bridging therapy or for treatment of a flare of ILD in patients with myositis, MCTD, RA, and Sjögren’s. The panel strongly recommends against the use of glucocorticoids in patients with SSc due to the concern for inducing a scleroderma renal crisis. “While this may be common knowledge for rheumatologists, it may not be common knowledge for pulmonologists,” she said. “So here is an opportunity to educate our pulmonology colleagues in our consultation notes.”

The guidelines also include recommendations for progression of ILD, which was defined using the INBUILD trial criteria. Mycophenolate is conditionally recommended to be the first ILD treatment for all SARDs when progression occurs, if it wasn’t the first ILD treatment used. “If it was, then other medications that rheumatologists are used to can be considered as the next ILD treatment in the face of progression: rituximab, nintedanib, tocilizumab, and cyclophosphamide,” she said. The guidelines include a conditional recommendation against long-term glucocorticoid use in myositis, MCTD, RA, and Sjögren’s, plus a strong recommendation against long-term glucocorticoid use in SSc. Finally, there is a conditional recommendation of referral for lung transplant evaluation at the appropriate time at experienced centers.

Johnson_Sindhu_CANADA_3_web.jpg

A patient panel provided input

For the undertaking, a core team that included six rheumatologists; one pulmonologist; one thoracic radiologist; one expert on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology; and two literature review experts developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. The literature review team included 13 rheumatologists, 8 pulmonologists, and 3 methodologists. Finally, a 21-member patient panel was convened to share their values and preferences regarding screening, monitoring, and treatment of SARD-related ILD. Of these, Dr. Bernstein said that 4 were at risk for ILD and 17 had been diagnosed with ILD. Next, the literature review team conducted a systematic review and used the GRADE methodology to rate the available evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. Then, a voting panel comprising 13 rheumatologists, 10 pulmonologists, 1 radiologist, and 3 patients from the patient panel cast votes for each PICO question and made final recommendations.

The review of evidence left the guidelines authors with 241 PICO questions, “which is a lot,” Dr. Bernstein said. “To put this in perspective, some guidelines address only 10 or 15 PICO questions. Fortunately, we had a dedicated group of experts who were up to the challenge.” Dr. Johnson emphasized that the forthcoming guidelines should not be used by insurers to mandate a specific order of prescribing. “Clinicians must retain the latitude to prescribe medications based on individual patient factors and preferences,” she said.

Dr. Bernstein disclosed that she is an adviser to, a consultant for, and has received grant or research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and has also received grant or research support from Kadmon and Pfizer. Dr. Johnson disclosed that she has received research support from the American College of Rheumatology to develop these guidelines. She has also been an investigator for trials sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, and Boehringer Ingelheim and has mitigated these relevant conflicts of interest 1 year prior to the development of these guidelines, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.