Federal Practitioner

Artificial intelligence chatbots can give accurate information to common questions about cancer but not so much when it comes to providing evidence-based cancer treatment recommendations, two new studies suggest.

AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT (OpenAI), are becoming go-to sources for health information. However, no studies have rigorously evaluated the quality of their medical advice, especially for cancer.

Two new studies published in JAMA Oncology did just that.

One, which looked at common cancer-related Google searches, found that AI chatbots generally provide accurate information to consumers, but the information’s usefulness may be limited by its complexity.

The other, which assessed cancer treatment recommendations, found that AI chatbots overall missed the mark on providing recommendations for breast, prostate, and lung cancers in line with national treatment guidelines.

The medical world is becoming “enamored with our newest potential helper, large language models (LLMs) and in particular chatbots, such as ChatGPT,” Atul Butte, MD, PhD, who heads the Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco, wrote in an editorial accompanying the studies. “But maybe our core belief in GPT technology as a clinical partner has not sufficiently been earned yet.”

The first study by Alexander Pan of the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and colleagues analyzed the quality of responses to the top five most searched questions on skin, lung, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer provided by four AI chatbots: ChatGPT-3.5, Perplexity (Perplexity.AI), Chatsonic (Writesonic), and Bing AI (Microsoft).

Questions included what is skin cancer and what are symptoms of prostate, lung, or breast cancer? The team rated the responses for quality, clarity, actionability, misinformation, and readability.

The researchers found that the four chatbots generated “high-quality” responses about the five cancers and did not appear to spread misinformation. Three of the four chatbots cited reputable sources, such as the American Cancer Society, Mayo Clinic, and Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention, which is “reassuring,” the researchers said.

However, the team also found that the usefulness of the information was “limited” because responses were often written at a college reading level. Another limitation: AI chatbots provided concise answers with no visual aids, which may not be sufficient to explain more complex ideas to consumers.

“These limitations suggest that AI chatbots should be used [supplementally] and not as a primary source for medical information,” the authors said, adding that the chatbots “typically acknowledged their limitations in providing individualized advice and encouraged users to seek medical attention.”

A related study in the journal highlighted the ability of AI chatbots to generate appropriate cancer treatment recommendations.

In this analysis, Shan Chen, MS, with the AI in Medicine Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues benchmarked cancer treatment recommendations made by ChatGPT-3.5 against 2021 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

The team created 104 prompts designed to elicit basic treatment strategies for various types of cancer, including breast, prostate, and lung cancer. Questions included “What is the treatment for stage I breast cancer?” Several oncologists then assessed the level of concordance between the chatbot responses and NCCN guidelines.

In 62% of the prompts and answers, all the recommended treatments aligned with the oncologists’ views.

The chatbot provided at least one guideline-concordant treatment for 98% of prompts. However, for 34% of prompts, the chatbot also recommended at least one nonconcordant treatment.

And about 13% of recommended treatments were “hallucinated,” that is, not part of any recommended treatment. Hallucinations were primarily recommendations for localized treatment of advanced disease, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy.

Based on the findings, the team recommended that clinicians advise patients that AI chatbots are not a reliable source of cancer treatment information.

“The chatbot did not perform well at providing accurate cancer treatment recommendations,” the authors said. “The chatbot was most likely to mix in incorrect recommendations among correct ones, an error difficult even for experts to detect.”

In his editorial, Dr. Butte highlighted several caveats, including that the teams evaluated “off the shelf” chatbots, which likely had no specific medical training, and the prompts

designed in both studies were very basic, which may have limited their specificity or actionability. Newer LLMs with specific health care training are being released, he explained.

Despite the mixed study findings, Dr. Butte remains optimistic about the future of AI in medicine.

“Today, the reality is that the highest-quality care is concentrated within a few premier medical systems like the NCI Comprehensive Cancer Centers, accessible only to a small fraction of the global population,” Dr. Butte explained. “However, AI has the potential to change this.”

How can we make this happen?

AI algorithms would need to be trained with “data from the best medical systems globally” and “the latest guidelines from NCCN and elsewhere.” Digital health platforms powered by AI could then be designed to provide resources and advice to patients around the globe, Dr. Butte said.

Although “these algorithms will need to be carefully monitored as they are brought into health systems,” Dr. Butte said, it does not change their potential to “improve care for both the haves and have-nots of health care.”

The study by Mr. Pan and colleagues had no specific funding; one author, Stacy Loeb, MD, MSc, PhD, reported a disclosure; no other disclosures were reported. The study by Shan Chen and colleagues was supported by the Woods Foundation; several authors reported disclosures outside the submitted work. Dr. Butte disclosed relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence chatbots can give accurate information to common questions about cancer but not so much when it comes to providing evidence-based cancer treatment recommendations, two new studies suggest.

AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT (OpenAI), are becoming go-to sources for health information. However, no studies have rigorously evaluated the quality of their medical advice, especially for cancer.

Two new studies published in JAMA Oncology did just that.

One, which looked at common cancer-related Google searches, found that AI chatbots generally provide accurate information to consumers, but the information’s usefulness may be limited by its complexity.

The other, which assessed cancer treatment recommendations, found that AI chatbots overall missed the mark on providing recommendations for breast, prostate, and lung cancers in line with national treatment guidelines.

The medical world is becoming “enamored with our newest potential helper, large language models (LLMs) and in particular chatbots, such as ChatGPT,” Atul Butte, MD, PhD, who heads the Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco, wrote in an editorial accompanying the studies. “But maybe our core belief in GPT technology as a clinical partner has not sufficiently been earned yet.”

The first study by Alexander Pan of the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and colleagues analyzed the quality of responses to the top five most searched questions on skin, lung, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer provided by four AI chatbots: ChatGPT-3.5, Perplexity (Perplexity.AI), Chatsonic (Writesonic), and Bing AI (Microsoft).

Questions included what is skin cancer and what are symptoms of prostate, lung, or breast cancer? The team rated the responses for quality, clarity, actionability, misinformation, and readability.

The researchers found that the four chatbots generated “high-quality” responses about the five cancers and did not appear to spread misinformation. Three of the four chatbots cited reputable sources, such as the American Cancer Society, Mayo Clinic, and Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention, which is “reassuring,” the researchers said.

However, the team also found that the usefulness of the information was “limited” because responses were often written at a college reading level. Another limitation: AI chatbots provided concise answers with no visual aids, which may not be sufficient to explain more complex ideas to consumers.

“These limitations suggest that AI chatbots should be used [supplementally] and not as a primary source for medical information,” the authors said, adding that the chatbots “typically acknowledged their limitations in providing individualized advice and encouraged users to seek medical attention.”

A related study in the journal highlighted the ability of AI chatbots to generate appropriate cancer treatment recommendations.

In this analysis, Shan Chen, MS, with the AI in Medicine Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues benchmarked cancer treatment recommendations made by ChatGPT-3.5 against 2021 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

The team created 104 prompts designed to elicit basic treatment strategies for various types of cancer, including breast, prostate, and lung cancer. Questions included “What is the treatment for stage I breast cancer?” Several oncologists then assessed the level of concordance between the chatbot responses and NCCN guidelines.

In 62% of the prompts and answers, all the recommended treatments aligned with the oncologists’ views.

The chatbot provided at least one guideline-concordant treatment for 98% of prompts. However, for 34% of prompts, the chatbot also recommended at least one nonconcordant treatment.

And about 13% of recommended treatments were “hallucinated,” that is, not part of any recommended treatment. Hallucinations were primarily recommendations for localized treatment of advanced disease, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy.

Based on the findings, the team recommended that clinicians advise patients that AI chatbots are not a reliable source of cancer treatment information.

“The chatbot did not perform well at providing accurate cancer treatment recommendations,” the authors said. “The chatbot was most likely to mix in incorrect recommendations among correct ones, an error difficult even for experts to detect.”

In his editorial, Dr. Butte highlighted several caveats, including that the teams evaluated “off the shelf” chatbots, which likely had no specific medical training, and the prompts

designed in both studies were very basic, which may have limited their specificity or actionability. Newer LLMs with specific health care training are being released, he explained.

Despite the mixed study findings, Dr. Butte remains optimistic about the future of AI in medicine.

“Today, the reality is that the highest-quality care is concentrated within a few premier medical systems like the NCI Comprehensive Cancer Centers, accessible only to a small fraction of the global population,” Dr. Butte explained. “However, AI has the potential to change this.”

How can we make this happen?

AI algorithms would need to be trained with “data from the best medical systems globally” and “the latest guidelines from NCCN and elsewhere.” Digital health platforms powered by AI could then be designed to provide resources and advice to patients around the globe, Dr. Butte said.

Although “these algorithms will need to be carefully monitored as they are brought into health systems,” Dr. Butte said, it does not change their potential to “improve care for both the haves and have-nots of health care.”

The study by Mr. Pan and colleagues had no specific funding; one author, Stacy Loeb, MD, MSc, PhD, reported a disclosure; no other disclosures were reported. The study by Shan Chen and colleagues was supported by the Woods Foundation; several authors reported disclosures outside the submitted work. Dr. Butte disclosed relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence chatbots can give accurate information to common questions about cancer but not so much when it comes to providing evidence-based cancer treatment recommendations, two new studies suggest.

AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT (OpenAI), are becoming go-to sources for health information. However, no studies have rigorously evaluated the quality of their medical advice, especially for cancer.

Two new studies published in JAMA Oncology did just that.

One, which looked at common cancer-related Google searches, found that AI chatbots generally provide accurate information to consumers, but the information’s usefulness may be limited by its complexity.

The other, which assessed cancer treatment recommendations, found that AI chatbots overall missed the mark on providing recommendations for breast, prostate, and lung cancers in line with national treatment guidelines.

The medical world is becoming “enamored with our newest potential helper, large language models (LLMs) and in particular chatbots, such as ChatGPT,” Atul Butte, MD, PhD, who heads the Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco, wrote in an editorial accompanying the studies. “But maybe our core belief in GPT technology as a clinical partner has not sufficiently been earned yet.”

The first study by Alexander Pan of the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and colleagues analyzed the quality of responses to the top five most searched questions on skin, lung, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer provided by four AI chatbots: ChatGPT-3.5, Perplexity (Perplexity.AI), Chatsonic (Writesonic), and Bing AI (Microsoft).

Questions included what is skin cancer and what are symptoms of prostate, lung, or breast cancer? The team rated the responses for quality, clarity, actionability, misinformation, and readability.

The researchers found that the four chatbots generated “high-quality” responses about the five cancers and did not appear to spread misinformation. Three of the four chatbots cited reputable sources, such as the American Cancer Society, Mayo Clinic, and Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention, which is “reassuring,” the researchers said.

However, the team also found that the usefulness of the information was “limited” because responses were often written at a college reading level. Another limitation: AI chatbots provided concise answers with no visual aids, which may not be sufficient to explain more complex ideas to consumers.

“These limitations suggest that AI chatbots should be used [supplementally] and not as a primary source for medical information,” the authors said, adding that the chatbots “typically acknowledged their limitations in providing individualized advice and encouraged users to seek medical attention.”

A related study in the journal highlighted the ability of AI chatbots to generate appropriate cancer treatment recommendations.

In this analysis, Shan Chen, MS, with the AI in Medicine Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues benchmarked cancer treatment recommendations made by ChatGPT-3.5 against 2021 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

The team created 104 prompts designed to elicit basic treatment strategies for various types of cancer, including breast, prostate, and lung cancer. Questions included “What is the treatment for stage I breast cancer?” Several oncologists then assessed the level of concordance between the chatbot responses and NCCN guidelines.

In 62% of the prompts and answers, all the recommended treatments aligned with the oncologists’ views.

The chatbot provided at least one guideline-concordant treatment for 98% of prompts. However, for 34% of prompts, the chatbot also recommended at least one nonconcordant treatment.

And about 13% of recommended treatments were “hallucinated,” that is, not part of any recommended treatment. Hallucinations were primarily recommendations for localized treatment of advanced disease, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy.

Based on the findings, the team recommended that clinicians advise patients that AI chatbots are not a reliable source of cancer treatment information.

“The chatbot did not perform well at providing accurate cancer treatment recommendations,” the authors said. “The chatbot was most likely to mix in incorrect recommendations among correct ones, an error difficult even for experts to detect.”

In his editorial, Dr. Butte highlighted several caveats, including that the teams evaluated “off the shelf” chatbots, which likely had no specific medical training, and the prompts

designed in both studies were very basic, which may have limited their specificity or actionability. Newer LLMs with specific health care training are being released, he explained.

Despite the mixed study findings, Dr. Butte remains optimistic about the future of AI in medicine.

“Today, the reality is that the highest-quality care is concentrated within a few premier medical systems like the NCI Comprehensive Cancer Centers, accessible only to a small fraction of the global population,” Dr. Butte explained. “However, AI has the potential to change this.”

How can we make this happen?

AI algorithms would need to be trained with “data from the best medical systems globally” and “the latest guidelines from NCCN and elsewhere.” Digital health platforms powered by AI could then be designed to provide resources and advice to patients around the globe, Dr. Butte said.

Although “these algorithms will need to be carefully monitored as they are brought into health systems,” Dr. Butte said, it does not change their potential to “improve care for both the haves and have-nots of health care.”

The study by Mr. Pan and colleagues had no specific funding; one author, Stacy Loeb, MD, MSc, PhD, reported a disclosure; no other disclosures were reported. The study by Shan Chen and colleagues was supported by the Woods Foundation; several authors reported disclosures outside the submitted work. Dr. Butte disclosed relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A year after celebrating the approval of the first treatment for repigmentation of vitiligo, dermatologists describe how topical ruxolitinib has advanced the outlook for patients with the disease and what’s next in the pipeline.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the cream formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), a JAK inhibitor, for repigmentation of nonsegmental vitiligo in July 2022 for people aged 12 years and older.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that he likes to use ruxolitinib cream in combination with other treatments.

Dr. Chovatiya

“In the real world with vitiligo patients, we’re oftentimes doing combinatorial therapy anyway. So phototherapy, specifically, narrow-band UVB, is something that we have a lot of clinical evidence for over the years, and it’s a modality that can combine with topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors.”

He said trials to study combinations will yield better guidance on optimal use of ruxolitinib cream. “In general, vitiligo patients can really benefit from phototherapy,” he said in an interview. (Labeling recommends against combination with other JAK inhibitors, biologics, or potent immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine or cyclosporine.)

This first year has shown that ruxolitinib is an effective option, but counseling patients to expect slow improvement is important so that patients stick with it, he noted.

Documenting what treatments patients with vitiligo have used before is important, he said, as is counseling patients that ruxolitinib is approved only for use on up to 10% of a person’s body surface area. (Product labeling recommends that a thin layer be applied twice a day to affected areas up to 10% of body surface area.)

Ruxolitinib has brought a “louder voice” to vitiligo and has opened up options for patients with the disease, Dr. Chovatiya said. “Having the ability to topically treat people who have very extensive disease really gives us a lot more flexibility than we have had before.”
 

Good experiences with payers at safety-net hospital

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said that real-world experience with topical ruxolitinib will be more evident after its been on the market for 18-24 months.

Dr. Heath said she, too, encourages use of narrow-band UVB phototherapy in conjunction with the treatment.

From an insurance reimbursement standpoint, she said that she is glad that there have been fewer hurdles in getting ruxolitinib to patients than she has experienced with other medications.

In her safety-net hospital, she told this news organization, she sees patients with many types of insurance, but most have Medicaid. “So, I’m always expecting the step therapies, denials, pushbacks, etc.,” she said. But the path has been smoother for ruxolitinib coverage, she noted.

Her colleagues are committed to documenting everything the patient has tried, she added, and that helps with prior authorization.

Dr. Heath said that pointing out to insurers that ruxolitinib is the only approved treatment for repigmentation helps facilitate coverage.

“The science is advancing, and I’m happy to be practicing during a time when we actually have something approved for vitiligo,” she said. But she pointed out that phototherapy often is not covered for vitiligo, “which is horrible, when it is readily approved for psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.”

To document progress, Dr. Heath said that she always takes photographs of her patients with vitiligo because “the pictures remind us how far we have come.”
 

Data spotlight success in adolescents

Data from two trials give a clinical picture of the drug’s safety and efficacy in younger patients.

Adolescents had particularly good results in the first year with ruxolitinib, according to pooled phase 3 data from TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2, this news organization reported.

The findings, presented at the 25th World Congress of Dermatology in Singapore, indicate that more than half of the participants achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in the total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (T-VASI50) at 52 weeks.

The percentages of young patients aged 12-17 years taking twice-daily ruxolitinib who achieved T-VASI 50 at weeks 12, 24, and 52 were 11.5%, 26.9%, and 57.7%, respectively. The corresponding percentages for all in the study population were 10.7%, 22.7%, and 44.4%, respectively.

At the meeting, the presenter, Julien Seneschal, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and head of the vitiligo and pigmentary disorders clinic at the University of Bordeaux, France, said, “This suggests that younger patients can respond better to the treatment.” He noted, however, that there were few adolescents in the studies.
 

New excitement in the field

Daniel Gutierrez, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at New York University, said the treatment has brought new excitement to the field.

“Patients with vitiligo are very motivated to treat their disease,” he said, because it typically is on the face and other highly visual areas, which can affect their overall perception of self.

NYU Langone Health

Previously, he noted in an interview, the only FDA-approved treatment was monobenzone, but that was for depigmentation rather than repigmentation.

Otherwise, treatments were being used off label, and patients were receiving compounded formulations that often weren’t covered by insurance and often had shorter shelf life.

He said that he still occasionally gets denials from payers who consider vitiligo a cosmetic condition.

“I’ve had more luck with insurance, at least in the New York State area.” He added that sometimes payers require use of a topical calcineurin inhibitor for about 12 weeks before they will cover ruxolitinib.

Dr. Gutierrez also recommends using phototherapy with topical ruxolitinib “because they work on slightly different pathways.”

When he starts patients on a new therapy such as ruxolitinib, he asks them to come back in 3 months, and often by then, progress is evident. Facial areas show the most response, he said, while hands and feet are less likely to show significant improvement.

He said that it’s important for physicians and patients to know that improvements can take weeks or months to be noticeable. “I tell patients not to give up,” he added.

Showing the patients pictures from the current appointment and comparing them with pictures from previous appointments can help them better understand their progress, he said.
 

Lead investigator adds observations

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, was the lead investigator of the pivotal TruE-V1 and TruE-V2 trials for vitiligo. In that role, he has been treating vitiligo patients with topical ruxolitinib since 2015.

In an interview, he said that many patients “don’t hit their optimal results at 3 months, 6 months, even the year mark. With continued use, many can see continued benefit.”

Other patients, he said, don’t respond within the first 6 months but with continued use may eventually respond, he said.

“Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing, based on clinical characteristics or baseline demographics, whether a patient will be a delayed responder or not or an early responder,” Dr. Rosmarin added.

He provided several observations about people who have stopped taking the medication.

“When people stop,” he said, “some maintain their response, but some start to depigment again. Again, we have no way of predicting who will be in which category.”

He said that once patients have hit their desired response, he usually advises them to taper down to maybe twice a week or to stop treatment, but if they see any recurrence, they should start reusing the medicine.

“We have some patients who have gone 6 or 7 years now before they had a recurrence, but others may start to depigment again in 2 to 3 months,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

As for phototherapy, he said, the combination with topical ruxolitinib is being studied.

“We think the combination is synergistic and better than either alone, but we’re still waiting for data to prove that,” he said.

In his practice, he offers patients the option either to use just ruxolitinib cream or the combination early on. Many patients, because of convenience, say they’ll first try the cream to see if that works.

“The challenge with light [therapy] is that it can be very inconvenient,” he said. Patients have to live close to a phototherapy unit to receive therapy 2-3 times a week or have a phototherapy product in their home.
 

Next in the pipeline

Experts say the progress doesn’t stop with ruxolitinib cream. Current trials of several medications show there’s more to come for patients with vitiligo.

Dr. Chovatiya said that next up may be oral ritlecitinib (Litfulo), a JAK inhibitor that was approved for severe alopecia areata in June for people aged 12 years and older. Phase 2 results have been published for its use with vitiligo.

“This would be an oral medication that may be able to help people with much more extensive disease as far as vitiligo goes,” he said, adding that he expects approval for a vitiligo indication within a few years.

He pointed out that longer-term safety data will be available because it is already on the market for alopecia.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq), an oral JAK inhibitor, is approved for atopic dermatitis but is being studied for vitiligo as well, he noted. “I’m very excited to see what that holds for patients as well,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Dr. Gutierrez said that he is excited about oral JAK inhibitors but sees potential in finding new ways to transplant melanocytes into areas where there are none.

The pigmentation field has seen new energy since last year’s approval, he said, particularly among people of color.

“We have new options for vitiligo that were lacking compared with other conditions, such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis,” he said. “Hopefully, there will be more promising breakthroughs.”

Dr. Rosmarin is the chief investigator for the pivotal trials that led to FDA approval of ruxolitinib. He disclosed ties with AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Viela Bio. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Argenx, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Incyte, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Heath and Dr. Gutierrez report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A year after celebrating the approval of the first treatment for repigmentation of vitiligo, dermatologists describe how topical ruxolitinib has advanced the outlook for patients with the disease and what’s next in the pipeline.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the cream formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), a JAK inhibitor, for repigmentation of nonsegmental vitiligo in July 2022 for people aged 12 years and older.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that he likes to use ruxolitinib cream in combination with other treatments.

Dr. Chovatiya

“In the real world with vitiligo patients, we’re oftentimes doing combinatorial therapy anyway. So phototherapy, specifically, narrow-band UVB, is something that we have a lot of clinical evidence for over the years, and it’s a modality that can combine with topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors.”

He said trials to study combinations will yield better guidance on optimal use of ruxolitinib cream. “In general, vitiligo patients can really benefit from phototherapy,” he said in an interview. (Labeling recommends against combination with other JAK inhibitors, biologics, or potent immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine or cyclosporine.)

This first year has shown that ruxolitinib is an effective option, but counseling patients to expect slow improvement is important so that patients stick with it, he noted.

Documenting what treatments patients with vitiligo have used before is important, he said, as is counseling patients that ruxolitinib is approved only for use on up to 10% of a person’s body surface area. (Product labeling recommends that a thin layer be applied twice a day to affected areas up to 10% of body surface area.)

Ruxolitinib has brought a “louder voice” to vitiligo and has opened up options for patients with the disease, Dr. Chovatiya said. “Having the ability to topically treat people who have very extensive disease really gives us a lot more flexibility than we have had before.”
 

Good experiences with payers at safety-net hospital

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said that real-world experience with topical ruxolitinib will be more evident after its been on the market for 18-24 months.

Dr. Heath said she, too, encourages use of narrow-band UVB phototherapy in conjunction with the treatment.

From an insurance reimbursement standpoint, she said that she is glad that there have been fewer hurdles in getting ruxolitinib to patients than she has experienced with other medications.

In her safety-net hospital, she told this news organization, she sees patients with many types of insurance, but most have Medicaid. “So, I’m always expecting the step therapies, denials, pushbacks, etc.,” she said. But the path has been smoother for ruxolitinib coverage, she noted.

Her colleagues are committed to documenting everything the patient has tried, she added, and that helps with prior authorization.

Dr. Heath said that pointing out to insurers that ruxolitinib is the only approved treatment for repigmentation helps facilitate coverage.

“The science is advancing, and I’m happy to be practicing during a time when we actually have something approved for vitiligo,” she said. But she pointed out that phototherapy often is not covered for vitiligo, “which is horrible, when it is readily approved for psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.”

To document progress, Dr. Heath said that she always takes photographs of her patients with vitiligo because “the pictures remind us how far we have come.”
 

Data spotlight success in adolescents

Data from two trials give a clinical picture of the drug’s safety and efficacy in younger patients.

Adolescents had particularly good results in the first year with ruxolitinib, according to pooled phase 3 data from TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2, this news organization reported.

The findings, presented at the 25th World Congress of Dermatology in Singapore, indicate that more than half of the participants achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in the total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (T-VASI50) at 52 weeks.

The percentages of young patients aged 12-17 years taking twice-daily ruxolitinib who achieved T-VASI 50 at weeks 12, 24, and 52 were 11.5%, 26.9%, and 57.7%, respectively. The corresponding percentages for all in the study population were 10.7%, 22.7%, and 44.4%, respectively.

At the meeting, the presenter, Julien Seneschal, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and head of the vitiligo and pigmentary disorders clinic at the University of Bordeaux, France, said, “This suggests that younger patients can respond better to the treatment.” He noted, however, that there were few adolescents in the studies.
 

New excitement in the field

Daniel Gutierrez, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at New York University, said the treatment has brought new excitement to the field.

“Patients with vitiligo are very motivated to treat their disease,” he said, because it typically is on the face and other highly visual areas, which can affect their overall perception of self.

NYU Langone Health

Previously, he noted in an interview, the only FDA-approved treatment was monobenzone, but that was for depigmentation rather than repigmentation.

Otherwise, treatments were being used off label, and patients were receiving compounded formulations that often weren’t covered by insurance and often had shorter shelf life.

He said that he still occasionally gets denials from payers who consider vitiligo a cosmetic condition.

“I’ve had more luck with insurance, at least in the New York State area.” He added that sometimes payers require use of a topical calcineurin inhibitor for about 12 weeks before they will cover ruxolitinib.

Dr. Gutierrez also recommends using phototherapy with topical ruxolitinib “because they work on slightly different pathways.”

When he starts patients on a new therapy such as ruxolitinib, he asks them to come back in 3 months, and often by then, progress is evident. Facial areas show the most response, he said, while hands and feet are less likely to show significant improvement.

He said that it’s important for physicians and patients to know that improvements can take weeks or months to be noticeable. “I tell patients not to give up,” he added.

Showing the patients pictures from the current appointment and comparing them with pictures from previous appointments can help them better understand their progress, he said.
 

Lead investigator adds observations

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, was the lead investigator of the pivotal TruE-V1 and TruE-V2 trials for vitiligo. In that role, he has been treating vitiligo patients with topical ruxolitinib since 2015.

In an interview, he said that many patients “don’t hit their optimal results at 3 months, 6 months, even the year mark. With continued use, many can see continued benefit.”

Other patients, he said, don’t respond within the first 6 months but with continued use may eventually respond, he said.

“Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing, based on clinical characteristics or baseline demographics, whether a patient will be a delayed responder or not or an early responder,” Dr. Rosmarin added.

He provided several observations about people who have stopped taking the medication.

“When people stop,” he said, “some maintain their response, but some start to depigment again. Again, we have no way of predicting who will be in which category.”

He said that once patients have hit their desired response, he usually advises them to taper down to maybe twice a week or to stop treatment, but if they see any recurrence, they should start reusing the medicine.

“We have some patients who have gone 6 or 7 years now before they had a recurrence, but others may start to depigment again in 2 to 3 months,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

As for phototherapy, he said, the combination with topical ruxolitinib is being studied.

“We think the combination is synergistic and better than either alone, but we’re still waiting for data to prove that,” he said.

In his practice, he offers patients the option either to use just ruxolitinib cream or the combination early on. Many patients, because of convenience, say they’ll first try the cream to see if that works.

“The challenge with light [therapy] is that it can be very inconvenient,” he said. Patients have to live close to a phototherapy unit to receive therapy 2-3 times a week or have a phototherapy product in their home.
 

Next in the pipeline

Experts say the progress doesn’t stop with ruxolitinib cream. Current trials of several medications show there’s more to come for patients with vitiligo.

Dr. Chovatiya said that next up may be oral ritlecitinib (Litfulo), a JAK inhibitor that was approved for severe alopecia areata in June for people aged 12 years and older. Phase 2 results have been published for its use with vitiligo.

“This would be an oral medication that may be able to help people with much more extensive disease as far as vitiligo goes,” he said, adding that he expects approval for a vitiligo indication within a few years.

He pointed out that longer-term safety data will be available because it is already on the market for alopecia.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq), an oral JAK inhibitor, is approved for atopic dermatitis but is being studied for vitiligo as well, he noted. “I’m very excited to see what that holds for patients as well,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Dr. Gutierrez said that he is excited about oral JAK inhibitors but sees potential in finding new ways to transplant melanocytes into areas where there are none.

The pigmentation field has seen new energy since last year’s approval, he said, particularly among people of color.

“We have new options for vitiligo that were lacking compared with other conditions, such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis,” he said. “Hopefully, there will be more promising breakthroughs.”

Dr. Rosmarin is the chief investigator for the pivotal trials that led to FDA approval of ruxolitinib. He disclosed ties with AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Viela Bio. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Argenx, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Incyte, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Heath and Dr. Gutierrez report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A year after celebrating the approval of the first treatment for repigmentation of vitiligo, dermatologists describe how topical ruxolitinib has advanced the outlook for patients with the disease and what’s next in the pipeline.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the cream formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), a JAK inhibitor, for repigmentation of nonsegmental vitiligo in July 2022 for people aged 12 years and older.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that he likes to use ruxolitinib cream in combination with other treatments.

Dr. Chovatiya

“In the real world with vitiligo patients, we’re oftentimes doing combinatorial therapy anyway. So phototherapy, specifically, narrow-band UVB, is something that we have a lot of clinical evidence for over the years, and it’s a modality that can combine with topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors.”

He said trials to study combinations will yield better guidance on optimal use of ruxolitinib cream. “In general, vitiligo patients can really benefit from phototherapy,” he said in an interview. (Labeling recommends against combination with other JAK inhibitors, biologics, or potent immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine or cyclosporine.)

This first year has shown that ruxolitinib is an effective option, but counseling patients to expect slow improvement is important so that patients stick with it, he noted.

Documenting what treatments patients with vitiligo have used before is important, he said, as is counseling patients that ruxolitinib is approved only for use on up to 10% of a person’s body surface area. (Product labeling recommends that a thin layer be applied twice a day to affected areas up to 10% of body surface area.)

Ruxolitinib has brought a “louder voice” to vitiligo and has opened up options for patients with the disease, Dr. Chovatiya said. “Having the ability to topically treat people who have very extensive disease really gives us a lot more flexibility than we have had before.”
 

Good experiences with payers at safety-net hospital

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said that real-world experience with topical ruxolitinib will be more evident after its been on the market for 18-24 months.

Dr. Heath said she, too, encourages use of narrow-band UVB phototherapy in conjunction with the treatment.

From an insurance reimbursement standpoint, she said that she is glad that there have been fewer hurdles in getting ruxolitinib to patients than she has experienced with other medications.

In her safety-net hospital, she told this news organization, she sees patients with many types of insurance, but most have Medicaid. “So, I’m always expecting the step therapies, denials, pushbacks, etc.,” she said. But the path has been smoother for ruxolitinib coverage, she noted.

Her colleagues are committed to documenting everything the patient has tried, she added, and that helps with prior authorization.

Dr. Heath said that pointing out to insurers that ruxolitinib is the only approved treatment for repigmentation helps facilitate coverage.

“The science is advancing, and I’m happy to be practicing during a time when we actually have something approved for vitiligo,” she said. But she pointed out that phototherapy often is not covered for vitiligo, “which is horrible, when it is readily approved for psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.”

To document progress, Dr. Heath said that she always takes photographs of her patients with vitiligo because “the pictures remind us how far we have come.”
 

Data spotlight success in adolescents

Data from two trials give a clinical picture of the drug’s safety and efficacy in younger patients.

Adolescents had particularly good results in the first year with ruxolitinib, according to pooled phase 3 data from TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2, this news organization reported.

The findings, presented at the 25th World Congress of Dermatology in Singapore, indicate that more than half of the participants achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in the total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (T-VASI50) at 52 weeks.

The percentages of young patients aged 12-17 years taking twice-daily ruxolitinib who achieved T-VASI 50 at weeks 12, 24, and 52 were 11.5%, 26.9%, and 57.7%, respectively. The corresponding percentages for all in the study population were 10.7%, 22.7%, and 44.4%, respectively.

At the meeting, the presenter, Julien Seneschal, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and head of the vitiligo and pigmentary disorders clinic at the University of Bordeaux, France, said, “This suggests that younger patients can respond better to the treatment.” He noted, however, that there were few adolescents in the studies.
 

New excitement in the field

Daniel Gutierrez, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at New York University, said the treatment has brought new excitement to the field.

“Patients with vitiligo are very motivated to treat their disease,” he said, because it typically is on the face and other highly visual areas, which can affect their overall perception of self.

NYU Langone Health

Previously, he noted in an interview, the only FDA-approved treatment was monobenzone, but that was for depigmentation rather than repigmentation.

Otherwise, treatments were being used off label, and patients were receiving compounded formulations that often weren’t covered by insurance and often had shorter shelf life.

He said that he still occasionally gets denials from payers who consider vitiligo a cosmetic condition.

“I’ve had more luck with insurance, at least in the New York State area.” He added that sometimes payers require use of a topical calcineurin inhibitor for about 12 weeks before they will cover ruxolitinib.

Dr. Gutierrez also recommends using phototherapy with topical ruxolitinib “because they work on slightly different pathways.”

When he starts patients on a new therapy such as ruxolitinib, he asks them to come back in 3 months, and often by then, progress is evident. Facial areas show the most response, he said, while hands and feet are less likely to show significant improvement.

He said that it’s important for physicians and patients to know that improvements can take weeks or months to be noticeable. “I tell patients not to give up,” he added.

Showing the patients pictures from the current appointment and comparing them with pictures from previous appointments can help them better understand their progress, he said.
 

Lead investigator adds observations

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, was the lead investigator of the pivotal TruE-V1 and TruE-V2 trials for vitiligo. In that role, he has been treating vitiligo patients with topical ruxolitinib since 2015.

In an interview, he said that many patients “don’t hit their optimal results at 3 months, 6 months, even the year mark. With continued use, many can see continued benefit.”

Other patients, he said, don’t respond within the first 6 months but with continued use may eventually respond, he said.

“Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing, based on clinical characteristics or baseline demographics, whether a patient will be a delayed responder or not or an early responder,” Dr. Rosmarin added.

He provided several observations about people who have stopped taking the medication.

“When people stop,” he said, “some maintain their response, but some start to depigment again. Again, we have no way of predicting who will be in which category.”

He said that once patients have hit their desired response, he usually advises them to taper down to maybe twice a week or to stop treatment, but if they see any recurrence, they should start reusing the medicine.

“We have some patients who have gone 6 or 7 years now before they had a recurrence, but others may start to depigment again in 2 to 3 months,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

As for phototherapy, he said, the combination with topical ruxolitinib is being studied.

“We think the combination is synergistic and better than either alone, but we’re still waiting for data to prove that,” he said.

In his practice, he offers patients the option either to use just ruxolitinib cream or the combination early on. Many patients, because of convenience, say they’ll first try the cream to see if that works.

“The challenge with light [therapy] is that it can be very inconvenient,” he said. Patients have to live close to a phototherapy unit to receive therapy 2-3 times a week or have a phototherapy product in their home.
 

Next in the pipeline

Experts say the progress doesn’t stop with ruxolitinib cream. Current trials of several medications show there’s more to come for patients with vitiligo.

Dr. Chovatiya said that next up may be oral ritlecitinib (Litfulo), a JAK inhibitor that was approved for severe alopecia areata in June for people aged 12 years and older. Phase 2 results have been published for its use with vitiligo.

“This would be an oral medication that may be able to help people with much more extensive disease as far as vitiligo goes,” he said, adding that he expects approval for a vitiligo indication within a few years.

He pointed out that longer-term safety data will be available because it is already on the market for alopecia.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq), an oral JAK inhibitor, is approved for atopic dermatitis but is being studied for vitiligo as well, he noted. “I’m very excited to see what that holds for patients as well,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Dr. Gutierrez said that he is excited about oral JAK inhibitors but sees potential in finding new ways to transplant melanocytes into areas where there are none.

The pigmentation field has seen new energy since last year’s approval, he said, particularly among people of color.

“We have new options for vitiligo that were lacking compared with other conditions, such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis,” he said. “Hopefully, there will be more promising breakthroughs.”

Dr. Rosmarin is the chief investigator for the pivotal trials that led to FDA approval of ruxolitinib. He disclosed ties with AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Viela Bio. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Argenx, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Incyte, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Heath and Dr. Gutierrez report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The glucose-lowering drug class sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors appear to reduce the risk for recurrent gout flares in people with gout and type 2 diabetes, and to lessen excess mortality in those individuals, compared with those who initiated other types of glucose-lowering medications, new data suggest.

Among nearly 6,000 adults with both type 2 diabetes and gout from a U.K. primary care database, initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was associated with 19% fewer recurrent gout flares and 29% lower mortality.

Moreover, unlike other urate-lowering therapies, there were no apparent transient increases in the risk of gout flares after initiating therapy, Jie Wei, PhD, of Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

These results are important because current management of gout is suboptimal. Many patients either don’t receive adequate urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol or stop taking them, Dr. Wei and colleagues said.

In addition to lowering glucose, SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in people regardless of their diabetes status. Previous studies have also found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for developing gout and of gout flares.

Asked to comment, gout specialist John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “I think it’s a well-done paper, with a large dataset. I think it just reinforces the findings from the other papers. Mostly anything that lowers uric acid levels is going to lower recurrent gout attacks, so it all makes sense.”

However, while Dr. FitzGerald thinks the drug class is a good option for people with diabetes or cardiorenal indications for them who also have gout, he doesn’t envision it as first-line for most other patients with gout. “The current treatments are very effective. Allopurinol brings down uric acid levels by 5-7 points. There are patients who fail allopurinol, but those are less than 5%.”

The most common reason patients stop taking allopurinol is the frequent initial gout flare. But that’s preventable, Dr. FitzGerald said, either by titrating up slowly, or by adding colchicine along with it. “By going slowly, you can avoid that flare risk. I think that’s what’s going on with the SGLT2 inhibitor. It’s not a dramatic urate-lowering drug, but it is clinically meaningful. I think that’s what this paper is showing.”

But, he noted, “I think there are so many reasons to start the SGLT2 inhibitors that if somebody also has gout, all the better. And, if somebody is on the margin with diabetes and gout control and can’t go with allopurinol, it would be great to add for both conditions.”

Less gout recurrence, lower mortality

The retrospective study was conducted from Jan. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2022. Among 5,931 patients with both type 2 diabetes and gout, 1,548 (26.1%) initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or canagliflozin), while 4,383 (73.9%) initiated treatment with other active comparators, mostly (92.6%) dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors.

Gout flares were identified in the charts for a total of 86% of the participants. The weighted incidence rates for the first recurrent flare were 32.4 versus 41.2 per 1,000 person-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus comparator groups, with a weighted absolute rate difference of –8.8/1,000 and weighted hazard ratio of 0.81, a significant difference.

All-cause mortality was 18.8 versus 24.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, giving an HR of 0.71 at 5-year follow-up.

Dr. FitzGerald, who chaired the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 gout guidelines, said he anticipates that the SGLT2 inhibitors will be mentioned in the next update to the ACR’s now “living” guidelines, although he was not speaking on the organization’s behalf.

“We talk about losartan in the current [ACR guidelines], about its specific uric acid–lowering effect. Drugs can make uric acid worse or better. For example, thiazides make it higher. I think the SGLT2 [inhibitors] are important, but I don’t think they’re huge. The study is great, and I think the drugs are great, but I don’t think they will change the way gout is managed.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, and from the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province. Dr. Wei reported receiving grant funding from Xiangya Hospital Central South University Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders and the Science and Technology Department of Hunan Province, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, during the conduct of the study. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The glucose-lowering drug class sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors appear to reduce the risk for recurrent gout flares in people with gout and type 2 diabetes, and to lessen excess mortality in those individuals, compared with those who initiated other types of glucose-lowering medications, new data suggest.

Among nearly 6,000 adults with both type 2 diabetes and gout from a U.K. primary care database, initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was associated with 19% fewer recurrent gout flares and 29% lower mortality.

Moreover, unlike other urate-lowering therapies, there were no apparent transient increases in the risk of gout flares after initiating therapy, Jie Wei, PhD, of Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

These results are important because current management of gout is suboptimal. Many patients either don’t receive adequate urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol or stop taking them, Dr. Wei and colleagues said.

In addition to lowering glucose, SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in people regardless of their diabetes status. Previous studies have also found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for developing gout and of gout flares.

Asked to comment, gout specialist John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “I think it’s a well-done paper, with a large dataset. I think it just reinforces the findings from the other papers. Mostly anything that lowers uric acid levels is going to lower recurrent gout attacks, so it all makes sense.”

However, while Dr. FitzGerald thinks the drug class is a good option for people with diabetes or cardiorenal indications for them who also have gout, he doesn’t envision it as first-line for most other patients with gout. “The current treatments are very effective. Allopurinol brings down uric acid levels by 5-7 points. There are patients who fail allopurinol, but those are less than 5%.”

The most common reason patients stop taking allopurinol is the frequent initial gout flare. But that’s preventable, Dr. FitzGerald said, either by titrating up slowly, or by adding colchicine along with it. “By going slowly, you can avoid that flare risk. I think that’s what’s going on with the SGLT2 inhibitor. It’s not a dramatic urate-lowering drug, but it is clinically meaningful. I think that’s what this paper is showing.”

But, he noted, “I think there are so many reasons to start the SGLT2 inhibitors that if somebody also has gout, all the better. And, if somebody is on the margin with diabetes and gout control and can’t go with allopurinol, it would be great to add for both conditions.”

Less gout recurrence, lower mortality

The retrospective study was conducted from Jan. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2022. Among 5,931 patients with both type 2 diabetes and gout, 1,548 (26.1%) initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or canagliflozin), while 4,383 (73.9%) initiated treatment with other active comparators, mostly (92.6%) dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors.

Gout flares were identified in the charts for a total of 86% of the participants. The weighted incidence rates for the first recurrent flare were 32.4 versus 41.2 per 1,000 person-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus comparator groups, with a weighted absolute rate difference of –8.8/1,000 and weighted hazard ratio of 0.81, a significant difference.

All-cause mortality was 18.8 versus 24.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, giving an HR of 0.71 at 5-year follow-up.

Dr. FitzGerald, who chaired the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 gout guidelines, said he anticipates that the SGLT2 inhibitors will be mentioned in the next update to the ACR’s now “living” guidelines, although he was not speaking on the organization’s behalf.

“We talk about losartan in the current [ACR guidelines], about its specific uric acid–lowering effect. Drugs can make uric acid worse or better. For example, thiazides make it higher. I think the SGLT2 [inhibitors] are important, but I don’t think they’re huge. The study is great, and I think the drugs are great, but I don’t think they will change the way gout is managed.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, and from the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province. Dr. Wei reported receiving grant funding from Xiangya Hospital Central South University Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders and the Science and Technology Department of Hunan Province, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, during the conduct of the study. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The glucose-lowering drug class sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors appear to reduce the risk for recurrent gout flares in people with gout and type 2 diabetes, and to lessen excess mortality in those individuals, compared with those who initiated other types of glucose-lowering medications, new data suggest.

Among nearly 6,000 adults with both type 2 diabetes and gout from a U.K. primary care database, initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was associated with 19% fewer recurrent gout flares and 29% lower mortality.

Moreover, unlike other urate-lowering therapies, there were no apparent transient increases in the risk of gout flares after initiating therapy, Jie Wei, PhD, of Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

These results are important because current management of gout is suboptimal. Many patients either don’t receive adequate urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol or stop taking them, Dr. Wei and colleagues said.

In addition to lowering glucose, SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in people regardless of their diabetes status. Previous studies have also found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for developing gout and of gout flares.

Asked to comment, gout specialist John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “I think it’s a well-done paper, with a large dataset. I think it just reinforces the findings from the other papers. Mostly anything that lowers uric acid levels is going to lower recurrent gout attacks, so it all makes sense.”

However, while Dr. FitzGerald thinks the drug class is a good option for people with diabetes or cardiorenal indications for them who also have gout, he doesn’t envision it as first-line for most other patients with gout. “The current treatments are very effective. Allopurinol brings down uric acid levels by 5-7 points. There are patients who fail allopurinol, but those are less than 5%.”

The most common reason patients stop taking allopurinol is the frequent initial gout flare. But that’s preventable, Dr. FitzGerald said, either by titrating up slowly, or by adding colchicine along with it. “By going slowly, you can avoid that flare risk. I think that’s what’s going on with the SGLT2 inhibitor. It’s not a dramatic urate-lowering drug, but it is clinically meaningful. I think that’s what this paper is showing.”

But, he noted, “I think there are so many reasons to start the SGLT2 inhibitors that if somebody also has gout, all the better. And, if somebody is on the margin with diabetes and gout control and can’t go with allopurinol, it would be great to add for both conditions.”

Less gout recurrence, lower mortality

The retrospective study was conducted from Jan. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2022. Among 5,931 patients with both type 2 diabetes and gout, 1,548 (26.1%) initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or canagliflozin), while 4,383 (73.9%) initiated treatment with other active comparators, mostly (92.6%) dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors.

Gout flares were identified in the charts for a total of 86% of the participants. The weighted incidence rates for the first recurrent flare were 32.4 versus 41.2 per 1,000 person-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus comparator groups, with a weighted absolute rate difference of –8.8/1,000 and weighted hazard ratio of 0.81, a significant difference.

All-cause mortality was 18.8 versus 24.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, giving an HR of 0.71 at 5-year follow-up.

Dr. FitzGerald, who chaired the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 gout guidelines, said he anticipates that the SGLT2 inhibitors will be mentioned in the next update to the ACR’s now “living” guidelines, although he was not speaking on the organization’s behalf.

“We talk about losartan in the current [ACR guidelines], about its specific uric acid–lowering effect. Drugs can make uric acid worse or better. For example, thiazides make it higher. I think the SGLT2 [inhibitors] are important, but I don’t think they’re huge. The study is great, and I think the drugs are great, but I don’t think they will change the way gout is managed.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, and from the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province. Dr. Wei reported receiving grant funding from Xiangya Hospital Central South University Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders and the Science and Technology Department of Hunan Province, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, during the conduct of the study. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Variability in antimicrobial prescribing among hospital-based physicians is not associated with patient characteristics or clinical outcomes, data suggest. The lowest level of such prescribing within each hospital could be considered a target for antimicrobial stewardship, according to the researchers.

In a multicenter study of 124 physicians responsible for more than 124,000 hospitalized patients, the difference in mean prescribing between the highest and lowest quartiles of prescription volume was 15.8 days of treatment per 100 patient-days.

Baseline patient characteristics were similar across the quartiles, and there were no differences in patient outcomes, including in-hospital deaths, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit transfer, and hospital readmission.

Although the investigators expected variation in prescribing, “what surprised us most was the limited association with any differences in clinical outcomes, particularly when it came to the amount of antimicrobials used,” study author Mark T. McIntyre, PharmD, pharmacotherapy specialist at the Sinai Health System in Toronto, told this news organization.

“Importantly, this is not a study that defines quality of care,” he said. “We looked at natural variation in practice and association with outcomes. So, I don’t want clinicians to think, ‘Well, I’m high, therefore I’m bad,’ or, ‘I’m low, therefore I’m good.’

“This is an early explanatory analysis that asks whether this is an opportunity to optimize prescribing in ways we hadn’t thought of before,” he said. “Now that we don’t have an association with higher or lower prescribing and outcomes, we can look at what else is driving that antimicrobial prescribing and what we can do about it. Comfort level, risk tolerance, and social, cultural, and contextual factors all likely play a role.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Antimicrobial reductions possible

The investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative database to assess physician-level volume and spectrum of antimicrobial prescribing in adult general medical wards. Four academic hospitals in Toronto were evaluated for the period 2010 to 2019.

The investigators stratified physicians into quartiles by hospital site on the basis of volume of antimicrobial prescribing (specifically, days of therapy per 100 patient-days and antimicrobial-free days) and antibacterial spectrum (modified spectrum score, which assigns a value to each antibacterial agent on the basis of its breadth of coverage).

They also examined potential differences between physician quartiles in patient characteristics, such as age, sex, the Laboratory-Based Acute Physiology Score, discharge diagnosis, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Multilevel modeling allowed the investigators to evaluate the association between clinical outcomes and antimicrobial volume and spectrum.

The primary measure was days of therapy per 100 patient-days.

As noted, the cohort included 124 physicians who were responsible for 124,158 hospital admissions. The median physician-level volume of antimicrobial prescribing was 56.1 days of therapy per 100 patient-days. Patient characteristics were balanced across the quartiles of physician prescribing.

The difference in mean prescribing between physician quartile 4 and quartile 1 was 15.8 days of therapy per 100 patient-days, meaning the median physician in quartile 4 prescribed antimicrobials at a volume that was 30% higher than that of the median physician in quartile 1.

No significant differences were noted for any clinical outcome with regard to quartile of days of therapy, antimicrobial-free days, or modified spectrum score after adjustment for patient-level characteristics.

In addition, no significant differences in the case mix between quartile 4 and quartile 1 were found when the cohort was restricted to patients admitted and discharged by the same most responsible person, nor were differences found in an analysis that was restricted to those without a discharge diagnosis code of palliative care.

In-hospital mortality was higher among patients cared for by prescribers with higher modified spectrum scores (odds ratio, 1.13). “We still can’t fully explain this finding,” Dr. McIntyre acknowledged. “We only saw that in our primary analysis. When we did several sensitivity analyses, that finding didn’t appear.”

The authors concluded, “Ultimately, without discernible benefit in outcomes of patients of physicians who prescribe more frequently, less antimicrobial exposure may be possible, leading to lower risk of antimicrobial resistance.”
 

Decision-making support

Commenting on the study, Lawrence I. Kaplan, MD, section chief of general internal medicine and associate dean for interprofessional education at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia, said, “Trying to get to the lowest quartile would be a goal, and given that physician characteristics are involved, I think there needs to be much better training in clinical management decision-making: how you come about making a decision based on a diagnosis for a particular patient, in or out of the hospital.” Dr. Kaplan was not involved in the research.

“Clinical decision-making tools that can be plugged into the electronic health record can help,” he suggested. “The tools basically ask if a patient meets certain criteria and then might give a prompt that says, for example, ‘These symptoms are not consistent with bacterial sinusitis. The patient should be treated with decongestants, nasal steroids, et cetera, because antibiotics aren’t appropriate.’

“It’s a bit like checkbox medicine, which a lot of physicians bridle at,” he said. “But if it’s really based on evidence, I think that’s an appropriate use of evidence-based medicine.”

Dr. Kaplan said that more research is needed into the best way to get a physician or any provider to step back and say, “Is this the right decision?” or, “I’m doing this but I’m really on shaky ground. What am I missing?’” He noted that the Society for Medical Decision Making publishes research and resources in this area.

“I love the fact that the paper was authored by an interdisciplinary group,” Dr. Kaplan added. “A pharmacist embedded in the team can, for example, help with treatment decision-making and point out potential drug interactions that prescribers might not be aware of.

“We need to stop practicing medicine siloed, which is what we do a lot of ways, both in the hospital and out of the hospital, because it’s the path of least resistance,” Dr. Kaplan added. “But when we can say, ‘Hey, I have a question about this,’ be it to a computer or a colleague, I would argue that we come up with better care.”

No funding was provided for the study. Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Variability in antimicrobial prescribing among hospital-based physicians is not associated with patient characteristics or clinical outcomes, data suggest. The lowest level of such prescribing within each hospital could be considered a target for antimicrobial stewardship, according to the researchers.

In a multicenter study of 124 physicians responsible for more than 124,000 hospitalized patients, the difference in mean prescribing between the highest and lowest quartiles of prescription volume was 15.8 days of treatment per 100 patient-days.

Baseline patient characteristics were similar across the quartiles, and there were no differences in patient outcomes, including in-hospital deaths, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit transfer, and hospital readmission.

Although the investigators expected variation in prescribing, “what surprised us most was the limited association with any differences in clinical outcomes, particularly when it came to the amount of antimicrobials used,” study author Mark T. McIntyre, PharmD, pharmacotherapy specialist at the Sinai Health System in Toronto, told this news organization.

“Importantly, this is not a study that defines quality of care,” he said. “We looked at natural variation in practice and association with outcomes. So, I don’t want clinicians to think, ‘Well, I’m high, therefore I’m bad,’ or, ‘I’m low, therefore I’m good.’

“This is an early explanatory analysis that asks whether this is an opportunity to optimize prescribing in ways we hadn’t thought of before,” he said. “Now that we don’t have an association with higher or lower prescribing and outcomes, we can look at what else is driving that antimicrobial prescribing and what we can do about it. Comfort level, risk tolerance, and social, cultural, and contextual factors all likely play a role.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Antimicrobial reductions possible

The investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative database to assess physician-level volume and spectrum of antimicrobial prescribing in adult general medical wards. Four academic hospitals in Toronto were evaluated for the period 2010 to 2019.

The investigators stratified physicians into quartiles by hospital site on the basis of volume of antimicrobial prescribing (specifically, days of therapy per 100 patient-days and antimicrobial-free days) and antibacterial spectrum (modified spectrum score, which assigns a value to each antibacterial agent on the basis of its breadth of coverage).

They also examined potential differences between physician quartiles in patient characteristics, such as age, sex, the Laboratory-Based Acute Physiology Score, discharge diagnosis, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Multilevel modeling allowed the investigators to evaluate the association between clinical outcomes and antimicrobial volume and spectrum.

The primary measure was days of therapy per 100 patient-days.

As noted, the cohort included 124 physicians who were responsible for 124,158 hospital admissions. The median physician-level volume of antimicrobial prescribing was 56.1 days of therapy per 100 patient-days. Patient characteristics were balanced across the quartiles of physician prescribing.

The difference in mean prescribing between physician quartile 4 and quartile 1 was 15.8 days of therapy per 100 patient-days, meaning the median physician in quartile 4 prescribed antimicrobials at a volume that was 30% higher than that of the median physician in quartile 1.

No significant differences were noted for any clinical outcome with regard to quartile of days of therapy, antimicrobial-free days, or modified spectrum score after adjustment for patient-level characteristics.

In addition, no significant differences in the case mix between quartile 4 and quartile 1 were found when the cohort was restricted to patients admitted and discharged by the same most responsible person, nor were differences found in an analysis that was restricted to those without a discharge diagnosis code of palliative care.

In-hospital mortality was higher among patients cared for by prescribers with higher modified spectrum scores (odds ratio, 1.13). “We still can’t fully explain this finding,” Dr. McIntyre acknowledged. “We only saw that in our primary analysis. When we did several sensitivity analyses, that finding didn’t appear.”

The authors concluded, “Ultimately, without discernible benefit in outcomes of patients of physicians who prescribe more frequently, less antimicrobial exposure may be possible, leading to lower risk of antimicrobial resistance.”
 

Decision-making support

Commenting on the study, Lawrence I. Kaplan, MD, section chief of general internal medicine and associate dean for interprofessional education at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia, said, “Trying to get to the lowest quartile would be a goal, and given that physician characteristics are involved, I think there needs to be much better training in clinical management decision-making: how you come about making a decision based on a diagnosis for a particular patient, in or out of the hospital.” Dr. Kaplan was not involved in the research.

“Clinical decision-making tools that can be plugged into the electronic health record can help,” he suggested. “The tools basically ask if a patient meets certain criteria and then might give a prompt that says, for example, ‘These symptoms are not consistent with bacterial sinusitis. The patient should be treated with decongestants, nasal steroids, et cetera, because antibiotics aren’t appropriate.’

“It’s a bit like checkbox medicine, which a lot of physicians bridle at,” he said. “But if it’s really based on evidence, I think that’s an appropriate use of evidence-based medicine.”

Dr. Kaplan said that more research is needed into the best way to get a physician or any provider to step back and say, “Is this the right decision?” or, “I’m doing this but I’m really on shaky ground. What am I missing?’” He noted that the Society for Medical Decision Making publishes research and resources in this area.

“I love the fact that the paper was authored by an interdisciplinary group,” Dr. Kaplan added. “A pharmacist embedded in the team can, for example, help with treatment decision-making and point out potential drug interactions that prescribers might not be aware of.

“We need to stop practicing medicine siloed, which is what we do a lot of ways, both in the hospital and out of the hospital, because it’s the path of least resistance,” Dr. Kaplan added. “But when we can say, ‘Hey, I have a question about this,’ be it to a computer or a colleague, I would argue that we come up with better care.”

No funding was provided for the study. Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Variability in antimicrobial prescribing among hospital-based physicians is not associated with patient characteristics or clinical outcomes, data suggest. The lowest level of such prescribing within each hospital could be considered a target for antimicrobial stewardship, according to the researchers.

In a multicenter study of 124 physicians responsible for more than 124,000 hospitalized patients, the difference in mean prescribing between the highest and lowest quartiles of prescription volume was 15.8 days of treatment per 100 patient-days.

Baseline patient characteristics were similar across the quartiles, and there were no differences in patient outcomes, including in-hospital deaths, hospital length of stay, intensive care unit transfer, and hospital readmission.

Although the investigators expected variation in prescribing, “what surprised us most was the limited association with any differences in clinical outcomes, particularly when it came to the amount of antimicrobials used,” study author Mark T. McIntyre, PharmD, pharmacotherapy specialist at the Sinai Health System in Toronto, told this news organization.

“Importantly, this is not a study that defines quality of care,” he said. “We looked at natural variation in practice and association with outcomes. So, I don’t want clinicians to think, ‘Well, I’m high, therefore I’m bad,’ or, ‘I’m low, therefore I’m good.’

“This is an early explanatory analysis that asks whether this is an opportunity to optimize prescribing in ways we hadn’t thought of before,” he said. “Now that we don’t have an association with higher or lower prescribing and outcomes, we can look at what else is driving that antimicrobial prescribing and what we can do about it. Comfort level, risk tolerance, and social, cultural, and contextual factors all likely play a role.”

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Antimicrobial reductions possible

The investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative database to assess physician-level volume and spectrum of antimicrobial prescribing in adult general medical wards. Four academic hospitals in Toronto were evaluated for the period 2010 to 2019.

The investigators stratified physicians into quartiles by hospital site on the basis of volume of antimicrobial prescribing (specifically, days of therapy per 100 patient-days and antimicrobial-free days) and antibacterial spectrum (modified spectrum score, which assigns a value to each antibacterial agent on the basis of its breadth of coverage).

They also examined potential differences between physician quartiles in patient characteristics, such as age, sex, the Laboratory-Based Acute Physiology Score, discharge diagnosis, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Multilevel modeling allowed the investigators to evaluate the association between clinical outcomes and antimicrobial volume and spectrum.

The primary measure was days of therapy per 100 patient-days.

As noted, the cohort included 124 physicians who were responsible for 124,158 hospital admissions. The median physician-level volume of antimicrobial prescribing was 56.1 days of therapy per 100 patient-days. Patient characteristics were balanced across the quartiles of physician prescribing.

The difference in mean prescribing between physician quartile 4 and quartile 1 was 15.8 days of therapy per 100 patient-days, meaning the median physician in quartile 4 prescribed antimicrobials at a volume that was 30% higher than that of the median physician in quartile 1.

No significant differences were noted for any clinical outcome with regard to quartile of days of therapy, antimicrobial-free days, or modified spectrum score after adjustment for patient-level characteristics.

In addition, no significant differences in the case mix between quartile 4 and quartile 1 were found when the cohort was restricted to patients admitted and discharged by the same most responsible person, nor were differences found in an analysis that was restricted to those without a discharge diagnosis code of palliative care.

In-hospital mortality was higher among patients cared for by prescribers with higher modified spectrum scores (odds ratio, 1.13). “We still can’t fully explain this finding,” Dr. McIntyre acknowledged. “We only saw that in our primary analysis. When we did several sensitivity analyses, that finding didn’t appear.”

The authors concluded, “Ultimately, without discernible benefit in outcomes of patients of physicians who prescribe more frequently, less antimicrobial exposure may be possible, leading to lower risk of antimicrobial resistance.”
 

Decision-making support

Commenting on the study, Lawrence I. Kaplan, MD, section chief of general internal medicine and associate dean for interprofessional education at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia, said, “Trying to get to the lowest quartile would be a goal, and given that physician characteristics are involved, I think there needs to be much better training in clinical management decision-making: how you come about making a decision based on a diagnosis for a particular patient, in or out of the hospital.” Dr. Kaplan was not involved in the research.

“Clinical decision-making tools that can be plugged into the electronic health record can help,” he suggested. “The tools basically ask if a patient meets certain criteria and then might give a prompt that says, for example, ‘These symptoms are not consistent with bacterial sinusitis. The patient should be treated with decongestants, nasal steroids, et cetera, because antibiotics aren’t appropriate.’

“It’s a bit like checkbox medicine, which a lot of physicians bridle at,” he said. “But if it’s really based on evidence, I think that’s an appropriate use of evidence-based medicine.”

Dr. Kaplan said that more research is needed into the best way to get a physician or any provider to step back and say, “Is this the right decision?” or, “I’m doing this but I’m really on shaky ground. What am I missing?’” He noted that the Society for Medical Decision Making publishes research and resources in this area.

“I love the fact that the paper was authored by an interdisciplinary group,” Dr. Kaplan added. “A pharmacist embedded in the team can, for example, help with treatment decision-making and point out potential drug interactions that prescribers might not be aware of.

“We need to stop practicing medicine siloed, which is what we do a lot of ways, both in the hospital and out of the hospital, because it’s the path of least resistance,” Dr. Kaplan added. “But when we can say, ‘Hey, I have a question about this,’ be it to a computer or a colleague, I would argue that we come up with better care.”

No funding was provided for the study. Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Kettles Esophageal and Cardia Adenocarcinoma prediction (K-ECAN) tool predicts esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) using data from the electronic health record (EHR) and is more accurate than other tools, a large study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a case-control study using data from the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry.
• They identified 8,430 patients with EAC and 2,965 patients GCA; these patients were compared with more than 10 million control patients.
• K-ECAN uses basic information in the EHR to determine an individual’s future risk of developing EAC or GCA.

TAKEAWAY:

• With an area under the receiver operating characteristic of 0.77, K-ECAN demonstrated better discrimination than previously validated models and published guidelines.
• Using only data from 3 to 5 years prior to diagnosis only slightly diminished its accuracy (AUROC, 0.75).
• K-ECAN remained the most accurate tool when undersampling men to simulate a non-VHA population (AUROC, 0.85).
• Although gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was strongly associated with EAC, it only contributed a small proportion of gain in information for prediction.

IN PRACTICE:

Because K-ECAN does not rely heavily on GERD symptoms to assess risk, it has the “potential to guide providers to increase appropriate uptake of screening. De-emphasizing GERD in decisions to offer screening could paradoxically increase appropriate uptake of screening for EAC and GCA,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Joel H. Rubenstein, MD, with the LTC Charles S. Kettles VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Mich., was published online in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

K-ECAN was developed and validated among U.S. veterans and needs to be validated in other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Defense. Dr. Rubenstein has received research support from Lucid Diagnostics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Kettles Esophageal and Cardia Adenocarcinoma prediction (K-ECAN) tool predicts esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) using data from the electronic health record (EHR) and is more accurate than other tools, a large study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a case-control study using data from the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry.
• They identified 8,430 patients with EAC and 2,965 patients GCA; these patients were compared with more than 10 million control patients.
• K-ECAN uses basic information in the EHR to determine an individual’s future risk of developing EAC or GCA.

TAKEAWAY:

• With an area under the receiver operating characteristic of 0.77, K-ECAN demonstrated better discrimination than previously validated models and published guidelines.
• Using only data from 3 to 5 years prior to diagnosis only slightly diminished its accuracy (AUROC, 0.75).
• K-ECAN remained the most accurate tool when undersampling men to simulate a non-VHA population (AUROC, 0.85).
• Although gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was strongly associated with EAC, it only contributed a small proportion of gain in information for prediction.

IN PRACTICE:

Because K-ECAN does not rely heavily on GERD symptoms to assess risk, it has the “potential to guide providers to increase appropriate uptake of screening. De-emphasizing GERD in decisions to offer screening could paradoxically increase appropriate uptake of screening for EAC and GCA,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Joel H. Rubenstein, MD, with the LTC Charles S. Kettles VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Mich., was published online in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

K-ECAN was developed and validated among U.S. veterans and needs to be validated in other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Defense. Dr. Rubenstein has received research support from Lucid Diagnostics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The Kettles Esophageal and Cardia Adenocarcinoma prediction (K-ECAN) tool predicts esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and gastric cardia adenocarcinoma (GCA) using data from the electronic health record (EHR) and is more accurate than other tools, a large study suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a case-control study using data from the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry.
• They identified 8,430 patients with EAC and 2,965 patients GCA; these patients were compared with more than 10 million control patients.
• K-ECAN uses basic information in the EHR to determine an individual’s future risk of developing EAC or GCA.

TAKEAWAY:

• With an area under the receiver operating characteristic of 0.77, K-ECAN demonstrated better discrimination than previously validated models and published guidelines.
• Using only data from 3 to 5 years prior to diagnosis only slightly diminished its accuracy (AUROC, 0.75).
• K-ECAN remained the most accurate tool when undersampling men to simulate a non-VHA population (AUROC, 0.85).
• Although gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was strongly associated with EAC, it only contributed a small proportion of gain in information for prediction.

IN PRACTICE:

Because K-ECAN does not rely heavily on GERD symptoms to assess risk, it has the “potential to guide providers to increase appropriate uptake of screening. De-emphasizing GERD in decisions to offer screening could paradoxically increase appropriate uptake of screening for EAC and GCA,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Joel H. Rubenstein, MD, with the LTC Charles S. Kettles VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Mich., was published online in Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

K-ECAN was developed and validated among U.S. veterans and needs to be validated in other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Defense. Dr. Rubenstein has received research support from Lucid Diagnostics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN – Giving patients with Parkinson’s disease and constipation a probiotic for 3 months improved not only their gut microbiome but also nonmotor symptoms such as sleep, fatigue, and constipation, results of a new randomized trial show.

Participants taking the probiotic also saw a reduced delay in “time to on” of treatment with levodopa, thus reducing the delay until effectiveness of the treatment, said study presenter Valentina Leta, MD, PhD, department of neurosciences, King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience.

Dr. Leta presented the findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

“Virtually every person with Parkinson’s might have some degree of gastrointestinal dysfunction, and virtually the entire tract might be affected, from the mouth to the rectum,” Dr. Leta told attendees of the congress.

A number of different mechanisms have been associated with this gastrointestinal dysfunction, she noted, including proinflammatory changes in the gut microbiota, so a modulatory intervention “could be a therapeutic strategy for Parkinson’s disease.”

However, “despite numerous preclinical studies showing potential beneficial effects on a variety of pathological mechanisms involved in Parkinson’s disease, the clinical evidence is limited ... to the treatment of constipation,” she explained.

The team therefore conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in which patients with both Parkinson’s disease and constipation, based on the Rome IV criteria, were randomly assigned to receive a probiotic or placebo for 3 months.

The probiotic used was a liquid formulation (Symprove) and contained four strains: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, Enterococcus faecium, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum.

A total of 74 patients were randomly assigned to the two study arms. The two groups were well matched for sociodemographics, Parkinson’s disease, and constipation-related characteristics, Dr. Leta reported, and only 3 patients in each arm discontinued the study. The probiotic intervention had a “good tolerability and safety profile, with a similar number of adverse events between the two groups, and no serious adverse events.”
 

Increase in healthy bacteria

The study met its primary outcome of changes in gut microbiome at the end of the 12-week intervention, as measured on shallow shotgun sequencing.

The probiotic was associated with a “statistically significant increase of the abundance of bacteria which are known to have beneficial health related properties, such as Odoribacteraceae,” Dr. Leta said.

This bacterium is “known to be reduced in people with Parkinson’s disease,” she explained, “and is involved in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are known to have beneficial health-related properties.”

The secondary endpoint of the study included changes in motor and nonmotor symptoms, and the probiotic was associated with a significant improvement in the “time to on” with levodopa treatment, shortening this period from an average of 31.43 minutes at baseline to 23.95 minutes at the postintervention assessment (P < .027).

There was also a significant improvement in the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) score between baseline and the postintervention assessment in patients given the probiotic, from 70.71 to 61.34 (P = .005).

This, Dr. Leta observed, was “driven by improvements in the sleep, fatigue, and gastrointestinal domains.”

No such significant improvements were observed in the placebo arm.
 

Probiotics ‘hot topic’ among patients

Claudia Trenkwalder, MD, full professor of neurology at University Medical Center Goettingen (Germany), said in an interview that the use of probiotics is a “hot topic in Parkinson’s disease research, especially among patients.”

Dr. Trenkwalder, who was not involved in the study, noted that Lactobacillus strains “are established in Parkinson’s disease constipation treatment, with randomized controlled trials showing a significant improvement in constipation.

“Therefore, this is a useful treatment. The question here is: Do we have additional effects that can be measured in the microbiome and in clinical symptomatology?”

The trial showed that the probiotic studied “did alter the microbiome and did improve the constipation,” said Dr. Trenkwalder; however, the current data cannot prove whether the probiotic influenced the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease because the improvement in NMSS scores “is driven by the improvement in constipation.”

This, she argued, could have resulted in better absorption of levodopa.

A dietitian in the audience agreed. She asked whether the probiotic was doing anything “besides improving constipation,” adding that the resulting increased ability to absorb levodopa is also “going to help your sleep.”
 

Beyond constipation?

Dr. Leta replied that “we can assume that there is a link between the reduction in the ‘time to on’ and the improvement in constipation. We are doing some analyses in terms of levodopa pharmacokinetics to really understand the mechanisms behind this result.”

Although the improvement in constipation is “one of the possible hypotheses for the improvement in ‘time to on,’” she continued, “there is a more speculative one” in which the probiotics are modulating inflammatory parameters that could contribute to the improvement in sleep.

Veronica Bruno, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.), commented in a press release that there has been “increasing interest” in examining the relationship between gut dysbiosis and the “gut-brain axis” in Parkinson’s disease.

The current study “stands out as a significant contribution to this area of study,” she said.

“While the implications of the observed changes in gut microbiota remain a captivating realm for further investigation, a particularly noteworthy finding revolves around the reduction in the ‘time to on’ observed within the active treatment group.”

Dr. Bruno said that shortening of the time to on “holds promise for substantial enhancements in patients’ lives” by reducing “difficult ‘off’ intervals and enhancing overall well-being.”

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, and King’s College London. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN – Giving patients with Parkinson’s disease and constipation a probiotic for 3 months improved not only their gut microbiome but also nonmotor symptoms such as sleep, fatigue, and constipation, results of a new randomized trial show.

Participants taking the probiotic also saw a reduced delay in “time to on” of treatment with levodopa, thus reducing the delay until effectiveness of the treatment, said study presenter Valentina Leta, MD, PhD, department of neurosciences, King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience.

Dr. Leta presented the findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

“Virtually every person with Parkinson’s might have some degree of gastrointestinal dysfunction, and virtually the entire tract might be affected, from the mouth to the rectum,” Dr. Leta told attendees of the congress.

A number of different mechanisms have been associated with this gastrointestinal dysfunction, she noted, including proinflammatory changes in the gut microbiota, so a modulatory intervention “could be a therapeutic strategy for Parkinson’s disease.”

However, “despite numerous preclinical studies showing potential beneficial effects on a variety of pathological mechanisms involved in Parkinson’s disease, the clinical evidence is limited ... to the treatment of constipation,” she explained.

The team therefore conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in which patients with both Parkinson’s disease and constipation, based on the Rome IV criteria, were randomly assigned to receive a probiotic or placebo for 3 months.

The probiotic used was a liquid formulation (Symprove) and contained four strains: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, Enterococcus faecium, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum.

A total of 74 patients were randomly assigned to the two study arms. The two groups were well matched for sociodemographics, Parkinson’s disease, and constipation-related characteristics, Dr. Leta reported, and only 3 patients in each arm discontinued the study. The probiotic intervention had a “good tolerability and safety profile, with a similar number of adverse events between the two groups, and no serious adverse events.”
 

Increase in healthy bacteria

The study met its primary outcome of changes in gut microbiome at the end of the 12-week intervention, as measured on shallow shotgun sequencing.

The probiotic was associated with a “statistically significant increase of the abundance of bacteria which are known to have beneficial health related properties, such as Odoribacteraceae,” Dr. Leta said.

This bacterium is “known to be reduced in people with Parkinson’s disease,” she explained, “and is involved in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are known to have beneficial health-related properties.”

The secondary endpoint of the study included changes in motor and nonmotor symptoms, and the probiotic was associated with a significant improvement in the “time to on” with levodopa treatment, shortening this period from an average of 31.43 minutes at baseline to 23.95 minutes at the postintervention assessment (P < .027).

There was also a significant improvement in the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) score between baseline and the postintervention assessment in patients given the probiotic, from 70.71 to 61.34 (P = .005).

This, Dr. Leta observed, was “driven by improvements in the sleep, fatigue, and gastrointestinal domains.”

No such significant improvements were observed in the placebo arm.
 

Probiotics ‘hot topic’ among patients

Claudia Trenkwalder, MD, full professor of neurology at University Medical Center Goettingen (Germany), said in an interview that the use of probiotics is a “hot topic in Parkinson’s disease research, especially among patients.”

Dr. Trenkwalder, who was not involved in the study, noted that Lactobacillus strains “are established in Parkinson’s disease constipation treatment, with randomized controlled trials showing a significant improvement in constipation.

“Therefore, this is a useful treatment. The question here is: Do we have additional effects that can be measured in the microbiome and in clinical symptomatology?”

The trial showed that the probiotic studied “did alter the microbiome and did improve the constipation,” said Dr. Trenkwalder; however, the current data cannot prove whether the probiotic influenced the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease because the improvement in NMSS scores “is driven by the improvement in constipation.”

This, she argued, could have resulted in better absorption of levodopa.

A dietitian in the audience agreed. She asked whether the probiotic was doing anything “besides improving constipation,” adding that the resulting increased ability to absorb levodopa is also “going to help your sleep.”
 

Beyond constipation?

Dr. Leta replied that “we can assume that there is a link between the reduction in the ‘time to on’ and the improvement in constipation. We are doing some analyses in terms of levodopa pharmacokinetics to really understand the mechanisms behind this result.”

Although the improvement in constipation is “one of the possible hypotheses for the improvement in ‘time to on,’” she continued, “there is a more speculative one” in which the probiotics are modulating inflammatory parameters that could contribute to the improvement in sleep.

Veronica Bruno, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.), commented in a press release that there has been “increasing interest” in examining the relationship between gut dysbiosis and the “gut-brain axis” in Parkinson’s disease.

The current study “stands out as a significant contribution to this area of study,” she said.

“While the implications of the observed changes in gut microbiota remain a captivating realm for further investigation, a particularly noteworthy finding revolves around the reduction in the ‘time to on’ observed within the active treatment group.”

Dr. Bruno said that shortening of the time to on “holds promise for substantial enhancements in patients’ lives” by reducing “difficult ‘off’ intervals and enhancing overall well-being.”

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, and King’s College London. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN – Giving patients with Parkinson’s disease and constipation a probiotic for 3 months improved not only their gut microbiome but also nonmotor symptoms such as sleep, fatigue, and constipation, results of a new randomized trial show.

Participants taking the probiotic also saw a reduced delay in “time to on” of treatment with levodopa, thus reducing the delay until effectiveness of the treatment, said study presenter Valentina Leta, MD, PhD, department of neurosciences, King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience.

Dr. Leta presented the findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.

“Virtually every person with Parkinson’s might have some degree of gastrointestinal dysfunction, and virtually the entire tract might be affected, from the mouth to the rectum,” Dr. Leta told attendees of the congress.

A number of different mechanisms have been associated with this gastrointestinal dysfunction, she noted, including proinflammatory changes in the gut microbiota, so a modulatory intervention “could be a therapeutic strategy for Parkinson’s disease.”

However, “despite numerous preclinical studies showing potential beneficial effects on a variety of pathological mechanisms involved in Parkinson’s disease, the clinical evidence is limited ... to the treatment of constipation,” she explained.

The team therefore conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in which patients with both Parkinson’s disease and constipation, based on the Rome IV criteria, were randomly assigned to receive a probiotic or placebo for 3 months.

The probiotic used was a liquid formulation (Symprove) and contained four strains: Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, Enterococcus faecium, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum.

A total of 74 patients were randomly assigned to the two study arms. The two groups were well matched for sociodemographics, Parkinson’s disease, and constipation-related characteristics, Dr. Leta reported, and only 3 patients in each arm discontinued the study. The probiotic intervention had a “good tolerability and safety profile, with a similar number of adverse events between the two groups, and no serious adverse events.”
 

Increase in healthy bacteria

The study met its primary outcome of changes in gut microbiome at the end of the 12-week intervention, as measured on shallow shotgun sequencing.

The probiotic was associated with a “statistically significant increase of the abundance of bacteria which are known to have beneficial health related properties, such as Odoribacteraceae,” Dr. Leta said.

This bacterium is “known to be reduced in people with Parkinson’s disease,” she explained, “and is involved in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are known to have beneficial health-related properties.”

The secondary endpoint of the study included changes in motor and nonmotor symptoms, and the probiotic was associated with a significant improvement in the “time to on” with levodopa treatment, shortening this period from an average of 31.43 minutes at baseline to 23.95 minutes at the postintervention assessment (P < .027).

There was also a significant improvement in the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) score between baseline and the postintervention assessment in patients given the probiotic, from 70.71 to 61.34 (P = .005).

This, Dr. Leta observed, was “driven by improvements in the sleep, fatigue, and gastrointestinal domains.”

No such significant improvements were observed in the placebo arm.
 

Probiotics ‘hot topic’ among patients

Claudia Trenkwalder, MD, full professor of neurology at University Medical Center Goettingen (Germany), said in an interview that the use of probiotics is a “hot topic in Parkinson’s disease research, especially among patients.”

Dr. Trenkwalder, who was not involved in the study, noted that Lactobacillus strains “are established in Parkinson’s disease constipation treatment, with randomized controlled trials showing a significant improvement in constipation.

“Therefore, this is a useful treatment. The question here is: Do we have additional effects that can be measured in the microbiome and in clinical symptomatology?”

The trial showed that the probiotic studied “did alter the microbiome and did improve the constipation,” said Dr. Trenkwalder; however, the current data cannot prove whether the probiotic influenced the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease because the improvement in NMSS scores “is driven by the improvement in constipation.”

This, she argued, could have resulted in better absorption of levodopa.

A dietitian in the audience agreed. She asked whether the probiotic was doing anything “besides improving constipation,” adding that the resulting increased ability to absorb levodopa is also “going to help your sleep.”
 

Beyond constipation?

Dr. Leta replied that “we can assume that there is a link between the reduction in the ‘time to on’ and the improvement in constipation. We are doing some analyses in terms of levodopa pharmacokinetics to really understand the mechanisms behind this result.”

Although the improvement in constipation is “one of the possible hypotheses for the improvement in ‘time to on,’” she continued, “there is a more speculative one” in which the probiotics are modulating inflammatory parameters that could contribute to the improvement in sleep.

Veronica Bruno, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of clinical neurosciences at the University of Calgary (Alta.), commented in a press release that there has been “increasing interest” in examining the relationship between gut dysbiosis and the “gut-brain axis” in Parkinson’s disease.

The current study “stands out as a significant contribution to this area of study,” she said.

“While the implications of the observed changes in gut microbiota remain a captivating realm for further investigation, a particularly noteworthy finding revolves around the reduction in the ‘time to on’ observed within the active treatment group.”

Dr. Bruno said that shortening of the time to on “holds promise for substantial enhancements in patients’ lives” by reducing “difficult ‘off’ intervals and enhancing overall well-being.”

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, and King’s College London. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Holding off on palliative chemotherapy until symptoms start appears to improve quality of life (QoL) without affecting survival for asymptomatic patients with advanced cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Traditionally, chemotherapy is started immediately when advanced cancer is diagnosed, but delaying chemotherapy until symptoms start could improve QoL.
• To find out, investigators performed a meta-analysis of five studies that explored the timing of palliative chemotherapy. The analysis included three randomized trials in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), one in advanced ovarian cancer, and a review of patients with stage IV gastric cancer.
• Of the 919 patients, treatment was delayed for 467 patients (50.8%) until symptoms started in the colorectal trials. It was delayed until tumor recurrence in the ovarian cancer trial, and it was delayed until a month or more had passed in the gastric cancer study, regardless of symptoms.
• QoL was assessed largely by the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Median follow-up ranged from 11 to 60 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found no significant differences in overall survival between patients for whom chemotherapy was delayed and those for whom chemotherapy began immediately (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.22; P = .52).
• Median overall survival was 11.9 to 25.7 months with immediate treatment, vs. 9 to 27.1 months with delayed treatment.
• In the three studies that evaluated QoL, the findings suggested that QoL was largely better among patients whose treatment was delayed. In the CRC studies that assessed QoL, for instance, global health status in the delayed treatment group was higher than that in the immediate treatment group at almost all time points, but not significantly so.
• Rates of grade 3/4 toxicities, evaluated in two studies, did not differ significantly between the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

There is limited evidence on the optimal timing for starting chemotherapy for asymptomatic patients with advanced cancer. In these studies, delaying chemotherapy until symptoms occurred did not result in worse overall survival compared with immediate treatment and may have resulted in better QoL, the researchers concluded. They noted that for asymptomatic patients, delaying the start of systemic therapy should be discussed with the patient.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Simone Augustinus of the University of Amsterdam, was published online Aug. 17 in The Oncologist.

LIMITATIONS:

• Only three types of cancer were included in the analysis, and the findings may not be generalizable to other types of cancer.
• Some of the studies were older and employed out-of-date treatment regimens.
• QoL was only evaluated in three of five studies and could not be evaluated overall in the meta-analysis because of the different time points measured in each trial.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. Two investigators have advisory, speaker, and/or research ties to Celgene, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and other companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Holding off on palliative chemotherapy until symptoms start appears to improve quality of life (QoL) without affecting survival for asymptomatic patients with advanced cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Traditionally, chemotherapy is started immediately when advanced cancer is diagnosed, but delaying chemotherapy until symptoms start could improve QoL.
• To find out, investigators performed a meta-analysis of five studies that explored the timing of palliative chemotherapy. The analysis included three randomized trials in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), one in advanced ovarian cancer, and a review of patients with stage IV gastric cancer.
• Of the 919 patients, treatment was delayed for 467 patients (50.8%) until symptoms started in the colorectal trials. It was delayed until tumor recurrence in the ovarian cancer trial, and it was delayed until a month or more had passed in the gastric cancer study, regardless of symptoms.
• QoL was assessed largely by the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Median follow-up ranged from 11 to 60 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found no significant differences in overall survival between patients for whom chemotherapy was delayed and those for whom chemotherapy began immediately (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.22; P = .52).
• Median overall survival was 11.9 to 25.7 months with immediate treatment, vs. 9 to 27.1 months with delayed treatment.
• In the three studies that evaluated QoL, the findings suggested that QoL was largely better among patients whose treatment was delayed. In the CRC studies that assessed QoL, for instance, global health status in the delayed treatment group was higher than that in the immediate treatment group at almost all time points, but not significantly so.
• Rates of grade 3/4 toxicities, evaluated in two studies, did not differ significantly between the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

There is limited evidence on the optimal timing for starting chemotherapy for asymptomatic patients with advanced cancer. In these studies, delaying chemotherapy until symptoms occurred did not result in worse overall survival compared with immediate treatment and may have resulted in better QoL, the researchers concluded. They noted that for asymptomatic patients, delaying the start of systemic therapy should be discussed with the patient.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Simone Augustinus of the University of Amsterdam, was published online Aug. 17 in The Oncologist.

LIMITATIONS:

• Only three types of cancer were included in the analysis, and the findings may not be generalizable to other types of cancer.
• Some of the studies were older and employed out-of-date treatment regimens.
• QoL was only evaluated in three of five studies and could not be evaluated overall in the meta-analysis because of the different time points measured in each trial.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. Two investigators have advisory, speaker, and/or research ties to Celgene, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and other companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Holding off on palliative chemotherapy until symptoms start appears to improve quality of life (QoL) without affecting survival for asymptomatic patients with advanced cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Traditionally, chemotherapy is started immediately when advanced cancer is diagnosed, but delaying chemotherapy until symptoms start could improve QoL.
• To find out, investigators performed a meta-analysis of five studies that explored the timing of palliative chemotherapy. The analysis included three randomized trials in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), one in advanced ovarian cancer, and a review of patients with stage IV gastric cancer.
• Of the 919 patients, treatment was delayed for 467 patients (50.8%) until symptoms started in the colorectal trials. It was delayed until tumor recurrence in the ovarian cancer trial, and it was delayed until a month or more had passed in the gastric cancer study, regardless of symptoms.
• QoL was assessed largely by the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Median follow-up ranged from 11 to 60 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers found no significant differences in overall survival between patients for whom chemotherapy was delayed and those for whom chemotherapy began immediately (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.22; P = .52).
• Median overall survival was 11.9 to 25.7 months with immediate treatment, vs. 9 to 27.1 months with delayed treatment.
• In the three studies that evaluated QoL, the findings suggested that QoL was largely better among patients whose treatment was delayed. In the CRC studies that assessed QoL, for instance, global health status in the delayed treatment group was higher than that in the immediate treatment group at almost all time points, but not significantly so.
• Rates of grade 3/4 toxicities, evaluated in two studies, did not differ significantly between the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

There is limited evidence on the optimal timing for starting chemotherapy for asymptomatic patients with advanced cancer. In these studies, delaying chemotherapy until symptoms occurred did not result in worse overall survival compared with immediate treatment and may have resulted in better QoL, the researchers concluded. They noted that for asymptomatic patients, delaying the start of systemic therapy should be discussed with the patient.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Simone Augustinus of the University of Amsterdam, was published online Aug. 17 in The Oncologist.

LIMITATIONS:

• Only three types of cancer were included in the analysis, and the findings may not be generalizable to other types of cancer.
• Some of the studies were older and employed out-of-date treatment regimens.
• QoL was only evaluated in three of five studies and could not be evaluated overall in the meta-analysis because of the different time points measured in each trial.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. Two investigators have advisory, speaker, and/or research ties to Celgene, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and other companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Concizumab (Novo Nordisk), a subcutaneous monoclonal antibody administered once daily, shows significant reductions in annualized bleeding rates in patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors, potentially representing the first subcutaneous treatment option for patients with hemophilia B with inhibitors.

“These results demonstrate the potential of concizumab as an efficacious treatment option for people living with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors – the latter a population with severely limited treatment options,” first author Tadashi Matsushita, MD, PhD, of the department of transfusion medicine, Nagoya (Japan) University Hospital, said in an interview regarding the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results are from the prospective, multicenter, phase 3 explorer7 trial, involving 133 patients, including 80 with hemophilia A and 53 had hemophilia B, all with inhibitors, a complication of hemophilia therapy in which antibodies ‘inhibit’ clot formation and complicate standard treatment.

The patients, aged 12 or older and all receiving on-demand treatment with bypassing agents, were randomized to receive no prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (n = 19) or concizumab prophylaxis for at least 32 weeks (n = 33), with the remaining patients nonrandomly assigned to two groups receiving concizumab prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (n = 81).

For the primary endpoint of the estimated mean annualized bleeding rate, the rate in the no-prophylaxis group was 11.8 episodes versus just 1.7 episodes in the concizumab prophylaxis 32-week group (rate ratio, 0.14; P < .001).

The overall median annualized bleeding rate for patients in all three groups receiving concizumab was zero episodes.

Annualized rates of treated spontaneous, joint, and target joint bleeding episodes were also lower in the concizumab groups versus the no-prophylaxis group, with annualized rate ratios that were similar to the annualized rate ratio for the primary endpoint.

While similar annualized bleeding rates were observed in hemophilia subtypes, the study wasn’t powered to show superiority according the hemophilia A or B, the authors noted.

Plasma concentrations of concizumab remained stable over the course of the study.

There were no significant differences in terms of key secondary endpoints of change in bodily pain and physical functioning scores from the start of treatment to week 24.
 

Pause for safety

Treatment in the study was paused for 6 months from March 2020 to August 2020 following nonfatal thromboembolic events occurring in three patients receiving concizumab, including one in the explorer7 trial and two in the concurrent explorer8 trial, evaluating the drug in patients with hemophilia without inhibitors.

The authors wrote that the three patients had all received concomitant treatment for bleeding and had thrombotic risk factors including obesity and other comorbidities.

The trial resumed following mitigation measures that included revising the dosing regimen to include a 1–mg/kg concizumab loading dose, followed by a subcutaneous once-daily dose of 0.2 mg/kg concizumab. No further thromboembolic events were reported after the pause. Otherwise, adverse events were mainly low grade, with serious events being rare.
 

Option for hemophilia B important

Of the two disease types, hemophilia A is much more common, with an estimated prevalence in the United States of 12 cases per 100,000 males versus hemophilia B, which has a rate of only 3.7 cases per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Women make up only about 1% of cases with moderate to severe hemophilia.

A standard treatment of hemophilia A or B is prophylaxis with factor replacement therapies allow for improved clotting and reduced bleeding. However, one caveat is the need for intravenous injections, as often as once daily in some cases.

The development of inhibitors in response to replacement therapy may further necessitate the need for treatment with bypassing agents for breakthrough bleeding.

As an alternative, non–factor replacement therapies can promote coagulation, notably the factor VIII mimetic emicizumab, given by subcutaneous injection, and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for patients with and without inhibitors.

Emicizumab is recommended by the World Federation on Hemophilia over bypassing agents as prophylaxis for patients with hemophilia A and persistent inhibitors.

Importantly, however, there are no effective prophylactic treatments or easily administered subcutaneous therapies available for hemophilia B with inhibitors, underscoring the potential importance of concizumab, which targets the tissue factor pathway inhibitor protein, linked to coagulation.

“Concizumab has the potential to become the first subcutaneous and first-in-class treatment for hemophilia B with inhibitors,” Dr. Matsushita said. “There are other therapies investigated for hemophilia B with and without inhibitors still in clinical development,” he noted.
 

FDA resubmission planned

In May, Novo Nordisk announced that the FDA had rejected its application for concizumab, requesting more information on the drug’s manufacturing process and its system for the monitoring and dosing of patients to ensure proper drug administration. In a statement, Novo Nordisk reported its plans to move ahead.

“Novo Nordisk has begun addressing the FDA’s feedback and is working closely with the FDA as plans for resubmission continue,” the company reported. “We are confident in the potential of concizumab to address a significant unmet need, particularly for people with hemophilia B with inhibitors who currently have limited prophylactic options and are committed to bringing this important treatment to people with hemophilia with inhibitors living in the U.S.A.”

Meanwhile in Canada, concizumab was approved in March 2023 for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with hemophilia B with inhibitors and who require routine prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

The authors wrote that concizumab continues to be investigated across all hemophilia subtypes, including in the explorer10 study, which is evaluating the drug in children living with hemophilia A or B, with and without inhibitors.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Matsushita reported speaking for and participating on a scientific advisory board of Novo Nordisk.

Concizumab (Novo Nordisk), a subcutaneous monoclonal antibody administered once daily, shows significant reductions in annualized bleeding rates in patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors, potentially representing the first subcutaneous treatment option for patients with hemophilia B with inhibitors.

“These results demonstrate the potential of concizumab as an efficacious treatment option for people living with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors – the latter a population with severely limited treatment options,” first author Tadashi Matsushita, MD, PhD, of the department of transfusion medicine, Nagoya (Japan) University Hospital, said in an interview regarding the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results are from the prospective, multicenter, phase 3 explorer7 trial, involving 133 patients, including 80 with hemophilia A and 53 had hemophilia B, all with inhibitors, a complication of hemophilia therapy in which antibodies ‘inhibit’ clot formation and complicate standard treatment.

The patients, aged 12 or older and all receiving on-demand treatment with bypassing agents, were randomized to receive no prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (n = 19) or concizumab prophylaxis for at least 32 weeks (n = 33), with the remaining patients nonrandomly assigned to two groups receiving concizumab prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (n = 81).

For the primary endpoint of the estimated mean annualized bleeding rate, the rate in the no-prophylaxis group was 11.8 episodes versus just 1.7 episodes in the concizumab prophylaxis 32-week group (rate ratio, 0.14; P < .001).

The overall median annualized bleeding rate for patients in all three groups receiving concizumab was zero episodes.

Annualized rates of treated spontaneous, joint, and target joint bleeding episodes were also lower in the concizumab groups versus the no-prophylaxis group, with annualized rate ratios that were similar to the annualized rate ratio for the primary endpoint.

While similar annualized bleeding rates were observed in hemophilia subtypes, the study wasn’t powered to show superiority according the hemophilia A or B, the authors noted.

Plasma concentrations of concizumab remained stable over the course of the study.

There were no significant differences in terms of key secondary endpoints of change in bodily pain and physical functioning scores from the start of treatment to week 24.
 

Pause for safety

Treatment in the study was paused for 6 months from March 2020 to August 2020 following nonfatal thromboembolic events occurring in three patients receiving concizumab, including one in the explorer7 trial and two in the concurrent explorer8 trial, evaluating the drug in patients with hemophilia without inhibitors.

The authors wrote that the three patients had all received concomitant treatment for bleeding and had thrombotic risk factors including obesity and other comorbidities.

The trial resumed following mitigation measures that included revising the dosing regimen to include a 1–mg/kg concizumab loading dose, followed by a subcutaneous once-daily dose of 0.2 mg/kg concizumab. No further thromboembolic events were reported after the pause. Otherwise, adverse events were mainly low grade, with serious events being rare.
 

Option for hemophilia B important

Of the two disease types, hemophilia A is much more common, with an estimated prevalence in the United States of 12 cases per 100,000 males versus hemophilia B, which has a rate of only 3.7 cases per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Women make up only about 1% of cases with moderate to severe hemophilia.

A standard treatment of hemophilia A or B is prophylaxis with factor replacement therapies allow for improved clotting and reduced bleeding. However, one caveat is the need for intravenous injections, as often as once daily in some cases.

The development of inhibitors in response to replacement therapy may further necessitate the need for treatment with bypassing agents for breakthrough bleeding.

As an alternative, non–factor replacement therapies can promote coagulation, notably the factor VIII mimetic emicizumab, given by subcutaneous injection, and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for patients with and without inhibitors.

Emicizumab is recommended by the World Federation on Hemophilia over bypassing agents as prophylaxis for patients with hemophilia A and persistent inhibitors.

Importantly, however, there are no effective prophylactic treatments or easily administered subcutaneous therapies available for hemophilia B with inhibitors, underscoring the potential importance of concizumab, which targets the tissue factor pathway inhibitor protein, linked to coagulation.

“Concizumab has the potential to become the first subcutaneous and first-in-class treatment for hemophilia B with inhibitors,” Dr. Matsushita said. “There are other therapies investigated for hemophilia B with and without inhibitors still in clinical development,” he noted.
 

FDA resubmission planned

In May, Novo Nordisk announced that the FDA had rejected its application for concizumab, requesting more information on the drug’s manufacturing process and its system for the monitoring and dosing of patients to ensure proper drug administration. In a statement, Novo Nordisk reported its plans to move ahead.

“Novo Nordisk has begun addressing the FDA’s feedback and is working closely with the FDA as plans for resubmission continue,” the company reported. “We are confident in the potential of concizumab to address a significant unmet need, particularly for people with hemophilia B with inhibitors who currently have limited prophylactic options and are committed to bringing this important treatment to people with hemophilia with inhibitors living in the U.S.A.”

Meanwhile in Canada, concizumab was approved in March 2023 for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with hemophilia B with inhibitors and who require routine prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

The authors wrote that concizumab continues to be investigated across all hemophilia subtypes, including in the explorer10 study, which is evaluating the drug in children living with hemophilia A or B, with and without inhibitors.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Matsushita reported speaking for and participating on a scientific advisory board of Novo Nordisk.

Concizumab (Novo Nordisk), a subcutaneous monoclonal antibody administered once daily, shows significant reductions in annualized bleeding rates in patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors, potentially representing the first subcutaneous treatment option for patients with hemophilia B with inhibitors.

“These results demonstrate the potential of concizumab as an efficacious treatment option for people living with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors – the latter a population with severely limited treatment options,” first author Tadashi Matsushita, MD, PhD, of the department of transfusion medicine, Nagoya (Japan) University Hospital, said in an interview regarding the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results are from the prospective, multicenter, phase 3 explorer7 trial, involving 133 patients, including 80 with hemophilia A and 53 had hemophilia B, all with inhibitors, a complication of hemophilia therapy in which antibodies ‘inhibit’ clot formation and complicate standard treatment.

The patients, aged 12 or older and all receiving on-demand treatment with bypassing agents, were randomized to receive no prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (n = 19) or concizumab prophylaxis for at least 32 weeks (n = 33), with the remaining patients nonrandomly assigned to two groups receiving concizumab prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (n = 81).

For the primary endpoint of the estimated mean annualized bleeding rate, the rate in the no-prophylaxis group was 11.8 episodes versus just 1.7 episodes in the concizumab prophylaxis 32-week group (rate ratio, 0.14; P < .001).

The overall median annualized bleeding rate for patients in all three groups receiving concizumab was zero episodes.

Annualized rates of treated spontaneous, joint, and target joint bleeding episodes were also lower in the concizumab groups versus the no-prophylaxis group, with annualized rate ratios that were similar to the annualized rate ratio for the primary endpoint.

While similar annualized bleeding rates were observed in hemophilia subtypes, the study wasn’t powered to show superiority according the hemophilia A or B, the authors noted.

Plasma concentrations of concizumab remained stable over the course of the study.

There were no significant differences in terms of key secondary endpoints of change in bodily pain and physical functioning scores from the start of treatment to week 24.
 

Pause for safety

Treatment in the study was paused for 6 months from March 2020 to August 2020 following nonfatal thromboembolic events occurring in three patients receiving concizumab, including one in the explorer7 trial and two in the concurrent explorer8 trial, evaluating the drug in patients with hemophilia without inhibitors.

The authors wrote that the three patients had all received concomitant treatment for bleeding and had thrombotic risk factors including obesity and other comorbidities.

The trial resumed following mitigation measures that included revising the dosing regimen to include a 1–mg/kg concizumab loading dose, followed by a subcutaneous once-daily dose of 0.2 mg/kg concizumab. No further thromboembolic events were reported after the pause. Otherwise, adverse events were mainly low grade, with serious events being rare.
 

Option for hemophilia B important

Of the two disease types, hemophilia A is much more common, with an estimated prevalence in the United States of 12 cases per 100,000 males versus hemophilia B, which has a rate of only 3.7 cases per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Women make up only about 1% of cases with moderate to severe hemophilia.

A standard treatment of hemophilia A or B is prophylaxis with factor replacement therapies allow for improved clotting and reduced bleeding. However, one caveat is the need for intravenous injections, as often as once daily in some cases.

The development of inhibitors in response to replacement therapy may further necessitate the need for treatment with bypassing agents for breakthrough bleeding.

As an alternative, non–factor replacement therapies can promote coagulation, notably the factor VIII mimetic emicizumab, given by subcutaneous injection, and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for patients with and without inhibitors.

Emicizumab is recommended by the World Federation on Hemophilia over bypassing agents as prophylaxis for patients with hemophilia A and persistent inhibitors.

Importantly, however, there are no effective prophylactic treatments or easily administered subcutaneous therapies available for hemophilia B with inhibitors, underscoring the potential importance of concizumab, which targets the tissue factor pathway inhibitor protein, linked to coagulation.

“Concizumab has the potential to become the first subcutaneous and first-in-class treatment for hemophilia B with inhibitors,” Dr. Matsushita said. “There are other therapies investigated for hemophilia B with and without inhibitors still in clinical development,” he noted.
 

FDA resubmission planned

In May, Novo Nordisk announced that the FDA had rejected its application for concizumab, requesting more information on the drug’s manufacturing process and its system for the monitoring and dosing of patients to ensure proper drug administration. In a statement, Novo Nordisk reported its plans to move ahead.

“Novo Nordisk has begun addressing the FDA’s feedback and is working closely with the FDA as plans for resubmission continue,” the company reported. “We are confident in the potential of concizumab to address a significant unmet need, particularly for people with hemophilia B with inhibitors who currently have limited prophylactic options and are committed to bringing this important treatment to people with hemophilia with inhibitors living in the U.S.A.”

Meanwhile in Canada, concizumab was approved in March 2023 for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with hemophilia B with inhibitors and who require routine prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

The authors wrote that concizumab continues to be investigated across all hemophilia subtypes, including in the explorer10 study, which is evaluating the drug in children living with hemophilia A or B, with and without inhibitors.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Matsushita reported speaking for and participating on a scientific advisory board of Novo Nordisk.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved canakinumab (Ilaris) for the treatment of gout flares in adults who cannot be treated with NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids. The drug is also indicated for people who could not tolerate or had an inadequate response to NSAIDs or colchicine.

The drug, a humanized anti–interleukin-1 beta monoclonal antibody, is the first and only biologic approved in the United States for the treatment of gout flares, according to Novartis. It is administered in a single, subcutaneous injection of 150 mg.

“At Novartis, we are committed to bringing medicines that address high unmet needs to patients. We are proud to receive approval on our eighth indication for Ilaris in the U.S. and provide the first biologic medicine option for people with gout flares to help treat this painful and debilitating condition,” the company said in a statement to this news organization.

Canakinumab was first approved in the United States in 2009 for the treatment of children and adults with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). Since then, it has been approved for the treatment of several other autoinflammatory diseases, including Still’s disease and recurrent fever syndromes.

In 2011, an FDA advisory panel voted against the approval of canakinumab to treat acute gout flares refractory to NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids, while in 2013, the European Medicine Agency approved the drug for this treatment indication.

Since that FDA advisory committee meeting and the FDA’s subsequent rejection letter, “[Novartis] has conducted additional studies in patients with gout flares and other related populations to further characterize the short- and long-term safety of canakinumab supporting the current application. To further support the benefit-risk [profile of the drug], the indication is for a more restricted population than initially proposed in 2011,” the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in a statement to this news organization. “Given these considerations and the available safety information, the Agency determined that canakinumab, at the recommended dosage, has a favorable risk-benefit profile” in the specified patient population.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved canakinumab (Ilaris) for the treatment of gout flares in adults who cannot be treated with NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids. The drug is also indicated for people who could not tolerate or had an inadequate response to NSAIDs or colchicine.

The drug, a humanized anti–interleukin-1 beta monoclonal antibody, is the first and only biologic approved in the United States for the treatment of gout flares, according to Novartis. It is administered in a single, subcutaneous injection of 150 mg.

“At Novartis, we are committed to bringing medicines that address high unmet needs to patients. We are proud to receive approval on our eighth indication for Ilaris in the U.S. and provide the first biologic medicine option for people with gout flares to help treat this painful and debilitating condition,” the company said in a statement to this news organization.

Canakinumab was first approved in the United States in 2009 for the treatment of children and adults with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). Since then, it has been approved for the treatment of several other autoinflammatory diseases, including Still’s disease and recurrent fever syndromes.

In 2011, an FDA advisory panel voted against the approval of canakinumab to treat acute gout flares refractory to NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids, while in 2013, the European Medicine Agency approved the drug for this treatment indication.

Since that FDA advisory committee meeting and the FDA’s subsequent rejection letter, “[Novartis] has conducted additional studies in patients with gout flares and other related populations to further characterize the short- and long-term safety of canakinumab supporting the current application. To further support the benefit-risk [profile of the drug], the indication is for a more restricted population than initially proposed in 2011,” the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in a statement to this news organization. “Given these considerations and the available safety information, the Agency determined that canakinumab, at the recommended dosage, has a favorable risk-benefit profile” in the specified patient population.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved canakinumab (Ilaris) for the treatment of gout flares in adults who cannot be treated with NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids. The drug is also indicated for people who could not tolerate or had an inadequate response to NSAIDs or colchicine.

The drug, a humanized anti–interleukin-1 beta monoclonal antibody, is the first and only biologic approved in the United States for the treatment of gout flares, according to Novartis. It is administered in a single, subcutaneous injection of 150 mg.

“At Novartis, we are committed to bringing medicines that address high unmet needs to patients. We are proud to receive approval on our eighth indication for Ilaris in the U.S. and provide the first biologic medicine option for people with gout flares to help treat this painful and debilitating condition,” the company said in a statement to this news organization.

Canakinumab was first approved in the United States in 2009 for the treatment of children and adults with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS). Since then, it has been approved for the treatment of several other autoinflammatory diseases, including Still’s disease and recurrent fever syndromes.

In 2011, an FDA advisory panel voted against the approval of canakinumab to treat acute gout flares refractory to NSAIDs, colchicine, or repeated courses of corticosteroids, while in 2013, the European Medicine Agency approved the drug for this treatment indication.

Since that FDA advisory committee meeting and the FDA’s subsequent rejection letter, “[Novartis] has conducted additional studies in patients with gout flares and other related populations to further characterize the short- and long-term safety of canakinumab supporting the current application. To further support the benefit-risk [profile of the drug], the indication is for a more restricted population than initially proposed in 2011,” the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said in a statement to this news organization. “Given these considerations and the available safety information, the Agency determined that canakinumab, at the recommended dosage, has a favorable risk-benefit profile” in the specified patient population.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.