Hematology News

Glofitamab, a fixed-duration CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody, combined with a chemotherapy regimen of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GemOx), shows significant survival benefits in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL), compared with the standard-of-care regimen.

“Glofitamab is the first CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in DLBCL in a randomized phase 3 trial,” said first author Jeremy Abramson, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid.

“These results support the use of glofitamab GemOx as new, off-the-shelf treatment for relapsed/refractory DLBCL in patients who are transplant ineligible in the second-line or later setting,” he said.

The findings are from the phase 3 STARGLO study involving 274 patients with R/R DLBCL who had previously been treated either with at least two prior lines of therapy, or—if only one prior line of therapy—were determined to be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

At a median follow-up of 21 months, those treated with glofitamab combined with GemOx had a significantly higher median overall survival of 25.5 months, compared with those treated with the standard of care of rituximab and GemOx (12.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .006).

“The results show a 38% lower risk of death with the glofitamab plus GemOx, compared with [the rituximab regimen],” Dr. Abramson said.

Secondary endpoints showed consistent benefits with the glofitamab regimen, with significant improvements in progression-free survival and complete remission.
 

Unmet Need for Accessible Therapies

Relapsed/refractory DLBCL, the most common form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the United States, is an aggressive blood cancer. The standard second-line therapy is high-dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT. However, factors including older age or coexisting medical conditions can compromise response, and those who relapse or are refractory to subsequent therapies have poor outcomes.

“Relapsed DLBCL in the second-line setting or later continues to represent an area of medical need,” Dr. Abramson said.

While several CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody drugs are under development to address the need, glofitamab was the first off-the-shelf, fixed-duration bispecific antibody to receive accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of R/R DLBCL, specifically as monotherapy after two or more lines of systemic therapy.

That approval was based on results from a pivotal phase 1/2 study, which showed high rates of deep and durable complete remission with the monotherapy.

To further evaluate glofitamab in combination with GemOx, the authors conducted the multicenter, open-label STARGLO trial, which extended enrollment to patients with just one prior therapy if they were determined to be stem cell transplant ineligible. Patients were also required to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 2.

Patients were randomized 2:1 either to treatment with glofitamab combined with GemOx, involving 8 cycles, in addition to 4 cycles of glofitamab monotherapy (n = 183), or to the rituximab plus GemOx regimen in 8 cycles (n = 91).

Overall, 153 (55.8%) of patients had primary refractory disease and 166 (60.6%) were refractory to their last therapy. The median age was 68, and 37% had two or more lines of therapy, including some who had received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy (8.8% in the glofitamab group and 7.1% in the rituximab group).

In addition to the significant overall survival benefit, the glofitamab regimen also showed significantly improved progression-free survival at a median follow-up of 16.1 months, as observed by IRC-assessed PFS, with a median progression-free survival rate of 13.8 months vs 3.6 months (HR, 0.40; P < .0001).

The complete remission rate was doubled with glofitamab-GemOx, with a rate of 58.5% vs 25.3%, respectively; P < .0001.

Similar results were observed in subgroups, including relapsed vs refractory patients and those treated as a second or third line of care.

The median number of cycles received was higher among those receiving glofitamab (11 vs four cycles).

Adverse event (AE) rates were higher with glofitamab vs rituximab, including grade 3-4 AEs (69.4 vs 36.4%), grade 5 AEs (8.3 vs 4.5%; primarily driven by an imbalance of COVID-19 AEs), and serious AEs (54.4 vs 17.0%; primarily cytokine release syndrome [CRS]).

CRS was the most frequently reported AE in the glofitamab group (grade 1: 31.4%; grade 2: 10.5%; and grade 3: 2.3%), and events consistent with immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome were reported in four patients (2.3%), all of which were concurrent with CRS.

Other AEs were consistent with the known risks associated with the therapy regimens.

“We found that with glofitamab GemOx, the toxicities were manageable, and the most common toxicity of CRS was predominantly low-grade and occurred with step-up dosing in cycle one and was completely reversible,” Dr. Abramson said.

He noted that the higher rate of grade 5 AEs with glofitamab GemOx “was far outweighed by the survival benefit for disease control.”

Overall, “these findings represent the best outcomes observed in a phase 3 trial for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients who are considered transplant ineligible,” Dr. Abramson said in an interview.
 

Improved Accessibility Vs CAR-T Therapy

Among key developments in the treatment of R/R DLBCL has been the advent and approval of potentially highly effective CAR T-cell therapy, with the anti-CD19 CAR T cell isiocabtagene maraleucel also FDA approved in the non–transplant eligible DLBCL second-line setting.

Asked in the press briefing about the role of glofitamab GemOx in relation to CAR T cell’s significant benefits, Dr. Abramson underscored the important limitations in CAR T-cell accessibility.

“What I would say is a rising tide lifts all boats,” he responded. “It’s great to have multiple effective immunotherapy strategies.”

However, “CAR T cells of course are not available to most people in the US or worldwide,” he explained.

“They are more difficult to access, they require lymphodepleting chemotherapy, and so ultimately, the majority of patients who could potentially benefit from a CAR T cell probably don’t have access to them in the first place.”

He noted that “the appeal of a regimen like [glofitamab] is that it is an off-the-shelf, targeted immunotherapy combined with a well-tolerated chemotherapy backbone and should be more broadly accessible outside of just tertiary care centers in major cities.”
 

Long-Term Durability?

Looking ahead, Dr. Abramson noted that a key issue of focus is how long the encouraging results actually last.

“The major ongoing question with this trial is the long-term durability of remissions,” he said.

“Thus far, with a median of 21 months of follow-up for overall survival, the results are encouraging but longer follow-up is needed,” he added.

“Further trials are needed in a broader large B-cell lymphoma population as this trial was limited to DLBCL not otherwise specified, so did not include patients with transformed lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, high grade B-cell lymphoma, etc.” 
 

Is Chemo Necessary?

Commenting on the findings, Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, director of the Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester School of Medicine, in Rochester, New York, underscored that, “given the overall survival benefit, these findings are clearly clinically significant.”

Noting that “these results add to evidence of high activity of bispecific antibodies in this disease,” Dr. Friedberg speculated on the role of chemotherapy with the therapy.

“Indeed, an important question in this study is whether the addition of chemotherapy to glofitamab is necessary, as high response rates with durable responses in patients who achieve complete remission have been demonstrated with single agent bispecific antibody therapy,” he said. 

With the durability of CAR T therapy shown in long-term follow-up of trials to exceed 5 years, Dr. Friedberg added that “it is not known how bispecific antibody therapy, with or without chemotherapy, compares to CAR T-cell therapy and how to sequence CAR T and bispecific antibody therapy.”

Dr. Friedberg agreed that longer-term results are needed get a clearer, fuller picture of the therapy’s effects.

“I have no doubt that the overall survival benefit will endure, but in DLBCL our goal should be cure, and whether glofitamab cures as many patients as CAR T-cell therapy is not currently known and will require further follow-up of this and other trials.”

The study was sponsored by F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. Dr. Abramson reported ties with AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Cellectar, Caribou Biosciences, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Incyte, Interius, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Seagen, and Takeda. Dr. Friedberg had no disclosures.

Glofitamab, a fixed-duration CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody, combined with a chemotherapy regimen of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GemOx), shows significant survival benefits in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL), compared with the standard-of-care regimen.

“Glofitamab is the first CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in DLBCL in a randomized phase 3 trial,” said first author Jeremy Abramson, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid.

“These results support the use of glofitamab GemOx as new, off-the-shelf treatment for relapsed/refractory DLBCL in patients who are transplant ineligible in the second-line or later setting,” he said.

The findings are from the phase 3 STARGLO study involving 274 patients with R/R DLBCL who had previously been treated either with at least two prior lines of therapy, or—if only one prior line of therapy—were determined to be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

At a median follow-up of 21 months, those treated with glofitamab combined with GemOx had a significantly higher median overall survival of 25.5 months, compared with those treated with the standard of care of rituximab and GemOx (12.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .006).

“The results show a 38% lower risk of death with the glofitamab plus GemOx, compared with [the rituximab regimen],” Dr. Abramson said.

Secondary endpoints showed consistent benefits with the glofitamab regimen, with significant improvements in progression-free survival and complete remission.
 

Unmet Need for Accessible Therapies

Relapsed/refractory DLBCL, the most common form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the United States, is an aggressive blood cancer. The standard second-line therapy is high-dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT. However, factors including older age or coexisting medical conditions can compromise response, and those who relapse or are refractory to subsequent therapies have poor outcomes.

“Relapsed DLBCL in the second-line setting or later continues to represent an area of medical need,” Dr. Abramson said.

While several CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody drugs are under development to address the need, glofitamab was the first off-the-shelf, fixed-duration bispecific antibody to receive accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of R/R DLBCL, specifically as monotherapy after two or more lines of systemic therapy.

That approval was based on results from a pivotal phase 1/2 study, which showed high rates of deep and durable complete remission with the monotherapy.

To further evaluate glofitamab in combination with GemOx, the authors conducted the multicenter, open-label STARGLO trial, which extended enrollment to patients with just one prior therapy if they were determined to be stem cell transplant ineligible. Patients were also required to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 2.

Patients were randomized 2:1 either to treatment with glofitamab combined with GemOx, involving 8 cycles, in addition to 4 cycles of glofitamab monotherapy (n = 183), or to the rituximab plus GemOx regimen in 8 cycles (n = 91).

Overall, 153 (55.8%) of patients had primary refractory disease and 166 (60.6%) were refractory to their last therapy. The median age was 68, and 37% had two or more lines of therapy, including some who had received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy (8.8% in the glofitamab group and 7.1% in the rituximab group).

In addition to the significant overall survival benefit, the glofitamab regimen also showed significantly improved progression-free survival at a median follow-up of 16.1 months, as observed by IRC-assessed PFS, with a median progression-free survival rate of 13.8 months vs 3.6 months (HR, 0.40; P < .0001).

The complete remission rate was doubled with glofitamab-GemOx, with a rate of 58.5% vs 25.3%, respectively; P < .0001.

Similar results were observed in subgroups, including relapsed vs refractory patients and those treated as a second or third line of care.

The median number of cycles received was higher among those receiving glofitamab (11 vs four cycles).

Adverse event (AE) rates were higher with glofitamab vs rituximab, including grade 3-4 AEs (69.4 vs 36.4%), grade 5 AEs (8.3 vs 4.5%; primarily driven by an imbalance of COVID-19 AEs), and serious AEs (54.4 vs 17.0%; primarily cytokine release syndrome [CRS]).

CRS was the most frequently reported AE in the glofitamab group (grade 1: 31.4%; grade 2: 10.5%; and grade 3: 2.3%), and events consistent with immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome were reported in four patients (2.3%), all of which were concurrent with CRS.

Other AEs were consistent with the known risks associated with the therapy regimens.

“We found that with glofitamab GemOx, the toxicities were manageable, and the most common toxicity of CRS was predominantly low-grade and occurred with step-up dosing in cycle one and was completely reversible,” Dr. Abramson said.

He noted that the higher rate of grade 5 AEs with glofitamab GemOx “was far outweighed by the survival benefit for disease control.”

Overall, “these findings represent the best outcomes observed in a phase 3 trial for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients who are considered transplant ineligible,” Dr. Abramson said in an interview.
 

Improved Accessibility Vs CAR-T Therapy

Among key developments in the treatment of R/R DLBCL has been the advent and approval of potentially highly effective CAR T-cell therapy, with the anti-CD19 CAR T cell isiocabtagene maraleucel also FDA approved in the non–transplant eligible DLBCL second-line setting.

Asked in the press briefing about the role of glofitamab GemOx in relation to CAR T cell’s significant benefits, Dr. Abramson underscored the important limitations in CAR T-cell accessibility.

“What I would say is a rising tide lifts all boats,” he responded. “It’s great to have multiple effective immunotherapy strategies.”

However, “CAR T cells of course are not available to most people in the US or worldwide,” he explained.

“They are more difficult to access, they require lymphodepleting chemotherapy, and so ultimately, the majority of patients who could potentially benefit from a CAR T cell probably don’t have access to them in the first place.”

He noted that “the appeal of a regimen like [glofitamab] is that it is an off-the-shelf, targeted immunotherapy combined with a well-tolerated chemotherapy backbone and should be more broadly accessible outside of just tertiary care centers in major cities.”
 

Long-Term Durability?

Looking ahead, Dr. Abramson noted that a key issue of focus is how long the encouraging results actually last.

“The major ongoing question with this trial is the long-term durability of remissions,” he said.

“Thus far, with a median of 21 months of follow-up for overall survival, the results are encouraging but longer follow-up is needed,” he added.

“Further trials are needed in a broader large B-cell lymphoma population as this trial was limited to DLBCL not otherwise specified, so did not include patients with transformed lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, high grade B-cell lymphoma, etc.” 
 

Is Chemo Necessary?

Commenting on the findings, Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, director of the Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester School of Medicine, in Rochester, New York, underscored that, “given the overall survival benefit, these findings are clearly clinically significant.”

Noting that “these results add to evidence of high activity of bispecific antibodies in this disease,” Dr. Friedberg speculated on the role of chemotherapy with the therapy.

“Indeed, an important question in this study is whether the addition of chemotherapy to glofitamab is necessary, as high response rates with durable responses in patients who achieve complete remission have been demonstrated with single agent bispecific antibody therapy,” he said. 

With the durability of CAR T therapy shown in long-term follow-up of trials to exceed 5 years, Dr. Friedberg added that “it is not known how bispecific antibody therapy, with or without chemotherapy, compares to CAR T-cell therapy and how to sequence CAR T and bispecific antibody therapy.”

Dr. Friedberg agreed that longer-term results are needed get a clearer, fuller picture of the therapy’s effects.

“I have no doubt that the overall survival benefit will endure, but in DLBCL our goal should be cure, and whether glofitamab cures as many patients as CAR T-cell therapy is not currently known and will require further follow-up of this and other trials.”

The study was sponsored by F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. Dr. Abramson reported ties with AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Cellectar, Caribou Biosciences, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Incyte, Interius, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Seagen, and Takeda. Dr. Friedberg had no disclosures.

Glofitamab, a fixed-duration CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody, combined with a chemotherapy regimen of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GemOx), shows significant survival benefits in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL), compared with the standard-of-care regimen.

“Glofitamab is the first CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in DLBCL in a randomized phase 3 trial,” said first author Jeremy Abramson, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, in a press briefing at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid.

“These results support the use of glofitamab GemOx as new, off-the-shelf treatment for relapsed/refractory DLBCL in patients who are transplant ineligible in the second-line or later setting,” he said.

The findings are from the phase 3 STARGLO study involving 274 patients with R/R DLBCL who had previously been treated either with at least two prior lines of therapy, or—if only one prior line of therapy—were determined to be ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).

At a median follow-up of 21 months, those treated with glofitamab combined with GemOx had a significantly higher median overall survival of 25.5 months, compared with those treated with the standard of care of rituximab and GemOx (12.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .006).

“The results show a 38% lower risk of death with the glofitamab plus GemOx, compared with [the rituximab regimen],” Dr. Abramson said.

Secondary endpoints showed consistent benefits with the glofitamab regimen, with significant improvements in progression-free survival and complete remission.
 

Unmet Need for Accessible Therapies

Relapsed/refractory DLBCL, the most common form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the United States, is an aggressive blood cancer. The standard second-line therapy is high-dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT. However, factors including older age or coexisting medical conditions can compromise response, and those who relapse or are refractory to subsequent therapies have poor outcomes.

“Relapsed DLBCL in the second-line setting or later continues to represent an area of medical need,” Dr. Abramson said.

While several CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody drugs are under development to address the need, glofitamab was the first off-the-shelf, fixed-duration bispecific antibody to receive accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of R/R DLBCL, specifically as monotherapy after two or more lines of systemic therapy.

That approval was based on results from a pivotal phase 1/2 study, which showed high rates of deep and durable complete remission with the monotherapy.

To further evaluate glofitamab in combination with GemOx, the authors conducted the multicenter, open-label STARGLO trial, which extended enrollment to patients with just one prior therapy if they were determined to be stem cell transplant ineligible. Patients were also required to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 to 2.

Patients were randomized 2:1 either to treatment with glofitamab combined with GemOx, involving 8 cycles, in addition to 4 cycles of glofitamab monotherapy (n = 183), or to the rituximab plus GemOx regimen in 8 cycles (n = 91).

Overall, 153 (55.8%) of patients had primary refractory disease and 166 (60.6%) were refractory to their last therapy. The median age was 68, and 37% had two or more lines of therapy, including some who had received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy (8.8% in the glofitamab group and 7.1% in the rituximab group).

In addition to the significant overall survival benefit, the glofitamab regimen also showed significantly improved progression-free survival at a median follow-up of 16.1 months, as observed by IRC-assessed PFS, with a median progression-free survival rate of 13.8 months vs 3.6 months (HR, 0.40; P < .0001).

The complete remission rate was doubled with glofitamab-GemOx, with a rate of 58.5% vs 25.3%, respectively; P < .0001.

Similar results were observed in subgroups, including relapsed vs refractory patients and those treated as a second or third line of care.

The median number of cycles received was higher among those receiving glofitamab (11 vs four cycles).

Adverse event (AE) rates were higher with glofitamab vs rituximab, including grade 3-4 AEs (69.4 vs 36.4%), grade 5 AEs (8.3 vs 4.5%; primarily driven by an imbalance of COVID-19 AEs), and serious AEs (54.4 vs 17.0%; primarily cytokine release syndrome [CRS]).

CRS was the most frequently reported AE in the glofitamab group (grade 1: 31.4%; grade 2: 10.5%; and grade 3: 2.3%), and events consistent with immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome were reported in four patients (2.3%), all of which were concurrent with CRS.

Other AEs were consistent with the known risks associated with the therapy regimens.

“We found that with glofitamab GemOx, the toxicities were manageable, and the most common toxicity of CRS was predominantly low-grade and occurred with step-up dosing in cycle one and was completely reversible,” Dr. Abramson said.

He noted that the higher rate of grade 5 AEs with glofitamab GemOx “was far outweighed by the survival benefit for disease control.”

Overall, “these findings represent the best outcomes observed in a phase 3 trial for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients who are considered transplant ineligible,” Dr. Abramson said in an interview.
 

Improved Accessibility Vs CAR-T Therapy

Among key developments in the treatment of R/R DLBCL has been the advent and approval of potentially highly effective CAR T-cell therapy, with the anti-CD19 CAR T cell isiocabtagene maraleucel also FDA approved in the non–transplant eligible DLBCL second-line setting.

Asked in the press briefing about the role of glofitamab GemOx in relation to CAR T cell’s significant benefits, Dr. Abramson underscored the important limitations in CAR T-cell accessibility.

“What I would say is a rising tide lifts all boats,” he responded. “It’s great to have multiple effective immunotherapy strategies.”

However, “CAR T cells of course are not available to most people in the US or worldwide,” he explained.

“They are more difficult to access, they require lymphodepleting chemotherapy, and so ultimately, the majority of patients who could potentially benefit from a CAR T cell probably don’t have access to them in the first place.”

He noted that “the appeal of a regimen like [glofitamab] is that it is an off-the-shelf, targeted immunotherapy combined with a well-tolerated chemotherapy backbone and should be more broadly accessible outside of just tertiary care centers in major cities.”
 

Long-Term Durability?

Looking ahead, Dr. Abramson noted that a key issue of focus is how long the encouraging results actually last.

“The major ongoing question with this trial is the long-term durability of remissions,” he said.

“Thus far, with a median of 21 months of follow-up for overall survival, the results are encouraging but longer follow-up is needed,” he added.

“Further trials are needed in a broader large B-cell lymphoma population as this trial was limited to DLBCL not otherwise specified, so did not include patients with transformed lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, high grade B-cell lymphoma, etc.” 
 

Is Chemo Necessary?

Commenting on the findings, Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, director of the Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester School of Medicine, in Rochester, New York, underscored that, “given the overall survival benefit, these findings are clearly clinically significant.”

Noting that “these results add to evidence of high activity of bispecific antibodies in this disease,” Dr. Friedberg speculated on the role of chemotherapy with the therapy.

“Indeed, an important question in this study is whether the addition of chemotherapy to glofitamab is necessary, as high response rates with durable responses in patients who achieve complete remission have been demonstrated with single agent bispecific antibody therapy,” he said. 

With the durability of CAR T therapy shown in long-term follow-up of trials to exceed 5 years, Dr. Friedberg added that “it is not known how bispecific antibody therapy, with or without chemotherapy, compares to CAR T-cell therapy and how to sequence CAR T and bispecific antibody therapy.”

Dr. Friedberg agreed that longer-term results are needed get a clearer, fuller picture of the therapy’s effects.

“I have no doubt that the overall survival benefit will endure, but in DLBCL our goal should be cure, and whether glofitamab cures as many patients as CAR T-cell therapy is not currently known and will require further follow-up of this and other trials.”

The study was sponsored by F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. Dr. Abramson reported ties with AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Cellectar, Caribou Biosciences, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Incyte, Interius, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Seagen, and Takeda. Dr. Friedberg had no disclosures.

The chemotherapy-free combination of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO) that is standard in treating low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) also shows superior benefits in the high-risk APL population, suggesting the regimen should become the standard in those patients as well, new research shows.

“First-line therapy with ATRA-ATO with two initial doses of idarubicin results in superior event-free survival, compared to conventional ATRA-chemotherapy in patients with high-risk APL,” said first author Uwe Platzbecker, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig, department for hematology, cellular therapy, hemostaseology, and infectious diseases, in Leipzig, Germany, at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid, Spain.

“We believe that the trial may support the implementation of this regimen as a new standard of care in all patients with high-risk APL,” he said.

In the treatment of low and intermediate risk APL, a subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the combination of ATRA and ATO has become standard since being shown in a pivotal 2013 study to be superior versus ATRA and chemotherapy. The approach is approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed low-risk APL.

Importantly, the improved survival with ATRA/ATO approach may result from “reduced severe hematologic toxicity together with similar antileukemic efficacy,” compared with the regimen that include chemotherapy, the authors of the 2013 study speculated.

However, the treatment regimen has not been evaluated in randomized trials in patients with high-risk APL, defined as having a white blood cell count of more than 10,000 cells per μL.

For those patients, the conventional treatment remains ATRA with a chemotherapy backbone, Dr. Platzbecker explained.

To evaluate if the improvements extend to high-risk APL patients without compromising safety, Dr. Platzbecker and colleagues conducted the open-label, prospective APOLLO trial, involving newly diagnosed high-risk APL who were enrolled between 2016 and 2022 at 143 sites in six European countries.

The patients were randomized into one of two groups: ATRA/ATO, involving treatment consisting of two doses of idarubicin (12 mg/m²) on days 1 and 3 at the time of induction therapy, in addition to ATO 0.15 mg/kg and ATRA 45 mg/m², daily until complete remission, or the ATRA-chemotherapy arm, involving standard ATRA also with idarubicin induction, followed by three cycles of chemotherapy-based consolidation as well as 2 years of maintenance treatment.

While the study was prematurely discontinued in August 2022 because of COVID-19–related recruitment delays and expiration of the study drug, the maintenance and observational periods are ongoing.

Of 131 patients with high-risk APL who were evaluable for the outcome analysis, 68 were in the ATRA/ATO group and 63 in the ATRA-chemotherapy arm.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 46, 50% were female, their median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was 1. Their median white blood cell count was 36 × 10⁹/L, with 39% having a white blood cell count greater than 50 × 10⁹/L.

Molecular resistance occurred in 1.7% in the ATRA/ATO arm vs 5.5% in the ATRA chemotherapy arm, which was not statistically significant (P = .268); however, the incidence of molecular relapse was much lower without chemotherapy, at 1.6% with ATRA/ATO vs 14% with ATRA and chemotherapy.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 31 months, the 2-year rate of event-free survival those in the ATRA/ATO arm was 88% vs 70% in the ATRA plus chemotherapy regimen (P = .02). The 5-year event-free survival continued to favor ATRA-ATO (87% vs 55%; P = .0034).

The estimated 5-year overall survival was 93% vs 82% for ATRA/ATO vs ATRA-chemotherapy, respectively, which was not significantly different (P = .17).

There were no significant differences between the arms in complete response (93% with ATRA/ATO vs 91% with ATRA-chemotherapy; P = .65), and rates of early death (within the first 30 days) were also similar across arms, at 7% vs 10%, respectively.

Death while in complete remission occurred in zero patients in the ATRA/ATO arm and three in the ATRA chemotherapy arm.

In terms of toxicities, the ATRA/ATO group had significantly lower rates of hematologic toxicity versus ATRA-chemotherapy, including rates of thrombocytopenia grade 1-4 and neutropenia grade 3-4 (P < .001), while there were no significant differences between the groups in hepatic toxicities (11.8% and 14.3%, respectively; P = .08) or differentiation syndrome (1.5% vs 4.8%; P = .27).

QTc prolongation grade 3-4 occurred in 4.4 patients receiving ATRA/ATO, compared with 0 in the ATRA-chemotherapy group; however, Dr. Platzbecker said the cases had no clinical implications.

Asked to elaborate on the regimens’ toxicities in the press briefing, Dr. Platzbecker noted that “what is very important especially for patients, is [lower rates] of issues such as hair loss and constipation that are much less common with the ATRO/ATO regimen.”

“In addition, we know from the early experiences with this that younger patients are being cured by this regimen,” hence improving pregnancy prospects for women.

A take-home message from the overall results is that the ATRO/ATO regimen for high-risk APL patients should represent “a new treatment paradigm” that will “hopefully soon” be reflected in guideline recommendations, Dr. Platzbecker said in an interview.
 

Concerns Included Relapse, Differentiation Syndrome

Commenting on the research, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, explained that, while the “less is more” non-chemotherapy approach was adopted in widespread utilization in low-risk APL because of superior outcomes, a variety of concerns surrounded its use in high-risk patients.

“In high-risk patients, there were concerns that a durable response would be lower and that relapse would be higher for patients receiving ATRA and ATO than those receiving standard chemotherapy,” Dr. Sekeres, who is chief of the division of hematology, department of medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, said in an interview.

“In addition, it was theoretically possible that patients receiving the differentiating agents ATRA and ATO could suffer higher rates of differentiation syndrome, which could contribute to early death,” he explained. “These fears were simply not realized in the trial.”

Caveats of the trial “include the relatively small sample size and that the trial was stopped prematurely due to low enrollment during the COVID pandemic,” he noted.

Another limitation was the median follow-up of about 2.5 years.

However, Dr. Sekeres said he agreed that, “with further follow-up and continued superiority of the idarubicin, ATRA, and ATO combination, this could become a new standard of care for high-risk patients with APL.”

Dr. Platzbecker’s disclosures include ties with Teva, BMS, Curis, Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda. Dr. Sekeres had no disclosures.

The chemotherapy-free combination of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO) that is standard in treating low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) also shows superior benefits in the high-risk APL population, suggesting the regimen should become the standard in those patients as well, new research shows.

“First-line therapy with ATRA-ATO with two initial doses of idarubicin results in superior event-free survival, compared to conventional ATRA-chemotherapy in patients with high-risk APL,” said first author Uwe Platzbecker, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig, department for hematology, cellular therapy, hemostaseology, and infectious diseases, in Leipzig, Germany, at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid, Spain.

“We believe that the trial may support the implementation of this regimen as a new standard of care in all patients with high-risk APL,” he said.

In the treatment of low and intermediate risk APL, a subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the combination of ATRA and ATO has become standard since being shown in a pivotal 2013 study to be superior versus ATRA and chemotherapy. The approach is approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed low-risk APL.

Importantly, the improved survival with ATRA/ATO approach may result from “reduced severe hematologic toxicity together with similar antileukemic efficacy,” compared with the regimen that include chemotherapy, the authors of the 2013 study speculated.

However, the treatment regimen has not been evaluated in randomized trials in patients with high-risk APL, defined as having a white blood cell count of more than 10,000 cells per μL.

For those patients, the conventional treatment remains ATRA with a chemotherapy backbone, Dr. Platzbecker explained.

To evaluate if the improvements extend to high-risk APL patients without compromising safety, Dr. Platzbecker and colleagues conducted the open-label, prospective APOLLO trial, involving newly diagnosed high-risk APL who were enrolled between 2016 and 2022 at 143 sites in six European countries.

The patients were randomized into one of two groups: ATRA/ATO, involving treatment consisting of two doses of idarubicin (12 mg/m²) on days 1 and 3 at the time of induction therapy, in addition to ATO 0.15 mg/kg and ATRA 45 mg/m², daily until complete remission, or the ATRA-chemotherapy arm, involving standard ATRA also with idarubicin induction, followed by three cycles of chemotherapy-based consolidation as well as 2 years of maintenance treatment.

While the study was prematurely discontinued in August 2022 because of COVID-19–related recruitment delays and expiration of the study drug, the maintenance and observational periods are ongoing.

Of 131 patients with high-risk APL who were evaluable for the outcome analysis, 68 were in the ATRA/ATO group and 63 in the ATRA-chemotherapy arm.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 46, 50% were female, their median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was 1. Their median white blood cell count was 36 × 10⁹/L, with 39% having a white blood cell count greater than 50 × 10⁹/L.

Molecular resistance occurred in 1.7% in the ATRA/ATO arm vs 5.5% in the ATRA chemotherapy arm, which was not statistically significant (P = .268); however, the incidence of molecular relapse was much lower without chemotherapy, at 1.6% with ATRA/ATO vs 14% with ATRA and chemotherapy.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 31 months, the 2-year rate of event-free survival those in the ATRA/ATO arm was 88% vs 70% in the ATRA plus chemotherapy regimen (P = .02). The 5-year event-free survival continued to favor ATRA-ATO (87% vs 55%; P = .0034).

The estimated 5-year overall survival was 93% vs 82% for ATRA/ATO vs ATRA-chemotherapy, respectively, which was not significantly different (P = .17).

There were no significant differences between the arms in complete response (93% with ATRA/ATO vs 91% with ATRA-chemotherapy; P = .65), and rates of early death (within the first 30 days) were also similar across arms, at 7% vs 10%, respectively.

Death while in complete remission occurred in zero patients in the ATRA/ATO arm and three in the ATRA chemotherapy arm.

In terms of toxicities, the ATRA/ATO group had significantly lower rates of hematologic toxicity versus ATRA-chemotherapy, including rates of thrombocytopenia grade 1-4 and neutropenia grade 3-4 (P < .001), while there were no significant differences between the groups in hepatic toxicities (11.8% and 14.3%, respectively; P = .08) or differentiation syndrome (1.5% vs 4.8%; P = .27).

QTc prolongation grade 3-4 occurred in 4.4 patients receiving ATRA/ATO, compared with 0 in the ATRA-chemotherapy group; however, Dr. Platzbecker said the cases had no clinical implications.

Asked to elaborate on the regimens’ toxicities in the press briefing, Dr. Platzbecker noted that “what is very important especially for patients, is [lower rates] of issues such as hair loss and constipation that are much less common with the ATRO/ATO regimen.”

“In addition, we know from the early experiences with this that younger patients are being cured by this regimen,” hence improving pregnancy prospects for women.

A take-home message from the overall results is that the ATRO/ATO regimen for high-risk APL patients should represent “a new treatment paradigm” that will “hopefully soon” be reflected in guideline recommendations, Dr. Platzbecker said in an interview.
 

Concerns Included Relapse, Differentiation Syndrome

Commenting on the research, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, explained that, while the “less is more” non-chemotherapy approach was adopted in widespread utilization in low-risk APL because of superior outcomes, a variety of concerns surrounded its use in high-risk patients.

“In high-risk patients, there were concerns that a durable response would be lower and that relapse would be higher for patients receiving ATRA and ATO than those receiving standard chemotherapy,” Dr. Sekeres, who is chief of the division of hematology, department of medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, said in an interview.

“In addition, it was theoretically possible that patients receiving the differentiating agents ATRA and ATO could suffer higher rates of differentiation syndrome, which could contribute to early death,” he explained. “These fears were simply not realized in the trial.”

Caveats of the trial “include the relatively small sample size and that the trial was stopped prematurely due to low enrollment during the COVID pandemic,” he noted.

Another limitation was the median follow-up of about 2.5 years.

However, Dr. Sekeres said he agreed that, “with further follow-up and continued superiority of the idarubicin, ATRA, and ATO combination, this could become a new standard of care for high-risk patients with APL.”

Dr. Platzbecker’s disclosures include ties with Teva, BMS, Curis, Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda. Dr. Sekeres had no disclosures.

The chemotherapy-free combination of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO) that is standard in treating low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) also shows superior benefits in the high-risk APL population, suggesting the regimen should become the standard in those patients as well, new research shows.

“First-line therapy with ATRA-ATO with two initial doses of idarubicin results in superior event-free survival, compared to conventional ATRA-chemotherapy in patients with high-risk APL,” said first author Uwe Platzbecker, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig, department for hematology, cellular therapy, hemostaseology, and infectious diseases, in Leipzig, Germany, at the annual meeting of the European Hematology Association (EHA) in Madrid, Spain.

“We believe that the trial may support the implementation of this regimen as a new standard of care in all patients with high-risk APL,” he said.

In the treatment of low and intermediate risk APL, a subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the combination of ATRA and ATO has become standard since being shown in a pivotal 2013 study to be superior versus ATRA and chemotherapy. The approach is approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed low-risk APL.

Importantly, the improved survival with ATRA/ATO approach may result from “reduced severe hematologic toxicity together with similar antileukemic efficacy,” compared with the regimen that include chemotherapy, the authors of the 2013 study speculated.

However, the treatment regimen has not been evaluated in randomized trials in patients with high-risk APL, defined as having a white blood cell count of more than 10,000 cells per μL.

For those patients, the conventional treatment remains ATRA with a chemotherapy backbone, Dr. Platzbecker explained.

To evaluate if the improvements extend to high-risk APL patients without compromising safety, Dr. Platzbecker and colleagues conducted the open-label, prospective APOLLO trial, involving newly diagnosed high-risk APL who were enrolled between 2016 and 2022 at 143 sites in six European countries.

The patients were randomized into one of two groups: ATRA/ATO, involving treatment consisting of two doses of idarubicin (12 mg/m²) on days 1 and 3 at the time of induction therapy, in addition to ATO 0.15 mg/kg and ATRA 45 mg/m², daily until complete remission, or the ATRA-chemotherapy arm, involving standard ATRA also with idarubicin induction, followed by three cycles of chemotherapy-based consolidation as well as 2 years of maintenance treatment.

While the study was prematurely discontinued in August 2022 because of COVID-19–related recruitment delays and expiration of the study drug, the maintenance and observational periods are ongoing.

Of 131 patients with high-risk APL who were evaluable for the outcome analysis, 68 were in the ATRA/ATO group and 63 in the ATRA-chemotherapy arm.

Overall, participants had a mean age of 46, 50% were female, their median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was 1. Their median white blood cell count was 36 × 10⁹/L, with 39% having a white blood cell count greater than 50 × 10⁹/L.

Molecular resistance occurred in 1.7% in the ATRA/ATO arm vs 5.5% in the ATRA chemotherapy arm, which was not statistically significant (P = .268); however, the incidence of molecular relapse was much lower without chemotherapy, at 1.6% with ATRA/ATO vs 14% with ATRA and chemotherapy.

For the primary endpoint, with a median follow-up of 31 months, the 2-year rate of event-free survival those in the ATRA/ATO arm was 88% vs 70% in the ATRA plus chemotherapy regimen (P = .02). The 5-year event-free survival continued to favor ATRA-ATO (87% vs 55%; P = .0034).

The estimated 5-year overall survival was 93% vs 82% for ATRA/ATO vs ATRA-chemotherapy, respectively, which was not significantly different (P = .17).

There were no significant differences between the arms in complete response (93% with ATRA/ATO vs 91% with ATRA-chemotherapy; P = .65), and rates of early death (within the first 30 days) were also similar across arms, at 7% vs 10%, respectively.

Death while in complete remission occurred in zero patients in the ATRA/ATO arm and three in the ATRA chemotherapy arm.

In terms of toxicities, the ATRA/ATO group had significantly lower rates of hematologic toxicity versus ATRA-chemotherapy, including rates of thrombocytopenia grade 1-4 and neutropenia grade 3-4 (P < .001), while there were no significant differences between the groups in hepatic toxicities (11.8% and 14.3%, respectively; P = .08) or differentiation syndrome (1.5% vs 4.8%; P = .27).

QTc prolongation grade 3-4 occurred in 4.4 patients receiving ATRA/ATO, compared with 0 in the ATRA-chemotherapy group; however, Dr. Platzbecker said the cases had no clinical implications.

Asked to elaborate on the regimens’ toxicities in the press briefing, Dr. Platzbecker noted that “what is very important especially for patients, is [lower rates] of issues such as hair loss and constipation that are much less common with the ATRO/ATO regimen.”

“In addition, we know from the early experiences with this that younger patients are being cured by this regimen,” hence improving pregnancy prospects for women.

A take-home message from the overall results is that the ATRO/ATO regimen for high-risk APL patients should represent “a new treatment paradigm” that will “hopefully soon” be reflected in guideline recommendations, Dr. Platzbecker said in an interview.
 

Concerns Included Relapse, Differentiation Syndrome

Commenting on the research, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, explained that, while the “less is more” non-chemotherapy approach was adopted in widespread utilization in low-risk APL because of superior outcomes, a variety of concerns surrounded its use in high-risk patients.

“In high-risk patients, there were concerns that a durable response would be lower and that relapse would be higher for patients receiving ATRA and ATO than those receiving standard chemotherapy,” Dr. Sekeres, who is chief of the division of hematology, department of medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, said in an interview.

“In addition, it was theoretically possible that patients receiving the differentiating agents ATRA and ATO could suffer higher rates of differentiation syndrome, which could contribute to early death,” he explained. “These fears were simply not realized in the trial.”

Caveats of the trial “include the relatively small sample size and that the trial was stopped prematurely due to low enrollment during the COVID pandemic,” he noted.

Another limitation was the median follow-up of about 2.5 years.

However, Dr. Sekeres said he agreed that, “with further follow-up and continued superiority of the idarubicin, ATRA, and ATO combination, this could become a new standard of care for high-risk patients with APL.”

Dr. Platzbecker’s disclosures include ties with Teva, BMS, Curis, Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda. Dr. Sekeres had no disclosures.

Skin manifestations are common in the vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic (VEXAS) syndrome and present early in the disease course. Additionally, the most common histologic findings include leukocytoclastic vasculitis, neutrophilic dermatosis, and perivascular dermatitis; different variants in the UBA1 gene are associated with specific skin manifestations.

Those are key findings from a cohort study of 112 patients with VEXAS published online in JAMA Dermatology. The study, conducted by researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and several other institutions, aimed to define the spectrum of cutaneous manifestations in VEXAS in association with genetic, histologic, and other clinical findings.

Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc

First described in 2020, VEXAS syndrome is an adult-onset multisystem disease that can pose a diagnostic challenge to clinicians, the study’s corresponding author, Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc, of the dermatology branch at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), said in an interview. The disease is caused by pathogenic variants in the UBA1 gene, located on the X chromosome. Affected individuals exhibit a wide range of manifestations, including cytopenia/myelodysplasia, multiorgan systemic inflammation, and cutaneous involvement.

“Patients may present to a variety of disease specialists depending on their symptoms and providers may not immediately consider a genetic etiology in an older individual,” Dr. Cowen said in an interview. “Although skin involvement occurs in more than 80% of patients, it is pleomorphic and may resemble a variety of other conditions such as vasculitis and Sweet syndrome.”

To better understand the cutaneous manifestations of VEXAS syndrome, the researchers evaluated data from 112 patients with VEXAS-defining genetic variants in the UBA1 gene between 2019 and 2023. Of the 112 patients, 73 underwent medical record review only, and 39 were prospectively evaluated at NIH. All but one of the patients were men, 94% were White individuals, and their mean age was 64 years. Skin involvement occurred in 83% of cases and was the most common presenting feature of VEXAS in 61% of cases.

Of the 64 histopathologic reports available from 60 patients, the main skin histopathologic findings were leukocytoclastic vasculitis in 23 patients (36%), neutrophilic dermatosis in 22 patients (34%), and perivascular dermatitis in 19 patients (30%). According to Dr. Cowen, one key histologic finding was a distinct pattern of “histiocytoid” dermal neutrophilic inflammation, which was present in 13 of 15 specimens (86%) that underwent central re-review. “This pattern can occasionally also be seen in patients with Sweet syndrome, unrelated to VEXAS, but was a hallmark feature found in the majority of skin biopsies of patients with VEXAS,” he said.

Image courtesy of JAMA Network

“Together with another pathologic finding, leukocytoclasia, these features can be useful clues to alert the pathologist to a potential diagnosis of VEXAS. This myeloid predominant pattern of skin inflammation was also most strongly associated with the leucine pathogenic variant of the UBA1 gene.” In contrast, cutaneous vasculitis was most strongly associated with the valine pathogenic variant of UBA1. “This is important because the valine variant has been previously independently linked to decreased survival,” he said.

In findings related to pathogenic genetic variants, the researchers observed that the p.Met41Leu variant was most frequently associated with neutrophilic dermal infiltrates in 14 of 17 patients (82%) with this variant and often resembled histiocytoid Sweet syndrome. In addition, the p.Met41Val variant was associated with vasculitic lesions in 11 of 20 patients (55%) with this variant and with a mixed leukocytic infiltrate in 17 of these 20 patients (85%).
 

Treatment Outcomes

In the realm of therapies, skin manifestations improved in 67 of 73 patients (92%) treated with oral prednisone, while treatment with the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist anakinra improved cutaneous disease in 9 of the 16 (56%) who received it. However, 12 (75%) of those who received anakinra developed severe injection-site reactions, including ulceration in two patients and abscess formation in one patient.

Dr. Cowen noted that VEXAS is associated with high mortality (22% in this cohort), and a high degree of suspicion is required to diagnose patients with VEXAS before significant end organ damage has occurred. “This diagnosis should be considered in all older male patients who present with neutrophilic dermatosis — particularly histiocytoid Sweet syndrome, vasculitis, or leukocytoclasia without vasculitis. Patients who appear to have isolated skin involvement may have cytopenias and acute phase reactants. Therefore, complete blood count with differential and ESR and CRP should be considered to investigate for macrocytosis, cytopenias, and systemic inflammation.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that many patients were first evaluated at the NIH after having disease symptoms for many months or years. “It is possible that patients with VEXAS referred to the NIH, either for genetic testing or in person evaluation, represent a population with more aggressive disease.”

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was asked to comment on the study, emphasized the importance of the UBA1 mutation in the diagnosis of this complex syndrome. “Dermatologists should be aware of VEXAS syndrome as the majority of patients present with skin lesions, which can range from urticarial to Sweet syndrome–like to palpable purpura,” Dr. Ko said.

“Chondritis and periorbital edema, sometimes unilateral, are also associated. Histopathologic clues include a predominantly histiocytoid infiltrate,” she noted. In addition, “the prominent myxoid stroma around blood vessels and adnexal structures as a clue to VEXAS syndrome surprised me; I had not read that before.”

The study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of NIAMS. One of the study authors reported personal fees from Alexion, Novartis, and Sobi outside of the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Ko reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Skin manifestations are common in the vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic (VEXAS) syndrome and present early in the disease course. Additionally, the most common histologic findings include leukocytoclastic vasculitis, neutrophilic dermatosis, and perivascular dermatitis; different variants in the UBA1 gene are associated with specific skin manifestations.

Those are key findings from a cohort study of 112 patients with VEXAS published online in JAMA Dermatology. The study, conducted by researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and several other institutions, aimed to define the spectrum of cutaneous manifestations in VEXAS in association with genetic, histologic, and other clinical findings.

Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc

First described in 2020, VEXAS syndrome is an adult-onset multisystem disease that can pose a diagnostic challenge to clinicians, the study’s corresponding author, Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc, of the dermatology branch at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), said in an interview. The disease is caused by pathogenic variants in the UBA1 gene, located on the X chromosome. Affected individuals exhibit a wide range of manifestations, including cytopenia/myelodysplasia, multiorgan systemic inflammation, and cutaneous involvement.

“Patients may present to a variety of disease specialists depending on their symptoms and providers may not immediately consider a genetic etiology in an older individual,” Dr. Cowen said in an interview. “Although skin involvement occurs in more than 80% of patients, it is pleomorphic and may resemble a variety of other conditions such as vasculitis and Sweet syndrome.”

To better understand the cutaneous manifestations of VEXAS syndrome, the researchers evaluated data from 112 patients with VEXAS-defining genetic variants in the UBA1 gene between 2019 and 2023. Of the 112 patients, 73 underwent medical record review only, and 39 were prospectively evaluated at NIH. All but one of the patients were men, 94% were White individuals, and their mean age was 64 years. Skin involvement occurred in 83% of cases and was the most common presenting feature of VEXAS in 61% of cases.

Of the 64 histopathologic reports available from 60 patients, the main skin histopathologic findings were leukocytoclastic vasculitis in 23 patients (36%), neutrophilic dermatosis in 22 patients (34%), and perivascular dermatitis in 19 patients (30%). According to Dr. Cowen, one key histologic finding was a distinct pattern of “histiocytoid” dermal neutrophilic inflammation, which was present in 13 of 15 specimens (86%) that underwent central re-review. “This pattern can occasionally also be seen in patients with Sweet syndrome, unrelated to VEXAS, but was a hallmark feature found in the majority of skin biopsies of patients with VEXAS,” he said.

Image courtesy of JAMA Network

“Together with another pathologic finding, leukocytoclasia, these features can be useful clues to alert the pathologist to a potential diagnosis of VEXAS. This myeloid predominant pattern of skin inflammation was also most strongly associated with the leucine pathogenic variant of the UBA1 gene.” In contrast, cutaneous vasculitis was most strongly associated with the valine pathogenic variant of UBA1. “This is important because the valine variant has been previously independently linked to decreased survival,” he said.

In findings related to pathogenic genetic variants, the researchers observed that the p.Met41Leu variant was most frequently associated with neutrophilic dermal infiltrates in 14 of 17 patients (82%) with this variant and often resembled histiocytoid Sweet syndrome. In addition, the p.Met41Val variant was associated with vasculitic lesions in 11 of 20 patients (55%) with this variant and with a mixed leukocytic infiltrate in 17 of these 20 patients (85%).
 

Treatment Outcomes

In the realm of therapies, skin manifestations improved in 67 of 73 patients (92%) treated with oral prednisone, while treatment with the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist anakinra improved cutaneous disease in 9 of the 16 (56%) who received it. However, 12 (75%) of those who received anakinra developed severe injection-site reactions, including ulceration in two patients and abscess formation in one patient.

Dr. Cowen noted that VEXAS is associated with high mortality (22% in this cohort), and a high degree of suspicion is required to diagnose patients with VEXAS before significant end organ damage has occurred. “This diagnosis should be considered in all older male patients who present with neutrophilic dermatosis — particularly histiocytoid Sweet syndrome, vasculitis, or leukocytoclasia without vasculitis. Patients who appear to have isolated skin involvement may have cytopenias and acute phase reactants. Therefore, complete blood count with differential and ESR and CRP should be considered to investigate for macrocytosis, cytopenias, and systemic inflammation.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that many patients were first evaluated at the NIH after having disease symptoms for many months or years. “It is possible that patients with VEXAS referred to the NIH, either for genetic testing or in person evaluation, represent a population with more aggressive disease.”

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was asked to comment on the study, emphasized the importance of the UBA1 mutation in the diagnosis of this complex syndrome. “Dermatologists should be aware of VEXAS syndrome as the majority of patients present with skin lesions, which can range from urticarial to Sweet syndrome–like to palpable purpura,” Dr. Ko said.

“Chondritis and periorbital edema, sometimes unilateral, are also associated. Histopathologic clues include a predominantly histiocytoid infiltrate,” she noted. In addition, “the prominent myxoid stroma around blood vessels and adnexal structures as a clue to VEXAS syndrome surprised me; I had not read that before.”

The study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of NIAMS. One of the study authors reported personal fees from Alexion, Novartis, and Sobi outside of the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Ko reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Skin manifestations are common in the vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic (VEXAS) syndrome and present early in the disease course. Additionally, the most common histologic findings include leukocytoclastic vasculitis, neutrophilic dermatosis, and perivascular dermatitis; different variants in the UBA1 gene are associated with specific skin manifestations.

Those are key findings from a cohort study of 112 patients with VEXAS published online in JAMA Dermatology. The study, conducted by researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and several other institutions, aimed to define the spectrum of cutaneous manifestations in VEXAS in association with genetic, histologic, and other clinical findings.

Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc

First described in 2020, VEXAS syndrome is an adult-onset multisystem disease that can pose a diagnostic challenge to clinicians, the study’s corresponding author, Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc, of the dermatology branch at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), said in an interview. The disease is caused by pathogenic variants in the UBA1 gene, located on the X chromosome. Affected individuals exhibit a wide range of manifestations, including cytopenia/myelodysplasia, multiorgan systemic inflammation, and cutaneous involvement.

“Patients may present to a variety of disease specialists depending on their symptoms and providers may not immediately consider a genetic etiology in an older individual,” Dr. Cowen said in an interview. “Although skin involvement occurs in more than 80% of patients, it is pleomorphic and may resemble a variety of other conditions such as vasculitis and Sweet syndrome.”

To better understand the cutaneous manifestations of VEXAS syndrome, the researchers evaluated data from 112 patients with VEXAS-defining genetic variants in the UBA1 gene between 2019 and 2023. Of the 112 patients, 73 underwent medical record review only, and 39 were prospectively evaluated at NIH. All but one of the patients were men, 94% were White individuals, and their mean age was 64 years. Skin involvement occurred in 83% of cases and was the most common presenting feature of VEXAS in 61% of cases.

Of the 64 histopathologic reports available from 60 patients, the main skin histopathologic findings were leukocytoclastic vasculitis in 23 patients (36%), neutrophilic dermatosis in 22 patients (34%), and perivascular dermatitis in 19 patients (30%). According to Dr. Cowen, one key histologic finding was a distinct pattern of “histiocytoid” dermal neutrophilic inflammation, which was present in 13 of 15 specimens (86%) that underwent central re-review. “This pattern can occasionally also be seen in patients with Sweet syndrome, unrelated to VEXAS, but was a hallmark feature found in the majority of skin biopsies of patients with VEXAS,” he said.

Image courtesy of JAMA Network

“Together with another pathologic finding, leukocytoclasia, these features can be useful clues to alert the pathologist to a potential diagnosis of VEXAS. This myeloid predominant pattern of skin inflammation was also most strongly associated with the leucine pathogenic variant of the UBA1 gene.” In contrast, cutaneous vasculitis was most strongly associated with the valine pathogenic variant of UBA1. “This is important because the valine variant has been previously independently linked to decreased survival,” he said.

In findings related to pathogenic genetic variants, the researchers observed that the p.Met41Leu variant was most frequently associated with neutrophilic dermal infiltrates in 14 of 17 patients (82%) with this variant and often resembled histiocytoid Sweet syndrome. In addition, the p.Met41Val variant was associated with vasculitic lesions in 11 of 20 patients (55%) with this variant and with a mixed leukocytic infiltrate in 17 of these 20 patients (85%).
 

Treatment Outcomes

In the realm of therapies, skin manifestations improved in 67 of 73 patients (92%) treated with oral prednisone, while treatment with the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist anakinra improved cutaneous disease in 9 of the 16 (56%) who received it. However, 12 (75%) of those who received anakinra developed severe injection-site reactions, including ulceration in two patients and abscess formation in one patient.

Dr. Cowen noted that VEXAS is associated with high mortality (22% in this cohort), and a high degree of suspicion is required to diagnose patients with VEXAS before significant end organ damage has occurred. “This diagnosis should be considered in all older male patients who present with neutrophilic dermatosis — particularly histiocytoid Sweet syndrome, vasculitis, or leukocytoclasia without vasculitis. Patients who appear to have isolated skin involvement may have cytopenias and acute phase reactants. Therefore, complete blood count with differential and ESR and CRP should be considered to investigate for macrocytosis, cytopenias, and systemic inflammation.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that many patients were first evaluated at the NIH after having disease symptoms for many months or years. “It is possible that patients with VEXAS referred to the NIH, either for genetic testing or in person evaluation, represent a population with more aggressive disease.”

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was asked to comment on the study, emphasized the importance of the UBA1 mutation in the diagnosis of this complex syndrome. “Dermatologists should be aware of VEXAS syndrome as the majority of patients present with skin lesions, which can range from urticarial to Sweet syndrome–like to palpable purpura,” Dr. Ko said.

“Chondritis and periorbital edema, sometimes unilateral, are also associated. Histopathologic clues include a predominantly histiocytoid infiltrate,” she noted. In addition, “the prominent myxoid stroma around blood vessels and adnexal structures as a clue to VEXAS syndrome surprised me; I had not read that before.”

The study was supported by the Intramural Research Program of NIAMS. One of the study authors reported personal fees from Alexion, Novartis, and Sobi outside of the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Ko reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When she got the news that her young son had been diagnosed with the rare blood disorder known as transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, Yusara Ahmed knew the drill. Her sister had also experienced the inherited condition and needed to undergo regular blood transfusions simply to survive.

With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.

Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.

Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.

A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.

There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.

“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
 

Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat

Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.

Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)

The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.

In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”

In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.

Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.

But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
 

Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In

Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.

In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.

Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
 

Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective

As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”

The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”

In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
 

Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications

What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.

In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.

“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.

One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”

Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
 

Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief

Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)

As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.

Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.

When she got the news that her young son had been diagnosed with the rare blood disorder known as transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, Yusara Ahmed knew the drill. Her sister had also experienced the inherited condition and needed to undergo regular blood transfusions simply to survive.

With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.

Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.

Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.

A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.

There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.

“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
 

Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat

Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.

Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)

The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.

In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”

In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.

Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.

But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
 

Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In

Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.

In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.

Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
 

Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective

As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”

The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”

In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
 

Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications

What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.

In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.

“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.

One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”

Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
 

Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief

Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)

As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.

Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.

When she got the news that her young son had been diagnosed with the rare blood disorder known as transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, Yusara Ahmed knew the drill. Her sister had also experienced the inherited condition and needed to undergo regular blood transfusions simply to survive.

With luck, maybe Ms. Ahmed’s son could follow in his aunt’s footsteps and get a stem cell transplant from a compatible family donor. But while little Yusuf Saeed has a twin sister of his own, she wasn’t a match. Without another treatment option, he’d face the prospect of a lifetime not only cut short but burdened by multiple monthly transfusions and severe limitations.

Then came glimpses of hope. One of Yusuf’s physicians at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in Long Island, New York, told Yusuf’s mother about a new kind of gene therapy on the horizon. But it took time to get FDA approval. Yusuf grew older, heading toward his teenage years, when regular transfusions would be a huge burden. “He’s turning 5 and 6, and there’s nothing,” Ms. Ahmed recalled, and the family worried.

Finally, the FDA approved the one-time treatment — betibeglogene autotemcel (beti-cel, Zynteglo) in 2022. By January 2024, the hospital was ready to treat Yusuf. At age 8, he became the first patient in the state of New York to undergo gene therapy for beta thalassemia.

A medical team infused Yusuf with his own stem cells, which had been genetically engineered to boost production of hemoglobin and prevent thalassemia’s devastating effects.

There are caveats about the treatment. It’s an extraordinarily expensive therapy that can be performed at only a few institutions. And it’s so brand new that caveats may not even have appeared yet. Yet, for kids like Yusuf, the gene therapy could transform a life.

“We feel like a weight has been lifted,” Ms. Ahmed said in an interview. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for.”
 

Anemia Becomes a Lifetime Threat

Among all genetic diseases, thalassemia stands alone. It’s the most common condition caused by a single gene, according to Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, a hematologist/clinical investigator at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, in Boston, Massachusetts.

Millions of people have the thalassemia trait, especially in southern Europe, the Middle East, southeast Asia, and Africa, Dr. Al-Samkari said. (Yusuf’s parents are from Pakistan.)

The trait, which appears to provide protection against malaria, may cause mild anemia in some cases but is otherwise harmless. However, a child born to parents with the same kind of trait has a high risk of developing alpha thalassemia or beta thalassemia. Like his aunt, Yusuf developed beta thalassemia, which is generally more severe. Yusuf’s bleeding disorder requires him to be transfusion-dependent.

In these patients, the disease disrupts the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow, Dr. Al-Samkari said. Hemoglobin levels can fall to 7 or 8 g/dL, compared with the normal levels of 12-16 g/dL in adults. “They’re chronically anemic, and that low hemoglobin that leads to things you associate with anemia: fatigue, reduced exercise tolerance, mind fog, challenges with work or school, and hypersomnolence.”

In addition, the bones become thinner and more brittle, he said, leading to fractures.

Transfusions are one treatment option, but they’re needed for a lifetime and cause their own problems, such as iron overload. Care of thalassemia patients “becomes quite complex and quite challenging for both families and medical institutions,” Alexis A. Thompson MD, MPH, chief of hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in an interview.

Yusara Ahmed remembers her sister’s endless visits to the hospital after she was diagnosed at age 4. “We were all very traumatized by the hospital environment,” she said. But good news came in 2008, a few years later, when her sister was able to get a stem cell transplant from their brother.

But while stem cell transplants can be curative, most children don’t have a relative who can be a suitable match as a donor, Dr. Thompson said. Now, gene therapy offers another option, by turning a patient into his or her own matched donor.
 

Stem Cells Out, Stem Cells In

Last year, Yusuf went to Cohen Children’s Medical Center to donate stem cells, which were sent to a laboratory where they were genetically engineered to add copies of the beta-globin gene. Then, in January 2024, the modified stem cells were infused back into Yusuf after he underwent chemotherapy to make room for them in his bone marrow.

In April, a bald-headed Yusuf played with toy dinosaurs while his mother and clinicians met the media at a hospital press conference about his so-far-successful treatment. Early reports about the efficacy of the treatment suggest it may be the proverbial “game changer” for many of the estimated 100,000-plus people in the world who are diagnosed with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia each year.

Over a median follow-up of 29.5 months, 20 of 22 patients treated with beti-cel no longer needed transfusions, according to a 2022 open-label phase 3 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only one adverse event — thrombocytopenia in one patient — was considered both serious and related to the treatment, the industry-funded trial reported.
 

Costly Treatment Seems to Be Cost-Effective

As of 2022, gene therapy for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia was listed as $2.8 million per treatment making it the most expensive single-treatment therapy ever approved in the United States. The price is “extraordinary,” said Dr. Thompson. “For some families, it gives them pause when they first hear about it.”

The hospital makes the case to insurers that covering the treatment is cost-effective in the long run, considering the high cost of traditional treatment, she said. “We’ve been very successful in getting coverage.”

In addition, the independent Institute for Clinical and Economic Review reported in 2022 that the treatment will be cost-effective at the “anticipated price of $2.1 million with an 80% payback option for patients who do not achieve and maintain transfusion independence over a 5-year period.”
 

Moving Forward, Clinicians Want to Reduce Complications

What’s next for transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia treatment? Earlier this year, the FDA approved a second gene therapy treatment called exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy). “We’re just beginning to evaluate individuals for the product, and we intend to make it available for families as well,” Dr. Thompson said.

In the bigger picture, she said gene therapy still has room for improvement. The need for chemotherapy is one target. According to her, it causes most of the complications related to gene therapy.

“Chemotherapy is a part of all gene therapies today because one has to make space in the bone marrow in order to have modified stem cells to come back to settle in and grow,” she said.

One strategy is to reduce the number of stem cells that are required for the therapy to work. “That would essentially eliminate the need for chemotherapy,” she said. “We’re not there yet.”

Another goal is to reduce the small risk of complications from gene therapy itself, she said. “Overall, though, this doesn’t detract us at all from being very excited about how well children are doing with the current approach. We’re very enthusiastic and very confident in recommending it to families.”
 

Back on Long Island, a Sense of Relief

Several months after his treatment, Yusuf is doing well. His hemoglobin levels are increasing, and his bone marrow has grown back, his mother said. He’s being home-schooled for the time being because he still faces a risk of infection. (Ms. Ahmed, a stay-at-home mom, has worked a teacher and mosque volunteer. Her husband runs a consumer electronics business.)

As Yusuf gets better, his parents hope they’ll soon be able to take a long trip back home to Pakistan to see relatives. They’ll be able to share their son with family along with something else: a sense of relief.

Dr. Al-Samkari discloses consulting for Agios. Dr. Thompson discloses research for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and consulting for Beam, Bluebird Bio, Editas, Roche, and Vertex.

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

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

The addition of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody to the standard first-line combination treatment significantly improved outcomes in newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to an interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial.

Patients who took isatuximab (Sarclisa) plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) reached higher estimated progression-free survival at a median 59.7 months vs. those who took VRd alone (63.2% vs. 45.2%, respectively, 98.5% CI, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60, P < .001), reported Thierry Facon, MD, professor of hematology at Lille University Hospital, France, and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. The study was simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“The significant progression-free benefit observed with Sarclisa with combination therapy compared to VRd is important and encouraging for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” Dr. Facon said in an interview. The findings demonstrated the VRd-isatuximab’s potential as “a first-in-class combination to address gaps in care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma transplant-ineligible patients,” he said.

According to Dr. Facon, more than 180,000 people worldwide are diagnosed with MM each year, he said, making it the second-most common hematologic malignancy. 

“There is a need for new frontline therapeutic options for all MM patients,” he said. “Effective frontline therapy has the potential to modify the course of the disease, which is a key outcome for transplant-ineligible patients who often face high rates of attrition in later lines of therapy.”

For the industry-funded IMROZ study, researchers recruited patients aged 18-80 at 93 sites in 21 nations from 2017-2019. All were ineligible for transplant due to comorbidities or being aged 65 or older. Exclusions included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores of more than 2.

The subjects were randomly assigned in a 3-to-2 ratio to isatuximab-VRd (n = 265) or VRd alone (n = 181) and received four induction cycles (6 weeks per cycle) followed by 4-week cycles of continuous treatment until disease progression, unacceptable adverse event, or other criteria for discontinuation. If progression occurred, patients could be switched from the VRd-only group to the isatuximab-VRd group.

The median age in both the isatuximab-VRd and VRd groups was 72. The percentages of women were 46.0% and 48.1%, respectively, and 72.5% and 72.4%, respectively, were White. The next largest race/ethnic group was Asian (11.7% and 9.4%, respectively). Almost all had ECOG status of 0 or 1 (88.7% and 89.5%, respectively).

At study cut-off in September 2023, the percentages of subjects in the isatuximab-VRd and VRd groups who were still receiving treatment were 47.2% and 24.3%, respectively.

An intention-to-treat analysis found that the two groups had similar rates of overall response (91.3% for isatuximab-VRd vs. 92.3% for VRd), but the isatuximab-VRd group had higher complete or better response (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = .01).

The percentage of patients who were minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative and had a complete response was also higher in the VRd-isatuximab group vs. the VRd group (55.5% vs. 40.9%, respectively, P = .003). A total of 26.0% of patients in the VRd-isatuximab group died vs. 32.6% in the VRd group; the estimated overall survival rates at 60 months were 72.3% and 66.3%, respectively, HR = 0.78, 99.97% CI).

As for adverse events, grade 5 events were more common in the VRd-isatuximab group (11.0% vs. 5.5%), as were deaths within the first 60 days of treatment (1.5% vs. 0.6%). “The difference was driven in part by different treatment exposures,” the researchers reported. Treatment-emergent events led to treatment discontinuation in 22.8% and 26.0% of patients, respectively.

“The safety and tolerability of Sarclisa observed was consistent with the established safety profile of Sarclisa and VRd with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Facon said.

In an interview, Zandra Klippel, MD, global product head for multiple myeloma at Sanofi — the maker of isatuximab and funder of the study — said the Food and Drug Administration has accepted a priority review application for the investigational use of isatuximab in combination with VRd for the treatment of patients with transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed MM.

“Our FDA approval date is expected on September 27, 2024,” Dr. Klippel said. “If all goes well, we anticipate launching as early as 2024 in the US and rolling out in other key countries starting in 2025 and continuing through 2026.”

Dr. Klippel added that isatuximab “continues to be evaluated in multiple ongoing phase 3 clinical trials in combination with current standard treatments across the MM treatment continuum.”

In an interview, Sagar Lonial, MD, chair and professor of hematology and medical oncology and chief medical officer at Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University in Atlanta, said the study is “important.”

However, Dr. Lonial, who is familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the study, said it’s difficult to understand the impact of the treatment on frail patients. It appears that the combination treatment may be good for frail patients, he said, “but I need to better understand the magnitude of the benefit in that subset a little more.”

As for adverse events, he said “they are what would be expected for a trial like this.”

Pneumonia and COVID-19 infections were higher in the VRd-isatuximab group, he said, and “we know in general that vaccine responses are blocked by CD38 antibodies.” This can be managed, he said, via intravenous immunoglobulin support.

Manni Mohyuddin, MD, assistant professor at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah, said in an interview that the findings suggest that in older, fit patients, “you can get fairly good outcomes without use of transplant.”

In the United States, many more patients in the cohort would have been considered transplant-eligible, he said, and not eliminated from consideration for transplant due to age over 65. However, as patients age, “you get more diminishing returns for transplants,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, who is familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research.

All the drugs in the new combination are FDA approved, he said, although the combination isn’t. “I suspect this will make it to our guidelines very soon and then be reimbursed by insurance companies and Medicare.”

The study was funded by Sanofi and an M.D. Anderson Cancer Center support grant. Dr. Facon has no disclosures. Other study authors report multiple ties relationships with various drug makers. Dr. Lonial disclosed ties with Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, GSK, AbbVie, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and TG Therapeutics). Dr. Mohyuddin disclosed a relationship with Janssen.

The addition of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody to the standard first-line combination treatment significantly improved outcomes in newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to an interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial.

Patients who took isatuximab (Sarclisa) plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) reached higher estimated progression-free survival at a median 59.7 months vs. those who took VRd alone (63.2% vs. 45.2%, respectively, 98.5% CI, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60, P < .001), reported Thierry Facon, MD, professor of hematology at Lille University Hospital, France, and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. The study was simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“The significant progression-free benefit observed with Sarclisa with combination therapy compared to VRd is important and encouraging for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” Dr. Facon said in an interview. The findings demonstrated the VRd-isatuximab’s potential as “a first-in-class combination to address gaps in care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma transplant-ineligible patients,” he said.

According to Dr. Facon, more than 180,000 people worldwide are diagnosed with MM each year, he said, making it the second-most common hematologic malignancy. 

“There is a need for new frontline therapeutic options for all MM patients,” he said. “Effective frontline therapy has the potential to modify the course of the disease, which is a key outcome for transplant-ineligible patients who often face high rates of attrition in later lines of therapy.”

For the industry-funded IMROZ study, researchers recruited patients aged 18-80 at 93 sites in 21 nations from 2017-2019. All were ineligible for transplant due to comorbidities or being aged 65 or older. Exclusions included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores of more than 2.

The subjects were randomly assigned in a 3-to-2 ratio to isatuximab-VRd (n = 265) or VRd alone (n = 181) and received four induction cycles (6 weeks per cycle) followed by 4-week cycles of continuous treatment until disease progression, unacceptable adverse event, or other criteria for discontinuation. If progression occurred, patients could be switched from the VRd-only group to the isatuximab-VRd group.

The median age in both the isatuximab-VRd and VRd groups was 72. The percentages of women were 46.0% and 48.1%, respectively, and 72.5% and 72.4%, respectively, were White. The next largest race/ethnic group was Asian (11.7% and 9.4%, respectively). Almost all had ECOG status of 0 or 1 (88.7% and 89.5%, respectively).

At study cut-off in September 2023, the percentages of subjects in the isatuximab-VRd and VRd groups who were still receiving treatment were 47.2% and 24.3%, respectively.

An intention-to-treat analysis found that the two groups had similar rates of overall response (91.3% for isatuximab-VRd vs. 92.3% for VRd), but the isatuximab-VRd group had higher complete or better response (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = .01).

The percentage of patients who were minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative and had a complete response was also higher in the VRd-isatuximab group vs. the VRd group (55.5% vs. 40.9%, respectively, P = .003). A total of 26.0% of patients in the VRd-isatuximab group died vs. 32.6% in the VRd group; the estimated overall survival rates at 60 months were 72.3% and 66.3%, respectively, HR = 0.78, 99.97% CI).

As for adverse events, grade 5 events were more common in the VRd-isatuximab group (11.0% vs. 5.5%), as were deaths within the first 60 days of treatment (1.5% vs. 0.6%). “The difference was driven in part by different treatment exposures,” the researchers reported. Treatment-emergent events led to treatment discontinuation in 22.8% and 26.0% of patients, respectively.

“The safety and tolerability of Sarclisa observed was consistent with the established safety profile of Sarclisa and VRd with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Facon said.

In an interview, Zandra Klippel, MD, global product head for multiple myeloma at Sanofi — the maker of isatuximab and funder of the study — said the Food and Drug Administration has accepted a priority review application for the investigational use of isatuximab in combination with VRd for the treatment of patients with transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed MM.

“Our FDA approval date is expected on September 27, 2024,” Dr. Klippel said. “If all goes well, we anticipate launching as early as 2024 in the US and rolling out in other key countries starting in 2025 and continuing through 2026.”

Dr. Klippel added that isatuximab “continues to be evaluated in multiple ongoing phase 3 clinical trials in combination with current standard treatments across the MM treatment continuum.”

In an interview, Sagar Lonial, MD, chair and professor of hematology and medical oncology and chief medical officer at Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University in Atlanta, said the study is “important.”

However, Dr. Lonial, who is familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the study, said it’s difficult to understand the impact of the treatment on frail patients. It appears that the combination treatment may be good for frail patients, he said, “but I need to better understand the magnitude of the benefit in that subset a little more.”

As for adverse events, he said “they are what would be expected for a trial like this.”

Pneumonia and COVID-19 infections were higher in the VRd-isatuximab group, he said, and “we know in general that vaccine responses are blocked by CD38 antibodies.” This can be managed, he said, via intravenous immunoglobulin support.

Manni Mohyuddin, MD, assistant professor at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah, said in an interview that the findings suggest that in older, fit patients, “you can get fairly good outcomes without use of transplant.”

In the United States, many more patients in the cohort would have been considered transplant-eligible, he said, and not eliminated from consideration for transplant due to age over 65. However, as patients age, “you get more diminishing returns for transplants,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, who is familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research.

All the drugs in the new combination are FDA approved, he said, although the combination isn’t. “I suspect this will make it to our guidelines very soon and then be reimbursed by insurance companies and Medicare.”

The study was funded by Sanofi and an M.D. Anderson Cancer Center support grant. Dr. Facon has no disclosures. Other study authors report multiple ties relationships with various drug makers. Dr. Lonial disclosed ties with Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, GSK, AbbVie, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and TG Therapeutics). Dr. Mohyuddin disclosed a relationship with Janssen.

The addition of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody to the standard first-line combination treatment significantly improved outcomes in newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM), according to an interim analysis of an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial.

Patients who took isatuximab (Sarclisa) plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) reached higher estimated progression-free survival at a median 59.7 months vs. those who took VRd alone (63.2% vs. 45.2%, respectively, 98.5% CI, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60, P < .001), reported Thierry Facon, MD, professor of hematology at Lille University Hospital, France, and colleagues at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago. The study was simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“The significant progression-free benefit observed with Sarclisa with combination therapy compared to VRd is important and encouraging for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” Dr. Facon said in an interview. The findings demonstrated the VRd-isatuximab’s potential as “a first-in-class combination to address gaps in care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma transplant-ineligible patients,” he said.

According to Dr. Facon, more than 180,000 people worldwide are diagnosed with MM each year, he said, making it the second-most common hematologic malignancy. 

“There is a need for new frontline therapeutic options for all MM patients,” he said. “Effective frontline therapy has the potential to modify the course of the disease, which is a key outcome for transplant-ineligible patients who often face high rates of attrition in later lines of therapy.”

For the industry-funded IMROZ study, researchers recruited patients aged 18-80 at 93 sites in 21 nations from 2017-2019. All were ineligible for transplant due to comorbidities or being aged 65 or older. Exclusions included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores of more than 2.

The subjects were randomly assigned in a 3-to-2 ratio to isatuximab-VRd (n = 265) or VRd alone (n = 181) and received four induction cycles (6 weeks per cycle) followed by 4-week cycles of continuous treatment until disease progression, unacceptable adverse event, or other criteria for discontinuation. If progression occurred, patients could be switched from the VRd-only group to the isatuximab-VRd group.

The median age in both the isatuximab-VRd and VRd groups was 72. The percentages of women were 46.0% and 48.1%, respectively, and 72.5% and 72.4%, respectively, were White. The next largest race/ethnic group was Asian (11.7% and 9.4%, respectively). Almost all had ECOG status of 0 or 1 (88.7% and 89.5%, respectively).

At study cut-off in September 2023, the percentages of subjects in the isatuximab-VRd and VRd groups who were still receiving treatment were 47.2% and 24.3%, respectively.

An intention-to-treat analysis found that the two groups had similar rates of overall response (91.3% for isatuximab-VRd vs. 92.3% for VRd), but the isatuximab-VRd group had higher complete or better response (74.7% vs. 64.1%, P = .01).

The percentage of patients who were minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative and had a complete response was also higher in the VRd-isatuximab group vs. the VRd group (55.5% vs. 40.9%, respectively, P = .003). A total of 26.0% of patients in the VRd-isatuximab group died vs. 32.6% in the VRd group; the estimated overall survival rates at 60 months were 72.3% and 66.3%, respectively, HR = 0.78, 99.97% CI).

As for adverse events, grade 5 events were more common in the VRd-isatuximab group (11.0% vs. 5.5%), as were deaths within the first 60 days of treatment (1.5% vs. 0.6%). “The difference was driven in part by different treatment exposures,” the researchers reported. Treatment-emergent events led to treatment discontinuation in 22.8% and 26.0% of patients, respectively.

“The safety and tolerability of Sarclisa observed was consistent with the established safety profile of Sarclisa and VRd with no new safety signals observed,” Dr. Facon said.

In an interview, Zandra Klippel, MD, global product head for multiple myeloma at Sanofi — the maker of isatuximab and funder of the study — said the Food and Drug Administration has accepted a priority review application for the investigational use of isatuximab in combination with VRd for the treatment of patients with transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed MM.

“Our FDA approval date is expected on September 27, 2024,” Dr. Klippel said. “If all goes well, we anticipate launching as early as 2024 in the US and rolling out in other key countries starting in 2025 and continuing through 2026.”

Dr. Klippel added that isatuximab “continues to be evaluated in multiple ongoing phase 3 clinical trials in combination with current standard treatments across the MM treatment continuum.”

In an interview, Sagar Lonial, MD, chair and professor of hematology and medical oncology and chief medical officer at Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University in Atlanta, said the study is “important.”

However, Dr. Lonial, who is familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the study, said it’s difficult to understand the impact of the treatment on frail patients. It appears that the combination treatment may be good for frail patients, he said, “but I need to better understand the magnitude of the benefit in that subset a little more.”

As for adverse events, he said “they are what would be expected for a trial like this.”

Pneumonia and COVID-19 infections were higher in the VRd-isatuximab group, he said, and “we know in general that vaccine responses are blocked by CD38 antibodies.” This can be managed, he said, via intravenous immunoglobulin support.

Manni Mohyuddin, MD, assistant professor at Huntsman Cancer Institute in Utah, said in an interview that the findings suggest that in older, fit patients, “you can get fairly good outcomes without use of transplant.”

In the United States, many more patients in the cohort would have been considered transplant-eligible, he said, and not eliminated from consideration for transplant due to age over 65. However, as patients age, “you get more diminishing returns for transplants,” said Dr. Mohyuddin, who is familiar with the study findings but didn’t take part in the research.

All the drugs in the new combination are FDA approved, he said, although the combination isn’t. “I suspect this will make it to our guidelines very soon and then be reimbursed by insurance companies and Medicare.”

The study was funded by Sanofi and an M.D. Anderson Cancer Center support grant. Dr. Facon has no disclosures. Other study authors report multiple ties relationships with various drug makers. Dr. Lonial disclosed ties with Takeda, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, GSK, AbbVie, Genentech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Janssen, AstraZeneca, and TG Therapeutics). Dr. Mohyuddin disclosed a relationship with Janssen.

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that delays in transitioning from pediatric to adult health care can increase hospitalizations and emergency department visits for young adults with sickle cell disease (SCD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Guidelines have recommended that young adults with SCD transfer from pediatric care within 6 months, but many transfers take longer — sometimes up to a year.
• Researchers evaluated the impact of prolonged transition gaps on health outcomes in 183 young adults who completed pediatric care between 2012 and 2018 and were transitioned to an adult care program. Patients were followed for 2-8 years from their first adult care visit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Approximately 88% of patients transferred to adult health care within 6 months, with a median transfer gap of 1.4 months. At 2 years of adult care, patients with a transition gap of 6 months or longer were 89% (relative risk, 1.89) more likely to have an inpatient visit and 75% (RR, 1.75) more likely to have ED visits.
• Those with transfer gaps of 6 months or longer had twice the rate of inpatient visits (rate ratio, 2.01) at 8 years of follow-up, compared with those who transitioned within 2 months.
• However, fewer adult care outpatient visits were seen (5.1 vs 6.7 visits per year) for young adults transferred in 6 or more months versus those within 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, “longer delays in establishing adult health care following pediatric care were associated with greater acute health care resource utilization and fewer health care maintenance (ie, outpatient) SCD visits. These findings emphasize the importance of swift transfer from pediatric to adult care among young adults with SCD.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristen E. Howell, of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Texas A&M School of Public Health, College Station, Texas, and was published online in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Data was available only for patients within a specific health care system, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Involving only one pediatric and two adult programs could impact findings. Insurance loss or changes due to low income were not accounted for.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by U1EMC19331 and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that delays in transitioning from pediatric to adult health care can increase hospitalizations and emergency department visits for young adults with sickle cell disease (SCD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Guidelines have recommended that young adults with SCD transfer from pediatric care within 6 months, but many transfers take longer — sometimes up to a year.
• Researchers evaluated the impact of prolonged transition gaps on health outcomes in 183 young adults who completed pediatric care between 2012 and 2018 and were transitioned to an adult care program. Patients were followed for 2-8 years from their first adult care visit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Approximately 88% of patients transferred to adult health care within 6 months, with a median transfer gap of 1.4 months. At 2 years of adult care, patients with a transition gap of 6 months or longer were 89% (relative risk, 1.89) more likely to have an inpatient visit and 75% (RR, 1.75) more likely to have ED visits.
• Those with transfer gaps of 6 months or longer had twice the rate of inpatient visits (rate ratio, 2.01) at 8 years of follow-up, compared with those who transitioned within 2 months.
• However, fewer adult care outpatient visits were seen (5.1 vs 6.7 visits per year) for young adults transferred in 6 or more months versus those within 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, “longer delays in establishing adult health care following pediatric care were associated with greater acute health care resource utilization and fewer health care maintenance (ie, outpatient) SCD visits. These findings emphasize the importance of swift transfer from pediatric to adult care among young adults with SCD.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristen E. Howell, of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Texas A&M School of Public Health, College Station, Texas, and was published online in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Data was available only for patients within a specific health care system, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Involving only one pediatric and two adult programs could impact findings. Insurance loss or changes due to low income were not accounted for.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by U1EMC19331 and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that delays in transitioning from pediatric to adult health care can increase hospitalizations and emergency department visits for young adults with sickle cell disease (SCD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Guidelines have recommended that young adults with SCD transfer from pediatric care within 6 months, but many transfers take longer — sometimes up to a year.
• Researchers evaluated the impact of prolonged transition gaps on health outcomes in 183 young adults who completed pediatric care between 2012 and 2018 and were transitioned to an adult care program. Patients were followed for 2-8 years from their first adult care visit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Approximately 88% of patients transferred to adult health care within 6 months, with a median transfer gap of 1.4 months. At 2 years of adult care, patients with a transition gap of 6 months or longer were 89% (relative risk, 1.89) more likely to have an inpatient visit and 75% (RR, 1.75) more likely to have ED visits.
• Those with transfer gaps of 6 months or longer had twice the rate of inpatient visits (rate ratio, 2.01) at 8 years of follow-up, compared with those who transitioned within 2 months.
• However, fewer adult care outpatient visits were seen (5.1 vs 6.7 visits per year) for young adults transferred in 6 or more months versus those within 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, “longer delays in establishing adult health care following pediatric care were associated with greater acute health care resource utilization and fewer health care maintenance (ie, outpatient) SCD visits. These findings emphasize the importance of swift transfer from pediatric to adult care among young adults with SCD.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kristen E. Howell, of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Texas A&M School of Public Health, College Station, Texas, and was published online in Blood Advances.

LIMITATIONS:

Data was available only for patients within a specific health care system, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Involving only one pediatric and two adult programs could impact findings. Insurance loss or changes due to low income were not accounted for.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by U1EMC19331 and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.