User login
-
Oncologists Sound the Alarm About Rise of White Bagging
For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.
Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.
On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.
That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.
And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.
“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.
In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”
Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.
In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.
A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.
This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
White Bagging: Who Benefits?
At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.
Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.
Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).
Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.
Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.
A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.
For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.
White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.
Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.
When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
Dangerous to Patients?
On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.
Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.
In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.
However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.
With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.
White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.
Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.
Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.
“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”
When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.
“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
More Legislation to Prevent Bagging
As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.
In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.
At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.
Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.
When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.
“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”
Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.
At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.
Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.
“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.
Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.
On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.
That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.
And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.
“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.
In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”
Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.
In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.
A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.
This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
White Bagging: Who Benefits?
At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.
Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.
Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).
Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.
Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.
A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.
For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.
White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.
Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.
When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
Dangerous to Patients?
On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.
Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.
In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.
However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.
With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.
White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.
Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.
Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.
“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”
When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.
“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
More Legislation to Prevent Bagging
As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.
In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.
At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.
Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.
When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.
“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”
Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.
At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.
Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.
“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.
Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.
On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.
That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.
And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.
“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.
In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”
Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.
In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.
A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.
This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
White Bagging: Who Benefits?
At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.
Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.
Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).
Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.
Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.
A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.
For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.
White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.
Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.
When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
Dangerous to Patients?
On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.
Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.
In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.
However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.
With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.
White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.
Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.
Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.
“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”
When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.
“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
More Legislation to Prevent Bagging
As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.
In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.
At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.
Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.
When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.
“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”
Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.
At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.
Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.
“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CRISPR-Based Gene Therapy Earns Beta Thalassemia Approval
The approval, which comes more than 2 months ahead of a target action date of March 30, marks the second for the landmark therapy. The FDA greenlit the CRISPR gene therapy to treat sickle cell disease last December.
The autologous, ex vivo, CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited therapy from Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR.
The transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia approval is based on data from pivotal studies showing “consistent and durable response to treatment” in 52 patients who received an infusion and followed for up to 4 years. Treatment conferred transfusion independence in patients with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, according to a press release from Vertex late last year.
Vertex noted in a new press statement that expanded approval means about 1000 patients aged 12 years or older will be eligible for the one-time treatment for this indication.
Exa-cel requires administration at authorized treatment centers experienced in stem cell transplantation.
The therapy, which has a list price of $2.2 million in the United States, should be available initially at nine authorized treatment centers early this year, with more to come, according to Vertex.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval, which comes more than 2 months ahead of a target action date of March 30, marks the second for the landmark therapy. The FDA greenlit the CRISPR gene therapy to treat sickle cell disease last December.
The autologous, ex vivo, CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited therapy from Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR.
The transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia approval is based on data from pivotal studies showing “consistent and durable response to treatment” in 52 patients who received an infusion and followed for up to 4 years. Treatment conferred transfusion independence in patients with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, according to a press release from Vertex late last year.
Vertex noted in a new press statement that expanded approval means about 1000 patients aged 12 years or older will be eligible for the one-time treatment for this indication.
Exa-cel requires administration at authorized treatment centers experienced in stem cell transplantation.
The therapy, which has a list price of $2.2 million in the United States, should be available initially at nine authorized treatment centers early this year, with more to come, according to Vertex.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The approval, which comes more than 2 months ahead of a target action date of March 30, marks the second for the landmark therapy. The FDA greenlit the CRISPR gene therapy to treat sickle cell disease last December.
The autologous, ex vivo, CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited therapy from Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR.
The transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia approval is based on data from pivotal studies showing “consistent and durable response to treatment” in 52 patients who received an infusion and followed for up to 4 years. Treatment conferred transfusion independence in patients with transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia, according to a press release from Vertex late last year.
Vertex noted in a new press statement that expanded approval means about 1000 patients aged 12 years or older will be eligible for the one-time treatment for this indication.
Exa-cel requires administration at authorized treatment centers experienced in stem cell transplantation.
The therapy, which has a list price of $2.2 million in the United States, should be available initially at nine authorized treatment centers early this year, with more to come, according to Vertex.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Federal Rule for Prior Authorizations a ‘Major Win’ for Patients, Doctors
Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.
Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027.
The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement.
“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.
Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment.
“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.”
The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.
“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule.
Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.
Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027.
The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement.
“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.
Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment.
“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.”
The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.
“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule.
Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.
Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027.
The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement.
“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.
Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment.
“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.”
The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.
“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule.
Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Panel Recommends Small Bump in 2025 Medicare Physician Pay
An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:
- An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
- The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.
These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress.
Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.
Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.
There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”
“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”
Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.
In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.
“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
Continual Struggles
Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.
Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.
In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians.
At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:
- An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
- The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.
These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress.
Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.
Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.
There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”
“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”
Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.
In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.
“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
Continual Struggles
Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.
Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.
In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians.
At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:
- An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
- The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.
These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress.
Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.
Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.
There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”
“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”
Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.
In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.
“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
Continual Struggles
Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.
Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.
In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians.
At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Yes, Patients Are Getting More Complicated
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.
Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”
But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?
Right?
It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.
I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.
Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?
And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.
Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.
Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success.
Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?
There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.
Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”
But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?
Right?
It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.
I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.
Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?
And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.
Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.
Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success.
Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?
There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.
Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”
But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?
Right?
It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.
I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.
Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?
And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.
Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.
Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success.
Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?
There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ALL: ASH Draws Up Tx Guidelines For Patients 15-39
At the crux of the matter is the unusual nature of ALL, said University of Chicago leukemia specialist Wendy Stock, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December 2023. The disease is both rare and unique since it spans the entire lifetime from infancy to old age, she said.
The guidelines will focus on adolescents and young adults, which the National Cancer Institute defines as those aged 15-39. For these patients, “treatment is administered by the whole gamut of practitioners in the world of hematology, from pediatricians to adult hematologist/oncologists, which provides unique challenges in terms of understanding and access to care,” Dr. Stock said.
As she explained, ALL “is the bread and butter of pediatric oncology, but in the world of adult hematology-oncology, many patients are treated in small-practice settings where there have been very few uniform approaches available to the treating practitioners,” she said. “There’s not going to ever be the ability to get every — or even the majority — of adults into those big academic centers.”
Meanwhile, research from around the world has highlighted major mortality gaps between pediatric and adult care in ALL. “This has been our huge challenge: Is it the treatment approach? Is it the disease biology, the patient biology, the doctors who treat these diseases? Is it the geographic location where they’re treated? Well, we now know that, of course, it’s probably all of the above, and a lot more than that.”
In light of the need for guidance in ALL treatment, it will be crucial to disseminate data and recommendations via the guidelines, she said.
In 2021, ASH members approved the development of new clinical practice guidelines for this population. The process so far has been difficult, said pediatric oncologist Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, at the ASH presentation.
“At one point,” Dr. Gupta recalled, “someone on our methodology team said this was the most challenging systematic review and guideline creation that they’d ever worked on, which is not what you want to hear as a co-chair.”
One major challenge for the guideline drafters is to balance ALL research findings that cover only certain ages, Dr. Gupta said. A study, for example, may only include patients up to age 21 or over age 35, making it difficult to decide how it fits into a larger evidence base for adolescents and young adults.
“We don’t always have perfect evidence. But we’re trying to take all of that and translate it into a formalized systematic review,” he said. “This is tricky for any guideline. But ALL poses a particular challenge because of how the evidence base is spread out.”
Another challenge is figuring out how to review psychosocial interventions in ALL. They are obviously crucial, he said. But should guidelines only take into account strategies that were tested in ALL? Or should they look at a wider perspective and encompass research into non–ALL-specific approaches?
In terms of guidance about frontline treatment, the guideline developers are focusing on several topics, said University of Rochester hematologist/oncologist Kristen O’Dwyer, MD, at the ASH presentation. These include: Should adolescents and young adults receive pediatric or adult regimens? Where do targeted therapy, immunotherapy, steroids, allogeneic stem cell transplants, and central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis fit in?
“Finally, there are a series of questions that are addressing the toxicity prevention and management that go along with these intensive chemotherapy regimens,” she said.
On one front, there’s a “knowledge gap” about the value of stem cell transplant vs pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as postremission therapies, Dr. O’Dwyer said, because there are no direct comparisons. What to do? “There are retrospective comparisons that are emerging along with population-level analysis, single-arm observational studies that suggest that a pediatric-based chemotherapy approach is superior with similar relapse rates and less treatment-related mortality,” she said.
ASH expects to release a draft of its ALL guidelines for adolescents and young adults later this year and publish final recommendations in late 2024 or early 2025.
Dr. Stock, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. O’Dwyer have no disclosures.
At the crux of the matter is the unusual nature of ALL, said University of Chicago leukemia specialist Wendy Stock, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December 2023. The disease is both rare and unique since it spans the entire lifetime from infancy to old age, she said.
The guidelines will focus on adolescents and young adults, which the National Cancer Institute defines as those aged 15-39. For these patients, “treatment is administered by the whole gamut of practitioners in the world of hematology, from pediatricians to adult hematologist/oncologists, which provides unique challenges in terms of understanding and access to care,” Dr. Stock said.
As she explained, ALL “is the bread and butter of pediatric oncology, but in the world of adult hematology-oncology, many patients are treated in small-practice settings where there have been very few uniform approaches available to the treating practitioners,” she said. “There’s not going to ever be the ability to get every — or even the majority — of adults into those big academic centers.”
Meanwhile, research from around the world has highlighted major mortality gaps between pediatric and adult care in ALL. “This has been our huge challenge: Is it the treatment approach? Is it the disease biology, the patient biology, the doctors who treat these diseases? Is it the geographic location where they’re treated? Well, we now know that, of course, it’s probably all of the above, and a lot more than that.”
In light of the need for guidance in ALL treatment, it will be crucial to disseminate data and recommendations via the guidelines, she said.
In 2021, ASH members approved the development of new clinical practice guidelines for this population. The process so far has been difficult, said pediatric oncologist Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, at the ASH presentation.
“At one point,” Dr. Gupta recalled, “someone on our methodology team said this was the most challenging systematic review and guideline creation that they’d ever worked on, which is not what you want to hear as a co-chair.”
One major challenge for the guideline drafters is to balance ALL research findings that cover only certain ages, Dr. Gupta said. A study, for example, may only include patients up to age 21 or over age 35, making it difficult to decide how it fits into a larger evidence base for adolescents and young adults.
“We don’t always have perfect evidence. But we’re trying to take all of that and translate it into a formalized systematic review,” he said. “This is tricky for any guideline. But ALL poses a particular challenge because of how the evidence base is spread out.”
Another challenge is figuring out how to review psychosocial interventions in ALL. They are obviously crucial, he said. But should guidelines only take into account strategies that were tested in ALL? Or should they look at a wider perspective and encompass research into non–ALL-specific approaches?
In terms of guidance about frontline treatment, the guideline developers are focusing on several topics, said University of Rochester hematologist/oncologist Kristen O’Dwyer, MD, at the ASH presentation. These include: Should adolescents and young adults receive pediatric or adult regimens? Where do targeted therapy, immunotherapy, steroids, allogeneic stem cell transplants, and central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis fit in?
“Finally, there are a series of questions that are addressing the toxicity prevention and management that go along with these intensive chemotherapy regimens,” she said.
On one front, there’s a “knowledge gap” about the value of stem cell transplant vs pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as postremission therapies, Dr. O’Dwyer said, because there are no direct comparisons. What to do? “There are retrospective comparisons that are emerging along with population-level analysis, single-arm observational studies that suggest that a pediatric-based chemotherapy approach is superior with similar relapse rates and less treatment-related mortality,” she said.
ASH expects to release a draft of its ALL guidelines for adolescents and young adults later this year and publish final recommendations in late 2024 or early 2025.
Dr. Stock, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. O’Dwyer have no disclosures.
At the crux of the matter is the unusual nature of ALL, said University of Chicago leukemia specialist Wendy Stock, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December 2023. The disease is both rare and unique since it spans the entire lifetime from infancy to old age, she said.
The guidelines will focus on adolescents and young adults, which the National Cancer Institute defines as those aged 15-39. For these patients, “treatment is administered by the whole gamut of practitioners in the world of hematology, from pediatricians to adult hematologist/oncologists, which provides unique challenges in terms of understanding and access to care,” Dr. Stock said.
As she explained, ALL “is the bread and butter of pediatric oncology, but in the world of adult hematology-oncology, many patients are treated in small-practice settings where there have been very few uniform approaches available to the treating practitioners,” she said. “There’s not going to ever be the ability to get every — or even the majority — of adults into those big academic centers.”
Meanwhile, research from around the world has highlighted major mortality gaps between pediatric and adult care in ALL. “This has been our huge challenge: Is it the treatment approach? Is it the disease biology, the patient biology, the doctors who treat these diseases? Is it the geographic location where they’re treated? Well, we now know that, of course, it’s probably all of the above, and a lot more than that.”
In light of the need for guidance in ALL treatment, it will be crucial to disseminate data and recommendations via the guidelines, she said.
In 2021, ASH members approved the development of new clinical practice guidelines for this population. The process so far has been difficult, said pediatric oncologist Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, at the ASH presentation.
“At one point,” Dr. Gupta recalled, “someone on our methodology team said this was the most challenging systematic review and guideline creation that they’d ever worked on, which is not what you want to hear as a co-chair.”
One major challenge for the guideline drafters is to balance ALL research findings that cover only certain ages, Dr. Gupta said. A study, for example, may only include patients up to age 21 or over age 35, making it difficult to decide how it fits into a larger evidence base for adolescents and young adults.
“We don’t always have perfect evidence. But we’re trying to take all of that and translate it into a formalized systematic review,” he said. “This is tricky for any guideline. But ALL poses a particular challenge because of how the evidence base is spread out.”
Another challenge is figuring out how to review psychosocial interventions in ALL. They are obviously crucial, he said. But should guidelines only take into account strategies that were tested in ALL? Or should they look at a wider perspective and encompass research into non–ALL-specific approaches?
In terms of guidance about frontline treatment, the guideline developers are focusing on several topics, said University of Rochester hematologist/oncologist Kristen O’Dwyer, MD, at the ASH presentation. These include: Should adolescents and young adults receive pediatric or adult regimens? Where do targeted therapy, immunotherapy, steroids, allogeneic stem cell transplants, and central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis fit in?
“Finally, there are a series of questions that are addressing the toxicity prevention and management that go along with these intensive chemotherapy regimens,” she said.
On one front, there’s a “knowledge gap” about the value of stem cell transplant vs pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as postremission therapies, Dr. O’Dwyer said, because there are no direct comparisons. What to do? “There are retrospective comparisons that are emerging along with population-level analysis, single-arm observational studies that suggest that a pediatric-based chemotherapy approach is superior with similar relapse rates and less treatment-related mortality,” she said.
ASH expects to release a draft of its ALL guidelines for adolescents and young adults later this year and publish final recommendations in late 2024 or early 2025.
Dr. Stock, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. O’Dwyer have no disclosures.
FROM ASH 2023
ALL mortality gains bypass older adults
From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.
By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.
“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”
According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.
One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”
For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.
The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.
There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”
Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”
Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.
Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.
From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.
By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.
“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”
According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.
One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”
For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.
The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.
There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”
Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”
Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.
Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.
From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.
By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.
“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”
According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.
One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”
For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.
The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.
There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”
Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”
Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.
Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.
FROM ASH 2023
New Multiple Myeloma Staging Systems Outperform the Standard
.
The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.
To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.
The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients.
Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting.
Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.
Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.
The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.
The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.
When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.
With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.
In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin.
Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year.
Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively).
Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7).
Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.
He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.
MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.
Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said.
Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”
Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
.
The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.
To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.
The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients.
Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting.
Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.
Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.
The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.
The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.
When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.
With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.
In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin.
Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year.
Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively).
Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7).
Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.
He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.
MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.
Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said.
Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”
Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
.
The findings should encourage greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice, first author Manni Mohyuddin, MD, said during a presentation at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.
Dr. Mohyuddin and his colleagues retrospectively compared the standard Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) with two newer systems, the Second Revision of the R-ISS (R2-ISS) and the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), using real-world data from nearly 500 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
The R-ISS, the most common multiple myeloma staging system, incorporates a range of prognostic features, including high-risk genetic markers assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization as well as levels of lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin, explained Dr. Mohyuddin, assistant professor at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
R2-ISS and MASS include additional factors that reflect experts’ growing understanding of multiple myeloma. Specifically, the systems also evaluate a gain of chromosome 1q, in which patients have an extra copy of chromosome 1q, as well as the additive effects of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, both of which indicate worse prognosis in multiple myeloma, Dr. Mohyuddin said in an interview.
To compare the three staging systems, the investigators used information on newly diagnosed patients in the Flatiron Health EHR–derived deidentified database, which includes data from cancer clinics across the United States. Patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation until death, the end of the study period, or last recorded activity.
The patients from the database had a median age of 70 years, and most had not received a transplant. The most common cytogenetic abnormality was gain 1q, present in about one third of patients.
Given that the R2-ISS originated from patients in clinical trials, Dr. Mohyuddin noted the importance of assessing how the system would perform in a real-world setting.
Of the 497 patients in the analysis, the R-ISS staging system classified 24% as stage I, 63% as stage II, and 13% as stage III. Overall survival differed across these R-ISS stages, indicating the system was prognostic for survival. Median overall survival was not reached for those with stage I disease, was 62.9 months for those with stage II disease, and 37.6 months for those with stage III disease.
Because the R-ISS doesn’t consider the additive effect of multiple cytogenetic abnormalities, many patients end up in the R-ISS stage II category but ultimately may have vastly different outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin said.
The R2-ISS includes four risk categories, which provide more granularity to the stage II classification: Stage I is low risk, stage II is low-intermediate, stage III is intermediate, and stage IV is high risk. Using this staging system, 20% of patients were stage I, 25% were stage II, 46% were stage III, and 9% were stage IV.
The R2-ISS was also prognostic for survival, which generally worsened from stage I to stage IV: Median overall survival was not reached in stage I patients, was 69.3 months for stage II, 50.0 months for stage III, and 50.6 months for stage IV patients. However, Dr. Mohyuddin noted that there was some overlap in the survival curves for stages I and II and for stages III and IV.
When applying MASS, 34% of patients were categorized as stage I, 35% as stage II, and 31% as stage III disease. This system was prognostic for survival as well, with median overall survival of 76.9 months for stage I, 61.2 months for stage II, and 45.0 months for stage III.
With R2-ISS, many of those in R-ISS stage II are moved into stage I and III. With MASS, the R-ISS stage II patients are more evenly distributed across stages I, II, and III.
In other words, “we show that both these newer staging systems basically recategorize patients into different stages,” essentially “decreasing the number of people in the large, ambiguous (R-ISS) stage II category,” said Dr. Mohyuddin.
Dr. Mohyuddin and colleagues also evaluated the staging systems in fully adjusted analyses that controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, practice type, and diagnosis year.
Using R2-ISS, stage I patients had a similar risk for death compared with stage II patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2). Compared with stage I patients, stage III and IV patients had comparable risks for death, both about 2.5-fold higher than in those with stage I disease (HR, 2.4 and 2.6, respectively).
Compared with stage I MASS patients, those with stage II had a twofold higher risk for death (HR, 2.0), and those with stage III had an almost threefold higher risk (HR, 2.7).
Although no system considers all factors associated with myeloma outcomes, R2-ISS and MASS do offer a benefit over R-ISS, Dr. Mohyuddin said.
He added that the R2-ISS and MASS are similar from a statistical standpoint, but he gave MASS a slight edge for use in clinical practice.
MASS “more cleanly demarcated [patients] into prognostic subsets,” plus it is “a little easier to remember by heart,” he explained. MASS also puts more emphasis on the presence of multiple high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, which is a worse prognostic in this era of quadruplet therapy for multiple myeloma, he added.
Because the study largely took place in an era when triplet therapy dominated, “we would be curious to see, with longer follow-up and more use of quadruplets, how these staging systems would perform,” he said.
Despite the benefits of these newer staging systems, many factors play a role in multiple myeloma outcomes, Dr. Mohyuddin explained. Staging systems are “only a piece of the puzzle.”
Dr. Mohyuddin reported having no financial interests to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2023
Sickle Cell CRISPR Gene Therapy May Offer Patients ‘Functional Cure’
One therapy — exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy) — is the first to use CRISPR gene-editing technology, and could “provide a one-time functional cure to patients with sickle cell disease,” said Haydar Frangoul, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at TriStar Centennial, Nashville, Tennessee.
Dr. Frangoul, who presented a recent interim analysis on the therapy at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting earlier this month, reported that one infusion of exa-cel prompted rapid increases in total hemoglobin levels and almost completely eliminated a common and painful complication of sickle cell disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive crisis.
Overall, the gene therapy led to “a rapid, robust, and durable increase in total hemoglobin to normal or near normal levels,” Dr. Frangoul said.
Exa-cel, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, is a single-dose infusion containing a patient’s modified cells. First, a patient’s stem cells are harvested and then genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin.
The development of exa-cel was “grounded in human genetics, which show that fetal hemoglobin can substitute for sickle hemoglobin,” Dr. Frangoul explained. Patients receive these edited cells, which then help restore normal hemoglobin production.
The analysis showed that a one-time infusion of exa-cel following myeloablative conditioning prevented vaso-occlusive crisis in all but one patient with severe sickle cell disease. The therapy also prevented inpatient hospitalizations for vaso-occlusive crisis in all patients and led to sustained improvements in quality of life.
The results are “really striking,” said Sarah H. O’Brien, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who was not involved in the research. “The majority of our admissions on the hematology service are our patients with sickle cell. They’re uncomfortable, they’re in pain, they’re missing school, and they’re missing their activities,” which makes these interim findings quite “impactful.”
To examine the impact of exa-cel on vaso-occlusive crisis, the phase 3 trial included individuals aged 12 to 35 years with severe sickle cell disease and a history of at least two vaso-occlusive crises per year over the past 2 years.
Participants underwent cell CD34+ stem cell collection. These cells then underwent gene editing using CRISPR technology, explained Dr. Frangoul.
At the transplant center, patients received myeloablative conditioning chemotherapy with busulfan for 4 days before receiving an exa-cel infusion.
At the data cutoff in June 2023, 44 patients had been enrolled, of whom 30 were available for efficacy analysis. The mean age at screening was 22.1 years, and almost half (46.7%) were female. Prior to study recruitment, patients had a mean of 3.9 vaso-occlusive crises per year and a mean of 2.7 inpatient hospitalizations per year for severe vaso-occlusive crisis.
All but one patient (96.7%) met the primary endpoint of freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crisis for at least 12 consecutive months. The mean duration of freedom from vaso-occlusive crisis was 22.4 months, ranging from 14.8 months to 45.5 months. Moreover, 28 of the 29 patients who remained crisis-free at 12 months did not have a further vaso-occlusive crisis throughout the rest of the follow-up period.
Dr. Frangoul noted that results were similar for both adults and adolescents.
Exa-cel also led to a significant increase in freedom from inpatient hospitalizations, with 100% of patients achieving that goal, as well as early and sustained increases in both total and fetal hemoglobin levels, suggesting a “long-term meaningful benefit” from the therapy.
All 44 patients experienced adverse events related to myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, but only 29.5% had events linked to exa-cel. The most common adverse events overall were nausea (70.5%), stomatitis (63.6%), vomiting (56.8%), and febrile neutropenia (54.5%).
In a separate poster presented at ASH, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. Frangoul, and colleagues reported that exa-cel also led to better health-related quality of life.
Patients showed “substantial improvements” in measures of quality of life, which included physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being as well as pain at a 6-month follow-up through year 2.
Typical outcomes studied in most trials are “emergency room visits and hospitalizations but what people may not appreciate as much is how much these patients are dealing with pain and discomfort at home,” Dr. O’Brien said. These recently reported quality-of-life metrics “are so key and really help us understand the impact” of this new therapy.
Dr. O’Brien noted, however, that “patients may be reluctant to undergo” this therapy because of the impact myeloablative conditioning has on fertility. That is why ongoing research on how stem cell transplants can be delivered “without impacting fertility is very important.”
It is “hard to know,” Dr. O’Brien explained, whether exa-cel will be a one-time treatment in practice, as many of the patients “already have end-organ damage from their disease.”
To that end, Dr. Frangoul noted that patients who complete the current trial can enroll in one that will include 13 years of additional follow-up.
Finally, Dr. O’Brien cautioned, gene therapies such as exa-cel “are only going to apply to a small segment of the population” — patients with the most severe form of the disease. That’s why “it’s important that we still prioritize hydroxyurea [and] multidisciplinary care for patients with sickle cell disease,” she said.
The study was sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics. Dr. Frangoul declared relationships with Editas Medicine, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and others. Dr. Sharma declared relationships with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and others. Other authors declare numerous financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
One therapy — exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy) — is the first to use CRISPR gene-editing technology, and could “provide a one-time functional cure to patients with sickle cell disease,” said Haydar Frangoul, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at TriStar Centennial, Nashville, Tennessee.
Dr. Frangoul, who presented a recent interim analysis on the therapy at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting earlier this month, reported that one infusion of exa-cel prompted rapid increases in total hemoglobin levels and almost completely eliminated a common and painful complication of sickle cell disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive crisis.
Overall, the gene therapy led to “a rapid, robust, and durable increase in total hemoglobin to normal or near normal levels,” Dr. Frangoul said.
Exa-cel, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, is a single-dose infusion containing a patient’s modified cells. First, a patient’s stem cells are harvested and then genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin.
The development of exa-cel was “grounded in human genetics, which show that fetal hemoglobin can substitute for sickle hemoglobin,” Dr. Frangoul explained. Patients receive these edited cells, which then help restore normal hemoglobin production.
The analysis showed that a one-time infusion of exa-cel following myeloablative conditioning prevented vaso-occlusive crisis in all but one patient with severe sickle cell disease. The therapy also prevented inpatient hospitalizations for vaso-occlusive crisis in all patients and led to sustained improvements in quality of life.
The results are “really striking,” said Sarah H. O’Brien, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who was not involved in the research. “The majority of our admissions on the hematology service are our patients with sickle cell. They’re uncomfortable, they’re in pain, they’re missing school, and they’re missing their activities,” which makes these interim findings quite “impactful.”
To examine the impact of exa-cel on vaso-occlusive crisis, the phase 3 trial included individuals aged 12 to 35 years with severe sickle cell disease and a history of at least two vaso-occlusive crises per year over the past 2 years.
Participants underwent cell CD34+ stem cell collection. These cells then underwent gene editing using CRISPR technology, explained Dr. Frangoul.
At the transplant center, patients received myeloablative conditioning chemotherapy with busulfan for 4 days before receiving an exa-cel infusion.
At the data cutoff in June 2023, 44 patients had been enrolled, of whom 30 were available for efficacy analysis. The mean age at screening was 22.1 years, and almost half (46.7%) were female. Prior to study recruitment, patients had a mean of 3.9 vaso-occlusive crises per year and a mean of 2.7 inpatient hospitalizations per year for severe vaso-occlusive crisis.
All but one patient (96.7%) met the primary endpoint of freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crisis for at least 12 consecutive months. The mean duration of freedom from vaso-occlusive crisis was 22.4 months, ranging from 14.8 months to 45.5 months. Moreover, 28 of the 29 patients who remained crisis-free at 12 months did not have a further vaso-occlusive crisis throughout the rest of the follow-up period.
Dr. Frangoul noted that results were similar for both adults and adolescents.
Exa-cel also led to a significant increase in freedom from inpatient hospitalizations, with 100% of patients achieving that goal, as well as early and sustained increases in both total and fetal hemoglobin levels, suggesting a “long-term meaningful benefit” from the therapy.
All 44 patients experienced adverse events related to myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, but only 29.5% had events linked to exa-cel. The most common adverse events overall were nausea (70.5%), stomatitis (63.6%), vomiting (56.8%), and febrile neutropenia (54.5%).
In a separate poster presented at ASH, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. Frangoul, and colleagues reported that exa-cel also led to better health-related quality of life.
Patients showed “substantial improvements” in measures of quality of life, which included physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being as well as pain at a 6-month follow-up through year 2.
Typical outcomes studied in most trials are “emergency room visits and hospitalizations but what people may not appreciate as much is how much these patients are dealing with pain and discomfort at home,” Dr. O’Brien said. These recently reported quality-of-life metrics “are so key and really help us understand the impact” of this new therapy.
Dr. O’Brien noted, however, that “patients may be reluctant to undergo” this therapy because of the impact myeloablative conditioning has on fertility. That is why ongoing research on how stem cell transplants can be delivered “without impacting fertility is very important.”
It is “hard to know,” Dr. O’Brien explained, whether exa-cel will be a one-time treatment in practice, as many of the patients “already have end-organ damage from their disease.”
To that end, Dr. Frangoul noted that patients who complete the current trial can enroll in one that will include 13 years of additional follow-up.
Finally, Dr. O’Brien cautioned, gene therapies such as exa-cel “are only going to apply to a small segment of the population” — patients with the most severe form of the disease. That’s why “it’s important that we still prioritize hydroxyurea [and] multidisciplinary care for patients with sickle cell disease,” she said.
The study was sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics. Dr. Frangoul declared relationships with Editas Medicine, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and others. Dr. Sharma declared relationships with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and others. Other authors declare numerous financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
One therapy — exagamglogene autotemcel or exa-cel (Casgevy) — is the first to use CRISPR gene-editing technology, and could “provide a one-time functional cure to patients with sickle cell disease,” said Haydar Frangoul, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at TriStar Centennial, Nashville, Tennessee.
Dr. Frangoul, who presented a recent interim analysis on the therapy at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting earlier this month, reported that one infusion of exa-cel prompted rapid increases in total hemoglobin levels and almost completely eliminated a common and painful complication of sickle cell disease that can lead to irreversible organ damage, known as vaso-occlusive crisis.
Overall, the gene therapy led to “a rapid, robust, and durable increase in total hemoglobin to normal or near normal levels,” Dr. Frangoul said.
Exa-cel, from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics, is a single-dose infusion containing a patient’s modified cells. First, a patient’s stem cells are harvested and then genetically modified to produce fetal hemoglobin.
The development of exa-cel was “grounded in human genetics, which show that fetal hemoglobin can substitute for sickle hemoglobin,” Dr. Frangoul explained. Patients receive these edited cells, which then help restore normal hemoglobin production.
The analysis showed that a one-time infusion of exa-cel following myeloablative conditioning prevented vaso-occlusive crisis in all but one patient with severe sickle cell disease. The therapy also prevented inpatient hospitalizations for vaso-occlusive crisis in all patients and led to sustained improvements in quality of life.
The results are “really striking,” said Sarah H. O’Brien, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who was not involved in the research. “The majority of our admissions on the hematology service are our patients with sickle cell. They’re uncomfortable, they’re in pain, they’re missing school, and they’re missing their activities,” which makes these interim findings quite “impactful.”
To examine the impact of exa-cel on vaso-occlusive crisis, the phase 3 trial included individuals aged 12 to 35 years with severe sickle cell disease and a history of at least two vaso-occlusive crises per year over the past 2 years.
Participants underwent cell CD34+ stem cell collection. These cells then underwent gene editing using CRISPR technology, explained Dr. Frangoul.
At the transplant center, patients received myeloablative conditioning chemotherapy with busulfan for 4 days before receiving an exa-cel infusion.
At the data cutoff in June 2023, 44 patients had been enrolled, of whom 30 were available for efficacy analysis. The mean age at screening was 22.1 years, and almost half (46.7%) were female. Prior to study recruitment, patients had a mean of 3.9 vaso-occlusive crises per year and a mean of 2.7 inpatient hospitalizations per year for severe vaso-occlusive crisis.
All but one patient (96.7%) met the primary endpoint of freedom from severe vaso-occlusive crisis for at least 12 consecutive months. The mean duration of freedom from vaso-occlusive crisis was 22.4 months, ranging from 14.8 months to 45.5 months. Moreover, 28 of the 29 patients who remained crisis-free at 12 months did not have a further vaso-occlusive crisis throughout the rest of the follow-up period.
Dr. Frangoul noted that results were similar for both adults and adolescents.
Exa-cel also led to a significant increase in freedom from inpatient hospitalizations, with 100% of patients achieving that goal, as well as early and sustained increases in both total and fetal hemoglobin levels, suggesting a “long-term meaningful benefit” from the therapy.
All 44 patients experienced adverse events related to myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, but only 29.5% had events linked to exa-cel. The most common adverse events overall were nausea (70.5%), stomatitis (63.6%), vomiting (56.8%), and febrile neutropenia (54.5%).
In a separate poster presented at ASH, Akshay Sharma, MBBS, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, Dr. Frangoul, and colleagues reported that exa-cel also led to better health-related quality of life.
Patients showed “substantial improvements” in measures of quality of life, which included physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being as well as pain at a 6-month follow-up through year 2.
Typical outcomes studied in most trials are “emergency room visits and hospitalizations but what people may not appreciate as much is how much these patients are dealing with pain and discomfort at home,” Dr. O’Brien said. These recently reported quality-of-life metrics “are so key and really help us understand the impact” of this new therapy.
Dr. O’Brien noted, however, that “patients may be reluctant to undergo” this therapy because of the impact myeloablative conditioning has on fertility. That is why ongoing research on how stem cell transplants can be delivered “without impacting fertility is very important.”
It is “hard to know,” Dr. O’Brien explained, whether exa-cel will be a one-time treatment in practice, as many of the patients “already have end-organ damage from their disease.”
To that end, Dr. Frangoul noted that patients who complete the current trial can enroll in one that will include 13 years of additional follow-up.
Finally, Dr. O’Brien cautioned, gene therapies such as exa-cel “are only going to apply to a small segment of the population” — patients with the most severe form of the disease. That’s why “it’s important that we still prioritize hydroxyurea [and] multidisciplinary care for patients with sickle cell disease,” she said.
The study was sponsored by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in collaboration with CRISPR Therapeutics. Dr. Frangoul declared relationships with Editas Medicine, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and others. Dr. Sharma declared relationships with Vertex Pharmaceuticals, CRISPR Therapeutics, and others. Other authors declare numerous financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2023
In Transplant-Ineligible Myeloma, This Frontline Tx Is Better
The study found that frontline triple therapy with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone led to significantly longer time to next treatment or time to death compared with the triple combination that includes bortezomib instead of daratumumab.
In the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trials, this study may help clinicians make more informed decisions when choosing therapies for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, said investigator Doris K. Hansen, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, who presented finding from the analysis at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Despite the lack of head-to-head randomized trials in this setting, several indirect comparisons have suggested that the daratumumab regimen carries an efficacy edge.
For instance, an indirect comparison of patients who received the daratumumab regimen in the MAIA trial with those who received the bortezomib regimen in the SWOG S0777 trial revealed a 40% lower risk for disease progression or death among patients treated with daratumumab. Researchers also observed a benefit for the daratumumab regimen — a 32% lower risk for disease progression or death — when comparing patient outcomes in the MAIA and PEGASUS studies.
To more directly compare the efficacy of the two regimens, Dr. Hansen and colleagues combed data from Acentrus, a de-identified academic electronic medical records database, to find patients who started a frontline treatment regimen for multiple myeloma between January 2018 and May 2023. The team used several methods to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts.
After making these adjustments, the study included data on 302 patients who received frontline therapy with the daratumumab regimen and 341 who received the bortezomib regimen. Patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant before or during therapy were excluded, as were those who had prior primary solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, or amyloidosis.
During a 20.2-month median follow-up for patients on daratumumab, 98 (32%) switched to a new therapy or died. During a 21.5-month median follow-up for those on bortezomib, 175 (51%) switched treatments or died.
The median time to death was 37.8 months in the daratumumab group vs 18.7 months in the bortezomib group. Overall, patients who received the daratumumab regimen had a 42% lower risk for death or time-to-next treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001).
Dr. Hansen acknowledged several limitations of the study, including that the data used came from provider-based records and may be missing patients who saw an out-of-network clinician. The database also does not include information on ECOG performance status, patient frailty, or cytogenetic risk profiles, which may have influenced outcomes.
The outcome measure combined time-to-next treatment and time to death; however, Dr. Hansen noted, time-to-next treatment is not a direct surrogate for progression-free survival.
Overall, findings from this real-world study support the use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone over bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in this population of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Dr. Hansen concluded.
The study was supported by Janssen. Dr. Hansen reported consulting for Janssen and others, receiving honoraria from OncLive and Survivorship, and other disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The study found that frontline triple therapy with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone led to significantly longer time to next treatment or time to death compared with the triple combination that includes bortezomib instead of daratumumab.
In the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trials, this study may help clinicians make more informed decisions when choosing therapies for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, said investigator Doris K. Hansen, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, who presented finding from the analysis at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Despite the lack of head-to-head randomized trials in this setting, several indirect comparisons have suggested that the daratumumab regimen carries an efficacy edge.
For instance, an indirect comparison of patients who received the daratumumab regimen in the MAIA trial with those who received the bortezomib regimen in the SWOG S0777 trial revealed a 40% lower risk for disease progression or death among patients treated with daratumumab. Researchers also observed a benefit for the daratumumab regimen — a 32% lower risk for disease progression or death — when comparing patient outcomes in the MAIA and PEGASUS studies.
To more directly compare the efficacy of the two regimens, Dr. Hansen and colleagues combed data from Acentrus, a de-identified academic electronic medical records database, to find patients who started a frontline treatment regimen for multiple myeloma between January 2018 and May 2023. The team used several methods to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts.
After making these adjustments, the study included data on 302 patients who received frontline therapy with the daratumumab regimen and 341 who received the bortezomib regimen. Patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant before or during therapy were excluded, as were those who had prior primary solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, or amyloidosis.
During a 20.2-month median follow-up for patients on daratumumab, 98 (32%) switched to a new therapy or died. During a 21.5-month median follow-up for those on bortezomib, 175 (51%) switched treatments or died.
The median time to death was 37.8 months in the daratumumab group vs 18.7 months in the bortezomib group. Overall, patients who received the daratumumab regimen had a 42% lower risk for death or time-to-next treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001).
Dr. Hansen acknowledged several limitations of the study, including that the data used came from provider-based records and may be missing patients who saw an out-of-network clinician. The database also does not include information on ECOG performance status, patient frailty, or cytogenetic risk profiles, which may have influenced outcomes.
The outcome measure combined time-to-next treatment and time to death; however, Dr. Hansen noted, time-to-next treatment is not a direct surrogate for progression-free survival.
Overall, findings from this real-world study support the use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone over bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in this population of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Dr. Hansen concluded.
The study was supported by Janssen. Dr. Hansen reported consulting for Janssen and others, receiving honoraria from OncLive and Survivorship, and other disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The study found that frontline triple therapy with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone led to significantly longer time to next treatment or time to death compared with the triple combination that includes bortezomib instead of daratumumab.
In the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trials, this study may help clinicians make more informed decisions when choosing therapies for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, said investigator Doris K. Hansen, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, who presented finding from the analysis at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
Despite the lack of head-to-head randomized trials in this setting, several indirect comparisons have suggested that the daratumumab regimen carries an efficacy edge.
For instance, an indirect comparison of patients who received the daratumumab regimen in the MAIA trial with those who received the bortezomib regimen in the SWOG S0777 trial revealed a 40% lower risk for disease progression or death among patients treated with daratumumab. Researchers also observed a benefit for the daratumumab regimen — a 32% lower risk for disease progression or death — when comparing patient outcomes in the MAIA and PEGASUS studies.
To more directly compare the efficacy of the two regimens, Dr. Hansen and colleagues combed data from Acentrus, a de-identified academic electronic medical records database, to find patients who started a frontline treatment regimen for multiple myeloma between January 2018 and May 2023. The team used several methods to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts.
After making these adjustments, the study included data on 302 patients who received frontline therapy with the daratumumab regimen and 341 who received the bortezomib regimen. Patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant before or during therapy were excluded, as were those who had prior primary solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, or amyloidosis.
During a 20.2-month median follow-up for patients on daratumumab, 98 (32%) switched to a new therapy or died. During a 21.5-month median follow-up for those on bortezomib, 175 (51%) switched treatments or died.
The median time to death was 37.8 months in the daratumumab group vs 18.7 months in the bortezomib group. Overall, patients who received the daratumumab regimen had a 42% lower risk for death or time-to-next treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001).
Dr. Hansen acknowledged several limitations of the study, including that the data used came from provider-based records and may be missing patients who saw an out-of-network clinician. The database also does not include information on ECOG performance status, patient frailty, or cytogenetic risk profiles, which may have influenced outcomes.
The outcome measure combined time-to-next treatment and time to death; however, Dr. Hansen noted, time-to-next treatment is not a direct surrogate for progression-free survival.
Overall, findings from this real-world study support the use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone over bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in this population of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Dr. Hansen concluded.
The study was supported by Janssen. Dr. Hansen reported consulting for Janssen and others, receiving honoraria from OncLive and Survivorship, and other disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2023