User login
-
Multiple Myeloma: New Treatments Aid Patient Subgroups
“The introduction of treatments such as elranatamab (Elrexfio) is allowing patients with multiple myeloma, which is still incurable for now, to have different options and achieve long periods of remission, thus improving their survival,” she added. “This therapeutic innovation is highly effective and well tolerated in patients with relapse or refractory multiple myeloma.” The overall response rate is “up to 61%, early, deep, and long-lasting.”
In an interview with El Médico Interactivo, Dr. Mateos explained the new approaches to multiple myeloma. She highlighted the effectiveness of new treatments and reviewed the latest data on this disease, which were presented at the recent European Hematology Association Congress.
What is the incidence rate of multiple myeloma in the Spanish population?
Multiple myeloma has an incidence of approximately 4-5 new cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. This means that around 3000 new cases are diagnosed each year in Spain. As with most tumors, multiple myeloma is generally slightly more common in males than females. It is the third most frequent hematologic cancer in men (1757 new cases) and women (1325 new cases), behind lymphoma and leukemias.
At what age is it most often diagnosed?
It affects older people, with recent reports indicating around 68-69 years as the median age. Although more young people are being diagnosed with multiple myeloma, analyses of how this hematologic cancer affects the general population show that it generally impacts patients over age 65 years.
What is the typical survival prognosis?
Thanks to research and therapeutic innovation, the prognosis has changed significantly over the past 20-25 years. Today, if a patient with multiple myeloma receives a diagnosis and does not exhibit poor prognostic characteristics (and this description fits approximately 70%-80% of patients with multiple myeloma), it is realistic to expect a survival exceeding 10 years. A few years ago, this outcome was unimaginable, but a significant amount of therapeutic innovation has made it possible. That’s why I emphasize that it is realistic to provide these data with such a positive outlook.
Is multiple myeloma a refractory type of cancer?
It was a refractory type of cancer. Twenty years ago, there were no treatment options, and therefore survival was around 2-3 years, because treatment mainly consisted of using alkylating agents and corticosteroids. This is what made it refractory.
With the emergence of new therapeutic innovations, patients have been responding better and their responses are lasting longer. Although there is still a group of patients, about 10%-15%, with a poor prognosis and refractory disease, those with standard risk are responding better to different therapies.
Although most patients will eventually exhaust the treatments, which until now were primarily triple-drug regimens (such as proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and antiCD38 antibodies), the introduction of new therapies is extending the duration of responses.
Is the risk for relapse high?
It is very high, in the sense that almost all patients with multiple myeloma eventually relapse. However, we hope that there soon will be some patients who do not relapse.
What are the typical pathologic manifestations of this cancer? Does it affect everyone equally, or in specific ways in each person?
In multiple myeloma, we often say there are multiple myelomas. Clinically, the disease presents in most patients, around 80%, with two clinical manifestations: anemia and bone lesions. Less frequently, patients may also have kidney failure, hypercalcemia, and a higher tendency toward infection. Behind this rather common symptomatology, from a molecular and genetic perspective, each myeloma is practically unique, adding complexity to its treatment. Therefore, ultimately, myelomas end up being refractory.
Elranatamab is a new therapeutic tool. For which patients is it recommended?
It is a bispecific monoclonal antibody that corresponds to the new monotherapy strategies we have for treating patients with multiple myeloma. On the one hand, it targets damaged plasma cells, which are the patient’s tumor cells, and on the other, it binds the patient’s T cells and redirects them to the tumor niche. When this happens, the T cell activates and destroys the tumor cell.
This medication has been approved for patients with relapsed myeloma who have received traditional drugs for their treatment. We know well that patients who have already received proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and anti-CD38 antibodies typically need something new after treatment. Before, there were no other options, and we would reuse what had been previously used. Now we have elranatamab, a bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting a new receptor that has shown significant responses as monotherapy.
More than 60% of patients respond, and more than 30% achieve complete remission. The key is the response duration and progression-free survival of almost a year and a half. This is the longest progression-free survival we have seen to date in previous lines. Therefore, it fills the needs we had for these relapsed or refractory myeloma patients.
What advantages does this new treatment offer?
It represents a therapeutic innovation because, as mentioned, it achieves a response in more than 60% of patients, and around 35% achieve complete remission. The median response duration has not been reached yet. Progression-free survival is 17.2 months, almost a year and a half, and overall survival is almost two years.
Furthermore, it is administered as subcutaneous monotherapy weekly for the first six cycles and then every 15 days. It has a good safety profile, although some adverse events are known, so we have strategies to combat or mitigate them, making the treatment generally well tolerated.
What side effects are being observed?
They are manageable. When the drug is first administered, patients may experience what we call a cytokine release syndrome, which is a result of the treatment’s mechanism. However, we can predict very well when it occurs, usually 2 days after the first doses, and we have strategies to mitigate it.
The second most common adverse event we need to be cautious about is infection. Nowadays, before starting treatment, patients update their vaccination schedule, receive antiviral prophylaxis, and receive prophylaxis against certain germs, resulting in reduced infections. However, infections are probably the adverse events we need to be most careful about when treating the patient.
We must ensure that prophylaxis is performed, and if fever occurs and an infection is suspected, cultures and all kinds of studies must be done to identify and treat it properly.
How does elranatamab change the treatment of an incurable disease? Does it bring us closer to a cure or to making multiple myeloma a manageable chronic disease?
With the already approved elranatamab, the most important aspect is that it adds another treatment option for patients with myeloma. With the progression-free survival data I indicated, life expectancy is increased, with a good quality of life and acceptable safety.
Obviously, elranatamab is still under study and development, even in early lines, including in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. When we are choosing first-line therapy, we select the best patients by combining traditional drugs with these new immunotherapies, such as elranatamab, it is likely that we are much closer to offering a cure to specific subgroups.
Although it won’t happen in all cases, I believe it will be applicable to a significant subgroup of patients, making chronicity of the disease a reality we are already approaching. Each day, we encounter more patients receiving different lines of treatment and ultimately meeting their life expectancy with myeloma. Even though some may die, it is often due to causes not related to myeloma. This is the most important contribution of these innovations, such as elranatamab.
Dr. Mateos reported receiving honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, GSK, AbbVie, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline, Oncopeptides, and Kite for delivering lectures and for participating in advisory boards.
This story was translated from El Médico Interactivo, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“The introduction of treatments such as elranatamab (Elrexfio) is allowing patients with multiple myeloma, which is still incurable for now, to have different options and achieve long periods of remission, thus improving their survival,” she added. “This therapeutic innovation is highly effective and well tolerated in patients with relapse or refractory multiple myeloma.” The overall response rate is “up to 61%, early, deep, and long-lasting.”
In an interview with El Médico Interactivo, Dr. Mateos explained the new approaches to multiple myeloma. She highlighted the effectiveness of new treatments and reviewed the latest data on this disease, which were presented at the recent European Hematology Association Congress.
What is the incidence rate of multiple myeloma in the Spanish population?
Multiple myeloma has an incidence of approximately 4-5 new cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. This means that around 3000 new cases are diagnosed each year in Spain. As with most tumors, multiple myeloma is generally slightly more common in males than females. It is the third most frequent hematologic cancer in men (1757 new cases) and women (1325 new cases), behind lymphoma and leukemias.
At what age is it most often diagnosed?
It affects older people, with recent reports indicating around 68-69 years as the median age. Although more young people are being diagnosed with multiple myeloma, analyses of how this hematologic cancer affects the general population show that it generally impacts patients over age 65 years.
What is the typical survival prognosis?
Thanks to research and therapeutic innovation, the prognosis has changed significantly over the past 20-25 years. Today, if a patient with multiple myeloma receives a diagnosis and does not exhibit poor prognostic characteristics (and this description fits approximately 70%-80% of patients with multiple myeloma), it is realistic to expect a survival exceeding 10 years. A few years ago, this outcome was unimaginable, but a significant amount of therapeutic innovation has made it possible. That’s why I emphasize that it is realistic to provide these data with such a positive outlook.
Is multiple myeloma a refractory type of cancer?
It was a refractory type of cancer. Twenty years ago, there were no treatment options, and therefore survival was around 2-3 years, because treatment mainly consisted of using alkylating agents and corticosteroids. This is what made it refractory.
With the emergence of new therapeutic innovations, patients have been responding better and their responses are lasting longer. Although there is still a group of patients, about 10%-15%, with a poor prognosis and refractory disease, those with standard risk are responding better to different therapies.
Although most patients will eventually exhaust the treatments, which until now were primarily triple-drug regimens (such as proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and antiCD38 antibodies), the introduction of new therapies is extending the duration of responses.
Is the risk for relapse high?
It is very high, in the sense that almost all patients with multiple myeloma eventually relapse. However, we hope that there soon will be some patients who do not relapse.
What are the typical pathologic manifestations of this cancer? Does it affect everyone equally, or in specific ways in each person?
In multiple myeloma, we often say there are multiple myelomas. Clinically, the disease presents in most patients, around 80%, with two clinical manifestations: anemia and bone lesions. Less frequently, patients may also have kidney failure, hypercalcemia, and a higher tendency toward infection. Behind this rather common symptomatology, from a molecular and genetic perspective, each myeloma is practically unique, adding complexity to its treatment. Therefore, ultimately, myelomas end up being refractory.
Elranatamab is a new therapeutic tool. For which patients is it recommended?
It is a bispecific monoclonal antibody that corresponds to the new monotherapy strategies we have for treating patients with multiple myeloma. On the one hand, it targets damaged plasma cells, which are the patient’s tumor cells, and on the other, it binds the patient’s T cells and redirects them to the tumor niche. When this happens, the T cell activates and destroys the tumor cell.
This medication has been approved for patients with relapsed myeloma who have received traditional drugs for their treatment. We know well that patients who have already received proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and anti-CD38 antibodies typically need something new after treatment. Before, there were no other options, and we would reuse what had been previously used. Now we have elranatamab, a bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting a new receptor that has shown significant responses as monotherapy.
More than 60% of patients respond, and more than 30% achieve complete remission. The key is the response duration and progression-free survival of almost a year and a half. This is the longest progression-free survival we have seen to date in previous lines. Therefore, it fills the needs we had for these relapsed or refractory myeloma patients.
What advantages does this new treatment offer?
It represents a therapeutic innovation because, as mentioned, it achieves a response in more than 60% of patients, and around 35% achieve complete remission. The median response duration has not been reached yet. Progression-free survival is 17.2 months, almost a year and a half, and overall survival is almost two years.
Furthermore, it is administered as subcutaneous monotherapy weekly for the first six cycles and then every 15 days. It has a good safety profile, although some adverse events are known, so we have strategies to combat or mitigate them, making the treatment generally well tolerated.
What side effects are being observed?
They are manageable. When the drug is first administered, patients may experience what we call a cytokine release syndrome, which is a result of the treatment’s mechanism. However, we can predict very well when it occurs, usually 2 days after the first doses, and we have strategies to mitigate it.
The second most common adverse event we need to be cautious about is infection. Nowadays, before starting treatment, patients update their vaccination schedule, receive antiviral prophylaxis, and receive prophylaxis against certain germs, resulting in reduced infections. However, infections are probably the adverse events we need to be most careful about when treating the patient.
We must ensure that prophylaxis is performed, and if fever occurs and an infection is suspected, cultures and all kinds of studies must be done to identify and treat it properly.
How does elranatamab change the treatment of an incurable disease? Does it bring us closer to a cure or to making multiple myeloma a manageable chronic disease?
With the already approved elranatamab, the most important aspect is that it adds another treatment option for patients with myeloma. With the progression-free survival data I indicated, life expectancy is increased, with a good quality of life and acceptable safety.
Obviously, elranatamab is still under study and development, even in early lines, including in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. When we are choosing first-line therapy, we select the best patients by combining traditional drugs with these new immunotherapies, such as elranatamab, it is likely that we are much closer to offering a cure to specific subgroups.
Although it won’t happen in all cases, I believe it will be applicable to a significant subgroup of patients, making chronicity of the disease a reality we are already approaching. Each day, we encounter more patients receiving different lines of treatment and ultimately meeting their life expectancy with myeloma. Even though some may die, it is often due to causes not related to myeloma. This is the most important contribution of these innovations, such as elranatamab.
Dr. Mateos reported receiving honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, GSK, AbbVie, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline, Oncopeptides, and Kite for delivering lectures and for participating in advisory boards.
This story was translated from El Médico Interactivo, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“The introduction of treatments such as elranatamab (Elrexfio) is allowing patients with multiple myeloma, which is still incurable for now, to have different options and achieve long periods of remission, thus improving their survival,” she added. “This therapeutic innovation is highly effective and well tolerated in patients with relapse or refractory multiple myeloma.” The overall response rate is “up to 61%, early, deep, and long-lasting.”
In an interview with El Médico Interactivo, Dr. Mateos explained the new approaches to multiple myeloma. She highlighted the effectiveness of new treatments and reviewed the latest data on this disease, which were presented at the recent European Hematology Association Congress.
What is the incidence rate of multiple myeloma in the Spanish population?
Multiple myeloma has an incidence of approximately 4-5 new cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. This means that around 3000 new cases are diagnosed each year in Spain. As with most tumors, multiple myeloma is generally slightly more common in males than females. It is the third most frequent hematologic cancer in men (1757 new cases) and women (1325 new cases), behind lymphoma and leukemias.
At what age is it most often diagnosed?
It affects older people, with recent reports indicating around 68-69 years as the median age. Although more young people are being diagnosed with multiple myeloma, analyses of how this hematologic cancer affects the general population show that it generally impacts patients over age 65 years.
What is the typical survival prognosis?
Thanks to research and therapeutic innovation, the prognosis has changed significantly over the past 20-25 years. Today, if a patient with multiple myeloma receives a diagnosis and does not exhibit poor prognostic characteristics (and this description fits approximately 70%-80% of patients with multiple myeloma), it is realistic to expect a survival exceeding 10 years. A few years ago, this outcome was unimaginable, but a significant amount of therapeutic innovation has made it possible. That’s why I emphasize that it is realistic to provide these data with such a positive outlook.
Is multiple myeloma a refractory type of cancer?
It was a refractory type of cancer. Twenty years ago, there were no treatment options, and therefore survival was around 2-3 years, because treatment mainly consisted of using alkylating agents and corticosteroids. This is what made it refractory.
With the emergence of new therapeutic innovations, patients have been responding better and their responses are lasting longer. Although there is still a group of patients, about 10%-15%, with a poor prognosis and refractory disease, those with standard risk are responding better to different therapies.
Although most patients will eventually exhaust the treatments, which until now were primarily triple-drug regimens (such as proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and antiCD38 antibodies), the introduction of new therapies is extending the duration of responses.
Is the risk for relapse high?
It is very high, in the sense that almost all patients with multiple myeloma eventually relapse. However, we hope that there soon will be some patients who do not relapse.
What are the typical pathologic manifestations of this cancer? Does it affect everyone equally, or in specific ways in each person?
In multiple myeloma, we often say there are multiple myelomas. Clinically, the disease presents in most patients, around 80%, with two clinical manifestations: anemia and bone lesions. Less frequently, patients may also have kidney failure, hypercalcemia, and a higher tendency toward infection. Behind this rather common symptomatology, from a molecular and genetic perspective, each myeloma is practically unique, adding complexity to its treatment. Therefore, ultimately, myelomas end up being refractory.
Elranatamab is a new therapeutic tool. For which patients is it recommended?
It is a bispecific monoclonal antibody that corresponds to the new monotherapy strategies we have for treating patients with multiple myeloma. On the one hand, it targets damaged plasma cells, which are the patient’s tumor cells, and on the other, it binds the patient’s T cells and redirects them to the tumor niche. When this happens, the T cell activates and destroys the tumor cell.
This medication has been approved for patients with relapsed myeloma who have received traditional drugs for their treatment. We know well that patients who have already received proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and anti-CD38 antibodies typically need something new after treatment. Before, there were no other options, and we would reuse what had been previously used. Now we have elranatamab, a bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting a new receptor that has shown significant responses as monotherapy.
More than 60% of patients respond, and more than 30% achieve complete remission. The key is the response duration and progression-free survival of almost a year and a half. This is the longest progression-free survival we have seen to date in previous lines. Therefore, it fills the needs we had for these relapsed or refractory myeloma patients.
What advantages does this new treatment offer?
It represents a therapeutic innovation because, as mentioned, it achieves a response in more than 60% of patients, and around 35% achieve complete remission. The median response duration has not been reached yet. Progression-free survival is 17.2 months, almost a year and a half, and overall survival is almost two years.
Furthermore, it is administered as subcutaneous monotherapy weekly for the first six cycles and then every 15 days. It has a good safety profile, although some adverse events are known, so we have strategies to combat or mitigate them, making the treatment generally well tolerated.
What side effects are being observed?
They are manageable. When the drug is first administered, patients may experience what we call a cytokine release syndrome, which is a result of the treatment’s mechanism. However, we can predict very well when it occurs, usually 2 days after the first doses, and we have strategies to mitigate it.
The second most common adverse event we need to be cautious about is infection. Nowadays, before starting treatment, patients update their vaccination schedule, receive antiviral prophylaxis, and receive prophylaxis against certain germs, resulting in reduced infections. However, infections are probably the adverse events we need to be most careful about when treating the patient.
We must ensure that prophylaxis is performed, and if fever occurs and an infection is suspected, cultures and all kinds of studies must be done to identify and treat it properly.
How does elranatamab change the treatment of an incurable disease? Does it bring us closer to a cure or to making multiple myeloma a manageable chronic disease?
With the already approved elranatamab, the most important aspect is that it adds another treatment option for patients with myeloma. With the progression-free survival data I indicated, life expectancy is increased, with a good quality of life and acceptable safety.
Obviously, elranatamab is still under study and development, even in early lines, including in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. When we are choosing first-line therapy, we select the best patients by combining traditional drugs with these new immunotherapies, such as elranatamab, it is likely that we are much closer to offering a cure to specific subgroups.
Although it won’t happen in all cases, I believe it will be applicable to a significant subgroup of patients, making chronicity of the disease a reality we are already approaching. Each day, we encounter more patients receiving different lines of treatment and ultimately meeting their life expectancy with myeloma. Even though some may die, it is often due to causes not related to myeloma. This is the most important contribution of these innovations, such as elranatamab.
Dr. Mateos reported receiving honoraria from Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, GSK, AbbVie, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Stemline, Oncopeptides, and Kite for delivering lectures and for participating in advisory boards.
This story was translated from El Médico Interactivo, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
When Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Sexual Challenges
Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.
This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.
Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.
The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
Characteristics and Mechanisms
Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.
As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.
Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.
Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects.
Sexual Function in CCS
A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.
The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.
Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.
In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.
The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
Factors Influencing Sexual Function
The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.
Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.
Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.
Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.
The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.
Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.
Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.
Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.
This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.
Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.
The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
Characteristics and Mechanisms
Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.
As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.
Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.
Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects.
Sexual Function in CCS
A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.
The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.
Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.
In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.
The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
Factors Influencing Sexual Function
The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.
Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.
Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.
Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.
The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.
Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.
Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.
Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Childhood cancers represent a diverse group of neoplasms, and thanks to advances in treatment, survival rates have improved significantly. Today, more than 80%-85% of children diagnosed with cancer in developed countries survive into adulthood.
This increase in survival has brought new challenges, however. Compared with the general population, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at a notably higher risk for early mortality, developing secondary cancers, and experiencing various long-term clinical and psychosocial issues stemming from their disease or its treatment.
Long-term follow-up care for CCS is a complex and evolving field. Despite ongoing efforts to establish global and national guidelines, current evidence indicates that the care and management of these patients remain suboptimal.
The disruptions caused by cancer and its treatment can interfere with normal physiological and psychological development, leading to issues with sexual function. This aspect of health is critical as it influences not just physical well-being but also psychosocial, developmental, and emotional health.
Characteristics and Mechanisms
Sexual functioning encompasses the physiological and psychological aspects of sexual behavior, including desire, arousal, orgasm, sexual pleasure, and overall satisfaction.
As CCS reach adolescence or adulthood, they often face sexual and reproductive issues, particularly as they enter romantic relationships.
Sexual functioning is a complex process that relies on the interaction of various factors, including physiological health, psychosexual development, romantic relationships, body image, and desire.
Despite its importance, the impact of childhood cancer on sexual function is often overlooked, even though cancer and its treatments can have lifelong effects.
Sexual Function in CCS
A recent review aimed to summarize the existing research on sexual function among CCS, highlighting assessment tools, key stages of psychosexual development, common sexual problems, and the prevalence of sexual dysfunction.
The review study included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022, comprising two qualitative, six cohort, and 14 cross-sectional studies.
Most CCS reached all key stages of psychosexual development at an average age of 29.8 years. Although some milestones were achieved later than is typical, many survivors felt they reached these stages at the appropriate time. Sexual initiation was less common among those who had undergone intensive neurotoxic treatments, such as those diagnosed with brain tumors or leukemia in childhood.
In a cross-sectional study of CCS aged 17-39 years, about one third had never engaged in sexual intercourse, 41.4% reported never experiencing sexual attraction, 44.8% were dissatisfied with their sex lives, and many rarely felt sexually attractive to others. Another study found that common issues among CCS included a lack of interest in sex (30%), difficulty enjoying sex (24%), and difficulty becoming aroused (23%). However, comparing and analyzing these problems was challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment criteria.
The prevalence of sexual dysfunction among CCS ranged from 12.3% to 46.5%. For males, the prevalence ranged from 12.3% to 54.0%, while for females, it ranged from 19.9% to 57.0%.
Factors Influencing Sexual Function
The review identified the following four categories of factors influencing sexual function in CCS: Demographic, treatment-related, psychological, and physiological.
Demographic factors: Gender, age, education level, relationship status, income level, and race all play roles in sexual function.
Female survivors reported more severe sexual dysfunction and poorer sexual health than did male survivors. Age at cancer diagnosis, age at evaluation, and the time since diagnosis were closely linked to sexual experiences. Patients diagnosed with cancer during childhood tended to report better sexual function than those diagnosed during adolescence.
Treatment-related factors: The type of cancer and intensity of treatment, along with surgical history, were significant factors. Surgeries involving the spinal cord or sympathetic nerves, as well as a history of prostate or pelvic surgery, were strongly associated with erectile dysfunction in men. In women, pelvic surgeries and treatments to the pelvic area were commonly linked to sexual dysfunction.
The association between treatment intensity and sexual function was noted across several studies, although the results were not always consistent. For example, testicular radiation above 10 Gy was positively correlated with sexual dysfunction. Women who underwent more intensive treatments were more likely to report issues in multiple areas of sexual function, while men in this group were less likely to have children.
Among female CCS, certain types of cancer, such as germ cell tumors, renal tumors, and leukemia, present a higher risk for sexual dysfunction. Women who had CNS tumors in childhood frequently reported problems like difficulty in sexual arousal, low sexual satisfaction, infrequent sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners, compared with survivors of other cancers. Survivors of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and those who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) also showed varying degrees of impaired sexual function, compared with the general population. The HSCT group showed significant testicular damage, including reduced testicular volumes, low testosterone levels, and low sperm counts.
Psychological factors: These factors, such as emotional distress, play a significant role in sexual dysfunction among CCS. Symptoms like anxiety, nervousness during sexual activity, and depression are commonly reported by those with sexual dysfunction. The connection between body image and sexual function is complex. Many CCS with sexual dysfunction express concern about how others, particularly their partners, perceived their altered body image due to cancer and its treatment.
Physiological factors: In male CCS, low serum testosterone levels and low lean muscle mass are linked to an increased risk for sexual dysfunction. Treatments involving alkylating agents or testicular radiation, and surgery or radiotherapy targeting the genitourinary organs or the hypothalamic-pituitary region, can lead to various physiological and endocrine disorders, contributing to sexual dysfunction. Despite these risks, there is a lack of research evaluating sexual function through the lens of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis and neuroendocrine pathways.
This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Issues Complete Response Letter for Myeloma Drug
On August 20, Regeneron announced that it had received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding its Biologics License Application for linvoseltamab, citing issues at a third-party manufacturer.
More specifically, Regeneron said in a company press release that the FDA issued the complete response letter based on findings from “a preapproval inspection at a third-party fill/finish manufacturer for another company’s product candidate.”
The third-party manufacturer told Regeneron it believes that the issues have been resolved, Regeneron said, and that facility is now awaiting a follow-up FDA inspection in the “coming months.”
Regeneron noted that this “anticipated outcome” from the FDA preapproval inspection had been disclosed previously during a company earnings call on August 1.
On that call, Regeneron had discussed the FDA’s concerns about the third-party manufacturer and anticipated that “any potential FDA approval for linvoseltamab is likely to be delayed beyond the August 22 PDUFA date.”
Regeneron had initially filed a Biologics License Application for its bispecific antibody in 2023, based on findings from the phase 1/2 single arm LINKER-MM1 trial.
In the latest published trial findings, investigators reported that, at a median follow-up of about 14 months, 71% of the 117 patients receiving 200 mg of linvoseltamab achieved an overall response, with 50% achieving a complete response. The probability of survival at 12 months was 75.3%.
This would have been the first approval for linvoseltamab, which would have joined two agents already on the US market for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen) and elranatamab (Elrexfio, Pfizer).
Pricing information for linvoseltamab is not yet available, but its competitors teclistamab and elranatamab are reported to cost around $40,000 per month.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
On August 20, Regeneron announced that it had received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding its Biologics License Application for linvoseltamab, citing issues at a third-party manufacturer.
More specifically, Regeneron said in a company press release that the FDA issued the complete response letter based on findings from “a preapproval inspection at a third-party fill/finish manufacturer for another company’s product candidate.”
The third-party manufacturer told Regeneron it believes that the issues have been resolved, Regeneron said, and that facility is now awaiting a follow-up FDA inspection in the “coming months.”
Regeneron noted that this “anticipated outcome” from the FDA preapproval inspection had been disclosed previously during a company earnings call on August 1.
On that call, Regeneron had discussed the FDA’s concerns about the third-party manufacturer and anticipated that “any potential FDA approval for linvoseltamab is likely to be delayed beyond the August 22 PDUFA date.”
Regeneron had initially filed a Biologics License Application for its bispecific antibody in 2023, based on findings from the phase 1/2 single arm LINKER-MM1 trial.
In the latest published trial findings, investigators reported that, at a median follow-up of about 14 months, 71% of the 117 patients receiving 200 mg of linvoseltamab achieved an overall response, with 50% achieving a complete response. The probability of survival at 12 months was 75.3%.
This would have been the first approval for linvoseltamab, which would have joined two agents already on the US market for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen) and elranatamab (Elrexfio, Pfizer).
Pricing information for linvoseltamab is not yet available, but its competitors teclistamab and elranatamab are reported to cost around $40,000 per month.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
On August 20, Regeneron announced that it had received a complete response letter from the FDA regarding its Biologics License Application for linvoseltamab, citing issues at a third-party manufacturer.
More specifically, Regeneron said in a company press release that the FDA issued the complete response letter based on findings from “a preapproval inspection at a third-party fill/finish manufacturer for another company’s product candidate.”
The third-party manufacturer told Regeneron it believes that the issues have been resolved, Regeneron said, and that facility is now awaiting a follow-up FDA inspection in the “coming months.”
Regeneron noted that this “anticipated outcome” from the FDA preapproval inspection had been disclosed previously during a company earnings call on August 1.
On that call, Regeneron had discussed the FDA’s concerns about the third-party manufacturer and anticipated that “any potential FDA approval for linvoseltamab is likely to be delayed beyond the August 22 PDUFA date.”
Regeneron had initially filed a Biologics License Application for its bispecific antibody in 2023, based on findings from the phase 1/2 single arm LINKER-MM1 trial.
In the latest published trial findings, investigators reported that, at a median follow-up of about 14 months, 71% of the 117 patients receiving 200 mg of linvoseltamab achieved an overall response, with 50% achieving a complete response. The probability of survival at 12 months was 75.3%.
This would have been the first approval for linvoseltamab, which would have joined two agents already on the US market for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: teclistamab (Tecvayli, Janssen) and elranatamab (Elrexfio, Pfizer).
Pricing information for linvoseltamab is not yet available, but its competitors teclistamab and elranatamab are reported to cost around $40,000 per month.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Diagnosing, Treating Rashes In Patients on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
WASHINGTON, DC — and with judicious usage and dosing of prednisone when deemed necessary, Blair Allais, MD, said during a session on supportive oncodermatology at the ElderDerm conference on dermatology in the older patient hosted by the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC.
“It’s important when you see these patients to be as specific as possible” based on morphology and histopathology, and to treat the rashes in a similar way as in the non-ICI setting,” said Dr. Allais, a dermato-oncologist at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, Virginia.
cirAEs are the most frequently reported and most visible adverse effects of checkpoint inhibition — a treatment that has emerged as a standard therapy for many malignancies since the first ICI was approved in 2011 for metastatic melanoma.
And contrary to what the phenomenon of immunosenescence might suggest, older patients are no less prone to cirAEs than younger patients. “You’d think you’d have fewer rashes and side effects as you age, but that’s not true,” said Dr. Allais, who completed a fellowship in cutaneous oncology after her dermatology residency.
A 2021 multicenter international cohort study of over 900 patients aged ≥ 80 years treated with single-agent ICIs for cancer did not find any significant differences in the development of immune-related adverse events among those younger than 85, those aged 85-89 years, and those 90 and older. Neither did the ELDERS study in the United Kingdom; this prospective observational study found similar rates of high-grade and low-grade immune toxicity in its two cohorts of patients ≥ 70 and < 70 years of age.
At the meeting, Dr. Allais, who coauthored a 2023 review of cirAEs from ICIs, reviewed recent developments and provided the following advice:
New diagnostic criteria: “Really exciting” news for more precise diagnosis and optimal therapy of cirAEs, Dr. Allais said, is a position paper published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer that offers consensus-based diagnostic criteria for the 10 most common types of dermatologic immune-related adverse events and an overall diagnostic framework. “Luckily, through the work of a Delphi consensus group, we can now have [more diagnostic specificity],” which is important for both clinical care and research, she said.
Most cirAEs have typically been reported nonspecifically as “rash,” but diagnosing a rash subtype is “critical in tailoring appropriate therapy that it is both effective and the least detrimental to the oncology treatment plan for patients with cancer,” the group’s coauthors wrote.
The 10 core diagnoses include psoriasis, eczematous dermatitis, vitiligo, Grover disease, eruptive atypical squamous proliferation, and bullous pemphigoid. Outside of the core diagnoses are other nonspecific presentations that require evaluation to arrive at a diagnosis, if possible, or to reveal data that can allow for targeted therapy and severity grading, the group explains in its paper.
“To prednisone or not to prednisone”: The development of cirAEs is associated with reduced mortality and improved cancer outcomes, making the use of immunosuppressants such as corticosteroids a therapeutic dilemma. “Patients who get these rashes usually do better with respect to their cancer, so the concern has been, if we affect how they respond to their immunotherapy, we may minimize that improvement in mortality,” said Dr. Allais, also assistant professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and clinical assistant professor of dermatology at George Washington University.
A widely discussed study published in 2015 reported on 254 patients with melanoma who developed an immune-related adverse event during treatment with ipilimumab — approximately one third of whom required systemic corticosteroids — and concluded that systemic corticosteroids did not affect overall survival or time to (cancer) treatment failure. This study from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, “was the first large study looking at this question,” she said, and the subsequent message for several years in conferences and the literature was that steroids do not affect the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors.
“But the study was not without limitations,” Dr. Allais said, “because the patients who got prednisone were mainly those with higher-grade toxicities,” while those not treated with corticosteroids had either no toxicities or low-grade toxicities. “If higher-grade toxicities were associated with better (antitumor) response, the steroids may have just [blunted] that benefit.”
The current totality of data available in the literature suggests that corticosteroids may indeed have an impact on the efficacy of ICI therapy. “Subsequent studies have come out in the community that have shown that we should probably think twice about giving prednisone to some patients, particularly within the first 50 days of ICI treatment, and that we should be mindful of the dose,” Dr. Allais said.
The takeaways from these studies — all published in the past few years — are to use prednisone early and liberally for life-threatening toxicity, to use it at the lowest dose and for the shortest course when there is not an appropriate alternative, to avoid it for diagnoses that are not treated with prednisone outside the ICI setting, and to “have a plan” for a steroid-sparing agent to use after prednisone, she said.
Dr. Allais recommends heightened consideration during the first 50 days of ICI treatment based on a multicenter retrospective study that found a significant association between use of high-dose glucocorticoids (≥ 60 mg prednisone equivalent once a day) within 8 weeks of anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) monotherapy initiation and poorer progression-free and overall survival. The study covered a cohort of 947 patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy between 2009 and 2019, 54% of whom developed immune-related adverse events.
This study and other recent studies addressing the association between steroids and survival outcomes in patients with immune-related adverse events during ICI therapy are described in Dr. Allais’ 2023 review of cirAEs from ICIs.
Approach to morbilliform eruptions: This rash is “super common” in patients on ICIs, occurring generally within 2-3 weeks of starting treatment. “It tends to be self-limited and can recur with future infusions,” Dr. Allais said.
Systemic steroids should be reserved for severe or refractory eruptions. “Usually, I treat the patients with topical steroids, and I manage their expectations (that the rash may recur with subsequent infusions), but I closely follow them up” within 2-3 weeks, she said. It’s important to rule out a severe cutaneous adverse drug eruption, of course, and to start high-dose systemic steroids immediately if necessary. “Antibiotics are a big culprit” and often can be discontinued.
Soak and smear: “I’m obsessed” with this technique of a 20-minute soak in plain water followed by application of steroid ointment, said Dr. Allais, referring to a small study published in 2005 that reported a complete response after 2 weeks in 60% of patients with psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and other inflammatory skin conditions (none had cancer), who had failed prior systemic therapy. All patients had at least a 75% response.
The method offers a way to “avoid the systemic immunosuppression we’d get with prednisone,” she said. One just needs to make sure the older patient can get in and out of their tub safely.
ICI-induced bullous pemphigoid (BP): BP occurs more frequently in the ICI setting, compared with the general population, with a median time to development of 8.5 months after ICI initiation. It is associated in this setting with improved tumor response, but “many oncologists stop anticancer treatment because of this diagnosis,” she said.
In the supportive oncodermatology space, however, ICI-induced BP exemplifies the value of tailored treatment regimens, she said. A small multi-institutional retrospective cohort study published in 2023 identified 35 cases of ICI-BP among 5636 ICI-treated patients and found that 8 out of 11 patients who received biologic therapy (rituximab, omalizumab, or dupilumab) had a complete response to ICI-BP without flares following subsequent ICI cycles. And while statistical significance was not reached, the study showed that no cancer-related outcomes were worsened.
“If you see someone with ICI-induced BP and they have a lot of involvement, you could start them on steroids and get that steroid-sparing agent initiated for approval. ... And if IgE is elevated, you might reach for omalizumab,” said Dr. Allais, noting that her favored treatment overall is dupilumab.
Risk factors for the development of ICI-induced BP include age > 70, skin cancer, and having an initial response to ICI on first imaging, the latter of which “I find fascinating ... because imaging occurs within the first 12 weeks of treatment, but we don’t see BP popping up until 8.5 months into treatment,” she noted. “So maybe there’s a baseline risk factor that could predispose them.”
Caution with antibiotics: “I try to avoid antibiotics in the ICI setting,” Dr. Allais said, in deference to the “ever-important microbiome.” Studies have demonstrated that the microbiomes of responders to ICI treatment are different from those of nonresponders, she said.
And a “fascinating” study of patients with melanoma undergoing ICI therapy showed not only a higher abundance of Ruminococcaceae bacteria in responders vs nonresponders but a significant impact of dietary fiber. High dietary fiber was associated with significantly improved overall survival in the patients on ICI, with the most pronounced benefit in patients with good fiber intake and no probiotic use. “Even wilder, their T cells changed,” she said. “They had a high expression of genes related to T-cell activation ... so more tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.”
A retrospective study of 568 patients with stages III and IV melanoma treated with ICI showed that those exposed to antibiotics prior to ICI had significantly worse overall survival than those not exposed to antibiotics. “Think before you give them,” Dr. Allais said. “And try to tell your older patients to eat beans and greens.”
Dr. Allais reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON, DC — and with judicious usage and dosing of prednisone when deemed necessary, Blair Allais, MD, said during a session on supportive oncodermatology at the ElderDerm conference on dermatology in the older patient hosted by the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC.
“It’s important when you see these patients to be as specific as possible” based on morphology and histopathology, and to treat the rashes in a similar way as in the non-ICI setting,” said Dr. Allais, a dermato-oncologist at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, Virginia.
cirAEs are the most frequently reported and most visible adverse effects of checkpoint inhibition — a treatment that has emerged as a standard therapy for many malignancies since the first ICI was approved in 2011 for metastatic melanoma.
And contrary to what the phenomenon of immunosenescence might suggest, older patients are no less prone to cirAEs than younger patients. “You’d think you’d have fewer rashes and side effects as you age, but that’s not true,” said Dr. Allais, who completed a fellowship in cutaneous oncology after her dermatology residency.
A 2021 multicenter international cohort study of over 900 patients aged ≥ 80 years treated with single-agent ICIs for cancer did not find any significant differences in the development of immune-related adverse events among those younger than 85, those aged 85-89 years, and those 90 and older. Neither did the ELDERS study in the United Kingdom; this prospective observational study found similar rates of high-grade and low-grade immune toxicity in its two cohorts of patients ≥ 70 and < 70 years of age.
At the meeting, Dr. Allais, who coauthored a 2023 review of cirAEs from ICIs, reviewed recent developments and provided the following advice:
New diagnostic criteria: “Really exciting” news for more precise diagnosis and optimal therapy of cirAEs, Dr. Allais said, is a position paper published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer that offers consensus-based diagnostic criteria for the 10 most common types of dermatologic immune-related adverse events and an overall diagnostic framework. “Luckily, through the work of a Delphi consensus group, we can now have [more diagnostic specificity],” which is important for both clinical care and research, she said.
Most cirAEs have typically been reported nonspecifically as “rash,” but diagnosing a rash subtype is “critical in tailoring appropriate therapy that it is both effective and the least detrimental to the oncology treatment plan for patients with cancer,” the group’s coauthors wrote.
The 10 core diagnoses include psoriasis, eczematous dermatitis, vitiligo, Grover disease, eruptive atypical squamous proliferation, and bullous pemphigoid. Outside of the core diagnoses are other nonspecific presentations that require evaluation to arrive at a diagnosis, if possible, or to reveal data that can allow for targeted therapy and severity grading, the group explains in its paper.
“To prednisone or not to prednisone”: The development of cirAEs is associated with reduced mortality and improved cancer outcomes, making the use of immunosuppressants such as corticosteroids a therapeutic dilemma. “Patients who get these rashes usually do better with respect to their cancer, so the concern has been, if we affect how they respond to their immunotherapy, we may minimize that improvement in mortality,” said Dr. Allais, also assistant professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and clinical assistant professor of dermatology at George Washington University.
A widely discussed study published in 2015 reported on 254 patients with melanoma who developed an immune-related adverse event during treatment with ipilimumab — approximately one third of whom required systemic corticosteroids — and concluded that systemic corticosteroids did not affect overall survival or time to (cancer) treatment failure. This study from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, “was the first large study looking at this question,” she said, and the subsequent message for several years in conferences and the literature was that steroids do not affect the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors.
“But the study was not without limitations,” Dr. Allais said, “because the patients who got prednisone were mainly those with higher-grade toxicities,” while those not treated with corticosteroids had either no toxicities or low-grade toxicities. “If higher-grade toxicities were associated with better (antitumor) response, the steroids may have just [blunted] that benefit.”
The current totality of data available in the literature suggests that corticosteroids may indeed have an impact on the efficacy of ICI therapy. “Subsequent studies have come out in the community that have shown that we should probably think twice about giving prednisone to some patients, particularly within the first 50 days of ICI treatment, and that we should be mindful of the dose,” Dr. Allais said.
The takeaways from these studies — all published in the past few years — are to use prednisone early and liberally for life-threatening toxicity, to use it at the lowest dose and for the shortest course when there is not an appropriate alternative, to avoid it for diagnoses that are not treated with prednisone outside the ICI setting, and to “have a plan” for a steroid-sparing agent to use after prednisone, she said.
Dr. Allais recommends heightened consideration during the first 50 days of ICI treatment based on a multicenter retrospective study that found a significant association between use of high-dose glucocorticoids (≥ 60 mg prednisone equivalent once a day) within 8 weeks of anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) monotherapy initiation and poorer progression-free and overall survival. The study covered a cohort of 947 patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy between 2009 and 2019, 54% of whom developed immune-related adverse events.
This study and other recent studies addressing the association between steroids and survival outcomes in patients with immune-related adverse events during ICI therapy are described in Dr. Allais’ 2023 review of cirAEs from ICIs.
Approach to morbilliform eruptions: This rash is “super common” in patients on ICIs, occurring generally within 2-3 weeks of starting treatment. “It tends to be self-limited and can recur with future infusions,” Dr. Allais said.
Systemic steroids should be reserved for severe or refractory eruptions. “Usually, I treat the patients with topical steroids, and I manage their expectations (that the rash may recur with subsequent infusions), but I closely follow them up” within 2-3 weeks, she said. It’s important to rule out a severe cutaneous adverse drug eruption, of course, and to start high-dose systemic steroids immediately if necessary. “Antibiotics are a big culprit” and often can be discontinued.
Soak and smear: “I’m obsessed” with this technique of a 20-minute soak in plain water followed by application of steroid ointment, said Dr. Allais, referring to a small study published in 2005 that reported a complete response after 2 weeks in 60% of patients with psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and other inflammatory skin conditions (none had cancer), who had failed prior systemic therapy. All patients had at least a 75% response.
The method offers a way to “avoid the systemic immunosuppression we’d get with prednisone,” she said. One just needs to make sure the older patient can get in and out of their tub safely.
ICI-induced bullous pemphigoid (BP): BP occurs more frequently in the ICI setting, compared with the general population, with a median time to development of 8.5 months after ICI initiation. It is associated in this setting with improved tumor response, but “many oncologists stop anticancer treatment because of this diagnosis,” she said.
In the supportive oncodermatology space, however, ICI-induced BP exemplifies the value of tailored treatment regimens, she said. A small multi-institutional retrospective cohort study published in 2023 identified 35 cases of ICI-BP among 5636 ICI-treated patients and found that 8 out of 11 patients who received biologic therapy (rituximab, omalizumab, or dupilumab) had a complete response to ICI-BP without flares following subsequent ICI cycles. And while statistical significance was not reached, the study showed that no cancer-related outcomes were worsened.
“If you see someone with ICI-induced BP and they have a lot of involvement, you could start them on steroids and get that steroid-sparing agent initiated for approval. ... And if IgE is elevated, you might reach for omalizumab,” said Dr. Allais, noting that her favored treatment overall is dupilumab.
Risk factors for the development of ICI-induced BP include age > 70, skin cancer, and having an initial response to ICI on first imaging, the latter of which “I find fascinating ... because imaging occurs within the first 12 weeks of treatment, but we don’t see BP popping up until 8.5 months into treatment,” she noted. “So maybe there’s a baseline risk factor that could predispose them.”
Caution with antibiotics: “I try to avoid antibiotics in the ICI setting,” Dr. Allais said, in deference to the “ever-important microbiome.” Studies have demonstrated that the microbiomes of responders to ICI treatment are different from those of nonresponders, she said.
And a “fascinating” study of patients with melanoma undergoing ICI therapy showed not only a higher abundance of Ruminococcaceae bacteria in responders vs nonresponders but a significant impact of dietary fiber. High dietary fiber was associated with significantly improved overall survival in the patients on ICI, with the most pronounced benefit in patients with good fiber intake and no probiotic use. “Even wilder, their T cells changed,” she said. “They had a high expression of genes related to T-cell activation ... so more tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.”
A retrospective study of 568 patients with stages III and IV melanoma treated with ICI showed that those exposed to antibiotics prior to ICI had significantly worse overall survival than those not exposed to antibiotics. “Think before you give them,” Dr. Allais said. “And try to tell your older patients to eat beans and greens.”
Dr. Allais reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON, DC — and with judicious usage and dosing of prednisone when deemed necessary, Blair Allais, MD, said during a session on supportive oncodermatology at the ElderDerm conference on dermatology in the older patient hosted by the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC.
“It’s important when you see these patients to be as specific as possible” based on morphology and histopathology, and to treat the rashes in a similar way as in the non-ICI setting,” said Dr. Allais, a dermato-oncologist at the Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, Virginia.
cirAEs are the most frequently reported and most visible adverse effects of checkpoint inhibition — a treatment that has emerged as a standard therapy for many malignancies since the first ICI was approved in 2011 for metastatic melanoma.
And contrary to what the phenomenon of immunosenescence might suggest, older patients are no less prone to cirAEs than younger patients. “You’d think you’d have fewer rashes and side effects as you age, but that’s not true,” said Dr. Allais, who completed a fellowship in cutaneous oncology after her dermatology residency.
A 2021 multicenter international cohort study of over 900 patients aged ≥ 80 years treated with single-agent ICIs for cancer did not find any significant differences in the development of immune-related adverse events among those younger than 85, those aged 85-89 years, and those 90 and older. Neither did the ELDERS study in the United Kingdom; this prospective observational study found similar rates of high-grade and low-grade immune toxicity in its two cohorts of patients ≥ 70 and < 70 years of age.
At the meeting, Dr. Allais, who coauthored a 2023 review of cirAEs from ICIs, reviewed recent developments and provided the following advice:
New diagnostic criteria: “Really exciting” news for more precise diagnosis and optimal therapy of cirAEs, Dr. Allais said, is a position paper published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer that offers consensus-based diagnostic criteria for the 10 most common types of dermatologic immune-related adverse events and an overall diagnostic framework. “Luckily, through the work of a Delphi consensus group, we can now have [more diagnostic specificity],” which is important for both clinical care and research, she said.
Most cirAEs have typically been reported nonspecifically as “rash,” but diagnosing a rash subtype is “critical in tailoring appropriate therapy that it is both effective and the least detrimental to the oncology treatment plan for patients with cancer,” the group’s coauthors wrote.
The 10 core diagnoses include psoriasis, eczematous dermatitis, vitiligo, Grover disease, eruptive atypical squamous proliferation, and bullous pemphigoid. Outside of the core diagnoses are other nonspecific presentations that require evaluation to arrive at a diagnosis, if possible, or to reveal data that can allow for targeted therapy and severity grading, the group explains in its paper.
“To prednisone or not to prednisone”: The development of cirAEs is associated with reduced mortality and improved cancer outcomes, making the use of immunosuppressants such as corticosteroids a therapeutic dilemma. “Patients who get these rashes usually do better with respect to their cancer, so the concern has been, if we affect how they respond to their immunotherapy, we may minimize that improvement in mortality,” said Dr. Allais, also assistant professor at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and clinical assistant professor of dermatology at George Washington University.
A widely discussed study published in 2015 reported on 254 patients with melanoma who developed an immune-related adverse event during treatment with ipilimumab — approximately one third of whom required systemic corticosteroids — and concluded that systemic corticosteroids did not affect overall survival or time to (cancer) treatment failure. This study from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, “was the first large study looking at this question,” she said, and the subsequent message for several years in conferences and the literature was that steroids do not affect the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors.
“But the study was not without limitations,” Dr. Allais said, “because the patients who got prednisone were mainly those with higher-grade toxicities,” while those not treated with corticosteroids had either no toxicities or low-grade toxicities. “If higher-grade toxicities were associated with better (antitumor) response, the steroids may have just [blunted] that benefit.”
The current totality of data available in the literature suggests that corticosteroids may indeed have an impact on the efficacy of ICI therapy. “Subsequent studies have come out in the community that have shown that we should probably think twice about giving prednisone to some patients, particularly within the first 50 days of ICI treatment, and that we should be mindful of the dose,” Dr. Allais said.
The takeaways from these studies — all published in the past few years — are to use prednisone early and liberally for life-threatening toxicity, to use it at the lowest dose and for the shortest course when there is not an appropriate alternative, to avoid it for diagnoses that are not treated with prednisone outside the ICI setting, and to “have a plan” for a steroid-sparing agent to use after prednisone, she said.
Dr. Allais recommends heightened consideration during the first 50 days of ICI treatment based on a multicenter retrospective study that found a significant association between use of high-dose glucocorticoids (≥ 60 mg prednisone equivalent once a day) within 8 weeks of anti–programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) monotherapy initiation and poorer progression-free and overall survival. The study covered a cohort of 947 patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti–PD-1 monotherapy between 2009 and 2019, 54% of whom developed immune-related adverse events.
This study and other recent studies addressing the association between steroids and survival outcomes in patients with immune-related adverse events during ICI therapy are described in Dr. Allais’ 2023 review of cirAEs from ICIs.
Approach to morbilliform eruptions: This rash is “super common” in patients on ICIs, occurring generally within 2-3 weeks of starting treatment. “It tends to be self-limited and can recur with future infusions,” Dr. Allais said.
Systemic steroids should be reserved for severe or refractory eruptions. “Usually, I treat the patients with topical steroids, and I manage their expectations (that the rash may recur with subsequent infusions), but I closely follow them up” within 2-3 weeks, she said. It’s important to rule out a severe cutaneous adverse drug eruption, of course, and to start high-dose systemic steroids immediately if necessary. “Antibiotics are a big culprit” and often can be discontinued.
Soak and smear: “I’m obsessed” with this technique of a 20-minute soak in plain water followed by application of steroid ointment, said Dr. Allais, referring to a small study published in 2005 that reported a complete response after 2 weeks in 60% of patients with psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and other inflammatory skin conditions (none had cancer), who had failed prior systemic therapy. All patients had at least a 75% response.
The method offers a way to “avoid the systemic immunosuppression we’d get with prednisone,” she said. One just needs to make sure the older patient can get in and out of their tub safely.
ICI-induced bullous pemphigoid (BP): BP occurs more frequently in the ICI setting, compared with the general population, with a median time to development of 8.5 months after ICI initiation. It is associated in this setting with improved tumor response, but “many oncologists stop anticancer treatment because of this diagnosis,” she said.
In the supportive oncodermatology space, however, ICI-induced BP exemplifies the value of tailored treatment regimens, she said. A small multi-institutional retrospective cohort study published in 2023 identified 35 cases of ICI-BP among 5636 ICI-treated patients and found that 8 out of 11 patients who received biologic therapy (rituximab, omalizumab, or dupilumab) had a complete response to ICI-BP without flares following subsequent ICI cycles. And while statistical significance was not reached, the study showed that no cancer-related outcomes were worsened.
“If you see someone with ICI-induced BP and they have a lot of involvement, you could start them on steroids and get that steroid-sparing agent initiated for approval. ... And if IgE is elevated, you might reach for omalizumab,” said Dr. Allais, noting that her favored treatment overall is dupilumab.
Risk factors for the development of ICI-induced BP include age > 70, skin cancer, and having an initial response to ICI on first imaging, the latter of which “I find fascinating ... because imaging occurs within the first 12 weeks of treatment, but we don’t see BP popping up until 8.5 months into treatment,” she noted. “So maybe there’s a baseline risk factor that could predispose them.”
Caution with antibiotics: “I try to avoid antibiotics in the ICI setting,” Dr. Allais said, in deference to the “ever-important microbiome.” Studies have demonstrated that the microbiomes of responders to ICI treatment are different from those of nonresponders, she said.
And a “fascinating” study of patients with melanoma undergoing ICI therapy showed not only a higher abundance of Ruminococcaceae bacteria in responders vs nonresponders but a significant impact of dietary fiber. High dietary fiber was associated with significantly improved overall survival in the patients on ICI, with the most pronounced benefit in patients with good fiber intake and no probiotic use. “Even wilder, their T cells changed,” she said. “They had a high expression of genes related to T-cell activation ... so more tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.”
A retrospective study of 568 patients with stages III and IV melanoma treated with ICI showed that those exposed to antibiotics prior to ICI had significantly worse overall survival than those not exposed to antibiotics. “Think before you give them,” Dr. Allais said. “And try to tell your older patients to eat beans and greens.”
Dr. Allais reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ELDERDERM 2024
Doctors Are Seeking Professional Coaches More Often. Here’s Why
When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching.
It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.” 
Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing.
With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout.
“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.”
Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?
Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”
The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”
Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare.
Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices
Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach.
Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”
Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life. 
The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”
Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
Should You Stay or Should You Go?
Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back.
“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.”
Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.”
Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.”
According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach
Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:
- You need help setting boundaries at work.
- You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
- You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
- You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.
If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.”
Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education.
Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”
Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves.
A Side Gig or a New Career Path
After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”
When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.”
Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.”
There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching.
It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.”
Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing.
With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout.
“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.”
Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?
Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”
The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”
Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare.
Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices
Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach.
Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”
Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life.
The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”
Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
Should You Stay or Should You Go?
Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back.
“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.”
Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.”
Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.”
According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach
Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:
- You need help setting boundaries at work.
- You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
- You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
- You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.
If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.”
Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education.
Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”
Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves.
A Side Gig or a New Career Path
After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”
When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.”
Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.”
There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching.
It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.”
Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing.
With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout.
“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.”
Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?
Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”
The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”
Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare.
Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices
Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach.
Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”
Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life.
The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”
Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
Should You Stay or Should You Go?
Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back.
“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.”
Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.”
Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.”
According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach
Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:
- You need help setting boundaries at work.
- You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
- You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
- You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.
If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.”
Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education.
Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”
Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves.
A Side Gig or a New Career Path
After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”
When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.”
Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.”
There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FTC Interim Report on Pharmacy Middlemen Is First Step of Many Needed in Addressing Drug Costs, Access
Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs.
Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.
PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.
The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.
Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 
Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines.
For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said.
One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.
This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.
What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?
I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.
Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies.
That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.
You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?
Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report.
Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.
What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies.
They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well.
I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.
In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed.
The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective?
Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.
The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?
Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.”
I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.
Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.”
That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.
Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response.
I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs.
Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.
PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.
The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.
Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana.
Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines.
For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said.
One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.
This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.
What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?
I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.
Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies.
That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.
You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?
Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report.
Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.
What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies.
They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well.
I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.
In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed.
The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective?
Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.
The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?
Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.”
I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.
Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.”
That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.
Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response.
I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs.
Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.
PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.
The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.
Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana.
Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines.
For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said.
One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.
This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.
What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?
I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.
Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies.
That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.
You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?
Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report.
Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.
What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies.
They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well.
I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.
In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed.
The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective?
Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.
The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?
Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.”
I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.
Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.”
That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.
Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response.
I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Axatilimab for Chronic GVHD
Chronic GVHD is a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation that develops in about 50% of transplant recipients.
The first-in-class treatment for chronic GVHD is a monoclonal antibody that targets the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1) receptor. Approval for axatilimab followed priority review of Incyte’s Biologic License Application and was based on findings from the open-label phase 2 AGAVE-201 trial.
Study participants had chronic GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and had failed to respond to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy (median, four lines of therapy). Prior therapies included ruxolitinib, belumosudil, and ibrutinib in 74%, 23%, and 31% of patients, respectively. Overall, 239 patients were enrolled at 121 study sites and were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to three doses.
The FDA recommended dose of axatilimab is 0.3 mg/kg (to a maximum of 35 mg) as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Other doses tested in the AGAVE-201 trial were 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks.
The trial measured overall response rate over the first six cycles (24 weeks). In the 79 patients who received the recommended 0.3-mg/kg dose, the overall response rate was 75%, and the median time to first response was 1.5 months (range, 0.9-5.1). The median duration of response — measured from first response to progression, death, or switch to a new systemic therapy for chronic GVHD — was 1.9 months.
In those who responded to the therapy, there were no deaths or new therapies required in 60% of patients.
The most common adverse reactions, occurring in 15% or more patients, included increased aspartate aminotransferase, infection (pathogen unspecified), increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased phosphate, decreased hemoglobin, musculoskeletal pain, increased lipase, fatigue, increased amylase, increased calcium, increased creatine phosphokinase, nausea, headache, diarrhea, cough, pyrexia, and dyspnea.
In the AGAVE-201 trial results, researchers noted that drug discontinuation from treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort, in 22% in the 1-mg/kg cohort, and in 18% in the 3-mg/kg cohort. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1.3% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort.
“Advanced chronic GVHD is characterized by the development of fibrotic tissue across multiple organ systems, including most commonly the skin and mucosa, and can be extremely difficult to treat, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality,” lead study author Daniel Wolff, MD, PhD, head of the GVHD Center at the University Hospital Regensburg, Germany, said in a company press release. “I am excited that Niktimvo is designed to specifically target key drivers of inflammation and fibrosis in chronic GVHD, and I am highly encouraged by the robust responses observed across all organs and patient subgroups within the heavily pretreated population enrolled in the AGAVE-201 trial. I look forward to having a new and differentiated treatment option for my patients who need additional therapies to address this very difficult to manage, debilitating, disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic GVHD is a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation that develops in about 50% of transplant recipients.
The first-in-class treatment for chronic GVHD is a monoclonal antibody that targets the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1) receptor. Approval for axatilimab followed priority review of Incyte’s Biologic License Application and was based on findings from the open-label phase 2 AGAVE-201 trial.
Study participants had chronic GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and had failed to respond to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy (median, four lines of therapy). Prior therapies included ruxolitinib, belumosudil, and ibrutinib in 74%, 23%, and 31% of patients, respectively. Overall, 239 patients were enrolled at 121 study sites and were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to three doses.
The FDA recommended dose of axatilimab is 0.3 mg/kg (to a maximum of 35 mg) as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Other doses tested in the AGAVE-201 trial were 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks.
The trial measured overall response rate over the first six cycles (24 weeks). In the 79 patients who received the recommended 0.3-mg/kg dose, the overall response rate was 75%, and the median time to first response was 1.5 months (range, 0.9-5.1). The median duration of response — measured from first response to progression, death, or switch to a new systemic therapy for chronic GVHD — was 1.9 months.
In those who responded to the therapy, there were no deaths or new therapies required in 60% of patients.
The most common adverse reactions, occurring in 15% or more patients, included increased aspartate aminotransferase, infection (pathogen unspecified), increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased phosphate, decreased hemoglobin, musculoskeletal pain, increased lipase, fatigue, increased amylase, increased calcium, increased creatine phosphokinase, nausea, headache, diarrhea, cough, pyrexia, and dyspnea.
In the AGAVE-201 trial results, researchers noted that drug discontinuation from treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort, in 22% in the 1-mg/kg cohort, and in 18% in the 3-mg/kg cohort. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1.3% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort.
“Advanced chronic GVHD is characterized by the development of fibrotic tissue across multiple organ systems, including most commonly the skin and mucosa, and can be extremely difficult to treat, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality,” lead study author Daniel Wolff, MD, PhD, head of the GVHD Center at the University Hospital Regensburg, Germany, said in a company press release. “I am excited that Niktimvo is designed to specifically target key drivers of inflammation and fibrosis in chronic GVHD, and I am highly encouraged by the robust responses observed across all organs and patient subgroups within the heavily pretreated population enrolled in the AGAVE-201 trial. I look forward to having a new and differentiated treatment option for my patients who need additional therapies to address this very difficult to manage, debilitating, disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic GVHD is a potentially life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation that develops in about 50% of transplant recipients.
The first-in-class treatment for chronic GVHD is a monoclonal antibody that targets the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1) receptor. Approval for axatilimab followed priority review of Incyte’s Biologic License Application and was based on findings from the open-label phase 2 AGAVE-201 trial.
Study participants had chronic GVHD after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and had failed to respond to at least two prior lines of systemic therapy (median, four lines of therapy). Prior therapies included ruxolitinib, belumosudil, and ibrutinib in 74%, 23%, and 31% of patients, respectively. Overall, 239 patients were enrolled at 121 study sites and were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to three doses.
The FDA recommended dose of axatilimab is 0.3 mg/kg (to a maximum of 35 mg) as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Other doses tested in the AGAVE-201 trial were 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks.
The trial measured overall response rate over the first six cycles (24 weeks). In the 79 patients who received the recommended 0.3-mg/kg dose, the overall response rate was 75%, and the median time to first response was 1.5 months (range, 0.9-5.1). The median duration of response — measured from first response to progression, death, or switch to a new systemic therapy for chronic GVHD — was 1.9 months.
In those who responded to the therapy, there were no deaths or new therapies required in 60% of patients.
The most common adverse reactions, occurring in 15% or more patients, included increased aspartate aminotransferase, infection (pathogen unspecified), increased alanine aminotransferase, decreased phosphate, decreased hemoglobin, musculoskeletal pain, increased lipase, fatigue, increased amylase, increased calcium, increased creatine phosphokinase, nausea, headache, diarrhea, cough, pyrexia, and dyspnea.
In the AGAVE-201 trial results, researchers noted that drug discontinuation from treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort, in 22% in the 1-mg/kg cohort, and in 18% in the 3-mg/kg cohort. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1.3% of patients in the 0.3-mg/kg cohort.
“Advanced chronic GVHD is characterized by the development of fibrotic tissue across multiple organ systems, including most commonly the skin and mucosa, and can be extremely difficult to treat, leading to high rates of morbidity and mortality,” lead study author Daniel Wolff, MD, PhD, head of the GVHD Center at the University Hospital Regensburg, Germany, said in a company press release. “I am excited that Niktimvo is designed to specifically target key drivers of inflammation and fibrosis in chronic GVHD, and I am highly encouraged by the robust responses observed across all organs and patient subgroups within the heavily pretreated population enrolled in the AGAVE-201 trial. I look forward to having a new and differentiated treatment option for my patients who need additional therapies to address this very difficult to manage, debilitating, disease.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
What Would ‘Project 2025’ Mean for Health and Healthcare?
The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.
Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government.
The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts.
Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025
- “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
- “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
- “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
- “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
- “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
- “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
- “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
- “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
- “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
- “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
- “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
- “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
- “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
- “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
- “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
- “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
- “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
- “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
- “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
- “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
- “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
- “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
- “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
- “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
- “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
- “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
- “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
- “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”
Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.
Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government.
The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts.
Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025
- “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
- “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
- “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
- “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
- “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
- “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
- “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
- “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
- “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
- “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
- “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
- “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
- “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
- “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
- “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
- “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
- “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
- “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
- “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
- “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
- “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
- “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
- “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
- “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
- “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
- “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
- “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
- “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”
Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Heritage Foundation sponsored and developed Project 2025 for the explicit, stated purpose of building a conservative victory through policy, personnel, and training with a 180-day game plan after a sympathetic new President of the United States takes office. To date, Project 2025 has not been formally endorsed by any presidential campaign.
Chapter 14 of the “Mandate for Leadership” is an exhaustive proposed overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the major existing arms of the executive branch of the US government.
The mandate’s sweeping recommendations, if implemented, would impact the lives of all Americans and all healthcare workers, as outlined in the following excerpts.
Healthcare-Related Excerpts From Project 2025
- “From the moment of conception, every human being possesses inherent dignity and worth, and our humanity does not depend on our age, stage of development, race, or abilities. The Secretary must ensure that all HHS programs and activities are rooted in a deep respect for innocent human life from day one until natural death: Abortion and euthanasia are not health care.”
- “Unfortunately, family policies and programs under President Biden’s HHS are fraught with agenda items focusing on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage. These policies should be repealed and replaced by policies that support the formation of stable, married, nuclear families.”
- “The next Administration should guard against the regulatory capture of our public health agencies by pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital conglomerates, and related economic interests that these agencies are meant to regulate. We must erect robust firewalls to mitigate these obvious financial conflicts of interest.”
- “All National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Food and Drug Administration regulators should be entirely free from private biopharmaceutical funding. In this realm, ‘public–private partnerships’ is a euphemism for agency capture, a thin veneer for corporatism. Funding for agencies and individual government researchers must come directly from the government with robust congressional oversight.”
- “The CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] operates several programs related to vaccine safety including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS); Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD); and Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Project. Those functions and their associated funding should be transferred to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], which is responsible for post-market surveillance and evaluation of all other drugs and biological products.”
- “Because liberal states have now become sanctuaries for abortion tourism, HHS should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”
- “The CDC should immediately end its collection of data on gender identity, which legitimizes the unscientific notion that men can become women (and vice versa) and encourages the phenomenon of ever-multiplying subjective identities.”
- “A test developed by a lab in accordance with the protocols developed by another lab (non-commercial sharing) currently constitutes a ‘new’ laboratory-developed test because the lab in which it will be used is different from the initial developing lab. To encourage interlaboratory collaboration and discourage duplicative test creation (and associated regulatory and logistical burdens), the FDA should introduce mechanisms through which laboratory-developed tests can easily be shared with other laboratories without the current regulatory burdens.”
- “[FDA should] Reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the politicized approval process was illegal from the start. The FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women.”
- “[FDA should] Stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions in violation of long-standing federal laws that prohibit the mailing and interstate carriage of abortion drugs.”
- “[HHS should] Promptly restore the ethics advisory committee to oversee abortion-derived fetal tissue research, and Congress should prohibit such research altogether.”
- “[HHS should] End intramural research projects using tissue from aborted children within the NIH, which should end its human embryonic stem cell registry.”
- “Under Francis Collins, NIH became so focused on the #MeToo movement that it refused to sponsor scientific conferences unless there were a certain number of women panelists, which violates federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. This quota practice should be ended, and the NIH Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which pushes such unlawful actions, should be abolished.”
- “Make Medicare Advantage [MA] the default enrollment option.”
- “[Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should] Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Inflation Reduction Act.”
- “…the next Administration should] Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups.”
- “The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.”
- “Prohibit abortion travel funding. Providing funding for abortions increases the number of abortions and violates the conscience and religious freedom rights of Americans who object to subsidizing the taking of life.”
- “Prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. During the 2020–2021 reporting period, Planned Parenthood performed more than 383,000 abortions.”
- “Protect faith-based grant recipients from religious liberty violations and maintain a biblically based, social science–reinforced definition of marriage and family. Social science reports that assess the objective outcomes for children raised in homes aside from a heterosexual, intact marriage are clear.”
- “Allocate funding to strategy programs promoting father involvement or terminate parental rights quickly.”
- “Eliminate the Head Start program.”
- “Support palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. Legalizing PAS is a grave mistake that endangers the weak and vulnerable, corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor–patient relationship, compromises the family and intergenerational commitments, and betrays human dignity and equality before the law.”
- “Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms.”
- “Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care.”
- “ The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.”
- “The ASH [Assistant Secretary for Health] and SG [Surgeon General] positions should be combined into one four-star position with the rank, responsibilities, and authority of the ASH retained but with the title of Surgeon General.”
- “OCR [Office for Civil Rights] should withdraw its Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidance on abortion.”
Dr. Lundberg is Editor in Chief, Cancer Commons, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study Identifies Oral Antibiotics Linked to Severe Cutaneous Reactions
according to a large, population-based, nested case-control study of older adults, spanning two decades.
The findings, published online in JAMA, “underscore the importance of judicious prescribing, with preferential use of antibiotics associated with a lower risk when clinically appropriate,” noted senior author David Juurlink, MD, PhD, professor of medicine; pediatrics; and health policy, management and evaluation at the University of Toronto, and head of the Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Division at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, also in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.
“We hope our study raises awareness about the importance of drug allergy and gains support for future studies to improve drug allergy care,” lead author Erika Lee, MD, clinical immunology and allergy lecturer at the University of Toronto’s Drug Allergy Clinic, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, said in an interview. “It is important to recognize symptoms and signs of a severe drug rash and promptly stop culprit drugs to prevent worsening reaction.”
Serious cADRs are “a group of rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reactions involving the skin and, frequently, internal organs,” the authors wrote. “Typically delayed in onset, these reactions include drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) — the most severe cADR, which has a reported mortality of 20%-40%,” they noted.
Speculation Without Data
Although it has been speculated that some oral antibiotics are more likely than others to be associated with serious cADRs, there have been no population-based studies examining this, they added.
The study included adults aged 66 years or older and used administrative health databases in Ontario, spanning from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2022. Data on antibiotic use were taken from the Ontario Drug Benefit database. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) National Ambulatory Care Reporting System was used to obtain data on emergency department (ED) visits for cADRs, while the CIHI Discharge Abstract Database was used to identify hospitalizations for cADRs. Finally, demographic information and outpatient healthcare utilization data were obtained from the Registered Persons Database and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan database, respectively.
A cohort of 21,758 older adults (median age, 75 years; 64.1% women) who had an ED visit or hospitalization for serious cADRs within 60 days of receiving antibiotic therapy was matched by age and sex with 87,025 antibiotic-treated controls who did not have a cutaneous reaction.
The median duration of antibiotic prescription was 7 days among cases and controls, and among the cases, the median latency period between antibiotic prescriptions and hospital visits for cADRs was 14 days. Most of the case patients went to the ED only (86.9%), and the rest were hospitalized.
The most commonly prescribed antibiotic class was penicillins (28.9%), followed by cephalosporins (18.2%), fluoroquinolones (16.5%), macrolides (14.8%), nitrofurantoin (8.6%), and sulfonamides (6.2%). Less commonly used antibiotics (“other” antibiotics) accounted for 6.9%.
Macrolide antibiotics were used as the reference because they are rarely associated with serious cADRs, noted the authors, and the multivariable analysis, adjusted for risk factors associated with serious cADRs, including malignancy, chronic liver disease, chronic kidney disease, and HIV.
After multivariable adjustment, relative to macrolides, sulfonamides were most strongly associated with serious cADRs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9) but so were all other antibiotic classes, including cephalosporins (aOR, 2.6), “other” antibiotics (aOR, 2.3), nitrofurantoin (aOR, 2.2), penicillins (aOR, 1.4), and fluoroquinolones (aOR,1.3).
In the secondary analysis, the crude rate of ED visits or hospitalizations for cADRs was highest for cephalosporins (4.92 per 1000 prescriptions), followed by sulfonamides (3.22 per 1000 prescriptions). Among hospitalized patients, the median length of stay was 6 days, with 9.6% requiring transfer to a critical care unit and 5.3% dying in the hospital.
Hospitalizations, ED Visits Not Studied Previously
“Notably, the rate of antibiotic-associated serious cADRs leading to an ED visit or hospitalization has not been previously studied,” noted the authors. “We found that at least two hospital encounters for serious cADRs ensued for every 1000 antibiotic prescriptions. This rate is considerably higher than suggested by studies that examine only SJS/TEN and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms.”
Dr. Lee also emphasized the previously unreported findings about nitrofurantoin. “It is surprising to find that nitrofurantoin, a commonly prescribed antibiotic for urinary tract infection, is also associated with an increased risk of severe drug rash,” she said in an interview.
“This finding highlights a potential novel risk at a population-based level and should be further explored in other populations to verify this association,” the authors wrote.
Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, Maryland, and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, who was not involved in the study, agreed that the nitrofurantoin finding was surprising, but he was not surprised that sulfonamides were high on the list.
“The study reinforces that antibiotics are not benign medications to be dispensed injudiciously,” he said in an interview. “Antibiotics have risks, including serious skin reactions, as well as the fostering of antibiotic resistance. Clinicians should always first ask themselves if their patient actually merits an antibiotic and then assess what is the safest antibiotic for the purpose, bearing in mind that certain antibiotics are more likely to result in adverse reactions than others.”
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The study was conducted at ICES, which is funded in part by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology as reviewer and section editor, the American Academy of Dermatology as guidelines writer, Canadian Dermatology Today as manuscript writer, and the National Eczema Association and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health as consultant; as well as receiving research grants to the coauthor’s institution from the National Eczema Association, Eczema Society of Canada, Canadian Dermatology Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, and PSI Foundation. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Celgene, Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Sandoz, Amgen, and Boehringer Ingelheim; receiving payment or honoraria for speaking from Sanofi China; participating on advisory boards for LEO Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi, and Union Therapeutics; and receiving equipment donation from L’Oréal. Dr. Adalja reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a large, population-based, nested case-control study of older adults, spanning two decades.
The findings, published online in JAMA, “underscore the importance of judicious prescribing, with preferential use of antibiotics associated with a lower risk when clinically appropriate,” noted senior author David Juurlink, MD, PhD, professor of medicine; pediatrics; and health policy, management and evaluation at the University of Toronto, and head of the Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Division at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, also in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.
“We hope our study raises awareness about the importance of drug allergy and gains support for future studies to improve drug allergy care,” lead author Erika Lee, MD, clinical immunology and allergy lecturer at the University of Toronto’s Drug Allergy Clinic, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, said in an interview. “It is important to recognize symptoms and signs of a severe drug rash and promptly stop culprit drugs to prevent worsening reaction.”
Serious cADRs are “a group of rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reactions involving the skin and, frequently, internal organs,” the authors wrote. “Typically delayed in onset, these reactions include drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) — the most severe cADR, which has a reported mortality of 20%-40%,” they noted.
Speculation Without Data
Although it has been speculated that some oral antibiotics are more likely than others to be associated with serious cADRs, there have been no population-based studies examining this, they added.
The study included adults aged 66 years or older and used administrative health databases in Ontario, spanning from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2022. Data on antibiotic use were taken from the Ontario Drug Benefit database. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) National Ambulatory Care Reporting System was used to obtain data on emergency department (ED) visits for cADRs, while the CIHI Discharge Abstract Database was used to identify hospitalizations for cADRs. Finally, demographic information and outpatient healthcare utilization data were obtained from the Registered Persons Database and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan database, respectively.
A cohort of 21,758 older adults (median age, 75 years; 64.1% women) who had an ED visit or hospitalization for serious cADRs within 60 days of receiving antibiotic therapy was matched by age and sex with 87,025 antibiotic-treated controls who did not have a cutaneous reaction.
The median duration of antibiotic prescription was 7 days among cases and controls, and among the cases, the median latency period between antibiotic prescriptions and hospital visits for cADRs was 14 days. Most of the case patients went to the ED only (86.9%), and the rest were hospitalized.
The most commonly prescribed antibiotic class was penicillins (28.9%), followed by cephalosporins (18.2%), fluoroquinolones (16.5%), macrolides (14.8%), nitrofurantoin (8.6%), and sulfonamides (6.2%). Less commonly used antibiotics (“other” antibiotics) accounted for 6.9%.
Macrolide antibiotics were used as the reference because they are rarely associated with serious cADRs, noted the authors, and the multivariable analysis, adjusted for risk factors associated with serious cADRs, including malignancy, chronic liver disease, chronic kidney disease, and HIV.
After multivariable adjustment, relative to macrolides, sulfonamides were most strongly associated with serious cADRs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9) but so were all other antibiotic classes, including cephalosporins (aOR, 2.6), “other” antibiotics (aOR, 2.3), nitrofurantoin (aOR, 2.2), penicillins (aOR, 1.4), and fluoroquinolones (aOR,1.3).
In the secondary analysis, the crude rate of ED visits or hospitalizations for cADRs was highest for cephalosporins (4.92 per 1000 prescriptions), followed by sulfonamides (3.22 per 1000 prescriptions). Among hospitalized patients, the median length of stay was 6 days, with 9.6% requiring transfer to a critical care unit and 5.3% dying in the hospital.
Hospitalizations, ED Visits Not Studied Previously
“Notably, the rate of antibiotic-associated serious cADRs leading to an ED visit or hospitalization has not been previously studied,” noted the authors. “We found that at least two hospital encounters for serious cADRs ensued for every 1000 antibiotic prescriptions. This rate is considerably higher than suggested by studies that examine only SJS/TEN and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms.”
Dr. Lee also emphasized the previously unreported findings about nitrofurantoin. “It is surprising to find that nitrofurantoin, a commonly prescribed antibiotic for urinary tract infection, is also associated with an increased risk of severe drug rash,” she said in an interview.
“This finding highlights a potential novel risk at a population-based level and should be further explored in other populations to verify this association,” the authors wrote.
Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, Maryland, and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, who was not involved in the study, agreed that the nitrofurantoin finding was surprising, but he was not surprised that sulfonamides were high on the list.
“The study reinforces that antibiotics are not benign medications to be dispensed injudiciously,” he said in an interview. “Antibiotics have risks, including serious skin reactions, as well as the fostering of antibiotic resistance. Clinicians should always first ask themselves if their patient actually merits an antibiotic and then assess what is the safest antibiotic for the purpose, bearing in mind that certain antibiotics are more likely to result in adverse reactions than others.”
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The study was conducted at ICES, which is funded in part by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology as reviewer and section editor, the American Academy of Dermatology as guidelines writer, Canadian Dermatology Today as manuscript writer, and the National Eczema Association and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health as consultant; as well as receiving research grants to the coauthor’s institution from the National Eczema Association, Eczema Society of Canada, Canadian Dermatology Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, and PSI Foundation. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Celgene, Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Sandoz, Amgen, and Boehringer Ingelheim; receiving payment or honoraria for speaking from Sanofi China; participating on advisory boards for LEO Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi, and Union Therapeutics; and receiving equipment donation from L’Oréal. Dr. Adalja reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a large, population-based, nested case-control study of older adults, spanning two decades.
The findings, published online in JAMA, “underscore the importance of judicious prescribing, with preferential use of antibiotics associated with a lower risk when clinically appropriate,” noted senior author David Juurlink, MD, PhD, professor of medicine; pediatrics; and health policy, management and evaluation at the University of Toronto, and head of the Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Division at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, also in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthors.
“We hope our study raises awareness about the importance of drug allergy and gains support for future studies to improve drug allergy care,” lead author Erika Lee, MD, clinical immunology and allergy lecturer at the University of Toronto’s Drug Allergy Clinic, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, said in an interview. “It is important to recognize symptoms and signs of a severe drug rash and promptly stop culprit drugs to prevent worsening reaction.”
Serious cADRs are “a group of rare but potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reactions involving the skin and, frequently, internal organs,” the authors wrote. “Typically delayed in onset, these reactions include drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) — the most severe cADR, which has a reported mortality of 20%-40%,” they noted.
Speculation Without Data
Although it has been speculated that some oral antibiotics are more likely than others to be associated with serious cADRs, there have been no population-based studies examining this, they added.
The study included adults aged 66 years or older and used administrative health databases in Ontario, spanning from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2022. Data on antibiotic use were taken from the Ontario Drug Benefit database. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) National Ambulatory Care Reporting System was used to obtain data on emergency department (ED) visits for cADRs, while the CIHI Discharge Abstract Database was used to identify hospitalizations for cADRs. Finally, demographic information and outpatient healthcare utilization data were obtained from the Registered Persons Database and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan database, respectively.
A cohort of 21,758 older adults (median age, 75 years; 64.1% women) who had an ED visit or hospitalization for serious cADRs within 60 days of receiving antibiotic therapy was matched by age and sex with 87,025 antibiotic-treated controls who did not have a cutaneous reaction.
The median duration of antibiotic prescription was 7 days among cases and controls, and among the cases, the median latency period between antibiotic prescriptions and hospital visits for cADRs was 14 days. Most of the case patients went to the ED only (86.9%), and the rest were hospitalized.
The most commonly prescribed antibiotic class was penicillins (28.9%), followed by cephalosporins (18.2%), fluoroquinolones (16.5%), macrolides (14.8%), nitrofurantoin (8.6%), and sulfonamides (6.2%). Less commonly used antibiotics (“other” antibiotics) accounted for 6.9%.
Macrolide antibiotics were used as the reference because they are rarely associated with serious cADRs, noted the authors, and the multivariable analysis, adjusted for risk factors associated with serious cADRs, including malignancy, chronic liver disease, chronic kidney disease, and HIV.
After multivariable adjustment, relative to macrolides, sulfonamides were most strongly associated with serious cADRs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9) but so were all other antibiotic classes, including cephalosporins (aOR, 2.6), “other” antibiotics (aOR, 2.3), nitrofurantoin (aOR, 2.2), penicillins (aOR, 1.4), and fluoroquinolones (aOR,1.3).
In the secondary analysis, the crude rate of ED visits or hospitalizations for cADRs was highest for cephalosporins (4.92 per 1000 prescriptions), followed by sulfonamides (3.22 per 1000 prescriptions). Among hospitalized patients, the median length of stay was 6 days, with 9.6% requiring transfer to a critical care unit and 5.3% dying in the hospital.
Hospitalizations, ED Visits Not Studied Previously
“Notably, the rate of antibiotic-associated serious cADRs leading to an ED visit or hospitalization has not been previously studied,” noted the authors. “We found that at least two hospital encounters for serious cADRs ensued for every 1000 antibiotic prescriptions. This rate is considerably higher than suggested by studies that examine only SJS/TEN and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms.”
Dr. Lee also emphasized the previously unreported findings about nitrofurantoin. “It is surprising to find that nitrofurantoin, a commonly prescribed antibiotic for urinary tract infection, is also associated with an increased risk of severe drug rash,” she said in an interview.
“This finding highlights a potential novel risk at a population-based level and should be further explored in other populations to verify this association,” the authors wrote.
Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, Maryland, and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, who was not involved in the study, agreed that the nitrofurantoin finding was surprising, but he was not surprised that sulfonamides were high on the list.
“The study reinforces that antibiotics are not benign medications to be dispensed injudiciously,” he said in an interview. “Antibiotics have risks, including serious skin reactions, as well as the fostering of antibiotic resistance. Clinicians should always first ask themselves if their patient actually merits an antibiotic and then assess what is the safest antibiotic for the purpose, bearing in mind that certain antibiotics are more likely to result in adverse reactions than others.”
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The study was conducted at ICES, which is funded in part by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. One coauthor reported receiving compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology as reviewer and section editor, the American Academy of Dermatology as guidelines writer, Canadian Dermatology Today as manuscript writer, and the National Eczema Association and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health as consultant; as well as receiving research grants to the coauthor’s institution from the National Eczema Association, Eczema Society of Canada, Canadian Dermatology Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, and PSI Foundation. Another coauthor reported receiving grants from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Celgene, Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Sandoz, Amgen, and Boehringer Ingelheim; receiving payment or honoraria for speaking from Sanofi China; participating on advisory boards for LEO Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi, and Union Therapeutics; and receiving equipment donation from L’Oréal. Dr. Adalja reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA
FDA Approves Lymphir for R/R Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma
The immunotherapy is a reformulation of denileukin diftitox (Ontak), initially approved in 1999 for certain patients with persistent or recurrent cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In 2014, the original formulation was voluntarily withdrawn from the US market. Citius acquired rights to market a reformulated product outside of Asia in 2021.
This is the first indication for Lymphir, which targets interleukin-2 receptors on malignant T cells.
This approval marks “a significant milestone” for patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare cancer, company CEO Leonard Mazur said in a press release announcing the approval. “The introduction of Lymphir, with its potential to rapidly reduce skin disease and control symptomatic itching without cumulative toxicity, is expected to expand the [cutaneous T-cell lymphoma] treatment landscape and grow the overall market, currently estimated to be $300-$400 million.”
Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label 302 study in 69 patients who had a median of four prior anticancer therapies. Patients received 9 mcg/kg daily from day 1 to day 5 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The objective response rate was 36.2%, including complete responses in 8.7% of patients. Responses lasted 6 months or longer in 52% of patients. Over 80% of subjects had a decrease in skin tumor burden, and almost a third had clinically significant improvements in pruritus.
Adverse events occurring in 20% or more of patients include increased transaminases, decreased albumin, decreased hemoglobin, nausea, edema, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, chills, constipation, pyrexia, and capillary leak syndrome.
Labeling carries a boxed warning of capillary leak syndrome. Other warnings include visual impairment, infusion reactions, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity. Citius is under a postmarketing requirement to characterize the risk for visual impairment.
The company expects to launch the agent within 5 months.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The immunotherapy is a reformulation of denileukin diftitox (Ontak), initially approved in 1999 for certain patients with persistent or recurrent cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In 2014, the original formulation was voluntarily withdrawn from the US market. Citius acquired rights to market a reformulated product outside of Asia in 2021.
This is the first indication for Lymphir, which targets interleukin-2 receptors on malignant T cells.
This approval marks “a significant milestone” for patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare cancer, company CEO Leonard Mazur said in a press release announcing the approval. “The introduction of Lymphir, with its potential to rapidly reduce skin disease and control symptomatic itching without cumulative toxicity, is expected to expand the [cutaneous T-cell lymphoma] treatment landscape and grow the overall market, currently estimated to be $300-$400 million.”
Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label 302 study in 69 patients who had a median of four prior anticancer therapies. Patients received 9 mcg/kg daily from day 1 to day 5 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The objective response rate was 36.2%, including complete responses in 8.7% of patients. Responses lasted 6 months or longer in 52% of patients. Over 80% of subjects had a decrease in skin tumor burden, and almost a third had clinically significant improvements in pruritus.
Adverse events occurring in 20% or more of patients include increased transaminases, decreased albumin, decreased hemoglobin, nausea, edema, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, chills, constipation, pyrexia, and capillary leak syndrome.
Labeling carries a boxed warning of capillary leak syndrome. Other warnings include visual impairment, infusion reactions, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity. Citius is under a postmarketing requirement to characterize the risk for visual impairment.
The company expects to launch the agent within 5 months.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The immunotherapy is a reformulation of denileukin diftitox (Ontak), initially approved in 1999 for certain patients with persistent or recurrent cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In 2014, the original formulation was voluntarily withdrawn from the US market. Citius acquired rights to market a reformulated product outside of Asia in 2021.
This is the first indication for Lymphir, which targets interleukin-2 receptors on malignant T cells.
This approval marks “a significant milestone” for patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a rare cancer, company CEO Leonard Mazur said in a press release announcing the approval. “The introduction of Lymphir, with its potential to rapidly reduce skin disease and control symptomatic itching without cumulative toxicity, is expected to expand the [cutaneous T-cell lymphoma] treatment landscape and grow the overall market, currently estimated to be $300-$400 million.”
Approval was based on the single-arm, open-label 302 study in 69 patients who had a median of four prior anticancer therapies. Patients received 9 mcg/kg daily from day 1 to day 5 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The objective response rate was 36.2%, including complete responses in 8.7% of patients. Responses lasted 6 months or longer in 52% of patients. Over 80% of subjects had a decrease in skin tumor burden, and almost a third had clinically significant improvements in pruritus.
Adverse events occurring in 20% or more of patients include increased transaminases, decreased albumin, decreased hemoglobin, nausea, edema, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, rash, chills, constipation, pyrexia, and capillary leak syndrome.
Labeling carries a boxed warning of capillary leak syndrome. Other warnings include visual impairment, infusion reactions, hepatotoxicity, and embryo-fetal toxicity. Citius is under a postmarketing requirement to characterize the risk for visual impairment.
The company expects to launch the agent within 5 months.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.