Federal Practitioner

We have a tradition at Federal Practitioner where the December editorial usually features some version of the “best and worst” of the last 12 months in government health care. As we close out a difficult year, instead I offer a cautionary yet promising story that epitomizes both risk and benefit.

In some quarters, 2024 has been the year of AI (artificial intelligence).² While in science fiction, superhuman machines, like the Terminator, are often associated with apocalyptic threats, we often forget the positive models of human-technology interaction, such as the protective robot in Lost in Space. While AI is not yet as advanced as what has already been depicted on the screen, it is inextricably interwoven into the daily fabric of our lives. Almost any website you go to for business or pleasure has a chatbot waiting to help (or frustrate) you. Most of us have Alexa, Siri, or another digital assistant organizing our homes and schedules. When I Google “everyday uses of artificial intelligence,” it is AI that responds with an overview.

Medicine is not immune. Renowned physician and scientist Eric Topol, MD, suggests that AI represents a “fourth industrial revolution in medicine” that can dramatically improve health care.³ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been at the forefront of this new space.⁴ The story recounted below encapsulates the enormous benefits AI can bring to health care and the vigilance we must exercise to anticipate and mitigate risk for this to be an overall positive transition.

The story begins with a key element of AI change—the machine learning predictive algorithm. In this case, the algorithm was designed to predict—and thereby prevent—the top public health priority in federal practice: suicide. The Recovery Engagement and Coordination for Health-Veterans Enhanced Treatment (REACH VET) program was launched in 2017 to assist in identifying the top 0.1% of veterans at the highest risk for suicide.⁵

At least at this stage of AI in medicine, the safest and most ethical efforts come from collaborations between health care professionals and AI developers that maximize the very different strengths of each partner. REACH VET is an exemplar of this kind of teamwork. Once the algorithm analyzes > 60 variables to identify veterans at high risk for suicide, data are communicated to a REACH VET program coordinator, who then notifies the practitioner responsible for the veteran’s care so they can put into action evidence-based suicide prevention strategies.⁵

VA researchers in 2021 published a study of 173,313 veterans comparing outcomes before and after entry into the program using a triple differences design. Veterans participating in the program reported an increase in outpatient visits and documentation of safety plans, and a decrease in emergency department visits, inpatient mental health admissions, and recorded suicide attempts.⁶

A US Government Accounting Office analysis found that “REACH VET had identified veterans who had not been identified through other methods.”⁷ This was not just an example of AI hype: as a relatively rare and statistically complicated phenomenon, suicide is notoriously difficult to predict and model. Machine learning algorithms like REACH VET have unprecedented potential to assist and augment suicide prevention.⁸

In 2023, veteran service organizations and journalists raised concerns that the AI algorithm was biased and ignored critical risk factors that put some veterans at increased risk. Based on their analysis, they claimed that the algorithm did not account for risk factors uniquely associated with women veterans, namely military sexual trauma and intimate partner violence.⁹ Women are the most rapidly growing VA population, yet too often they encounter health care disparities, harassment, and stigmatization when seeking care. The Congressional Veterans Affairs committees investigated and introduced legislation to update the algorithm.¹⁰

VA experts dispute these claims, and a computer science PhD may be required to understand the debate. But as the history of medicine has shown us, every treatment and procedure has benefits and risks. No matter how bright and shiny the technology initially appears, a soft scientific underbelly emerges sooner or later. Just as with REACH VET, algorithm bias is often discovered during deployment when the logic of the laboratory encounters the unpredictable variety of humankind.¹¹ Frequently, those problems are—as with REACH VET— not solely or even primarily technical ones. The data mirror society and reflect its biases.

For learning organizations like the VA and the US Department of Defense (DoD), the criticisms of REACH VET signal the need to engage in continuous performance improvement. AI requires the human trainers and supervisors who teach the machines to continuously revise and update their lesson plans. The most recent VA data show that in 2021, 6392 veterans died by suicide.¹² In Congressional testimony, VA leaders reported that as of May 2024, REACH VET was operating in 28 VA facilities and had identified 6700 high-risk veterans.13 REACH VET can save veteran’s lives, which is the sine qua non for our federal health care systems.

The algorithm should be improved to identify ALL veterans so they receive lifesaving interventions. Every veteran’s life is sacred; the algorithm that may prevent suicide must be continuously improved. That is why our representatives did not propose to ban REACH VET or enforce an AI winter on the VA and DoD. Instead, they called for an update to the algorithm, underscoring the value of machine learning for suicide prediction and prevention.

The epigraph from one of the top AI ethicists and scientists in the world makes the point that AI is not the moral agent here: it is fallible humans who must keep learning along with machines. That is why, at the end of 2024, VA experts are revising the algorithm so REACH VET can help prevent even more veteran suicides in 2025 and beyond.¹⁴

We have a tradition at Federal Practitioner where the December editorial usually features some version of the “best and worst” of the last 12 months in government health care. As we close out a difficult year, instead I offer a cautionary yet promising story that epitomizes both risk and benefit.

In some quarters, 2024 has been the year of AI (artificial intelligence).² While in science fiction, superhuman machines, like the Terminator, are often associated with apocalyptic threats, we often forget the positive models of human-technology interaction, such as the protective robot in Lost in Space. While AI is not yet as advanced as what has already been depicted on the screen, it is inextricably interwoven into the daily fabric of our lives. Almost any website you go to for business or pleasure has a chatbot waiting to help (or frustrate) you. Most of us have Alexa, Siri, or another digital assistant organizing our homes and schedules. When I Google “everyday uses of artificial intelligence,” it is AI that responds with an overview.

Medicine is not immune. Renowned physician and scientist Eric Topol, MD, suggests that AI represents a “fourth industrial revolution in medicine” that can dramatically improve health care.³ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been at the forefront of this new space.⁴ The story recounted below encapsulates the enormous benefits AI can bring to health care and the vigilance we must exercise to anticipate and mitigate risk for this to be an overall positive transition.

The story begins with a key element of AI change—the machine learning predictive algorithm. In this case, the algorithm was designed to predict—and thereby prevent—the top public health priority in federal practice: suicide. The Recovery Engagement and Coordination for Health-Veterans Enhanced Treatment (REACH VET) program was launched in 2017 to assist in identifying the top 0.1% of veterans at the highest risk for suicide.⁵

At least at this stage of AI in medicine, the safest and most ethical efforts come from collaborations between health care professionals and AI developers that maximize the very different strengths of each partner. REACH VET is an exemplar of this kind of teamwork. Once the algorithm analyzes > 60 variables to identify veterans at high risk for suicide, data are communicated to a REACH VET program coordinator, who then notifies the practitioner responsible for the veteran’s care so they can put into action evidence-based suicide prevention strategies.⁵

VA researchers in 2021 published a study of 173,313 veterans comparing outcomes before and after entry into the program using a triple differences design. Veterans participating in the program reported an increase in outpatient visits and documentation of safety plans, and a decrease in emergency department visits, inpatient mental health admissions, and recorded suicide attempts.⁶

A US Government Accounting Office analysis found that “REACH VET had identified veterans who had not been identified through other methods.”⁷ This was not just an example of AI hype: as a relatively rare and statistically complicated phenomenon, suicide is notoriously difficult to predict and model. Machine learning algorithms like REACH VET have unprecedented potential to assist and augment suicide prevention.⁸

In 2023, veteran service organizations and journalists raised concerns that the AI algorithm was biased and ignored critical risk factors that put some veterans at increased risk. Based on their analysis, they claimed that the algorithm did not account for risk factors uniquely associated with women veterans, namely military sexual trauma and intimate partner violence.⁹ Women are the most rapidly growing VA population, yet too often they encounter health care disparities, harassment, and stigmatization when seeking care. The Congressional Veterans Affairs committees investigated and introduced legislation to update the algorithm.¹⁰

VA experts dispute these claims, and a computer science PhD may be required to understand the debate. But as the history of medicine has shown us, every treatment and procedure has benefits and risks. No matter how bright and shiny the technology initially appears, a soft scientific underbelly emerges sooner or later. Just as with REACH VET, algorithm bias is often discovered during deployment when the logic of the laboratory encounters the unpredictable variety of humankind.¹¹ Frequently, those problems are—as with REACH VET— not solely or even primarily technical ones. The data mirror society and reflect its biases.

For learning organizations like the VA and the US Department of Defense (DoD), the criticisms of REACH VET signal the need to engage in continuous performance improvement. AI requires the human trainers and supervisors who teach the machines to continuously revise and update their lesson plans. The most recent VA data show that in 2021, 6392 veterans died by suicide.¹² In Congressional testimony, VA leaders reported that as of May 2024, REACH VET was operating in 28 VA facilities and had identified 6700 high-risk veterans.13 REACH VET can save veteran’s lives, which is the sine qua non for our federal health care systems.

The algorithm should be improved to identify ALL veterans so they receive lifesaving interventions. Every veteran’s life is sacred; the algorithm that may prevent suicide must be continuously improved. That is why our representatives did not propose to ban REACH VET or enforce an AI winter on the VA and DoD. Instead, they called for an update to the algorithm, underscoring the value of machine learning for suicide prediction and prevention.

The epigraph from one of the top AI ethicists and scientists in the world makes the point that AI is not the moral agent here: it is fallible humans who must keep learning along with machines. That is why, at the end of 2024, VA experts are revising the algorithm so REACH VET can help prevent even more veteran suicides in 2025 and beyond.¹⁴

We have a tradition at Federal Practitioner where the December editorial usually features some version of the “best and worst” of the last 12 months in government health care. As we close out a difficult year, instead I offer a cautionary yet promising story that epitomizes both risk and benefit.

In some quarters, 2024 has been the year of AI (artificial intelligence).² While in science fiction, superhuman machines, like the Terminator, are often associated with apocalyptic threats, we often forget the positive models of human-technology interaction, such as the protective robot in Lost in Space. While AI is not yet as advanced as what has already been depicted on the screen, it is inextricably interwoven into the daily fabric of our lives. Almost any website you go to for business or pleasure has a chatbot waiting to help (or frustrate) you. Most of us have Alexa, Siri, or another digital assistant organizing our homes and schedules. When I Google “everyday uses of artificial intelligence,” it is AI that responds with an overview.

Medicine is not immune. Renowned physician and scientist Eric Topol, MD, suggests that AI represents a “fourth industrial revolution in medicine” that can dramatically improve health care.³ The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been at the forefront of this new space.⁴ The story recounted below encapsulates the enormous benefits AI can bring to health care and the vigilance we must exercise to anticipate and mitigate risk for this to be an overall positive transition.

The story begins with a key element of AI change—the machine learning predictive algorithm. In this case, the algorithm was designed to predict—and thereby prevent—the top public health priority in federal practice: suicide. The Recovery Engagement and Coordination for Health-Veterans Enhanced Treatment (REACH VET) program was launched in 2017 to assist in identifying the top 0.1% of veterans at the highest risk for suicide.⁵

At least at this stage of AI in medicine, the safest and most ethical efforts come from collaborations between health care professionals and AI developers that maximize the very different strengths of each partner. REACH VET is an exemplar of this kind of teamwork. Once the algorithm analyzes > 60 variables to identify veterans at high risk for suicide, data are communicated to a REACH VET program coordinator, who then notifies the practitioner responsible for the veteran’s care so they can put into action evidence-based suicide prevention strategies.⁵

VA researchers in 2021 published a study of 173,313 veterans comparing outcomes before and after entry into the program using a triple differences design. Veterans participating in the program reported an increase in outpatient visits and documentation of safety plans, and a decrease in emergency department visits, inpatient mental health admissions, and recorded suicide attempts.⁶

A US Government Accounting Office analysis found that “REACH VET had identified veterans who had not been identified through other methods.”⁷ This was not just an example of AI hype: as a relatively rare and statistically complicated phenomenon, suicide is notoriously difficult to predict and model. Machine learning algorithms like REACH VET have unprecedented potential to assist and augment suicide prevention.⁸

In 2023, veteran service organizations and journalists raised concerns that the AI algorithm was biased and ignored critical risk factors that put some veterans at increased risk. Based on their analysis, they claimed that the algorithm did not account for risk factors uniquely associated with women veterans, namely military sexual trauma and intimate partner violence.⁹ Women are the most rapidly growing VA population, yet too often they encounter health care disparities, harassment, and stigmatization when seeking care. The Congressional Veterans Affairs committees investigated and introduced legislation to update the algorithm.¹⁰

VA experts dispute these claims, and a computer science PhD may be required to understand the debate. But as the history of medicine has shown us, every treatment and procedure has benefits and risks. No matter how bright and shiny the technology initially appears, a soft scientific underbelly emerges sooner or later. Just as with REACH VET, algorithm bias is often discovered during deployment when the logic of the laboratory encounters the unpredictable variety of humankind.¹¹ Frequently, those problems are—as with REACH VET— not solely or even primarily technical ones. The data mirror society and reflect its biases.

For learning organizations like the VA and the US Department of Defense (DoD), the criticisms of REACH VET signal the need to engage in continuous performance improvement. AI requires the human trainers and supervisors who teach the machines to continuously revise and update their lesson plans. The most recent VA data show that in 2021, 6392 veterans died by suicide.¹² In Congressional testimony, VA leaders reported that as of May 2024, REACH VET was operating in 28 VA facilities and had identified 6700 high-risk veterans.13 REACH VET can save veteran’s lives, which is the sine qua non for our federal health care systems.

The algorithm should be improved to identify ALL veterans so they receive lifesaving interventions. Every veteran’s life is sacred; the algorithm that may prevent suicide must be continuously improved. That is why our representatives did not propose to ban REACH VET or enforce an AI winter on the VA and DoD. Instead, they called for an update to the algorithm, underscoring the value of machine learning for suicide prediction and prevention.

The epigraph from one of the top AI ethicists and scientists in the world makes the point that AI is not the moral agent here: it is fallible humans who must keep learning along with machines. That is why, at the end of 2024, VA experts are revising the algorithm so REACH VET can help prevent even more veteran suicides in 2025 and beyond.¹⁴

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’d like to reflect a little on the ever-rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer. I saw two patients in the clinic on Friday, both in their early thirties, presenting with stage IV disease. Both had young families — a disaster.

This is an issue that we must address, I think, epidemiologically. We know that early-onset colorectal cancer is defined as a disease arising in those under the age of 50. There’s been a very sharp increase globally over the past 20-30 years, and currently, around 200,000 such cases are diagnosed every year, but it is said to increase unquestionably.

The epidemiologists, I think, correctly have identified that this sharp, rapid increase does imply that there is a new environmental change that is underpinning or underscoring this rise in early-onset disease. 

There’s a fantastic team that has been put together by Paul Brennan, Mike Stratton, and colleagues, a collaborative group of epidemiologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians, who are looking at a global study to try to understand the basis of early-onset colorectal cancer. Their approach is to combine conventional epidemiology, genomics, and fantastic computational support to try to unpick the mutational signatures involved.

The dominant hypothesis is that, over the past 20-25 years or so, there has been a change in diet that has allowed an alteration in the gut microbiome such that we now harbor, in some cases, more bacteria capable of manufacturing, synthesizing, and releasing mutagenic chemicals. There’s a subtype of Escherichia coli which manufactures one such mutagen called colibactin.

Again, through some of the painstaking, extraordinary work that Mike Stratton and colleagues have done at the Sanger Institute, they have managed to, using a variety of different techniques — in vitro, observational, and so on — relate exposure to the mutagen colibactin to a particular mutational signature.

They plan to do a large global study — one of the strengths — involving many different countries around the globe, collect material from older colorectal cancer patients and early-onset colorectal cancer patients, and undertake a staggeringly large mutational study to see if the mutational signature associated with colibactin is more highly represented in these early-onset cases. The hypothesis is that, if you’re exposed to this mutagen in childhood, then it increases the tumor mutational burden and therefore the likelihood of developing cancer at an earlier age. 

All of us believe that converting a normal cell into a tumor cell usually requires five or six or seven separate mutational events occurring at random. The earlier these occur, the greater the tumor, the greater the normal single-cellular mutational burden, and the more likely it is to develop cancer sooner rather than later. 

This is a fantastically interesting study, and it’s the way ahead with modern genetic epidemiology, one would say. We wish them well. This will be a 3- to 5-year truly international effort, bringing together a genuinely internationally outstanding research team. We hope that they are able to shed more light on the epidemiology of this early-onset disease, because only by understanding can we deflect and deal with it. 

Knowledge is power, as I’ve said many times before. If we understand the underlying epidemiology, that will allow us to intervene, one would hope, and avoid the chaotic disaster of my clinic on Friday, with these two young patients with an extremely limited lifespan and large families who will be left bereft in having lost a parent.

More power to the team. We wish them well with the study, but again, this is a pointer to the future, one would hope, of modern genetic computational epidemiology. 

I’d be really interested in any ideas or comments that you might have. Are you in the field? Are you seeing more young patients? Do you have any ideas or hypotheses of your own around the microbiome and what bugs might be involved and so on?

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, England; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’d like to reflect a little on the ever-rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer. I saw two patients in the clinic on Friday, both in their early thirties, presenting with stage IV disease. Both had young families — a disaster.

This is an issue that we must address, I think, epidemiologically. We know that early-onset colorectal cancer is defined as a disease arising in those under the age of 50. There’s been a very sharp increase globally over the past 20-30 years, and currently, around 200,000 such cases are diagnosed every year, but it is said to increase unquestionably.

The epidemiologists, I think, correctly have identified that this sharp, rapid increase does imply that there is a new environmental change that is underpinning or underscoring this rise in early-onset disease. 

There’s a fantastic team that has been put together by Paul Brennan, Mike Stratton, and colleagues, a collaborative group of epidemiologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians, who are looking at a global study to try to understand the basis of early-onset colorectal cancer. Their approach is to combine conventional epidemiology, genomics, and fantastic computational support to try to unpick the mutational signatures involved.

The dominant hypothesis is that, over the past 20-25 years or so, there has been a change in diet that has allowed an alteration in the gut microbiome such that we now harbor, in some cases, more bacteria capable of manufacturing, synthesizing, and releasing mutagenic chemicals. There’s a subtype of Escherichia coli which manufactures one such mutagen called colibactin.

Again, through some of the painstaking, extraordinary work that Mike Stratton and colleagues have done at the Sanger Institute, they have managed to, using a variety of different techniques — in vitro, observational, and so on — relate exposure to the mutagen colibactin to a particular mutational signature.

They plan to do a large global study — one of the strengths — involving many different countries around the globe, collect material from older colorectal cancer patients and early-onset colorectal cancer patients, and undertake a staggeringly large mutational study to see if the mutational signature associated with colibactin is more highly represented in these early-onset cases. The hypothesis is that, if you’re exposed to this mutagen in childhood, then it increases the tumor mutational burden and therefore the likelihood of developing cancer at an earlier age. 

All of us believe that converting a normal cell into a tumor cell usually requires five or six or seven separate mutational events occurring at random. The earlier these occur, the greater the tumor, the greater the normal single-cellular mutational burden, and the more likely it is to develop cancer sooner rather than later. 

This is a fantastically interesting study, and it’s the way ahead with modern genetic epidemiology, one would say. We wish them well. This will be a 3- to 5-year truly international effort, bringing together a genuinely internationally outstanding research team. We hope that they are able to shed more light on the epidemiology of this early-onset disease, because only by understanding can we deflect and deal with it. 

Knowledge is power, as I’ve said many times before. If we understand the underlying epidemiology, that will allow us to intervene, one would hope, and avoid the chaotic disaster of my clinic on Friday, with these two young patients with an extremely limited lifespan and large families who will be left bereft in having lost a parent.

More power to the team. We wish them well with the study, but again, this is a pointer to the future, one would hope, of modern genetic computational epidemiology. 

I’d be really interested in any ideas or comments that you might have. Are you in the field? Are you seeing more young patients? Do you have any ideas or hypotheses of your own around the microbiome and what bugs might be involved and so on?

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, England; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I’d like to reflect a little on the ever-rising incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer. I saw two patients in the clinic on Friday, both in their early thirties, presenting with stage IV disease. Both had young families — a disaster.

This is an issue that we must address, I think, epidemiologically. We know that early-onset colorectal cancer is defined as a disease arising in those under the age of 50. There’s been a very sharp increase globally over the past 20-30 years, and currently, around 200,000 such cases are diagnosed every year, but it is said to increase unquestionably.

The epidemiologists, I think, correctly have identified that this sharp, rapid increase does imply that there is a new environmental change that is underpinning or underscoring this rise in early-onset disease. 

There’s a fantastic team that has been put together by Paul Brennan, Mike Stratton, and colleagues, a collaborative group of epidemiologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians, who are looking at a global study to try to understand the basis of early-onset colorectal cancer. Their approach is to combine conventional epidemiology, genomics, and fantastic computational support to try to unpick the mutational signatures involved.

The dominant hypothesis is that, over the past 20-25 years or so, there has been a change in diet that has allowed an alteration in the gut microbiome such that we now harbor, in some cases, more bacteria capable of manufacturing, synthesizing, and releasing mutagenic chemicals. There’s a subtype of Escherichia coli which manufactures one such mutagen called colibactin.

Again, through some of the painstaking, extraordinary work that Mike Stratton and colleagues have done at the Sanger Institute, they have managed to, using a variety of different techniques — in vitro, observational, and so on — relate exposure to the mutagen colibactin to a particular mutational signature.

They plan to do a large global study — one of the strengths — involving many different countries around the globe, collect material from older colorectal cancer patients and early-onset colorectal cancer patients, and undertake a staggeringly large mutational study to see if the mutational signature associated with colibactin is more highly represented in these early-onset cases. The hypothesis is that, if you’re exposed to this mutagen in childhood, then it increases the tumor mutational burden and therefore the likelihood of developing cancer at an earlier age. 

All of us believe that converting a normal cell into a tumor cell usually requires five or six or seven separate mutational events occurring at random. The earlier these occur, the greater the tumor, the greater the normal single-cellular mutational burden, and the more likely it is to develop cancer sooner rather than later. 

This is a fantastically interesting study, and it’s the way ahead with modern genetic epidemiology, one would say. We wish them well. This will be a 3- to 5-year truly international effort, bringing together a genuinely internationally outstanding research team. We hope that they are able to shed more light on the epidemiology of this early-onset disease, because only by understanding can we deflect and deal with it. 

Knowledge is power, as I’ve said many times before. If we understand the underlying epidemiology, that will allow us to intervene, one would hope, and avoid the chaotic disaster of my clinic on Friday, with these two young patients with an extremely limited lifespan and large families who will be left bereft in having lost a parent.

More power to the team. We wish them well with the study, but again, this is a pointer to the future, one would hope, of modern genetic computational epidemiology. 

I’d be really interested in any ideas or comments that you might have. Are you in the field? Are you seeing more young patients? Do you have any ideas or hypotheses of your own around the microbiome and what bugs might be involved and so on?

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford, England; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

What is the best upfront chemotherapy option for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and unresectable liver metastases?

A new report demonstrated why patients benefit most from starting on a two-drug chemotherapy regimen — FOLFOX or FOLFIRI — instead of a three-drug regimen — FOLFOXIRI.

The CAIRO5 trial compared overall survival among 294 patients with right sided tumors and/or RAS/BRAF mutations who received FOLFOXIRI (5-fluorouracil [FU], oxaliplatin, irinotecan, plus folinic acid as an enhancer) or investigators’ choice of FOLFOX (5-FU, oxaliplatin, and folinic acid) or FOLFIRI (5-FU, irinotecan, and folinic acid). All patients also received bevacizumab.

In a post hoc analysis, researchers found no overall survival benefit among patients receiving the three-drug regimen. At a median follow-up of just over 5 years, the median overall survival was 23.6 months with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI vs 24.1 months with FOLFOXIRI (P = .44).

The finding means that patients can avoid the extra toxicity associated with combining oxaliplatin and irinotecan without compromising overall survival, Alan P. Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

The analysis did not stop there in defining the optimal upfront therapy for this patient population.

In a second arm of the analysis, researchers looked at whether swapping in panitumumab for bevacizumab offered any benefit in 236 patients with left-sided tumors and wild-type RAS/BRAF who received either of the two-drug regimens.

Here, the authors also found no benefit of using panitumumab with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI instead of bevacizumab, reporting a median overall survival of 38.3 months with panitumumab vs 39.9 months with bevacizumab.

In addition to avoiding upfront FOLFOXIRI, patients can also avoid the skin reactions and other toxicities associated with panitumumab, including “horrible acne,” Venook said.

Overall, the results support the use of FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab “irrespective of RAS/BRAFV600E status and tumor sidedness” as the initial treatment for CRC with liver-only metastases, concluded the study investigators, from the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands.

 

Why Does This Clarity Matter?

The study confirms the standard practice in the United States of starting patients on a two-drug chemotherapy with bevacizumab for the indication and highlights “why we don’t go all in right at the beginning” with a three-drug regimen, Venook said.

In short, more drugs upfront isn’t going to change patients’ long-term survival outcome. Plus, using FOLFOXIRI upfront means “you’ve really pretty much used up all your guns for early treatment,” Venook said.

As for bevacizumab vs panitumumab, most practitioners in the United States favor bevacizumab because of the rash many patients on epidermal growth factor receptor blockers like panitumumab and cetuximab get, Venook said.

Because FOLFOX and FOLFIRI are equally effective on the overall survival front, the decision between them comes down to a balance between patient comorbidities and side effect profiles. Neuropathy, for instance, is more common with FOLFOX, whereas diarrhea is more likely with FOLFIRI, Venook said.

Venook favors FOLFIRI because “almost every patient will develop neuropathy” after seven or eight doses of FOLFOX, which limits its use. “You’re expecting that first treatment to give you the most mileage,” so starting with a treatment “you’re going to get limited use out of ... never made sense to me,” he said.

Venook noted that the results apply only to the older patients studied in CAIRO5 and not necessarily to the ever-growing population of younger people with CRC. Patients in the trial had a median age of 62 years with a performance status of 0-1, a median of 12 liver lesions with no metastases outside the liver, and no contraindications to local or systemic treatment.

The CAIRO5 analysis also looked at what happens after upfront chemotherapy, with the goal being to shrink liver lesions so the lesions can be surgically removed or treated with thermal ablation.

Almost half the patients ultimately underwent resection or ablation, and 39% of those in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 49% in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus panitumumab group then went on to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) to reduce the risk for recurrence. ACT was recommended in the study, but not required, and consisted of chemotherapy minus bevacizumab or panitumumab.

Overall survival was longest among patients who had complete local treatment without recurrences for at least 6 months (64.3 months) or who had salvage local treatment after early recurrence (58.9 months). Median overall survival was 30.5 months for patients with complete local treatment without salvage after early recurrence, and 28.7 months for patients with incomplete local treatment. Overall survival was worst in patients who remained unresectable (18.3 months).

ACT was associated with improved overall and relapse-free survival, justifying discussing the option with patients who have completed local treatment, the study team said.

CAIRO5 was funded by Roche and Amgen, makers of bevacizumab and panitumumab, respectively. Bond and Venook didn’t have any disclosures.

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

What is the best upfront chemotherapy option for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and unresectable liver metastases?

A new report demonstrated why patients benefit most from starting on a two-drug chemotherapy regimen — FOLFOX or FOLFIRI — instead of a three-drug regimen — FOLFOXIRI.

The CAIRO5 trial compared overall survival among 294 patients with right sided tumors and/or RAS/BRAF mutations who received FOLFOXIRI (5-fluorouracil [FU], oxaliplatin, irinotecan, plus folinic acid as an enhancer) or investigators’ choice of FOLFOX (5-FU, oxaliplatin, and folinic acid) or FOLFIRI (5-FU, irinotecan, and folinic acid). All patients also received bevacizumab.

In a post hoc analysis, researchers found no overall survival benefit among patients receiving the three-drug regimen. At a median follow-up of just over 5 years, the median overall survival was 23.6 months with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI vs 24.1 months with FOLFOXIRI (P = .44).

The finding means that patients can avoid the extra toxicity associated with combining oxaliplatin and irinotecan without compromising overall survival, Alan P. Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

The analysis did not stop there in defining the optimal upfront therapy for this patient population.

In a second arm of the analysis, researchers looked at whether swapping in panitumumab for bevacizumab offered any benefit in 236 patients with left-sided tumors and wild-type RAS/BRAF who received either of the two-drug regimens.

Here, the authors also found no benefit of using panitumumab with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI instead of bevacizumab, reporting a median overall survival of 38.3 months with panitumumab vs 39.9 months with bevacizumab.

In addition to avoiding upfront FOLFOXIRI, patients can also avoid the skin reactions and other toxicities associated with panitumumab, including “horrible acne,” Venook said.

Overall, the results support the use of FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab “irrespective of RAS/BRAFV600E status and tumor sidedness” as the initial treatment for CRC with liver-only metastases, concluded the study investigators, from the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands.

 

Why Does This Clarity Matter?

The study confirms the standard practice in the United States of starting patients on a two-drug chemotherapy with bevacizumab for the indication and highlights “why we don’t go all in right at the beginning” with a three-drug regimen, Venook said.

In short, more drugs upfront isn’t going to change patients’ long-term survival outcome. Plus, using FOLFOXIRI upfront means “you’ve really pretty much used up all your guns for early treatment,” Venook said.

As for bevacizumab vs panitumumab, most practitioners in the United States favor bevacizumab because of the rash many patients on epidermal growth factor receptor blockers like panitumumab and cetuximab get, Venook said.

Because FOLFOX and FOLFIRI are equally effective on the overall survival front, the decision between them comes down to a balance between patient comorbidities and side effect profiles. Neuropathy, for instance, is more common with FOLFOX, whereas diarrhea is more likely with FOLFIRI, Venook said.

Venook favors FOLFIRI because “almost every patient will develop neuropathy” after seven or eight doses of FOLFOX, which limits its use. “You’re expecting that first treatment to give you the most mileage,” so starting with a treatment “you’re going to get limited use out of ... never made sense to me,” he said.

Venook noted that the results apply only to the older patients studied in CAIRO5 and not necessarily to the ever-growing population of younger people with CRC. Patients in the trial had a median age of 62 years with a performance status of 0-1, a median of 12 liver lesions with no metastases outside the liver, and no contraindications to local or systemic treatment.

The CAIRO5 analysis also looked at what happens after upfront chemotherapy, with the goal being to shrink liver lesions so the lesions can be surgically removed or treated with thermal ablation.

Almost half the patients ultimately underwent resection or ablation, and 39% of those in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 49% in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus panitumumab group then went on to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) to reduce the risk for recurrence. ACT was recommended in the study, but not required, and consisted of chemotherapy minus bevacizumab or panitumumab.

Overall survival was longest among patients who had complete local treatment without recurrences for at least 6 months (64.3 months) or who had salvage local treatment after early recurrence (58.9 months). Median overall survival was 30.5 months for patients with complete local treatment without salvage after early recurrence, and 28.7 months for patients with incomplete local treatment. Overall survival was worst in patients who remained unresectable (18.3 months).

ACT was associated with improved overall and relapse-free survival, justifying discussing the option with patients who have completed local treatment, the study team said.

CAIRO5 was funded by Roche and Amgen, makers of bevacizumab and panitumumab, respectively. Bond and Venook didn’t have any disclosures.

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

What is the best upfront chemotherapy option for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and unresectable liver metastases?

A new report demonstrated why patients benefit most from starting on a two-drug chemotherapy regimen — FOLFOX or FOLFIRI — instead of a three-drug regimen — FOLFOXIRI.

The CAIRO5 trial compared overall survival among 294 patients with right sided tumors and/or RAS/BRAF mutations who received FOLFOXIRI (5-fluorouracil [FU], oxaliplatin, irinotecan, plus folinic acid as an enhancer) or investigators’ choice of FOLFOX (5-FU, oxaliplatin, and folinic acid) or FOLFIRI (5-FU, irinotecan, and folinic acid). All patients also received bevacizumab.

In a post hoc analysis, researchers found no overall survival benefit among patients receiving the three-drug regimen. At a median follow-up of just over 5 years, the median overall survival was 23.6 months with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI vs 24.1 months with FOLFOXIRI (P = .44).

The finding means that patients can avoid the extra toxicity associated with combining oxaliplatin and irinotecan without compromising overall survival, Alan P. Venook, MD, a gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

The analysis did not stop there in defining the optimal upfront therapy for this patient population.

In a second arm of the analysis, researchers looked at whether swapping in panitumumab for bevacizumab offered any benefit in 236 patients with left-sided tumors and wild-type RAS/BRAF who received either of the two-drug regimens.

Here, the authors also found no benefit of using panitumumab with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI instead of bevacizumab, reporting a median overall survival of 38.3 months with panitumumab vs 39.9 months with bevacizumab.

In addition to avoiding upfront FOLFOXIRI, patients can also avoid the skin reactions and other toxicities associated with panitumumab, including “horrible acne,” Venook said.

Overall, the results support the use of FOLFOX or FOLFIRI with bevacizumab “irrespective of RAS/BRAFV600E status and tumor sidedness” as the initial treatment for CRC with liver-only metastases, concluded the study investigators, from the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands.

 

Why Does This Clarity Matter?

The study confirms the standard practice in the United States of starting patients on a two-drug chemotherapy with bevacizumab for the indication and highlights “why we don’t go all in right at the beginning” with a three-drug regimen, Venook said.

In short, more drugs upfront isn’t going to change patients’ long-term survival outcome. Plus, using FOLFOXIRI upfront means “you’ve really pretty much used up all your guns for early treatment,” Venook said.

As for bevacizumab vs panitumumab, most practitioners in the United States favor bevacizumab because of the rash many patients on epidermal growth factor receptor blockers like panitumumab and cetuximab get, Venook said.

Because FOLFOX and FOLFIRI are equally effective on the overall survival front, the decision between them comes down to a balance between patient comorbidities and side effect profiles. Neuropathy, for instance, is more common with FOLFOX, whereas diarrhea is more likely with FOLFIRI, Venook said.

Venook favors FOLFIRI because “almost every patient will develop neuropathy” after seven or eight doses of FOLFOX, which limits its use. “You’re expecting that first treatment to give you the most mileage,” so starting with a treatment “you’re going to get limited use out of ... never made sense to me,” he said.

Venook noted that the results apply only to the older patients studied in CAIRO5 and not necessarily to the ever-growing population of younger people with CRC. Patients in the trial had a median age of 62 years with a performance status of 0-1, a median of 12 liver lesions with no metastases outside the liver, and no contraindications to local or systemic treatment.

The CAIRO5 analysis also looked at what happens after upfront chemotherapy, with the goal being to shrink liver lesions so the lesions can be surgically removed or treated with thermal ablation.

Almost half the patients ultimately underwent resection or ablation, and 39% of those in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 49% in the FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus panitumumab group then went on to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) to reduce the risk for recurrence. ACT was recommended in the study, but not required, and consisted of chemotherapy minus bevacizumab or panitumumab.

Overall survival was longest among patients who had complete local treatment without recurrences for at least 6 months (64.3 months) or who had salvage local treatment after early recurrence (58.9 months). Median overall survival was 30.5 months for patients with complete local treatment without salvage after early recurrence, and 28.7 months for patients with incomplete local treatment. Overall survival was worst in patients who remained unresectable (18.3 months).

ACT was associated with improved overall and relapse-free survival, justifying discussing the option with patients who have completed local treatment, the study team said.

CAIRO5 was funded by Roche and Amgen, makers of bevacizumab and panitumumab, respectively. Bond and Venook didn’t have any disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — Investigational treatments aimed specifically at reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis (OA) are moving forward in parallel with disease-modifying approaches.

“We still have very few treatments for the pain of osteoarthritis…It worries me that people think the only way forward is structure modification. I think while we’re waiting for some drugs to be structure modifying, we still need more pain relief. About 70% of people can’t tolerate or shouldn’t be on a [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug], and that leaves a large number of people with pain,” Philip Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, Chair of Musculoskeletal Medicine at the University of Leeds in England, said in an interview.

At the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Conaghan, who is also honorary consultant rheumatologist for the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, presented new data for two novel approaches, both targeting peripheral nociceptive pain signaling.

In a late-breaking poster, he presented phase 2 trial data on RTX-GRT7039 (resiniferatoxin [RTX]), an agonist of the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 that is a driver of OA pain. The trial investigated the efficacy and safety of a single intra-articular injection of RTX-GRT7039 in people with knee OA.

And separately, in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Conaghan presented phase 2 trial safety and efficacy data for another investigational agent called LEVI-04, a first-in-class neurotrophin receptor fusion protein (p75NTR-Fc) that supplements the endogenous protein and provides analgesia via inhibition of NT-3 activity.

“I think both have potential to provide good pain relief, through slightly different mechanisms,” Conaghan said in an interview.

Asked to comment, session moderator Gregory C. Gardner, MD, emeritus professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview: “I think the results are really exciting terms of the ability to control pain to a significant degree in patients with osteoarthritis.”

However, Gardner also said, “The molecules can be very expensive ... so who do we give them to? Will insurance companies pay for this simply for OA pain? They improve function ... so clearly, [they] will be a boon to treating osteoarthritis, but do we give them to people with only more advanced forms of osteoarthritis or earlier on?”

Moreover, Gardner said, “One of my concerns about treating osteoarthritis is I don’t want to do too good of a job treating pain in somebody who has a biomechanically abnormal joint. ... You’ve got a knee that’s worn out some of the cartilage, and now you feel like you can go out and play soccer again. That’s not a good thing. That joint will wear out very quickly, even though it doesn’t feel pain.”

Another OA expert, Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, said in an interview, “I think we don’t focus nearly enough on pain, and that’s [partly] because the [Food and Drug Administration] has defined endpoints for knee OA trials that are radiographic. ... Patients do not care what their joint space narrowing is. They care what their pain is. And joint space changes and pain do not correlate in knee OA. ... About 20% or 30% of patients who have completely normal x-rays have a lot of pain…I hope that we’ll have some new OA pain therapeutics in the future because that’s what patients actually care about.”

But Jeffries noted that it will be very important to ensure that these agents don’t produce significant side effects, as had been seen previously in several large industry-sponsored trials of drugs targeting nerve growth factors.

“The big concern that we have in the field ... is that the nerve growth factor antibody trials were all stopped because there was a low but persistent risk of rapidly progressive OA in a small percent of patients. I think one of the questions in the field is whether targeting other things having to do with OA pain is going to result in similar bad outcomes. I think the answer is probably not, but that’s one thing that people do worry about, and they never really figured out why the [rapidly progressive OA] was happening.”

 

‘Potential to Provide Meaningful and Sustained Analgesia’

The phase 2 trial of RTX-GRT7039, funded by manufacturer Grünenthal, enrolled 40 patients with a baseline visual analog pain score (VAS) of > 40 mm on motion for average joint pain in the target knee over the past 2 days with or without analgesic medication and Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2-4.

They were randomized to receive a single intra-articular injection of 2 mg or 4 mg RTX-GRT7039 within 1 minute after receiving 5 mL ropivacaine (0.5%) or 4 mg or 8 mg RTX-GRT7039 administered 15 minutes after 5 mL ropivacaine pretreatment, or equivalent placebo treatments plus ropivacaine.

Plasma samples were collected for up to 2 hours, and VAS pain scores were collected for up to 3 hours post injection.

Reductions in VAS scores from baseline in the treated knee were seen in all RTX treatment groups as early as day 8 post injection and were maintained up to 6 months, while no reductions in VAS pain on motion scores were seen in the placebo group.

At 3 months, the absolute baseline-adjusted reductions in VAS scores were similar for RTX 2 mg (–39.75), RTX 4 mg (–40.20), and RTX 8 mg (–30.25), while the reduction in the placebo group was just –8.50. At 6 months, the mean absolute reduction in VAS score was numerically greater in the RTX 2-mg (–46.49), RTX 4-mg (–43.40), and RTX 8-mg (–38.60) groups vs the group that received RTX 4 mg within 1 minute after receiving ropivacaine (–22.00).

At both 3 and 6 months, a higher proportion of patients receiving any dose of RTX-GRT7039 achieved ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% reduction in pain on motion, compared with those who received placebo. All RTX-GRT7039 treatment groups reported a greater improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score than the placebo group at both 3 and 6 months.

Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the RTX groups (85.7%-90.9%) and placebo (85.7%) and slightly lower in the group that received RTX 4 mg within 1 minute of receiving ropivacaine (60.0%).

There was a trend toward greater procedural/injection site pain in the RTX treatment groups, compared with placebo, most commonly arthralgia (37.5%), headache (17.5%), and back pain (10%). This tended to peak around 0.5 hours post injection and resolve by 1.5-3.0 hours.

No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred, and no treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation or death.

“This early-phase trial indicates that RTX-GRT7039 has the potential to provide meaningful and sustained analgesia for patients with knee OA pain,” Conaghan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

The drug is now being evaluated in three phase 3 trials (NCT05248386, NCT05449132, and NCT05377489).

 

LEVI-04: Modulation of NT-3 Appears to Work Safely

LEVI-04 was evaluated in a phase 2, 20-week, 13-center (Europe and Hong Kong) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 518 people with knee OA who had WOMAC pain subscale scores ≥ 20, mean average daily pain numeric rating scale score of 4-9, and radiographic Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥ 2.

They were randomized to a total of five infusions of placebo or 0.3 mg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg, or 2 mg/kg LEVI-04 from baseline through week 16, with safety follow-up to week 30.

The primary endpoint, change in WOMAC pain from baseline to weeks 5 and 17, was met for all three doses. At 17 weeks, those were –2.79, –2.89, and –3.08 for 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, and 2 mg, respectively, vs –2.28 for placebo (all P < .05).

Secondary endpoints, including WOMAC physical function, WOMAC stiffness, and Patient Global Assessment, and > 50% pain responders, were also all met at weeks 5 and 17. More than 50% of the LEVI-04–treated patients reported ≥ 50% reduction in pain, and > 25% reported ≥ 75% reduction at weeks 5 and 17.

“So, this modulation of NT-3 is working,” Conaghan commented.

There were no increased incidences of severe adverse events, treatment-emergent adverse events, or joint pathologies, including rapidly progressive OA, compared with placebo.

There were more paresthesias reported with the active drug, 2-4 vs 1 with placebo. “That says to me that the drug is working and that it’s having an effect on peripheral nerves, but luckily these were all mild or moderate and didn’t lead to any study withdrawal or discontinuation,” Conaghan said.

Phase 3 trials are in the planning stages, he noted.

 

Other Approaches to Treating OA Pain

Other approaches to treating OA pain have included methotrexate, for which Conaghan was also a coauthor on one paper that came out earlier in 2024. “This presumably works by treating inflammation, but it’s not clear if that is within-joint inflammation or systemic inflammation,” he said in an interview.

Another approach, using the weight loss drug semaglutide, was presented in April 2024 at the 2024 World Congress on Osteoarthritis annual meeting and published in October 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine

The trial involving RTX-GRT7039 was funded by Grünenthal, and some study coauthors are employees of the company. The trial involving LEVI-04 was funded by Levicept, and some study coauthors are employees of the company. Conaghan is a consultant and/or speaker for Eli Lilly, Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals, Formation Bio, Galapagos, Genascence, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kolon TissueGene, Levicept, Medipost, Moebius, Novartis, Pacira, Sandoz, Stryker Corporation, and Takeda. Gardner and Jeffries had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Investigational treatments aimed specifically at reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis (OA) are moving forward in parallel with disease-modifying approaches.

“We still have very few treatments for the pain of osteoarthritis…It worries me that people think the only way forward is structure modification. I think while we’re waiting for some drugs to be structure modifying, we still need more pain relief. About 70% of people can’t tolerate or shouldn’t be on a [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug], and that leaves a large number of people with pain,” Philip Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, Chair of Musculoskeletal Medicine at the University of Leeds in England, said in an interview.

At the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Conaghan, who is also honorary consultant rheumatologist for the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, presented new data for two novel approaches, both targeting peripheral nociceptive pain signaling.

In a late-breaking poster, he presented phase 2 trial data on RTX-GRT7039 (resiniferatoxin [RTX]), an agonist of the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 that is a driver of OA pain. The trial investigated the efficacy and safety of a single intra-articular injection of RTX-GRT7039 in people with knee OA.

And separately, in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Conaghan presented phase 2 trial safety and efficacy data for another investigational agent called LEVI-04, a first-in-class neurotrophin receptor fusion protein (p75NTR-Fc) that supplements the endogenous protein and provides analgesia via inhibition of NT-3 activity.

“I think both have potential to provide good pain relief, through slightly different mechanisms,” Conaghan said in an interview.

Asked to comment, session moderator Gregory C. Gardner, MD, emeritus professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview: “I think the results are really exciting terms of the ability to control pain to a significant degree in patients with osteoarthritis.”

However, Gardner also said, “The molecules can be very expensive ... so who do we give them to? Will insurance companies pay for this simply for OA pain? They improve function ... so clearly, [they] will be a boon to treating osteoarthritis, but do we give them to people with only more advanced forms of osteoarthritis or earlier on?”

Moreover, Gardner said, “One of my concerns about treating osteoarthritis is I don’t want to do too good of a job treating pain in somebody who has a biomechanically abnormal joint. ... You’ve got a knee that’s worn out some of the cartilage, and now you feel like you can go out and play soccer again. That’s not a good thing. That joint will wear out very quickly, even though it doesn’t feel pain.”

Another OA expert, Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, said in an interview, “I think we don’t focus nearly enough on pain, and that’s [partly] because the [Food and Drug Administration] has defined endpoints for knee OA trials that are radiographic. ... Patients do not care what their joint space narrowing is. They care what their pain is. And joint space changes and pain do not correlate in knee OA. ... About 20% or 30% of patients who have completely normal x-rays have a lot of pain…I hope that we’ll have some new OA pain therapeutics in the future because that’s what patients actually care about.”

But Jeffries noted that it will be very important to ensure that these agents don’t produce significant side effects, as had been seen previously in several large industry-sponsored trials of drugs targeting nerve growth factors.

“The big concern that we have in the field ... is that the nerve growth factor antibody trials were all stopped because there was a low but persistent risk of rapidly progressive OA in a small percent of patients. I think one of the questions in the field is whether targeting other things having to do with OA pain is going to result in similar bad outcomes. I think the answer is probably not, but that’s one thing that people do worry about, and they never really figured out why the [rapidly progressive OA] was happening.”

 

‘Potential to Provide Meaningful and Sustained Analgesia’

The phase 2 trial of RTX-GRT7039, funded by manufacturer Grünenthal, enrolled 40 patients with a baseline visual analog pain score (VAS) of > 40 mm on motion for average joint pain in the target knee over the past 2 days with or without analgesic medication and Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2-4.

They were randomized to receive a single intra-articular injection of 2 mg or 4 mg RTX-GRT7039 within 1 minute after receiving 5 mL ropivacaine (0.5%) or 4 mg or 8 mg RTX-GRT7039 administered 15 minutes after 5 mL ropivacaine pretreatment, or equivalent placebo treatments plus ropivacaine.

Plasma samples were collected for up to 2 hours, and VAS pain scores were collected for up to 3 hours post injection.

Reductions in VAS scores from baseline in the treated knee were seen in all RTX treatment groups as early as day 8 post injection and were maintained up to 6 months, while no reductions in VAS pain on motion scores were seen in the placebo group.

At 3 months, the absolute baseline-adjusted reductions in VAS scores were similar for RTX 2 mg (–39.75), RTX 4 mg (–40.20), and RTX 8 mg (–30.25), while the reduction in the placebo group was just –8.50. At 6 months, the mean absolute reduction in VAS score was numerically greater in the RTX 2-mg (–46.49), RTX 4-mg (–43.40), and RTX 8-mg (–38.60) groups vs the group that received RTX 4 mg within 1 minute after receiving ropivacaine (–22.00).

At both 3 and 6 months, a higher proportion of patients receiving any dose of RTX-GRT7039 achieved ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% reduction in pain on motion, compared with those who received placebo. All RTX-GRT7039 treatment groups reported a greater improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score than the placebo group at both 3 and 6 months.

Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the RTX groups (85.7%-90.9%) and placebo (85.7%) and slightly lower in the group that received RTX 4 mg within 1 minute of receiving ropivacaine (60.0%).

There was a trend toward greater procedural/injection site pain in the RTX treatment groups, compared with placebo, most commonly arthralgia (37.5%), headache (17.5%), and back pain (10%). This tended to peak around 0.5 hours post injection and resolve by 1.5-3.0 hours.

No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred, and no treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation or death.

“This early-phase trial indicates that RTX-GRT7039 has the potential to provide meaningful and sustained analgesia for patients with knee OA pain,” Conaghan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

The drug is now being evaluated in three phase 3 trials (NCT05248386, NCT05449132, and NCT05377489).

 

LEVI-04: Modulation of NT-3 Appears to Work Safely

LEVI-04 was evaluated in a phase 2, 20-week, 13-center (Europe and Hong Kong) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 518 people with knee OA who had WOMAC pain subscale scores ≥ 20, mean average daily pain numeric rating scale score of 4-9, and radiographic Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥ 2.

They were randomized to a total of five infusions of placebo or 0.3 mg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg, or 2 mg/kg LEVI-04 from baseline through week 16, with safety follow-up to week 30.

The primary endpoint, change in WOMAC pain from baseline to weeks 5 and 17, was met for all three doses. At 17 weeks, those were –2.79, –2.89, and –3.08 for 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, and 2 mg, respectively, vs –2.28 for placebo (all P < .05).

Secondary endpoints, including WOMAC physical function, WOMAC stiffness, and Patient Global Assessment, and > 50% pain responders, were also all met at weeks 5 and 17. More than 50% of the LEVI-04–treated patients reported ≥ 50% reduction in pain, and > 25% reported ≥ 75% reduction at weeks 5 and 17.

“So, this modulation of NT-3 is working,” Conaghan commented.

There were no increased incidences of severe adverse events, treatment-emergent adverse events, or joint pathologies, including rapidly progressive OA, compared with placebo.

There were more paresthesias reported with the active drug, 2-4 vs 1 with placebo. “That says to me that the drug is working and that it’s having an effect on peripheral nerves, but luckily these were all mild or moderate and didn’t lead to any study withdrawal or discontinuation,” Conaghan said.

Phase 3 trials are in the planning stages, he noted.

 

Other Approaches to Treating OA Pain

Other approaches to treating OA pain have included methotrexate, for which Conaghan was also a coauthor on one paper that came out earlier in 2024. “This presumably works by treating inflammation, but it’s not clear if that is within-joint inflammation or systemic inflammation,” he said in an interview.

Another approach, using the weight loss drug semaglutide, was presented in April 2024 at the 2024 World Congress on Osteoarthritis annual meeting and published in October 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine

The trial involving RTX-GRT7039 was funded by Grünenthal, and some study coauthors are employees of the company. The trial involving LEVI-04 was funded by Levicept, and some study coauthors are employees of the company. Conaghan is a consultant and/or speaker for Eli Lilly, Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals, Formation Bio, Galapagos, Genascence, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kolon TissueGene, Levicept, Medipost, Moebius, Novartis, Pacira, Sandoz, Stryker Corporation, and Takeda. Gardner and Jeffries had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Investigational treatments aimed specifically at reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis (OA) are moving forward in parallel with disease-modifying approaches.

“We still have very few treatments for the pain of osteoarthritis…It worries me that people think the only way forward is structure modification. I think while we’re waiting for some drugs to be structure modifying, we still need more pain relief. About 70% of people can’t tolerate or shouldn’t be on a [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug], and that leaves a large number of people with pain,” Philip Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, Chair of Musculoskeletal Medicine at the University of Leeds in England, said in an interview.

At the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Conaghan, who is also honorary consultant rheumatologist for the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, presented new data for two novel approaches, both targeting peripheral nociceptive pain signaling.

In a late-breaking poster, he presented phase 2 trial data on RTX-GRT7039 (resiniferatoxin [RTX]), an agonist of the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 that is a driver of OA pain. The trial investigated the efficacy and safety of a single intra-articular injection of RTX-GRT7039 in people with knee OA.

And separately, in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Conaghan presented phase 2 trial safety and efficacy data for another investigational agent called LEVI-04, a first-in-class neurotrophin receptor fusion protein (p75NTR-Fc) that supplements the endogenous protein and provides analgesia via inhibition of NT-3 activity.

“I think both have potential to provide good pain relief, through slightly different mechanisms,” Conaghan said in an interview.

Asked to comment, session moderator Gregory C. Gardner, MD, emeritus professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview: “I think the results are really exciting terms of the ability to control pain to a significant degree in patients with osteoarthritis.”

However, Gardner also said, “The molecules can be very expensive ... so who do we give them to? Will insurance companies pay for this simply for OA pain? They improve function ... so clearly, [they] will be a boon to treating osteoarthritis, but do we give them to people with only more advanced forms of osteoarthritis or earlier on?”

Moreover, Gardner said, “One of my concerns about treating osteoarthritis is I don’t want to do too good of a job treating pain in somebody who has a biomechanically abnormal joint. ... You’ve got a knee that’s worn out some of the cartilage, and now you feel like you can go out and play soccer again. That’s not a good thing. That joint will wear out very quickly, even though it doesn’t feel pain.”

Another OA expert, Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, said in an interview, “I think we don’t focus nearly enough on pain, and that’s [partly] because the [Food and Drug Administration] has defined endpoints for knee OA trials that are radiographic. ... Patients do not care what their joint space narrowing is. They care what their pain is. And joint space changes and pain do not correlate in knee OA. ... About 20% or 30% of patients who have completely normal x-rays have a lot of pain…I hope that we’ll have some new OA pain therapeutics in the future because that’s what patients actually care about.”

But Jeffries noted that it will be very important to ensure that these agents don’t produce significant side effects, as had been seen previously in several large industry-sponsored trials of drugs targeting nerve growth factors.

“The big concern that we have in the field ... is that the nerve growth factor antibody trials were all stopped because there was a low but persistent risk of rapidly progressive OA in a small percent of patients. I think one of the questions in the field is whether targeting other things having to do with OA pain is going to result in similar bad outcomes. I think the answer is probably not, but that’s one thing that people do worry about, and they never really figured out why the [rapidly progressive OA] was happening.”

 

‘Potential to Provide Meaningful and Sustained Analgesia’

The phase 2 trial of RTX-GRT7039, funded by manufacturer Grünenthal, enrolled 40 patients with a baseline visual analog pain score (VAS) of > 40 mm on motion for average joint pain in the target knee over the past 2 days with or without analgesic medication and Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2-4.

They were randomized to receive a single intra-articular injection of 2 mg or 4 mg RTX-GRT7039 within 1 minute after receiving 5 mL ropivacaine (0.5%) or 4 mg or 8 mg RTX-GRT7039 administered 15 minutes after 5 mL ropivacaine pretreatment, or equivalent placebo treatments plus ropivacaine.

Plasma samples were collected for up to 2 hours, and VAS pain scores were collected for up to 3 hours post injection.

Reductions in VAS scores from baseline in the treated knee were seen in all RTX treatment groups as early as day 8 post injection and were maintained up to 6 months, while no reductions in VAS pain on motion scores were seen in the placebo group.

At 3 months, the absolute baseline-adjusted reductions in VAS scores were similar for RTX 2 mg (–39.75), RTX 4 mg (–40.20), and RTX 8 mg (–30.25), while the reduction in the placebo group was just –8.50. At 6 months, the mean absolute reduction in VAS score was numerically greater in the RTX 2-mg (–46.49), RTX 4-mg (–43.40), and RTX 8-mg (–38.60) groups vs the group that received RTX 4 mg within 1 minute after receiving ropivacaine (–22.00).

At both 3 and 6 months, a higher proportion of patients receiving any dose of RTX-GRT7039 achieved ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% reduction in pain on motion, compared with those who received placebo. All RTX-GRT7039 treatment groups reported a greater improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score than the placebo group at both 3 and 6 months.

Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the RTX groups (85.7%-90.9%) and placebo (85.7%) and slightly lower in the group that received RTX 4 mg within 1 minute of receiving ropivacaine (60.0%).

There was a trend toward greater procedural/injection site pain in the RTX treatment groups, compared with placebo, most commonly arthralgia (37.5%), headache (17.5%), and back pain (10%). This tended to peak around 0.5 hours post injection and resolve by 1.5-3.0 hours.

No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred, and no treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation or death.

“This early-phase trial indicates that RTX-GRT7039 has the potential to provide meaningful and sustained analgesia for patients with knee OA pain,” Conaghan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

The drug is now being evaluated in three phase 3 trials (NCT05248386, NCT05449132, and NCT05377489).

 

LEVI-04: Modulation of NT-3 Appears to Work Safely

LEVI-04 was evaluated in a phase 2, 20-week, 13-center (Europe and Hong Kong) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 518 people with knee OA who had WOMAC pain subscale scores ≥ 20, mean average daily pain numeric rating scale score of 4-9, and radiographic Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥ 2.

They were randomized to a total of five infusions of placebo or 0.3 mg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg, or 2 mg/kg LEVI-04 from baseline through week 16, with safety follow-up to week 30.

The primary endpoint, change in WOMAC pain from baseline to weeks 5 and 17, was met for all three doses. At 17 weeks, those were –2.79, –2.89, and –3.08 for 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, and 2 mg, respectively, vs –2.28 for placebo (all P < .05).

Secondary endpoints, including WOMAC physical function, WOMAC stiffness, and Patient Global Assessment, and > 50% pain responders, were also all met at weeks 5 and 17. More than 50% of the LEVI-04–treated patients reported ≥ 50% reduction in pain, and > 25% reported ≥ 75% reduction at weeks 5 and 17.

“So, this modulation of NT-3 is working,” Conaghan commented.

There were no increased incidences of severe adverse events, treatment-emergent adverse events, or joint pathologies, including rapidly progressive OA, compared with placebo.

There were more paresthesias reported with the active drug, 2-4 vs 1 with placebo. “That says to me that the drug is working and that it’s having an effect on peripheral nerves, but luckily these were all mild or moderate and didn’t lead to any study withdrawal or discontinuation,” Conaghan said.

Phase 3 trials are in the planning stages, he noted.

 

Other Approaches to Treating OA Pain

Other approaches to treating OA pain have included methotrexate, for which Conaghan was also a coauthor on one paper that came out earlier in 2024. “This presumably works by treating inflammation, but it’s not clear if that is within-joint inflammation or systemic inflammation,” he said in an interview.

Another approach, using the weight loss drug semaglutide, was presented in April 2024 at the 2024 World Congress on Osteoarthritis annual meeting and published in October 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine

The trial involving RTX-GRT7039 was funded by Grünenthal, and some study coauthors are employees of the company. The trial involving LEVI-04 was funded by Levicept, and some study coauthors are employees of the company. Conaghan is a consultant and/or speaker for Eli Lilly, Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals, Formation Bio, Galapagos, Genascence, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kolon TissueGene, Levicept, Medipost, Moebius, Novartis, Pacira, Sandoz, Stryker Corporation, and Takeda. Gardner and Jeffries had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with serum ferritin levels higher than 1000 μg/L show a 91% increased risk for any fracture, with a doubled risk for vertebral and humerus fractures compared with those without iron overload.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Iron overload’s association with decreased bone mineral density is established, but its relationship to osteoporotic fracture risk has remained understudied and inconsistent across fracture sites.
• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study using a UK general practice database to evaluate the fracture risk in 20,264 patients with iron overload and 192,956 matched controls without elevated ferritin (mean age, 57 years; about 40% women).
• Patients with iron overload were identified as those with laboratory-confirmed iron overload (serum ferritin levels > 1000 μg/L; n = 13,510) or a diagnosis of an iron overloading disorder, such as thalassemia major, sickle cell disease, or hemochromatosis (n = 6754).
• The primary outcome of interest was the first occurrence of an osteoporotic fracture after the diagnosis of iron overload or first record of high ferritin.
• A sensitivity analysis was conducted to check the impact of laboratory-confirmed iron overload on the risk for osteoporotic fracture compared with a diagnosis code without elevated ferritin.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the overall cohort, patients with iron overload had a 55% higher risk for any osteoporotic fracture than control individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.42-1.68), with the highest risk observed for vertebral fractures (aHR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.63-2.37) and humerus fractures (aHR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.61-2.26).
• Patients with laboratory-confirmed iron overload showed a 91% increased risk for any fracture (aHR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.73-2.10), with a 2.5-fold higher risk observed for vertebral fractures (aHR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.01-3.12), followed by humerus fractures (aHR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.96-2.95).
• There was no increased risk for fracture at any site in patients with a diagnosis of an iron overloading disorder but no laboratory-confirmed iron overload.
• No sex-specific differences were identified in the association between iron overload and fracture risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“The main clinical message from our findings is that clinicians should consider iron overloading as a risk factor for fracture. Importantly, among high-risk patients presenting with serum ferritin values exceeding 1000 μg/L, osteoporosis screening and treatment strategies should be initiated in accordance with the guidelines for patients with hepatic disease,” the authors wrote.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Andrea Michelle Burden, PhD, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, ETH Zürich in Switzerland, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The study could not assess the duration of iron overload on fracture risk, and thus, patients could enter the cohort with a single elevated serum ferritin value that may not have reflected systemic iron overload. The authors also acknowledged potential exposure misclassification among matched control individuals because only 2.9% had a serum ferritin value available at baseline. Also, researchers were unable to adjust for inflammation status due to the limited availability of C-reactive protein measurements and the lack of leukocyte count data in primary care settings.

 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support through grants from the German Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created 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.

TOPLINE:

Patients with serum ferritin levels higher than 1000 μg/L show a 91% increased risk for any fracture, with a doubled risk for vertebral and humerus fractures compared with those without iron overload.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Iron overload’s association with decreased bone mineral density is established, but its relationship to osteoporotic fracture risk has remained understudied and inconsistent across fracture sites.
• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study using a UK general practice database to evaluate the fracture risk in 20,264 patients with iron overload and 192,956 matched controls without elevated ferritin (mean age, 57 years; about 40% women).
• Patients with iron overload were identified as those with laboratory-confirmed iron overload (serum ferritin levels > 1000 μg/L; n = 13,510) or a diagnosis of an iron overloading disorder, such as thalassemia major, sickle cell disease, or hemochromatosis (n = 6754).
• The primary outcome of interest was the first occurrence of an osteoporotic fracture after the diagnosis of iron overload or first record of high ferritin.
• A sensitivity analysis was conducted to check the impact of laboratory-confirmed iron overload on the risk for osteoporotic fracture compared with a diagnosis code without elevated ferritin.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the overall cohort, patients with iron overload had a 55% higher risk for any osteoporotic fracture than control individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.42-1.68), with the highest risk observed for vertebral fractures (aHR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.63-2.37) and humerus fractures (aHR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.61-2.26).
• Patients with laboratory-confirmed iron overload showed a 91% increased risk for any fracture (aHR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.73-2.10), with a 2.5-fold higher risk observed for vertebral fractures (aHR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.01-3.12), followed by humerus fractures (aHR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.96-2.95).
• There was no increased risk for fracture at any site in patients with a diagnosis of an iron overloading disorder but no laboratory-confirmed iron overload.
• No sex-specific differences were identified in the association between iron overload and fracture risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“The main clinical message from our findings is that clinicians should consider iron overloading as a risk factor for fracture. Importantly, among high-risk patients presenting with serum ferritin values exceeding 1000 μg/L, osteoporosis screening and treatment strategies should be initiated in accordance with the guidelines for patients with hepatic disease,” the authors wrote.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Andrea Michelle Burden, PhD, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, ETH Zürich in Switzerland, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The study could not assess the duration of iron overload on fracture risk, and thus, patients could enter the cohort with a single elevated serum ferritin value that may not have reflected systemic iron overload. The authors also acknowledged potential exposure misclassification among matched control individuals because only 2.9% had a serum ferritin value available at baseline. Also, researchers were unable to adjust for inflammation status due to the limited availability of C-reactive protein measurements and the lack of leukocyte count data in primary care settings.

 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support through grants from the German Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created 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.

TOPLINE:

Patients with serum ferritin levels higher than 1000 μg/L show a 91% increased risk for any fracture, with a doubled risk for vertebral and humerus fractures compared with those without iron overload.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Iron overload’s association with decreased bone mineral density is established, but its relationship to osteoporotic fracture risk has remained understudied and inconsistent across fracture sites.
• Researchers conducted a population-based cohort study using a UK general practice database to evaluate the fracture risk in 20,264 patients with iron overload and 192,956 matched controls without elevated ferritin (mean age, 57 years; about 40% women).
• Patients with iron overload were identified as those with laboratory-confirmed iron overload (serum ferritin levels > 1000 μg/L; n = 13,510) or a diagnosis of an iron overloading disorder, such as thalassemia major, sickle cell disease, or hemochromatosis (n = 6754).
• The primary outcome of interest was the first occurrence of an osteoporotic fracture after the diagnosis of iron overload or first record of high ferritin.
• A sensitivity analysis was conducted to check the impact of laboratory-confirmed iron overload on the risk for osteoporotic fracture compared with a diagnosis code without elevated ferritin.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the overall cohort, patients with iron overload had a 55% higher risk for any osteoporotic fracture than control individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.42-1.68), with the highest risk observed for vertebral fractures (aHR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.63-2.37) and humerus fractures (aHR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.61-2.26).
• Patients with laboratory-confirmed iron overload showed a 91% increased risk for any fracture (aHR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.73-2.10), with a 2.5-fold higher risk observed for vertebral fractures (aHR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.01-3.12), followed by humerus fractures (aHR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.96-2.95).
• There was no increased risk for fracture at any site in patients with a diagnosis of an iron overloading disorder but no laboratory-confirmed iron overload.
• No sex-specific differences were identified in the association between iron overload and fracture risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“The main clinical message from our findings is that clinicians should consider iron overloading as a risk factor for fracture. Importantly, among high-risk patients presenting with serum ferritin values exceeding 1000 μg/L, osteoporosis screening and treatment strategies should be initiated in accordance with the guidelines for patients with hepatic disease,” the authors wrote.

 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Andrea Michelle Burden, PhD, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, ETH Zürich in Switzerland, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

 

LIMITATIONS:

The study could not assess the duration of iron overload on fracture risk, and thus, patients could enter the cohort with a single elevated serum ferritin value that may not have reflected systemic iron overload. The authors also acknowledged potential exposure misclassification among matched control individuals because only 2.9% had a serum ferritin value available at baseline. Also, researchers were unable to adjust for inflammation status due to the limited availability of C-reactive protein measurements and the lack of leukocyte count data in primary care settings.

 

DISCLOSURES:

This study received support through grants from the German Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created 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.

Most US adults continue to plan on skipping an annual COVID vaccine.

About 6 in 10 people say they probably won’t get an updated shot this year, despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendation that everyone do so, according to results of a new survey from the Pew Research Center.

When asked why people wouldn’t get an updated COVID vaccine, 61% said a major reason was that they don’t think they need it, and 60% said a major reason is that they are concerned about side effects. Cost was a factor for 14% of people, and 46% of people said they don’t get vaccines in general.

There were some differences in intention to get vaccinated based on a person’s age. Among people ages 65 and older, 27% said they had already gotten the vaccine, and another 27% said they probably will get the shot, leaving 45% who said they probably won’t roll up their sleeves. People ages 30-49 years old were the least likely to plan on getting a COVID shot – 66% said they probably won’t get one.

Public health officials say everyone should get an annual COVID vaccine, just as they should get a flu shot, because the vaccines are formulated each year to target virus strains predicted to be in wide circulation. Also, immunity – either from past vaccination or past infection – wanes over time. 

Research shows that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of hospitalization or death caused by severe illness, particularly among people who have risk factors, like being over age 65 or having health issues that are becoming increasingly common in the United States, like diabetes, heart problems, and lung conditions.

The survey included 9,593 adults who were asked about their COVID vaccine intentions with this question: “Public health officials recently recommended an updated vaccine for COVID-19. Do you think you will probably get an updated vaccine, probably not get an updated vaccine, or have you already received an updated vaccine?” The survey was done online and by telephone from October 21 to October 27.

So far in 2024, the CDC’s ongoing immunization survey shows that 17% of adults say that, as of November 2, they have gotten vaccinated for COVID-19 this season, and 14% said they will definitely get vaccinated. The Pew Research Center survey found that 15% of people said they’ve already gotten the shot this season.

Reports of positive COVID tests, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations remain very low. About 3.6% of test results shared with the CDC were positive for COVID the week ending November 9. Less than 1% of ER visits involve a COVID diagnosis, and hospitalizations are well below the rate seen at this time last year. Last year, COVID activity in the United States began rising around Thanksgiving and continued upward, peaking in early January.

The protection from a COVID-19 vaccination usually fully kicks in about 2 weeks after you get the shot, and the vaccines are most effective for the following 3 months.

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

Most US adults continue to plan on skipping an annual COVID vaccine.

About 6 in 10 people say they probably won’t get an updated shot this year, despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendation that everyone do so, according to results of a new survey from the Pew Research Center.

When asked why people wouldn’t get an updated COVID vaccine, 61% said a major reason was that they don’t think they need it, and 60% said a major reason is that they are concerned about side effects. Cost was a factor for 14% of people, and 46% of people said they don’t get vaccines in general.

There were some differences in intention to get vaccinated based on a person’s age. Among people ages 65 and older, 27% said they had already gotten the vaccine, and another 27% said they probably will get the shot, leaving 45% who said they probably won’t roll up their sleeves. People ages 30-49 years old were the least likely to plan on getting a COVID shot – 66% said they probably won’t get one.

Public health officials say everyone should get an annual COVID vaccine, just as they should get a flu shot, because the vaccines are formulated each year to target virus strains predicted to be in wide circulation. Also, immunity – either from past vaccination or past infection – wanes over time. 

Research shows that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of hospitalization or death caused by severe illness, particularly among people who have risk factors, like being over age 65 or having health issues that are becoming increasingly common in the United States, like diabetes, heart problems, and lung conditions.

The survey included 9,593 adults who were asked about their COVID vaccine intentions with this question: “Public health officials recently recommended an updated vaccine for COVID-19. Do you think you will probably get an updated vaccine, probably not get an updated vaccine, or have you already received an updated vaccine?” The survey was done online and by telephone from October 21 to October 27.

So far in 2024, the CDC’s ongoing immunization survey shows that 17% of adults say that, as of November 2, they have gotten vaccinated for COVID-19 this season, and 14% said they will definitely get vaccinated. The Pew Research Center survey found that 15% of people said they’ve already gotten the shot this season.

Reports of positive COVID tests, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations remain very low. About 3.6% of test results shared with the CDC were positive for COVID the week ending November 9. Less than 1% of ER visits involve a COVID diagnosis, and hospitalizations are well below the rate seen at this time last year. Last year, COVID activity in the United States began rising around Thanksgiving and continued upward, peaking in early January.

The protection from a COVID-19 vaccination usually fully kicks in about 2 weeks after you get the shot, and the vaccines are most effective for the following 3 months.

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

Most US adults continue to plan on skipping an annual COVID vaccine.

About 6 in 10 people say they probably won’t get an updated shot this year, despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendation that everyone do so, according to results of a new survey from the Pew Research Center.

When asked why people wouldn’t get an updated COVID vaccine, 61% said a major reason was that they don’t think they need it, and 60% said a major reason is that they are concerned about side effects. Cost was a factor for 14% of people, and 46% of people said they don’t get vaccines in general.

There were some differences in intention to get vaccinated based on a person’s age. Among people ages 65 and older, 27% said they had already gotten the vaccine, and another 27% said they probably will get the shot, leaving 45% who said they probably won’t roll up their sleeves. People ages 30-49 years old were the least likely to plan on getting a COVID shot – 66% said they probably won’t get one.

Public health officials say everyone should get an annual COVID vaccine, just as they should get a flu shot, because the vaccines are formulated each year to target virus strains predicted to be in wide circulation. Also, immunity – either from past vaccination or past infection – wanes over time. 

Research shows that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of hospitalization or death caused by severe illness, particularly among people who have risk factors, like being over age 65 or having health issues that are becoming increasingly common in the United States, like diabetes, heart problems, and lung conditions.

The survey included 9,593 adults who were asked about their COVID vaccine intentions with this question: “Public health officials recently recommended an updated vaccine for COVID-19. Do you think you will probably get an updated vaccine, probably not get an updated vaccine, or have you already received an updated vaccine?” The survey was done online and by telephone from October 21 to October 27.

So far in 2024, the CDC’s ongoing immunization survey shows that 17% of adults say that, as of November 2, they have gotten vaccinated for COVID-19 this season, and 14% said they will definitely get vaccinated. The Pew Research Center survey found that 15% of people said they’ve already gotten the shot this season.

Reports of positive COVID tests, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations remain very low. About 3.6% of test results shared with the CDC were positive for COVID the week ending November 9. Less than 1% of ER visits involve a COVID diagnosis, and hospitalizations are well below the rate seen at this time last year. Last year, COVID activity in the United States began rising around Thanksgiving and continued upward, peaking in early January.

The protection from a COVID-19 vaccination usually fully kicks in about 2 weeks after you get the shot, and the vaccines are most effective for the following 3 months.

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