Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

A new drug that is both the first in its class and the first disease-modifying agent for hemolytic anemia in adults with pyruvate kinase (PK) deficiency has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new drug, mitapivat (Pyrukynd, Agios), was approved on the basis of clinical trials that showed that it significantly improved hemolysis and anemia in patients with PK deficiency.

Clinical data

Clinical data that formed the basis of the approval came from two trials, one of which was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, and the other a single-arm study, the FDA noted. In these studies, patients received up to 50 mg of mitapivat orally twice daily after an initial dose titration period

The randomized trial involved 80 adults with PK deficiency who were not having regular blood transfusions. They were allocated to receive either mitapivat or placebo and were followed for an average of 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the number of patients who achieved a hemoglobin response (defined as a 1.5 g/dL or greater increase in hemoglobin concentration that was sustained at two or more scheduled assessments). At the end of the study, 40% of participants who received mitapivat had a hemoglobin response, compared with no participants who received placebo.

The single-arm study involved 27 adults with PK deficiency who were receiving regular blood transfusions. They took mitapivat for an average of 40 weeks. In this study, the primary endpoint was the reduction in transfusion burden, defined as at least a 33% reduction in the number of red blood cell units transfused during the last 24 weeks of treatment, compared with the historical transfusion burden on the individual participant (standardized to 24 weeks). The results show that 33% of participants who received mitapivat met this reduction in transfusion burden; 22% of participants did not require any transfusions over the last 24 weeks of treatment.

The most common side effects reported were decreases in estrone and estradiol in men, increased urate level, back pain, and joint stiffness. The effects of estrone and estradiol could not be reliably assessed in women because of normal changes in these hormone levels during the menstrual cycle and use of hormonal contraception.

The FDA warns of drug interactions that could necessitate dose adjustments, and also that abruptly stopping mitapivat could worsen premature red blood cell destruction.

The agency noted that this application received orphan drug designation, fast track designation, and priority review.

Agios is offering access programs aimed at reducing or eliminating patient out-of-pocket costs. Further details are on the myAgios patient support services program.

The company also noted that mitapivat is awaiting approval in the European Union. A decision is expected before the end of 2022.

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

A new drug that is both the first in its class and the first disease-modifying agent for hemolytic anemia in adults with pyruvate kinase (PK) deficiency has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new drug, mitapivat (Pyrukynd, Agios), was approved on the basis of clinical trials that showed that it significantly improved hemolysis and anemia in patients with PK deficiency.

Clinical data

Clinical data that formed the basis of the approval came from two trials, one of which was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, and the other a single-arm study, the FDA noted. In these studies, patients received up to 50 mg of mitapivat orally twice daily after an initial dose titration period

The randomized trial involved 80 adults with PK deficiency who were not having regular blood transfusions. They were allocated to receive either mitapivat or placebo and were followed for an average of 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the number of patients who achieved a hemoglobin response (defined as a 1.5 g/dL or greater increase in hemoglobin concentration that was sustained at two or more scheduled assessments). At the end of the study, 40% of participants who received mitapivat had a hemoglobin response, compared with no participants who received placebo.

The single-arm study involved 27 adults with PK deficiency who were receiving regular blood transfusions. They took mitapivat for an average of 40 weeks. In this study, the primary endpoint was the reduction in transfusion burden, defined as at least a 33% reduction in the number of red blood cell units transfused during the last 24 weeks of treatment, compared with the historical transfusion burden on the individual participant (standardized to 24 weeks). The results show that 33% of participants who received mitapivat met this reduction in transfusion burden; 22% of participants did not require any transfusions over the last 24 weeks of treatment.

The most common side effects reported were decreases in estrone and estradiol in men, increased urate level, back pain, and joint stiffness. The effects of estrone and estradiol could not be reliably assessed in women because of normal changes in these hormone levels during the menstrual cycle and use of hormonal contraception.

The FDA warns of drug interactions that could necessitate dose adjustments, and also that abruptly stopping mitapivat could worsen premature red blood cell destruction.

The agency noted that this application received orphan drug designation, fast track designation, and priority review.

Agios is offering access programs aimed at reducing or eliminating patient out-of-pocket costs. Further details are on the myAgios patient support services program.

The company also noted that mitapivat is awaiting approval in the European Union. A decision is expected before the end of 2022.

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

A new drug that is both the first in its class and the first disease-modifying agent for hemolytic anemia in adults with pyruvate kinase (PK) deficiency has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new drug, mitapivat (Pyrukynd, Agios), was approved on the basis of clinical trials that showed that it significantly improved hemolysis and anemia in patients with PK deficiency.

Clinical data

Clinical data that formed the basis of the approval came from two trials, one of which was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, and the other a single-arm study, the FDA noted. In these studies, patients received up to 50 mg of mitapivat orally twice daily after an initial dose titration period

The randomized trial involved 80 adults with PK deficiency who were not having regular blood transfusions. They were allocated to receive either mitapivat or placebo and were followed for an average of 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the number of patients who achieved a hemoglobin response (defined as a 1.5 g/dL or greater increase in hemoglobin concentration that was sustained at two or more scheduled assessments). At the end of the study, 40% of participants who received mitapivat had a hemoglobin response, compared with no participants who received placebo.

The single-arm study involved 27 adults with PK deficiency who were receiving regular blood transfusions. They took mitapivat for an average of 40 weeks. In this study, the primary endpoint was the reduction in transfusion burden, defined as at least a 33% reduction in the number of red blood cell units transfused during the last 24 weeks of treatment, compared with the historical transfusion burden on the individual participant (standardized to 24 weeks). The results show that 33% of participants who received mitapivat met this reduction in transfusion burden; 22% of participants did not require any transfusions over the last 24 weeks of treatment.

The most common side effects reported were decreases in estrone and estradiol in men, increased urate level, back pain, and joint stiffness. The effects of estrone and estradiol could not be reliably assessed in women because of normal changes in these hormone levels during the menstrual cycle and use of hormonal contraception.

The FDA warns of drug interactions that could necessitate dose adjustments, and also that abruptly stopping mitapivat could worsen premature red blood cell destruction.

The agency noted that this application received orphan drug designation, fast track designation, and priority review.

Agios is offering access programs aimed at reducing or eliminating patient out-of-pocket costs. Further details are on the myAgios patient support services program.

The company also noted that mitapivat is awaiting approval in the European Union. A decision is expected before the end of 2022.

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

Use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOACs) appears to be just as effective as warfarin in preventing future thrombotic events in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) stroke and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.

The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.

“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.

But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.

Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.

Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.

She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.

A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.

A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.

As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.

The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.

The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.

The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.

The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.

The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.

Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.

Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.

When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).

But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).

When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
 

Similar efficacy, better safety

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”

Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”

“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”

In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”

They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”

They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”

The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.

The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.

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

Use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOACs) appears to be just as effective as warfarin in preventing future thrombotic events in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) stroke and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.

The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.

“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.

But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.

Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.

Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.

She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.

A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.

A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.

As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.

The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.

The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.

The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.

The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.

The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.

Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.

Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.

When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).

But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).

When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
 

Similar efficacy, better safety

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”

Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”

“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”

In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”

They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”

They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”

The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.

The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.

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

Use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOACs) appears to be just as effective as warfarin in preventing future thrombotic events in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) stroke and are less likely to result in major bleeding, a retrospective study suggests.

The ACTION CVT study was presented at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2022 by Ekaterina Bakradze, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

It was also simultaneously published online in Stroke.

“This real-world data supports use of direct oral anticoagulant drugs as a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis,” Dr. Bakradze concluded.

But she added that because this study was based on retrospective observational data, the findings should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation by larger prospective studies.

Two such studies are now underway: the Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (DOAC-CVT) study and the randomized Study of Rivaroxaban for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (SECRET) trial.

Dr. Bakradze explained that cerebral venous thrombosis is a less common cause of stroke and occurs more often in women and younger patients, with a median age of 37 years. Current recommended treatment consists of heparin followed by oral anticoagulation.

She noted that although randomized trials and current guidelines indicate that DOACs are a preferred alternative to warfarin for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism, there are limited data on their use in patients with CVT.

A small, randomized trial (RESPECT-CVT) showed no significant difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and warfarin in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis, but with only 120 patients, this trial was too small for definite answers to this question.

A better understanding of this issue is important, because the mechanisms underlying cerebral venous thrombosis and other thromboembolism and their subsequent risks may differ, Dr. Bakradze said.

As randomized trials in patients with cerebral venous thrombosis are difficult to perform because the condition has a low incidence and low event rates, the researchers decided to look at this question with a large retrospective multicenter study.

The ACTION-CVT study involved 845 consecutive patients with cerebral venous thrombosis over 6 years (from January 2015 and December 2020) from 27 centers in Italy, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. Patients were identified from medical records with diagnostic codes and confirmed with imaging.

The primary predictor in the study was oral anticoagulant type (DOAC vs. warfarin). Study outcomes were abstracted by individual sites through review of all available medical records.

The primary outcome was recurrent venous thrombosis (venous thromboembolism or cerebral venous thrombosis) during follow-up. Imaging outcomes based on recanalization status on last venous imaging study abstracted from radiology reports were also reported.

The safety outcome was major hemorrhage, defined as new or worsening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), or major extracranial hemorrhage. Results were adjusted for age, sex, and relevant medical conditions.

The mean age of the patients included was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women, 33% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times.

Results showed that during a median follow-up of 345 days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis events, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years.

Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization.

When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk for recurrent venous thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.73; P = .84), death (aHR, 0.71, 95% CI, 0.24-2.08; P = .53), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aHR, 0.92, 95% CI, 0.48-1.73; P = .79).

But patients who received a DOAC had a significantly lower rate of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.81; P = .02).

When examined separately, the occurrence of ICH per 100 patient-years was much lower among the patients prescribed DOACs than those who were prescribed warfarin (1.52 vs. 3.51), whereas the occurrence of major bleeding outside the brain was similar (0.91 vs. 1.15).
 

Similar efficacy, better safety

Commenting on the study at an ISC press conference, Mitchell Elkind, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, said: “The community has been concerned about extending the use of these new direct-acting oral anticoagulant drugs to cerebral venous thrombosis, but this study suggests that these patients may benefit from these new agents too.”

Tudor Jovin, MD, chair of neurology at Cooper University Hospital, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, also commented: “This study confirms what we already know from other indications about these DOAC drugs: that they have similar efficacy to warfarin but a better safety profile. These results are really spot on with that. These drugs are also much easier and more convenient to use than warfarin.”

“This is a great step forward,” he added. “Only 30% of patients in this study received DOACs, reflecting the fact that clinicians may be a little reluctant to use them in this condition. But this study now has the potential to change practice.”

In an editorial accompanying the publication in Stroke, Johnathon Gorman, MD, and Thalia Field, MD, from the Vancouver Stroke Program at the University of British Columbia, say that despite its methodological limitations, the ACTION-CVT study “provides added value to the current state of knowledge by virtue of its size and ‘real world’ setting that is reflective of how DOACs are being used to manage CVT in current clinical practice.”

They point out that although baseline characteristics between the DOAC and warfarin groups were similar, the possibility of confounding cannot be excluded, and “other characteristics not easily captured in a retrospective study may sway anticoagulation strategy.”

They acknowledge, however, that an additional propensity score analysis “provides reassurance that the groups are reasonably balanced, adjusting for variables associated with recurrent cerebral venous thrombosis, recanalization, and hemorrhage.”

The editorialists conclude that ACTION-CVT gives additional reassurance for DOACs as an alternative approach to warfarin as a treatment for cerebral venous thrombosis and for the shifts in clinical practice that are already occurring at many centers.

The study was partially supported by the Italian Ministry of Health Ricerca Corrente–IRCCS MultiMedica. Dr. Bakradze reports no disclosures. Dr. Field is the principal investigator of the SECRET trial, which received in-kind study medication from Bayer Canada. She reports honoraria from HLS Therapeutics outside the submitted work and is on the board of Destine Health. The other editorialist reports no conflicts.

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

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

Early initiation of the antiviral oseltamivir (Tamiflu) reduces the risk for death in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) but patients have to be tested for influenza first and that is not happening often enough, a large observational cohort of adult patients indicates.

“Early testing allows for early treatment, and we found that early treatment was associated with reduced mortality so testing patients during the flu season is crucial,” senior author Michael Rothberg, MD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview.

“Even during the flu season, most patients with CAP in our study went untested for influenza [even though] those who received early oseltamivir exhibited lower 14-day in-hospital case fatality ... suggesting more widespread testing might improve patient outcomes,” the authors added.

The study was published online Feb. 5, 2022, in the journal CHEST.
 

Premier database

Data from the Premier Database – a hospital discharge database with information from over 600 hospitals in the United States – were analyzed between July 2010 and June 2015. Microbiological laboratory data was provided by 179 hospitals. “For each year, we evaluated the total percentage of patients tested for influenza A/B within 3 days of hospitalization,” lead author Abhishek Deshpande, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues explained.

A total of 166,268 patients with CAP were included in the study, among which only about one-quarter were tested for influenza. Some 11.5% tested positive for the flu, the authors noted. Testing did increase from 15.4% in 2010 to 35.6% in 2015 and it was higher at close to 29% during the influenza season, compared with only about 8% during the summer months.

Patients who were tested for influenza were younger at age 66.6 years, compared with untested patients, who were 70 years of age (P < .001). Tested patients were also less likely to have been admitted from a nursing facility (P < .001), were less likely to have been hospitalized in the preceding 6 months (P < .001) and have fewer comorbidities than those who were not tested (P < .001).

“Both groups had similar illness severities on admission,” the authors observed, “but patients who were tested were less likely to die in the hospital within 14 days,” the authors reported – at 6.7% versus 10.9% for untested patients (P < .001).

More than 80% of patients who tested positive for influenza received an antibacterial on day 1 of their admission, compared with virtually all those who were either not tested or who tested negative, the investigators added (P < .001). The mean duration of antibacterial therapy among patients with a bacterial coinfection was not influenced by influenza test results.

However, among those who tested positive for influenza, almost 60% received oseltamivir on day 1 whereas roughly 30% received treatment on day 2 or later. In fact, almost all patients who received early oseltamivir were tested for influenza on day 1, the investigators pointed out. Patients who received early oseltamivir had a 25% lower risk of death within the first 14 days in hospital at an adjusted odds ratio of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.96).

Early initiation of the antiviral also reduced the risk of requiring subsequent ICU care by 36% at an aOR of 0.64; invasive mechanical ventilation by 46% at an aOR of 0.54, and the need for vasopressor therapy by 47% at an aOR of 0.53. All results were within the 95% confidence levels.

Early use of antiviral therapy also reduced both the length of hospital stay and the cost of that stay by 12%.
 

ATS-IDSA guidelines

As Dr. Deshpande noted, the American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend testing and empiric treatment of influenza in patients hospitalized with CAP. “Testing more inpatients especially during the flu season can reduce other diagnostic testing and improve antimicrobial stewardship,” Deshpande noted.

Thus, while the rate of testing for influenza did increase over the 5-year study interval, “there is substantial room for improvement,” he added, as a positive test clearly does trigger the need for intervention. As Dr. Deshpande also noted, the past two influenza seasons have been mild, but influenza activity has again picked up lately again in many parts of the United States.

With the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelming influenza over the past few years, “differentiating between the two based on symptoms alone can be challenging,” he acknowledged, “and clinicians will need to test and treat accordingly.” This is particularly important given that this study clearly indicates that early treatment with an antiviral can lower the risk of short-term mortality in hospitalized CAP patients.

One limitation of the study was the lack of data on time of symptom onset, which may be an important confounder of the effect of oseltamivir on outcomes, the authors point out. Asked to comment on the findings, Barbara Jones, MD, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, noted that timely antivirals for patients with influenza are highly effective at mitigating severe disease and are thus strongly recommended by practice guidelines.

“However, it is hard for clinicians to keep influenza on the radar and change testing and treatment approaches according to the season and prevalence [of influenza infections],” she said in an interview. “This is an important study that highlights this challenge.

“We need a better understanding of the solutions that have been effective at improving influenza recognition and treatment, possibly by studying facilities that perform well at this process,” she said.

Dr. Deshpande reported receiving research funding to his institution from the Clorox Company and consultant fees from Merck.

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

Early initiation of the antiviral oseltamivir (Tamiflu) reduces the risk for death in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) but patients have to be tested for influenza first and that is not happening often enough, a large observational cohort of adult patients indicates.

“Early testing allows for early treatment, and we found that early treatment was associated with reduced mortality so testing patients during the flu season is crucial,” senior author Michael Rothberg, MD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview.

“Even during the flu season, most patients with CAP in our study went untested for influenza [even though] those who received early oseltamivir exhibited lower 14-day in-hospital case fatality ... suggesting more widespread testing might improve patient outcomes,” the authors added.

The study was published online Feb. 5, 2022, in the journal CHEST.
 

Premier database

Data from the Premier Database – a hospital discharge database with information from over 600 hospitals in the United States – were analyzed between July 2010 and June 2015. Microbiological laboratory data was provided by 179 hospitals. “For each year, we evaluated the total percentage of patients tested for influenza A/B within 3 days of hospitalization,” lead author Abhishek Deshpande, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues explained.

A total of 166,268 patients with CAP were included in the study, among which only about one-quarter were tested for influenza. Some 11.5% tested positive for the flu, the authors noted. Testing did increase from 15.4% in 2010 to 35.6% in 2015 and it was higher at close to 29% during the influenza season, compared with only about 8% during the summer months.

Patients who were tested for influenza were younger at age 66.6 years, compared with untested patients, who were 70 years of age (P < .001). Tested patients were also less likely to have been admitted from a nursing facility (P < .001), were less likely to have been hospitalized in the preceding 6 months (P < .001) and have fewer comorbidities than those who were not tested (P < .001).

“Both groups had similar illness severities on admission,” the authors observed, “but patients who were tested were less likely to die in the hospital within 14 days,” the authors reported – at 6.7% versus 10.9% for untested patients (P < .001).

More than 80% of patients who tested positive for influenza received an antibacterial on day 1 of their admission, compared with virtually all those who were either not tested or who tested negative, the investigators added (P < .001). The mean duration of antibacterial therapy among patients with a bacterial coinfection was not influenced by influenza test results.

However, among those who tested positive for influenza, almost 60% received oseltamivir on day 1 whereas roughly 30% received treatment on day 2 or later. In fact, almost all patients who received early oseltamivir were tested for influenza on day 1, the investigators pointed out. Patients who received early oseltamivir had a 25% lower risk of death within the first 14 days in hospital at an adjusted odds ratio of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.96).

Early initiation of the antiviral also reduced the risk of requiring subsequent ICU care by 36% at an aOR of 0.64; invasive mechanical ventilation by 46% at an aOR of 0.54, and the need for vasopressor therapy by 47% at an aOR of 0.53. All results were within the 95% confidence levels.

Early use of antiviral therapy also reduced both the length of hospital stay and the cost of that stay by 12%.
 

ATS-IDSA guidelines

As Dr. Deshpande noted, the American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend testing and empiric treatment of influenza in patients hospitalized with CAP. “Testing more inpatients especially during the flu season can reduce other diagnostic testing and improve antimicrobial stewardship,” Deshpande noted.

Thus, while the rate of testing for influenza did increase over the 5-year study interval, “there is substantial room for improvement,” he added, as a positive test clearly does trigger the need for intervention. As Dr. Deshpande also noted, the past two influenza seasons have been mild, but influenza activity has again picked up lately again in many parts of the United States.

With the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelming influenza over the past few years, “differentiating between the two based on symptoms alone can be challenging,” he acknowledged, “and clinicians will need to test and treat accordingly.” This is particularly important given that this study clearly indicates that early treatment with an antiviral can lower the risk of short-term mortality in hospitalized CAP patients.

One limitation of the study was the lack of data on time of symptom onset, which may be an important confounder of the effect of oseltamivir on outcomes, the authors point out. Asked to comment on the findings, Barbara Jones, MD, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, noted that timely antivirals for patients with influenza are highly effective at mitigating severe disease and are thus strongly recommended by practice guidelines.

“However, it is hard for clinicians to keep influenza on the radar and change testing and treatment approaches according to the season and prevalence [of influenza infections],” she said in an interview. “This is an important study that highlights this challenge.

“We need a better understanding of the solutions that have been effective at improving influenza recognition and treatment, possibly by studying facilities that perform well at this process,” she said.

Dr. Deshpande reported receiving research funding to his institution from the Clorox Company and consultant fees from Merck.

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

Early initiation of the antiviral oseltamivir (Tamiflu) reduces the risk for death in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) but patients have to be tested for influenza first and that is not happening often enough, a large observational cohort of adult patients indicates.

“Early testing allows for early treatment, and we found that early treatment was associated with reduced mortality so testing patients during the flu season is crucial,” senior author Michael Rothberg, MD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic said in an interview.

“Even during the flu season, most patients with CAP in our study went untested for influenza [even though] those who received early oseltamivir exhibited lower 14-day in-hospital case fatality ... suggesting more widespread testing might improve patient outcomes,” the authors added.

The study was published online Feb. 5, 2022, in the journal CHEST.
 

Premier database

Data from the Premier Database – a hospital discharge database with information from over 600 hospitals in the United States – were analyzed between July 2010 and June 2015. Microbiological laboratory data was provided by 179 hospitals. “For each year, we evaluated the total percentage of patients tested for influenza A/B within 3 days of hospitalization,” lead author Abhishek Deshpande, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues explained.

A total of 166,268 patients with CAP were included in the study, among which only about one-quarter were tested for influenza. Some 11.5% tested positive for the flu, the authors noted. Testing did increase from 15.4% in 2010 to 35.6% in 2015 and it was higher at close to 29% during the influenza season, compared with only about 8% during the summer months.

Patients who were tested for influenza were younger at age 66.6 years, compared with untested patients, who were 70 years of age (P < .001). Tested patients were also less likely to have been admitted from a nursing facility (P < .001), were less likely to have been hospitalized in the preceding 6 months (P < .001) and have fewer comorbidities than those who were not tested (P < .001).

“Both groups had similar illness severities on admission,” the authors observed, “but patients who were tested were less likely to die in the hospital within 14 days,” the authors reported – at 6.7% versus 10.9% for untested patients (P < .001).

More than 80% of patients who tested positive for influenza received an antibacterial on day 1 of their admission, compared with virtually all those who were either not tested or who tested negative, the investigators added (P < .001). The mean duration of antibacterial therapy among patients with a bacterial coinfection was not influenced by influenza test results.

However, among those who tested positive for influenza, almost 60% received oseltamivir on day 1 whereas roughly 30% received treatment on day 2 or later. In fact, almost all patients who received early oseltamivir were tested for influenza on day 1, the investigators pointed out. Patients who received early oseltamivir had a 25% lower risk of death within the first 14 days in hospital at an adjusted odds ratio of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.96).

Early initiation of the antiviral also reduced the risk of requiring subsequent ICU care by 36% at an aOR of 0.64; invasive mechanical ventilation by 46% at an aOR of 0.54, and the need for vasopressor therapy by 47% at an aOR of 0.53. All results were within the 95% confidence levels.

Early use of antiviral therapy also reduced both the length of hospital stay and the cost of that stay by 12%.
 

ATS-IDSA guidelines

As Dr. Deshpande noted, the American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines recommend testing and empiric treatment of influenza in patients hospitalized with CAP. “Testing more inpatients especially during the flu season can reduce other diagnostic testing and improve antimicrobial stewardship,” Deshpande noted.

Thus, while the rate of testing for influenza did increase over the 5-year study interval, “there is substantial room for improvement,” he added, as a positive test clearly does trigger the need for intervention. As Dr. Deshpande also noted, the past two influenza seasons have been mild, but influenza activity has again picked up lately again in many parts of the United States.

With the COVID-19 pandemic overwhelming influenza over the past few years, “differentiating between the two based on symptoms alone can be challenging,” he acknowledged, “and clinicians will need to test and treat accordingly.” This is particularly important given that this study clearly indicates that early treatment with an antiviral can lower the risk of short-term mortality in hospitalized CAP patients.

One limitation of the study was the lack of data on time of symptom onset, which may be an important confounder of the effect of oseltamivir on outcomes, the authors point out. Asked to comment on the findings, Barbara Jones, MD, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, noted that timely antivirals for patients with influenza are highly effective at mitigating severe disease and are thus strongly recommended by practice guidelines.

“However, it is hard for clinicians to keep influenza on the radar and change testing and treatment approaches according to the season and prevalence [of influenza infections],” she said in an interview. “This is an important study that highlights this challenge.

“We need a better understanding of the solutions that have been effective at improving influenza recognition and treatment, possibly by studying facilities that perform well at this process,” she said.

Dr. Deshpande reported receiving research funding to his institution from the Clorox Company and consultant fees from Merck.

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

About 73% of Americans are now immune to the Omicron variant, which could increase to 80% by mid-March, a university health institute says.

About half of eligible Americans have received booster shots, and about 80 million confirmed COVID-19 infections have been reported. Many more infections have occurred but haven’t been officially recorded, The Associated Press reported.

The high percentage of immunity from vaccination and previous infection tends to prevent or shorten new illnesses and reduce the amount of virus circulating overall. Health experts are now discussing whether the number is high enough to stop new waves or reduce the burden on hospitals.

“I am optimistic even if we have a surge in summer, cases will go up, but hospitalizations and deaths will not,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, told the AP.

Dr. Mokdad works on COVID-19 forecasting for the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which has been a reliable model during the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad calculated the 73% number for the AP.

“We have changed,” he said. “We have been exposed to this virus and we know how to deal with it.”

The United States is now reporting about 125,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, marking a 68% decrease from the past 2 weeks. Hospitalizations are also down 39%, and about 2,300 new deaths are being reported daily, marking a 13% decline.

There will be more outbreaks as new variants emerge, immunity wanes, and some people remain unvaccinated, Dr. Mokdad said. But the coronavirus is no longer new, and the entire population is no longer “immunologically naive.” Scientists are now trying to understand how long booster protection will last against Omicron and how many people have been infected who had mild or no symptoms that were never reported.

By the end of the Omicron surge, about three out of four people in the United States will have been infected, Shaun Truelove, PhD, an epidemiologist and disease modeler at Johns Hopkins University, told the AP.

“We know it’s a huge proportion of the population,” he said. “This varies a lot by location, and in some areas, we expect the number infected to be closer to one in two.”

That means different regions and groups of people have different levels of protection and risk. In Virginia, for instance, disease modelers estimate that about 45% of residents have the highest level of immunity by being vaccinated and boosted or vaccinated with a recent Omicron infection. Another 47% have immunity that has waned somewhat.

“That’s going to be a nice shield of armor for our population as a whole,” Bryan Lewis, PhD, an epidemiologist who leads the University of Virginia’s COVID-19 modeling team, told the outlet. “If we do get to very low case rates, we certainly can ease back on some of these restrictions.”

About 7% of Virginians are considered the most vulnerable because they were never vaccinated or infected, he noted. Nationwide, about 80 million Americans are still vulnerable, the AP reported.

“The 26% who could still get Omicron right now have to be very careful,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The percentages will continue to change as immunity wanes and new variants circulate in the country. For now, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model estimates that about 63% to 81% of Americans are protected.

“We’ve reached a much better position for the coming months, but with waning immunity, we shouldn’t take it for granted,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

About 73% of Americans are now immune to the Omicron variant, which could increase to 80% by mid-March, a university health institute says.

About half of eligible Americans have received booster shots, and about 80 million confirmed COVID-19 infections have been reported. Many more infections have occurred but haven’t been officially recorded, The Associated Press reported.

The high percentage of immunity from vaccination and previous infection tends to prevent or shorten new illnesses and reduce the amount of virus circulating overall. Health experts are now discussing whether the number is high enough to stop new waves or reduce the burden on hospitals.

“I am optimistic even if we have a surge in summer, cases will go up, but hospitalizations and deaths will not,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, told the AP.

Dr. Mokdad works on COVID-19 forecasting for the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which has been a reliable model during the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad calculated the 73% number for the AP.

“We have changed,” he said. “We have been exposed to this virus and we know how to deal with it.”

The United States is now reporting about 125,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, marking a 68% decrease from the past 2 weeks. Hospitalizations are also down 39%, and about 2,300 new deaths are being reported daily, marking a 13% decline.

There will be more outbreaks as new variants emerge, immunity wanes, and some people remain unvaccinated, Dr. Mokdad said. But the coronavirus is no longer new, and the entire population is no longer “immunologically naive.” Scientists are now trying to understand how long booster protection will last against Omicron and how many people have been infected who had mild or no symptoms that were never reported.

By the end of the Omicron surge, about three out of four people in the United States will have been infected, Shaun Truelove, PhD, an epidemiologist and disease modeler at Johns Hopkins University, told the AP.

“We know it’s a huge proportion of the population,” he said. “This varies a lot by location, and in some areas, we expect the number infected to be closer to one in two.”

That means different regions and groups of people have different levels of protection and risk. In Virginia, for instance, disease modelers estimate that about 45% of residents have the highest level of immunity by being vaccinated and boosted or vaccinated with a recent Omicron infection. Another 47% have immunity that has waned somewhat.

“That’s going to be a nice shield of armor for our population as a whole,” Bryan Lewis, PhD, an epidemiologist who leads the University of Virginia’s COVID-19 modeling team, told the outlet. “If we do get to very low case rates, we certainly can ease back on some of these restrictions.”

About 7% of Virginians are considered the most vulnerable because they were never vaccinated or infected, he noted. Nationwide, about 80 million Americans are still vulnerable, the AP reported.

“The 26% who could still get Omicron right now have to be very careful,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The percentages will continue to change as immunity wanes and new variants circulate in the country. For now, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model estimates that about 63% to 81% of Americans are protected.

“We’ve reached a much better position for the coming months, but with waning immunity, we shouldn’t take it for granted,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

About 73% of Americans are now immune to the Omicron variant, which could increase to 80% by mid-March, a university health institute says.

About half of eligible Americans have received booster shots, and about 80 million confirmed COVID-19 infections have been reported. Many more infections have occurred but haven’t been officially recorded, The Associated Press reported.

The high percentage of immunity from vaccination and previous infection tends to prevent or shorten new illnesses and reduce the amount of virus circulating overall. Health experts are now discussing whether the number is high enough to stop new waves or reduce the burden on hospitals.

“I am optimistic even if we have a surge in summer, cases will go up, but hospitalizations and deaths will not,” Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, told the AP.

Dr. Mokdad works on COVID-19 forecasting for the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which has been a reliable model during the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad calculated the 73% number for the AP.

“We have changed,” he said. “We have been exposed to this virus and we know how to deal with it.”

The United States is now reporting about 125,000 new cases per day, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, marking a 68% decrease from the past 2 weeks. Hospitalizations are also down 39%, and about 2,300 new deaths are being reported daily, marking a 13% decline.

There will be more outbreaks as new variants emerge, immunity wanes, and some people remain unvaccinated, Dr. Mokdad said. But the coronavirus is no longer new, and the entire population is no longer “immunologically naive.” Scientists are now trying to understand how long booster protection will last against Omicron and how many people have been infected who had mild or no symptoms that were never reported.

By the end of the Omicron surge, about three out of four people in the United States will have been infected, Shaun Truelove, PhD, an epidemiologist and disease modeler at Johns Hopkins University, told the AP.

“We know it’s a huge proportion of the population,” he said. “This varies a lot by location, and in some areas, we expect the number infected to be closer to one in two.”

That means different regions and groups of people have different levels of protection and risk. In Virginia, for instance, disease modelers estimate that about 45% of residents have the highest level of immunity by being vaccinated and boosted or vaccinated with a recent Omicron infection. Another 47% have immunity that has waned somewhat.

“That’s going to be a nice shield of armor for our population as a whole,” Bryan Lewis, PhD, an epidemiologist who leads the University of Virginia’s COVID-19 modeling team, told the outlet. “If we do get to very low case rates, we certainly can ease back on some of these restrictions.”

About 7% of Virginians are considered the most vulnerable because they were never vaccinated or infected, he noted. Nationwide, about 80 million Americans are still vulnerable, the AP reported.

“The 26% who could still get Omicron right now have to be very careful,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The percentages will continue to change as immunity wanes and new variants circulate in the country. For now, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model estimates that about 63% to 81% of Americans are protected.

“We’ve reached a much better position for the coming months, but with waning immunity, we shouldn’t take it for granted,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

A number of clinical trials in breast cancer have opened in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from being enrolled.

• Menopausal women at moderate risk of developing breast cancer. A phase 2 study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute is seeking women aged 45-60 in late menopause or post menopause who are at “moderate” risk of developing breast cancer. Examples of criteria for moderate risk include prior proliferative disease on breast biopsy or having a first- or second-degree relative who developed breast cancer at aged 60 or younger. Researchers are looking for a signal that bazedoxifene plus conjugated estrogens (Duavee), a hot-flash therapy, could prevent breast cancer in at-risk people. Participants in the active-therapy group will receive once-daily oral medication for 6 months. The control patients will have the option of taking the medication after 6 months. The trial aims to enroll 120 participants. It began recruiting on Dec. 2, 2021, at the University of Kansas Medical Center; sites in California, Illinois, and Massachusetts are planned. The primary outcome is the change in fibroglandular volume. Overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QOL) will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

• Early high-risk nonmetastatic HER2+ breast cancer with no prior treatment. Adults with this type of breast cancer are invited to join a phase 3 trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; Enhertu) as neoadjuvant therapy. T-DXd is currently approved for patients with advanced disease, so this study could lead to a new indication. Participants will receive standard intravenous regimens of either T-DXd monotherapy; T-DXd followed by paclitaxel (Taxol), trastuzumab (Herceptin), and pertuzumab (Perjeta), referred to as the THP regime; or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by THP. The primary outcome is rate of pathologic complete response, and a secondary outcome is OS over approximately 5 years. QOL won’t be measured. The study opened on Oct. 25, 2021, and eventually hopes to recruit 624 participants in 19 countries and 15 U.S. states. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

“[This is an] important early trial to move trastuzumab deruxtecan to early disease. If successful as monotherapy, this would be a big win for patients,” commented Kathy Miller, MD, professor of oncology and medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, a contributor to this news organization. She cautioned that monitoring rates of pneumonitis will be important in this curable setting.

• Locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2+ breast cancer with no prior tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy. Adult patients with these clinical features are eligible for a phase 3 study that is also testing a drug in an earlier setting than its current label – tucatinib (Tukysa) as first-line anti-HER2 therapy in advanced disease. Tucatinib was approved in April 2020 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as second-line therapy in such patients, so this study could also lead to a new indication. Participants in the experimental arm will receive tucatinib tablets twice daily and a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab intravenously or subcutaneously every 3 weeks for up to approximately 3 years. Patients in the control arm will take a placebo instead of tucatinib. Seven sites across Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and South Carolina aim to start recruiting 650 participants on Feb. 28, 2022. The primary outcome is progression-free survival (PFS). OS and QoL will be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

“Tucatinib has real activity,” commented Dr. Miller, adding that “we haven’t [yet] found the best way to exploit that activity for our patients.”

• Inoperable or metastatic HR+ HER2– breast cancer after one or two lines of systemic chemotherapy. Adults with this type of breast cancer are being recruited for a phase 3 study to compare datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd), an experimental antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), against a range of standard single-agent chemotherapies. Participants will receive either intravenous Dato-DXd or investigator’s choice of one of four chemotherapies: oral capecitabine (Xeloda), IV gemcitabine (Gemzar), IV eribulin (Halaven), or IV vinorelbine (Navelbine). The trial began recruiting for 700 participants at sites worldwide on Oct. 18, 2021. U.S. sites are in Michigan and California; trial centers in 15 other states are planned. Primary outcomes are OS over approximately 3.5 years and PFS over approximately 2 years. QOL is tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Commenting on this trial, Dr. Miller said: “ADCs will play an expanded role in our management. This may be one of the first to move into the ER+ population.”

• Advanced ER+, HER2– breast cancer. Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a phase 3 trial testing oral imlunestrant, an experimental selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy. For up to 3 years, people in the study will take either daily tablets of imlunestrant or once-daily pills of imlunestrant and another SERD, abemaciclib (Verzenio). A third group of participants will receive their investigator’s choice of either daily tablets of exemestane (Aromasin) or monthly intramuscular injections of fulvestrant (Faslodex). The study opened to 800 participants on Oct. 4, 2021, at sites in 11 U.S. states and worldwide. The primary outcome is PFS over approximately 3 years; 5-year OS is a secondary outcome. QOL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Dr. Miller predicted that “oral SERDs will replace fulvestrant in the future: We already have positive phase 3 data with elacestrant.”

Dr. Miller has a regular column with this news organization, Miller on Oncology. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A number of clinical trials in breast cancer have opened in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from being enrolled.

• Menopausal women at moderate risk of developing breast cancer. A phase 2 study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute is seeking women aged 45-60 in late menopause or post menopause who are at “moderate” risk of developing breast cancer. Examples of criteria for moderate risk include prior proliferative disease on breast biopsy or having a first- or second-degree relative who developed breast cancer at aged 60 or younger. Researchers are looking for a signal that bazedoxifene plus conjugated estrogens (Duavee), a hot-flash therapy, could prevent breast cancer in at-risk people. Participants in the active-therapy group will receive once-daily oral medication for 6 months. The control patients will have the option of taking the medication after 6 months. The trial aims to enroll 120 participants. It began recruiting on Dec. 2, 2021, at the University of Kansas Medical Center; sites in California, Illinois, and Massachusetts are planned. The primary outcome is the change in fibroglandular volume. Overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QOL) will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

• Early high-risk nonmetastatic HER2+ breast cancer with no prior treatment. Adults with this type of breast cancer are invited to join a phase 3 trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; Enhertu) as neoadjuvant therapy. T-DXd is currently approved for patients with advanced disease, so this study could lead to a new indication. Participants will receive standard intravenous regimens of either T-DXd monotherapy; T-DXd followed by paclitaxel (Taxol), trastuzumab (Herceptin), and pertuzumab (Perjeta), referred to as the THP regime; or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by THP. The primary outcome is rate of pathologic complete response, and a secondary outcome is OS over approximately 5 years. QOL won’t be measured. The study opened on Oct. 25, 2021, and eventually hopes to recruit 624 participants in 19 countries and 15 U.S. states. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

“[This is an] important early trial to move trastuzumab deruxtecan to early disease. If successful as monotherapy, this would be a big win for patients,” commented Kathy Miller, MD, professor of oncology and medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, a contributor to this news organization. She cautioned that monitoring rates of pneumonitis will be important in this curable setting.

• Locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2+ breast cancer with no prior tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy. Adult patients with these clinical features are eligible for a phase 3 study that is also testing a drug in an earlier setting than its current label – tucatinib (Tukysa) as first-line anti-HER2 therapy in advanced disease. Tucatinib was approved in April 2020 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as second-line therapy in such patients, so this study could also lead to a new indication. Participants in the experimental arm will receive tucatinib tablets twice daily and a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab intravenously or subcutaneously every 3 weeks for up to approximately 3 years. Patients in the control arm will take a placebo instead of tucatinib. Seven sites across Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and South Carolina aim to start recruiting 650 participants on Feb. 28, 2022. The primary outcome is progression-free survival (PFS). OS and QoL will be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

“Tucatinib has real activity,” commented Dr. Miller, adding that “we haven’t [yet] found the best way to exploit that activity for our patients.”

• Inoperable or metastatic HR+ HER2– breast cancer after one or two lines of systemic chemotherapy. Adults with this type of breast cancer are being recruited for a phase 3 study to compare datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd), an experimental antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), against a range of standard single-agent chemotherapies. Participants will receive either intravenous Dato-DXd or investigator’s choice of one of four chemotherapies: oral capecitabine (Xeloda), IV gemcitabine (Gemzar), IV eribulin (Halaven), or IV vinorelbine (Navelbine). The trial began recruiting for 700 participants at sites worldwide on Oct. 18, 2021. U.S. sites are in Michigan and California; trial centers in 15 other states are planned. Primary outcomes are OS over approximately 3.5 years and PFS over approximately 2 years. QOL is tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Commenting on this trial, Dr. Miller said: “ADCs will play an expanded role in our management. This may be one of the first to move into the ER+ population.”

• Advanced ER+, HER2– breast cancer. Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a phase 3 trial testing oral imlunestrant, an experimental selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy. For up to 3 years, people in the study will take either daily tablets of imlunestrant or once-daily pills of imlunestrant and another SERD, abemaciclib (Verzenio). A third group of participants will receive their investigator’s choice of either daily tablets of exemestane (Aromasin) or monthly intramuscular injections of fulvestrant (Faslodex). The study opened to 800 participants on Oct. 4, 2021, at sites in 11 U.S. states and worldwide. The primary outcome is PFS over approximately 3 years; 5-year OS is a secondary outcome. QOL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Dr. Miller predicted that “oral SERDs will replace fulvestrant in the future: We already have positive phase 3 data with elacestrant.”

Dr. Miller has a regular column with this news organization, Miller on Oncology. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A number of clinical trials in breast cancer have opened in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from being enrolled.

• Menopausal women at moderate risk of developing breast cancer. A phase 2 study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute is seeking women aged 45-60 in late menopause or post menopause who are at “moderate” risk of developing breast cancer. Examples of criteria for moderate risk include prior proliferative disease on breast biopsy or having a first- or second-degree relative who developed breast cancer at aged 60 or younger. Researchers are looking for a signal that bazedoxifene plus conjugated estrogens (Duavee), a hot-flash therapy, could prevent breast cancer in at-risk people. Participants in the active-therapy group will receive once-daily oral medication for 6 months. The control patients will have the option of taking the medication after 6 months. The trial aims to enroll 120 participants. It began recruiting on Dec. 2, 2021, at the University of Kansas Medical Center; sites in California, Illinois, and Massachusetts are planned. The primary outcome is the change in fibroglandular volume. Overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QOL) will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

• Early high-risk nonmetastatic HER2+ breast cancer with no prior treatment. Adults with this type of breast cancer are invited to join a phase 3 trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; Enhertu) as neoadjuvant therapy. T-DXd is currently approved for patients with advanced disease, so this study could lead to a new indication. Participants will receive standard intravenous regimens of either T-DXd monotherapy; T-DXd followed by paclitaxel (Taxol), trastuzumab (Herceptin), and pertuzumab (Perjeta), referred to as the THP regime; or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by THP. The primary outcome is rate of pathologic complete response, and a secondary outcome is OS over approximately 5 years. QOL won’t be measured. The study opened on Oct. 25, 2021, and eventually hopes to recruit 624 participants in 19 countries and 15 U.S. states. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

“[This is an] important early trial to move trastuzumab deruxtecan to early disease. If successful as monotherapy, this would be a big win for patients,” commented Kathy Miller, MD, professor of oncology and medicine at Indiana University, Indianapolis, a contributor to this news organization. She cautioned that monitoring rates of pneumonitis will be important in this curable setting.

• Locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2+ breast cancer with no prior tyrosine-kinase inhibitor therapy. Adult patients with these clinical features are eligible for a phase 3 study that is also testing a drug in an earlier setting than its current label – tucatinib (Tukysa) as first-line anti-HER2 therapy in advanced disease. Tucatinib was approved in April 2020 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as second-line therapy in such patients, so this study could also lead to a new indication. Participants in the experimental arm will receive tucatinib tablets twice daily and a combination of trastuzumab and pertuzumab intravenously or subcutaneously every 3 weeks for up to approximately 3 years. Patients in the control arm will take a placebo instead of tucatinib. Seven sites across Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, and South Carolina aim to start recruiting 650 participants on Feb. 28, 2022. The primary outcome is progression-free survival (PFS). OS and QoL will be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

“Tucatinib has real activity,” commented Dr. Miller, adding that “we haven’t [yet] found the best way to exploit that activity for our patients.”

• Inoperable or metastatic HR+ HER2– breast cancer after one or two lines of systemic chemotherapy. Adults with this type of breast cancer are being recruited for a phase 3 study to compare datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd), an experimental antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), against a range of standard single-agent chemotherapies. Participants will receive either intravenous Dato-DXd or investigator’s choice of one of four chemotherapies: oral capecitabine (Xeloda), IV gemcitabine (Gemzar), IV eribulin (Halaven), or IV vinorelbine (Navelbine). The trial began recruiting for 700 participants at sites worldwide on Oct. 18, 2021. U.S. sites are in Michigan and California; trial centers in 15 other states are planned. Primary outcomes are OS over approximately 3.5 years and PFS over approximately 2 years. QOL is tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Commenting on this trial, Dr. Miller said: “ADCs will play an expanded role in our management. This may be one of the first to move into the ER+ population.”

• Advanced ER+, HER2– breast cancer. Adult patients with this type of cancer can join a phase 3 trial testing oral imlunestrant, an experimental selective estrogen-receptor degrader (SERD), against standard endocrine therapy. For up to 3 years, people in the study will take either daily tablets of imlunestrant or once-daily pills of imlunestrant and another SERD, abemaciclib (Verzenio). A third group of participants will receive their investigator’s choice of either daily tablets of exemestane (Aromasin) or monthly intramuscular injections of fulvestrant (Faslodex). The study opened to 800 participants on Oct. 4, 2021, at sites in 11 U.S. states and worldwide. The primary outcome is PFS over approximately 3 years; 5-year OS is a secondary outcome. QOL is not assessed. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Dr. Miller predicted that “oral SERDs will replace fulvestrant in the future: We already have positive phase 3 data with elacestrant.”

Dr. Miller has a regular column with this news organization, Miller on Oncology. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Peter Schwartz, MD, was chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at a hospital in Reading, Pa., in the mid-1990s when a young physician sought him out. The doctor, whom Dr. Schwartz regarded as talented and empathetic, was visibly shaken. The expectant mother they were caring for had just lost her unborn child.

“The doctor came into my office within an hour of the event and asked me to look at the case,” Dr. Schwartz recalled. “I could see that they had failed to recognize ominous changes in the fetal heart rate, and I faced the pain of having to tell them, ‘I think this could have been handled much better.’” Dr. Schwartz delivered the news as compassionately as he could, but a subsequent review confirmed his suspicion: The doctor had made a serious error.

“The doctor was devastated,” he said. “She got counseling and took time off, but in the end, she quit practicing medicine. She said, ‘If I keep practicing, something like that could happen again, and I don’t think I could handle it.’”

To err may be human, but in a health care setting, the harm can be catastrophic. While patients and their families are the ones who suffer most, doctors can be so traumatized by their medical mistakes that their feelings of guilt, shame, and self-doubt can lead to depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and even suicidal ideation. The trauma can be so profound that, in a now famous 2000 editorial in the British Medical Journal, Albert Wu, MD, gave the phenomenon a name: “second victim syndrome.”

Today, as quality improvement organizations and health systems work to address medical errors in a just and transparent way, they’re realizing that finding ways to help traumatized clinicians is integral to their efforts.
 

Are doctors really ‘second victims?’

Although the medical field is moving away from the term “second victim,” which patient advocates argue lacks a ring of accountability, the emotional trauma doctors and other clinicians endure is garnering increased attention. In the 2 decades since Dr. Wu wrote his editorial, research has shown that many types of adverse health care events can evoke traumatic responses. In fact, studies indicate that from 10.4% to 43.3% of health care workers may experience negative symptoms following an adverse event.

But for doctors – who have sworn an oath to do no harm – the emotional toll of having committed a serious medical error can be particularly burdensome and lingering. In a Dutch study involving more than 4,300 doctors and nurses, respondents who were involved in a patient safety incident that resulted in harm were nine times more likely to have negative symptoms lasting longer than 6 months than those who were involved in a near-miss experience.

“There’s a feeling of wanting to erase yourself,” says Danielle Ofri, MD, a New York internist and author of “When We Do Harm: A Doctor Confronts Medical Error.”

That emotional response can have a profound impact on the way medical errors are disclosed, investigated, and ultimately resolved, said Thomas Gallagher, MD, an internist and executive director of the Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, a patient safety program at the University of Washington.

“When something goes wrong, as physicians, we don’t know what to do,” Dr. Gallagher says. “We feel awful, and often our human reflexes lead us astray. The doctor’s own emotions become barriers to addressing the situation.” For example, guilt and shame may lead doctors to try to hide or diminish their mistakes. Some doctors might try to shift blame, while others may feel so guilty they assume they were responsible for an outcome that was beyond their control.

Recognizing that clinicians’ responses to medical errors are inextricably tangled with how those events are addressed, a growing number of health systems are making clinician support a key element when dealing with medical errors.
 

Emotional first aid

Although it’s typical for physicians to feel isolated in the wake of errors, these experiences are far from unique. Research conducted by University of Missouri Health Care nurse scientist Susan Scott, RN, PhD, shows that just as most individuals experiencing grief pass through several distinct emotional stages, health care professionals who make errors go through emotional stages that may occur sequentially or concurrently.

An initial period of chaos is often followed by intrusive reflections, haunting re-enactments, and feelings of inadequacy. The doctor’s thinking moves from “How did that happen?” to “What did I miss?” to “What will people think about me?” As the error comes under scrutiny by quality improvement organizations, licensing boards, and/or lawyers, the doctor feels besieged. The doctor may want to reach out but is afraid to. According to Dr. Scott, only 15% of care providers ask for help.

Recognizing that physicians and other care providers rarely ask for support – or may not realize they need it – a growing number of health systems are implementing Communication and Resolution Programs (CRPs). Rather than respond to medical errors with a deny-and-defend mentality, CRPs emphasize transparency and accountability.

This approach, which the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has embraced and codified with its Communication and Optimal Resolution (CANDOR) toolkit, focuses on prompt incident reporting; communication with and support for patients, family members, and caregivers affected by the event; event analysis; quality improvement; and just resolution of the event, including apologies and financial compensation where appropriate.

The CANDOR toolkit, which includes a module entitled Care for the Caregiver, directs health systems to identify individuals and establish teams, led by representatives from patient safety and/or risk management, who can respond promptly to an event. After ensuring the patient is clinically stable and safe, the CANDOR process provides for immediate and ongoing emotional support to the patient, the family, and the caregiver.

“A lot of what CRPs are about is creating structures and processes that normalize an open and compassionate response to harm events in medicine,” says Dr. Gallagher, who estimates that between 400 and 500 health systems now have CRPs in place.
 

Wisdom through adversity

While clinicians experience many difficult and negative emotions in the wake of medical errors, how they move forward after the event varies markedly. Some, unable to come to terms with the trauma, may move to another institution or leave medicine entirely. Others, while occasionally reliving the trauma, learn to cope. For the most fortunate, enduring the trauma of a medical error can lead to growth, insight, and wisdom.

In an article published in the journal Academic Medicine, researchers asked 61 physicians who had made serious medical errors, “What helped you to cope positively?” Some of the most common responses – talking about their feelings with a peer, disclosing and apologizing for a mistake, and developing system changes to prevent additional errors – are baked into some health systems’ CRP programs. Other respondents said they dedicated themselves to learning from the mistake, becoming experts in a given field, or sharing what they learned from the experience through teaching.

Dr. Ofri said that after she made an error decades ago while managing a patient with diabetic ketoacidosis, her senior resident publicly berated her for it. The incident taught her a clinical lesson: Never remove an insulin drip without administering long-acting insulin. More importantly, the resident’s verbal thumping taught her about the corrosive effects of shame. Today, Dr. Ofri, who works in a teaching hospital, says that when meeting a new medical team, she begins by recounting her five biggest medical errors.

“I want them to come to me if they make a mistake,” she says. “I want to first make sure the patient is okay. But then I want to make sure the doctor is okay. I also want to know: What was it about the system that contributed to the error, and what can we do to prevent similar errors in the future?”
 

Acceptance and compassion

Time, experience, supportive peers, an understanding partner or spouse: all of these can help a doctor recover from the trauma of a mistake. “But they’re not an eraser,” Dr. Schwartz said.

Sometimes, doctors say, the path forward starts with acceptance.

Jan Bonhoeffer, MD, author of “Dare to Care: How to Survive and Thrive in Today’s Medical World,” tells a story about a mistake that transformed his life. In 2004, he was working in a busy London emergency department when an adolescent girl arrived complaining of breathing trouble. Dr. Bonhoeffer diagnosed her with asthma and discharged her with an inhaler. The next day, the girl was back in the hospital – this time in the ICU, intubated, and on a ventilator. Because he had failed to take an x-ray, Dr. Bonhoeffer missed the tumor growing in the girl’s chest.

Dr. Bonhoeffer was shattered by his error. “After that experience, I knew I wanted to make learning from my mistakes part of my daily practice,” he says. Now, at the end of each workday, Dr. Bonhoeffer takes an inventory of the day and reflects on all his actions, large and small, clinical and not. “I take a few minutes and think about everything I did and what I should have done differently,” he said. The daily practice can be humbling because it forces him to confront his errors, but it is also empowering, he said, “because the next day I get to make a different choice.”

Dr. Bonhoeffer added, “Doctors are fallible, and you have to be compassionate with yourself. Compassion isn’t sweet. It’s not motherhood and honey pies. It’s coming to terms with reality. It’s not a cure, but it’s healing.”

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

Peter Schwartz, MD, was chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at a hospital in Reading, Pa., in the mid-1990s when a young physician sought him out. The doctor, whom Dr. Schwartz regarded as talented and empathetic, was visibly shaken. The expectant mother they were caring for had just lost her unborn child.

“The doctor came into my office within an hour of the event and asked me to look at the case,” Dr. Schwartz recalled. “I could see that they had failed to recognize ominous changes in the fetal heart rate, and I faced the pain of having to tell them, ‘I think this could have been handled much better.’” Dr. Schwartz delivered the news as compassionately as he could, but a subsequent review confirmed his suspicion: The doctor had made a serious error.

“The doctor was devastated,” he said. “She got counseling and took time off, but in the end, she quit practicing medicine. She said, ‘If I keep practicing, something like that could happen again, and I don’t think I could handle it.’”

To err may be human, but in a health care setting, the harm can be catastrophic. While patients and their families are the ones who suffer most, doctors can be so traumatized by their medical mistakes that their feelings of guilt, shame, and self-doubt can lead to depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and even suicidal ideation. The trauma can be so profound that, in a now famous 2000 editorial in the British Medical Journal, Albert Wu, MD, gave the phenomenon a name: “second victim syndrome.”

Today, as quality improvement organizations and health systems work to address medical errors in a just and transparent way, they’re realizing that finding ways to help traumatized clinicians is integral to their efforts.
 

Are doctors really ‘second victims?’

Although the medical field is moving away from the term “second victim,” which patient advocates argue lacks a ring of accountability, the emotional trauma doctors and other clinicians endure is garnering increased attention. In the 2 decades since Dr. Wu wrote his editorial, research has shown that many types of adverse health care events can evoke traumatic responses. In fact, studies indicate that from 10.4% to 43.3% of health care workers may experience negative symptoms following an adverse event.

But for doctors – who have sworn an oath to do no harm – the emotional toll of having committed a serious medical error can be particularly burdensome and lingering. In a Dutch study involving more than 4,300 doctors and nurses, respondents who were involved in a patient safety incident that resulted in harm were nine times more likely to have negative symptoms lasting longer than 6 months than those who were involved in a near-miss experience.

“There’s a feeling of wanting to erase yourself,” says Danielle Ofri, MD, a New York internist and author of “When We Do Harm: A Doctor Confronts Medical Error.”

That emotional response can have a profound impact on the way medical errors are disclosed, investigated, and ultimately resolved, said Thomas Gallagher, MD, an internist and executive director of the Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, a patient safety program at the University of Washington.

“When something goes wrong, as physicians, we don’t know what to do,” Dr. Gallagher says. “We feel awful, and often our human reflexes lead us astray. The doctor’s own emotions become barriers to addressing the situation.” For example, guilt and shame may lead doctors to try to hide or diminish their mistakes. Some doctors might try to shift blame, while others may feel so guilty they assume they were responsible for an outcome that was beyond their control.

Recognizing that clinicians’ responses to medical errors are inextricably tangled with how those events are addressed, a growing number of health systems are making clinician support a key element when dealing with medical errors.
 

Emotional first aid

Although it’s typical for physicians to feel isolated in the wake of errors, these experiences are far from unique. Research conducted by University of Missouri Health Care nurse scientist Susan Scott, RN, PhD, shows that just as most individuals experiencing grief pass through several distinct emotional stages, health care professionals who make errors go through emotional stages that may occur sequentially or concurrently.

An initial period of chaos is often followed by intrusive reflections, haunting re-enactments, and feelings of inadequacy. The doctor’s thinking moves from “How did that happen?” to “What did I miss?” to “What will people think about me?” As the error comes under scrutiny by quality improvement organizations, licensing boards, and/or lawyers, the doctor feels besieged. The doctor may want to reach out but is afraid to. According to Dr. Scott, only 15% of care providers ask for help.

Recognizing that physicians and other care providers rarely ask for support – or may not realize they need it – a growing number of health systems are implementing Communication and Resolution Programs (CRPs). Rather than respond to medical errors with a deny-and-defend mentality, CRPs emphasize transparency and accountability.

This approach, which the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has embraced and codified with its Communication and Optimal Resolution (CANDOR) toolkit, focuses on prompt incident reporting; communication with and support for patients, family members, and caregivers affected by the event; event analysis; quality improvement; and just resolution of the event, including apologies and financial compensation where appropriate.

The CANDOR toolkit, which includes a module entitled Care for the Caregiver, directs health systems to identify individuals and establish teams, led by representatives from patient safety and/or risk management, who can respond promptly to an event. After ensuring the patient is clinically stable and safe, the CANDOR process provides for immediate and ongoing emotional support to the patient, the family, and the caregiver.

“A lot of what CRPs are about is creating structures and processes that normalize an open and compassionate response to harm events in medicine,” says Dr. Gallagher, who estimates that between 400 and 500 health systems now have CRPs in place.
 

Wisdom through adversity

While clinicians experience many difficult and negative emotions in the wake of medical errors, how they move forward after the event varies markedly. Some, unable to come to terms with the trauma, may move to another institution or leave medicine entirely. Others, while occasionally reliving the trauma, learn to cope. For the most fortunate, enduring the trauma of a medical error can lead to growth, insight, and wisdom.

In an article published in the journal Academic Medicine, researchers asked 61 physicians who had made serious medical errors, “What helped you to cope positively?” Some of the most common responses – talking about their feelings with a peer, disclosing and apologizing for a mistake, and developing system changes to prevent additional errors – are baked into some health systems’ CRP programs. Other respondents said they dedicated themselves to learning from the mistake, becoming experts in a given field, or sharing what they learned from the experience through teaching.

Dr. Ofri said that after she made an error decades ago while managing a patient with diabetic ketoacidosis, her senior resident publicly berated her for it. The incident taught her a clinical lesson: Never remove an insulin drip without administering long-acting insulin. More importantly, the resident’s verbal thumping taught her about the corrosive effects of shame. Today, Dr. Ofri, who works in a teaching hospital, says that when meeting a new medical team, she begins by recounting her five biggest medical errors.

“I want them to come to me if they make a mistake,” she says. “I want to first make sure the patient is okay. But then I want to make sure the doctor is okay. I also want to know: What was it about the system that contributed to the error, and what can we do to prevent similar errors in the future?”
 

Acceptance and compassion

Time, experience, supportive peers, an understanding partner or spouse: all of these can help a doctor recover from the trauma of a mistake. “But they’re not an eraser,” Dr. Schwartz said.

Sometimes, doctors say, the path forward starts with acceptance.

Jan Bonhoeffer, MD, author of “Dare to Care: How to Survive and Thrive in Today’s Medical World,” tells a story about a mistake that transformed his life. In 2004, he was working in a busy London emergency department when an adolescent girl arrived complaining of breathing trouble. Dr. Bonhoeffer diagnosed her with asthma and discharged her with an inhaler. The next day, the girl was back in the hospital – this time in the ICU, intubated, and on a ventilator. Because he had failed to take an x-ray, Dr. Bonhoeffer missed the tumor growing in the girl’s chest.

Dr. Bonhoeffer was shattered by his error. “After that experience, I knew I wanted to make learning from my mistakes part of my daily practice,” he says. Now, at the end of each workday, Dr. Bonhoeffer takes an inventory of the day and reflects on all his actions, large and small, clinical and not. “I take a few minutes and think about everything I did and what I should have done differently,” he said. The daily practice can be humbling because it forces him to confront his errors, but it is also empowering, he said, “because the next day I get to make a different choice.”

Dr. Bonhoeffer added, “Doctors are fallible, and you have to be compassionate with yourself. Compassion isn’t sweet. It’s not motherhood and honey pies. It’s coming to terms with reality. It’s not a cure, but it’s healing.”

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

Peter Schwartz, MD, was chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at a hospital in Reading, Pa., in the mid-1990s when a young physician sought him out. The doctor, whom Dr. Schwartz regarded as talented and empathetic, was visibly shaken. The expectant mother they were caring for had just lost her unborn child.

“The doctor came into my office within an hour of the event and asked me to look at the case,” Dr. Schwartz recalled. “I could see that they had failed to recognize ominous changes in the fetal heart rate, and I faced the pain of having to tell them, ‘I think this could have been handled much better.’” Dr. Schwartz delivered the news as compassionately as he could, but a subsequent review confirmed his suspicion: The doctor had made a serious error.

“The doctor was devastated,” he said. “She got counseling and took time off, but in the end, she quit practicing medicine. She said, ‘If I keep practicing, something like that could happen again, and I don’t think I could handle it.’”

To err may be human, but in a health care setting, the harm can be catastrophic. While patients and their families are the ones who suffer most, doctors can be so traumatized by their medical mistakes that their feelings of guilt, shame, and self-doubt can lead to depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and even suicidal ideation. The trauma can be so profound that, in a now famous 2000 editorial in the British Medical Journal, Albert Wu, MD, gave the phenomenon a name: “second victim syndrome.”

Today, as quality improvement organizations and health systems work to address medical errors in a just and transparent way, they’re realizing that finding ways to help traumatized clinicians is integral to their efforts.
 

Are doctors really ‘second victims?’

Although the medical field is moving away from the term “second victim,” which patient advocates argue lacks a ring of accountability, the emotional trauma doctors and other clinicians endure is garnering increased attention. In the 2 decades since Dr. Wu wrote his editorial, research has shown that many types of adverse health care events can evoke traumatic responses. In fact, studies indicate that from 10.4% to 43.3% of health care workers may experience negative symptoms following an adverse event.

But for doctors – who have sworn an oath to do no harm – the emotional toll of having committed a serious medical error can be particularly burdensome and lingering. In a Dutch study involving more than 4,300 doctors and nurses, respondents who were involved in a patient safety incident that resulted in harm were nine times more likely to have negative symptoms lasting longer than 6 months than those who were involved in a near-miss experience.

“There’s a feeling of wanting to erase yourself,” says Danielle Ofri, MD, a New York internist and author of “When We Do Harm: A Doctor Confronts Medical Error.”

That emotional response can have a profound impact on the way medical errors are disclosed, investigated, and ultimately resolved, said Thomas Gallagher, MD, an internist and executive director of the Collaborative for Accountability and Improvement, a patient safety program at the University of Washington.

“When something goes wrong, as physicians, we don’t know what to do,” Dr. Gallagher says. “We feel awful, and often our human reflexes lead us astray. The doctor’s own emotions become barriers to addressing the situation.” For example, guilt and shame may lead doctors to try to hide or diminish their mistakes. Some doctors might try to shift blame, while others may feel so guilty they assume they were responsible for an outcome that was beyond their control.

Recognizing that clinicians’ responses to medical errors are inextricably tangled with how those events are addressed, a growing number of health systems are making clinician support a key element when dealing with medical errors.
 

Emotional first aid

Although it’s typical for physicians to feel isolated in the wake of errors, these experiences are far from unique. Research conducted by University of Missouri Health Care nurse scientist Susan Scott, RN, PhD, shows that just as most individuals experiencing grief pass through several distinct emotional stages, health care professionals who make errors go through emotional stages that may occur sequentially or concurrently.

An initial period of chaos is often followed by intrusive reflections, haunting re-enactments, and feelings of inadequacy. The doctor’s thinking moves from “How did that happen?” to “What did I miss?” to “What will people think about me?” As the error comes under scrutiny by quality improvement organizations, licensing boards, and/or lawyers, the doctor feels besieged. The doctor may want to reach out but is afraid to. According to Dr. Scott, only 15% of care providers ask for help.

Recognizing that physicians and other care providers rarely ask for support – or may not realize they need it – a growing number of health systems are implementing Communication and Resolution Programs (CRPs). Rather than respond to medical errors with a deny-and-defend mentality, CRPs emphasize transparency and accountability.

This approach, which the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has embraced and codified with its Communication and Optimal Resolution (CANDOR) toolkit, focuses on prompt incident reporting; communication with and support for patients, family members, and caregivers affected by the event; event analysis; quality improvement; and just resolution of the event, including apologies and financial compensation where appropriate.

The CANDOR toolkit, which includes a module entitled Care for the Caregiver, directs health systems to identify individuals and establish teams, led by representatives from patient safety and/or risk management, who can respond promptly to an event. After ensuring the patient is clinically stable and safe, the CANDOR process provides for immediate and ongoing emotional support to the patient, the family, and the caregiver.

“A lot of what CRPs are about is creating structures and processes that normalize an open and compassionate response to harm events in medicine,” says Dr. Gallagher, who estimates that between 400 and 500 health systems now have CRPs in place.
 

Wisdom through adversity

While clinicians experience many difficult and negative emotions in the wake of medical errors, how they move forward after the event varies markedly. Some, unable to come to terms with the trauma, may move to another institution or leave medicine entirely. Others, while occasionally reliving the trauma, learn to cope. For the most fortunate, enduring the trauma of a medical error can lead to growth, insight, and wisdom.

In an article published in the journal Academic Medicine, researchers asked 61 physicians who had made serious medical errors, “What helped you to cope positively?” Some of the most common responses – talking about their feelings with a peer, disclosing and apologizing for a mistake, and developing system changes to prevent additional errors – are baked into some health systems’ CRP programs. Other respondents said they dedicated themselves to learning from the mistake, becoming experts in a given field, or sharing what they learned from the experience through teaching.

Dr. Ofri said that after she made an error decades ago while managing a patient with diabetic ketoacidosis, her senior resident publicly berated her for it. The incident taught her a clinical lesson: Never remove an insulin drip without administering long-acting insulin. More importantly, the resident’s verbal thumping taught her about the corrosive effects of shame. Today, Dr. Ofri, who works in a teaching hospital, says that when meeting a new medical team, she begins by recounting her five biggest medical errors.

“I want them to come to me if they make a mistake,” she says. “I want to first make sure the patient is okay. But then I want to make sure the doctor is okay. I also want to know: What was it about the system that contributed to the error, and what can we do to prevent similar errors in the future?”
 

Acceptance and compassion

Time, experience, supportive peers, an understanding partner or spouse: all of these can help a doctor recover from the trauma of a mistake. “But they’re not an eraser,” Dr. Schwartz said.

Sometimes, doctors say, the path forward starts with acceptance.

Jan Bonhoeffer, MD, author of “Dare to Care: How to Survive and Thrive in Today’s Medical World,” tells a story about a mistake that transformed his life. In 2004, he was working in a busy London emergency department when an adolescent girl arrived complaining of breathing trouble. Dr. Bonhoeffer diagnosed her with asthma and discharged her with an inhaler. The next day, the girl was back in the hospital – this time in the ICU, intubated, and on a ventilator. Because he had failed to take an x-ray, Dr. Bonhoeffer missed the tumor growing in the girl’s chest.

Dr. Bonhoeffer was shattered by his error. “After that experience, I knew I wanted to make learning from my mistakes part of my daily practice,” he says. Now, at the end of each workday, Dr. Bonhoeffer takes an inventory of the day and reflects on all his actions, large and small, clinical and not. “I take a few minutes and think about everything I did and what I should have done differently,” he said. The daily practice can be humbling because it forces him to confront his errors, but it is also empowering, he said, “because the next day I get to make a different choice.”

Dr. Bonhoeffer added, “Doctors are fallible, and you have to be compassionate with yourself. Compassion isn’t sweet. It’s not motherhood and honey pies. It’s coming to terms with reality. It’s not a cure, but it’s healing.”

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

A new pilot study has shown that refractory, hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer can respond to treatment with autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) that recognize specific tumor antigens. Three of 6 patients treated had a response, including one that lasted more than five years. TILs were expanded ex vivo, and patients treated with lymphodepleting chemotherapy before the infusion, along with the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck).

The results pave the way for recruitment of more patients as researchers at the National Cancer Institute ramp up the experimental treatment. They also help to overturn the long-held dogma that breast cancer is not immunogenic, according to lead researcher Steven A. Rosenberg, MD, PhD, who is chief of the surgery branch of the National Cancer Institute.

Although common hormone positive breast cancer doesn’t respond to immunotherapy, the study found that two-thirds of patients with metastatic breast cancer have mutations recognized by TILs. “We can identify the antigens [that] T cells recognize,” said Dr. Rosenberg, who is the lead author on a paper describing the pilot study, published online Feb. 1 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

There has been wide speculation that some solid tumors, including common hormone-positive breast cancers, are not immunogenic, because they don’t respond to cancer vaccines or checkpoint inhibitors. However, newer research has unearthed an explanation: Patients with these solid tumors produce immunogenic antigens, but they differ from patient to patient. There was not a single shared antigen among the 42 patients in the study. “Every patient reacts with a unique antigen, so the treatments have to be highly personalized,” said Dr. Rosenberg.

In the phase 2 study, the researchers recruited 42 participants, who underwent screening for novel tumor antigens. Sixty percent were hormone-receptor positive and HER2 negative, 26% were triple negative, and 14% were HER2 enriched.

Of 42 patients, 28 (67%) had at least one detectable, immunogenic tumor antigen, including 46% of HR+/Her2– patients, 32% of triple-negative patients, and 21% of HER2-enriched patients. Thirteen patients had a positive TIL screen, making them candidates for treatment.

Six patients underwent the procedure. Researchers selected TIL culture fragments that responded when stimulated with mutant peptides. They expanded those cells externally over 24 days and then administered lymphodepleting chemotherapy 1 week before the infusion of the expanded TILs. Patients received aldesleukin (Proleukin, Prometheus Laboratories) every 8 hours after TIL infusion, as tolerated. Patients also received pembrolizumab 2 days before the TIL infusion and up to three more doses at 3-week intervals.

Three patients experienced objective tumor regression, including a complete response that has lasted for 5.5 years. Two had partial responses that lasted 6 and 10 months. One patient with a partial response had a limited recurrence that could be excised, followed by further regression of other lesions, and was disease free 2 years after treatment.

The National Cancer Institute has just constructed a new building on the National Institutes of Health campus to pursue this research, and Dr. Rosenberg is actively recruiting patients to further study the treatment protocol. “We’re prepared to start treating large numbers of breast cancer patients with this. It’s highly experimental, it needs to be improved, it’s not ready for primetime. But we have now a signal that it can work,” said Dr. Rosenberg.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Rosenberg has received research funding from Kite, Iovance Biotherapeutics, and ZIOPHARM Oncology.

A new pilot study has shown that refractory, hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer can respond to treatment with autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) that recognize specific tumor antigens. Three of 6 patients treated had a response, including one that lasted more than five years. TILs were expanded ex vivo, and patients treated with lymphodepleting chemotherapy before the infusion, along with the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck).

The results pave the way for recruitment of more patients as researchers at the National Cancer Institute ramp up the experimental treatment. They also help to overturn the long-held dogma that breast cancer is not immunogenic, according to lead researcher Steven A. Rosenberg, MD, PhD, who is chief of the surgery branch of the National Cancer Institute.

Although common hormone positive breast cancer doesn’t respond to immunotherapy, the study found that two-thirds of patients with metastatic breast cancer have mutations recognized by TILs. “We can identify the antigens [that] T cells recognize,” said Dr. Rosenberg, who is the lead author on a paper describing the pilot study, published online Feb. 1 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

There has been wide speculation that some solid tumors, including common hormone-positive breast cancers, are not immunogenic, because they don’t respond to cancer vaccines or checkpoint inhibitors. However, newer research has unearthed an explanation: Patients with these solid tumors produce immunogenic antigens, but they differ from patient to patient. There was not a single shared antigen among the 42 patients in the study. “Every patient reacts with a unique antigen, so the treatments have to be highly personalized,” said Dr. Rosenberg.

In the phase 2 study, the researchers recruited 42 participants, who underwent screening for novel tumor antigens. Sixty percent were hormone-receptor positive and HER2 negative, 26% were triple negative, and 14% were HER2 enriched.

Of 42 patients, 28 (67%) had at least one detectable, immunogenic tumor antigen, including 46% of HR+/Her2– patients, 32% of triple-negative patients, and 21% of HER2-enriched patients. Thirteen patients had a positive TIL screen, making them candidates for treatment.

Six patients underwent the procedure. Researchers selected TIL culture fragments that responded when stimulated with mutant peptides. They expanded those cells externally over 24 days and then administered lymphodepleting chemotherapy 1 week before the infusion of the expanded TILs. Patients received aldesleukin (Proleukin, Prometheus Laboratories) every 8 hours after TIL infusion, as tolerated. Patients also received pembrolizumab 2 days before the TIL infusion and up to three more doses at 3-week intervals.

Three patients experienced objective tumor regression, including a complete response that has lasted for 5.5 years. Two had partial responses that lasted 6 and 10 months. One patient with a partial response had a limited recurrence that could be excised, followed by further regression of other lesions, and was disease free 2 years after treatment.

The National Cancer Institute has just constructed a new building on the National Institutes of Health campus to pursue this research, and Dr. Rosenberg is actively recruiting patients to further study the treatment protocol. “We’re prepared to start treating large numbers of breast cancer patients with this. It’s highly experimental, it needs to be improved, it’s not ready for primetime. But we have now a signal that it can work,” said Dr. Rosenberg.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Rosenberg has received research funding from Kite, Iovance Biotherapeutics, and ZIOPHARM Oncology.

A new pilot study has shown that refractory, hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer can respond to treatment with autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) that recognize specific tumor antigens. Three of 6 patients treated had a response, including one that lasted more than five years. TILs were expanded ex vivo, and patients treated with lymphodepleting chemotherapy before the infusion, along with the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck).

The results pave the way for recruitment of more patients as researchers at the National Cancer Institute ramp up the experimental treatment. They also help to overturn the long-held dogma that breast cancer is not immunogenic, according to lead researcher Steven A. Rosenberg, MD, PhD, who is chief of the surgery branch of the National Cancer Institute.

Although common hormone positive breast cancer doesn’t respond to immunotherapy, the study found that two-thirds of patients with metastatic breast cancer have mutations recognized by TILs. “We can identify the antigens [that] T cells recognize,” said Dr. Rosenberg, who is the lead author on a paper describing the pilot study, published online Feb. 1 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

There has been wide speculation that some solid tumors, including common hormone-positive breast cancers, are not immunogenic, because they don’t respond to cancer vaccines or checkpoint inhibitors. However, newer research has unearthed an explanation: Patients with these solid tumors produce immunogenic antigens, but they differ from patient to patient. There was not a single shared antigen among the 42 patients in the study. “Every patient reacts with a unique antigen, so the treatments have to be highly personalized,” said Dr. Rosenberg.

In the phase 2 study, the researchers recruited 42 participants, who underwent screening for novel tumor antigens. Sixty percent were hormone-receptor positive and HER2 negative, 26% were triple negative, and 14% were HER2 enriched.

Of 42 patients, 28 (67%) had at least one detectable, immunogenic tumor antigen, including 46% of HR+/Her2– patients, 32% of triple-negative patients, and 21% of HER2-enriched patients. Thirteen patients had a positive TIL screen, making them candidates for treatment.

Six patients underwent the procedure. Researchers selected TIL culture fragments that responded when stimulated with mutant peptides. They expanded those cells externally over 24 days and then administered lymphodepleting chemotherapy 1 week before the infusion of the expanded TILs. Patients received aldesleukin (Proleukin, Prometheus Laboratories) every 8 hours after TIL infusion, as tolerated. Patients also received pembrolizumab 2 days before the TIL infusion and up to three more doses at 3-week intervals.

Three patients experienced objective tumor regression, including a complete response that has lasted for 5.5 years. Two had partial responses that lasted 6 and 10 months. One patient with a partial response had a limited recurrence that could be excised, followed by further regression of other lesions, and was disease free 2 years after treatment.

The National Cancer Institute has just constructed a new building on the National Institutes of Health campus to pursue this research, and Dr. Rosenberg is actively recruiting patients to further study the treatment protocol. “We’re prepared to start treating large numbers of breast cancer patients with this. It’s highly experimental, it needs to be improved, it’s not ready for primetime. But we have now a signal that it can work,” said Dr. Rosenberg.

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Rosenberg has received research funding from Kite, Iovance Biotherapeutics, and ZIOPHARM Oncology.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2022.

In a policy statement published online Feb. 17 in Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations differ little from those released last year by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The only significant change this year was to add the dengue vaccine to the schedule,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s 2021-2022 Committee on Infectious Diseases and a coauthor of the statement, told this news organization. “But that is really only relevant for children living in endemic areas, primarily Puerto Rico but some other smaller U.S .territories as well.”

Dengue fever also is endemic in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Notably, a new section has been added on routine recommendations for use of the Dengvaxia vaccine.

The 2022 policy statement addresses regular immunization of children from birth to 18 years and catch-up vaccination for those aged 4 months to 18 years. In addition to the AAP, multiple complementary physician and nurse organizations have approved the updates. The ACIP schedule is revised annually to reflect current recommendations on vaccines licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Most of the other changes this year involve minor updates to clarify language or improve usability. “CDC and AAP are always working to make the schedule as user-friendly as possible, with improvements made every year,” Dr. O’Leary, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said.

In terms of physician acceptance, he added, “I don’t think any of the changes would be considered controversial.”

Among other updates and clarifications:

• For Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination, the text now includes recommendations for the hexavalent Vaxelis vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B) for both routine and catch-up vaccination.
• For hepatitis A, the relevant note has been updated to clarify the age for routine vaccination.
• For human papillomavirus (HPV), the note now clarifies when an HPV series is complete with no additional dose recommended.
• The special situations section has been amended to specify which persons with immunocompromising conditions such as HIV should receive three doses of HPV vaccine regardless of age at initial vaccination.
• For measles, mumps, and rubella, routine vaccination now includes recommendations on the combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine.
• For meningococcal serogroup A, C, W, and Y vaccines, the augmented text explains when these can be simultaneously administered with serogroup B meningococcal vaccines, preferably at different anatomic sites. The language for the dosing schedule for Menveo vaccination in infants also has been clarified.
• In the catch-up immunization schedule for late-starting children aged 4 months to 18 years, the text on Hib has been changed so that the minimum interval between dose two and dose three now refers to Vaxelis, while reference to the discontinued Comvax (Hib-Hep B) vaccine has been removed.

As in other years, graphic changes have been made to table coloration and layout to improve accessibility. And as before, the 2022 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule has been updated to ensure consistency between its format and that of the 2022 adult immunization schedules.

The AAP committee stressed that clinically significant adverse events after immunization should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The full 2022 schedule can be found on the CDC’s website.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2022.

In a policy statement published online Feb. 17 in Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations differ little from those released last year by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The only significant change this year was to add the dengue vaccine to the schedule,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s 2021-2022 Committee on Infectious Diseases and a coauthor of the statement, told this news organization. “But that is really only relevant for children living in endemic areas, primarily Puerto Rico but some other smaller U.S .territories as well.”

Dengue fever also is endemic in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Notably, a new section has been added on routine recommendations for use of the Dengvaxia vaccine.

The 2022 policy statement addresses regular immunization of children from birth to 18 years and catch-up vaccination for those aged 4 months to 18 years. In addition to the AAP, multiple complementary physician and nurse organizations have approved the updates. The ACIP schedule is revised annually to reflect current recommendations on vaccines licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Most of the other changes this year involve minor updates to clarify language or improve usability. “CDC and AAP are always working to make the schedule as user-friendly as possible, with improvements made every year,” Dr. O’Leary, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said.

In terms of physician acceptance, he added, “I don’t think any of the changes would be considered controversial.”

Among other updates and clarifications:

• For Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination, the text now includes recommendations for the hexavalent Vaxelis vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B) for both routine and catch-up vaccination.
• For hepatitis A, the relevant note has been updated to clarify the age for routine vaccination.
• For human papillomavirus (HPV), the note now clarifies when an HPV series is complete with no additional dose recommended.
• The special situations section has been amended to specify which persons with immunocompromising conditions such as HIV should receive three doses of HPV vaccine regardless of age at initial vaccination.
• For measles, mumps, and rubella, routine vaccination now includes recommendations on the combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine.
• For meningococcal serogroup A, C, W, and Y vaccines, the augmented text explains when these can be simultaneously administered with serogroup B meningococcal vaccines, preferably at different anatomic sites. The language for the dosing schedule for Menveo vaccination in infants also has been clarified.
• In the catch-up immunization schedule for late-starting children aged 4 months to 18 years, the text on Hib has been changed so that the minimum interval between dose two and dose three now refers to Vaxelis, while reference to the discontinued Comvax (Hib-Hep B) vaccine has been removed.

As in other years, graphic changes have been made to table coloration and layout to improve accessibility. And as before, the 2022 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule has been updated to ensure consistency between its format and that of the 2022 adult immunization schedules.

The AAP committee stressed that clinically significant adverse events after immunization should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The full 2022 schedule can be found on the CDC’s website.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2022.

In a policy statement published online Feb. 17 in Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations differ little from those released last year by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The only significant change this year was to add the dengue vaccine to the schedule,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s 2021-2022 Committee on Infectious Diseases and a coauthor of the statement, told this news organization. “But that is really only relevant for children living in endemic areas, primarily Puerto Rico but some other smaller U.S .territories as well.”

Dengue fever also is endemic in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Notably, a new section has been added on routine recommendations for use of the Dengvaxia vaccine.

The 2022 policy statement addresses regular immunization of children from birth to 18 years and catch-up vaccination for those aged 4 months to 18 years. In addition to the AAP, multiple complementary physician and nurse organizations have approved the updates. The ACIP schedule is revised annually to reflect current recommendations on vaccines licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Most of the other changes this year involve minor updates to clarify language or improve usability. “CDC and AAP are always working to make the schedule as user-friendly as possible, with improvements made every year,” Dr. O’Leary, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said.

In terms of physician acceptance, he added, “I don’t think any of the changes would be considered controversial.”

Among other updates and clarifications:

• For Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination, the text now includes recommendations for the hexavalent Vaxelis vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B) for both routine and catch-up vaccination.
• For hepatitis A, the relevant note has been updated to clarify the age for routine vaccination.
• For human papillomavirus (HPV), the note now clarifies when an HPV series is complete with no additional dose recommended.
• The special situations section has been amended to specify which persons with immunocompromising conditions such as HIV should receive three doses of HPV vaccine regardless of age at initial vaccination.
• For measles, mumps, and rubella, routine vaccination now includes recommendations on the combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine.
• For meningococcal serogroup A, C, W, and Y vaccines, the augmented text explains when these can be simultaneously administered with serogroup B meningococcal vaccines, preferably at different anatomic sites. The language for the dosing schedule for Menveo vaccination in infants also has been clarified.
• In the catch-up immunization schedule for late-starting children aged 4 months to 18 years, the text on Hib has been changed so that the minimum interval between dose two and dose three now refers to Vaxelis, while reference to the discontinued Comvax (Hib-Hep B) vaccine has been removed.

As in other years, graphic changes have been made to table coloration and layout to improve accessibility. And as before, the 2022 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule has been updated to ensure consistency between its format and that of the 2022 adult immunization schedules.

The AAP committee stressed that clinically significant adverse events after immunization should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The full 2022 schedule can be found on the CDC’s website.

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

The recommended vaccination schedule for people in the United States aged 19 years and older has been released by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Clinical Guideline on the “Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2022” appears online Feb. 17 in Annals of Internal Medicine and in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The document features changes to the zoster, pneumococcal, and hepatitis B vaccines. COVID-19 vaccinations are now included in the notes section of the schedule and can be co-administered with other vaccines, according to ACIP.

The 2022 schedule is particularly important because the pandemic has caused many adults to fall behind in routine vaccinations, according to lead author Neil Murthy, MD, MPH, MSJ, of the CDC’s immunization services division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and colleagues.  

“Providers should administer all due and overdue vaccines according to the routine immunization schedule during the same visit,” the group wrote. “In addition, providers should implement strategies to catch up all patients on any overdue vaccines.”

Among other changes appearing in the 2022 recommendations:

• A new step 4 in the form of an appendix lists all the contraindications and precautions for each vaccine.
• The zoster vaccine now is recommended for use in everyone aged 19 years and older who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed through disease or therapy. The new purple color bar reflects ACIP’s new two-dose series regimen for immunocompromised adults aged 19 to 49.
• The simplified pneumococcal recommendation includes guidance on using the new PCV15 and PCV20 vaccines.
• The hepatitis B recommendation has been made more inclusive, with vaccination recommended for all adults aged 19 to 59. The Special Situations section in the Notes outlines the risk-based recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine in adults aged 60 and older. The schedule has been harmonized with the 2022 Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

A welcome change

Sandra A. Fryhofer, MD, a member of the ACIP Combined Immunization Work Group, said the new pneumococcal recommendation is a particularly welcome change.

“The old recommendation was complicated and confusing. The new one is much more straightforward,” Dr. Fryhofer, an internist in Atlanta, said in an interview. Now there are only two options: a two-vaccine series of PCV15 (Vaxneuvance), in combination with the already familiar PPSV23 polysaccharide vaccine (Pneumovax 23), and a single dose of the new PCV20, Prevnar 20.

“Some work group members favored a universal age-based recommendation starting at 50 instead of 65,” Fryhofer said. “This would provide more opportunities to vaccinate adults but could lead to waning immunity later in life when risk of disease is higher.”

Although none of the updates is likely to stir controversy, discussion among ACIP members was particularly lively around hepatitis B vaccination, Dr. Fryhofer said. This vaccine has historically been recommended based on risk and has had poor uptake, while age-based vaccine recommendations generally have greater uptake.

“ACIP approved hepatitis B vaccine universally for those up to age 60, but for those 60 and older, the recommendation remains risk-based with a loophole: Anyone 60 and older who wants it can get it,” she told this news organization. “Some of the risk indications for hepatitis B vaccination may be uncomfortable or embarrassing to disclose, especially for older patients. The loophole takes care of that, but patients may have to ask for the vaccine.”

As usual, the graphics have been fine-tuned for greater accuracy and readability. “You can print a color copy to have in the exam room or at your workspace or give it a bookmark and check it online,” Dr. Fryhofer said. “It’s a great resource to have at your fingertips.”

Dr. Fryhofer has made a series of videos explaining ACIP’s approval process, the use of the schedule, and changes to vaccines including influenza. These can be accessed on the American College of Physicians website.

The authors of the recommendations stress that physicians should pay careful attention to the notes section for each vaccine, as these details clarify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

Co-author Henry Bernstein, DO, reported that he is the editor of Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series and received a presentation honorarium from the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Co-author Kevin Ault, MD, reported having received a grant from the National Cancer Institute, consulting fees from PathoVax, and payments supporting attending meetings and/or travel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

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

The recommended vaccination schedule for people in the United States aged 19 years and older has been released by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Clinical Guideline on the “Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2022” appears online Feb. 17 in Annals of Internal Medicine and in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The document features changes to the zoster, pneumococcal, and hepatitis B vaccines. COVID-19 vaccinations are now included in the notes section of the schedule and can be co-administered with other vaccines, according to ACIP.

The 2022 schedule is particularly important because the pandemic has caused many adults to fall behind in routine vaccinations, according to lead author Neil Murthy, MD, MPH, MSJ, of the CDC’s immunization services division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and colleagues.  

“Providers should administer all due and overdue vaccines according to the routine immunization schedule during the same visit,” the group wrote. “In addition, providers should implement strategies to catch up all patients on any overdue vaccines.”

Among other changes appearing in the 2022 recommendations:

• A new step 4 in the form of an appendix lists all the contraindications and precautions for each vaccine.
• The zoster vaccine now is recommended for use in everyone aged 19 years and older who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed through disease or therapy. The new purple color bar reflects ACIP’s new two-dose series regimen for immunocompromised adults aged 19 to 49.
• The simplified pneumococcal recommendation includes guidance on using the new PCV15 and PCV20 vaccines.
• The hepatitis B recommendation has been made more inclusive, with vaccination recommended for all adults aged 19 to 59. The Special Situations section in the Notes outlines the risk-based recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine in adults aged 60 and older. The schedule has been harmonized with the 2022 Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

A welcome change

Sandra A. Fryhofer, MD, a member of the ACIP Combined Immunization Work Group, said the new pneumococcal recommendation is a particularly welcome change.

“The old recommendation was complicated and confusing. The new one is much more straightforward,” Dr. Fryhofer, an internist in Atlanta, said in an interview. Now there are only two options: a two-vaccine series of PCV15 (Vaxneuvance), in combination with the already familiar PPSV23 polysaccharide vaccine (Pneumovax 23), and a single dose of the new PCV20, Prevnar 20.

“Some work group members favored a universal age-based recommendation starting at 50 instead of 65,” Fryhofer said. “This would provide more opportunities to vaccinate adults but could lead to waning immunity later in life when risk of disease is higher.”

Although none of the updates is likely to stir controversy, discussion among ACIP members was particularly lively around hepatitis B vaccination, Dr. Fryhofer said. This vaccine has historically been recommended based on risk and has had poor uptake, while age-based vaccine recommendations generally have greater uptake.

“ACIP approved hepatitis B vaccine universally for those up to age 60, but for those 60 and older, the recommendation remains risk-based with a loophole: Anyone 60 and older who wants it can get it,” she told this news organization. “Some of the risk indications for hepatitis B vaccination may be uncomfortable or embarrassing to disclose, especially for older patients. The loophole takes care of that, but patients may have to ask for the vaccine.”

As usual, the graphics have been fine-tuned for greater accuracy and readability. “You can print a color copy to have in the exam room or at your workspace or give it a bookmark and check it online,” Dr. Fryhofer said. “It’s a great resource to have at your fingertips.”

Dr. Fryhofer has made a series of videos explaining ACIP’s approval process, the use of the schedule, and changes to vaccines including influenza. These can be accessed on the American College of Physicians website.

The authors of the recommendations stress that physicians should pay careful attention to the notes section for each vaccine, as these details clarify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

Co-author Henry Bernstein, DO, reported that he is the editor of Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series and received a presentation honorarium from the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Co-author Kevin Ault, MD, reported having received a grant from the National Cancer Institute, consulting fees from PathoVax, and payments supporting attending meetings and/or travel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

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

The recommended vaccination schedule for people in the United States aged 19 years and older has been released by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Clinical Guideline on the “Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2022” appears online Feb. 17 in Annals of Internal Medicine and in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The document features changes to the zoster, pneumococcal, and hepatitis B vaccines. COVID-19 vaccinations are now included in the notes section of the schedule and can be co-administered with other vaccines, according to ACIP.

The 2022 schedule is particularly important because the pandemic has caused many adults to fall behind in routine vaccinations, according to lead author Neil Murthy, MD, MPH, MSJ, of the CDC’s immunization services division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and colleagues.  

“Providers should administer all due and overdue vaccines according to the routine immunization schedule during the same visit,” the group wrote. “In addition, providers should implement strategies to catch up all patients on any overdue vaccines.”

Among other changes appearing in the 2022 recommendations:

• A new step 4 in the form of an appendix lists all the contraindications and precautions for each vaccine.
• The zoster vaccine now is recommended for use in everyone aged 19 years and older who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed through disease or therapy. The new purple color bar reflects ACIP’s new two-dose series regimen for immunocompromised adults aged 19 to 49.
• The simplified pneumococcal recommendation includes guidance on using the new PCV15 and PCV20 vaccines.
• The hepatitis B recommendation has been made more inclusive, with vaccination recommended for all adults aged 19 to 59. The Special Situations section in the Notes outlines the risk-based recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine in adults aged 60 and older. The schedule has been harmonized with the 2022 Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

A welcome change

Sandra A. Fryhofer, MD, a member of the ACIP Combined Immunization Work Group, said the new pneumococcal recommendation is a particularly welcome change.

“The old recommendation was complicated and confusing. The new one is much more straightforward,” Dr. Fryhofer, an internist in Atlanta, said in an interview. Now there are only two options: a two-vaccine series of PCV15 (Vaxneuvance), in combination with the already familiar PPSV23 polysaccharide vaccine (Pneumovax 23), and a single dose of the new PCV20, Prevnar 20.

“Some work group members favored a universal age-based recommendation starting at 50 instead of 65,” Fryhofer said. “This would provide more opportunities to vaccinate adults but could lead to waning immunity later in life when risk of disease is higher.”

Although none of the updates is likely to stir controversy, discussion among ACIP members was particularly lively around hepatitis B vaccination, Dr. Fryhofer said. This vaccine has historically been recommended based on risk and has had poor uptake, while age-based vaccine recommendations generally have greater uptake.

“ACIP approved hepatitis B vaccine universally for those up to age 60, but for those 60 and older, the recommendation remains risk-based with a loophole: Anyone 60 and older who wants it can get it,” she told this news organization. “Some of the risk indications for hepatitis B vaccination may be uncomfortable or embarrassing to disclose, especially for older patients. The loophole takes care of that, but patients may have to ask for the vaccine.”

As usual, the graphics have been fine-tuned for greater accuracy and readability. “You can print a color copy to have in the exam room or at your workspace or give it a bookmark and check it online,” Dr. Fryhofer said. “It’s a great resource to have at your fingertips.”

Dr. Fryhofer has made a series of videos explaining ACIP’s approval process, the use of the schedule, and changes to vaccines including influenza. These can be accessed on the American College of Physicians website.

The authors of the recommendations stress that physicians should pay careful attention to the notes section for each vaccine, as these details clarify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

Co-author Henry Bernstein, DO, reported that he is the editor of Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series and received a presentation honorarium from the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Co-author Kevin Ault, MD, reported having received a grant from the National Cancer Institute, consulting fees from PathoVax, and payments supporting attending meetings and/or travel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

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