User login
MDedge latest news is breaking news from medical conferences, journals, guidelines, the FDA and CDC.
US Study Pinpoints Merkel Cell Risk Factors
TOPLINE:
in the United States.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated 38,020 MCC cases (38% women; 93% non-Hispanic White, 4% Hispanic, 1% non-Hispanic Black) diagnosed in the United States from 2001 to 2019 to estimate the contribution of potentially modifiable risk factors to the burden of MCC.
- Population-based cancer registries and linkages with HIV and transplant registries were utilized to identify MCC cases in patients with HIV, solid organ transplant recipients, and patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
- Data on cloud-adjusted daily ambient UVR irradiance were merged with cancer registry information on the county of residence at diagnosis to assess UVR exposure. Studies reporting the prevalence of MCPyV in MCC specimens collected in the United States were combined via a meta-analysis.
- The study assessed population attributable fractions of MCC cases that were attributable to major immunosuppressive conditions (HIV, solid organ transplant, and chronic CLL), ambient UVR exposure, and MCPyV.
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of MCC was higher in people with HIV (standardized incidence ratio [SIR], 2.78), organ transplant recipients (SIR, 13.1), and patients with CLL (SIR, 5.75) than in the general US population. However, only 2.5% of MCC cases were attributable to these immunosuppressive conditions.
- Non-Hispanic White individuals showed elevated MCC incidence at both lower and higher ambient UVR exposure levels, with incidence rate ratios of 4.05 and 4.91, respectively, for MCC on the head and neck.
- A meta-analysis of 19 case series revealed that 63.8% of MCC cases were attributable to MCPyV, with a similar prevalence observed between immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients.
- Overall, 65.1% of MCC cases were attributable to ambient UVR exposure, with higher attribution for cases diagnosed on the head and neck than those diagnosed on other sites (72.1% vs 60.2%).
IN PRACTICE:
“The results of this study suggest that most MCC cases in the US are attributable to MCPyV and/or ambient UVR [UV radiation] exposure, with a smaller fraction attributable to three major immunosuppressive conditions,” the authors wrote. “Future studies should investigate UVR mutational signature, TMB [tumor mutational burden], and MCPyV prevalence according to race and ethnicity and patient immune status to help clarify the overlap between MCC risk factors.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Incidences of MCC may have been inflated because of increased medical surveillance in immunosuppressed populations. The analysis assumed that only cases among non-Hispanic White individuals were associated with UVR. Additionally, the meta-analysis of MCPyV prevalence primarily included studies from large academic institutions, which may not be representative of the entire US population.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NCI and the National Institutes of Health Medical Research Scholars Program. Additional funding was provided through a public-private partnership with contributions from the American Association for Dental Research and the Colgate-Palmolive Company to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
in the United States.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated 38,020 MCC cases (38% women; 93% non-Hispanic White, 4% Hispanic, 1% non-Hispanic Black) diagnosed in the United States from 2001 to 2019 to estimate the contribution of potentially modifiable risk factors to the burden of MCC.
- Population-based cancer registries and linkages with HIV and transplant registries were utilized to identify MCC cases in patients with HIV, solid organ transplant recipients, and patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
- Data on cloud-adjusted daily ambient UVR irradiance were merged with cancer registry information on the county of residence at diagnosis to assess UVR exposure. Studies reporting the prevalence of MCPyV in MCC specimens collected in the United States were combined via a meta-analysis.
- The study assessed population attributable fractions of MCC cases that were attributable to major immunosuppressive conditions (HIV, solid organ transplant, and chronic CLL), ambient UVR exposure, and MCPyV.
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of MCC was higher in people with HIV (standardized incidence ratio [SIR], 2.78), organ transplant recipients (SIR, 13.1), and patients with CLL (SIR, 5.75) than in the general US population. However, only 2.5% of MCC cases were attributable to these immunosuppressive conditions.
- Non-Hispanic White individuals showed elevated MCC incidence at both lower and higher ambient UVR exposure levels, with incidence rate ratios of 4.05 and 4.91, respectively, for MCC on the head and neck.
- A meta-analysis of 19 case series revealed that 63.8% of MCC cases were attributable to MCPyV, with a similar prevalence observed between immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients.
- Overall, 65.1% of MCC cases were attributable to ambient UVR exposure, with higher attribution for cases diagnosed on the head and neck than those diagnosed on other sites (72.1% vs 60.2%).
IN PRACTICE:
“The results of this study suggest that most MCC cases in the US are attributable to MCPyV and/or ambient UVR [UV radiation] exposure, with a smaller fraction attributable to three major immunosuppressive conditions,” the authors wrote. “Future studies should investigate UVR mutational signature, TMB [tumor mutational burden], and MCPyV prevalence according to race and ethnicity and patient immune status to help clarify the overlap between MCC risk factors.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Incidences of MCC may have been inflated because of increased medical surveillance in immunosuppressed populations. The analysis assumed that only cases among non-Hispanic White individuals were associated with UVR. Additionally, the meta-analysis of MCPyV prevalence primarily included studies from large academic institutions, which may not be representative of the entire US population.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NCI and the National Institutes of Health Medical Research Scholars Program. Additional funding was provided through a public-private partnership with contributions from the American Association for Dental Research and the Colgate-Palmolive Company to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
in the United States.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated 38,020 MCC cases (38% women; 93% non-Hispanic White, 4% Hispanic, 1% non-Hispanic Black) diagnosed in the United States from 2001 to 2019 to estimate the contribution of potentially modifiable risk factors to the burden of MCC.
- Population-based cancer registries and linkages with HIV and transplant registries were utilized to identify MCC cases in patients with HIV, solid organ transplant recipients, and patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).
- Data on cloud-adjusted daily ambient UVR irradiance were merged with cancer registry information on the county of residence at diagnosis to assess UVR exposure. Studies reporting the prevalence of MCPyV in MCC specimens collected in the United States were combined via a meta-analysis.
- The study assessed population attributable fractions of MCC cases that were attributable to major immunosuppressive conditions (HIV, solid organ transplant, and chronic CLL), ambient UVR exposure, and MCPyV.
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of MCC was higher in people with HIV (standardized incidence ratio [SIR], 2.78), organ transplant recipients (SIR, 13.1), and patients with CLL (SIR, 5.75) than in the general US population. However, only 2.5% of MCC cases were attributable to these immunosuppressive conditions.
- Non-Hispanic White individuals showed elevated MCC incidence at both lower and higher ambient UVR exposure levels, with incidence rate ratios of 4.05 and 4.91, respectively, for MCC on the head and neck.
- A meta-analysis of 19 case series revealed that 63.8% of MCC cases were attributable to MCPyV, with a similar prevalence observed between immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients.
- Overall, 65.1% of MCC cases were attributable to ambient UVR exposure, with higher attribution for cases diagnosed on the head and neck than those diagnosed on other sites (72.1% vs 60.2%).
IN PRACTICE:
“The results of this study suggest that most MCC cases in the US are attributable to MCPyV and/or ambient UVR [UV radiation] exposure, with a smaller fraction attributable to three major immunosuppressive conditions,” the authors wrote. “Future studies should investigate UVR mutational signature, TMB [tumor mutational burden], and MCPyV prevalence according to race and ethnicity and patient immune status to help clarify the overlap between MCC risk factors.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jacob T. Tribble, BA, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Rockville, Maryland. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Incidences of MCC may have been inflated because of increased medical surveillance in immunosuppressed populations. The analysis assumed that only cases among non-Hispanic White individuals were associated with UVR. Additionally, the meta-analysis of MCPyV prevalence primarily included studies from large academic institutions, which may not be representative of the entire US population.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NCI and the National Institutes of Health Medical Research Scholars Program. Additional funding was provided through a public-private partnership with contributions from the American Association for Dental Research and the Colgate-Palmolive Company to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AMR Could Surpass Cancer as Leading Cause of Death by 2050
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is globally recognized as one of the greatest health threats of the 21st century, responsible for 1.27 million deaths annually. “According to the WHO, if no measures are taken promptly, AMR could lead to more deaths than cancer by 2050,” Arnaud Marchant, MD, PhD, director of the European Plotkin Institute for Vaccinology at Université libre de Bruxelles (EPIV-ULB), Anderlecht, Belgium, said in an interview with MediQuality, part of the Medscape Professional Network. “This is a huge problem, and vaccination could be part of the solution.”
EPIV-ULB marked the start of the World AMR Awareness Week (November 18-24) with an event highlighting the critical role of vaccination to counter the rise for resistant pathogens. During the event, MediQuality interviewed Marchant, along with several other experts in the field.
Antibiotics Losing Effectiveness
Marc Van Ranst, PhD, virologist at Rega Institute KU Leuven in Leuven, Belgium, echoed Marchant’s concerns. He noted that “an increasing number of bacteria are becoming resistant to more antibiotics.” “While antibiotics were once miracle drugs, they have now stopped — or almost stopped — working against certain bacteria. Although we are discovering more effective therapies, bacterial infections are increasingly likely to worsen due to AMR.”
Van Ranst issued a stark warning: “If this trend continues, it is entirely reasonable to predict that in 25 years, some antibiotics will become useless, certain bacterial infections will be much harder to treat, and deaths will outnumber those caused by cancer. It’s worth noting, however, that as cancer treatments improve, cancer-related deaths are expected to decline, further highlighting the growing burden of AMR-related fatalities.”
Viruses, Vaccines, and Resistance
Van Ranst emphasized that while AMR primarily involves bacteria, viral infections and vaccination against them also play a role in addressing the issue. “When vaccines prevent illness, they reduce the need for unnecessary antibiotic use. In the past, antibiotics were frequently prescribed for respiratory infections — typically caused by viruses — leading to misuse and heightened resistance. By preventing viral infections through vaccines, we reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions and, subsequently, AMR.”
Strategic Areas of Focus
To maximize the impact of vaccination in combating AMR, Belgium must prioritize several strategic areas, according to EPIV-ULB. “Expanding vaccination coverage for recommended vaccines is crucial to effectively preventing the spread of resistant pathogens,” said Marchant.
“Innovation and development of new vaccines are also essential, including targeted research into vaccines for infections that are currently unavoidable through other means. Enhancing epidemiological surveillance through national data collection and analysis will further clarify the impact of vaccines on AMR and inform policy decisions.”
EPIV-ULB underscored the importance of educating the public and healthcare professionals. “Public awareness is essential to addressing vaccine hesitancy by providing clear information on the importance of prevention,” Marchant explained. “Healthcare professional training must also improve, encouraging preventive practices and judicious antibiotic use. Furthermore, additional research is necessary to fill data gaps and develop predictive models that can guide vaccine development in the future.”
Role of Vaccination
According to EPIV-ULB, Belgium needs a strengthened national strategy to address AMR effectively. “Complementary solutions are increasingly important as antimicrobials lose efficacy and treatments become more complex,” Marchant said. “Vaccination offers a proactive and effective preventive solution, directly and indirectly reducing the spread of resistant pathogens.”
Vaccines combat AMR through various mechanisms. “They prevent diseases such as pneumococcal pneumonia and meningitis, reducing the need for antibiotics to treat these infections,” Marchant explained. “Additionally, vaccination lowers inappropriate antibiotic use by preventing viral infections, reducing the risk of overprescribing antibiotics in cases where they are unnecessary. Lastly, herd immunity from vaccination slows the circulation of resistant pathogens, limiting their spread.”
Van Ranst urged healthcare professionals to prioritize vaccinating at-risk populations as identified by Belgium’s Superior Health Council. These include the elderly with underlying conditions and pregnant women, especially for influenza vaccines. University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, also conducts annual vaccination campaigns for its staff, combining flu and COVID vaccines to increase uptake.
A Global Challenge
Marc Noppen, MD, PhD, director of University Hospital Brussels, Belgium, emphasized the complexity of AMR as a global issue. “The problem isn’t solely due to human antibiotic use; it also stems from veterinary medicine, plant breeding, and animal husbandry. This is a multifactorial, worldwide issue that requires public awareness. Improved vaccination strategies are one way to address AMR, particularly in this post-COVID era of heightened skepticism toward vaccines,” he explained.
Marie-Lise Verschelden from Pfizer highlighted the need for cooperation across the healthcare sector. “Belgium is fortunate to have a fantastic ecosystem of academics, clinicians, and industry experts. Collaboration, including government involvement, is critical to advancing our efforts. At Pfizer, we continue to develop new vaccines and technologies, and the COVID crisis has reinforced the critical role of vaccination in combating AMR. Through our vaccine portfolio and ongoing developments, we are well-positioned to contribute significantly to this global challenge.”
Elisabeth Van Damme from GSK reiterated that AMR is a global issue requiring joint efforts. “Existing vaccines are underutilized. Vaccination protects against certain infectious diseases, reducing the need for antibiotics. Antibiotics, in turn, are sometimes prescribed incorrectly, especially for viral infections they cannot treat. At GSK, we are already developing new vaccines to meet future needs.”
Vaccination remains a cornerstone in the fight against AMR. As pathogens grow increasingly resistant to antibiotics, coordinated efforts and innovative vaccine development are essential to mitigating this global health crisis.
This story was translated and adapted from MediQuality using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is globally recognized as one of the greatest health threats of the 21st century, responsible for 1.27 million deaths annually. “According to the WHO, if no measures are taken promptly, AMR could lead to more deaths than cancer by 2050,” Arnaud Marchant, MD, PhD, director of the European Plotkin Institute for Vaccinology at Université libre de Bruxelles (EPIV-ULB), Anderlecht, Belgium, said in an interview with MediQuality, part of the Medscape Professional Network. “This is a huge problem, and vaccination could be part of the solution.”
EPIV-ULB marked the start of the World AMR Awareness Week (November 18-24) with an event highlighting the critical role of vaccination to counter the rise for resistant pathogens. During the event, MediQuality interviewed Marchant, along with several other experts in the field.
Antibiotics Losing Effectiveness
Marc Van Ranst, PhD, virologist at Rega Institute KU Leuven in Leuven, Belgium, echoed Marchant’s concerns. He noted that “an increasing number of bacteria are becoming resistant to more antibiotics.” “While antibiotics were once miracle drugs, they have now stopped — or almost stopped — working against certain bacteria. Although we are discovering more effective therapies, bacterial infections are increasingly likely to worsen due to AMR.”
Van Ranst issued a stark warning: “If this trend continues, it is entirely reasonable to predict that in 25 years, some antibiotics will become useless, certain bacterial infections will be much harder to treat, and deaths will outnumber those caused by cancer. It’s worth noting, however, that as cancer treatments improve, cancer-related deaths are expected to decline, further highlighting the growing burden of AMR-related fatalities.”
Viruses, Vaccines, and Resistance
Van Ranst emphasized that while AMR primarily involves bacteria, viral infections and vaccination against them also play a role in addressing the issue. “When vaccines prevent illness, they reduce the need for unnecessary antibiotic use. In the past, antibiotics were frequently prescribed for respiratory infections — typically caused by viruses — leading to misuse and heightened resistance. By preventing viral infections through vaccines, we reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions and, subsequently, AMR.”
Strategic Areas of Focus
To maximize the impact of vaccination in combating AMR, Belgium must prioritize several strategic areas, according to EPIV-ULB. “Expanding vaccination coverage for recommended vaccines is crucial to effectively preventing the spread of resistant pathogens,” said Marchant.
“Innovation and development of new vaccines are also essential, including targeted research into vaccines for infections that are currently unavoidable through other means. Enhancing epidemiological surveillance through national data collection and analysis will further clarify the impact of vaccines on AMR and inform policy decisions.”
EPIV-ULB underscored the importance of educating the public and healthcare professionals. “Public awareness is essential to addressing vaccine hesitancy by providing clear information on the importance of prevention,” Marchant explained. “Healthcare professional training must also improve, encouraging preventive practices and judicious antibiotic use. Furthermore, additional research is necessary to fill data gaps and develop predictive models that can guide vaccine development in the future.”
Role of Vaccination
According to EPIV-ULB, Belgium needs a strengthened national strategy to address AMR effectively. “Complementary solutions are increasingly important as antimicrobials lose efficacy and treatments become more complex,” Marchant said. “Vaccination offers a proactive and effective preventive solution, directly and indirectly reducing the spread of resistant pathogens.”
Vaccines combat AMR through various mechanisms. “They prevent diseases such as pneumococcal pneumonia and meningitis, reducing the need for antibiotics to treat these infections,” Marchant explained. “Additionally, vaccination lowers inappropriate antibiotic use by preventing viral infections, reducing the risk of overprescribing antibiotics in cases where they are unnecessary. Lastly, herd immunity from vaccination slows the circulation of resistant pathogens, limiting their spread.”
Van Ranst urged healthcare professionals to prioritize vaccinating at-risk populations as identified by Belgium’s Superior Health Council. These include the elderly with underlying conditions and pregnant women, especially for influenza vaccines. University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, also conducts annual vaccination campaigns for its staff, combining flu and COVID vaccines to increase uptake.
A Global Challenge
Marc Noppen, MD, PhD, director of University Hospital Brussels, Belgium, emphasized the complexity of AMR as a global issue. “The problem isn’t solely due to human antibiotic use; it also stems from veterinary medicine, plant breeding, and animal husbandry. This is a multifactorial, worldwide issue that requires public awareness. Improved vaccination strategies are one way to address AMR, particularly in this post-COVID era of heightened skepticism toward vaccines,” he explained.
Marie-Lise Verschelden from Pfizer highlighted the need for cooperation across the healthcare sector. “Belgium is fortunate to have a fantastic ecosystem of academics, clinicians, and industry experts. Collaboration, including government involvement, is critical to advancing our efforts. At Pfizer, we continue to develop new vaccines and technologies, and the COVID crisis has reinforced the critical role of vaccination in combating AMR. Through our vaccine portfolio and ongoing developments, we are well-positioned to contribute significantly to this global challenge.”
Elisabeth Van Damme from GSK reiterated that AMR is a global issue requiring joint efforts. “Existing vaccines are underutilized. Vaccination protects against certain infectious diseases, reducing the need for antibiotics. Antibiotics, in turn, are sometimes prescribed incorrectly, especially for viral infections they cannot treat. At GSK, we are already developing new vaccines to meet future needs.”
Vaccination remains a cornerstone in the fight against AMR. As pathogens grow increasingly resistant to antibiotics, coordinated efforts and innovative vaccine development are essential to mitigating this global health crisis.
This story was translated and adapted from MediQuality using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is globally recognized as one of the greatest health threats of the 21st century, responsible for 1.27 million deaths annually. “According to the WHO, if no measures are taken promptly, AMR could lead to more deaths than cancer by 2050,” Arnaud Marchant, MD, PhD, director of the European Plotkin Institute for Vaccinology at Université libre de Bruxelles (EPIV-ULB), Anderlecht, Belgium, said in an interview with MediQuality, part of the Medscape Professional Network. “This is a huge problem, and vaccination could be part of the solution.”
EPIV-ULB marked the start of the World AMR Awareness Week (November 18-24) with an event highlighting the critical role of vaccination to counter the rise for resistant pathogens. During the event, MediQuality interviewed Marchant, along with several other experts in the field.
Antibiotics Losing Effectiveness
Marc Van Ranst, PhD, virologist at Rega Institute KU Leuven in Leuven, Belgium, echoed Marchant’s concerns. He noted that “an increasing number of bacteria are becoming resistant to more antibiotics.” “While antibiotics were once miracle drugs, they have now stopped — or almost stopped — working against certain bacteria. Although we are discovering more effective therapies, bacterial infections are increasingly likely to worsen due to AMR.”
Van Ranst issued a stark warning: “If this trend continues, it is entirely reasonable to predict that in 25 years, some antibiotics will become useless, certain bacterial infections will be much harder to treat, and deaths will outnumber those caused by cancer. It’s worth noting, however, that as cancer treatments improve, cancer-related deaths are expected to decline, further highlighting the growing burden of AMR-related fatalities.”
Viruses, Vaccines, and Resistance
Van Ranst emphasized that while AMR primarily involves bacteria, viral infections and vaccination against them also play a role in addressing the issue. “When vaccines prevent illness, they reduce the need for unnecessary antibiotic use. In the past, antibiotics were frequently prescribed for respiratory infections — typically caused by viruses — leading to misuse and heightened resistance. By preventing viral infections through vaccines, we reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions and, subsequently, AMR.”
Strategic Areas of Focus
To maximize the impact of vaccination in combating AMR, Belgium must prioritize several strategic areas, according to EPIV-ULB. “Expanding vaccination coverage for recommended vaccines is crucial to effectively preventing the spread of resistant pathogens,” said Marchant.
“Innovation and development of new vaccines are also essential, including targeted research into vaccines for infections that are currently unavoidable through other means. Enhancing epidemiological surveillance through national data collection and analysis will further clarify the impact of vaccines on AMR and inform policy decisions.”
EPIV-ULB underscored the importance of educating the public and healthcare professionals. “Public awareness is essential to addressing vaccine hesitancy by providing clear information on the importance of prevention,” Marchant explained. “Healthcare professional training must also improve, encouraging preventive practices and judicious antibiotic use. Furthermore, additional research is necessary to fill data gaps and develop predictive models that can guide vaccine development in the future.”
Role of Vaccination
According to EPIV-ULB, Belgium needs a strengthened national strategy to address AMR effectively. “Complementary solutions are increasingly important as antimicrobials lose efficacy and treatments become more complex,” Marchant said. “Vaccination offers a proactive and effective preventive solution, directly and indirectly reducing the spread of resistant pathogens.”
Vaccines combat AMR through various mechanisms. “They prevent diseases such as pneumococcal pneumonia and meningitis, reducing the need for antibiotics to treat these infections,” Marchant explained. “Additionally, vaccination lowers inappropriate antibiotic use by preventing viral infections, reducing the risk of overprescribing antibiotics in cases where they are unnecessary. Lastly, herd immunity from vaccination slows the circulation of resistant pathogens, limiting their spread.”
Van Ranst urged healthcare professionals to prioritize vaccinating at-risk populations as identified by Belgium’s Superior Health Council. These include the elderly with underlying conditions and pregnant women, especially for influenza vaccines. University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, also conducts annual vaccination campaigns for its staff, combining flu and COVID vaccines to increase uptake.
A Global Challenge
Marc Noppen, MD, PhD, director of University Hospital Brussels, Belgium, emphasized the complexity of AMR as a global issue. “The problem isn’t solely due to human antibiotic use; it also stems from veterinary medicine, plant breeding, and animal husbandry. This is a multifactorial, worldwide issue that requires public awareness. Improved vaccination strategies are one way to address AMR, particularly in this post-COVID era of heightened skepticism toward vaccines,” he explained.
Marie-Lise Verschelden from Pfizer highlighted the need for cooperation across the healthcare sector. “Belgium is fortunate to have a fantastic ecosystem of academics, clinicians, and industry experts. Collaboration, including government involvement, is critical to advancing our efforts. At Pfizer, we continue to develop new vaccines and technologies, and the COVID crisis has reinforced the critical role of vaccination in combating AMR. Through our vaccine portfolio and ongoing developments, we are well-positioned to contribute significantly to this global challenge.”
Elisabeth Van Damme from GSK reiterated that AMR is a global issue requiring joint efforts. “Existing vaccines are underutilized. Vaccination protects against certain infectious diseases, reducing the need for antibiotics. Antibiotics, in turn, are sometimes prescribed incorrectly, especially for viral infections they cannot treat. At GSK, we are already developing new vaccines to meet future needs.”
Vaccination remains a cornerstone in the fight against AMR. As pathogens grow increasingly resistant to antibiotics, coordinated efforts and innovative vaccine development are essential to mitigating this global health crisis.
This story was translated and adapted from MediQuality using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Watch That Attitude: Is There Ageism in Healthcare?
People are living longer in Europe. Life expectancy increased on the continent by around 12 years between 1960 and 2022. And despite slower progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend appears to be continuing.
Not only are Europeans living longer, their fertility rates are declining. This means that the number of people aged 75-84 years is projected to grow in Europe a full 56.1% by 2050, while the population younger than 55 years is expected to fall by 13.5%.
This means that attitudes toward age need to change, and fast — even among healthcare professionals.
Healthcare Is Not Exempt From Ageist Attitudes
A systematic review published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2020 found that age was a determinant factor in dictating who received certain medical procedures or treatments. For example, a study of 9105 hospitalized patients found that healthcare providers were significantly more likely to withhold life-sustaining treatments from older patients. Another study found evidence that older people are excluded from clinical trials, even when the trials are for diseases that appear later in life, like Parkinson’s.
“In healthcare, there are different levels of ageism,” explained Hannah Swift, PhD, reader in social and organizational psychology at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom.
Ageism is embedded in the laws, rules, and practices of institutions, she explained. This became especially obvious during the pandemic, when health professionals had to decide who to treat, possibly using age as a proxy for making some of these decisions, she said.
“When you categorize people, you might be using stereotypes, assumptions, and expectations about age and that age group to make those decisions, and that’s where errors can occur.”
She added that ageist attitudes also become apparent at the interpersonal level by using patronizing language or offering unnecessary help to older people based on assumptions about their cognitive and physical abilities.
“Older age is often wrongly associated with declining levels of health and activity,” said Ittay Mannheim, PhD, guest postdoctoral researcher on aging and ageism at the Open University of the Netherlands. “However, older adults are a very diverse group, varying widely in many aspects, including health conditions. This stereotype can influence how healthcare professionals interact with them, assuming frailty or memory issues simply based on age. It’s important to recognize that being older doesn’t necessarily mean being ill.”
Mannheim’s research found that healthcare professionals often stand in the way of older people using technology-based treatments due to negative attitudes towards age. “So, actually, a barrier to using these technologies could be that healthcare professionals don’t think that someone can use it or won’t even offer it because someone looks old or is old,” he said.
The Impacts
Discrimination impacts the physical, mental, and social well-being of its victims. This includes attitudes towards age.
The PLOS ONE review of research on the global reach of ageism found that experienced or self-determined ageism was associated with significantly worse health outcomes across all countries examined. The same research team calculated that an estimated 6.3 million cases of depression worldwide are linked to ageism.
Other research has found that exposure to negative age stereotyping impacts willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle in addition to increasing the risk for cardiovascular events.
What Can Be Done?
“Healthcare professionals frequently interact with older adults at their most vulnerable, which can reinforce negative stereotypes of older people being vulnerable or ill,” said Swift. “However, not all older adults fit these stereotypes. Many can live well and independently. Perhaps healthcare education should include reminders of the diverse experiences of older individuals rather than solely focusing on the moments when they require help.”
Research indicates that although progress has been made in geriatric training and the care of older individuals by healthcare education institutions, improved education and training are still needed at all levels of geriatric healthcare, including hospital administrators, physicians, nurses, personal caregivers, and associated health professions.
“Generally speaking, what healthcare professionals learn about aging tends to focus more on the biological aspects,” said Mannheim. “However, they may not fully understand what it means to be old or how to interact with older individuals, especially regarding technology. It is important to raise awareness about ageism because, in my experience working with healthcare professionals, even a single workshop on ageism can have a profound impact. Participants often respond with surprise, saying something like, ‘Wow, I never thought about this before.’”
Mannheim said that training healthcare providers to understand the aging process better could help to reduce any biases they might have and better prepare them to respond more adequately to the needs of older patients.
“We cannot devalue the lives of older people simply because they are older. It is crucial for all of us, especially governments, to acknowledge our responsibility to protect and promote human rights for individuals of all ages. If we fail to do this, the strategies we’ve witnessed during this pandemic will be repeated in the future,” said Nena Georgantzi, PhD, Barcelona-based human rights manager at AGE Platform Europe, an EU network of organizations of and for older people.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
People are living longer in Europe. Life expectancy increased on the continent by around 12 years between 1960 and 2022. And despite slower progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend appears to be continuing.
Not only are Europeans living longer, their fertility rates are declining. This means that the number of people aged 75-84 years is projected to grow in Europe a full 56.1% by 2050, while the population younger than 55 years is expected to fall by 13.5%.
This means that attitudes toward age need to change, and fast — even among healthcare professionals.
Healthcare Is Not Exempt From Ageist Attitudes
A systematic review published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2020 found that age was a determinant factor in dictating who received certain medical procedures or treatments. For example, a study of 9105 hospitalized patients found that healthcare providers were significantly more likely to withhold life-sustaining treatments from older patients. Another study found evidence that older people are excluded from clinical trials, even when the trials are for diseases that appear later in life, like Parkinson’s.
“In healthcare, there are different levels of ageism,” explained Hannah Swift, PhD, reader in social and organizational psychology at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom.
Ageism is embedded in the laws, rules, and practices of institutions, she explained. This became especially obvious during the pandemic, when health professionals had to decide who to treat, possibly using age as a proxy for making some of these decisions, she said.
“When you categorize people, you might be using stereotypes, assumptions, and expectations about age and that age group to make those decisions, and that’s where errors can occur.”
She added that ageist attitudes also become apparent at the interpersonal level by using patronizing language or offering unnecessary help to older people based on assumptions about their cognitive and physical abilities.
“Older age is often wrongly associated with declining levels of health and activity,” said Ittay Mannheim, PhD, guest postdoctoral researcher on aging and ageism at the Open University of the Netherlands. “However, older adults are a very diverse group, varying widely in many aspects, including health conditions. This stereotype can influence how healthcare professionals interact with them, assuming frailty or memory issues simply based on age. It’s important to recognize that being older doesn’t necessarily mean being ill.”
Mannheim’s research found that healthcare professionals often stand in the way of older people using technology-based treatments due to negative attitudes towards age. “So, actually, a barrier to using these technologies could be that healthcare professionals don’t think that someone can use it or won’t even offer it because someone looks old or is old,” he said.
The Impacts
Discrimination impacts the physical, mental, and social well-being of its victims. This includes attitudes towards age.
The PLOS ONE review of research on the global reach of ageism found that experienced or self-determined ageism was associated with significantly worse health outcomes across all countries examined. The same research team calculated that an estimated 6.3 million cases of depression worldwide are linked to ageism.
Other research has found that exposure to negative age stereotyping impacts willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle in addition to increasing the risk for cardiovascular events.
What Can Be Done?
“Healthcare professionals frequently interact with older adults at their most vulnerable, which can reinforce negative stereotypes of older people being vulnerable or ill,” said Swift. “However, not all older adults fit these stereotypes. Many can live well and independently. Perhaps healthcare education should include reminders of the diverse experiences of older individuals rather than solely focusing on the moments when they require help.”
Research indicates that although progress has been made in geriatric training and the care of older individuals by healthcare education institutions, improved education and training are still needed at all levels of geriatric healthcare, including hospital administrators, physicians, nurses, personal caregivers, and associated health professions.
“Generally speaking, what healthcare professionals learn about aging tends to focus more on the biological aspects,” said Mannheim. “However, they may not fully understand what it means to be old or how to interact with older individuals, especially regarding technology. It is important to raise awareness about ageism because, in my experience working with healthcare professionals, even a single workshop on ageism can have a profound impact. Participants often respond with surprise, saying something like, ‘Wow, I never thought about this before.’”
Mannheim said that training healthcare providers to understand the aging process better could help to reduce any biases they might have and better prepare them to respond more adequately to the needs of older patients.
“We cannot devalue the lives of older people simply because they are older. It is crucial for all of us, especially governments, to acknowledge our responsibility to protect and promote human rights for individuals of all ages. If we fail to do this, the strategies we’ve witnessed during this pandemic will be repeated in the future,” said Nena Georgantzi, PhD, Barcelona-based human rights manager at AGE Platform Europe, an EU network of organizations of and for older people.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
People are living longer in Europe. Life expectancy increased on the continent by around 12 years between 1960 and 2022. And despite slower progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend appears to be continuing.
Not only are Europeans living longer, their fertility rates are declining. This means that the number of people aged 75-84 years is projected to grow in Europe a full 56.1% by 2050, while the population younger than 55 years is expected to fall by 13.5%.
This means that attitudes toward age need to change, and fast — even among healthcare professionals.
Healthcare Is Not Exempt From Ageist Attitudes
A systematic review published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2020 found that age was a determinant factor in dictating who received certain medical procedures or treatments. For example, a study of 9105 hospitalized patients found that healthcare providers were significantly more likely to withhold life-sustaining treatments from older patients. Another study found evidence that older people are excluded from clinical trials, even when the trials are for diseases that appear later in life, like Parkinson’s.
“In healthcare, there are different levels of ageism,” explained Hannah Swift, PhD, reader in social and organizational psychology at the University of Kent in the United Kingdom.
Ageism is embedded in the laws, rules, and practices of institutions, she explained. This became especially obvious during the pandemic, when health professionals had to decide who to treat, possibly using age as a proxy for making some of these decisions, she said.
“When you categorize people, you might be using stereotypes, assumptions, and expectations about age and that age group to make those decisions, and that’s where errors can occur.”
She added that ageist attitudes also become apparent at the interpersonal level by using patronizing language or offering unnecessary help to older people based on assumptions about their cognitive and physical abilities.
“Older age is often wrongly associated with declining levels of health and activity,” said Ittay Mannheim, PhD, guest postdoctoral researcher on aging and ageism at the Open University of the Netherlands. “However, older adults are a very diverse group, varying widely in many aspects, including health conditions. This stereotype can influence how healthcare professionals interact with them, assuming frailty or memory issues simply based on age. It’s important to recognize that being older doesn’t necessarily mean being ill.”
Mannheim’s research found that healthcare professionals often stand in the way of older people using technology-based treatments due to negative attitudes towards age. “So, actually, a barrier to using these technologies could be that healthcare professionals don’t think that someone can use it or won’t even offer it because someone looks old or is old,” he said.
The Impacts
Discrimination impacts the physical, mental, and social well-being of its victims. This includes attitudes towards age.
The PLOS ONE review of research on the global reach of ageism found that experienced or self-determined ageism was associated with significantly worse health outcomes across all countries examined. The same research team calculated that an estimated 6.3 million cases of depression worldwide are linked to ageism.
Other research has found that exposure to negative age stereotyping impacts willingness to adopt a healthy lifestyle in addition to increasing the risk for cardiovascular events.
What Can Be Done?
“Healthcare professionals frequently interact with older adults at their most vulnerable, which can reinforce negative stereotypes of older people being vulnerable or ill,” said Swift. “However, not all older adults fit these stereotypes. Many can live well and independently. Perhaps healthcare education should include reminders of the diverse experiences of older individuals rather than solely focusing on the moments when they require help.”
Research indicates that although progress has been made in geriatric training and the care of older individuals by healthcare education institutions, improved education and training are still needed at all levels of geriatric healthcare, including hospital administrators, physicians, nurses, personal caregivers, and associated health professions.
“Generally speaking, what healthcare professionals learn about aging tends to focus more on the biological aspects,” said Mannheim. “However, they may not fully understand what it means to be old or how to interact with older individuals, especially regarding technology. It is important to raise awareness about ageism because, in my experience working with healthcare professionals, even a single workshop on ageism can have a profound impact. Participants often respond with surprise, saying something like, ‘Wow, I never thought about this before.’”
Mannheim said that training healthcare providers to understand the aging process better could help to reduce any biases they might have and better prepare them to respond more adequately to the needs of older patients.
“We cannot devalue the lives of older people simply because they are older. It is crucial for all of us, especially governments, to acknowledge our responsibility to protect and promote human rights for individuals of all ages. If we fail to do this, the strategies we’ve witnessed during this pandemic will be repeated in the future,” said Nena Georgantzi, PhD, Barcelona-based human rights manager at AGE Platform Europe, an EU network of organizations of and for older people.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Does Screening at 40-49 Years Boost Breast Cancer Survival?
The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.
Overdiagnosis Challenged
Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.
“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization.
To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them.
“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.
Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths).
Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%).
The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).
Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.
Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”
Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit
The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.
Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.
The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.
Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.
It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.
Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years.
The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine.
Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.
Overdiagnosis Challenged
Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.
“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization.
To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them.
“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.
Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths).
Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%).
The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).
Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.
Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”
Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit
The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.
Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.
The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.
Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.
It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.
Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years.
The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine.
Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The data call into question draft guidelines from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, which suggest not systematically screening women in this age group with mammography.
Overdiagnosis Challenged
Given that some jurisdictions in Canada have organized screening programs and some do not, there was an opportunity to compare breast cancer 10-year net survival of women who lived in jurisdictions with and without such programs, explained family physician Anna N. Wilkinson, MD, Ottawa regional cancer primary care lead and associate professor at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.
“The question was [whether] we could use big cancer data to figure out what’s going on,” she told this news organization.
To investigate, Wilkinson and co-investigators reviewed data from the Canadian Cancer Registry linked to mortality information and assessed outcomes for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 years diagnosed with breast cancer from 2002 to 2007. They compared 10-year net survival estimates in jurisdictions with organized screening programs for those aged 40-49 years with the jurisdictions without them.
“Net survival is important because it’s a survival measure that looks at only the cancer in question,” Wilkinson explained.
Investigators determined breast cancer to be the primary cause of 10-year mortality in women aged 40-49 years diagnosed with the disease (90.7% of deaths).
Furthermore, the 10-year net survival in jurisdictions that screened these women (84.8%) was 1.9 percentage points higher than for jurisdictions that did not (82.9%).
The difference in 10-year net survival favoring jurisdictions that offered screening was significant for women aged 45-49 years (2.6 percentage points) but not for those aged 40-44 years (0.9 percentage points).
Given that 90% of the deaths in women in their 40s who had a breast cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer, Wilkinson challenged the concept of women in their 40s being overdiagnosed with breast cancer, meaning that the cancers detected were indolent and did not require treatment nor result in death.
Earlier detection would generally mean finding disease at an earlier stage and the need for less invasive treatment, she noted. “And one of the biggest benefits [of screening women in their 40s] is that you have diagnosis at earlier stage disease, which means fewer intensive therapies, less time off work, less long-term morbidity, and less cost to our healthcare system.”
Modeling Shows Little Screening Benefit
The task force’s draft guidelines, released earlier this year, were based on evidence from 165 studies including randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, time-trend studies and modeling. They suggest not systematically screening women 40-49 with mammography who are not high risk.
Family physician Guylène Thériault, MD, chair of the task force and its breast cancer working group, and director of the Pedagogy Center at the Outaouais Campus, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, explained that to come to that conclusion, the task force had assessed the impact of organized screening for women in Canada aged 40-49 years and calculated the impact of mammography for every 1000 women over 10 years.
The model suggested that screening would yield 368 false positives, leading to 55 biopsies, and then to a breast cancer diagnosis in 19 women. Of those 19, the task force estimated 17 or 18 would not die of breast cancer over 10 years, two would be treated for breast cancer that would not have caused problems, ie, overdiagnosis, and one to two would die of breast cancer.
Without screening, on the other hand, the model suggested that 983 of 1000 women aged 40-49 years would not be diagnosed with breast cancer, and 17 would be, 15 of whom would not die from breast cancer over 10 years (no overdiagnosis, no deaths prevented) and two would die.
It is important that family physicians provide their patients with this information to assist in shared decision making about screening, Thériault said.
Wilkinson concluded that screening programs that included women in their 40s were associated with a significantly higher breast cancer 10-year survival, without an increased rate of diagnosis. She suggested that the study findings can inform the screening guidelines for women aged 40-49 years.
The study was supported by the University of Ottawa’s department of family medicine.
Wilkinson, MD, is a consultant for Thrive Health. Thériault, MD, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM FMF 2024
Vorasidenib for Certain IDH-Mutant Gliomas: Is It Worth It?
After years with limited treatment options, experts hailed vorasidenib “a promising breakthrough,” “a paradigm shift,” a “new hope,” and “probably the most important advance in the treatment of low-grade gliomas in the last decade.”
Promising results from vorasidenib’s pivotal INDIGO trial fueled petitions and patient advocacy circles to push for the drug’s approval. And, in August 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vorasidenib for grade 2 astrocytomas or oligodendrogliomas with an IDH1 or IDH2 mutation.
But following the approval, some experts expressed concerns and doubts about the drug and the INDIGO trial, bringing a host of unanswered questions into sharper focus.
In an editorial, Stanislav Lazarev, MD, and Kunal K. Sindhu, MD, both radiation oncologists from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, suggest that the FDA approval “might be premature given the high cost of this drug and lack of clear benefit over standard treatments.”
Another recent critique also pointed to the lack of clear evidence that vorasidenib is superior to the prevailing standard of care, despite the drug’s high cost. These authors noted that “patients want to live longer, and if not, at least live better,” but “based on the INDIGO study, it is impossible to say whether vorasidenib can provide either.”
Vorasidenib is now one of the most expensive cancer therapies, with an annual cost of nearly $500,000, but the INDIGO trial did not explore whether the drug led to improved overall survival or better quality of life. Among the trial’s design flaws, experts called out the use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome, instead of overall survival, and the use of an inappropriate comparator group.
INDIGO was a phase 3 trial that included 331 adult patients (median age, 40.5 years) with grade-2 IDH-mutant recurrent or residual glioma after surgery. To be eligible, patients had to be followed for at least 1 year, and up to 5 years, post surgery and had to be considered appropriate candidates for a watch-and-wait approach.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 40 mg of vorasidenib or a matching placebo orally, once daily, in continuous 28-day cycles until imaging-confirmed tumor disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, at which point crossover to vorasidenib from placebo was permitted. Over one third (n = 58) of patients in the placebo group crossed over and 90% of them (n = 52) received vorasidenib.
Median progression-free survival was significantly better in the vorasidenib group at 27.7 months vs 11.1 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39).
A key secondary endpoint — time to next intervention — was also significant; the likelihood of being alive and not receiving further treatment at 18 months was 85.6% in the vorasidenib group and 47.4% in the placebo group (HR, 0.26). This finding indicates that most patients receiving vorasidenib could delay chemoradiation for 18 months or longer.
Despite these impressive outcomes, some experts noted that using progression-free survival as the primary endpoint was a major flaw of the INDIGO trial because, currently, there is no evidence that progression-free survival is a reliable surrogate endpoint for overall survival in this setting.
The high rate of crossover to vorasidenib is another issue because it may limit a longer-term analysis of overall survival. If, for instance, overall survival is the same between the groups, it could signal that the drug is effective in both groups or, alternatively, that the drug has no effect on survival in either group.
“That is a legitimate concern,” Seema Nagpal, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Stanford University in California, and a site principal investigator for the INDIGO trial, said in an interview. “We don’t know that this drug changes overall survival, and I think we’re not going to get a super clean answer on that.”
Another major issue centers on the standard of care assigned to control patients in the INDIGO trial.
In the trial, vorasidenib was compared with placebo — an appropriate standard-of-care comparison for patients with low-risk gliomas. These patients often initially undergo watch-and-wait to delay chemoradiation. But Lazarev and Sindhu argue that the patients in INDIGO were really high risk, which means the control group should have received the standard of care for these patients: Chemoradiation following surgery.
This question about the appropriate standard of care stems from ongoing uncertainty about the distinction between high- and low-risk gliomas.
The classification for gliomas falls into either low risk or high risk for early disease progression. The RTOG 9802 criteria, often used for glioma risk stratification, defines low-risk patients as those younger than 40 years with gross total resection and high-risk patients as those aged 40 years or older with any extent of resection or those younger than 40 years with subtotal or biopsy resection.
But an evolving understanding of genetic anomalies that affect prognoses in this tumor type has muddied the current high- and low-risk distinctions.
“People haven’t totally figured out what high and low risk means,” Nagpal acknowledged.
This uncertainty has spilled over into the INDIGO trial.
While the trial excluded patients who had any features indicating high risk, such as brain stem involvement or neurocognitive deficits, the researchers also did not explicitly define patients as low risk. However, the inclusion criteria specified that patients had to be observed for at least 1 year after surgery and be considered appropriate for a watch-and-wait protocol, which does suggest patients were considered low risk, said Nagpal.
Still, some experts argue that the patients in INDIGO were not low risk.
Patients had residual or recurrent disease so “wouldn’t be classified as low risk,” said Sindhu in an interview. The standard of care for these patients is chemoradiation, Lazarev added.
“The definition of a phase 3 clinical trial is that you compare the novel intervention to the standard of care,” said Lazarev. “Level 1 evidence clearly shows that omitting chemoradiation leads to worse outcomes, with patients literally dying sooner. For the investigators to knowingly exclude this proven treatment raises serious ethical and methodological questions about the study’s design.”
In a recent opinion piece, Nagpal agreed that most patients selected for INDIGO would not have been considered low risk by many providers. All patients selected for INDIGO had postoperative residual/recurrent disease and many were older than 40 years.
But, Nagpal explained, the risk stratification of the INDIGO patients was still lower than what is commonly considered high risk. The patients had all been observed for a year or more already, “so by definition, the clinician treating them already decided they were not high risk,” she said.
In another recent opinion piece, oncologists suggested that, because patients in the INDIGO trial do not squarely fall into either category, instead representing a “grey area,” it’s time to create a new risk category.
“Perhaps the time has come to abandon the old binary risk stratification (“low risk” vs “high risk”), which still contains arbitrary elements (such as the age cutoff), proving impractical in real-world clinical decision-making, and to adopt a new one, also taking into account many emerging prognostic biomarkers,” the authors wrote.
Despite the uncertainty surrounding risk categories, the INDIGO authors justified their study design.
A watch-and-wait period for patients in the trial, which “represents the earliest clinical phase in tumorigenesis of IDH-mutant WHO grade 2 glioma,” is “an opportunity to detect a clear signal of antitumor activity for new therapies in placebo-controlled trials” and “postpone the use of radiation therapy and chemotherapy,” the authors explained.
Lazarev, however, questioned the premise that chemoradiation should be delayed.
Oncologists’ desire to delay chemoradiation for their patients reflects “a limited understanding of modern irradiation therapy,” Lazarev said. “Modern technology has improved dramatically. We’re more precise, our understanding about late side effects is better. So, the big picture is that the absolute risk of late neurocognitive affects that actually will affect patients’ quality of life, their ability to work, go to school, succeed on a personal or professional level is exceedingly low.”
Nagpal strongly disagreed.
“Please come to my clinic and ask an actual patient,” said Nagpal. “Once a radiation oncologist has irradiated the patient, they almost never seen them again. People who are on the medical side, who follow these patients from beginning to end, recognize that delaying radiation is a huge deal.”
Although vorasidenib isn’t a cure, Nagpal said, it is a less toxic way to delay radiation “because that is a real and disabling thing” for patients and is why neuro-oncologists are excited about alternative treatment options.
Another issue surrounding the vorasidenib approval lies in the FDA’s vague prescribing information. The prescribing information does not specify that patients should be followed for at least 1 year post surgery or that patients need to be lower risk. Prescribing physicians may, therefore, think vorasidenib is appropriate for any patient with a grade-2 IDH mutant glioma at any time and defer or not offer chemoradiation to high-risk patients.
Amid lingering questions about the INDIGO trial design and ongoing uncertainties about how to define and treat this patient population, experts remain divided on whether vorasidenib is worth it.
“If vorasidenib is truly transformative, it should be feasible to demonstrate its superiority over chemoradiotherapy,” Lazarev and Sindhu wrote. “For a drug with such a staggering price tag, an imperative should be placed on the investigators and manufacturer to provide clear evidence of efficacy, whether in terms of improved [overall survival] or quality of life, before vorasidenib is recommended for the treatment of IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas.”
The INDIGO trial was supported by Servier, the manufacturer of vorasidenib. Many of the study authors reported employment or support from the company. Nagpal reported consulting fees from Servier and AnHeart Therapeutics. Lazarev and Sindhu reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
After years with limited treatment options, experts hailed vorasidenib “a promising breakthrough,” “a paradigm shift,” a “new hope,” and “probably the most important advance in the treatment of low-grade gliomas in the last decade.”
Promising results from vorasidenib’s pivotal INDIGO trial fueled petitions and patient advocacy circles to push for the drug’s approval. And, in August 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vorasidenib for grade 2 astrocytomas or oligodendrogliomas with an IDH1 or IDH2 mutation.
But following the approval, some experts expressed concerns and doubts about the drug and the INDIGO trial, bringing a host of unanswered questions into sharper focus.
In an editorial, Stanislav Lazarev, MD, and Kunal K. Sindhu, MD, both radiation oncologists from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, suggest that the FDA approval “might be premature given the high cost of this drug and lack of clear benefit over standard treatments.”
Another recent critique also pointed to the lack of clear evidence that vorasidenib is superior to the prevailing standard of care, despite the drug’s high cost. These authors noted that “patients want to live longer, and if not, at least live better,” but “based on the INDIGO study, it is impossible to say whether vorasidenib can provide either.”
Vorasidenib is now one of the most expensive cancer therapies, with an annual cost of nearly $500,000, but the INDIGO trial did not explore whether the drug led to improved overall survival or better quality of life. Among the trial’s design flaws, experts called out the use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome, instead of overall survival, and the use of an inappropriate comparator group.
INDIGO was a phase 3 trial that included 331 adult patients (median age, 40.5 years) with grade-2 IDH-mutant recurrent or residual glioma after surgery. To be eligible, patients had to be followed for at least 1 year, and up to 5 years, post surgery and had to be considered appropriate candidates for a watch-and-wait approach.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 40 mg of vorasidenib or a matching placebo orally, once daily, in continuous 28-day cycles until imaging-confirmed tumor disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, at which point crossover to vorasidenib from placebo was permitted. Over one third (n = 58) of patients in the placebo group crossed over and 90% of them (n = 52) received vorasidenib.
Median progression-free survival was significantly better in the vorasidenib group at 27.7 months vs 11.1 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39).
A key secondary endpoint — time to next intervention — was also significant; the likelihood of being alive and not receiving further treatment at 18 months was 85.6% in the vorasidenib group and 47.4% in the placebo group (HR, 0.26). This finding indicates that most patients receiving vorasidenib could delay chemoradiation for 18 months or longer.
Despite these impressive outcomes, some experts noted that using progression-free survival as the primary endpoint was a major flaw of the INDIGO trial because, currently, there is no evidence that progression-free survival is a reliable surrogate endpoint for overall survival in this setting.
The high rate of crossover to vorasidenib is another issue because it may limit a longer-term analysis of overall survival. If, for instance, overall survival is the same between the groups, it could signal that the drug is effective in both groups or, alternatively, that the drug has no effect on survival in either group.
“That is a legitimate concern,” Seema Nagpal, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Stanford University in California, and a site principal investigator for the INDIGO trial, said in an interview. “We don’t know that this drug changes overall survival, and I think we’re not going to get a super clean answer on that.”
Another major issue centers on the standard of care assigned to control patients in the INDIGO trial.
In the trial, vorasidenib was compared with placebo — an appropriate standard-of-care comparison for patients with low-risk gliomas. These patients often initially undergo watch-and-wait to delay chemoradiation. But Lazarev and Sindhu argue that the patients in INDIGO were really high risk, which means the control group should have received the standard of care for these patients: Chemoradiation following surgery.
This question about the appropriate standard of care stems from ongoing uncertainty about the distinction between high- and low-risk gliomas.
The classification for gliomas falls into either low risk or high risk for early disease progression. The RTOG 9802 criteria, often used for glioma risk stratification, defines low-risk patients as those younger than 40 years with gross total resection and high-risk patients as those aged 40 years or older with any extent of resection or those younger than 40 years with subtotal or biopsy resection.
But an evolving understanding of genetic anomalies that affect prognoses in this tumor type has muddied the current high- and low-risk distinctions.
“People haven’t totally figured out what high and low risk means,” Nagpal acknowledged.
This uncertainty has spilled over into the INDIGO trial.
While the trial excluded patients who had any features indicating high risk, such as brain stem involvement or neurocognitive deficits, the researchers also did not explicitly define patients as low risk. However, the inclusion criteria specified that patients had to be observed for at least 1 year after surgery and be considered appropriate for a watch-and-wait protocol, which does suggest patients were considered low risk, said Nagpal.
Still, some experts argue that the patients in INDIGO were not low risk.
Patients had residual or recurrent disease so “wouldn’t be classified as low risk,” said Sindhu in an interview. The standard of care for these patients is chemoradiation, Lazarev added.
“The definition of a phase 3 clinical trial is that you compare the novel intervention to the standard of care,” said Lazarev. “Level 1 evidence clearly shows that omitting chemoradiation leads to worse outcomes, with patients literally dying sooner. For the investigators to knowingly exclude this proven treatment raises serious ethical and methodological questions about the study’s design.”
In a recent opinion piece, Nagpal agreed that most patients selected for INDIGO would not have been considered low risk by many providers. All patients selected for INDIGO had postoperative residual/recurrent disease and many were older than 40 years.
But, Nagpal explained, the risk stratification of the INDIGO patients was still lower than what is commonly considered high risk. The patients had all been observed for a year or more already, “so by definition, the clinician treating them already decided they were not high risk,” she said.
In another recent opinion piece, oncologists suggested that, because patients in the INDIGO trial do not squarely fall into either category, instead representing a “grey area,” it’s time to create a new risk category.
“Perhaps the time has come to abandon the old binary risk stratification (“low risk” vs “high risk”), which still contains arbitrary elements (such as the age cutoff), proving impractical in real-world clinical decision-making, and to adopt a new one, also taking into account many emerging prognostic biomarkers,” the authors wrote.
Despite the uncertainty surrounding risk categories, the INDIGO authors justified their study design.
A watch-and-wait period for patients in the trial, which “represents the earliest clinical phase in tumorigenesis of IDH-mutant WHO grade 2 glioma,” is “an opportunity to detect a clear signal of antitumor activity for new therapies in placebo-controlled trials” and “postpone the use of radiation therapy and chemotherapy,” the authors explained.
Lazarev, however, questioned the premise that chemoradiation should be delayed.
Oncologists’ desire to delay chemoradiation for their patients reflects “a limited understanding of modern irradiation therapy,” Lazarev said. “Modern technology has improved dramatically. We’re more precise, our understanding about late side effects is better. So, the big picture is that the absolute risk of late neurocognitive affects that actually will affect patients’ quality of life, their ability to work, go to school, succeed on a personal or professional level is exceedingly low.”
Nagpal strongly disagreed.
“Please come to my clinic and ask an actual patient,” said Nagpal. “Once a radiation oncologist has irradiated the patient, they almost never seen them again. People who are on the medical side, who follow these patients from beginning to end, recognize that delaying radiation is a huge deal.”
Although vorasidenib isn’t a cure, Nagpal said, it is a less toxic way to delay radiation “because that is a real and disabling thing” for patients and is why neuro-oncologists are excited about alternative treatment options.
Another issue surrounding the vorasidenib approval lies in the FDA’s vague prescribing information. The prescribing information does not specify that patients should be followed for at least 1 year post surgery or that patients need to be lower risk. Prescribing physicians may, therefore, think vorasidenib is appropriate for any patient with a grade-2 IDH mutant glioma at any time and defer or not offer chemoradiation to high-risk patients.
Amid lingering questions about the INDIGO trial design and ongoing uncertainties about how to define and treat this patient population, experts remain divided on whether vorasidenib is worth it.
“If vorasidenib is truly transformative, it should be feasible to demonstrate its superiority over chemoradiotherapy,” Lazarev and Sindhu wrote. “For a drug with such a staggering price tag, an imperative should be placed on the investigators and manufacturer to provide clear evidence of efficacy, whether in terms of improved [overall survival] or quality of life, before vorasidenib is recommended for the treatment of IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas.”
The INDIGO trial was supported by Servier, the manufacturer of vorasidenib. Many of the study authors reported employment or support from the company. Nagpal reported consulting fees from Servier and AnHeart Therapeutics. Lazarev and Sindhu reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
After years with limited treatment options, experts hailed vorasidenib “a promising breakthrough,” “a paradigm shift,” a “new hope,” and “probably the most important advance in the treatment of low-grade gliomas in the last decade.”
Promising results from vorasidenib’s pivotal INDIGO trial fueled petitions and patient advocacy circles to push for the drug’s approval. And, in August 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vorasidenib for grade 2 astrocytomas or oligodendrogliomas with an IDH1 or IDH2 mutation.
But following the approval, some experts expressed concerns and doubts about the drug and the INDIGO trial, bringing a host of unanswered questions into sharper focus.
In an editorial, Stanislav Lazarev, MD, and Kunal K. Sindhu, MD, both radiation oncologists from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, suggest that the FDA approval “might be premature given the high cost of this drug and lack of clear benefit over standard treatments.”
Another recent critique also pointed to the lack of clear evidence that vorasidenib is superior to the prevailing standard of care, despite the drug’s high cost. These authors noted that “patients want to live longer, and if not, at least live better,” but “based on the INDIGO study, it is impossible to say whether vorasidenib can provide either.”
Vorasidenib is now one of the most expensive cancer therapies, with an annual cost of nearly $500,000, but the INDIGO trial did not explore whether the drug led to improved overall survival or better quality of life. Among the trial’s design flaws, experts called out the use of progression-free survival as the primary outcome, instead of overall survival, and the use of an inappropriate comparator group.
INDIGO was a phase 3 trial that included 331 adult patients (median age, 40.5 years) with grade-2 IDH-mutant recurrent or residual glioma after surgery. To be eligible, patients had to be followed for at least 1 year, and up to 5 years, post surgery and had to be considered appropriate candidates for a watch-and-wait approach.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive either 40 mg of vorasidenib or a matching placebo orally, once daily, in continuous 28-day cycles until imaging-confirmed tumor disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, at which point crossover to vorasidenib from placebo was permitted. Over one third (n = 58) of patients in the placebo group crossed over and 90% of them (n = 52) received vorasidenib.
Median progression-free survival was significantly better in the vorasidenib group at 27.7 months vs 11.1 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39).
A key secondary endpoint — time to next intervention — was also significant; the likelihood of being alive and not receiving further treatment at 18 months was 85.6% in the vorasidenib group and 47.4% in the placebo group (HR, 0.26). This finding indicates that most patients receiving vorasidenib could delay chemoradiation for 18 months or longer.
Despite these impressive outcomes, some experts noted that using progression-free survival as the primary endpoint was a major flaw of the INDIGO trial because, currently, there is no evidence that progression-free survival is a reliable surrogate endpoint for overall survival in this setting.
The high rate of crossover to vorasidenib is another issue because it may limit a longer-term analysis of overall survival. If, for instance, overall survival is the same between the groups, it could signal that the drug is effective in both groups or, alternatively, that the drug has no effect on survival in either group.
“That is a legitimate concern,” Seema Nagpal, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Stanford University in California, and a site principal investigator for the INDIGO trial, said in an interview. “We don’t know that this drug changes overall survival, and I think we’re not going to get a super clean answer on that.”
Another major issue centers on the standard of care assigned to control patients in the INDIGO trial.
In the trial, vorasidenib was compared with placebo — an appropriate standard-of-care comparison for patients with low-risk gliomas. These patients often initially undergo watch-and-wait to delay chemoradiation. But Lazarev and Sindhu argue that the patients in INDIGO were really high risk, which means the control group should have received the standard of care for these patients: Chemoradiation following surgery.
This question about the appropriate standard of care stems from ongoing uncertainty about the distinction between high- and low-risk gliomas.
The classification for gliomas falls into either low risk or high risk for early disease progression. The RTOG 9802 criteria, often used for glioma risk stratification, defines low-risk patients as those younger than 40 years with gross total resection and high-risk patients as those aged 40 years or older with any extent of resection or those younger than 40 years with subtotal or biopsy resection.
But an evolving understanding of genetic anomalies that affect prognoses in this tumor type has muddied the current high- and low-risk distinctions.
“People haven’t totally figured out what high and low risk means,” Nagpal acknowledged.
This uncertainty has spilled over into the INDIGO trial.
While the trial excluded patients who had any features indicating high risk, such as brain stem involvement or neurocognitive deficits, the researchers also did not explicitly define patients as low risk. However, the inclusion criteria specified that patients had to be observed for at least 1 year after surgery and be considered appropriate for a watch-and-wait protocol, which does suggest patients were considered low risk, said Nagpal.
Still, some experts argue that the patients in INDIGO were not low risk.
Patients had residual or recurrent disease so “wouldn’t be classified as low risk,” said Sindhu in an interview. The standard of care for these patients is chemoradiation, Lazarev added.
“The definition of a phase 3 clinical trial is that you compare the novel intervention to the standard of care,” said Lazarev. “Level 1 evidence clearly shows that omitting chemoradiation leads to worse outcomes, with patients literally dying sooner. For the investigators to knowingly exclude this proven treatment raises serious ethical and methodological questions about the study’s design.”
In a recent opinion piece, Nagpal agreed that most patients selected for INDIGO would not have been considered low risk by many providers. All patients selected for INDIGO had postoperative residual/recurrent disease and many were older than 40 years.
But, Nagpal explained, the risk stratification of the INDIGO patients was still lower than what is commonly considered high risk. The patients had all been observed for a year or more already, “so by definition, the clinician treating them already decided they were not high risk,” she said.
In another recent opinion piece, oncologists suggested that, because patients in the INDIGO trial do not squarely fall into either category, instead representing a “grey area,” it’s time to create a new risk category.
“Perhaps the time has come to abandon the old binary risk stratification (“low risk” vs “high risk”), which still contains arbitrary elements (such as the age cutoff), proving impractical in real-world clinical decision-making, and to adopt a new one, also taking into account many emerging prognostic biomarkers,” the authors wrote.
Despite the uncertainty surrounding risk categories, the INDIGO authors justified their study design.
A watch-and-wait period for patients in the trial, which “represents the earliest clinical phase in tumorigenesis of IDH-mutant WHO grade 2 glioma,” is “an opportunity to detect a clear signal of antitumor activity for new therapies in placebo-controlled trials” and “postpone the use of radiation therapy and chemotherapy,” the authors explained.
Lazarev, however, questioned the premise that chemoradiation should be delayed.
Oncologists’ desire to delay chemoradiation for their patients reflects “a limited understanding of modern irradiation therapy,” Lazarev said. “Modern technology has improved dramatically. We’re more precise, our understanding about late side effects is better. So, the big picture is that the absolute risk of late neurocognitive affects that actually will affect patients’ quality of life, their ability to work, go to school, succeed on a personal or professional level is exceedingly low.”
Nagpal strongly disagreed.
“Please come to my clinic and ask an actual patient,” said Nagpal. “Once a radiation oncologist has irradiated the patient, they almost never seen them again. People who are on the medical side, who follow these patients from beginning to end, recognize that delaying radiation is a huge deal.”
Although vorasidenib isn’t a cure, Nagpal said, it is a less toxic way to delay radiation “because that is a real and disabling thing” for patients and is why neuro-oncologists are excited about alternative treatment options.
Another issue surrounding the vorasidenib approval lies in the FDA’s vague prescribing information. The prescribing information does not specify that patients should be followed for at least 1 year post surgery or that patients need to be lower risk. Prescribing physicians may, therefore, think vorasidenib is appropriate for any patient with a grade-2 IDH mutant glioma at any time and defer or not offer chemoradiation to high-risk patients.
Amid lingering questions about the INDIGO trial design and ongoing uncertainties about how to define and treat this patient population, experts remain divided on whether vorasidenib is worth it.
“If vorasidenib is truly transformative, it should be feasible to demonstrate its superiority over chemoradiotherapy,” Lazarev and Sindhu wrote. “For a drug with such a staggering price tag, an imperative should be placed on the investigators and manufacturer to provide clear evidence of efficacy, whether in terms of improved [overall survival] or quality of life, before vorasidenib is recommended for the treatment of IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas.”
The INDIGO trial was supported by Servier, the manufacturer of vorasidenib. Many of the study authors reported employment or support from the company. Nagpal reported consulting fees from Servier and AnHeart Therapeutics. Lazarev and Sindhu reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Accelerated Approval of New Frontline TKI Use in CML Raises Questions
In October, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to asciminib (Scemblix, Novartis AG) for adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–positive CML in chronic phase.
Asciminib is one of the six tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) drugs used for CML, a class that began with the introduction of imatinib (Gleevec) in 2001. By 2016, researchers reported that TKIs had helped make life expectancy in patients with CML approach that of the general population. Physicians and patients now have several options of second-generation TKI drugs that also can be used in newly diagnosed patients, along with the option to begin with the more affordable option of imatinib.
The FDA in 1992 instituted the accelerated approval pathway to try to speed market drugs for serious conditions that fill unmet medical needs.
The agency and companies essentially make bets on promising study results, often using surrogate markers, to allow sales of medicines while waiting for evidence from confirmatory studies. For example, the FDA in August used the accelerated approval process to clear the first T-cell receptor gene therapy for certain advanced forms of sarcoma, a form of cancer with limited treatment options.
The next accelerated approval of a cancer drug was the indication for asciminib as a frontline therapy. The FDA also used accelerated approval for the initial clearance of asciminib in 2021 for use in CML previously treated with two or more TKIs. By 2022, Novartis presented sufficient evidence of the drug’s merit to win full approval for the drug in this use.
The timeline is longer for the expected confirmatory research for asciminib as a frontline therapy, with a 2028 deadline set for this work. The data presented to date on asciminib have not persuaded some oncologists on the need for the speedy approval of frontline use.
“This boils down to a drug that looks as if it’s just as good as other second-generation TKIs,” Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System, Miami. “I don’t know how they could use the accelerated approval mechanism to get this through.”
Sekeres, a former chair of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, explored concerns and challenges involved with the use of the accelerated approval process in his 2022 book, Drugs and the FDA: Safety, Efficacy, and the Public’s Trust.
“The intent of the accelerated approval mechanism is that you’re bringing a new therapy to treat a serious disease in a way that others haven’t previously, where there aren’t existing options,” Sekeres said.
This is a markedly different situation that exists for CML, where medicines have improved dramatically in the 21st century, unlike many other forms of cancer treated by hematologists.
“As someone who specializes in treating people with leukemia, I’d be happy every clinic day of my life if all of my patients came in with chronic phase, chronic myeloid leukemia,” instead of other cancers lacking these robust treatment options, he said.
With CML, physicians select among TKIs considering side effects and other health conditions patients have, including weighing the impact of financial toxicity in some cases, he said.
“If I have a patient with lower risk chronic phase, chronic myeloid leukemia, I’m treating them with imatinib,” Sekeres said.
Questions About Surrogate Endpoints
Sekeres is not alone in questioning the use of the speedier FDA pathway for a new indication for a TKI in CML.
“Where is the ‘unmet need’ justifying an accelerated approval in this setting?” Timothée Olivier, MD, who is affiliated with both the Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève and the VK Prasad Laboratory funded by Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, wrote in a November 3 post on X.
Olivier, Prasad, and coauthors in a September correspondence to the American Journal of Hematology raised questions about the study design for a key asciminib study, ASC4FIRST. They noted what they consider a weakness with the endpoints used.
“Molecular milestones like the 48-week MMR [major molecular response] are often used in clinical trials due to their convenience and shorter timeline for assessment,” they wrote. “However, these milestones are not definitive indicators of long-term survival or overall clinical benefit.”
There has been rising concern in recent years about the evidence gap between initial accelerated approvals and the completion of studies that show whether these promising therapies actually help patients live longer or better. Researchers including Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a Medscape Medical News contributor, also have questioned the degree of reliance on surrogate endpoints in accelerated approvals.
In response, the FDA’s Cancer Division and the US Congress have taken steps to try to force drugmakers to more quickly answer the key question in accelerated approvals: Does this medicine produce the expected benefits? For example, the FDA in March appears to have turned down a bid for accelerated approval of a lymphoma drug due to concerns about the timing of completion of confirmatory research.
The use of accelerated approval will continue to be a balancing act, due in part to demand for newer agents, Ravi Bhatia, MD, of the O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at The University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.
“Accelerated approval of agents for up-front treatment of CML does not appear well justified, given the high degree of efficacy of existing agents,” said Bhatia, vice chair of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Panel for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.
“On the other hand, there is greater urgency for developing agents for patients who have failed existing agents and patients with advanced phase disease, and the use of accelerated approval may be justified in this setting,” Bhatia said.
In an interview with this news organization, Richard A. Larson, MD, a professor in the Department of Hematology/Oncology at The University of Chicago, who is an ASC4FIRST investigator, noted the 96-week follow-up data from the trial will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December in San Diego.
Larson said data from this trial will show continued benefit with the frontline use of asciminib. Larson also is an author of a New England Journal of Medicine article in May about the ASC4FIRST trial.
“The data speak for themselves, that asciminib is at least as effective or more so and at least as well tolerated as what’s already on the market,” Larson said. “So their argument, at the end of the day, really boils down to the cost of a new drug and whether we need a new drug.”
From the point of view of patients with cancer, the answer to that is clear, he said.
“If you talk to cancer patients, they’d like to see new drugs become available as quickly as possible. And I think that was the original rationale for the accelerated approval pathway, that a drug that has been shown to be safe and effective in a prospective clinical trial could get accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint.”
The remarkable success seen in developing TKI drugs for CML creates difficulties in testing later entrants in this class due to their prolonged survival, Larson said.
“If you look on a population basis, the overall survival of newly diagnosed CML patients with all of these therapeutic options available to them now approximate that of the non-CML population.”
“For most anticancer drugs, the FDA would like to see an overall survival benefit, but patients with newly diagnosed CML are surviving 20 or 30 years, and they’re not dying at an accelerated rate the way they were. So it’d be impractical to require a clinical trial to show a survival benefit, a randomized trial.”
“That’s where the use of a surrogate endpoint, which is the major molecular response at 1 year, has been so valuable, gets the drugs approved, gets them into patients far earlier than if there was a survival end point requirement,” he said.
Larson reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, Cellectis, Curis, CVS Caremark, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmunoGen, Jazz, MorphoSys, Rigel, Servier, Forty Seven/Gilead, Novartis, and Rafael Pharmaceuticals. Sekeres disclosed relationships with BMS, Kurome, and Novartis Advisory Boards. Bhatia reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In October, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to asciminib (Scemblix, Novartis AG) for adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–positive CML in chronic phase.
Asciminib is one of the six tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) drugs used for CML, a class that began with the introduction of imatinib (Gleevec) in 2001. By 2016, researchers reported that TKIs had helped make life expectancy in patients with CML approach that of the general population. Physicians and patients now have several options of second-generation TKI drugs that also can be used in newly diagnosed patients, along with the option to begin with the more affordable option of imatinib.
The FDA in 1992 instituted the accelerated approval pathway to try to speed market drugs for serious conditions that fill unmet medical needs.
The agency and companies essentially make bets on promising study results, often using surrogate markers, to allow sales of medicines while waiting for evidence from confirmatory studies. For example, the FDA in August used the accelerated approval process to clear the first T-cell receptor gene therapy for certain advanced forms of sarcoma, a form of cancer with limited treatment options.
The next accelerated approval of a cancer drug was the indication for asciminib as a frontline therapy. The FDA also used accelerated approval for the initial clearance of asciminib in 2021 for use in CML previously treated with two or more TKIs. By 2022, Novartis presented sufficient evidence of the drug’s merit to win full approval for the drug in this use.
The timeline is longer for the expected confirmatory research for asciminib as a frontline therapy, with a 2028 deadline set for this work. The data presented to date on asciminib have not persuaded some oncologists on the need for the speedy approval of frontline use.
“This boils down to a drug that looks as if it’s just as good as other second-generation TKIs,” Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System, Miami. “I don’t know how they could use the accelerated approval mechanism to get this through.”
Sekeres, a former chair of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, explored concerns and challenges involved with the use of the accelerated approval process in his 2022 book, Drugs and the FDA: Safety, Efficacy, and the Public’s Trust.
“The intent of the accelerated approval mechanism is that you’re bringing a new therapy to treat a serious disease in a way that others haven’t previously, where there aren’t existing options,” Sekeres said.
This is a markedly different situation that exists for CML, where medicines have improved dramatically in the 21st century, unlike many other forms of cancer treated by hematologists.
“As someone who specializes in treating people with leukemia, I’d be happy every clinic day of my life if all of my patients came in with chronic phase, chronic myeloid leukemia,” instead of other cancers lacking these robust treatment options, he said.
With CML, physicians select among TKIs considering side effects and other health conditions patients have, including weighing the impact of financial toxicity in some cases, he said.
“If I have a patient with lower risk chronic phase, chronic myeloid leukemia, I’m treating them with imatinib,” Sekeres said.
Questions About Surrogate Endpoints
Sekeres is not alone in questioning the use of the speedier FDA pathway for a new indication for a TKI in CML.
“Where is the ‘unmet need’ justifying an accelerated approval in this setting?” Timothée Olivier, MD, who is affiliated with both the Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève and the VK Prasad Laboratory funded by Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, wrote in a November 3 post on X.
Olivier, Prasad, and coauthors in a September correspondence to the American Journal of Hematology raised questions about the study design for a key asciminib study, ASC4FIRST. They noted what they consider a weakness with the endpoints used.
“Molecular milestones like the 48-week MMR [major molecular response] are often used in clinical trials due to their convenience and shorter timeline for assessment,” they wrote. “However, these milestones are not definitive indicators of long-term survival or overall clinical benefit.”
There has been rising concern in recent years about the evidence gap between initial accelerated approvals and the completion of studies that show whether these promising therapies actually help patients live longer or better. Researchers including Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a Medscape Medical News contributor, also have questioned the degree of reliance on surrogate endpoints in accelerated approvals.
In response, the FDA’s Cancer Division and the US Congress have taken steps to try to force drugmakers to more quickly answer the key question in accelerated approvals: Does this medicine produce the expected benefits? For example, the FDA in March appears to have turned down a bid for accelerated approval of a lymphoma drug due to concerns about the timing of completion of confirmatory research.
The use of accelerated approval will continue to be a balancing act, due in part to demand for newer agents, Ravi Bhatia, MD, of the O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at The University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.
“Accelerated approval of agents for up-front treatment of CML does not appear well justified, given the high degree of efficacy of existing agents,” said Bhatia, vice chair of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Panel for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.
“On the other hand, there is greater urgency for developing agents for patients who have failed existing agents and patients with advanced phase disease, and the use of accelerated approval may be justified in this setting,” Bhatia said.
In an interview with this news organization, Richard A. Larson, MD, a professor in the Department of Hematology/Oncology at The University of Chicago, who is an ASC4FIRST investigator, noted the 96-week follow-up data from the trial will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December in San Diego.
Larson said data from this trial will show continued benefit with the frontline use of asciminib. Larson also is an author of a New England Journal of Medicine article in May about the ASC4FIRST trial.
“The data speak for themselves, that asciminib is at least as effective or more so and at least as well tolerated as what’s already on the market,” Larson said. “So their argument, at the end of the day, really boils down to the cost of a new drug and whether we need a new drug.”
From the point of view of patients with cancer, the answer to that is clear, he said.
“If you talk to cancer patients, they’d like to see new drugs become available as quickly as possible. And I think that was the original rationale for the accelerated approval pathway, that a drug that has been shown to be safe and effective in a prospective clinical trial could get accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint.”
The remarkable success seen in developing TKI drugs for CML creates difficulties in testing later entrants in this class due to their prolonged survival, Larson said.
“If you look on a population basis, the overall survival of newly diagnosed CML patients with all of these therapeutic options available to them now approximate that of the non-CML population.”
“For most anticancer drugs, the FDA would like to see an overall survival benefit, but patients with newly diagnosed CML are surviving 20 or 30 years, and they’re not dying at an accelerated rate the way they were. So it’d be impractical to require a clinical trial to show a survival benefit, a randomized trial.”
“That’s where the use of a surrogate endpoint, which is the major molecular response at 1 year, has been so valuable, gets the drugs approved, gets them into patients far earlier than if there was a survival end point requirement,” he said.
Larson reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, Cellectis, Curis, CVS Caremark, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmunoGen, Jazz, MorphoSys, Rigel, Servier, Forty Seven/Gilead, Novartis, and Rafael Pharmaceuticals. Sekeres disclosed relationships with BMS, Kurome, and Novartis Advisory Boards. Bhatia reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In October, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to asciminib (Scemblix, Novartis AG) for adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome–positive CML in chronic phase.
Asciminib is one of the six tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) drugs used for CML, a class that began with the introduction of imatinib (Gleevec) in 2001. By 2016, researchers reported that TKIs had helped make life expectancy in patients with CML approach that of the general population. Physicians and patients now have several options of second-generation TKI drugs that also can be used in newly diagnosed patients, along with the option to begin with the more affordable option of imatinib.
The FDA in 1992 instituted the accelerated approval pathway to try to speed market drugs for serious conditions that fill unmet medical needs.
The agency and companies essentially make bets on promising study results, often using surrogate markers, to allow sales of medicines while waiting for evidence from confirmatory studies. For example, the FDA in August used the accelerated approval process to clear the first T-cell receptor gene therapy for certain advanced forms of sarcoma, a form of cancer with limited treatment options.
The next accelerated approval of a cancer drug was the indication for asciminib as a frontline therapy. The FDA also used accelerated approval for the initial clearance of asciminib in 2021 for use in CML previously treated with two or more TKIs. By 2022, Novartis presented sufficient evidence of the drug’s merit to win full approval for the drug in this use.
The timeline is longer for the expected confirmatory research for asciminib as a frontline therapy, with a 2028 deadline set for this work. The data presented to date on asciminib have not persuaded some oncologists on the need for the speedy approval of frontline use.
“This boils down to a drug that looks as if it’s just as good as other second-generation TKIs,” Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System, Miami. “I don’t know how they could use the accelerated approval mechanism to get this through.”
Sekeres, a former chair of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, explored concerns and challenges involved with the use of the accelerated approval process in his 2022 book, Drugs and the FDA: Safety, Efficacy, and the Public’s Trust.
“The intent of the accelerated approval mechanism is that you’re bringing a new therapy to treat a serious disease in a way that others haven’t previously, where there aren’t existing options,” Sekeres said.
This is a markedly different situation that exists for CML, where medicines have improved dramatically in the 21st century, unlike many other forms of cancer treated by hematologists.
“As someone who specializes in treating people with leukemia, I’d be happy every clinic day of my life if all of my patients came in with chronic phase, chronic myeloid leukemia,” instead of other cancers lacking these robust treatment options, he said.
With CML, physicians select among TKIs considering side effects and other health conditions patients have, including weighing the impact of financial toxicity in some cases, he said.
“If I have a patient with lower risk chronic phase, chronic myeloid leukemia, I’m treating them with imatinib,” Sekeres said.
Questions About Surrogate Endpoints
Sekeres is not alone in questioning the use of the speedier FDA pathway for a new indication for a TKI in CML.
“Where is the ‘unmet need’ justifying an accelerated approval in this setting?” Timothée Olivier, MD, who is affiliated with both the Hôpitaux universitaires de Genève and the VK Prasad Laboratory funded by Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, wrote in a November 3 post on X.
Olivier, Prasad, and coauthors in a September correspondence to the American Journal of Hematology raised questions about the study design for a key asciminib study, ASC4FIRST. They noted what they consider a weakness with the endpoints used.
“Molecular milestones like the 48-week MMR [major molecular response] are often used in clinical trials due to their convenience and shorter timeline for assessment,” they wrote. “However, these milestones are not definitive indicators of long-term survival or overall clinical benefit.”
There has been rising concern in recent years about the evidence gap between initial accelerated approvals and the completion of studies that show whether these promising therapies actually help patients live longer or better. Researchers including Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a Medscape Medical News contributor, also have questioned the degree of reliance on surrogate endpoints in accelerated approvals.
In response, the FDA’s Cancer Division and the US Congress have taken steps to try to force drugmakers to more quickly answer the key question in accelerated approvals: Does this medicine produce the expected benefits? For example, the FDA in March appears to have turned down a bid for accelerated approval of a lymphoma drug due to concerns about the timing of completion of confirmatory research.
The use of accelerated approval will continue to be a balancing act, due in part to demand for newer agents, Ravi Bhatia, MD, of the O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at The University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.
“Accelerated approval of agents for up-front treatment of CML does not appear well justified, given the high degree of efficacy of existing agents,” said Bhatia, vice chair of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Panel for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia.
“On the other hand, there is greater urgency for developing agents for patients who have failed existing agents and patients with advanced phase disease, and the use of accelerated approval may be justified in this setting,” Bhatia said.
In an interview with this news organization, Richard A. Larson, MD, a professor in the Department of Hematology/Oncology at The University of Chicago, who is an ASC4FIRST investigator, noted the 96-week follow-up data from the trial will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December in San Diego.
Larson said data from this trial will show continued benefit with the frontline use of asciminib. Larson also is an author of a New England Journal of Medicine article in May about the ASC4FIRST trial.
“The data speak for themselves, that asciminib is at least as effective or more so and at least as well tolerated as what’s already on the market,” Larson said. “So their argument, at the end of the day, really boils down to the cost of a new drug and whether we need a new drug.”
From the point of view of patients with cancer, the answer to that is clear, he said.
“If you talk to cancer patients, they’d like to see new drugs become available as quickly as possible. And I think that was the original rationale for the accelerated approval pathway, that a drug that has been shown to be safe and effective in a prospective clinical trial could get accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint.”
The remarkable success seen in developing TKI drugs for CML creates difficulties in testing later entrants in this class due to their prolonged survival, Larson said.
“If you look on a population basis, the overall survival of newly diagnosed CML patients with all of these therapeutic options available to them now approximate that of the non-CML population.”
“For most anticancer drugs, the FDA would like to see an overall survival benefit, but patients with newly diagnosed CML are surviving 20 or 30 years, and they’re not dying at an accelerated rate the way they were. So it’d be impractical to require a clinical trial to show a survival benefit, a randomized trial.”
“That’s where the use of a surrogate endpoint, which is the major molecular response at 1 year, has been so valuable, gets the drugs approved, gets them into patients far earlier than if there was a survival end point requirement,” he said.
Larson reported ties with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, Cellectis, Curis, CVS Caremark, Daiichi Sankyo, ImmunoGen, Jazz, MorphoSys, Rigel, Servier, Forty Seven/Gilead, Novartis, and Rafael Pharmaceuticals. Sekeres disclosed relationships with BMS, Kurome, and Novartis Advisory Boards. Bhatia reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Inside the Patient-Oncologist Bond: Why It’s Often So Strong
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Study Addresses Lichen Planus Prevalence, Treatment
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- To evaluate the prevalence of LP, researchers analyzed 566,851 eligible patients from the Explorys database, comprising electronic medical records from over 40 healthcare networks and 53 million patients across the United States.
- They also assessed treatment plans separately among 1998 newly diagnosed patients with LP between October 2015 and January 2020, who required at least one dermatology encounter within the first year following diagnosis.
- The primary outcome was overall prevalence of LP in the United States, including prevalence across specific age, sex, and racial subgroups. Additionally, dermatologist-prescribed treatments for non-oral LP were also reported.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, there were 1098 cases of LP (median age, 66 years; 74% women); the crude prevalence of LP was 0.19% and the age- and sex-standardized overall prevalence was 0.15%. Prevalence in women was 1.77 times higher than in men.
- Asian patients showed the highest standardized prevalence (0.2%), followed by Black patients (0.16). Prevalence increased with age, ranging from 0.04% among those aged 18-29 years to 0.26% among those aged 60-69 years and 0.33% among those aged 70-79 years.
IN PRACTICE:
“LP is a fairly common disease, which disproportionately affects women and individuals older than 60 years of age,” the authors wrote. “Future research to help identify patients who may need systemic treatment and determine appropriate treatments for patients with LP to limit sequelae is important as no medication is currently FDA approved for LP.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Natalia Pelet Del Toro, MD, Department of Dermatology, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, New York, and was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The absence of a precise diagnosis code for non-oral LP introduces potential misclassification risks. Additionally, the study design did not allow for the establishment of disease severity levels, limiting the ability to correlate treatment choices with disease severity.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding. Two authors reported to have received advisory fees, grants, and/or honoraria from several pharmaceutical companies. Pelet Del Toro and another author did not declare any conflict of interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- To evaluate the prevalence of LP, researchers analyzed 566,851 eligible patients from the Explorys database, comprising electronic medical records from over 40 healthcare networks and 53 million patients across the United States.
- They also assessed treatment plans separately among 1998 newly diagnosed patients with LP between October 2015 and January 2020, who required at least one dermatology encounter within the first year following diagnosis.
- The primary outcome was overall prevalence of LP in the United States, including prevalence across specific age, sex, and racial subgroups. Additionally, dermatologist-prescribed treatments for non-oral LP were also reported.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, there were 1098 cases of LP (median age, 66 years; 74% women); the crude prevalence of LP was 0.19% and the age- and sex-standardized overall prevalence was 0.15%. Prevalence in women was 1.77 times higher than in men.
- Asian patients showed the highest standardized prevalence (0.2%), followed by Black patients (0.16). Prevalence increased with age, ranging from 0.04% among those aged 18-29 years to 0.26% among those aged 60-69 years and 0.33% among those aged 70-79 years.
IN PRACTICE:
“LP is a fairly common disease, which disproportionately affects women and individuals older than 60 years of age,” the authors wrote. “Future research to help identify patients who may need systemic treatment and determine appropriate treatments for patients with LP to limit sequelae is important as no medication is currently FDA approved for LP.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Natalia Pelet Del Toro, MD, Department of Dermatology, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, New York, and was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The absence of a precise diagnosis code for non-oral LP introduces potential misclassification risks. Additionally, the study design did not allow for the establishment of disease severity levels, limiting the ability to correlate treatment choices with disease severity.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding. Two authors reported to have received advisory fees, grants, and/or honoraria from several pharmaceutical companies. Pelet Del Toro and another author did not declare any conflict of interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- To evaluate the prevalence of LP, researchers analyzed 566,851 eligible patients from the Explorys database, comprising electronic medical records from over 40 healthcare networks and 53 million patients across the United States.
- They also assessed treatment plans separately among 1998 newly diagnosed patients with LP between October 2015 and January 2020, who required at least one dermatology encounter within the first year following diagnosis.
- The primary outcome was overall prevalence of LP in the United States, including prevalence across specific age, sex, and racial subgroups. Additionally, dermatologist-prescribed treatments for non-oral LP were also reported.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, there were 1098 cases of LP (median age, 66 years; 74% women); the crude prevalence of LP was 0.19% and the age- and sex-standardized overall prevalence was 0.15%. Prevalence in women was 1.77 times higher than in men.
- Asian patients showed the highest standardized prevalence (0.2%), followed by Black patients (0.16). Prevalence increased with age, ranging from 0.04% among those aged 18-29 years to 0.26% among those aged 60-69 years and 0.33% among those aged 70-79 years.
IN PRACTICE:
“LP is a fairly common disease, which disproportionately affects women and individuals older than 60 years of age,” the authors wrote. “Future research to help identify patients who may need systemic treatment and determine appropriate treatments for patients with LP to limit sequelae is important as no medication is currently FDA approved for LP.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Natalia Pelet Del Toro, MD, Department of Dermatology, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, New York, and was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The absence of a precise diagnosis code for non-oral LP introduces potential misclassification risks. Additionally, the study design did not allow for the establishment of disease severity levels, limiting the ability to correlate treatment choices with disease severity.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not receive any funding. Two authors reported to have received advisory fees, grants, and/or honoraria from several pharmaceutical companies. Pelet Del Toro and another author did not declare any conflict of interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Is 1-Week Radiotherapy Safe for Breast Cancer?
TOPLINE:
Most patients also reported that the reduced treatment time was a major benefit of the 1-week radiotherapy schedule.
METHODOLOGY:
- In March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, international and national guidelines recommended adopting a 1-week ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy schedule for patients with node-negative breast cancer. Subsequently, a phase 3 trial demonstrated that a 1-week regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions led to similar breast cancer outcomes compared with a standard moderately hypofractionated regimen.
- In this study, researchers wanted to assess real world toxicities following ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy and enrolled 135 consecutive patients who received 1-week ultrahypofractionated adjuvant radiation of 26 Gy in five fractions from March to August 2020 at three centers in Ireland, with 33 patients (25%) receiving a sequential boost.
- Researchers recorded patient-reported outcomes on breast pain, swelling, firmness, and hypersensitivity at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Virtual consultations without video occurred at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and video consultations were offered at 1 year for a physician-led breast evaluation.
- Researchers assessed patient perspectives on this new schedule and telehealth workflows using questionnaires.
- Overall, 90% of patients completed the 1-year assessment plus another assessment. The primary endpoint was the worst toxicity reported at each time point.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 76% of patients reported no or mild toxicities at 3 and 6 months, and 82% reported no or mild toxicities 12 months.
- At 1 year, 20 patients (17%) reported moderate toxicity, most commonly breast pain, and only two patients (2%) reported marked toxicities, including breast firmness and skin changes.
- Researchers found no difference in toxicities between patients who received only 26 Gy in five fractions and those who received an additional sequential boost.
- Most patients reported reduced treatment time (78.6%) and infection control (59%) as major benefits of the 1-week radiotherapy regimen. Patients also reported high satisfaction with the use of telehealth, with 97.3% feeling well-informed about their diagnosis, 88% feeling well-informed about treatment side effects, and 94% feeling supported by the medical team. However, only 27% agreed to video consultations for breast inspections at 1 year.
IN PRACTICE:
“Ultrahypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy leads to acceptable late toxicity rates at 1 year even when followed by a hypofractionated tumour bed boost,” the authors wrote. “Patient satisfaction with ultrahypofractionated treatment and virtual consultations without video was high.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jill Nicholson, MBBS, MRCP, FFFRRCSI, St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, St. Luke’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The short follow-up period might not capture all late toxicities. Variability in patient-reported outcomes could affect consistency. The range in boost received (four to eight fractions) could have influenced patients’ experiences.
DISCLOSURES:
Nicholson received funding from the St. Luke’s Institute of Cancer Research, Dublin, Ireland. No other relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most patients also reported that the reduced treatment time was a major benefit of the 1-week radiotherapy schedule.
METHODOLOGY:
- In March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, international and national guidelines recommended adopting a 1-week ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy schedule for patients with node-negative breast cancer. Subsequently, a phase 3 trial demonstrated that a 1-week regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions led to similar breast cancer outcomes compared with a standard moderately hypofractionated regimen.
- In this study, researchers wanted to assess real world toxicities following ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy and enrolled 135 consecutive patients who received 1-week ultrahypofractionated adjuvant radiation of 26 Gy in five fractions from March to August 2020 at three centers in Ireland, with 33 patients (25%) receiving a sequential boost.
- Researchers recorded patient-reported outcomes on breast pain, swelling, firmness, and hypersensitivity at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Virtual consultations without video occurred at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and video consultations were offered at 1 year for a physician-led breast evaluation.
- Researchers assessed patient perspectives on this new schedule and telehealth workflows using questionnaires.
- Overall, 90% of patients completed the 1-year assessment plus another assessment. The primary endpoint was the worst toxicity reported at each time point.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 76% of patients reported no or mild toxicities at 3 and 6 months, and 82% reported no or mild toxicities 12 months.
- At 1 year, 20 patients (17%) reported moderate toxicity, most commonly breast pain, and only two patients (2%) reported marked toxicities, including breast firmness and skin changes.
- Researchers found no difference in toxicities between patients who received only 26 Gy in five fractions and those who received an additional sequential boost.
- Most patients reported reduced treatment time (78.6%) and infection control (59%) as major benefits of the 1-week radiotherapy regimen. Patients also reported high satisfaction with the use of telehealth, with 97.3% feeling well-informed about their diagnosis, 88% feeling well-informed about treatment side effects, and 94% feeling supported by the medical team. However, only 27% agreed to video consultations for breast inspections at 1 year.
IN PRACTICE:
“Ultrahypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy leads to acceptable late toxicity rates at 1 year even when followed by a hypofractionated tumour bed boost,” the authors wrote. “Patient satisfaction with ultrahypofractionated treatment and virtual consultations without video was high.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jill Nicholson, MBBS, MRCP, FFFRRCSI, St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, St. Luke’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The short follow-up period might not capture all late toxicities. Variability in patient-reported outcomes could affect consistency. The range in boost received (four to eight fractions) could have influenced patients’ experiences.
DISCLOSURES:
Nicholson received funding from the St. Luke’s Institute of Cancer Research, Dublin, Ireland. No other relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Most patients also reported that the reduced treatment time was a major benefit of the 1-week radiotherapy schedule.
METHODOLOGY:
- In March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, international and national guidelines recommended adopting a 1-week ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy schedule for patients with node-negative breast cancer. Subsequently, a phase 3 trial demonstrated that a 1-week regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions led to similar breast cancer outcomes compared with a standard moderately hypofractionated regimen.
- In this study, researchers wanted to assess real world toxicities following ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy and enrolled 135 consecutive patients who received 1-week ultrahypofractionated adjuvant radiation of 26 Gy in five fractions from March to August 2020 at three centers in Ireland, with 33 patients (25%) receiving a sequential boost.
- Researchers recorded patient-reported outcomes on breast pain, swelling, firmness, and hypersensitivity at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Virtual consultations without video occurred at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and video consultations were offered at 1 year for a physician-led breast evaluation.
- Researchers assessed patient perspectives on this new schedule and telehealth workflows using questionnaires.
- Overall, 90% of patients completed the 1-year assessment plus another assessment. The primary endpoint was the worst toxicity reported at each time point.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 76% of patients reported no or mild toxicities at 3 and 6 months, and 82% reported no or mild toxicities 12 months.
- At 1 year, 20 patients (17%) reported moderate toxicity, most commonly breast pain, and only two patients (2%) reported marked toxicities, including breast firmness and skin changes.
- Researchers found no difference in toxicities between patients who received only 26 Gy in five fractions and those who received an additional sequential boost.
- Most patients reported reduced treatment time (78.6%) and infection control (59%) as major benefits of the 1-week radiotherapy regimen. Patients also reported high satisfaction with the use of telehealth, with 97.3% feeling well-informed about their diagnosis, 88% feeling well-informed about treatment side effects, and 94% feeling supported by the medical team. However, only 27% agreed to video consultations for breast inspections at 1 year.
IN PRACTICE:
“Ultrahypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy leads to acceptable late toxicity rates at 1 year even when followed by a hypofractionated tumour bed boost,” the authors wrote. “Patient satisfaction with ultrahypofractionated treatment and virtual consultations without video was high.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Jill Nicholson, MBBS, MRCP, FFFRRCSI, St Luke’s Radiation Oncology Network, St. Luke’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, was published online in Advances in Radiation Oncology.
LIMITATIONS:
The short follow-up period might not capture all late toxicities. Variability in patient-reported outcomes could affect consistency. The range in boost received (four to eight fractions) could have influenced patients’ experiences.
DISCLOSURES:
Nicholson received funding from the St. Luke’s Institute of Cancer Research, Dublin, Ireland. No other relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Triple Therapy Now Advised for Lupus Nephritis in Updated Guideline
WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.
“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.
“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.
The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.
The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.
“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”
What Are the Recommendations?
All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.
The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.
Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.
“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”
In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.
An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”
There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.
Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.
Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”
Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.
For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.
“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.
“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.
A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.
Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.
Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”
Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.
“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.
Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.”
“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”
Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.
“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.
“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.
The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.
The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.
“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”
What Are the Recommendations?
All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.
The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.
Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.
“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”
In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.
An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”
There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.
Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.
Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”
Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.
For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.
“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.
“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.
A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.
Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.
Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”
Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.
“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.
Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.”
“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”
Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.
“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.
“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.
The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.
The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.
“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”
What Are the Recommendations?
All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.
The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.
Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.
“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”
In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.
An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”
There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.
Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.
Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”
Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.
For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.
“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.
“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.
A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.
Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.
Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”
Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.
“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.
Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.”
“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”
Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACR 2024