User login
For MD-IQ use only
New carcinogens added to toxicology list
From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.
The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.)
In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.
Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.
Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.
Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.
“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.
The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.)
In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.
Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.
Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.
Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.
“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) —the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.
The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.)
In 1971, then-President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the United States) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.
Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.
Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.
Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.
“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ESC suspension of Russia, Belarus societies sparks controversy
, provoking a heated discussion on whether medical organizations should become involved in politics.
“In the light of the continued aggression against Ukraine by the leaderships of the Russian Federation and Belarus, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has temporarily suspended the memberships of the Russian Society of Cardiology and the Belarussian Society of Cardiologists in the ESC,” the ESC statement reads.
“Individuals based in the Russian Federation or in Belarus are excluded from active participation in any ESC event or activity,” it states.
“The ESC very much regrets the effect this may have on individual Russian and Belarussian cardiologists and scientists, but the message to Russian and Belarussian leadership must be distinct and unequivocal,” it adds.
This action from the ESC has provoked a storm of heated discussions on the issue.
In a Twitter thread on the subject, Italian cardiologist Giuseppe Galati, MD, writes: “An astonishing decision by ESC that’s excluding all the Russian and Belarussian scientists from ESC congresses and activities. Treating doctors and scientists as [if] they are Putin and are responsible for the war.”
Dr. Galati adds: “A strong message that brings us to 70 years ago. ESC is promoting exclusion and not inclusion and diversity.”
Another commentator on the thread says: “It is a very unfortunate decision. Science, medicine should not be involved in politics. We are colleagues gathering together during congresses to exchange information for the sake of our patients. Politics should not overshadow this.”
And another added: “I think most cardiologists from Russia will not be able to participate in the events anyway, since international payments will soon be impossible from Russia. But it is wrong to limit the rights of doctors because of their nationality.”
But others support the ESC’s stance. Polish cardiologist Blazej Michalski, MD, says: “I think it is [a] good decision. Russians if they do not actively support dictatorship of Putin, the silence is also an agreement.” He adds: “I am proud of ESC. They did what they were supposed to do.”
A Twitter poll started by Ali Elzieny, MD, a cardiologist from Boston, titled “Do you agree that ESC suspend membership of Russian Society of Cardiology?” as of March 8 had 1,300 votes, with 61% of respondents disagreeing with the ESC decision and 39% in favor.
Medical societies respond
Several other medical societies have issued communications appearing to disagree with the action by the ESC.
The American College of Cardiology issued a statement saying medicine should be above politics.
“The American College of Cardiology believes that patients come first, and now, more than ever, there is a need to rally around our members across the globe to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to care for their patients,” said ACC President Dipti Itchhaporia, MD.
“Medicine is above politics and ACC will not exclude any of our colleagues who are working toward a shared mission of improving heart health. The College has a long history of working across borders to improve heart health and remains committed to that now and in the future. The ACC continues to express its support and concern for our members in the Ukraine and the patients they are working to treat on the frontlines,” the ACC statement added.
The Tele-Cardiology Working Group of the International Society for Telemedicine & eHealth (ISFTEH) also issued a statement disagreeing with the action from the ESC.
“In light of recent events, the cardiology working group of the ISFTEH will not restrict access to its events to cardiologists with regards to their nationality, religious beliefs or other characteristics that may seem discriminatory. We believe medical information should be widely available for all, especially for those doctors that find themselves in difficulty,” it said.
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN) said: “EAN is looking at ways to give practical support to Ukrainian neurologists and healthcare professionals there. EAN is not considering suspension of any individual member based on country of residence or nationality or any National Society member.”
But one oncology professional group has also cut ties with Russia.
The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, issued a statement saying it has severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions.
“The OncoAlert Network is non-political, but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression towards our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” OncoAlert said, adding that it will be pulling out of all collaborations and congresses in Russia. That statement was also greeted with a barrage of criticism on Twitter, mainly from Russian users.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, provoking a heated discussion on whether medical organizations should become involved in politics.
“In the light of the continued aggression against Ukraine by the leaderships of the Russian Federation and Belarus, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has temporarily suspended the memberships of the Russian Society of Cardiology and the Belarussian Society of Cardiologists in the ESC,” the ESC statement reads.
“Individuals based in the Russian Federation or in Belarus are excluded from active participation in any ESC event or activity,” it states.
“The ESC very much regrets the effect this may have on individual Russian and Belarussian cardiologists and scientists, but the message to Russian and Belarussian leadership must be distinct and unequivocal,” it adds.
This action from the ESC has provoked a storm of heated discussions on the issue.
In a Twitter thread on the subject, Italian cardiologist Giuseppe Galati, MD, writes: “An astonishing decision by ESC that’s excluding all the Russian and Belarussian scientists from ESC congresses and activities. Treating doctors and scientists as [if] they are Putin and are responsible for the war.”
Dr. Galati adds: “A strong message that brings us to 70 years ago. ESC is promoting exclusion and not inclusion and diversity.”
Another commentator on the thread says: “It is a very unfortunate decision. Science, medicine should not be involved in politics. We are colleagues gathering together during congresses to exchange information for the sake of our patients. Politics should not overshadow this.”
And another added: “I think most cardiologists from Russia will not be able to participate in the events anyway, since international payments will soon be impossible from Russia. But it is wrong to limit the rights of doctors because of their nationality.”
But others support the ESC’s stance. Polish cardiologist Blazej Michalski, MD, says: “I think it is [a] good decision. Russians if they do not actively support dictatorship of Putin, the silence is also an agreement.” He adds: “I am proud of ESC. They did what they were supposed to do.”
A Twitter poll started by Ali Elzieny, MD, a cardiologist from Boston, titled “Do you agree that ESC suspend membership of Russian Society of Cardiology?” as of March 8 had 1,300 votes, with 61% of respondents disagreeing with the ESC decision and 39% in favor.
Medical societies respond
Several other medical societies have issued communications appearing to disagree with the action by the ESC.
The American College of Cardiology issued a statement saying medicine should be above politics.
“The American College of Cardiology believes that patients come first, and now, more than ever, there is a need to rally around our members across the globe to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to care for their patients,” said ACC President Dipti Itchhaporia, MD.
“Medicine is above politics and ACC will not exclude any of our colleagues who are working toward a shared mission of improving heart health. The College has a long history of working across borders to improve heart health and remains committed to that now and in the future. The ACC continues to express its support and concern for our members in the Ukraine and the patients they are working to treat on the frontlines,” the ACC statement added.
The Tele-Cardiology Working Group of the International Society for Telemedicine & eHealth (ISFTEH) also issued a statement disagreeing with the action from the ESC.
“In light of recent events, the cardiology working group of the ISFTEH will not restrict access to its events to cardiologists with regards to their nationality, religious beliefs or other characteristics that may seem discriminatory. We believe medical information should be widely available for all, especially for those doctors that find themselves in difficulty,” it said.
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN) said: “EAN is looking at ways to give practical support to Ukrainian neurologists and healthcare professionals there. EAN is not considering suspension of any individual member based on country of residence or nationality or any National Society member.”
But one oncology professional group has also cut ties with Russia.
The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, issued a statement saying it has severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions.
“The OncoAlert Network is non-political, but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression towards our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” OncoAlert said, adding that it will be pulling out of all collaborations and congresses in Russia. That statement was also greeted with a barrage of criticism on Twitter, mainly from Russian users.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, provoking a heated discussion on whether medical organizations should become involved in politics.
“In the light of the continued aggression against Ukraine by the leaderships of the Russian Federation and Belarus, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has temporarily suspended the memberships of the Russian Society of Cardiology and the Belarussian Society of Cardiologists in the ESC,” the ESC statement reads.
“Individuals based in the Russian Federation or in Belarus are excluded from active participation in any ESC event or activity,” it states.
“The ESC very much regrets the effect this may have on individual Russian and Belarussian cardiologists and scientists, but the message to Russian and Belarussian leadership must be distinct and unequivocal,” it adds.
This action from the ESC has provoked a storm of heated discussions on the issue.
In a Twitter thread on the subject, Italian cardiologist Giuseppe Galati, MD, writes: “An astonishing decision by ESC that’s excluding all the Russian and Belarussian scientists from ESC congresses and activities. Treating doctors and scientists as [if] they are Putin and are responsible for the war.”
Dr. Galati adds: “A strong message that brings us to 70 years ago. ESC is promoting exclusion and not inclusion and diversity.”
Another commentator on the thread says: “It is a very unfortunate decision. Science, medicine should not be involved in politics. We are colleagues gathering together during congresses to exchange information for the sake of our patients. Politics should not overshadow this.”
And another added: “I think most cardiologists from Russia will not be able to participate in the events anyway, since international payments will soon be impossible from Russia. But it is wrong to limit the rights of doctors because of their nationality.”
But others support the ESC’s stance. Polish cardiologist Blazej Michalski, MD, says: “I think it is [a] good decision. Russians if they do not actively support dictatorship of Putin, the silence is also an agreement.” He adds: “I am proud of ESC. They did what they were supposed to do.”
A Twitter poll started by Ali Elzieny, MD, a cardiologist from Boston, titled “Do you agree that ESC suspend membership of Russian Society of Cardiology?” as of March 8 had 1,300 votes, with 61% of respondents disagreeing with the ESC decision and 39% in favor.
Medical societies respond
Several other medical societies have issued communications appearing to disagree with the action by the ESC.
The American College of Cardiology issued a statement saying medicine should be above politics.
“The American College of Cardiology believes that patients come first, and now, more than ever, there is a need to rally around our members across the globe to ensure that they have the support and resources they need to care for their patients,” said ACC President Dipti Itchhaporia, MD.
“Medicine is above politics and ACC will not exclude any of our colleagues who are working toward a shared mission of improving heart health. The College has a long history of working across borders to improve heart health and remains committed to that now and in the future. The ACC continues to express its support and concern for our members in the Ukraine and the patients they are working to treat on the frontlines,” the ACC statement added.
The Tele-Cardiology Working Group of the International Society for Telemedicine & eHealth (ISFTEH) also issued a statement disagreeing with the action from the ESC.
“In light of recent events, the cardiology working group of the ISFTEH will not restrict access to its events to cardiologists with regards to their nationality, religious beliefs or other characteristics that may seem discriminatory. We believe medical information should be widely available for all, especially for those doctors that find themselves in difficulty,” it said.
The European Academy of Neurology (EAN) said: “EAN is looking at ways to give practical support to Ukrainian neurologists and healthcare professionals there. EAN is not considering suspension of any individual member based on country of residence or nationality or any National Society member.”
But one oncology professional group has also cut ties with Russia.
The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, issued a statement saying it has severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions.
“The OncoAlert Network is non-political, but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression towards our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” OncoAlert said, adding that it will be pulling out of all collaborations and congresses in Russia. That statement was also greeted with a barrage of criticism on Twitter, mainly from Russian users.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Complex link between gut microbiome and immunotherapy response in advanced melanoma
A large-scale than previously thought.
Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.
This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”
The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.
Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.
Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.
To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.
First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).
The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.
However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.
Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.
“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”
Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”
In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”
This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A large-scale than previously thought.
Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.
This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”
The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.
Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.
Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.
To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.
First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).
The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.
However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.
Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.
“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”
Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”
In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”
This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A large-scale than previously thought.
Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.
This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”
The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.
Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.
Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.
To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.
First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).
The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.
However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.
Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.
“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”
Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”
In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”
This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Oncology groups support Ukraine, one cuts ties with Russian docs
As many in the world react with sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, the oncology community has now stepped into the fray.
All the large cancer organizations have put out statements in support of Ukraine, but one group has gone further and cut its ties with Russia.
“The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions,” the group announced on its Twitter page, which is decorated with a blue and yellow ribbon and declares that it “stands with Ukraine.”
“The OncoAlert Network is nonpolitical but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression toward our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” the group said. “The network will be pulling out of ALL collaborations & congresses in Russia.”
Not surprisingly, the post was inundated with a barrage of inflammatory and politically laced tweets from Russian and Chinese users. Many of them repeated the same phrase about “violating the Hippocratic oath and the Geneva convention,” used foul language, and slammed the United States for past military actions in other parts of the world.
A prominent Russian oncologist also responded, posting a video in which he discussed the situation more coherently and without mudslinging or scripted phrases. Andrey Kaprin, MD, PhD, is chief oncologist of the Russian Federation as well as director general of the Federal State Budgetary Institution, NMRCC, of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. He says they continue to maintain relations with the largest and best known oncologic organizations. “We haven’t felt any deterioration in our relationship yet, and of course, we hope that this won’t happen.”
Dr. Kaprin said he believes OncoAlert will return to cooperation with Russia, and that “reason will prevail.”
“No one is protected from cancer, not even doctors, and that is why there should be no politics here,” he said.
Dr. Kaprin was speaking from Russia state-affiliated media, so it was not an independent commentary. Several of the Twitter responses to his video, primarily from non-Russians, were less than complimentary.
One user replied: “Cancer is rife in the Kremlin.”
Another post pointed out the hypocrisy of Russians being upset that OncoAlert was cutting ties with them. “What about sick Ukrainian kids, having to shelter in hospital basement, not having lifesaving surgeries because Russia decided to invade a democratic country?”
And another post was not buying the story that “reason will prevail,” in that the doctor’s talk seemed to contradict the reality of the situation. “I guess for every child #Russia murders they get cut off a little more from the civilized world?”
Cancer patients vulnerable
The war in Ukraine is an “unfolding humanitarian emergency,” said the World Health Organization, and it has called on top-level officials involved in the Russian invasion to ensure access for delivery of essential medical, surgical, and trauma supplies to help the Ukrainian people and refugees in neighboring countries. A shortage of oxygen, insulin, cancer therapies, and other essential supplies will continue to grow more dire in the weeks and months ahead, WHO officials predict.
One of the more heartbreaking reports described how pediatric cancer patients have been moved to hospital basements that are serving as temporary bomb shelters. Hospital staff continue to try to provide limited treatment when possible, even though essential supplies are dwindling.
“These children suffer more because they need to stay alive to fight with the cancer – and this fight cannot wait,” Lesia Lysytsia, MD, a doctor at Okhmatdyt, the country’s largest children’s hospital in Kyiv, said in an NBC news report.
For some children, the only treatment available is a basic form of chemotherapy, and at the Kyiv Regional Oncology Center, the situation became so dire for children in need of blood transfusions that physicians began to transfuse blood from parent to child.
“Our patients, they will die,” Dr. Lysytsia said. “We will calculate how many people or soldiers have died in attacks, but we will never calculate how many patients weren’t diagnosed of disease in time, how many patients died because they didn’t receive treatment. It’s an epic amount of people.”
Response from oncology community
Many of the large American oncology groups have issued strong statements expressing their support for Ukraine and offering assistance.
The American Cancer Society has partnered with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health to support all Ukrainian cancer patients and their families. The groups are engaging a network of oncologists and oncology nurses to provide support through the ACS Clinician Volunteer Corps.
The ACS and ASCO are making free cancer resources available in English, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian through their patient information websites (available here and here), with additional patient education resources planned.
The ACS noted that there are more than 179,000 newly diagnosed patients with cancer among the Ukrainian people “suffering from Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”
“Disruptions to cancer treatment pose a grave risk to the survival of Ukrainian patients with cancer,” commented Karen Knudsen, PhD, CEO at the ACS.
ASCO also issued its own statement, declaring that it stands with “our Ukrainian members, the worldwide oncology community, and health care providers around the globe in condemning Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine.”
The society notes that it represents oncology professionals in Ukraine and neighboring countries including Poland, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are now receiving thousands of refugees from the Russian invasion.
“We are hearing daily reports of cancer treatment interrupted by acts of war, including damage to medical facilities and shortages of critical supplies. Countless patients now need to find cancer care in new and unfamiliar surroundings with limited medical records and minimal resources,” the society commented.
The American Association for Cancer Research also issued a statement by President David A. Tuveson, MD, PhD, and CEO Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc). The organization has more than 50,000 members around the world, and they “stand in solidarity with the citizens of Ukraine during the Russian attack on their country.”
“This abhorrent war, which has been instigated by Russia’s leaders, is isolating and interrupting the lifesaving work of scientists and clinicians in Ukraine and Russia, threatening years of effective research collaborations and community building,” the AACR comments. “Limiting the exchange of innovative ideas, practices, and data across borders will significantly retard cancer research and have an adverse effect on public health.”
Perhaps the most subdued statement came from the European Society of Medical Oncology, in a brief release entitled: “Against Any War.” The society expressed profound sadness about the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine and the suffering of people. “We would like to confirm our solidarity and unconditioned support to all oncology professionals and cancer patients, with no geographical boundaries.”
ESMO also said that they were reviewing possibilities “to be of concrete help for our members and their patients, in collaboration with national and transnational oncology societies, as well as the International Cancer Foundation.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As many in the world react with sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, the oncology community has now stepped into the fray.
All the large cancer organizations have put out statements in support of Ukraine, but one group has gone further and cut its ties with Russia.
“The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions,” the group announced on its Twitter page, which is decorated with a blue and yellow ribbon and declares that it “stands with Ukraine.”
“The OncoAlert Network is nonpolitical but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression toward our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” the group said. “The network will be pulling out of ALL collaborations & congresses in Russia.”
Not surprisingly, the post was inundated with a barrage of inflammatory and politically laced tweets from Russian and Chinese users. Many of them repeated the same phrase about “violating the Hippocratic oath and the Geneva convention,” used foul language, and slammed the United States for past military actions in other parts of the world.
A prominent Russian oncologist also responded, posting a video in which he discussed the situation more coherently and without mudslinging or scripted phrases. Andrey Kaprin, MD, PhD, is chief oncologist of the Russian Federation as well as director general of the Federal State Budgetary Institution, NMRCC, of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. He says they continue to maintain relations with the largest and best known oncologic organizations. “We haven’t felt any deterioration in our relationship yet, and of course, we hope that this won’t happen.”
Dr. Kaprin said he believes OncoAlert will return to cooperation with Russia, and that “reason will prevail.”
“No one is protected from cancer, not even doctors, and that is why there should be no politics here,” he said.
Dr. Kaprin was speaking from Russia state-affiliated media, so it was not an independent commentary. Several of the Twitter responses to his video, primarily from non-Russians, were less than complimentary.
One user replied: “Cancer is rife in the Kremlin.”
Another post pointed out the hypocrisy of Russians being upset that OncoAlert was cutting ties with them. “What about sick Ukrainian kids, having to shelter in hospital basement, not having lifesaving surgeries because Russia decided to invade a democratic country?”
And another post was not buying the story that “reason will prevail,” in that the doctor’s talk seemed to contradict the reality of the situation. “I guess for every child #Russia murders they get cut off a little more from the civilized world?”
Cancer patients vulnerable
The war in Ukraine is an “unfolding humanitarian emergency,” said the World Health Organization, and it has called on top-level officials involved in the Russian invasion to ensure access for delivery of essential medical, surgical, and trauma supplies to help the Ukrainian people and refugees in neighboring countries. A shortage of oxygen, insulin, cancer therapies, and other essential supplies will continue to grow more dire in the weeks and months ahead, WHO officials predict.
One of the more heartbreaking reports described how pediatric cancer patients have been moved to hospital basements that are serving as temporary bomb shelters. Hospital staff continue to try to provide limited treatment when possible, even though essential supplies are dwindling.
“These children suffer more because they need to stay alive to fight with the cancer – and this fight cannot wait,” Lesia Lysytsia, MD, a doctor at Okhmatdyt, the country’s largest children’s hospital in Kyiv, said in an NBC news report.
For some children, the only treatment available is a basic form of chemotherapy, and at the Kyiv Regional Oncology Center, the situation became so dire for children in need of blood transfusions that physicians began to transfuse blood from parent to child.
“Our patients, they will die,” Dr. Lysytsia said. “We will calculate how many people or soldiers have died in attacks, but we will never calculate how many patients weren’t diagnosed of disease in time, how many patients died because they didn’t receive treatment. It’s an epic amount of people.”
Response from oncology community
Many of the large American oncology groups have issued strong statements expressing their support for Ukraine and offering assistance.
The American Cancer Society has partnered with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health to support all Ukrainian cancer patients and their families. The groups are engaging a network of oncologists and oncology nurses to provide support through the ACS Clinician Volunteer Corps.
The ACS and ASCO are making free cancer resources available in English, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian through their patient information websites (available here and here), with additional patient education resources planned.
The ACS noted that there are more than 179,000 newly diagnosed patients with cancer among the Ukrainian people “suffering from Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”
“Disruptions to cancer treatment pose a grave risk to the survival of Ukrainian patients with cancer,” commented Karen Knudsen, PhD, CEO at the ACS.
ASCO also issued its own statement, declaring that it stands with “our Ukrainian members, the worldwide oncology community, and health care providers around the globe in condemning Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine.”
The society notes that it represents oncology professionals in Ukraine and neighboring countries including Poland, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are now receiving thousands of refugees from the Russian invasion.
“We are hearing daily reports of cancer treatment interrupted by acts of war, including damage to medical facilities and shortages of critical supplies. Countless patients now need to find cancer care in new and unfamiliar surroundings with limited medical records and minimal resources,” the society commented.
The American Association for Cancer Research also issued a statement by President David A. Tuveson, MD, PhD, and CEO Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc). The organization has more than 50,000 members around the world, and they “stand in solidarity with the citizens of Ukraine during the Russian attack on their country.”
“This abhorrent war, which has been instigated by Russia’s leaders, is isolating and interrupting the lifesaving work of scientists and clinicians in Ukraine and Russia, threatening years of effective research collaborations and community building,” the AACR comments. “Limiting the exchange of innovative ideas, practices, and data across borders will significantly retard cancer research and have an adverse effect on public health.”
Perhaps the most subdued statement came from the European Society of Medical Oncology, in a brief release entitled: “Against Any War.” The society expressed profound sadness about the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine and the suffering of people. “We would like to confirm our solidarity and unconditioned support to all oncology professionals and cancer patients, with no geographical boundaries.”
ESMO also said that they were reviewing possibilities “to be of concrete help for our members and their patients, in collaboration with national and transnational oncology societies, as well as the International Cancer Foundation.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As many in the world react with sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, the oncology community has now stepped into the fray.
All the large cancer organizations have put out statements in support of Ukraine, but one group has gone further and cut its ties with Russia.
“The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions,” the group announced on its Twitter page, which is decorated with a blue and yellow ribbon and declares that it “stands with Ukraine.”
“The OncoAlert Network is nonpolitical but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression toward our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” the group said. “The network will be pulling out of ALL collaborations & congresses in Russia.”
Not surprisingly, the post was inundated with a barrage of inflammatory and politically laced tweets from Russian and Chinese users. Many of them repeated the same phrase about “violating the Hippocratic oath and the Geneva convention,” used foul language, and slammed the United States for past military actions in other parts of the world.
A prominent Russian oncologist also responded, posting a video in which he discussed the situation more coherently and without mudslinging or scripted phrases. Andrey Kaprin, MD, PhD, is chief oncologist of the Russian Federation as well as director general of the Federal State Budgetary Institution, NMRCC, of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. He says they continue to maintain relations with the largest and best known oncologic organizations. “We haven’t felt any deterioration in our relationship yet, and of course, we hope that this won’t happen.”
Dr. Kaprin said he believes OncoAlert will return to cooperation with Russia, and that “reason will prevail.”
“No one is protected from cancer, not even doctors, and that is why there should be no politics here,” he said.
Dr. Kaprin was speaking from Russia state-affiliated media, so it was not an independent commentary. Several of the Twitter responses to his video, primarily from non-Russians, were less than complimentary.
One user replied: “Cancer is rife in the Kremlin.”
Another post pointed out the hypocrisy of Russians being upset that OncoAlert was cutting ties with them. “What about sick Ukrainian kids, having to shelter in hospital basement, not having lifesaving surgeries because Russia decided to invade a democratic country?”
And another post was not buying the story that “reason will prevail,” in that the doctor’s talk seemed to contradict the reality of the situation. “I guess for every child #Russia murders they get cut off a little more from the civilized world?”
Cancer patients vulnerable
The war in Ukraine is an “unfolding humanitarian emergency,” said the World Health Organization, and it has called on top-level officials involved in the Russian invasion to ensure access for delivery of essential medical, surgical, and trauma supplies to help the Ukrainian people and refugees in neighboring countries. A shortage of oxygen, insulin, cancer therapies, and other essential supplies will continue to grow more dire in the weeks and months ahead, WHO officials predict.
One of the more heartbreaking reports described how pediatric cancer patients have been moved to hospital basements that are serving as temporary bomb shelters. Hospital staff continue to try to provide limited treatment when possible, even though essential supplies are dwindling.
“These children suffer more because they need to stay alive to fight with the cancer – and this fight cannot wait,” Lesia Lysytsia, MD, a doctor at Okhmatdyt, the country’s largest children’s hospital in Kyiv, said in an NBC news report.
For some children, the only treatment available is a basic form of chemotherapy, and at the Kyiv Regional Oncology Center, the situation became so dire for children in need of blood transfusions that physicians began to transfuse blood from parent to child.
“Our patients, they will die,” Dr. Lysytsia said. “We will calculate how many people or soldiers have died in attacks, but we will never calculate how many patients weren’t diagnosed of disease in time, how many patients died because they didn’t receive treatment. It’s an epic amount of people.”
Response from oncology community
Many of the large American oncology groups have issued strong statements expressing their support for Ukraine and offering assistance.
The American Cancer Society has partnered with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health to support all Ukrainian cancer patients and their families. The groups are engaging a network of oncologists and oncology nurses to provide support through the ACS Clinician Volunteer Corps.
The ACS and ASCO are making free cancer resources available in English, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian through their patient information websites (available here and here), with additional patient education resources planned.
The ACS noted that there are more than 179,000 newly diagnosed patients with cancer among the Ukrainian people “suffering from Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”
“Disruptions to cancer treatment pose a grave risk to the survival of Ukrainian patients with cancer,” commented Karen Knudsen, PhD, CEO at the ACS.
ASCO also issued its own statement, declaring that it stands with “our Ukrainian members, the worldwide oncology community, and health care providers around the globe in condemning Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine.”
The society notes that it represents oncology professionals in Ukraine and neighboring countries including Poland, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are now receiving thousands of refugees from the Russian invasion.
“We are hearing daily reports of cancer treatment interrupted by acts of war, including damage to medical facilities and shortages of critical supplies. Countless patients now need to find cancer care in new and unfamiliar surroundings with limited medical records and minimal resources,” the society commented.
The American Association for Cancer Research also issued a statement by President David A. Tuveson, MD, PhD, and CEO Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc). The organization has more than 50,000 members around the world, and they “stand in solidarity with the citizens of Ukraine during the Russian attack on their country.”
“This abhorrent war, which has been instigated by Russia’s leaders, is isolating and interrupting the lifesaving work of scientists and clinicians in Ukraine and Russia, threatening years of effective research collaborations and community building,” the AACR comments. “Limiting the exchange of innovative ideas, practices, and data across borders will significantly retard cancer research and have an adverse effect on public health.”
Perhaps the most subdued statement came from the European Society of Medical Oncology, in a brief release entitled: “Against Any War.” The society expressed profound sadness about the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine and the suffering of people. “We would like to confirm our solidarity and unconditioned support to all oncology professionals and cancer patients, with no geographical boundaries.”
ESMO also said that they were reviewing possibilities “to be of concrete help for our members and their patients, in collaboration with national and transnational oncology societies, as well as the International Cancer Foundation.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Infectious disease pop quiz: Clinical challenge #17 for the ObGyn
What are the best tests for identification of a patient with chronic hepatitis B infection?
Continue to the answer...
Patients with chronic hepatitis B infection typically test positive for the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and for IgG antibody to the hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg). In addition, they also may test positive for the hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg), and their viral load can be quantified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) when significant antigenemia is present. The presence of the e antigen indicates a high rate of viral replication and a corresponding high rate of infectivity.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Dr. Edwards is a Resident in the Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Dr. Duff is Professor of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
The authors report no financial relationships relevant to this article.
What are the best tests for identification of a patient with chronic hepatitis B infection?
Continue to the answer...
Patients with chronic hepatitis B infection typically test positive for the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and for IgG antibody to the hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg). In addition, they also may test positive for the hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg), and their viral load can be quantified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) when significant antigenemia is present. The presence of the e antigen indicates a high rate of viral replication and a corresponding high rate of infectivity.
What are the best tests for identification of a patient with chronic hepatitis B infection?
Continue to the answer...
Patients with chronic hepatitis B infection typically test positive for the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and for IgG antibody to the hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg). In addition, they also may test positive for the hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg), and their viral load can be quantified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) when significant antigenemia is present. The presence of the e antigen indicates a high rate of viral replication and a corresponding high rate of infectivity.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
- Duff P. Maternal and perinatal infections: bacterial. In: Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, et al. Gabbe’s Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2021:1124-1146.
- Duff P. Maternal and fetal infections. In: Resnik R, Lockwood CJ, Moore TJ, et al. Creasy & Resnik’s Maternal-Fetal Medicine: Principles and Practice. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2019:862-919.
Antivaccine physician pleads guilty to role in Capitol riot
California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.
Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.
Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.
The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.
In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.
Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.
In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”
Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”
Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”
Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.
Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.
Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.
Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.
The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.
In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.
Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.
In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”
Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”
Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”
Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.
Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.
Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.
Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.
The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.
In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.
Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.
In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”
Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”
Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”
Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.
Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Former physician sentenced to 20 years in pill mill case
A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.
Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.
In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.
According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.
“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.
“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.
The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.
At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.
Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”
The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.
The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.
According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.
Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.
In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.
Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.
In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.
According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.
“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.
“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.
The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.
At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.
Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”
The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.
The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.
According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.
Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.
In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.
Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.
Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.
In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.
According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.
“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.
“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.
The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.
At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.
Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”
The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.
The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.
According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.
Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.
In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Routine pharmacogenetic testing in psychiatry not indicated
LAS VEGAS –
“It’s misleading to rely on results of genetic tests to drive clinical treatment,” Dr. Nurmi, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “There’s a lot of hope and promise there. But currently, we only know the tip of the iceberg about how drugs work and the genetics influencing these effects. Current testing is probably a very poor reflection of the complexity of drug effects.”
According to Dr. Nurmi, there are at least 165 Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs with pharmacogenetic information on 64 different biomarkers – 37% with CYP p450 notations. Of these, 32 psychiatric drugs have pharmacogenetic information, and most of them are dosing recommendations based on whether a patient has the variant. However, there is wide public acceptance of genetic testing in preventing the wrong drug from being used, in selecting the best drug dose, and avoiding side effects (Pharmacogenomics 2012;12[3]:197-204). “Most people have a lot of hope [for genetic testing in psychiatry],” Dr. Nurmi said. “But is the science really there? It doesn’t matter, because these companies are doing it, and you are being shown these reports from patients. Whether or not the science supports it, we’re going to have to interpret these reports and explain them to our patients – even if we don’t order them.”
Currently, she continued, clinicians practice trial and error prescribing where they might try one treatment in a class that they think that will work based on previous literature. If nothing works, they try another one. If that’s intolerable, they try a third treatment, and so on. “When we finally find the right treatment, it can take some time to get the dosing right,” Dr. Nurmi said. “So, it can take many months to get a child on the right medication. Precision treatment, on the other hand, would start off by taking a saliva or blood sample to get a printout that lets physicians know which drugs might be used with caution because they might lack efficacy at standard doses, which ones would likely have adverse effects at standard doses, and which are the best choices and what are the dosing recommendations for those choices. If we could get all the information to guide us, that would be a useful product, but right now, we don’t know enough to be able to make these determinations.”
Current evidence-based genetic testing supports a limited role for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotyping because most psychiatric drugs are metabolized by those two enzymes. Poor metabolizers have two dysfunctional copies of the enzyme-encoding gene. This results in increased drug plasma levels with a potentially increased rate of adverse effects.
“Intermediate and extensive metabolizers usually have a normal phenotype, but you can also have ultrarapid metabolizers who have duplications or other enhancing mutations of the CYP gene,” Dr. Nurmi said. “This can result in lower bioavailability and possibly efficacy. Psychiatrists treat poor metabolizers and ultrarapid metabolizers all the time, because the variants are very common.” An estimated 10% of White people are poor metabolizers at the CYP2D6 gene while about 7% are ultrarapid metabolizers. At the same time, an estimated 20% of Asians, Africans, and Whites are poor metabolizers at the CYP2C19 gene. “So, you’re seeing a lot of this in your practice, and you’re probably changing dosing based on genetic differences in metabolism,” she said.
The only FDA pharmacodynamic treatment guideline is for the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) with the use of carbamazepine. In a study of 44 patients with SJS, all were positive for the HLA-B*1502 variant, compared with 3% of carbamazepine-tolerant patients (Nature 2004;428[6982]:486). The frequency of carrying this variant is an estimated 1:10,000 among Whites and 1:1,000 among Asians. In 2007, the FDA recommended that patients of Asian ancestry should be screened for HLA-B*1502 prior to starting carbamazepine.
Genetic variation also predicts clinical outcome with atomoxetine use. “Most child psychiatrists I know think atomoxetine doesn’t work as a second-line nonstimulant medication for ADHD,” Dr. Nurmi said. “I’d like to convince you that why you think it doesn’t work is because of the genetics.” In a study published in 2019, Dr. Nurmi and colleagues reviewed medical literature and provided therapeutic recommendations for atomoxetine therapy based on CYP2D6 genotype (Clin Pharmacol Ther 2019 Jul;106[1]:94-102). They observed 10- to 30-fold plasma differences in drug exposure between normal metabolizers and poor metabolizers.
“Poor metabolizers therefore get more benefit, but they are also going to get more side effects,” she said. “FDA recommended doses are inadequate for normal metabolizers, so they had to make guidelines based on poor metabolizers because there would be too much risk for them at higher doses. One-third of individuals require doses above the FDA limit to achieve a therapeutic drug level.”
Dr. Nurmi warned that the existing evidence base for using these genetic tests in children “is really poor. There is no data in adults with any diagnosis other than depression, and even those studies are plagued by concerns. When you’re implementing decision support tools in your practice, the key factors are patient presentation, history and symptoms, your clinical skills, the evidence base, FDA recommendations, and patient autonomy. Appropriate incorporation of genetic data should include avoiding a medication with high toxicity (like SJS), titration planning (dose and titration speed adjustments), and choosing between medications in the same class with an indication or evidence base for the target disorder.” She added that while the benefit of current genetic testing is limited, it may help some patients feel more comfortable tolerating a medication. “For example, being able to tell someone with anxiety that their genetics suggests that they will not have side effects could be very powerful,” she said.
In a 2018 safety communication, the FDA warned the public about its concerns with companies making claims about how to use genetic test results to manage medication treatments that are not supported by recommendations in the FDA-approved drug labeling or other scientific evidence. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry also published a guide for patients and families.
Dr. Nurmi disclosed that she is an unpaid advisory board member for Myriad Genetics and the Tourette Association of America, a paid adviser for Teva Pharmaceuticals, and a recipient of research support from Emalex Pharmaceuticals. She has received research funding from the National Institutes Health, the International OCD Foundation, the Tourette Association of America, and the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation.
LAS VEGAS –
“It’s misleading to rely on results of genetic tests to drive clinical treatment,” Dr. Nurmi, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “There’s a lot of hope and promise there. But currently, we only know the tip of the iceberg about how drugs work and the genetics influencing these effects. Current testing is probably a very poor reflection of the complexity of drug effects.”
According to Dr. Nurmi, there are at least 165 Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs with pharmacogenetic information on 64 different biomarkers – 37% with CYP p450 notations. Of these, 32 psychiatric drugs have pharmacogenetic information, and most of them are dosing recommendations based on whether a patient has the variant. However, there is wide public acceptance of genetic testing in preventing the wrong drug from being used, in selecting the best drug dose, and avoiding side effects (Pharmacogenomics 2012;12[3]:197-204). “Most people have a lot of hope [for genetic testing in psychiatry],” Dr. Nurmi said. “But is the science really there? It doesn’t matter, because these companies are doing it, and you are being shown these reports from patients. Whether or not the science supports it, we’re going to have to interpret these reports and explain them to our patients – even if we don’t order them.”
Currently, she continued, clinicians practice trial and error prescribing where they might try one treatment in a class that they think that will work based on previous literature. If nothing works, they try another one. If that’s intolerable, they try a third treatment, and so on. “When we finally find the right treatment, it can take some time to get the dosing right,” Dr. Nurmi said. “So, it can take many months to get a child on the right medication. Precision treatment, on the other hand, would start off by taking a saliva or blood sample to get a printout that lets physicians know which drugs might be used with caution because they might lack efficacy at standard doses, which ones would likely have adverse effects at standard doses, and which are the best choices and what are the dosing recommendations for those choices. If we could get all the information to guide us, that would be a useful product, but right now, we don’t know enough to be able to make these determinations.”
Current evidence-based genetic testing supports a limited role for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotyping because most psychiatric drugs are metabolized by those two enzymes. Poor metabolizers have two dysfunctional copies of the enzyme-encoding gene. This results in increased drug plasma levels with a potentially increased rate of adverse effects.
“Intermediate and extensive metabolizers usually have a normal phenotype, but you can also have ultrarapid metabolizers who have duplications or other enhancing mutations of the CYP gene,” Dr. Nurmi said. “This can result in lower bioavailability and possibly efficacy. Psychiatrists treat poor metabolizers and ultrarapid metabolizers all the time, because the variants are very common.” An estimated 10% of White people are poor metabolizers at the CYP2D6 gene while about 7% are ultrarapid metabolizers. At the same time, an estimated 20% of Asians, Africans, and Whites are poor metabolizers at the CYP2C19 gene. “So, you’re seeing a lot of this in your practice, and you’re probably changing dosing based on genetic differences in metabolism,” she said.
The only FDA pharmacodynamic treatment guideline is for the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) with the use of carbamazepine. In a study of 44 patients with SJS, all were positive for the HLA-B*1502 variant, compared with 3% of carbamazepine-tolerant patients (Nature 2004;428[6982]:486). The frequency of carrying this variant is an estimated 1:10,000 among Whites and 1:1,000 among Asians. In 2007, the FDA recommended that patients of Asian ancestry should be screened for HLA-B*1502 prior to starting carbamazepine.
Genetic variation also predicts clinical outcome with atomoxetine use. “Most child psychiatrists I know think atomoxetine doesn’t work as a second-line nonstimulant medication for ADHD,” Dr. Nurmi said. “I’d like to convince you that why you think it doesn’t work is because of the genetics.” In a study published in 2019, Dr. Nurmi and colleagues reviewed medical literature and provided therapeutic recommendations for atomoxetine therapy based on CYP2D6 genotype (Clin Pharmacol Ther 2019 Jul;106[1]:94-102). They observed 10- to 30-fold plasma differences in drug exposure between normal metabolizers and poor metabolizers.
“Poor metabolizers therefore get more benefit, but they are also going to get more side effects,” she said. “FDA recommended doses are inadequate for normal metabolizers, so they had to make guidelines based on poor metabolizers because there would be too much risk for them at higher doses. One-third of individuals require doses above the FDA limit to achieve a therapeutic drug level.”
Dr. Nurmi warned that the existing evidence base for using these genetic tests in children “is really poor. There is no data in adults with any diagnosis other than depression, and even those studies are plagued by concerns. When you’re implementing decision support tools in your practice, the key factors are patient presentation, history and symptoms, your clinical skills, the evidence base, FDA recommendations, and patient autonomy. Appropriate incorporation of genetic data should include avoiding a medication with high toxicity (like SJS), titration planning (dose and titration speed adjustments), and choosing between medications in the same class with an indication or evidence base for the target disorder.” She added that while the benefit of current genetic testing is limited, it may help some patients feel more comfortable tolerating a medication. “For example, being able to tell someone with anxiety that their genetics suggests that they will not have side effects could be very powerful,” she said.
In a 2018 safety communication, the FDA warned the public about its concerns with companies making claims about how to use genetic test results to manage medication treatments that are not supported by recommendations in the FDA-approved drug labeling or other scientific evidence. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry also published a guide for patients and families.
Dr. Nurmi disclosed that she is an unpaid advisory board member for Myriad Genetics and the Tourette Association of America, a paid adviser for Teva Pharmaceuticals, and a recipient of research support from Emalex Pharmaceuticals. She has received research funding from the National Institutes Health, the International OCD Foundation, the Tourette Association of America, and the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation.
LAS VEGAS –
“It’s misleading to rely on results of genetic tests to drive clinical treatment,” Dr. Nurmi, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “There’s a lot of hope and promise there. But currently, we only know the tip of the iceberg about how drugs work and the genetics influencing these effects. Current testing is probably a very poor reflection of the complexity of drug effects.”
According to Dr. Nurmi, there are at least 165 Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs with pharmacogenetic information on 64 different biomarkers – 37% with CYP p450 notations. Of these, 32 psychiatric drugs have pharmacogenetic information, and most of them are dosing recommendations based on whether a patient has the variant. However, there is wide public acceptance of genetic testing in preventing the wrong drug from being used, in selecting the best drug dose, and avoiding side effects (Pharmacogenomics 2012;12[3]:197-204). “Most people have a lot of hope [for genetic testing in psychiatry],” Dr. Nurmi said. “But is the science really there? It doesn’t matter, because these companies are doing it, and you are being shown these reports from patients. Whether or not the science supports it, we’re going to have to interpret these reports and explain them to our patients – even if we don’t order them.”
Currently, she continued, clinicians practice trial and error prescribing where they might try one treatment in a class that they think that will work based on previous literature. If nothing works, they try another one. If that’s intolerable, they try a third treatment, and so on. “When we finally find the right treatment, it can take some time to get the dosing right,” Dr. Nurmi said. “So, it can take many months to get a child on the right medication. Precision treatment, on the other hand, would start off by taking a saliva or blood sample to get a printout that lets physicians know which drugs might be used with caution because they might lack efficacy at standard doses, which ones would likely have adverse effects at standard doses, and which are the best choices and what are the dosing recommendations for those choices. If we could get all the information to guide us, that would be a useful product, but right now, we don’t know enough to be able to make these determinations.”
Current evidence-based genetic testing supports a limited role for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotyping because most psychiatric drugs are metabolized by those two enzymes. Poor metabolizers have two dysfunctional copies of the enzyme-encoding gene. This results in increased drug plasma levels with a potentially increased rate of adverse effects.
“Intermediate and extensive metabolizers usually have a normal phenotype, but you can also have ultrarapid metabolizers who have duplications or other enhancing mutations of the CYP gene,” Dr. Nurmi said. “This can result in lower bioavailability and possibly efficacy. Psychiatrists treat poor metabolizers and ultrarapid metabolizers all the time, because the variants are very common.” An estimated 10% of White people are poor metabolizers at the CYP2D6 gene while about 7% are ultrarapid metabolizers. At the same time, an estimated 20% of Asians, Africans, and Whites are poor metabolizers at the CYP2C19 gene. “So, you’re seeing a lot of this in your practice, and you’re probably changing dosing based on genetic differences in metabolism,” she said.
The only FDA pharmacodynamic treatment guideline is for the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) with the use of carbamazepine. In a study of 44 patients with SJS, all were positive for the HLA-B*1502 variant, compared with 3% of carbamazepine-tolerant patients (Nature 2004;428[6982]:486). The frequency of carrying this variant is an estimated 1:10,000 among Whites and 1:1,000 among Asians. In 2007, the FDA recommended that patients of Asian ancestry should be screened for HLA-B*1502 prior to starting carbamazepine.
Genetic variation also predicts clinical outcome with atomoxetine use. “Most child psychiatrists I know think atomoxetine doesn’t work as a second-line nonstimulant medication for ADHD,” Dr. Nurmi said. “I’d like to convince you that why you think it doesn’t work is because of the genetics.” In a study published in 2019, Dr. Nurmi and colleagues reviewed medical literature and provided therapeutic recommendations for atomoxetine therapy based on CYP2D6 genotype (Clin Pharmacol Ther 2019 Jul;106[1]:94-102). They observed 10- to 30-fold plasma differences in drug exposure between normal metabolizers and poor metabolizers.
“Poor metabolizers therefore get more benefit, but they are also going to get more side effects,” she said. “FDA recommended doses are inadequate for normal metabolizers, so they had to make guidelines based on poor metabolizers because there would be too much risk for them at higher doses. One-third of individuals require doses above the FDA limit to achieve a therapeutic drug level.”
Dr. Nurmi warned that the existing evidence base for using these genetic tests in children “is really poor. There is no data in adults with any diagnosis other than depression, and even those studies are plagued by concerns. When you’re implementing decision support tools in your practice, the key factors are patient presentation, history and symptoms, your clinical skills, the evidence base, FDA recommendations, and patient autonomy. Appropriate incorporation of genetic data should include avoiding a medication with high toxicity (like SJS), titration planning (dose and titration speed adjustments), and choosing between medications in the same class with an indication or evidence base for the target disorder.” She added that while the benefit of current genetic testing is limited, it may help some patients feel more comfortable tolerating a medication. “For example, being able to tell someone with anxiety that their genetics suggests that they will not have side effects could be very powerful,” she said.
In a 2018 safety communication, the FDA warned the public about its concerns with companies making claims about how to use genetic test results to manage medication treatments that are not supported by recommendations in the FDA-approved drug labeling or other scientific evidence. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry also published a guide for patients and families.
Dr. Nurmi disclosed that she is an unpaid advisory board member for Myriad Genetics and the Tourette Association of America, a paid adviser for Teva Pharmaceuticals, and a recipient of research support from Emalex Pharmaceuticals. She has received research funding from the National Institutes Health, the International OCD Foundation, the Tourette Association of America, and the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation.
REPORTING FROM NPA 2022
One-third of psoriatic arthritis patients could have metabolic syndrome, data analysis finds
of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.
Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.
However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.
For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.
The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.
The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.
Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).
The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).
Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”
“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.
The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.
However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.
“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.
The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.
of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.
Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.
However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.
For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.
The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.
The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.
Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).
The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).
Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”
“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.
The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.
However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.
“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.
The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.
of 724 individuals, as did approximately 23%-63% of patients across multiple studies, investigators from Spain report.
Previous studies of people with PsA in particular suggest they are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and have a higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome, prompting recommendations on cardiovascular risk management for patients with PsA, wrote the authors, Ana Urruticoechea-Arana, MD, of the department of rheumatology, Hospital Can Misses, Ibiza, Spain, and colleagues.
However, assessing the prevalence of metabolic syndrome remains a challenge because the definition varies across studies, they noted.
For a more thorough assessment of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in this population, the researchers conducted a study using two sources: a systematic literature review of 18 studies published up to March 2019, and data on patients with PsA enrolled in the CARMA (Spanish Cardiovascular in Rheumatology) project, a longitudinal cohort observational study of adults with inflammatory diseases in Spain. The findings were published March 1 in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology.
The literature review included a total of a total of 2,452 patients with PsA, with a mean age between 42 and 59 years, and a mean disease duration ranging from 3 to 14 years.
The definitions of metabolic syndrome varied; the most common was the definition from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NECP ATP III). Other definitions used in the studies included those issued by the International Diabetes Federation, the World Health Organization, and the American Heart Association.
Across these studies, the rate of metabolic syndrome ranged from 23.5% to 62.9%. Prevalence was similar between men and women. One study that included patients with a PsA disease duration of only 3 years showed a prevalence of 38%, similar to the average prevalence overall. Another study showed a significantly higher prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with PsA and cutaneous psoriasis, compared with those without psoriasis (40.8% vs. 13.16%; P = .006).
The CARMA study included 724 patients with PsA; 45.4% were women and 21.8% were smokers. The mean age of the population in this study was 51 years, and the mean disease duration was 9 years. Overall, 222 patients (30.7%) met at least three criteria for metabolic syndrome, based on the NCEP ATP III definition. The most common abnormal findings for traditional cardiovascular risk factors in the CARMA cohort were high blood pressure (66.8%), hyperglycemia (42.6%), and hypertriglyceridemia (30.6%).
Despite the variation in prevalence of metabolic syndrome, depending on the definition used, the authors wrote, “It can be stated that the rate of [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA is in general very high, especially if we take into account the mean age of patients included in the studies.”
“These findings support the hypotheses that this increase in the inflammatory pathway in PsA may contribute a higher risk of cardiovascular events and [metabolic syndrome] in patients with PsA than patients with psoriasis alone, the risk being even higher in severe PsA,” and that insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and atherosclerotic events “may have a common inflammatory basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion of the results.
The study findings were limited by several factors, most importantly the variation in definitions of metabolic syndrome in the literature review, which limits the generalizability of the results, the researchers said. Limitations of the CARMA study include the focus only on patients who were being cared for in hospitals, which might yield an overestimation of metabolic syndrome, they added.
However, the results support findings from previous studies and highlight the need for proper assessment of body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with PsA at the onset of disease, they said.
“Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct more research to standardize (and modify as appropriate) the definition of [metabolic syndrome] and establish the best strategy for managing it in these patients,” they concluded.
The study was funded by an independent grant from UCB Pharma. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, MSD, and Janssen. Lead author Dr. Urruticoechea-Arana and the other authors had no disclosures.
FROM JOURNAL OF CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY
ARBs and cancer risk: New meta-analysis raises questions again
The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.
The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.
The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.
The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.
“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.
“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.
Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.
Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.
Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).
“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.
“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.
From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.
“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.
For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.
“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”
The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.
In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.
Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).
In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).
There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).
In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.
Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).
But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.
Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.
He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”
Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
A ‘clear increase’ in risk
Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.
“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.
Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.
Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.
“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.
Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”
Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”
Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”
They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’
Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously.
Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.
He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.
“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.
“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
Limitations of trial-level analysis
Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.
“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.
He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer.
“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.
Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”
He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
Cardiologists skeptical?
Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.
Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”
But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”
He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”
Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”
Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.
George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”
“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”
Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.
“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”
Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.
Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”
Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”
Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.
The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.
The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.
The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.
“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.
“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.
Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.
Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.
Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).
“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.
“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.
From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.
“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.
For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.
“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”
The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.
In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.
Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).
In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).
There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).
In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.
Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).
But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.
Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.
He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”
Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
A ‘clear increase’ in risk
Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.
“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.
Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.
Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.
“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.
Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”
Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”
Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”
They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’
Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously.
Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.
He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.
“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.
“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
Limitations of trial-level analysis
Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.
“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.
He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer.
“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.
Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”
He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
Cardiologists skeptical?
Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.
Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”
But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”
He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”
Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”
Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.
George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”
“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”
Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.
“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”
Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.
Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”
Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”
Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The debate on whether the popular class of antihypertensive drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), may be associated with an increased risk for cancer has been reopened with the publication of a new meta-analysis.
The analysis found an increasing risk for cancer, and specifically lung cancer, with increasing cumulative exposure to these drugs.
The findings are reported in a study published online in PLOS ONE.
The author of this new meta-analysis is Ilke Sipahi, MD, a cardiologist from Acibadem University Medical School, Istanbul, who previously raised this issue in an initial meta-analysis published in 2010.
“The new meta-analysis is important because it is the first study to investigate whether there is a dose response in the association between ARBs and cancer,” Dr. Sipahi told this news organization.
“I found a clear signal of increased risk of cancer as exposure to ARBs increased, and the association started to become significant when the maximum dose was taken for 3 years,” he added.
Dr. Sipahi explained that in the first meta-analysis published in Lancet Oncology, he and his colleagues reported an increased cancer risk with ARBs based on observations from high-exposure trials – those that included higher doses of ARBs with a long duration of follow-up.
Following this publication, an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuted the risk, and a collaboration of ARB trial investigators also performed an analysis published in the Journal of Hypertension (2011. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328344a7de), which again did not show an increased risk for cancer with use of ARBs.
Dr. Sipahi claims that those analyses by the FDA and the ARB Trialists Collaboration, which were all trial-level meta-analyses, diluted the “high exposure” data (including higher doses taken for longer periods of time) with a large amount of other data on much lower exposures (lower doses and/or shorter time periods).
“The overall risk would then inevitably become nonsignificant. These analyses also did not look at different exposure levels,” he says.
“For cancer, the degree of exposure is obviously very important. The risk associated with smoking 2 or 3 cigarettes a day for a year is very different from that of smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years. The same principle applies to taking a medication,” Dr. Sipahi asserts.
From these latest data, he estimates that 120 patients needed to be treated with the maximal daily dose of an ARB for 4.7 years for one excess cancer diagnosis, and 464 patients needed to be treated for one excess lung cancer.
“Given that at least 200 million individuals are being treated with an ARB globally, approximately 1.7 million excess cancers (and 430,000 lung cancers) in 4.6 years could be potentially caused by this class of drugs,” he suggests.
For the current analysis, Dr. Sipahi used trial-level data taken from the paper by the ARB Trialists Collaboration and investigated the effect of exposure to ARBs – including both the dose taken and the length of treatment – on risk for cancer. He performed metaregression analyses that he says has not been done before.
“I mathematically quantitated the degree of exposure in each trial. And when the degree of exposure was correlated with risk of cancer, there was a significant association.”
The new meta-analysis includes 15 randomized controlled trials. The two coprimary outcomes were the relationship between cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined and the relationship between cumulative exposure and risk for lung cancer.
In the trials, 74,021 patients were randomly assigned to an ARB, resulting in a total cumulative exposure of 172,389 person-years of exposure to daily high dose (or equivalent), and 61,197 patients were randomly assigned to control.
Results showed a highly significant correlation between the degree of cumulative exposure to ARBs and risk for all cancers combined (slope = 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.11; P < .001) and also lung cancer (slope = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05-0.27; P = .003).
In trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 3 years of exposure to daily high dose, there was a statistically significant increase in risk for all cancers combined (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19; P = .006).
There was also a statistically significant increase in risk for lung cancers in trials where the cumulative exposure was greater than 2.5 years (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.44; P = .03).
In trials with lower cumulative exposure to ARBs, there was no increased risk either for all cancers combined or lung cancer.
Dr. Sipahi reports that the cumulative exposure-risk relationship with ARBs was independent of background angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor treatment or the type of control (placebo or nonplacebo control).
But he acknowledges that since this is a trial-level analysis, the effects of patient characteristics such as age and smoking status could not be examined because of lack of patient-level data.
Dr. Sipahi says he does not know the mechanism behind these findings, but he draws attention to the recent withdrawal of several thousand lots of ARB formulations because of the presence of potentially carcinogenic impurities that have been suggested to be a byproduct of ARB synthesis.
He also claims that unlike some other classes of antihypertensives, ARBs have not been shown to reduce the risk for MI, leading him to conclude that “other classes of antihypertensives with good safety and efficacy data (such as ACE-inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers or others) should become the preferred first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension.”
Dr. Sipahi wants the FDA to reinvestigate the issue of ARBs and cancer risk using individual patient data. “They already have the patient-level data from the trials. They should look at it more carefully and look at exposure levels and how they relate to cancer risk,” he said. “And the fact that there have been studies linking high ARB exposure levels to increased cancer risk should at least get a warning on the drug labels.”
A ‘clear increase’ in risk
Dr. Sipahi also points out that a link between ARBs and cancer has been found in another meta-analysis performed in 2013 by senior FDA analyst Thomas Marciniak, MD.
“Because he worked at the FDA, [Dr.] Marciniak had access to individual patent data. This is the best type of analysis and generally produces more accurate results than a trial-level meta-analysis,” Dr. Sipahi commented.
Dr. Marciniak’s analysis, which is available on the FDA website as part of another document, was not officially published elsewhere, and no further action has been taken on the issue.
Contacted by this news organization, Dr. Marciniak, who has now retired from the FDA, said he not only conducted a patient-level meta-analysis but also followed up adverse effects reported in the trials that could have been a symptom of cancer to establish further whether the patient was later diagnosed with cancer or not.
“I used every scrap of information sent in, including serious adverse event reports. I saw a clear increase in lung cancer risk with the ARBs,” Dr. Marciniak said. He did not, however, perform a dose-response relationship analysis.
Asked why his analysis and those from Dr. Sipahi reach different conclusions to those from the ARB Trialists Collaboration and the official FDA investigations, Dr. Marciniak said: “It may be that there were too many low-exposure trials that just washed out the difference. But trial data generally do not capture adverse events such as cancer, which takes a long time to develop, very well, and if you’re not really looking for it, you’re probably not going to find it.”
Dr. Marciniak said that Dr. Sipahi’s current findings are in line with his results. “Finding a dose response, to me, is extremely compelling, and I think the signal here is real,” he commented. “I think this new paper from Dr. Sipahi verifies what I found. I think the FDA should now release all individual patient data it has.”
Contacted for comment, an FDA spokesperson said, “Generally the FDA does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”
They added: “The FDA has ongoing assessment, surveillance, compliance, and pharmaceutical quality efforts across every product area, and we will continue to work with drug manufacturers to ensure safe, effective, and high-quality drugs for the American public. When we identify new and previously unrecognized risks to safety and quality, we react swiftly to resolve the problem, as we have done in responding to the recent findings of nitrosamines in certain medicines.”
Analysis ‘should be taken seriously’
Commenting on this new study, Steve Nissen, MD, a key figure in analyzing such complex data and who has himself uncovered problems with high-profile drugs in the past, says the current analysis should be taken seriously.
Dr. Nissen, who was Dr. Sipahi’s senior during his post-doc position at the Cleveland Clinic, wrote an editorial accompanying Dr. Sipahi’s first paper and calling for urgent regulatory review of the evidence.
He says the new findings add to previous evidence suggesting a possible risk for cancer with ARBs.
“[Dr.] Sipahi is a capable researcher, and this analysis needs to be taken seriously, but it needs to be verified. It is not possible to draw a strong conclusion on this analysis, as it is not based on individual patient data, but I don’t think it should be ignored,” Dr. Nissen stated.
“I will say again what I said 12 years ago – that the regulatory agencies need to carefully review all their data in a very detailed way. The FDA and EMA have access to the individual patient data and are both very capable of doing the required analyses.”
Limitations of trial-level analysis
Asked to evaluate the statistics in the current paper, Andrew Althouse, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and a clinical trial statistician, explained that the best way to do a thorough analysis of the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer would involve the use of patient-level data.
“As such data were not available to Dr. Sipahi, I believe he is doing as well as he can. But without full access to individual patient-level data from the respective trials, it is difficult to support any firm conclusions,” Dr. Althouse said in an interview.
He suggested that the meta-regression analyses used in the paper were unable to properly estimate the relationship between ARB exposure and risk for incident cancer.
“Taken at face value, the current analysis suggests that [in] trials with longer follow-up duration (and therefore greater cumulative exposure to ARB for the treatment group), the risk of developing cancer for patients in the ARB group versus the non-ARB group was progressively higher. But this study doesn’t take into account the actual amount of follow-up time for individual patients or potential differences in the amount of follow-up time between the two groups in each trial,” he noted.
Dr. Althouse says this raises the possibility of “competing risks” or the idea that if ARBs reduce cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular death, then there would be more patients remaining in that arm who could go on to develop cancer. “So a crude count of the number of cancer cases may look as though patients receiving ARBs are ‘more likely’ to develop cancer, but this is a mirage.”
He added: “When there are some patients dying during the study, the only way to tell whether the intervention actually increased the risk of other health-related complications is to have an analysis that properly accounts for each patient’s time-at-risk of the outcome. Unfortunately, properly analyzing this requires the use of patient-level data.”
Cardiologists skeptical?
Cardiology experts asked for thoughts on the new meta-analysis were also cautious to read too much into the findings.
Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “Perhaps one would simply ignore this rambling, cherrypicking-based condemnation of ARBs if it were not for the powerful negative connotation of the word cancer. Thus, the meta-analysis of Dr. Sipahi purporting that ARBs could be increasing the development of cancers in a cumulative way is of concern to both physicians and patients.”
But, raising a similar point to Dr. Althouse about competing risks, Dr. Messerli said: “We have to consider that as one gets older, the cardiovascular disease state and cancer state will compete with each other for the outcome of death. The better that therapies protect against cardiovascular death, the more they will increase life expectancy and thus the risk of cancer.”
He also added that “in head-to-head comparisons with ACE inhibitors, ARBs showed similar efficacy in terms of death, CV mortality, MI, stroke, and end-stage kidney disease, so can we agree that the attempt of Dr. Sipahi to disparage ARBs as a class is much ado about nothing?”
Dr. Nissen, however, said he views the idea of competing risk as “a bit of a stretch” in this case. “Although ARBs are effective antihypertensive drugs, I would say there is very little evidence that they would prolong survival versus other antihypertensives.”
Dr. Sipahi also claims that this argument is not relevant to the current analysis. “ARBs did not increase survival in any of the high-exposure trials that showed an excess in cancers. Therefore, competing outcomes, or ‘survival bias’ to be more specific, is not a possibility here,” he says.
George Bakris, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago Medicine, noted that while the current study shows a slight increase in cancer incidence, especially lung cancer, among those taking ARBs for more than 3 years, it “totally ignores the overwhelming cardiovascular risk reduction seen in the trials.”
“Moreover,” he adds, “the author notes that the findings were independent of ACE-inhibitors, but he can’t rule out smoking and age as factors, two major risk factors for cancer and lung cancer, specifically. Thus, as typical of these types of analyses, the associations are probably true/true unrelated or, at best, partially related.”
Dr. Bakris referred to the potentially carcinogenic nitrosamine and azido compounds found in several ARB formulations that have resulted in recalls.
“At any stage of drug synthesis throughout each product’s lifetime, these impurities may evolve if an amine reacts with a nitrosating agent coexisting under appropriate conditions,” he said. “Drug regulatory authorities worldwide have established stringent guidelines on nitrosamine contamination for all drug products. The studies noted in the author’s analysis were done well before these guidelines were implemented. Hence, many of the issues raised by the authors using trials from 10-20 years ago are not of significant concern.”
Still, the cardiology experts all agreed on one thing – that patients should continue to take ARBs as prescribed.
Noting that worldwide authorities are now addressing the issue of possible carcinogen contamination, Dr. Bakris stressed that patients “should not panic and should not stop their meds.”
Dr. Nissen added: “What we don’t want is for patents who are taking ARBs to stop taking these medications – hypertension is a deadly disorder, and these drugs have proven cardiovascular benefits.”
Dr. Sipahi received no specific funding for this work. He reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sandoz, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Ranbaxy, Servier, and ARIS and served on advisory boards for Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer and I.E. Ulagay. The other commenters do not report any relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.