User login
Leukemia rates two to three times higher in children born near fracking
Children born near fracking and other “unconventional” drilling sites are at two to three times greater risk of developing childhood leukemia, according to new research.
The study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, compared proximity of homes to unconventional oil and gas development (UOGD) sites and risk of the most common form of childhood leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).
Researchers looked at 405 children aged 2-7 diagnosed with ALL in Pennsylvania from 2009 to 2017. These children were compared to a control group of 2,080 without the disease matched on the year of birth.
“Unconventional oil and gas development can both use and release chemicals that have been linked to cancer,” study coauthor Nicole Deziel, PhD, of the Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Conn., said in a statement . She noted that the possibility that children living in close proximity to such sites are “exposed to these chemical carcinogens is a major public health concern.”
About 17 million Americans live within a half-mile of active oil and gas production, according to the Oil & Gas Threat Map, Common Dreams reports. That number includes 4 million children.
The Yale study also found that drinking water could be an important pathway of exposure to oil- and gas-related chemicals used in the UOGD methods of extraction.
Researchers used a new metric that measures exposure to contaminated drinking water and distance to a well. They were able to identify UOGD-affected wells that fell within watersheds where children and their families likely obtained their water.
“Previous health studies have found links between proximity to oil and gas drilling and various children’s health outcomes,” said Dr. Deziel. “This study is among the few to focus on drinking water specifically and the first to apply a novel metric designed to capture potential exposure through this pathway.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Children born near fracking and other “unconventional” drilling sites are at two to three times greater risk of developing childhood leukemia, according to new research.
The study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, compared proximity of homes to unconventional oil and gas development (UOGD) sites and risk of the most common form of childhood leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).
Researchers looked at 405 children aged 2-7 diagnosed with ALL in Pennsylvania from 2009 to 2017. These children were compared to a control group of 2,080 without the disease matched on the year of birth.
“Unconventional oil and gas development can both use and release chemicals that have been linked to cancer,” study coauthor Nicole Deziel, PhD, of the Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Conn., said in a statement . She noted that the possibility that children living in close proximity to such sites are “exposed to these chemical carcinogens is a major public health concern.”
About 17 million Americans live within a half-mile of active oil and gas production, according to the Oil & Gas Threat Map, Common Dreams reports. That number includes 4 million children.
The Yale study also found that drinking water could be an important pathway of exposure to oil- and gas-related chemicals used in the UOGD methods of extraction.
Researchers used a new metric that measures exposure to contaminated drinking water and distance to a well. They were able to identify UOGD-affected wells that fell within watersheds where children and their families likely obtained their water.
“Previous health studies have found links between proximity to oil and gas drilling and various children’s health outcomes,” said Dr. Deziel. “This study is among the few to focus on drinking water specifically and the first to apply a novel metric designed to capture potential exposure through this pathway.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Children born near fracking and other “unconventional” drilling sites are at two to three times greater risk of developing childhood leukemia, according to new research.
The study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, compared proximity of homes to unconventional oil and gas development (UOGD) sites and risk of the most common form of childhood leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).
Researchers looked at 405 children aged 2-7 diagnosed with ALL in Pennsylvania from 2009 to 2017. These children were compared to a control group of 2,080 without the disease matched on the year of birth.
“Unconventional oil and gas development can both use and release chemicals that have been linked to cancer,” study coauthor Nicole Deziel, PhD, of the Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Conn., said in a statement . She noted that the possibility that children living in close proximity to such sites are “exposed to these chemical carcinogens is a major public health concern.”
About 17 million Americans live within a half-mile of active oil and gas production, according to the Oil & Gas Threat Map, Common Dreams reports. That number includes 4 million children.
The Yale study also found that drinking water could be an important pathway of exposure to oil- and gas-related chemicals used in the UOGD methods of extraction.
Researchers used a new metric that measures exposure to contaminated drinking water and distance to a well. They were able to identify UOGD-affected wells that fell within watersheds where children and their families likely obtained their water.
“Previous health studies have found links between proximity to oil and gas drilling and various children’s health outcomes,” said Dr. Deziel. “This study is among the few to focus on drinking water specifically and the first to apply a novel metric designed to capture potential exposure through this pathway.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Where women’s voices still get heard less
“Our study provides the first analysis of gender and early-career faculty disparities in speakers at hematology and medical oncology board review meetings,” the authors reported in research published in Blood Advances.
“We covered six major board reviews over the last 5 years that are either conducted yearly or every other year, [and] the general trend across all meetings showed skewness toward men speakers,” the authors reported.
Recent data from 2021 suggests a closing of the gender gap in oncology, with women making up 44.6% of oncologists in training. However, they still only represented 35.2% of practicing oncologists and are underrepresented in leadership positions in academic oncology, the authors reported.
With speaking roles at academic meetings potentially marking a key step in career advancement and improved opportunities, the authors sought to investigate the balance of gender, as well as early-career faculty among speakers at prominent hematology and/or oncology board review lecture series taking place in the United States between 2017 and 2021.
The five institutions and one society presenting the board review lecture series included Baylor College of Medicine/MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston; Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston; George Washington University, Washington; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; and the hematology board review series from the American Society of Hematology.
During the period in question, among 1,224 board review lectures presented, women constituted only 37.7% of the speakers. In lectures presented by American Board of Internal Medicine–certified speakers (n = 1,016, 83%), women were found to have made up fewer than 50% of speakers in five of six courses.
Men were also more likely to be recurrent speakers; across all courses, 13 men but only 2 women conducted 10 or more lectures. And while 35 men gave six or more lectures across all courses, only 12 women did so.
The lecture topics with the lowest rates of women presenters included malignant hematology (24.8%), solid tumors (38.9%), and benign hematology lectures (44.1%).
“We suspected [the imbalance in malignant hematology] since multiple recurrent roles were concentrated in the malignant hematology,” senior author Samer Al Hadidi, MD, of the Myeloma Center, Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AK, said in an interview.
He noted that “there are no regulations that such courses need to follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved.”
Early-career faculty
In terms of early-career representation, more than 50% of lectures were given by faculty who had received their initial certifications more than 15 years earlier. The median time from initial certification was 12.5 years for hematology and 14 years for medical oncology.
The findings that more than half of the board review lectures were presented by faculty with more than 15 years’ experience since initial certification “reflects a lack of appropriate involvement of early-career faculty, who arguably may have more recent experience with board certification,” the authors wrote.
While being underrepresented in such roles is detrimental, there are no regulations that such courses follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved, Dr. Al Hadidi noted.
Equal representation remains elusive
The study does suggest some notable gains. In a previous study of 181 academic conferences in the United States and Canada between 2007 and 2017, the rate of women speakers was only 15%, compared with 37.7% in the new study.
And an overall trend analysis in the study shows an approximately 10% increase in representation of women in all of the board reviews. However, only the ASH hematology board review achieved more than 50% women in their two courses.
“Overall, the proportion of women speakers is improving over the years, though it remains suboptimal,” Dr. Al Hadidi said.
The authors noted that oncology is clearly not the only specialty with gender disparities. They documented a lack of women speakers at conferences involving otolaryngology head and neck meetings, radiation oncology, emergency medicine, and research conferences.
They pointed to the work of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group as an important example of the needed effort to improve the balance of women hematologists.
Ariela Marshall, MD, director of women’s thrombosis and hemostasis at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia and a leader of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group, agreed that more efforts are needed to address both gender disparities as well as those of early career speakers. She asserted that the two disparities appear to be connected.
“If you broke down gender representation over time and the faculty/time since initial certification, the findings may mirror the percent of women in hematology-oncology at that given point in time,” Dr. Marshall said in an interview.
“If an institution is truly committed to taking action on gender equity, it needs to look at gender and experience equity of speakers,” she said. “Perhaps it’s the time to say ‘Dr. X has been doing this review course for 15 years. Let’s give someone else a chance.’
“This is not even just from a gender equity perspective but from a career development perspective overall,” she added. “Junior faculty need these speaking engagements a lot more than senior faculty.”
Meanwhile, the higher number of female trainees is a trend that ideally will be sustained as those trainees move into positions of leadership, Dr. Marshall noted.
“We do see that over time, we have achieved gender equity in the percent of women matriculating to medical school. And my hope is that, 20 years down the line, we will see the effects of this reflected in increased equity in leadership positions such as division/department chair, dean, and hospital CEO,” she said. “However, we have a lot of work to do because there are still huge inequities in the culture of medicine (institutional and more broadly), including gender-based discrimination, maternal discrimination, and high attrition rates for women physicians, compared to male physicians.
“It’s not enough to simply say ‘well, we have fixed the problem because our incoming medical student classes are now equitable in gender distribution,’ ”
The authors and Dr. Marshall had no disclosures to report.
“Our study provides the first analysis of gender and early-career faculty disparities in speakers at hematology and medical oncology board review meetings,” the authors reported in research published in Blood Advances.
“We covered six major board reviews over the last 5 years that are either conducted yearly or every other year, [and] the general trend across all meetings showed skewness toward men speakers,” the authors reported.
Recent data from 2021 suggests a closing of the gender gap in oncology, with women making up 44.6% of oncologists in training. However, they still only represented 35.2% of practicing oncologists and are underrepresented in leadership positions in academic oncology, the authors reported.
With speaking roles at academic meetings potentially marking a key step in career advancement and improved opportunities, the authors sought to investigate the balance of gender, as well as early-career faculty among speakers at prominent hematology and/or oncology board review lecture series taking place in the United States between 2017 and 2021.
The five institutions and one society presenting the board review lecture series included Baylor College of Medicine/MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston; Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston; George Washington University, Washington; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; and the hematology board review series from the American Society of Hematology.
During the period in question, among 1,224 board review lectures presented, women constituted only 37.7% of the speakers. In lectures presented by American Board of Internal Medicine–certified speakers (n = 1,016, 83%), women were found to have made up fewer than 50% of speakers in five of six courses.
Men were also more likely to be recurrent speakers; across all courses, 13 men but only 2 women conducted 10 or more lectures. And while 35 men gave six or more lectures across all courses, only 12 women did so.
The lecture topics with the lowest rates of women presenters included malignant hematology (24.8%), solid tumors (38.9%), and benign hematology lectures (44.1%).
“We suspected [the imbalance in malignant hematology] since multiple recurrent roles were concentrated in the malignant hematology,” senior author Samer Al Hadidi, MD, of the Myeloma Center, Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AK, said in an interview.
He noted that “there are no regulations that such courses need to follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved.”
Early-career faculty
In terms of early-career representation, more than 50% of lectures were given by faculty who had received their initial certifications more than 15 years earlier. The median time from initial certification was 12.5 years for hematology and 14 years for medical oncology.
The findings that more than half of the board review lectures were presented by faculty with more than 15 years’ experience since initial certification “reflects a lack of appropriate involvement of early-career faculty, who arguably may have more recent experience with board certification,” the authors wrote.
While being underrepresented in such roles is detrimental, there are no regulations that such courses follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved, Dr. Al Hadidi noted.
Equal representation remains elusive
The study does suggest some notable gains. In a previous study of 181 academic conferences in the United States and Canada between 2007 and 2017, the rate of women speakers was only 15%, compared with 37.7% in the new study.
And an overall trend analysis in the study shows an approximately 10% increase in representation of women in all of the board reviews. However, only the ASH hematology board review achieved more than 50% women in their two courses.
“Overall, the proportion of women speakers is improving over the years, though it remains suboptimal,” Dr. Al Hadidi said.
The authors noted that oncology is clearly not the only specialty with gender disparities. They documented a lack of women speakers at conferences involving otolaryngology head and neck meetings, radiation oncology, emergency medicine, and research conferences.
They pointed to the work of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group as an important example of the needed effort to improve the balance of women hematologists.
Ariela Marshall, MD, director of women’s thrombosis and hemostasis at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia and a leader of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group, agreed that more efforts are needed to address both gender disparities as well as those of early career speakers. She asserted that the two disparities appear to be connected.
“If you broke down gender representation over time and the faculty/time since initial certification, the findings may mirror the percent of women in hematology-oncology at that given point in time,” Dr. Marshall said in an interview.
“If an institution is truly committed to taking action on gender equity, it needs to look at gender and experience equity of speakers,” she said. “Perhaps it’s the time to say ‘Dr. X has been doing this review course for 15 years. Let’s give someone else a chance.’
“This is not even just from a gender equity perspective but from a career development perspective overall,” she added. “Junior faculty need these speaking engagements a lot more than senior faculty.”
Meanwhile, the higher number of female trainees is a trend that ideally will be sustained as those trainees move into positions of leadership, Dr. Marshall noted.
“We do see that over time, we have achieved gender equity in the percent of women matriculating to medical school. And my hope is that, 20 years down the line, we will see the effects of this reflected in increased equity in leadership positions such as division/department chair, dean, and hospital CEO,” she said. “However, we have a lot of work to do because there are still huge inequities in the culture of medicine (institutional and more broadly), including gender-based discrimination, maternal discrimination, and high attrition rates for women physicians, compared to male physicians.
“It’s not enough to simply say ‘well, we have fixed the problem because our incoming medical student classes are now equitable in gender distribution,’ ”
The authors and Dr. Marshall had no disclosures to report.
“Our study provides the first analysis of gender and early-career faculty disparities in speakers at hematology and medical oncology board review meetings,” the authors reported in research published in Blood Advances.
“We covered six major board reviews over the last 5 years that are either conducted yearly or every other year, [and] the general trend across all meetings showed skewness toward men speakers,” the authors reported.
Recent data from 2021 suggests a closing of the gender gap in oncology, with women making up 44.6% of oncologists in training. However, they still only represented 35.2% of practicing oncologists and are underrepresented in leadership positions in academic oncology, the authors reported.
With speaking roles at academic meetings potentially marking a key step in career advancement and improved opportunities, the authors sought to investigate the balance of gender, as well as early-career faculty among speakers at prominent hematology and/or oncology board review lecture series taking place in the United States between 2017 and 2021.
The five institutions and one society presenting the board review lecture series included Baylor College of Medicine/MD Anderson Cancer Center, both in Houston; Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston; George Washington University, Washington; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; and the hematology board review series from the American Society of Hematology.
During the period in question, among 1,224 board review lectures presented, women constituted only 37.7% of the speakers. In lectures presented by American Board of Internal Medicine–certified speakers (n = 1,016, 83%), women were found to have made up fewer than 50% of speakers in five of six courses.
Men were also more likely to be recurrent speakers; across all courses, 13 men but only 2 women conducted 10 or more lectures. And while 35 men gave six or more lectures across all courses, only 12 women did so.
The lecture topics with the lowest rates of women presenters included malignant hematology (24.8%), solid tumors (38.9%), and benign hematology lectures (44.1%).
“We suspected [the imbalance in malignant hematology] since multiple recurrent roles were concentrated in the malignant hematology,” senior author Samer Al Hadidi, MD, of the Myeloma Center, Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AK, said in an interview.
He noted that “there are no regulations that such courses need to follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved.”
Early-career faculty
In terms of early-career representation, more than 50% of lectures were given by faculty who had received their initial certifications more than 15 years earlier. The median time from initial certification was 12.5 years for hematology and 14 years for medical oncology.
The findings that more than half of the board review lectures were presented by faculty with more than 15 years’ experience since initial certification “reflects a lack of appropriate involvement of early-career faculty, who arguably may have more recent experience with board certification,” the authors wrote.
While being underrepresented in such roles is detrimental, there are no regulations that such courses follow to ensure certain proportions of women and junior faculty are involved, Dr. Al Hadidi noted.
Equal representation remains elusive
The study does suggest some notable gains. In a previous study of 181 academic conferences in the United States and Canada between 2007 and 2017, the rate of women speakers was only 15%, compared with 37.7% in the new study.
And an overall trend analysis in the study shows an approximately 10% increase in representation of women in all of the board reviews. However, only the ASH hematology board review achieved more than 50% women in their two courses.
“Overall, the proportion of women speakers is improving over the years, though it remains suboptimal,” Dr. Al Hadidi said.
The authors noted that oncology is clearly not the only specialty with gender disparities. They documented a lack of women speakers at conferences involving otolaryngology head and neck meetings, radiation oncology, emergency medicine, and research conferences.
They pointed to the work of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group as an important example of the needed effort to improve the balance of women hematologists.
Ariela Marshall, MD, director of women’s thrombosis and hemostasis at Penn Medicine in Philadelphia and a leader of ASH’s Women in Hematology Working Group, agreed that more efforts are needed to address both gender disparities as well as those of early career speakers. She asserted that the two disparities appear to be connected.
“If you broke down gender representation over time and the faculty/time since initial certification, the findings may mirror the percent of women in hematology-oncology at that given point in time,” Dr. Marshall said in an interview.
“If an institution is truly committed to taking action on gender equity, it needs to look at gender and experience equity of speakers,” she said. “Perhaps it’s the time to say ‘Dr. X has been doing this review course for 15 years. Let’s give someone else a chance.’
“This is not even just from a gender equity perspective but from a career development perspective overall,” she added. “Junior faculty need these speaking engagements a lot more than senior faculty.”
Meanwhile, the higher number of female trainees is a trend that ideally will be sustained as those trainees move into positions of leadership, Dr. Marshall noted.
“We do see that over time, we have achieved gender equity in the percent of women matriculating to medical school. And my hope is that, 20 years down the line, we will see the effects of this reflected in increased equity in leadership positions such as division/department chair, dean, and hospital CEO,” she said. “However, we have a lot of work to do because there are still huge inequities in the culture of medicine (institutional and more broadly), including gender-based discrimination, maternal discrimination, and high attrition rates for women physicians, compared to male physicians.
“It’s not enough to simply say ‘well, we have fixed the problem because our incoming medical student classes are now equitable in gender distribution,’ ”
The authors and Dr. Marshall had no disclosures to report.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES
FDA approves first gene therapy, betibeglogene autotemcel (Zynteglo), for beta-thalassemia
Betibeglogene autotemcel, a one-time gene therapy, represents a potential cure in which functional copies of the mutated gene are inserted into patients’ hematopoietic stem cells via a replication-defective lentivirus.
“Today’s approval is an important advance in the treatment of beta-thalassemia, particularly in individuals who require ongoing red blood cell transfusions,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an FDA press release. “Given the potential health complications associated with this serious disease, this action highlights the FDA’s continued commitment to supporting development of innovative therapies for patients who have limited treatment options.”
The approval was based on phase 3 trials, in which 89% of 41 patients aged 4-34 years who received the therapy maintained normal or near-normal hemoglobin levels and didn’t need transfusions for at least a year. The patients were as young as age 4, maker Bluebird Bio said in a press release.
FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval in June. The gene therapy had been approved in Europe, where it carried a price tag of about $1.8 million, but Bluebird pulled it from the market in 2021 because of problems with reimbursement.
“The decision to discontinue operations in Europe resulted from prolonged negotiations with European payers and challenges to achieving appropriate value recognition and market access,” the company said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
The projected price in the United States is even higher: $2.1 million.
But the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an influential Boston-based nonprofit organization that specializes in medical cost-effectiveness analyses, concluded in June that, “given the high annual costs of standard care ... this new treatment meets commonly accepted value thresholds at an anticipated price of $2.1 million,” particularly with Bluebird’s proposal to pay back 80% of the cost if patients need a transfusion within 5 years.
The company is planning an October 2022 launch and estimates the U.S. market for betibeglogene autotemcel to be about 1,500 patients.
Adverse events in studies were “infrequent and consisted primarily of nonserious infusion-related reactions,” such as abdominal pain, hot flush, dyspnea, tachycardia, noncardiac chest pain, and cytopenias, including thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and neutropenia. One case of thrombocytopenia was considered serious but resolved, according to the company.
Most of the serious adverse events were related to hematopoietic stem cell collection and the busulfan conditioning regimen. Insertional oncogenesis and/or cancer have been reported with Bluebird’s other gene therapy products, but no cases have been associated with betibeglogene autotemcel.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Betibeglogene autotemcel, a one-time gene therapy, represents a potential cure in which functional copies of the mutated gene are inserted into patients’ hematopoietic stem cells via a replication-defective lentivirus.
“Today’s approval is an important advance in the treatment of beta-thalassemia, particularly in individuals who require ongoing red blood cell transfusions,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an FDA press release. “Given the potential health complications associated with this serious disease, this action highlights the FDA’s continued commitment to supporting development of innovative therapies for patients who have limited treatment options.”
The approval was based on phase 3 trials, in which 89% of 41 patients aged 4-34 years who received the therapy maintained normal or near-normal hemoglobin levels and didn’t need transfusions for at least a year. The patients were as young as age 4, maker Bluebird Bio said in a press release.
FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval in June. The gene therapy had been approved in Europe, where it carried a price tag of about $1.8 million, but Bluebird pulled it from the market in 2021 because of problems with reimbursement.
“The decision to discontinue operations in Europe resulted from prolonged negotiations with European payers and challenges to achieving appropriate value recognition and market access,” the company said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
The projected price in the United States is even higher: $2.1 million.
But the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an influential Boston-based nonprofit organization that specializes in medical cost-effectiveness analyses, concluded in June that, “given the high annual costs of standard care ... this new treatment meets commonly accepted value thresholds at an anticipated price of $2.1 million,” particularly with Bluebird’s proposal to pay back 80% of the cost if patients need a transfusion within 5 years.
The company is planning an October 2022 launch and estimates the U.S. market for betibeglogene autotemcel to be about 1,500 patients.
Adverse events in studies were “infrequent and consisted primarily of nonserious infusion-related reactions,” such as abdominal pain, hot flush, dyspnea, tachycardia, noncardiac chest pain, and cytopenias, including thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and neutropenia. One case of thrombocytopenia was considered serious but resolved, according to the company.
Most of the serious adverse events were related to hematopoietic stem cell collection and the busulfan conditioning regimen. Insertional oncogenesis and/or cancer have been reported with Bluebird’s other gene therapy products, but no cases have been associated with betibeglogene autotemcel.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Betibeglogene autotemcel, a one-time gene therapy, represents a potential cure in which functional copies of the mutated gene are inserted into patients’ hematopoietic stem cells via a replication-defective lentivirus.
“Today’s approval is an important advance in the treatment of beta-thalassemia, particularly in individuals who require ongoing red blood cell transfusions,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in an FDA press release. “Given the potential health complications associated with this serious disease, this action highlights the FDA’s continued commitment to supporting development of innovative therapies for patients who have limited treatment options.”
The approval was based on phase 3 trials, in which 89% of 41 patients aged 4-34 years who received the therapy maintained normal or near-normal hemoglobin levels and didn’t need transfusions for at least a year. The patients were as young as age 4, maker Bluebird Bio said in a press release.
FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval in June. The gene therapy had been approved in Europe, where it carried a price tag of about $1.8 million, but Bluebird pulled it from the market in 2021 because of problems with reimbursement.
“The decision to discontinue operations in Europe resulted from prolonged negotiations with European payers and challenges to achieving appropriate value recognition and market access,” the company said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
The projected price in the United States is even higher: $2.1 million.
But the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an influential Boston-based nonprofit organization that specializes in medical cost-effectiveness analyses, concluded in June that, “given the high annual costs of standard care ... this new treatment meets commonly accepted value thresholds at an anticipated price of $2.1 million,” particularly with Bluebird’s proposal to pay back 80% of the cost if patients need a transfusion within 5 years.
The company is planning an October 2022 launch and estimates the U.S. market for betibeglogene autotemcel to be about 1,500 patients.
Adverse events in studies were “infrequent and consisted primarily of nonserious infusion-related reactions,” such as abdominal pain, hot flush, dyspnea, tachycardia, noncardiac chest pain, and cytopenias, including thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and neutropenia. One case of thrombocytopenia was considered serious but resolved, according to the company.
Most of the serious adverse events were related to hematopoietic stem cell collection and the busulfan conditioning regimen. Insertional oncogenesis and/or cancer have been reported with Bluebird’s other gene therapy products, but no cases have been associated with betibeglogene autotemcel.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long COVID doubles risk of some serious outcomes in children, teens
Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that
Heart inflammation; a blood clot in the lung; or a blood clot in the lower leg, thigh, or pelvis were the most common bad outcomes in a new study. Even though the risk was higher for these and some other serious events, the overall numbers were small.
“Many of these conditions were rare or uncommon among children in this analysis, but even a small increase in these conditions is notable,” a CDC new release stated.
The investigators said their findings stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in Americans under the age of 18.
The study was published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Less is known about long COVID in children
Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues noted that most research on long COVID to date has been done in adults, so little information is available about the risks to Americans ages 17 and younger.
To learn more, they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms and conditions between 781,419 children and teenagers with confirmed COVID-19 to another 2,344,257 without COVID-19. They looked at medical claims and laboratory data for these children and teenagers from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2022, to see who got any of 15 specific outcomes linked to long COVID-19.
Long COVID was defined as a condition where symptoms that last for or begin at least 4 weeks after a COVID-19 diagnosis.
Compared to children with no history of a COVID-19 diagnosis, the long COVID-19 group was 101% more likely to have an acute pulmonary embolism, 99% more likely to have myocarditis or cardiomyopathy, 87% more likely to have a venous thromboembolic event, 32% more likely to have acute and unspecified renal failure, and 23% more likely to have type 1 diabetes.
“This report points to the fact that the risks of COVID infection itself, both in terms of the acute effects, MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children], as well as the long-term effects, are real, are concerning, and are potentially very serious,” said Stuart Berger, MD, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery.
“The message that we should take away from this is that we should be very keen on all the methods of prevention for COVID, especially the vaccine,” said Dr. Berger, chief of cardiology in the department of pediatrics at Northwestern University in Chicago.
A ‘wake-up call’
The study findings are “sobering” and are “a reminder of the seriousness of COVID infection,” says Gregory Poland, MD, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“When you look in particular at the more serious complications from COVID in this young age group, those are life-altering complications that will have consequences and ramifications throughout their lives,” he said.
“I would take this as a serious wake-up call to parents [at a time when] the immunization rates in younger children are so pitifully low,” Dr. Poland said.
Still early days
The study is suggestive but not definitive, said Peter Katona, MD, professor of medicine and infectious diseases expert at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.
It’s still too early to draw conclusions about long COVID, including in children, because many questions remain, he said: Should long COVID be defined as symptoms at 1 month or 3 months after infection? How do you define brain fog?
Dr. Katona and colleagues are studying long COVID intervention among students at UCLA to answer some of these questions, including the incidence and effect of early intervention.
The study had “at least seven limitations,” the researchers noted. Among them was the use of medical claims data that noted long COVID outcomes but not how severe they were; some people in the no COVID group might have had the illness but not been diagnosed; and the researchers did not adjust for vaccination status.
Dr. Poland noted that the study was done during surges in COVID variants including Delta and Omicron. In other words, any long COVID effects linked to more recent variants such as BA.5 or BA.2.75 are unknown.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that
Heart inflammation; a blood clot in the lung; or a blood clot in the lower leg, thigh, or pelvis were the most common bad outcomes in a new study. Even though the risk was higher for these and some other serious events, the overall numbers were small.
“Many of these conditions were rare or uncommon among children in this analysis, but even a small increase in these conditions is notable,” a CDC new release stated.
The investigators said their findings stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in Americans under the age of 18.
The study was published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Less is known about long COVID in children
Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues noted that most research on long COVID to date has been done in adults, so little information is available about the risks to Americans ages 17 and younger.
To learn more, they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms and conditions between 781,419 children and teenagers with confirmed COVID-19 to another 2,344,257 without COVID-19. They looked at medical claims and laboratory data for these children and teenagers from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2022, to see who got any of 15 specific outcomes linked to long COVID-19.
Long COVID was defined as a condition where symptoms that last for or begin at least 4 weeks after a COVID-19 diagnosis.
Compared to children with no history of a COVID-19 diagnosis, the long COVID-19 group was 101% more likely to have an acute pulmonary embolism, 99% more likely to have myocarditis or cardiomyopathy, 87% more likely to have a venous thromboembolic event, 32% more likely to have acute and unspecified renal failure, and 23% more likely to have type 1 diabetes.
“This report points to the fact that the risks of COVID infection itself, both in terms of the acute effects, MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children], as well as the long-term effects, are real, are concerning, and are potentially very serious,” said Stuart Berger, MD, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery.
“The message that we should take away from this is that we should be very keen on all the methods of prevention for COVID, especially the vaccine,” said Dr. Berger, chief of cardiology in the department of pediatrics at Northwestern University in Chicago.
A ‘wake-up call’
The study findings are “sobering” and are “a reminder of the seriousness of COVID infection,” says Gregory Poland, MD, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“When you look in particular at the more serious complications from COVID in this young age group, those are life-altering complications that will have consequences and ramifications throughout their lives,” he said.
“I would take this as a serious wake-up call to parents [at a time when] the immunization rates in younger children are so pitifully low,” Dr. Poland said.
Still early days
The study is suggestive but not definitive, said Peter Katona, MD, professor of medicine and infectious diseases expert at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.
It’s still too early to draw conclusions about long COVID, including in children, because many questions remain, he said: Should long COVID be defined as symptoms at 1 month or 3 months after infection? How do you define brain fog?
Dr. Katona and colleagues are studying long COVID intervention among students at UCLA to answer some of these questions, including the incidence and effect of early intervention.
The study had “at least seven limitations,” the researchers noted. Among them was the use of medical claims data that noted long COVID outcomes but not how severe they were; some people in the no COVID group might have had the illness but not been diagnosed; and the researchers did not adjust for vaccination status.
Dr. Poland noted that the study was done during surges in COVID variants including Delta and Omicron. In other words, any long COVID effects linked to more recent variants such as BA.5 or BA.2.75 are unknown.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that
Heart inflammation; a blood clot in the lung; or a blood clot in the lower leg, thigh, or pelvis were the most common bad outcomes in a new study. Even though the risk was higher for these and some other serious events, the overall numbers were small.
“Many of these conditions were rare or uncommon among children in this analysis, but even a small increase in these conditions is notable,” a CDC new release stated.
The investigators said their findings stress the importance of COVID-19 vaccination in Americans under the age of 18.
The study was published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Less is known about long COVID in children
Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues noted that most research on long COVID to date has been done in adults, so little information is available about the risks to Americans ages 17 and younger.
To learn more, they compared post–COVID-19 symptoms and conditions between 781,419 children and teenagers with confirmed COVID-19 to another 2,344,257 without COVID-19. They looked at medical claims and laboratory data for these children and teenagers from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2022, to see who got any of 15 specific outcomes linked to long COVID-19.
Long COVID was defined as a condition where symptoms that last for or begin at least 4 weeks after a COVID-19 diagnosis.
Compared to children with no history of a COVID-19 diagnosis, the long COVID-19 group was 101% more likely to have an acute pulmonary embolism, 99% more likely to have myocarditis or cardiomyopathy, 87% more likely to have a venous thromboembolic event, 32% more likely to have acute and unspecified renal failure, and 23% more likely to have type 1 diabetes.
“This report points to the fact that the risks of COVID infection itself, both in terms of the acute effects, MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children], as well as the long-term effects, are real, are concerning, and are potentially very serious,” said Stuart Berger, MD, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery.
“The message that we should take away from this is that we should be very keen on all the methods of prevention for COVID, especially the vaccine,” said Dr. Berger, chief of cardiology in the department of pediatrics at Northwestern University in Chicago.
A ‘wake-up call’
The study findings are “sobering” and are “a reminder of the seriousness of COVID infection,” says Gregory Poland, MD, an infectious disease expert at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“When you look in particular at the more serious complications from COVID in this young age group, those are life-altering complications that will have consequences and ramifications throughout their lives,” he said.
“I would take this as a serious wake-up call to parents [at a time when] the immunization rates in younger children are so pitifully low,” Dr. Poland said.
Still early days
The study is suggestive but not definitive, said Peter Katona, MD, professor of medicine and infectious diseases expert at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.
It’s still too early to draw conclusions about long COVID, including in children, because many questions remain, he said: Should long COVID be defined as symptoms at 1 month or 3 months after infection? How do you define brain fog?
Dr. Katona and colleagues are studying long COVID intervention among students at UCLA to answer some of these questions, including the incidence and effect of early intervention.
The study had “at least seven limitations,” the researchers noted. Among them was the use of medical claims data that noted long COVID outcomes but not how severe they were; some people in the no COVID group might have had the illness but not been diagnosed; and the researchers did not adjust for vaccination status.
Dr. Poland noted that the study was done during surges in COVID variants including Delta and Omicron. In other words, any long COVID effects linked to more recent variants such as BA.5 or BA.2.75 are unknown.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM THE MMWR
Fewer transplants for MM with quadruplet therapy?
“It is not a big leap of faith to imagine that, in the near future, with the availability of quadruplets and T-cell therapies, the role of high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant will be diminished,” said Dickran Kazandjian, MD, and Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the myeloma division, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami.
They commented in a editorial in JAMA Oncology, prompted by a paper describing new results with a novel quadruple combination of therapies. These treatments included the monoclonal antibody elotuzumab (Empliciti) added onto the established backbone of carfilzomib (Kyprolis), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (known as KRd).
“Regardless of what the future holds for elotuzumab-based combinations, it is clear that the new treatment paradigm of newly diagnosed MM will incorporate antibody-based quadruplet regimens,” the editorialists commented.
“Novel immunotherapies are here to stay,” they added, “as they are already transforming the lives of patients with multiple MM and bringing a bright horizon to the treatment landscape.”
Study details
The trial of the novel quadruplet regimen was a multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 study that involved 46 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, explain first author Benjamin A. Derman, MD, of the University of Chicago Medical Center, and colleagues.
These patients had a median age of 62; more than two-thirds were male (72%) and White (70%). About half (48%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities.
All patients were treated with 12 cycles of the quadruple therapy Elo-KRd regimen. They underwent bone marrow assessment of measurable residual disease (MRD; with 10-5 sensitivity) after cycle 8 and cycle 12.
“An MRD-adapted treatment approach is rational because it may identify which patients can be administered shorter courses of intensive therapy without compromising efficacy,” the authors explained.
Patients who had MRD negativity at both time points did not receive further Elo-KRd, while patients who converted from MRD positivity to negativity in between cycles 8 and 12 received 6 additional cycles of Elo-KRd. Those who remained MRD positive or converted to positivity after 12 cycles received an additional 12 cycles of Elo-KRd.
Following Elo-KRd treatment, all patients transitioned to triple therapy with Elo-Rd (with no carfilzomib), for indefinite maintenance therapy or until disease progression.
For the primary endpoint, the rate of stringent complete response and/or MRD-negativity after cycle 8 was 58% (26 of 45), meeting the predefined definition of efficacy.
Importantly, 26% of patients converted from MRD positivity after cycle 8 to negativity at a later time point, while 50% of patients reached 1-year sustained MRD negativity.
Overall, the estimated 3-year, progression-free survival was 72%, and the rate was 92% for patients with MRD-negativity at cycle 8. The overall survival rate was 78%.
The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lung and nonpulmonary infections (13% and 11%, respectively), and one patient had a grade 5 MI. Three patients discontinued the treatment because of intolerance.
“An MRD-adapted design using elotuzumab and weekly KRd without autologous stem cell transplantation showed a high rate of stringent complete response (sCR) and/or MRD-negativity and durable responses,” the authors wrote.
“This approach provides support for further evaluation of MRD-guided de-escalation of therapy to decrease treatment exposure while sustaining deep responses.”
To better assess the difference of the therapy versus treatment including stem cell transplantation, a phase 3, randomized trial is currently underway to compare the Elo-KRd regimen against KRd with autologous stem cell transplant in newly diagnosed MM.
“If Elo-KRd proves superior, a randomized comparison of Elo versus anti-CD38 mAb-based quadruplets would help determine the optimal combination of therapies in the frontline setting,” the authors noted.
Randomized trial anticipated to clarify benefit
In their editorial, Dr. Kazandjian and Dr. Landgren agreed with the authors that the role of elotuzumab needs to be better clarified in a randomized trial setting.
Elotuzumab received FDA approval in 2015 based on results from the ELOQUENT-2 study, which showed improved progression-free survival and overall survival with the addition of elotuzumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma who have previously received one to three other therapies.
However, the editorialists pointed out that recently published results from the randomized ELOQUENT-1 trial of lenalidomide and dexamethasone with and without elotuzumab showed the addition of elotuzumab was not associated with a statistically significant difference in progression-free survival.
The editorialists also pointed out that, in the setting of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, another recent, similarly designed study found that the backbone regimen of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone – on its own – was also associated with a favorable MRD-negative rate of 62%.
In addition, several studies involving novel quadruple treatments with the monoclonal antibody daratumumab (Darzalex) instead of elotuzumab, have also shown benefit in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, resulting in high rates of MRD negativity.
Collectively, the findings bode well for the quadruple regimens in the treatment of MM, the editorialists emphasized.
“Importantly, with the rate of deep remissions observed with antibody-based quadruplet therapies, one may question the role of using early high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant in every patient, especially in those who have achieved MRD negativity with the quadruplet alone,” they added.
The study was sponsored in part by Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and the Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium. Dr. Derman reported advisory board fees from Sanofi, Janssen, and COTA Healthcare; honoraria from PleXus Communications and MJH Life Sciences. Dr. Kazandjian declares receiving advisory board or consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Arcellx outside the submitted work. Dr. Landgren has received grant support from numerous organizations and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Landgren has also received honoraria for scientific talks/participated in advisory boards for Adaptive Biotech, Amgen, Binding Site, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cellectis, Glenmark, Janssen, Juno, and Pfizer, and served on independent data monitoring committees for international randomized trials by Takeda, Merck, Janssen, and Theradex.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“It is not a big leap of faith to imagine that, in the near future, with the availability of quadruplets and T-cell therapies, the role of high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant will be diminished,” said Dickran Kazandjian, MD, and Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the myeloma division, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami.
They commented in a editorial in JAMA Oncology, prompted by a paper describing new results with a novel quadruple combination of therapies. These treatments included the monoclonal antibody elotuzumab (Empliciti) added onto the established backbone of carfilzomib (Kyprolis), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (known as KRd).
“Regardless of what the future holds for elotuzumab-based combinations, it is clear that the new treatment paradigm of newly diagnosed MM will incorporate antibody-based quadruplet regimens,” the editorialists commented.
“Novel immunotherapies are here to stay,” they added, “as they are already transforming the lives of patients with multiple MM and bringing a bright horizon to the treatment landscape.”
Study details
The trial of the novel quadruplet regimen was a multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 study that involved 46 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, explain first author Benjamin A. Derman, MD, of the University of Chicago Medical Center, and colleagues.
These patients had a median age of 62; more than two-thirds were male (72%) and White (70%). About half (48%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities.
All patients were treated with 12 cycles of the quadruple therapy Elo-KRd regimen. They underwent bone marrow assessment of measurable residual disease (MRD; with 10-5 sensitivity) after cycle 8 and cycle 12.
“An MRD-adapted treatment approach is rational because it may identify which patients can be administered shorter courses of intensive therapy without compromising efficacy,” the authors explained.
Patients who had MRD negativity at both time points did not receive further Elo-KRd, while patients who converted from MRD positivity to negativity in between cycles 8 and 12 received 6 additional cycles of Elo-KRd. Those who remained MRD positive or converted to positivity after 12 cycles received an additional 12 cycles of Elo-KRd.
Following Elo-KRd treatment, all patients transitioned to triple therapy with Elo-Rd (with no carfilzomib), for indefinite maintenance therapy or until disease progression.
For the primary endpoint, the rate of stringent complete response and/or MRD-negativity after cycle 8 was 58% (26 of 45), meeting the predefined definition of efficacy.
Importantly, 26% of patients converted from MRD positivity after cycle 8 to negativity at a later time point, while 50% of patients reached 1-year sustained MRD negativity.
Overall, the estimated 3-year, progression-free survival was 72%, and the rate was 92% for patients with MRD-negativity at cycle 8. The overall survival rate was 78%.
The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lung and nonpulmonary infections (13% and 11%, respectively), and one patient had a grade 5 MI. Three patients discontinued the treatment because of intolerance.
“An MRD-adapted design using elotuzumab and weekly KRd without autologous stem cell transplantation showed a high rate of stringent complete response (sCR) and/or MRD-negativity and durable responses,” the authors wrote.
“This approach provides support for further evaluation of MRD-guided de-escalation of therapy to decrease treatment exposure while sustaining deep responses.”
To better assess the difference of the therapy versus treatment including stem cell transplantation, a phase 3, randomized trial is currently underway to compare the Elo-KRd regimen against KRd with autologous stem cell transplant in newly diagnosed MM.
“If Elo-KRd proves superior, a randomized comparison of Elo versus anti-CD38 mAb-based quadruplets would help determine the optimal combination of therapies in the frontline setting,” the authors noted.
Randomized trial anticipated to clarify benefit
In their editorial, Dr. Kazandjian and Dr. Landgren agreed with the authors that the role of elotuzumab needs to be better clarified in a randomized trial setting.
Elotuzumab received FDA approval in 2015 based on results from the ELOQUENT-2 study, which showed improved progression-free survival and overall survival with the addition of elotuzumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma who have previously received one to three other therapies.
However, the editorialists pointed out that recently published results from the randomized ELOQUENT-1 trial of lenalidomide and dexamethasone with and without elotuzumab showed the addition of elotuzumab was not associated with a statistically significant difference in progression-free survival.
The editorialists also pointed out that, in the setting of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, another recent, similarly designed study found that the backbone regimen of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone – on its own – was also associated with a favorable MRD-negative rate of 62%.
In addition, several studies involving novel quadruple treatments with the monoclonal antibody daratumumab (Darzalex) instead of elotuzumab, have also shown benefit in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, resulting in high rates of MRD negativity.
Collectively, the findings bode well for the quadruple regimens in the treatment of MM, the editorialists emphasized.
“Importantly, with the rate of deep remissions observed with antibody-based quadruplet therapies, one may question the role of using early high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant in every patient, especially in those who have achieved MRD negativity with the quadruplet alone,” they added.
The study was sponsored in part by Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and the Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium. Dr. Derman reported advisory board fees from Sanofi, Janssen, and COTA Healthcare; honoraria from PleXus Communications and MJH Life Sciences. Dr. Kazandjian declares receiving advisory board or consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Arcellx outside the submitted work. Dr. Landgren has received grant support from numerous organizations and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Landgren has also received honoraria for scientific talks/participated in advisory boards for Adaptive Biotech, Amgen, Binding Site, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cellectis, Glenmark, Janssen, Juno, and Pfizer, and served on independent data monitoring committees for international randomized trials by Takeda, Merck, Janssen, and Theradex.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“It is not a big leap of faith to imagine that, in the near future, with the availability of quadruplets and T-cell therapies, the role of high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant will be diminished,” said Dickran Kazandjian, MD, and Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the myeloma division, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami.
They commented in a editorial in JAMA Oncology, prompted by a paper describing new results with a novel quadruple combination of therapies. These treatments included the monoclonal antibody elotuzumab (Empliciti) added onto the established backbone of carfilzomib (Kyprolis), lenalidomide (Revlimid), and dexamethasone (known as KRd).
“Regardless of what the future holds for elotuzumab-based combinations, it is clear that the new treatment paradigm of newly diagnosed MM will incorporate antibody-based quadruplet regimens,” the editorialists commented.
“Novel immunotherapies are here to stay,” they added, “as they are already transforming the lives of patients with multiple MM and bringing a bright horizon to the treatment landscape.”
Study details
The trial of the novel quadruplet regimen was a multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 study that involved 46 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, explain first author Benjamin A. Derman, MD, of the University of Chicago Medical Center, and colleagues.
These patients had a median age of 62; more than two-thirds were male (72%) and White (70%). About half (48%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities.
All patients were treated with 12 cycles of the quadruple therapy Elo-KRd regimen. They underwent bone marrow assessment of measurable residual disease (MRD; with 10-5 sensitivity) after cycle 8 and cycle 12.
“An MRD-adapted treatment approach is rational because it may identify which patients can be administered shorter courses of intensive therapy without compromising efficacy,” the authors explained.
Patients who had MRD negativity at both time points did not receive further Elo-KRd, while patients who converted from MRD positivity to negativity in between cycles 8 and 12 received 6 additional cycles of Elo-KRd. Those who remained MRD positive or converted to positivity after 12 cycles received an additional 12 cycles of Elo-KRd.
Following Elo-KRd treatment, all patients transitioned to triple therapy with Elo-Rd (with no carfilzomib), for indefinite maintenance therapy or until disease progression.
For the primary endpoint, the rate of stringent complete response and/or MRD-negativity after cycle 8 was 58% (26 of 45), meeting the predefined definition of efficacy.
Importantly, 26% of patients converted from MRD positivity after cycle 8 to negativity at a later time point, while 50% of patients reached 1-year sustained MRD negativity.
Overall, the estimated 3-year, progression-free survival was 72%, and the rate was 92% for patients with MRD-negativity at cycle 8. The overall survival rate was 78%.
The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lung and nonpulmonary infections (13% and 11%, respectively), and one patient had a grade 5 MI. Three patients discontinued the treatment because of intolerance.
“An MRD-adapted design using elotuzumab and weekly KRd without autologous stem cell transplantation showed a high rate of stringent complete response (sCR) and/or MRD-negativity and durable responses,” the authors wrote.
“This approach provides support for further evaluation of MRD-guided de-escalation of therapy to decrease treatment exposure while sustaining deep responses.”
To better assess the difference of the therapy versus treatment including stem cell transplantation, a phase 3, randomized trial is currently underway to compare the Elo-KRd regimen against KRd with autologous stem cell transplant in newly diagnosed MM.
“If Elo-KRd proves superior, a randomized comparison of Elo versus anti-CD38 mAb-based quadruplets would help determine the optimal combination of therapies in the frontline setting,” the authors noted.
Randomized trial anticipated to clarify benefit
In their editorial, Dr. Kazandjian and Dr. Landgren agreed with the authors that the role of elotuzumab needs to be better clarified in a randomized trial setting.
Elotuzumab received FDA approval in 2015 based on results from the ELOQUENT-2 study, which showed improved progression-free survival and overall survival with the addition of elotuzumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma who have previously received one to three other therapies.
However, the editorialists pointed out that recently published results from the randomized ELOQUENT-1 trial of lenalidomide and dexamethasone with and without elotuzumab showed the addition of elotuzumab was not associated with a statistically significant difference in progression-free survival.
The editorialists also pointed out that, in the setting of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, another recent, similarly designed study found that the backbone regimen of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone – on its own – was also associated with a favorable MRD-negative rate of 62%.
In addition, several studies involving novel quadruple treatments with the monoclonal antibody daratumumab (Darzalex) instead of elotuzumab, have also shown benefit in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, resulting in high rates of MRD negativity.
Collectively, the findings bode well for the quadruple regimens in the treatment of MM, the editorialists emphasized.
“Importantly, with the rate of deep remissions observed with antibody-based quadruplet therapies, one may question the role of using early high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplant in every patient, especially in those who have achieved MRD negativity with the quadruplet alone,” they added.
The study was sponsored in part by Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and the Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium. Dr. Derman reported advisory board fees from Sanofi, Janssen, and COTA Healthcare; honoraria from PleXus Communications and MJH Life Sciences. Dr. Kazandjian declares receiving advisory board or consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Arcellx outside the submitted work. Dr. Landgren has received grant support from numerous organizations and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Landgren has also received honoraria for scientific talks/participated in advisory boards for Adaptive Biotech, Amgen, Binding Site, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cellectis, Glenmark, Janssen, Juno, and Pfizer, and served on independent data monitoring committees for international randomized trials by Takeda, Merck, Janssen, and Theradex.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
No more injections after one-off gene therapy in hemophilia B
Patients with hemophilia B face a lifelong need for regular factor IX injections.
“Removing the need for hemophilia patients to regularly inject themselves with the missing protein is an important step in improving their quality of life,” lead author Pratima Chowdary, MD, of the Royal Free Hospital, University College London Cancer Institute, commented in a press statement.
The team reported new results with the investigational gene therapy FLT180a in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We found that normal factor IX levels can be achieved in patients with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B with the use of relatively low vector doses of FLT180a,” the authors reported. “In all but one patient, gene therapy led to durable factor IX expression, eliminated the need for factor IX prophylaxis, and eliminated spontaneous bleeding leading to factor IX replacement.”
FLT180a (Freeline Therapeutics) is a liver-directed, adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene therapy designed to normalize levels of the factor IX protein that is needed for coagulation; however, it is produced in dangerously low levels in people with hemophilia B as a result of gene mutations.
Under the current standard of care, patients with hemophilia B require lifelong prophylaxis of regular intravenous injections with recombinant factor IX replacement therapy, and they commonly continue to experience potentially severe joint pain.
While factor-replacement therapies with longer half-lives have emerged, the prophylaxis is still invasive and extremely expensive, with the average price tag in the United States of $397,491 a year for the conventional treatment and an average of $788,861 a year for an extended half-life treatment, according to a 2019 report.
Novel gene therapy
Hemophilia B is a rare and inherited genetic bleeding disorder caused by defects in the gene responsible for factor IX protein, which is needed for blood clotting.
AAV gene therapy delivers a functional copy of this gene directly to patient tissues to compensate for one that is not working properly. It leads to the synthesis of factor IX proteins and a one-time gene therapy infusion can achieve long-lasting effects, the team explained in a press release.
The results they reported come from the phase 1/2 multicenter B-AMAZE open-label trial. It involved 10 patients (all age 18 and older) with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B, defined as having a factor IX level of 2% or less that of normal values.
All patients received one-off gene therapy infusion, at one of four FLT180a doses.
All patients also received immunosuppression to prevent the body from rejecting the vector gene therapy. This consisted of glucocorticoids with or without tacrolimus for a period of ranging from several weeks to several months.
Following the FLT180a infusion, all patients showed dose-dependent increases in factor IX levels. After a median follow-up of 27.2 months (range, 19.1-42.4 months), nearly all the patients (9 of 10) continued to show sustained factor IX activity.
Steady production of factor IX activity started at month 12, with low bleeding frequency that allowed these nine patients to no longer require weekly injections of the protein.
Five of the patients had factor IX levels in the normal range, from 51% to 78%; three patients had lower increases of 23%-43% of the normal range, and one patient who had received the highest dose, had a level that was 260% of normal.
The exception was one patient who required a return to factor IX prophylaxis. He had experienced a failure in the immunosuppression regimen due to a delay in the recognition of an immune response at approximately 22 weeks after treatment, the authors reported.
The therapy was generally well tolerated, with no infusion reactions or discontinuations of infusions. As of the study cutoff, no inhibitors of factor IX were detected.
Of the adverse events, about 10% were determined to be related to the gene therapy. The most common event associated with the gene therapy was increases in liver aminotransferase, which is a concern with AAV gene therapies, the authors commented.
Otherwise, 24% of adverse events were determined to be related to the immunosuppression, and were consistent with the known safety profiles of glucocorticoids and tacrolimus.
Late increases in aminotransferase levels were reported among patients who had received prolonged tacrolimus beyond the tapering of glucocorticoid treatment.
The one serious adverse event that was reported involved an arteriovenous fistula thrombosis, which occurred in the patient who had received the highest dose of gene therapy and who showed the highest factor IX levels.
The current findings, along with data from another recent study involving gene therapy for patients with hemophilia A, emphasized that “immune responses can occur later than previously expected and may coincide with the withdrawal of immunosuppression,” the authors cautioned.
“Consistent best practices for monitoring aminotransferase levels and deciding when ALT increases warrant intervention remain a critical topic for the field,” they noted.
Meanwhile, the patients in this B-AMAZE trial all remain enrolled in a long-term follow-up study to assess the safety and durability of FLT180a over 15 years.
The trial was sponsored by University College London and funded by Freeline Therapeutics. Dr. Chowdary disclosed various relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with hemophilia B face a lifelong need for regular factor IX injections.
“Removing the need for hemophilia patients to regularly inject themselves with the missing protein is an important step in improving their quality of life,” lead author Pratima Chowdary, MD, of the Royal Free Hospital, University College London Cancer Institute, commented in a press statement.
The team reported new results with the investigational gene therapy FLT180a in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We found that normal factor IX levels can be achieved in patients with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B with the use of relatively low vector doses of FLT180a,” the authors reported. “In all but one patient, gene therapy led to durable factor IX expression, eliminated the need for factor IX prophylaxis, and eliminated spontaneous bleeding leading to factor IX replacement.”
FLT180a (Freeline Therapeutics) is a liver-directed, adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene therapy designed to normalize levels of the factor IX protein that is needed for coagulation; however, it is produced in dangerously low levels in people with hemophilia B as a result of gene mutations.
Under the current standard of care, patients with hemophilia B require lifelong prophylaxis of regular intravenous injections with recombinant factor IX replacement therapy, and they commonly continue to experience potentially severe joint pain.
While factor-replacement therapies with longer half-lives have emerged, the prophylaxis is still invasive and extremely expensive, with the average price tag in the United States of $397,491 a year for the conventional treatment and an average of $788,861 a year for an extended half-life treatment, according to a 2019 report.
Novel gene therapy
Hemophilia B is a rare and inherited genetic bleeding disorder caused by defects in the gene responsible for factor IX protein, which is needed for blood clotting.
AAV gene therapy delivers a functional copy of this gene directly to patient tissues to compensate for one that is not working properly. It leads to the synthesis of factor IX proteins and a one-time gene therapy infusion can achieve long-lasting effects, the team explained in a press release.
The results they reported come from the phase 1/2 multicenter B-AMAZE open-label trial. It involved 10 patients (all age 18 and older) with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B, defined as having a factor IX level of 2% or less that of normal values.
All patients received one-off gene therapy infusion, at one of four FLT180a doses.
All patients also received immunosuppression to prevent the body from rejecting the vector gene therapy. This consisted of glucocorticoids with or without tacrolimus for a period of ranging from several weeks to several months.
Following the FLT180a infusion, all patients showed dose-dependent increases in factor IX levels. After a median follow-up of 27.2 months (range, 19.1-42.4 months), nearly all the patients (9 of 10) continued to show sustained factor IX activity.
Steady production of factor IX activity started at month 12, with low bleeding frequency that allowed these nine patients to no longer require weekly injections of the protein.
Five of the patients had factor IX levels in the normal range, from 51% to 78%; three patients had lower increases of 23%-43% of the normal range, and one patient who had received the highest dose, had a level that was 260% of normal.
The exception was one patient who required a return to factor IX prophylaxis. He had experienced a failure in the immunosuppression regimen due to a delay in the recognition of an immune response at approximately 22 weeks after treatment, the authors reported.
The therapy was generally well tolerated, with no infusion reactions or discontinuations of infusions. As of the study cutoff, no inhibitors of factor IX were detected.
Of the adverse events, about 10% were determined to be related to the gene therapy. The most common event associated with the gene therapy was increases in liver aminotransferase, which is a concern with AAV gene therapies, the authors commented.
Otherwise, 24% of adverse events were determined to be related to the immunosuppression, and were consistent with the known safety profiles of glucocorticoids and tacrolimus.
Late increases in aminotransferase levels were reported among patients who had received prolonged tacrolimus beyond the tapering of glucocorticoid treatment.
The one serious adverse event that was reported involved an arteriovenous fistula thrombosis, which occurred in the patient who had received the highest dose of gene therapy and who showed the highest factor IX levels.
The current findings, along with data from another recent study involving gene therapy for patients with hemophilia A, emphasized that “immune responses can occur later than previously expected and may coincide with the withdrawal of immunosuppression,” the authors cautioned.
“Consistent best practices for monitoring aminotransferase levels and deciding when ALT increases warrant intervention remain a critical topic for the field,” they noted.
Meanwhile, the patients in this B-AMAZE trial all remain enrolled in a long-term follow-up study to assess the safety and durability of FLT180a over 15 years.
The trial was sponsored by University College London and funded by Freeline Therapeutics. Dr. Chowdary disclosed various relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with hemophilia B face a lifelong need for regular factor IX injections.
“Removing the need for hemophilia patients to regularly inject themselves with the missing protein is an important step in improving their quality of life,” lead author Pratima Chowdary, MD, of the Royal Free Hospital, University College London Cancer Institute, commented in a press statement.
The team reported new results with the investigational gene therapy FLT180a in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We found that normal factor IX levels can be achieved in patients with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B with the use of relatively low vector doses of FLT180a,” the authors reported. “In all but one patient, gene therapy led to durable factor IX expression, eliminated the need for factor IX prophylaxis, and eliminated spontaneous bleeding leading to factor IX replacement.”
FLT180a (Freeline Therapeutics) is a liver-directed, adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene therapy designed to normalize levels of the factor IX protein that is needed for coagulation; however, it is produced in dangerously low levels in people with hemophilia B as a result of gene mutations.
Under the current standard of care, patients with hemophilia B require lifelong prophylaxis of regular intravenous injections with recombinant factor IX replacement therapy, and they commonly continue to experience potentially severe joint pain.
While factor-replacement therapies with longer half-lives have emerged, the prophylaxis is still invasive and extremely expensive, with the average price tag in the United States of $397,491 a year for the conventional treatment and an average of $788,861 a year for an extended half-life treatment, according to a 2019 report.
Novel gene therapy
Hemophilia B is a rare and inherited genetic bleeding disorder caused by defects in the gene responsible for factor IX protein, which is needed for blood clotting.
AAV gene therapy delivers a functional copy of this gene directly to patient tissues to compensate for one that is not working properly. It leads to the synthesis of factor IX proteins and a one-time gene therapy infusion can achieve long-lasting effects, the team explained in a press release.
The results they reported come from the phase 1/2 multicenter B-AMAZE open-label trial. It involved 10 patients (all age 18 and older) with severe or moderately severe hemophilia B, defined as having a factor IX level of 2% or less that of normal values.
All patients received one-off gene therapy infusion, at one of four FLT180a doses.
All patients also received immunosuppression to prevent the body from rejecting the vector gene therapy. This consisted of glucocorticoids with or without tacrolimus for a period of ranging from several weeks to several months.
Following the FLT180a infusion, all patients showed dose-dependent increases in factor IX levels. After a median follow-up of 27.2 months (range, 19.1-42.4 months), nearly all the patients (9 of 10) continued to show sustained factor IX activity.
Steady production of factor IX activity started at month 12, with low bleeding frequency that allowed these nine patients to no longer require weekly injections of the protein.
Five of the patients had factor IX levels in the normal range, from 51% to 78%; three patients had lower increases of 23%-43% of the normal range, and one patient who had received the highest dose, had a level that was 260% of normal.
The exception was one patient who required a return to factor IX prophylaxis. He had experienced a failure in the immunosuppression regimen due to a delay in the recognition of an immune response at approximately 22 weeks after treatment, the authors reported.
The therapy was generally well tolerated, with no infusion reactions or discontinuations of infusions. As of the study cutoff, no inhibitors of factor IX were detected.
Of the adverse events, about 10% were determined to be related to the gene therapy. The most common event associated with the gene therapy was increases in liver aminotransferase, which is a concern with AAV gene therapies, the authors commented.
Otherwise, 24% of adverse events were determined to be related to the immunosuppression, and were consistent with the known safety profiles of glucocorticoids and tacrolimus.
Late increases in aminotransferase levels were reported among patients who had received prolonged tacrolimus beyond the tapering of glucocorticoid treatment.
The one serious adverse event that was reported involved an arteriovenous fistula thrombosis, which occurred in the patient who had received the highest dose of gene therapy and who showed the highest factor IX levels.
The current findings, along with data from another recent study involving gene therapy for patients with hemophilia A, emphasized that “immune responses can occur later than previously expected and may coincide with the withdrawal of immunosuppression,” the authors cautioned.
“Consistent best practices for monitoring aminotransferase levels and deciding when ALT increases warrant intervention remain a critical topic for the field,” they noted.
Meanwhile, the patients in this B-AMAZE trial all remain enrolled in a long-term follow-up study to assess the safety and durability of FLT180a over 15 years.
The trial was sponsored by University College London and funded by Freeline Therapeutics. Dr. Chowdary disclosed various relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
CAR T-cell therapy turns 10 and finally earns the word ‘cure’
Ten years ago, Stephan Grupp, MD, PhD, plunged into an unexplored area of pediatric cancer treatment with a 6-year-old patient for whom every treatment available for her acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) had been exhausted.
Dr. Grupp, a pioneer in cellular immunotherapy at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, had just got the green light to launch the first phase 1 trial of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for children.
“The trial opened at the absolute last possible moment that it could have been helpful to her,” he said in an interview. “There was nothing else to do to temporize her further. ... It had to open then or never.”
The patient was Emily Whitehead, who has since become a poster girl for the dramatic results that can be achieved with these novel therapies. After that one CAR T-cell treatment back in 2012, she has been free of her leukemia and has remained in remission for more than 10 years.
Dr. Grupp said that he is, at last, starting to use the “cure” word.
“I’m not just a doctor, I’m a scientist – and one case isn’t enough to have confidence about anything,” he said. “We wanted more patients to be out longer to be able to say that thing which we have for a long time called the ‘c word.’
“CAR T-cell therapy has now been given to hundreds of patients at CHOP, and – we are unique in this – we have a couple dozen patients who are 5, 6, 7, 9 years out or more without further therapy. That feels like a cure to me,” he commented.
First patient with ALL
Emily was the first patient with ALL to receive the novel treatment, and also the first child.
There was a precedent, however. After having been “stuck” for decades, the CAR T-cell field had recently made a breakthrough, thanks to research by Dr. Grupp’s colleague Carl June, MD, and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. By tweaking two key steps in the genetic modification of T cells, Dr. June’s team had successfully treated three adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), two of whom were in complete remission.
But using the treatment for a child and for a different type of leukemia was a daunting prospect. Dr. Grupp said that he was candid with Emily’s parents, Tom and Kari Whitehead, emphasizing that there are no guarantees in cancer treatment, particularly in a phase 1 trial.
But the Whiteheads had no time to waste and nowhere else to turn. Her father, Tom, recalled saying: “This is something outside the box, this is going to give her a chance.”
Dr. Grupp, who described himself as being “on the cowboy end” of oncology care, was ready to take the plunge.
Little did any of them know that the treatment would make Emily even sicker than she already was, putting her in intensive care. But thanks to a combination of several lucky breaks and a lot of brain power, she would make a breathtakingly rapid recovery.
The ‘magic formula’
CAR T-cell therapy involves harvesting a patient’s T cells and modifying them in the lab with a chimeric antigen receptor to target CD19, a protein found on the surface of ALL cancer cells.
Before the University of Pennsylvania team tweaked the process, clinical trials of the therapy yielded only modest results because the modified T cells “were very powerful in the short term but had almost no proliferative capacity” once they were infused back into the patient, Dr. Grupp explained.
“It does not matter how many cells you give to a patient, what matters is that the cells grow in the patient to the level needed to control the leukemia,” he said.
Dr. June’s team came up with what Dr. Grupp calls “the magic formula”: A bead-based manufacturing process that produced younger T-cell phenotypes with “enormous” proliferative capacity, and a lentiviral approach to the genetic modification, enabling prolonged expression of the CAR-T molecule.
“Was it rogue? Absolutely, positively not,” said Dr. Grupp, thinking back to the day he enrolled Emily in the trial. “Was it risky? Obviously ... we all dived into this pool without knowing what was under the water, so I would say, rogue, no, risky, yes. And I would say we didn’t know nearly enough about the risks.”
Cytokine storm
The gravest risk that Dr. Grupp and his team encountered was something they had not anticipated. At the time, they had no name for it.
The three adults with CLL who had received CAR T-cell therapy had experienced a mild version that the researchers referred to as “tumor lysis syndrome”.
But for Emily, on day 3 of her CAR T-cell infusion, there was a ferocious reaction storm that later came to be called cytokine release syndrome.
“The wheels just came off then,” said Mr. Whitehead. “I remember her blood pressure was 53 over 29. They took her to the ICU, induced a coma, and put her on a ventilator. It was brutal to watch. The oscillatory ventilator just pounds on you, and there was blood bubbling out around the hose in her mouth.
“I remember the third or fourth night, a doctor took me in the hallway and said, ‘There’s a one-in-a-thousand chance your daughter is alive when the sun comes up,’” Mr. Whitehead said in an interview. “And I said: ‘All right, I’ll see you at rounds tomorrow, because she’ll still be here.’ ”
“We had some vague notion of toxicity ... but it turned out not nearly enough,” said Dr. Grupp. The ICU “worked flat out” to save her life. “They had deployed everything they had to keep a human being alive and they had nothing more to add. At some point, you run out of things that you can do, and we had run out.”
On the fly
It was then that the team ran into some good luck. The first break was when they decided to look at her cytokines. “Our whole knowledge base came together in the moment, on the fly, at the exact moment when Emily was so very sick,” he recalled. “Could we get the result fast enough? The lab dropped everything to run the test.”
They ordered a broad cytokine panel that included 30 analytes. The results showed that a number of cytokines “were just unbelievably elevated,” he said. Among them was interleukin-6.
“IL-6 isn’t even made by T cells, so nobody in the world would have guessed that this would have mattered. If we’d ordered a smaller panel, it might not even have been on it. Yet this was the one cytokine we had a drug for – tocilizumab – so that was chance. And then, another chance was that the drug was at the hospital, because there are rheumatology patients who get it.
“So, we went from making the determination that IL-6 was high and figuring out there was a drug for it at 3:00 o’clock to giving the drug to her at 8:00 o’clock, and then her clinical situation turned around so quickly – I mean hours later.”
Emily woke up from a 14-day medically induced coma on her seventh birthday.
Eight days later, her bone marrow showed complete remission. “The doctors said, ‘We’ve never seen anyone this sick get better any faster,’ ” Mr. Whitehead said.
She had already been through a battery of treatments for her leukemia. “It was 22 months of failed, standard treatment, and then just 23 days after they gave her the first dose of CAR T-cells that she was cancer free,” he added.
Talking about ‘cure’
Now that Emily, 17, has remained in remission for 10 years, Dr. Grupp is finally willing to use the word “cure” – but it has taken him a long time.
Now, he says, the challenge from the bedside is to keep parents’ and patients’ expectations realistic about what they see as a miracle cure.
“It’s not a miracle. We can get patients into remission 90-plus percent of the time – but some patients do relapse – and then there are the risks [of the cytokine storm, which can be life-threatening].
“Right now, our experience is that about 12% of patients end up in the ICU, but they hardly ever end up as sick as Emily ... because now we’re giving the tocilizumab much earlier,” Dr. Grupp said.
Hearing whispers
Since their daughter’s recovery, Tom and Kari Whitehead have dedicated much of their time to spreading the word about the treatment that saved Emily’s life. Mr. Whitehead testified at the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee meeting in 2017 when approval was being considered for the CAR T-cell product that Emily received. The product was tisagenlecleucel-T (Novartis); at that meeting, there was a unanimous vote to recommend approval. This was the first CAR T cell to reach the market.
As cofounders of the Emily Whitehead Foundation, Emily’s parents have helped raise more than $2 million to support research in the field, and they travel around the world telling their story to “move this revolution forward.”
Despite their fierce belief in the science that saved Emily, they also acknowledge there was luck – and faith. Early in their journey, when Emily experienced relapse after her initial treatments, Mr. Whitehead drew comfort from two visions, which he calls “whispers,” that guided them through several forks in the road and through tough decisions about Emily’s treatment.
Several times the parents refused treatment that was offered to Emily, and once they had her discharged against medical advice. “I told Kari she’s definitely going to beat her cancer – I saw it. I don’t know how it’s going to happen, but we’re going to be in the bone marrow transplant hallway [at CHOP] teaching her to walk again. I know a lot of doctors don’t want to hear anything about ‘a sign,’ or what guided us, but I don’t think you have to separate faith and science, I think it takes everything to make something like this to happen.”
Enduring effect
The key to the CAR T-cell breakthrough that gave rise to Emily’s therapy was cell proliferation, and the effect is enduring, beyond all expectations, said Dr. Grupp. The modified T cells are still detectable in Emily and other patients in long-term remission.
“The fundamental question is, are the cells still working, or are the patients cured and they don’t need them?” said Dr. Grupp. “I think it’s the latter. The data that we have from several large datasets that we developed with Novartis are that, if you get to a year and your minimal residual disease testing both by flow and by next-generation sequencing is negative and you still have B-cell aplasia, the relapse risk is close to zero at that point.”
While it’s still not clear if and when that risk will ever get to zero, Emily and Dr. Grupp have successfully closed the chapter.
“Oncologists have different notions of what the word ‘cure’ means. If your attitude is you’re not cured until you’ve basically reached the end of your life and you haven’t relapsed, well, that’s an impossible bar to hit. My attitude is, if your likelihood of having a disease recurrence is lower than the other risks in your life, like getting into your car and driving to your appointment, then that’s what a functional cure looks like,” he said.
“I’m probably the doctor that still sees her the most, but honestly, the whole conversation is not about leukemia at all. She has B-cell aplasia, so we have to treat that, and then it’s about making sure there’s no long-term side effects from the totality of her treatment. Generally, for a patient who’s gotten a moderate amount of chemotherapy and CAR T, that should not interfere with fertility. Has any patient in the history of the world ever relapsed more than 5 years out from their therapy? Of course. Is that incredibly rare? Yes, it is. You can be paralyzed by that, or you can compartmentalize it.”
As for the Whiteheads, they are focused on Emily’s college applications, her new driver’s license, and her project to cowrite a film about her story with a Hollywood filmmaker.
Mr. Whitehead said the one thing he hopes clinicians take away from their story is that sometimes a parent’s instinct transcends science.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ten years ago, Stephan Grupp, MD, PhD, plunged into an unexplored area of pediatric cancer treatment with a 6-year-old patient for whom every treatment available for her acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) had been exhausted.
Dr. Grupp, a pioneer in cellular immunotherapy at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, had just got the green light to launch the first phase 1 trial of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for children.
“The trial opened at the absolute last possible moment that it could have been helpful to her,” he said in an interview. “There was nothing else to do to temporize her further. ... It had to open then or never.”
The patient was Emily Whitehead, who has since become a poster girl for the dramatic results that can be achieved with these novel therapies. After that one CAR T-cell treatment back in 2012, she has been free of her leukemia and has remained in remission for more than 10 years.
Dr. Grupp said that he is, at last, starting to use the “cure” word.
“I’m not just a doctor, I’m a scientist – and one case isn’t enough to have confidence about anything,” he said. “We wanted more patients to be out longer to be able to say that thing which we have for a long time called the ‘c word.’
“CAR T-cell therapy has now been given to hundreds of patients at CHOP, and – we are unique in this – we have a couple dozen patients who are 5, 6, 7, 9 years out or more without further therapy. That feels like a cure to me,” he commented.
First patient with ALL
Emily was the first patient with ALL to receive the novel treatment, and also the first child.
There was a precedent, however. After having been “stuck” for decades, the CAR T-cell field had recently made a breakthrough, thanks to research by Dr. Grupp’s colleague Carl June, MD, and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. By tweaking two key steps in the genetic modification of T cells, Dr. June’s team had successfully treated three adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), two of whom were in complete remission.
But using the treatment for a child and for a different type of leukemia was a daunting prospect. Dr. Grupp said that he was candid with Emily’s parents, Tom and Kari Whitehead, emphasizing that there are no guarantees in cancer treatment, particularly in a phase 1 trial.
But the Whiteheads had no time to waste and nowhere else to turn. Her father, Tom, recalled saying: “This is something outside the box, this is going to give her a chance.”
Dr. Grupp, who described himself as being “on the cowboy end” of oncology care, was ready to take the plunge.
Little did any of them know that the treatment would make Emily even sicker than she already was, putting her in intensive care. But thanks to a combination of several lucky breaks and a lot of brain power, she would make a breathtakingly rapid recovery.
The ‘magic formula’
CAR T-cell therapy involves harvesting a patient’s T cells and modifying them in the lab with a chimeric antigen receptor to target CD19, a protein found on the surface of ALL cancer cells.
Before the University of Pennsylvania team tweaked the process, clinical trials of the therapy yielded only modest results because the modified T cells “were very powerful in the short term but had almost no proliferative capacity” once they were infused back into the patient, Dr. Grupp explained.
“It does not matter how many cells you give to a patient, what matters is that the cells grow in the patient to the level needed to control the leukemia,” he said.
Dr. June’s team came up with what Dr. Grupp calls “the magic formula”: A bead-based manufacturing process that produced younger T-cell phenotypes with “enormous” proliferative capacity, and a lentiviral approach to the genetic modification, enabling prolonged expression of the CAR-T molecule.
“Was it rogue? Absolutely, positively not,” said Dr. Grupp, thinking back to the day he enrolled Emily in the trial. “Was it risky? Obviously ... we all dived into this pool without knowing what was under the water, so I would say, rogue, no, risky, yes. And I would say we didn’t know nearly enough about the risks.”
Cytokine storm
The gravest risk that Dr. Grupp and his team encountered was something they had not anticipated. At the time, they had no name for it.
The three adults with CLL who had received CAR T-cell therapy had experienced a mild version that the researchers referred to as “tumor lysis syndrome”.
But for Emily, on day 3 of her CAR T-cell infusion, there was a ferocious reaction storm that later came to be called cytokine release syndrome.
“The wheels just came off then,” said Mr. Whitehead. “I remember her blood pressure was 53 over 29. They took her to the ICU, induced a coma, and put her on a ventilator. It was brutal to watch. The oscillatory ventilator just pounds on you, and there was blood bubbling out around the hose in her mouth.
“I remember the third or fourth night, a doctor took me in the hallway and said, ‘There’s a one-in-a-thousand chance your daughter is alive when the sun comes up,’” Mr. Whitehead said in an interview. “And I said: ‘All right, I’ll see you at rounds tomorrow, because she’ll still be here.’ ”
“We had some vague notion of toxicity ... but it turned out not nearly enough,” said Dr. Grupp. The ICU “worked flat out” to save her life. “They had deployed everything they had to keep a human being alive and they had nothing more to add. At some point, you run out of things that you can do, and we had run out.”
On the fly
It was then that the team ran into some good luck. The first break was when they decided to look at her cytokines. “Our whole knowledge base came together in the moment, on the fly, at the exact moment when Emily was so very sick,” he recalled. “Could we get the result fast enough? The lab dropped everything to run the test.”
They ordered a broad cytokine panel that included 30 analytes. The results showed that a number of cytokines “were just unbelievably elevated,” he said. Among them was interleukin-6.
“IL-6 isn’t even made by T cells, so nobody in the world would have guessed that this would have mattered. If we’d ordered a smaller panel, it might not even have been on it. Yet this was the one cytokine we had a drug for – tocilizumab – so that was chance. And then, another chance was that the drug was at the hospital, because there are rheumatology patients who get it.
“So, we went from making the determination that IL-6 was high and figuring out there was a drug for it at 3:00 o’clock to giving the drug to her at 8:00 o’clock, and then her clinical situation turned around so quickly – I mean hours later.”
Emily woke up from a 14-day medically induced coma on her seventh birthday.
Eight days later, her bone marrow showed complete remission. “The doctors said, ‘We’ve never seen anyone this sick get better any faster,’ ” Mr. Whitehead said.
She had already been through a battery of treatments for her leukemia. “It was 22 months of failed, standard treatment, and then just 23 days after they gave her the first dose of CAR T-cells that she was cancer free,” he added.
Talking about ‘cure’
Now that Emily, 17, has remained in remission for 10 years, Dr. Grupp is finally willing to use the word “cure” – but it has taken him a long time.
Now, he says, the challenge from the bedside is to keep parents’ and patients’ expectations realistic about what they see as a miracle cure.
“It’s not a miracle. We can get patients into remission 90-plus percent of the time – but some patients do relapse – and then there are the risks [of the cytokine storm, which can be life-threatening].
“Right now, our experience is that about 12% of patients end up in the ICU, but they hardly ever end up as sick as Emily ... because now we’re giving the tocilizumab much earlier,” Dr. Grupp said.
Hearing whispers
Since their daughter’s recovery, Tom and Kari Whitehead have dedicated much of their time to spreading the word about the treatment that saved Emily’s life. Mr. Whitehead testified at the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee meeting in 2017 when approval was being considered for the CAR T-cell product that Emily received. The product was tisagenlecleucel-T (Novartis); at that meeting, there was a unanimous vote to recommend approval. This was the first CAR T cell to reach the market.
As cofounders of the Emily Whitehead Foundation, Emily’s parents have helped raise more than $2 million to support research in the field, and they travel around the world telling their story to “move this revolution forward.”
Despite their fierce belief in the science that saved Emily, they also acknowledge there was luck – and faith. Early in their journey, when Emily experienced relapse after her initial treatments, Mr. Whitehead drew comfort from two visions, which he calls “whispers,” that guided them through several forks in the road and through tough decisions about Emily’s treatment.
Several times the parents refused treatment that was offered to Emily, and once they had her discharged against medical advice. “I told Kari she’s definitely going to beat her cancer – I saw it. I don’t know how it’s going to happen, but we’re going to be in the bone marrow transplant hallway [at CHOP] teaching her to walk again. I know a lot of doctors don’t want to hear anything about ‘a sign,’ or what guided us, but I don’t think you have to separate faith and science, I think it takes everything to make something like this to happen.”
Enduring effect
The key to the CAR T-cell breakthrough that gave rise to Emily’s therapy was cell proliferation, and the effect is enduring, beyond all expectations, said Dr. Grupp. The modified T cells are still detectable in Emily and other patients in long-term remission.
“The fundamental question is, are the cells still working, or are the patients cured and they don’t need them?” said Dr. Grupp. “I think it’s the latter. The data that we have from several large datasets that we developed with Novartis are that, if you get to a year and your minimal residual disease testing both by flow and by next-generation sequencing is negative and you still have B-cell aplasia, the relapse risk is close to zero at that point.”
While it’s still not clear if and when that risk will ever get to zero, Emily and Dr. Grupp have successfully closed the chapter.
“Oncologists have different notions of what the word ‘cure’ means. If your attitude is you’re not cured until you’ve basically reached the end of your life and you haven’t relapsed, well, that’s an impossible bar to hit. My attitude is, if your likelihood of having a disease recurrence is lower than the other risks in your life, like getting into your car and driving to your appointment, then that’s what a functional cure looks like,” he said.
“I’m probably the doctor that still sees her the most, but honestly, the whole conversation is not about leukemia at all. She has B-cell aplasia, so we have to treat that, and then it’s about making sure there’s no long-term side effects from the totality of her treatment. Generally, for a patient who’s gotten a moderate amount of chemotherapy and CAR T, that should not interfere with fertility. Has any patient in the history of the world ever relapsed more than 5 years out from their therapy? Of course. Is that incredibly rare? Yes, it is. You can be paralyzed by that, or you can compartmentalize it.”
As for the Whiteheads, they are focused on Emily’s college applications, her new driver’s license, and her project to cowrite a film about her story with a Hollywood filmmaker.
Mr. Whitehead said the one thing he hopes clinicians take away from their story is that sometimes a parent’s instinct transcends science.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ten years ago, Stephan Grupp, MD, PhD, plunged into an unexplored area of pediatric cancer treatment with a 6-year-old patient for whom every treatment available for her acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) had been exhausted.
Dr. Grupp, a pioneer in cellular immunotherapy at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, had just got the green light to launch the first phase 1 trial of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for children.
“The trial opened at the absolute last possible moment that it could have been helpful to her,” he said in an interview. “There was nothing else to do to temporize her further. ... It had to open then or never.”
The patient was Emily Whitehead, who has since become a poster girl for the dramatic results that can be achieved with these novel therapies. After that one CAR T-cell treatment back in 2012, she has been free of her leukemia and has remained in remission for more than 10 years.
Dr. Grupp said that he is, at last, starting to use the “cure” word.
“I’m not just a doctor, I’m a scientist – and one case isn’t enough to have confidence about anything,” he said. “We wanted more patients to be out longer to be able to say that thing which we have for a long time called the ‘c word.’
“CAR T-cell therapy has now been given to hundreds of patients at CHOP, and – we are unique in this – we have a couple dozen patients who are 5, 6, 7, 9 years out or more without further therapy. That feels like a cure to me,” he commented.
First patient with ALL
Emily was the first patient with ALL to receive the novel treatment, and also the first child.
There was a precedent, however. After having been “stuck” for decades, the CAR T-cell field had recently made a breakthrough, thanks to research by Dr. Grupp’s colleague Carl June, MD, and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. By tweaking two key steps in the genetic modification of T cells, Dr. June’s team had successfully treated three adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), two of whom were in complete remission.
But using the treatment for a child and for a different type of leukemia was a daunting prospect. Dr. Grupp said that he was candid with Emily’s parents, Tom and Kari Whitehead, emphasizing that there are no guarantees in cancer treatment, particularly in a phase 1 trial.
But the Whiteheads had no time to waste and nowhere else to turn. Her father, Tom, recalled saying: “This is something outside the box, this is going to give her a chance.”
Dr. Grupp, who described himself as being “on the cowboy end” of oncology care, was ready to take the plunge.
Little did any of them know that the treatment would make Emily even sicker than she already was, putting her in intensive care. But thanks to a combination of several lucky breaks and a lot of brain power, she would make a breathtakingly rapid recovery.
The ‘magic formula’
CAR T-cell therapy involves harvesting a patient’s T cells and modifying them in the lab with a chimeric antigen receptor to target CD19, a protein found on the surface of ALL cancer cells.
Before the University of Pennsylvania team tweaked the process, clinical trials of the therapy yielded only modest results because the modified T cells “were very powerful in the short term but had almost no proliferative capacity” once they were infused back into the patient, Dr. Grupp explained.
“It does not matter how many cells you give to a patient, what matters is that the cells grow in the patient to the level needed to control the leukemia,” he said.
Dr. June’s team came up with what Dr. Grupp calls “the magic formula”: A bead-based manufacturing process that produced younger T-cell phenotypes with “enormous” proliferative capacity, and a lentiviral approach to the genetic modification, enabling prolonged expression of the CAR-T molecule.
“Was it rogue? Absolutely, positively not,” said Dr. Grupp, thinking back to the day he enrolled Emily in the trial. “Was it risky? Obviously ... we all dived into this pool without knowing what was under the water, so I would say, rogue, no, risky, yes. And I would say we didn’t know nearly enough about the risks.”
Cytokine storm
The gravest risk that Dr. Grupp and his team encountered was something they had not anticipated. At the time, they had no name for it.
The three adults with CLL who had received CAR T-cell therapy had experienced a mild version that the researchers referred to as “tumor lysis syndrome”.
But for Emily, on day 3 of her CAR T-cell infusion, there was a ferocious reaction storm that later came to be called cytokine release syndrome.
“The wheels just came off then,” said Mr. Whitehead. “I remember her blood pressure was 53 over 29. They took her to the ICU, induced a coma, and put her on a ventilator. It was brutal to watch. The oscillatory ventilator just pounds on you, and there was blood bubbling out around the hose in her mouth.
“I remember the third or fourth night, a doctor took me in the hallway and said, ‘There’s a one-in-a-thousand chance your daughter is alive when the sun comes up,’” Mr. Whitehead said in an interview. “And I said: ‘All right, I’ll see you at rounds tomorrow, because she’ll still be here.’ ”
“We had some vague notion of toxicity ... but it turned out not nearly enough,” said Dr. Grupp. The ICU “worked flat out” to save her life. “They had deployed everything they had to keep a human being alive and they had nothing more to add. At some point, you run out of things that you can do, and we had run out.”
On the fly
It was then that the team ran into some good luck. The first break was when they decided to look at her cytokines. “Our whole knowledge base came together in the moment, on the fly, at the exact moment when Emily was so very sick,” he recalled. “Could we get the result fast enough? The lab dropped everything to run the test.”
They ordered a broad cytokine panel that included 30 analytes. The results showed that a number of cytokines “were just unbelievably elevated,” he said. Among them was interleukin-6.
“IL-6 isn’t even made by T cells, so nobody in the world would have guessed that this would have mattered. If we’d ordered a smaller panel, it might not even have been on it. Yet this was the one cytokine we had a drug for – tocilizumab – so that was chance. And then, another chance was that the drug was at the hospital, because there are rheumatology patients who get it.
“So, we went from making the determination that IL-6 was high and figuring out there was a drug for it at 3:00 o’clock to giving the drug to her at 8:00 o’clock, and then her clinical situation turned around so quickly – I mean hours later.”
Emily woke up from a 14-day medically induced coma on her seventh birthday.
Eight days later, her bone marrow showed complete remission. “The doctors said, ‘We’ve never seen anyone this sick get better any faster,’ ” Mr. Whitehead said.
She had already been through a battery of treatments for her leukemia. “It was 22 months of failed, standard treatment, and then just 23 days after they gave her the first dose of CAR T-cells that she was cancer free,” he added.
Talking about ‘cure’
Now that Emily, 17, has remained in remission for 10 years, Dr. Grupp is finally willing to use the word “cure” – but it has taken him a long time.
Now, he says, the challenge from the bedside is to keep parents’ and patients’ expectations realistic about what they see as a miracle cure.
“It’s not a miracle. We can get patients into remission 90-plus percent of the time – but some patients do relapse – and then there are the risks [of the cytokine storm, which can be life-threatening].
“Right now, our experience is that about 12% of patients end up in the ICU, but they hardly ever end up as sick as Emily ... because now we’re giving the tocilizumab much earlier,” Dr. Grupp said.
Hearing whispers
Since their daughter’s recovery, Tom and Kari Whitehead have dedicated much of their time to spreading the word about the treatment that saved Emily’s life. Mr. Whitehead testified at the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee meeting in 2017 when approval was being considered for the CAR T-cell product that Emily received. The product was tisagenlecleucel-T (Novartis); at that meeting, there was a unanimous vote to recommend approval. This was the first CAR T cell to reach the market.
As cofounders of the Emily Whitehead Foundation, Emily’s parents have helped raise more than $2 million to support research in the field, and they travel around the world telling their story to “move this revolution forward.”
Despite their fierce belief in the science that saved Emily, they also acknowledge there was luck – and faith. Early in their journey, when Emily experienced relapse after her initial treatments, Mr. Whitehead drew comfort from two visions, which he calls “whispers,” that guided them through several forks in the road and through tough decisions about Emily’s treatment.
Several times the parents refused treatment that was offered to Emily, and once they had her discharged against medical advice. “I told Kari she’s definitely going to beat her cancer – I saw it. I don’t know how it’s going to happen, but we’re going to be in the bone marrow transplant hallway [at CHOP] teaching her to walk again. I know a lot of doctors don’t want to hear anything about ‘a sign,’ or what guided us, but I don’t think you have to separate faith and science, I think it takes everything to make something like this to happen.”
Enduring effect
The key to the CAR T-cell breakthrough that gave rise to Emily’s therapy was cell proliferation, and the effect is enduring, beyond all expectations, said Dr. Grupp. The modified T cells are still detectable in Emily and other patients in long-term remission.
“The fundamental question is, are the cells still working, or are the patients cured and they don’t need them?” said Dr. Grupp. “I think it’s the latter. The data that we have from several large datasets that we developed with Novartis are that, if you get to a year and your minimal residual disease testing both by flow and by next-generation sequencing is negative and you still have B-cell aplasia, the relapse risk is close to zero at that point.”
While it’s still not clear if and when that risk will ever get to zero, Emily and Dr. Grupp have successfully closed the chapter.
“Oncologists have different notions of what the word ‘cure’ means. If your attitude is you’re not cured until you’ve basically reached the end of your life and you haven’t relapsed, well, that’s an impossible bar to hit. My attitude is, if your likelihood of having a disease recurrence is lower than the other risks in your life, like getting into your car and driving to your appointment, then that’s what a functional cure looks like,” he said.
“I’m probably the doctor that still sees her the most, but honestly, the whole conversation is not about leukemia at all. She has B-cell aplasia, so we have to treat that, and then it’s about making sure there’s no long-term side effects from the totality of her treatment. Generally, for a patient who’s gotten a moderate amount of chemotherapy and CAR T, that should not interfere with fertility. Has any patient in the history of the world ever relapsed more than 5 years out from their therapy? Of course. Is that incredibly rare? Yes, it is. You can be paralyzed by that, or you can compartmentalize it.”
As for the Whiteheads, they are focused on Emily’s college applications, her new driver’s license, and her project to cowrite a film about her story with a Hollywood filmmaker.
Mr. Whitehead said the one thing he hopes clinicians take away from their story is that sometimes a parent’s instinct transcends science.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Essential strategies and tactics for managing sickle cell disease
The group of disorders known as sickle cell disease (SCD) is one of the more common genetic hemoglobinopathies. Homozygous production of the S variant of hemoglobin (Hb) in red blood cells (RBCs) results in profound sickling under conditions of physiologic stress, a condition known as Hb SS disease. People with Hb SS disease are at risk of chronic hemolytic anemia, tissue ischemia that causes vaso-occlusive pain syndrome, and other vaso-occlusive complications.1 They also experience a > 20-year reduction in life expectancy, compared to age-matched controls; onset of risk of early death is usually after age 25 years.
People with heterozygous expression of the Hb S variant—that is, from one parent, and expression of Hb A from the other parent—are said to have sickle cell trait (SCT). They typically do not have symptoms of SCD, although they can experience vaso-occlusive pain under severe physiologic stress and suffer sudden death more often than age-matched controls. People who are heterozygous for Hb S but have another hemoglobinopathy (eg,
Alleviating the harsh burden of illness. All patients with SCD are more likely than age-matched counterparts to experience income loss because of their disability; the same loss is true for their caregivers. Such loss, when combined with time spent in the health care system, can be catastrophic.2,3 But this loss can be mitigated with access to regular, comprehensive health care that includes the steps described here to detect SCD early and reduce the likelihood of complications.4,5
To begin, TABLE 16 lists typical laboratory findings and classifications in patients who are homozygous or heterozygous for Hb S, and therefore experience more severe Hb SS disease or milder SCD, respectively.
Who should be screened for hemoglobinopathy?
Because of the presence of the fetal Hb (Hb F) in newborns and infants, clinical signs of Hb SS before age 2 months are uncommon. Neonatal clinical laboratory testing is necessary for prompt identification of Hb SS; universal screening is now required by all states (although parents can opt out by claiming a religious exemption). A positive test result requires confirmatory testing: most often, Hb electrophoresis or DNA testing.
A confirmed positive homozygous (Hb SS) or heterozygous (Hb S) result is reported to the patient’s identified medical home for subsequent management. Thus, pediatric patients with SCD can be identified, and prophylactic treatment initiated, as early as possible. Later in the patient’s life, repeat screening for SCD and SCT is recommended at the initiation of pregnancy care7 and prior to the start of high-intensity physical training, as occurs in college and professional athletics and in certain branches of the military.8
Putting prevention into practice
Some of the recommendations we make to prevent complications of SCD are directed only at patients with severe disease—ie, those who have Hb SS SCD or sickle β0 thalassemia (SCA); the rest apply to all patients with SCD (TABLE 26,9). (For patients with SCT, follow guidelines as you would for patients who do not have SCD, unless otherwise noted.)
Continue to: In addition, keep in mind...
In addition, keep in mind that preventive recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force (Exhibit 5 in the Expert Panel Report)6 apply to all patients with SCD and SCT.
Prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease
All patients with SCD are assumed to have lifelong splenic dysfunction that begins in childhood. This is particularly true for those with SCA. In the absence of vaccination, the lifetime incidence of pneumococcal bacteremia resulting in serious complications is as high as 16% in SCD.10 In multiple randomized clinical trials, prophylactic penicillin dosing has proved beneficial in these patients, demonstrating a decrease in the risk of (1) pneumococcal infection and (2) early death during the study period, with minimal adverse effects.5
Prophylactic penicillin dosing should be initiated during infancy in patients with SCA. From ages 3 months to 3 years, the dosage of penicillin V is 125 mg twice daily; from 3 to 5 years, 250 mg twice daily. After age 5 years, the decision to continue penicillin is individualized, with consideration of prior severe pneumococcal infection and general preventive health maintenance. Penicillin-allergic patients can be given erythromycin. All patients with SCD who have had surgical splenectomy should be placed on antibiotic prophylaxis (ie, penicillin as dosed above).5
The polyvalent pneumococcal vaccine has resulted in significant protection against invasive pneumococcal disease; mortality from pneumococcal disease among patients with SCD who are younger than 14 years has decreased dramatically since the vaccine was introduced.6 For all patients with SCD, the standard PCV13 series should be administered beginning at age 6 weeks. A 2-dose series of the PPSV23 vaccine, which includes more Streptococcus pneumoniae serotypes than the PCV13 vaccine, should be administered beginning at age 2 years or 8 weeks after completion of the PCV13 series, whichever comes first.
Prevention of flu, COVID-19, and other vaccine-preventable illness
Influenza. Beginning at age 6 months, all patients with SCD should receive inactivated influenza vaccine annually at the beginning of the influenza season. Avoid using the live attenuated vaccine (Flumist) because of an associated increased risk of severe or complicated infection.11
Continue to: COVID-19, caused by severe...
COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is especially problematic in patients with SCD12; infection causes mortality at a rate as high as 7%.5 The SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine series is potentially lifesaving for these patients.12 In addition, at times of high community prevalence, make an effort to minimize patients’ exposure to SARS-CoV-2, by providing telemedicine visits.
Follow the immunization schedule. Patients with SCD should receive all standard recommended vaccinations (ie, those recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.a) Inactivated virus vaccines are preferred in SCD, when available. For patients who are behind on vaccinations, use a standard vaccine catch-up schedule.
Screening and prevention of complications such as stroke
Determining the risk of stroke. Patients with SCA who are not monitored have a 10% to 11% lifetime prevalence of stroke.5,6,10 An abnormal transcranial Doppler (TCD) study (defined as a time-averaged mean maximum velocity ≥ 200 cm/s in the distal internal carotid artery or proximal middle cerebral artery) is predictive of a 40% risk of stroke in patients with SCA. With chronic transfusion therapy, a 92% reduction in the risk of stroke is achievable.10
All patients with SCA should undergo annual screening with TCD ultrasonography from ages 2 to 16 years.6 Those who have an abnormal TCD study should receive chronic transfusion therapy. Screening is not recommended for patients with SCD or SCT.
Other complications. Screen and manage as follows:
- Proteinuria. Left untreated, SCD can affect the kidneys and lead to renal failure. Annual screening for proteinuria is recommended beginning at age 10 years, with referral when the test is positive and reproducible.
- Lung disease and cardiovascular disease. Screening for progression of lung disease and for cardiovascular disease is not recommended in asymptomatic patients with SCD, except through the history.
- Blood pressure screening and management of hypertension are based on Joint National Committee (JNC 8) guidelines.13
- Screening for ocular complications by an eye care provider is recommended beginning at age 10 years.
TABLE 26,9 summarizes recommendations on the prevention and early detection of complications of SCD.
Continue to: Pregnancy planning
Pregnancy planning
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that a “reproductive life plan” be part of every person’s health journey (TABLE 2).6,9 The plan is especially relevant for female patients who have a known heritable concern, such as SCD, in which a pregnancy is more likely to be complicated by growth restriction, preterm delivery, and fetal demise. These risks are reduced—but not eliminated—with intensive surveillance of the pregnancy. Pregnancy in patients with SCD is also more likely to be complicated by preeclampsia, venous thromboembolism, infection, and maternal death.
Other recommendations:
- Every patient with SCD should receive genetic counselling before conceiving, when possible.
- Pregnancy should be considered high risk in women who have SCD, and monitored as such.
- Women with SCD can use any method of contraception—none of which put them at increased risk of complications, compared to the general population. Rather, it is pregnancy that puts them at greater risk of morbidity and mortality in every age group.
Ambulatory management of acute complications
Vaso-occlusive pain crisis. The hallmark of SCD is the acute pain crisis. Almost all patients with SCD (and the occasional patient with SCT) will experience a pain crisis. In more affluent countries, management of an acute pain crisis almost always includes opioid analgesia.6
For the most part, pain crises manifest in a predictable pattern. Although patients with SCD might have acute pain, other causes of acute pain, such as an acute intra-abdominal process or (in older patients) a cardiac process, should be considered as well.
For patients having a vaso-occlusive pain crisis, achieving rapid analgesia is key to management. Ready availability of narcotics, at home or under observation, prevents subsequent hospitalization; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be used as adjuvant treatment in patients without contraindications.5,6 An individualized treatment plan, including access to analgesia at an appropriate dosage, should be negotiated, and adhered to, by the patient and the care team.
Continue to: Rapid access to higher-level care...
Rapid access to higher-level care, including parenteral analgesia, is important if outpatient management is desired. In addition, escalation to a higher level of care should occur if there is hypoxia (or another reason to suspect acute chest syndrome [ACS; discussed in a bit]) or dehydration that requires parenteral therapy. Use of nondrug therapy, such as heat, should be encouraged. The care team should work with the patient’s school or employer to negotiate time away through the federal Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, or other means, because a pain crisis is not a planned event.
Fever. Because of the risk of serious infection as a consequence of functional asplenia, fever is particularly worrisome in patients with SCA and problematic in patients with SCD. The increased risk begins as the physiologic level of Hb F declines beginning at age 2 months.
ACS, characterized by a combination of respiratory symptoms or new infiltrates, often manifests initially with fever, and can progress rapidly to death if treatment is delayed. The initial signs and symptoms may be subtle; suspicion should remain high in any patient with respiratory symptoms who is newly hypoxic, even those who do not have fever. Osteomyelitis, another febrile illness, is also potentially life threatening if not treated promptly.
All patients with SCD whose body temperature is > 101.3 °F should be evaluated with appropriate clinical laboratory testing (complete blood count; inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein; basic chemistry parameters; and other tests as indicated, including serum lactate and urine culture), blood culture, and chest radiography. Empiric parenteral antibiotics are required until the patient is known to be nonbacteremic, regardless of vaccination status. Outpatient follow-up and even outpatient management with ceftriaxone can be offered in select circumstances (eg, if the patient so desires or is nontoxic, and if close follow-up can be assured).14 If ACS is a possibility based on symptoms or radiographic findings, outpatient management is not an option.
Anemia. Patients with SCA, and some with SCD, have an Hb level that is chronically, sometimes critically, low. A baseline Hb level should be established for a patient with SCD and then monitored periodically. A drop in the Hb level > 2 g/dL from baseline (or an initial Hb level of 6 g/dL if the baseline is unknown) constitutes acute anemia. Patients in whom anemia has been diagnosed should be emergently evaluated for acute splenic sequestration, an aplastic episode, a delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction, ACS, or infection, and should be treated appropriately.
Continue to: Simple transfusion can be used...
Simple transfusion can be used in an acute setting to restore and maintain Hb at a safe level. Iron overload and formation of RBC alloantigen are associated with multiple transfusions; once either of these conditions is established, subsequent transfusion therapy can be harmful. Care must be taken to prescribe transfusion appropriately; leukocyte-depleted RBCs should be used when available.
It is important to define specific goals of transfusion to optimize its use. Patients who have received multiple transfusions should have enhanced monitoring for bloodborne infection, such as hepatitis C virus. Acute aplastic crises are caused by parvovirus B19; when other members of the household who have SCD are present, they should be monitored for this viral infection with serial measurement of Hb and white blood cell count.6
Other acute problems. Should stroke, acute renal failure, priapism, or hepatobiliary complications develop, evaluate the patient rapidly and refer them to the appropriate care team for management.
Management of chronic complications
Chronic pain is a problem for many patients with SCD. The etiology of this symptom should be investigated fully because a vaso-occlusive crisis is characterized by acute pain. Avascular necrosis or ulcers due to chronic vaso-occlusion should be managed definitively when possible. Adjuvant therapy for chronic pain, such as heat or massage, should be encouraged.
In some patients, chronic pain without objective findings develops over time and becomes unresponsive to nonopioid pharmacotherapy. Such patients might require chronic opioid therapy, the need for which is dictated by the ability of the patient to perform their activities of daily living. For patients who require long-term daily narcotic drugs, best practices—obtaining informed consent, using registries and contracts, random drug testing, and providing naloxone [Narcan] for overdose emergency use—should be employed.15
Continue to: Chronic anemia
Chronic anemia can be managed with transfusion when elevating the Hb level is required (eg, preoperatively, to prevent stroke, to manage priapism). For some patients, ongoing transfusion is required; care should be taken to avoid iron overload and hemolysis due to antibody formation. Ongoing surveillance for these complications is required.6
Other chronic problems. Patients with SCD who develop avascular necrosis, vaso-occlusive ulcers, pulmonary hypertension, renal disease, recurrent priapism, or ophthalmologic complications should be co-managed with a care team.6
Pharmacotherapy and SCA
A principal goal in the management of patients with SCA is prevention of vaso-occlusive events, including ACS and acute pain crises.
Hydroxyurea, a key component of SCA treatment, is a ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor that increases the level of Hb F, thus reducing the absolute number of symptomatic vaso-occlusive events and increasing arterial blood flow. It is most useful for patients who have multiple crises. The drug prolongs survival and reduces the need for transfusion and hospitalization.4,5
Hydroxyurea can be started in patients at age 9 months; blood testing should be performed at the start of treatment and the dosage titrated based on blood counts. Initial blood work includes:
- Hb level;
- Hb electrophoresis with the quantitative percentage of Hb F;
- complete blood count with differential and reticulocyte counts;
- chemistry profile (electrolytes, lactate dehydrogenase, total protein, albumin, total bilirubin);
- liver function tests (aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase);
- measurement of renal function (blood urea nitrogen, creatinine);
- serum vitamin B12 and folate;
- serum iron, total iron-binding capacity, and ferritin;
- hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and parvovirus B19 antigen; and
- serologic testing for HIV.
Continue to: Testing should also...
Testing should also include a pregnancy test for postmenarchal females because hydroxyurea is in US Food and Drug Administration pregnancy risk category X.
Avoid hydroxyurea in lactating women; dose the drug renally in the setting of renal disease. Because hydroxyurea has a high rate of serious adverse effects and drug-drug interactions, it should be offered in conjunction with an individualized care plan.
Hydroxyurea can also be offered to patients with other forms of SCD who have recurrent vaso-occlusive symptoms.
Two newer medications improve oxygen delivery in patients with SCD. Voxelotor, approved in 2019, works to reduce Hb S polymerization by binding to the alpha chain of Hb S and, subsequently, increasing its oxygen affinity. The drug is generally well tolerated and can be used in patients with SCD who are ≥ 12 years.16 Crizanlizumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against P-selectin, an adhesion molecule located on endothelial cells and activated platelets. The efficacy of crizanlizumab was demonstrated in the SUSTAIN trial, in which it reduced vaso-occlusive pain in patients ≥ 16 years.17
All of these medications have a narrow toxic–therapeutic window. They should therefore be administered with the participation of a multidisciplinary care team.
Continue to: The need to coordinated, comprehensive care
The need for coordinated, comprehensive care
Patients with SCD report how challenging their disease is. All patients with SCD are more likely than age-matched counterparts to experience loss, including workdays for disability, educational potential, workdays for caregivers of affected children, and time spent in the hospital or the emergency department.4,5 These losses, with the concomitant stress associated with chronic illness and the struggle to manage recurrent pain crises and chronic complications, are often overwhelming.
Comprehensive care can, as we have illustrated in this discussion, mitigate these losses. Such care should include extensive education, genetic counseling, infection prevention, pain management, and implementation of evidence-based management guidelines.3,4,6 Patients with SCD report that their illness outlook would be better with
- greater provider knowledge of SCD,
- destigmatization of narcotics for SCD vaso-occlusive pain management,
- optimal coordination among members of the health care team, and
- improved transportation for appointments.
Patients also report that barriers associated with the unique US health care financing system are often insurmountable. As patients with SCD live longer, improved care management should focus on reducing these barriers and enhancing their quality of life.2,18,19
CORRESPONDENCE
Robert Allen Perkins, MD, MPH, Department of Family Medicine, University of South Alabama College of Medicine, 1601 Center Street, 2N, Mobile, AL 36604; perkins@health. southalabama.edu
1. Lubeck D, Agodoa I, Bhakta N, et al. Estimated life expectancy and income of patients with sickle cell disease compared with those without sickle cell disease. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e1915374. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15374
2. Swanson ME, Grosse SD, Kulkarni R. Disability among individuals with sickle cell disease: literature review from a public health perspective. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(6 suppl 4):S390-S397. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.09.006
3. Moskowitz JT, Butensky E, Harmatz P, et al. Caregiving time in sickle cell disease: psychological effects in maternal caregivers. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;48:64-71. doi:10.1002/pbc.20792
4. Mehta SR, Afenyi-Annan A, Lottenberg R. Opportunities to improve outcomes in sickle cell disease. Am Fam Phys. 2006;74:303-310.
5. Yawn BP, John-Sowah J. Management of sickle cell disease: recommendations from the 2014 Expert Panel Report. Am Fam Phys. 2015;92:1069-1077.
6. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. Evidence-based management of sickle cell disease. Expert Panel Report, 2014. Accessed June 9, 2022. www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/sickle-cell-disease-guidelines
7. Committee Opinion No. 690: Carrier screening in the age of genomic medicine. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:e35-e40. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001951
8. Jordan LB, Smith-Whitley K, Treadwell MJ, et al. Screening U.S. college athletes for their sickle cell disease carrier status. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41:S406-S412. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.09.014
9. Adams RJ, McKie VC, Brambilla D, et al. Stroke prevention trial in sickle cell anemia. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19:110-129. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00099-8
10. Alzahrani F, Alaidarous K, Alqarni S, et al. Incidence and predictors of bacterial infections in febrile children with sickle cell disease. Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2021;8:236-238 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpam.2020.12.005
11. Committee on Infectious Diseases. Recommendations for prevention and control of influenza in children, 2021-2022. Pediatrics. 2021;148: e2021053745. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-053745
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Study finds people with sickle cell disease who developed coronavirus disease have high rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and death. October 20, 2020. Accessed June 9, 2022. www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/sicklecell/features/scd-and-covid-19.html
13. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 Evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014;311:507-520.
14. Baskin MN, Goh XL, Heeney MM, et al. Bacteremia risk and outpatient management of febrile patients with sickle cell disease. Pediatrics. 2013;131:1035-1041. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-2139
15. Osunkwo I, Veeramreddy P, Arnall J, et al. Use of buprenorphine/naloxone in amelio rating acute care utilization and chronic opioid use in adults with sickle cell disease. Blood. 2019;134 (suppl 1):790. doi: 10.1182/blood-2019-126589
16. Vichinsky E, Hoppe CC, Ataga KI, et al; HOPE Trial Investigators. A phase 3 randomized trial of voxelotor in sickle cell disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:509-519. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903212
17. Ataga KI, Kutlar A, Kanter J, et al. Crizanlizumab for the prevention of pain crises in sickle cell disease. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:429-439. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611770
18. Dixit R, Nettem S, Madan SS, et al. Folate supplementation in people with sickle cell disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD011130. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011130.pub2
19. Brennan-Cook J, Bonnabeau E, Aponte R, et al. Barriers to care for persons with sickle cell disease: the case manager’s opportunity to improve patient outcomes. Prof Case Manag. 2018;23:213-219. doi: 10.1097/NCM.0000000000000260
The group of disorders known as sickle cell disease (SCD) is one of the more common genetic hemoglobinopathies. Homozygous production of the S variant of hemoglobin (Hb) in red blood cells (RBCs) results in profound sickling under conditions of physiologic stress, a condition known as Hb SS disease. People with Hb SS disease are at risk of chronic hemolytic anemia, tissue ischemia that causes vaso-occlusive pain syndrome, and other vaso-occlusive complications.1 They also experience a > 20-year reduction in life expectancy, compared to age-matched controls; onset of risk of early death is usually after age 25 years.
People with heterozygous expression of the Hb S variant—that is, from one parent, and expression of Hb A from the other parent—are said to have sickle cell trait (SCT). They typically do not have symptoms of SCD, although they can experience vaso-occlusive pain under severe physiologic stress and suffer sudden death more often than age-matched controls. People who are heterozygous for Hb S but have another hemoglobinopathy (eg,
Alleviating the harsh burden of illness. All patients with SCD are more likely than age-matched counterparts to experience income loss because of their disability; the same loss is true for their caregivers. Such loss, when combined with time spent in the health care system, can be catastrophic.2,3 But this loss can be mitigated with access to regular, comprehensive health care that includes the steps described here to detect SCD early and reduce the likelihood of complications.4,5
To begin, TABLE 16 lists typical laboratory findings and classifications in patients who are homozygous or heterozygous for Hb S, and therefore experience more severe Hb SS disease or milder SCD, respectively.
Who should be screened for hemoglobinopathy?
Because of the presence of the fetal Hb (Hb F) in newborns and infants, clinical signs of Hb SS before age 2 months are uncommon. Neonatal clinical laboratory testing is necessary for prompt identification of Hb SS; universal screening is now required by all states (although parents can opt out by claiming a religious exemption). A positive test result requires confirmatory testing: most often, Hb electrophoresis or DNA testing.
A confirmed positive homozygous (Hb SS) or heterozygous (Hb S) result is reported to the patient’s identified medical home for subsequent management. Thus, pediatric patients with SCD can be identified, and prophylactic treatment initiated, as early as possible. Later in the patient’s life, repeat screening for SCD and SCT is recommended at the initiation of pregnancy care7 and prior to the start of high-intensity physical training, as occurs in college and professional athletics and in certain branches of the military.8
Putting prevention into practice
Some of the recommendations we make to prevent complications of SCD are directed only at patients with severe disease—ie, those who have Hb SS SCD or sickle β0 thalassemia (SCA); the rest apply to all patients with SCD (TABLE 26,9). (For patients with SCT, follow guidelines as you would for patients who do not have SCD, unless otherwise noted.)
Continue to: In addition, keep in mind...
In addition, keep in mind that preventive recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force (Exhibit 5 in the Expert Panel Report)6 apply to all patients with SCD and SCT.
Prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease
All patients with SCD are assumed to have lifelong splenic dysfunction that begins in childhood. This is particularly true for those with SCA. In the absence of vaccination, the lifetime incidence of pneumococcal bacteremia resulting in serious complications is as high as 16% in SCD.10 In multiple randomized clinical trials, prophylactic penicillin dosing has proved beneficial in these patients, demonstrating a decrease in the risk of (1) pneumococcal infection and (2) early death during the study period, with minimal adverse effects.5
Prophylactic penicillin dosing should be initiated during infancy in patients with SCA. From ages 3 months to 3 years, the dosage of penicillin V is 125 mg twice daily; from 3 to 5 years, 250 mg twice daily. After age 5 years, the decision to continue penicillin is individualized, with consideration of prior severe pneumococcal infection and general preventive health maintenance. Penicillin-allergic patients can be given erythromycin. All patients with SCD who have had surgical splenectomy should be placed on antibiotic prophylaxis (ie, penicillin as dosed above).5
The polyvalent pneumococcal vaccine has resulted in significant protection against invasive pneumococcal disease; mortality from pneumococcal disease among patients with SCD who are younger than 14 years has decreased dramatically since the vaccine was introduced.6 For all patients with SCD, the standard PCV13 series should be administered beginning at age 6 weeks. A 2-dose series of the PPSV23 vaccine, which includes more Streptococcus pneumoniae serotypes than the PCV13 vaccine, should be administered beginning at age 2 years or 8 weeks after completion of the PCV13 series, whichever comes first.
Prevention of flu, COVID-19, and other vaccine-preventable illness
Influenza. Beginning at age 6 months, all patients with SCD should receive inactivated influenza vaccine annually at the beginning of the influenza season. Avoid using the live attenuated vaccine (Flumist) because of an associated increased risk of severe or complicated infection.11
Continue to: COVID-19, caused by severe...
COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is especially problematic in patients with SCD12; infection causes mortality at a rate as high as 7%.5 The SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine series is potentially lifesaving for these patients.12 In addition, at times of high community prevalence, make an effort to minimize patients’ exposure to SARS-CoV-2, by providing telemedicine visits.
Follow the immunization schedule. Patients with SCD should receive all standard recommended vaccinations (ie, those recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.a) Inactivated virus vaccines are preferred in SCD, when available. For patients who are behind on vaccinations, use a standard vaccine catch-up schedule.
Screening and prevention of complications such as stroke
Determining the risk of stroke. Patients with SCA who are not monitored have a 10% to 11% lifetime prevalence of stroke.5,6,10 An abnormal transcranial Doppler (TCD) study (defined as a time-averaged mean maximum velocity ≥ 200 cm/s in the distal internal carotid artery or proximal middle cerebral artery) is predictive of a 40% risk of stroke in patients with SCA. With chronic transfusion therapy, a 92% reduction in the risk of stroke is achievable.10
All patients with SCA should undergo annual screening with TCD ultrasonography from ages 2 to 16 years.6 Those who have an abnormal TCD study should receive chronic transfusion therapy. Screening is not recommended for patients with SCD or SCT.
Other complications. Screen and manage as follows:
- Proteinuria. Left untreated, SCD can affect the kidneys and lead to renal failure. Annual screening for proteinuria is recommended beginning at age 10 years, with referral when the test is positive and reproducible.
- Lung disease and cardiovascular disease. Screening for progression of lung disease and for cardiovascular disease is not recommended in asymptomatic patients with SCD, except through the history.
- Blood pressure screening and management of hypertension are based on Joint National Committee (JNC 8) guidelines.13
- Screening for ocular complications by an eye care provider is recommended beginning at age 10 years.
TABLE 26,9 summarizes recommendations on the prevention and early detection of complications of SCD.
Continue to: Pregnancy planning
Pregnancy planning
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that a “reproductive life plan” be part of every person’s health journey (TABLE 2).6,9 The plan is especially relevant for female patients who have a known heritable concern, such as SCD, in which a pregnancy is more likely to be complicated by growth restriction, preterm delivery, and fetal demise. These risks are reduced—but not eliminated—with intensive surveillance of the pregnancy. Pregnancy in patients with SCD is also more likely to be complicated by preeclampsia, venous thromboembolism, infection, and maternal death.
Other recommendations:
- Every patient with SCD should receive genetic counselling before conceiving, when possible.
- Pregnancy should be considered high risk in women who have SCD, and monitored as such.
- Women with SCD can use any method of contraception—none of which put them at increased risk of complications, compared to the general population. Rather, it is pregnancy that puts them at greater risk of morbidity and mortality in every age group.
Ambulatory management of acute complications
Vaso-occlusive pain crisis. The hallmark of SCD is the acute pain crisis. Almost all patients with SCD (and the occasional patient with SCT) will experience a pain crisis. In more affluent countries, management of an acute pain crisis almost always includes opioid analgesia.6
For the most part, pain crises manifest in a predictable pattern. Although patients with SCD might have acute pain, other causes of acute pain, such as an acute intra-abdominal process or (in older patients) a cardiac process, should be considered as well.
For patients having a vaso-occlusive pain crisis, achieving rapid analgesia is key to management. Ready availability of narcotics, at home or under observation, prevents subsequent hospitalization; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be used as adjuvant treatment in patients without contraindications.5,6 An individualized treatment plan, including access to analgesia at an appropriate dosage, should be negotiated, and adhered to, by the patient and the care team.
Continue to: Rapid access to higher-level care...
Rapid access to higher-level care, including parenteral analgesia, is important if outpatient management is desired. In addition, escalation to a higher level of care should occur if there is hypoxia (or another reason to suspect acute chest syndrome [ACS; discussed in a bit]) or dehydration that requires parenteral therapy. Use of nondrug therapy, such as heat, should be encouraged. The care team should work with the patient’s school or employer to negotiate time away through the federal Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, or other means, because a pain crisis is not a planned event.
Fever. Because of the risk of serious infection as a consequence of functional asplenia, fever is particularly worrisome in patients with SCA and problematic in patients with SCD. The increased risk begins as the physiologic level of Hb F declines beginning at age 2 months.
ACS, characterized by a combination of respiratory symptoms or new infiltrates, often manifests initially with fever, and can progress rapidly to death if treatment is delayed. The initial signs and symptoms may be subtle; suspicion should remain high in any patient with respiratory symptoms who is newly hypoxic, even those who do not have fever. Osteomyelitis, another febrile illness, is also potentially life threatening if not treated promptly.
All patients with SCD whose body temperature is > 101.3 °F should be evaluated with appropriate clinical laboratory testing (complete blood count; inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein; basic chemistry parameters; and other tests as indicated, including serum lactate and urine culture), blood culture, and chest radiography. Empiric parenteral antibiotics are required until the patient is known to be nonbacteremic, regardless of vaccination status. Outpatient follow-up and even outpatient management with ceftriaxone can be offered in select circumstances (eg, if the patient so desires or is nontoxic, and if close follow-up can be assured).14 If ACS is a possibility based on symptoms or radiographic findings, outpatient management is not an option.
Anemia. Patients with SCA, and some with SCD, have an Hb level that is chronically, sometimes critically, low. A baseline Hb level should be established for a patient with SCD and then monitored periodically. A drop in the Hb level > 2 g/dL from baseline (or an initial Hb level of 6 g/dL if the baseline is unknown) constitutes acute anemia. Patients in whom anemia has been diagnosed should be emergently evaluated for acute splenic sequestration, an aplastic episode, a delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction, ACS, or infection, and should be treated appropriately.
Continue to: Simple transfusion can be used...
Simple transfusion can be used in an acute setting to restore and maintain Hb at a safe level. Iron overload and formation of RBC alloantigen are associated with multiple transfusions; once either of these conditions is established, subsequent transfusion therapy can be harmful. Care must be taken to prescribe transfusion appropriately; leukocyte-depleted RBCs should be used when available.
It is important to define specific goals of transfusion to optimize its use. Patients who have received multiple transfusions should have enhanced monitoring for bloodborne infection, such as hepatitis C virus. Acute aplastic crises are caused by parvovirus B19; when other members of the household who have SCD are present, they should be monitored for this viral infection with serial measurement of Hb and white blood cell count.6
Other acute problems. Should stroke, acute renal failure, priapism, or hepatobiliary complications develop, evaluate the patient rapidly and refer them to the appropriate care team for management.
Management of chronic complications
Chronic pain is a problem for many patients with SCD. The etiology of this symptom should be investigated fully because a vaso-occlusive crisis is characterized by acute pain. Avascular necrosis or ulcers due to chronic vaso-occlusion should be managed definitively when possible. Adjuvant therapy for chronic pain, such as heat or massage, should be encouraged.
In some patients, chronic pain without objective findings develops over time and becomes unresponsive to nonopioid pharmacotherapy. Such patients might require chronic opioid therapy, the need for which is dictated by the ability of the patient to perform their activities of daily living. For patients who require long-term daily narcotic drugs, best practices—obtaining informed consent, using registries and contracts, random drug testing, and providing naloxone [Narcan] for overdose emergency use—should be employed.15
Continue to: Chronic anemia
Chronic anemia can be managed with transfusion when elevating the Hb level is required (eg, preoperatively, to prevent stroke, to manage priapism). For some patients, ongoing transfusion is required; care should be taken to avoid iron overload and hemolysis due to antibody formation. Ongoing surveillance for these complications is required.6
Other chronic problems. Patients with SCD who develop avascular necrosis, vaso-occlusive ulcers, pulmonary hypertension, renal disease, recurrent priapism, or ophthalmologic complications should be co-managed with a care team.6
Pharmacotherapy and SCA
A principal goal in the management of patients with SCA is prevention of vaso-occlusive events, including ACS and acute pain crises.
Hydroxyurea, a key component of SCA treatment, is a ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor that increases the level of Hb F, thus reducing the absolute number of symptomatic vaso-occlusive events and increasing arterial blood flow. It is most useful for patients who have multiple crises. The drug prolongs survival and reduces the need for transfusion and hospitalization.4,5
Hydroxyurea can be started in patients at age 9 months; blood testing should be performed at the start of treatment and the dosage titrated based on blood counts. Initial blood work includes:
- Hb level;
- Hb electrophoresis with the quantitative percentage of Hb F;
- complete blood count with differential and reticulocyte counts;
- chemistry profile (electrolytes, lactate dehydrogenase, total protein, albumin, total bilirubin);
- liver function tests (aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase);
- measurement of renal function (blood urea nitrogen, creatinine);
- serum vitamin B12 and folate;
- serum iron, total iron-binding capacity, and ferritin;
- hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and parvovirus B19 antigen; and
- serologic testing for HIV.
Continue to: Testing should also...
Testing should also include a pregnancy test for postmenarchal females because hydroxyurea is in US Food and Drug Administration pregnancy risk category X.
Avoid hydroxyurea in lactating women; dose the drug renally in the setting of renal disease. Because hydroxyurea has a high rate of serious adverse effects and drug-drug interactions, it should be offered in conjunction with an individualized care plan.
Hydroxyurea can also be offered to patients with other forms of SCD who have recurrent vaso-occlusive symptoms.
Two newer medications improve oxygen delivery in patients with SCD. Voxelotor, approved in 2019, works to reduce Hb S polymerization by binding to the alpha chain of Hb S and, subsequently, increasing its oxygen affinity. The drug is generally well tolerated and can be used in patients with SCD who are ≥ 12 years.16 Crizanlizumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against P-selectin, an adhesion molecule located on endothelial cells and activated platelets. The efficacy of crizanlizumab was demonstrated in the SUSTAIN trial, in which it reduced vaso-occlusive pain in patients ≥ 16 years.17
All of these medications have a narrow toxic–therapeutic window. They should therefore be administered with the participation of a multidisciplinary care team.
Continue to: The need to coordinated, comprehensive care
The need for coordinated, comprehensive care
Patients with SCD report how challenging their disease is. All patients with SCD are more likely than age-matched counterparts to experience loss, including workdays for disability, educational potential, workdays for caregivers of affected children, and time spent in the hospital or the emergency department.4,5 These losses, with the concomitant stress associated with chronic illness and the struggle to manage recurrent pain crises and chronic complications, are often overwhelming.
Comprehensive care can, as we have illustrated in this discussion, mitigate these losses. Such care should include extensive education, genetic counseling, infection prevention, pain management, and implementation of evidence-based management guidelines.3,4,6 Patients with SCD report that their illness outlook would be better with
- greater provider knowledge of SCD,
- destigmatization of narcotics for SCD vaso-occlusive pain management,
- optimal coordination among members of the health care team, and
- improved transportation for appointments.
Patients also report that barriers associated with the unique US health care financing system are often insurmountable. As patients with SCD live longer, improved care management should focus on reducing these barriers and enhancing their quality of life.2,18,19
CORRESPONDENCE
Robert Allen Perkins, MD, MPH, Department of Family Medicine, University of South Alabama College of Medicine, 1601 Center Street, 2N, Mobile, AL 36604; perkins@health. southalabama.edu
The group of disorders known as sickle cell disease (SCD) is one of the more common genetic hemoglobinopathies. Homozygous production of the S variant of hemoglobin (Hb) in red blood cells (RBCs) results in profound sickling under conditions of physiologic stress, a condition known as Hb SS disease. People with Hb SS disease are at risk of chronic hemolytic anemia, tissue ischemia that causes vaso-occlusive pain syndrome, and other vaso-occlusive complications.1 They also experience a > 20-year reduction in life expectancy, compared to age-matched controls; onset of risk of early death is usually after age 25 years.
People with heterozygous expression of the Hb S variant—that is, from one parent, and expression of Hb A from the other parent—are said to have sickle cell trait (SCT). They typically do not have symptoms of SCD, although they can experience vaso-occlusive pain under severe physiologic stress and suffer sudden death more often than age-matched controls. People who are heterozygous for Hb S but have another hemoglobinopathy (eg,
Alleviating the harsh burden of illness. All patients with SCD are more likely than age-matched counterparts to experience income loss because of their disability; the same loss is true for their caregivers. Such loss, when combined with time spent in the health care system, can be catastrophic.2,3 But this loss can be mitigated with access to regular, comprehensive health care that includes the steps described here to detect SCD early and reduce the likelihood of complications.4,5
To begin, TABLE 16 lists typical laboratory findings and classifications in patients who are homozygous or heterozygous for Hb S, and therefore experience more severe Hb SS disease or milder SCD, respectively.
Who should be screened for hemoglobinopathy?
Because of the presence of the fetal Hb (Hb F) in newborns and infants, clinical signs of Hb SS before age 2 months are uncommon. Neonatal clinical laboratory testing is necessary for prompt identification of Hb SS; universal screening is now required by all states (although parents can opt out by claiming a religious exemption). A positive test result requires confirmatory testing: most often, Hb electrophoresis or DNA testing.
A confirmed positive homozygous (Hb SS) or heterozygous (Hb S) result is reported to the patient’s identified medical home for subsequent management. Thus, pediatric patients with SCD can be identified, and prophylactic treatment initiated, as early as possible. Later in the patient’s life, repeat screening for SCD and SCT is recommended at the initiation of pregnancy care7 and prior to the start of high-intensity physical training, as occurs in college and professional athletics and in certain branches of the military.8
Putting prevention into practice
Some of the recommendations we make to prevent complications of SCD are directed only at patients with severe disease—ie, those who have Hb SS SCD or sickle β0 thalassemia (SCA); the rest apply to all patients with SCD (TABLE 26,9). (For patients with SCT, follow guidelines as you would for patients who do not have SCD, unless otherwise noted.)
Continue to: In addition, keep in mind...
In addition, keep in mind that preventive recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force (Exhibit 5 in the Expert Panel Report)6 apply to all patients with SCD and SCT.
Prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease
All patients with SCD are assumed to have lifelong splenic dysfunction that begins in childhood. This is particularly true for those with SCA. In the absence of vaccination, the lifetime incidence of pneumococcal bacteremia resulting in serious complications is as high as 16% in SCD.10 In multiple randomized clinical trials, prophylactic penicillin dosing has proved beneficial in these patients, demonstrating a decrease in the risk of (1) pneumococcal infection and (2) early death during the study period, with minimal adverse effects.5
Prophylactic penicillin dosing should be initiated during infancy in patients with SCA. From ages 3 months to 3 years, the dosage of penicillin V is 125 mg twice daily; from 3 to 5 years, 250 mg twice daily. After age 5 years, the decision to continue penicillin is individualized, with consideration of prior severe pneumococcal infection and general preventive health maintenance. Penicillin-allergic patients can be given erythromycin. All patients with SCD who have had surgical splenectomy should be placed on antibiotic prophylaxis (ie, penicillin as dosed above).5
The polyvalent pneumococcal vaccine has resulted in significant protection against invasive pneumococcal disease; mortality from pneumococcal disease among patients with SCD who are younger than 14 years has decreased dramatically since the vaccine was introduced.6 For all patients with SCD, the standard PCV13 series should be administered beginning at age 6 weeks. A 2-dose series of the PPSV23 vaccine, which includes more Streptococcus pneumoniae serotypes than the PCV13 vaccine, should be administered beginning at age 2 years or 8 weeks after completion of the PCV13 series, whichever comes first.
Prevention of flu, COVID-19, and other vaccine-preventable illness
Influenza. Beginning at age 6 months, all patients with SCD should receive inactivated influenza vaccine annually at the beginning of the influenza season. Avoid using the live attenuated vaccine (Flumist) because of an associated increased risk of severe or complicated infection.11
Continue to: COVID-19, caused by severe...
COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is especially problematic in patients with SCD12; infection causes mortality at a rate as high as 7%.5 The SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine series is potentially lifesaving for these patients.12 In addition, at times of high community prevalence, make an effort to minimize patients’ exposure to SARS-CoV-2, by providing telemedicine visits.
Follow the immunization schedule. Patients with SCD should receive all standard recommended vaccinations (ie, those recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.a) Inactivated virus vaccines are preferred in SCD, when available. For patients who are behind on vaccinations, use a standard vaccine catch-up schedule.
Screening and prevention of complications such as stroke
Determining the risk of stroke. Patients with SCA who are not monitored have a 10% to 11% lifetime prevalence of stroke.5,6,10 An abnormal transcranial Doppler (TCD) study (defined as a time-averaged mean maximum velocity ≥ 200 cm/s in the distal internal carotid artery or proximal middle cerebral artery) is predictive of a 40% risk of stroke in patients with SCA. With chronic transfusion therapy, a 92% reduction in the risk of stroke is achievable.10
All patients with SCA should undergo annual screening with TCD ultrasonography from ages 2 to 16 years.6 Those who have an abnormal TCD study should receive chronic transfusion therapy. Screening is not recommended for patients with SCD or SCT.
Other complications. Screen and manage as follows:
- Proteinuria. Left untreated, SCD can affect the kidneys and lead to renal failure. Annual screening for proteinuria is recommended beginning at age 10 years, with referral when the test is positive and reproducible.
- Lung disease and cardiovascular disease. Screening for progression of lung disease and for cardiovascular disease is not recommended in asymptomatic patients with SCD, except through the history.
- Blood pressure screening and management of hypertension are based on Joint National Committee (JNC 8) guidelines.13
- Screening for ocular complications by an eye care provider is recommended beginning at age 10 years.
TABLE 26,9 summarizes recommendations on the prevention and early detection of complications of SCD.
Continue to: Pregnancy planning
Pregnancy planning
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that a “reproductive life plan” be part of every person’s health journey (TABLE 2).6,9 The plan is especially relevant for female patients who have a known heritable concern, such as SCD, in which a pregnancy is more likely to be complicated by growth restriction, preterm delivery, and fetal demise. These risks are reduced—but not eliminated—with intensive surveillance of the pregnancy. Pregnancy in patients with SCD is also more likely to be complicated by preeclampsia, venous thromboembolism, infection, and maternal death.
Other recommendations:
- Every patient with SCD should receive genetic counselling before conceiving, when possible.
- Pregnancy should be considered high risk in women who have SCD, and monitored as such.
- Women with SCD can use any method of contraception—none of which put them at increased risk of complications, compared to the general population. Rather, it is pregnancy that puts them at greater risk of morbidity and mortality in every age group.
Ambulatory management of acute complications
Vaso-occlusive pain crisis. The hallmark of SCD is the acute pain crisis. Almost all patients with SCD (and the occasional patient with SCT) will experience a pain crisis. In more affluent countries, management of an acute pain crisis almost always includes opioid analgesia.6
For the most part, pain crises manifest in a predictable pattern. Although patients with SCD might have acute pain, other causes of acute pain, such as an acute intra-abdominal process or (in older patients) a cardiac process, should be considered as well.
For patients having a vaso-occlusive pain crisis, achieving rapid analgesia is key to management. Ready availability of narcotics, at home or under observation, prevents subsequent hospitalization; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can be used as adjuvant treatment in patients without contraindications.5,6 An individualized treatment plan, including access to analgesia at an appropriate dosage, should be negotiated, and adhered to, by the patient and the care team.
Continue to: Rapid access to higher-level care...
Rapid access to higher-level care, including parenteral analgesia, is important if outpatient management is desired. In addition, escalation to a higher level of care should occur if there is hypoxia (or another reason to suspect acute chest syndrome [ACS; discussed in a bit]) or dehydration that requires parenteral therapy. Use of nondrug therapy, such as heat, should be encouraged. The care team should work with the patient’s school or employer to negotiate time away through the federal Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, or other means, because a pain crisis is not a planned event.
Fever. Because of the risk of serious infection as a consequence of functional asplenia, fever is particularly worrisome in patients with SCA and problematic in patients with SCD. The increased risk begins as the physiologic level of Hb F declines beginning at age 2 months.
ACS, characterized by a combination of respiratory symptoms or new infiltrates, often manifests initially with fever, and can progress rapidly to death if treatment is delayed. The initial signs and symptoms may be subtle; suspicion should remain high in any patient with respiratory symptoms who is newly hypoxic, even those who do not have fever. Osteomyelitis, another febrile illness, is also potentially life threatening if not treated promptly.
All patients with SCD whose body temperature is > 101.3 °F should be evaluated with appropriate clinical laboratory testing (complete blood count; inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein; basic chemistry parameters; and other tests as indicated, including serum lactate and urine culture), blood culture, and chest radiography. Empiric parenteral antibiotics are required until the patient is known to be nonbacteremic, regardless of vaccination status. Outpatient follow-up and even outpatient management with ceftriaxone can be offered in select circumstances (eg, if the patient so desires or is nontoxic, and if close follow-up can be assured).14 If ACS is a possibility based on symptoms or radiographic findings, outpatient management is not an option.
Anemia. Patients with SCA, and some with SCD, have an Hb level that is chronically, sometimes critically, low. A baseline Hb level should be established for a patient with SCD and then monitored periodically. A drop in the Hb level > 2 g/dL from baseline (or an initial Hb level of 6 g/dL if the baseline is unknown) constitutes acute anemia. Patients in whom anemia has been diagnosed should be emergently evaluated for acute splenic sequestration, an aplastic episode, a delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction, ACS, or infection, and should be treated appropriately.
Continue to: Simple transfusion can be used...
Simple transfusion can be used in an acute setting to restore and maintain Hb at a safe level. Iron overload and formation of RBC alloantigen are associated with multiple transfusions; once either of these conditions is established, subsequent transfusion therapy can be harmful. Care must be taken to prescribe transfusion appropriately; leukocyte-depleted RBCs should be used when available.
It is important to define specific goals of transfusion to optimize its use. Patients who have received multiple transfusions should have enhanced monitoring for bloodborne infection, such as hepatitis C virus. Acute aplastic crises are caused by parvovirus B19; when other members of the household who have SCD are present, they should be monitored for this viral infection with serial measurement of Hb and white blood cell count.6
Other acute problems. Should stroke, acute renal failure, priapism, or hepatobiliary complications develop, evaluate the patient rapidly and refer them to the appropriate care team for management.
Management of chronic complications
Chronic pain is a problem for many patients with SCD. The etiology of this symptom should be investigated fully because a vaso-occlusive crisis is characterized by acute pain. Avascular necrosis or ulcers due to chronic vaso-occlusion should be managed definitively when possible. Adjuvant therapy for chronic pain, such as heat or massage, should be encouraged.
In some patients, chronic pain without objective findings develops over time and becomes unresponsive to nonopioid pharmacotherapy. Such patients might require chronic opioid therapy, the need for which is dictated by the ability of the patient to perform their activities of daily living. For patients who require long-term daily narcotic drugs, best practices—obtaining informed consent, using registries and contracts, random drug testing, and providing naloxone [Narcan] for overdose emergency use—should be employed.15
Continue to: Chronic anemia
Chronic anemia can be managed with transfusion when elevating the Hb level is required (eg, preoperatively, to prevent stroke, to manage priapism). For some patients, ongoing transfusion is required; care should be taken to avoid iron overload and hemolysis due to antibody formation. Ongoing surveillance for these complications is required.6
Other chronic problems. Patients with SCD who develop avascular necrosis, vaso-occlusive ulcers, pulmonary hypertension, renal disease, recurrent priapism, or ophthalmologic complications should be co-managed with a care team.6
Pharmacotherapy and SCA
A principal goal in the management of patients with SCA is prevention of vaso-occlusive events, including ACS and acute pain crises.
Hydroxyurea, a key component of SCA treatment, is a ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor that increases the level of Hb F, thus reducing the absolute number of symptomatic vaso-occlusive events and increasing arterial blood flow. It is most useful for patients who have multiple crises. The drug prolongs survival and reduces the need for transfusion and hospitalization.4,5
Hydroxyurea can be started in patients at age 9 months; blood testing should be performed at the start of treatment and the dosage titrated based on blood counts. Initial blood work includes:
- Hb level;
- Hb electrophoresis with the quantitative percentage of Hb F;
- complete blood count with differential and reticulocyte counts;
- chemistry profile (electrolytes, lactate dehydrogenase, total protein, albumin, total bilirubin);
- liver function tests (aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase);
- measurement of renal function (blood urea nitrogen, creatinine);
- serum vitamin B12 and folate;
- serum iron, total iron-binding capacity, and ferritin;
- hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and parvovirus B19 antigen; and
- serologic testing for HIV.
Continue to: Testing should also...
Testing should also include a pregnancy test for postmenarchal females because hydroxyurea is in US Food and Drug Administration pregnancy risk category X.
Avoid hydroxyurea in lactating women; dose the drug renally in the setting of renal disease. Because hydroxyurea has a high rate of serious adverse effects and drug-drug interactions, it should be offered in conjunction with an individualized care plan.
Hydroxyurea can also be offered to patients with other forms of SCD who have recurrent vaso-occlusive symptoms.
Two newer medications improve oxygen delivery in patients with SCD. Voxelotor, approved in 2019, works to reduce Hb S polymerization by binding to the alpha chain of Hb S and, subsequently, increasing its oxygen affinity. The drug is generally well tolerated and can be used in patients with SCD who are ≥ 12 years.16 Crizanlizumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against P-selectin, an adhesion molecule located on endothelial cells and activated platelets. The efficacy of crizanlizumab was demonstrated in the SUSTAIN trial, in which it reduced vaso-occlusive pain in patients ≥ 16 years.17
All of these medications have a narrow toxic–therapeutic window. They should therefore be administered with the participation of a multidisciplinary care team.
Continue to: The need to coordinated, comprehensive care
The need for coordinated, comprehensive care
Patients with SCD report how challenging their disease is. All patients with SCD are more likely than age-matched counterparts to experience loss, including workdays for disability, educational potential, workdays for caregivers of affected children, and time spent in the hospital or the emergency department.4,5 These losses, with the concomitant stress associated with chronic illness and the struggle to manage recurrent pain crises and chronic complications, are often overwhelming.
Comprehensive care can, as we have illustrated in this discussion, mitigate these losses. Such care should include extensive education, genetic counseling, infection prevention, pain management, and implementation of evidence-based management guidelines.3,4,6 Patients with SCD report that their illness outlook would be better with
- greater provider knowledge of SCD,
- destigmatization of narcotics for SCD vaso-occlusive pain management,
- optimal coordination among members of the health care team, and
- improved transportation for appointments.
Patients also report that barriers associated with the unique US health care financing system are often insurmountable. As patients with SCD live longer, improved care management should focus on reducing these barriers and enhancing their quality of life.2,18,19
CORRESPONDENCE
Robert Allen Perkins, MD, MPH, Department of Family Medicine, University of South Alabama College of Medicine, 1601 Center Street, 2N, Mobile, AL 36604; perkins@health. southalabama.edu
1. Lubeck D, Agodoa I, Bhakta N, et al. Estimated life expectancy and income of patients with sickle cell disease compared with those without sickle cell disease. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e1915374. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15374
2. Swanson ME, Grosse SD, Kulkarni R. Disability among individuals with sickle cell disease: literature review from a public health perspective. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(6 suppl 4):S390-S397. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.09.006
3. Moskowitz JT, Butensky E, Harmatz P, et al. Caregiving time in sickle cell disease: psychological effects in maternal caregivers. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;48:64-71. doi:10.1002/pbc.20792
4. Mehta SR, Afenyi-Annan A, Lottenberg R. Opportunities to improve outcomes in sickle cell disease. Am Fam Phys. 2006;74:303-310.
5. Yawn BP, John-Sowah J. Management of sickle cell disease: recommendations from the 2014 Expert Panel Report. Am Fam Phys. 2015;92:1069-1077.
6. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. Evidence-based management of sickle cell disease. Expert Panel Report, 2014. Accessed June 9, 2022. www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/sickle-cell-disease-guidelines
7. Committee Opinion No. 690: Carrier screening in the age of genomic medicine. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:e35-e40. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001951
8. Jordan LB, Smith-Whitley K, Treadwell MJ, et al. Screening U.S. college athletes for their sickle cell disease carrier status. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41:S406-S412. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.09.014
9. Adams RJ, McKie VC, Brambilla D, et al. Stroke prevention trial in sickle cell anemia. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19:110-129. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00099-8
10. Alzahrani F, Alaidarous K, Alqarni S, et al. Incidence and predictors of bacterial infections in febrile children with sickle cell disease. Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2021;8:236-238 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpam.2020.12.005
11. Committee on Infectious Diseases. Recommendations for prevention and control of influenza in children, 2021-2022. Pediatrics. 2021;148: e2021053745. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-053745
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Study finds people with sickle cell disease who developed coronavirus disease have high rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and death. October 20, 2020. Accessed June 9, 2022. www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/sicklecell/features/scd-and-covid-19.html
13. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 Evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014;311:507-520.
14. Baskin MN, Goh XL, Heeney MM, et al. Bacteremia risk and outpatient management of febrile patients with sickle cell disease. Pediatrics. 2013;131:1035-1041. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-2139
15. Osunkwo I, Veeramreddy P, Arnall J, et al. Use of buprenorphine/naloxone in amelio rating acute care utilization and chronic opioid use in adults with sickle cell disease. Blood. 2019;134 (suppl 1):790. doi: 10.1182/blood-2019-126589
16. Vichinsky E, Hoppe CC, Ataga KI, et al; HOPE Trial Investigators. A phase 3 randomized trial of voxelotor in sickle cell disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:509-519. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903212
17. Ataga KI, Kutlar A, Kanter J, et al. Crizanlizumab for the prevention of pain crises in sickle cell disease. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:429-439. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611770
18. Dixit R, Nettem S, Madan SS, et al. Folate supplementation in people with sickle cell disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD011130. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011130.pub2
19. Brennan-Cook J, Bonnabeau E, Aponte R, et al. Barriers to care for persons with sickle cell disease: the case manager’s opportunity to improve patient outcomes. Prof Case Manag. 2018;23:213-219. doi: 10.1097/NCM.0000000000000260
1. Lubeck D, Agodoa I, Bhakta N, et al. Estimated life expectancy and income of patients with sickle cell disease compared with those without sickle cell disease. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e1915374. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15374
2. Swanson ME, Grosse SD, Kulkarni R. Disability among individuals with sickle cell disease: literature review from a public health perspective. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(6 suppl 4):S390-S397. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.09.006
3. Moskowitz JT, Butensky E, Harmatz P, et al. Caregiving time in sickle cell disease: psychological effects in maternal caregivers. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;48:64-71. doi:10.1002/pbc.20792
4. Mehta SR, Afenyi-Annan A, Lottenberg R. Opportunities to improve outcomes in sickle cell disease. Am Fam Phys. 2006;74:303-310.
5. Yawn BP, John-Sowah J. Management of sickle cell disease: recommendations from the 2014 Expert Panel Report. Am Fam Phys. 2015;92:1069-1077.
6. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. Evidence-based management of sickle cell disease. Expert Panel Report, 2014. Accessed June 9, 2022. www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/sickle-cell-disease-guidelines
7. Committee Opinion No. 690: Carrier screening in the age of genomic medicine. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:e35-e40. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001951
8. Jordan LB, Smith-Whitley K, Treadwell MJ, et al. Screening U.S. college athletes for their sickle cell disease carrier status. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41:S406-S412. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.09.014
9. Adams RJ, McKie VC, Brambilla D, et al. Stroke prevention trial in sickle cell anemia. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19:110-129. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00099-8
10. Alzahrani F, Alaidarous K, Alqarni S, et al. Incidence and predictors of bacterial infections in febrile children with sickle cell disease. Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2021;8:236-238 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpam.2020.12.005
11. Committee on Infectious Diseases. Recommendations for prevention and control of influenza in children, 2021-2022. Pediatrics. 2021;148: e2021053745. doi: 10.1542/peds.2021-053745
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Study finds people with sickle cell disease who developed coronavirus disease have high rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and death. October 20, 2020. Accessed June 9, 2022. www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/sicklecell/features/scd-and-covid-19.html
13. James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 Evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014;311:507-520.
14. Baskin MN, Goh XL, Heeney MM, et al. Bacteremia risk and outpatient management of febrile patients with sickle cell disease. Pediatrics. 2013;131:1035-1041. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-2139
15. Osunkwo I, Veeramreddy P, Arnall J, et al. Use of buprenorphine/naloxone in amelio rating acute care utilization and chronic opioid use in adults with sickle cell disease. Blood. 2019;134 (suppl 1):790. doi: 10.1182/blood-2019-126589
16. Vichinsky E, Hoppe CC, Ataga KI, et al; HOPE Trial Investigators. A phase 3 randomized trial of voxelotor in sickle cell disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:509-519. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903212
17. Ataga KI, Kutlar A, Kanter J, et al. Crizanlizumab for the prevention of pain crises in sickle cell disease. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:429-439. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611770
18. Dixit R, Nettem S, Madan SS, et al. Folate supplementation in people with sickle cell disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD011130. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011130.pub2
19. Brennan-Cook J, Bonnabeau E, Aponte R, et al. Barriers to care for persons with sickle cell disease: the case manager’s opportunity to improve patient outcomes. Prof Case Manag. 2018;23:213-219. doi: 10.1097/NCM.0000000000000260
PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS
› Offer rapid access to narcotic analgesia for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who have recurrent vaso-occlusive crises, to prevent unnecessary hospitalization. A
› Provide oral penicillin prophylaxis against pneumococcal disease in patients < 5 years of age who have sickle cell anemia (SCA), but not in children whose SCD is less severe. A
› Screen all patients with SCA annually, beginning at age 2 years until age 16 years, for their risk of stroke, using a transcranial Doppler study. A
› Administer the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine series to all patients with SCD, unless contraindicated. A
Strength of recommendation (SOR)
A Good-quality patient-oriented evidence
B Inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence
C Consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence, case series
FDA warning: Lymphoma drug heightens risk of death
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today that the cancer drug duvelisib (Copiktra, Verastem), a PI3 kinase inhibitor, may increase the risk of death and serious side effects.
Duvelisib was approved in 2018 to treat adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who had received at least two prior therapies that did not work or stopped working.
However, more recent 5-year overall survival results from the randomized phase 3 DUO clinical trial found a possible increased risk of death with duvelisib, compared with another drug used to treat leukemia and lymphoma, according to an FDA Drug Safety Communication.
“The trial also found Copiktra was associated with a higher risk of serious side effects, including infections, diarrhea, inflammation of the intestines and lungs, skin reactions, and high liver enzyme levels in the blood,” states the warning, which advises prescribers to weigh the risks and benefits of continued use versus use of other treatments.
More specifically, median 5-year overall survival among 319 patients with CLL or SLL in the DUO trial was 52.3 months with duvelisib versus 63.3 months with the monoclonal antibody ofatumumab (hazard ratio, 1.09 overall and 1.06 among patients who received at least two prior lines of therapy).
Serious adverse events of grade 3 or higher were also more common in those treated with duvelisib.
Of note, in April, the FDA also announced that it was withdrawing approval of the relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma indication for duvelisib following a voluntary request by the drug manufacturer Secura Bio.
A public meeting will be scheduled to discuss the findings of the trial and whether the drug should continue to be prescribed.
This FDA warning follows the agency’s June 1 withdrawal of approval for umbralisib (Ukoniq), another PI3 kinase inhibitor, following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”
As reported by this news organization, umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.
“These safety findings were similar for other medicines in the same PI3 kinase inhibitor class, which were discussed at an advisory committee meeting of non-FDA experts in April 2022,” according to the FDA warning.
The FDA urges patients and health care professionals to report side effects involving duvelisib or other medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today that the cancer drug duvelisib (Copiktra, Verastem), a PI3 kinase inhibitor, may increase the risk of death and serious side effects.
Duvelisib was approved in 2018 to treat adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who had received at least two prior therapies that did not work or stopped working.
However, more recent 5-year overall survival results from the randomized phase 3 DUO clinical trial found a possible increased risk of death with duvelisib, compared with another drug used to treat leukemia and lymphoma, according to an FDA Drug Safety Communication.
“The trial also found Copiktra was associated with a higher risk of serious side effects, including infections, diarrhea, inflammation of the intestines and lungs, skin reactions, and high liver enzyme levels in the blood,” states the warning, which advises prescribers to weigh the risks and benefits of continued use versus use of other treatments.
More specifically, median 5-year overall survival among 319 patients with CLL or SLL in the DUO trial was 52.3 months with duvelisib versus 63.3 months with the monoclonal antibody ofatumumab (hazard ratio, 1.09 overall and 1.06 among patients who received at least two prior lines of therapy).
Serious adverse events of grade 3 or higher were also more common in those treated with duvelisib.
Of note, in April, the FDA also announced that it was withdrawing approval of the relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma indication for duvelisib following a voluntary request by the drug manufacturer Secura Bio.
A public meeting will be scheduled to discuss the findings of the trial and whether the drug should continue to be prescribed.
This FDA warning follows the agency’s June 1 withdrawal of approval for umbralisib (Ukoniq), another PI3 kinase inhibitor, following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”
As reported by this news organization, umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.
“These safety findings were similar for other medicines in the same PI3 kinase inhibitor class, which were discussed at an advisory committee meeting of non-FDA experts in April 2022,” according to the FDA warning.
The FDA urges patients and health care professionals to report side effects involving duvelisib or other medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today that the cancer drug duvelisib (Copiktra, Verastem), a PI3 kinase inhibitor, may increase the risk of death and serious side effects.
Duvelisib was approved in 2018 to treat adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who had received at least two prior therapies that did not work or stopped working.
However, more recent 5-year overall survival results from the randomized phase 3 DUO clinical trial found a possible increased risk of death with duvelisib, compared with another drug used to treat leukemia and lymphoma, according to an FDA Drug Safety Communication.
“The trial also found Copiktra was associated with a higher risk of serious side effects, including infections, diarrhea, inflammation of the intestines and lungs, skin reactions, and high liver enzyme levels in the blood,” states the warning, which advises prescribers to weigh the risks and benefits of continued use versus use of other treatments.
More specifically, median 5-year overall survival among 319 patients with CLL or SLL in the DUO trial was 52.3 months with duvelisib versus 63.3 months with the monoclonal antibody ofatumumab (hazard ratio, 1.09 overall and 1.06 among patients who received at least two prior lines of therapy).
Serious adverse events of grade 3 or higher were also more common in those treated with duvelisib.
Of note, in April, the FDA also announced that it was withdrawing approval of the relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma indication for duvelisib following a voluntary request by the drug manufacturer Secura Bio.
A public meeting will be scheduled to discuss the findings of the trial and whether the drug should continue to be prescribed.
This FDA warning follows the agency’s June 1 withdrawal of approval for umbralisib (Ukoniq), another PI3 kinase inhibitor, following an investigation into a “possible increased risk of death.”
As reported by this news organization, umbralisib had received accelerated approval in February 2021 to treat adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma following at least one prior therapy and those with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who had received at least three prior therapies.
“These safety findings were similar for other medicines in the same PI3 kinase inhibitor class, which were discussed at an advisory committee meeting of non-FDA experts in April 2022,” according to the FDA warning.
The FDA urges patients and health care professionals to report side effects involving duvelisib or other medicines to the FDA MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com
Evidence still lacking that vitamins prevent CVD, cancer: USPSTF
There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.
However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.
These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.
“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.
“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.
“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.
Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.
“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.
The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.
“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.
On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.
However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.
“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.
But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.
“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.
Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.
“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
‘Any benefit likely to be small’
In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.
The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.
They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).
“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.
The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.
However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.
The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
Possible benefit for older adults?
Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.
“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”
However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.
She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.
“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.
“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.
However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.
These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.
“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.
“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.
“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.
Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.
“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.
The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.
“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.
On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.
However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.
“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.
But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.
“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.
Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.
“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
‘Any benefit likely to be small’
In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.
The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.
They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).
“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.
The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.
However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.
The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
Possible benefit for older adults?
Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.
“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”
However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.
She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.
“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.
“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.
However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.
These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.
“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.
“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.
“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.
Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.
“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.
The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.
“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.
On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.
However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.
“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.
But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.
“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.
Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.
“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
‘Any benefit likely to be small’
In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.
The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.
They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).
“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.
The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.
However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.
The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
Possible benefit for older adults?
Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.
“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”
However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.
She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.
“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.
“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA