News

Only 1 in 15 urine dipstick tests showing proteinuria in the primary care setting are followed up with albuminuria quantification testing, according to investigators.

These findings expose a broad gap in screening for chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is especially concerning since newer kidney-protecting agents are more effective when prescribed earlier in the disease course, reported lead author Yunwen Xu, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues.

“Evidence-based prescription of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (nsMRAs) relies on the level of albuminuria,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Although urine albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) is the most accurate method for quantifying albuminuria, dipstick urinalysis tests are inexpensive and are often used as an initial screening test, with guidelines recommending follow-up ACR testing if the protein dipstick test result is abnormal.”

Despite this guidance, real-world follow-up rates have been unknown, prompting the present study. Real-world data show a low follow-up rate. Dr. Xu and colleagues analyzed data from 1 million patients in 33 health systems who underwent urine dipstick testing in a primary care setting.

Across this population, 13% of patients had proteinuria, but only 6.7% underwent follow-up albuminuria quantification testing within the next year. ACR was the most common method (86%).

Likelihood of follow-up increased slightly with the level of proteinuria detected; however, absolute differences were marginal, with a 3+ result yielding a follow-up rate of just 8%, compared with 7.3% for a 2+ result and 6.3% for a 1+ result. When albuminuria quantification tests were conducted, 1+, 2+, and 3+ dipstick results were associated with albuminuria rates of 36.3%, 53.0%, and 64.9%, respectively.

Patients with diabetes had the highest follow-up rate, at 16.6%, vs 3.8% for those without diabetes.
 

Reasons for Low Follow-up Unclear

The dataset did not include information about reasons for ordering urinalyses, whether primary care providers knew about the abnormal dipstick tests, or awareness of guideline recommendations.

“I think they know it should be done,” said principal investigator Alexander R. Chang, MD, associate professor in the department of nephrology and population health sciences at Geisinger Health, Danville, Pennsylvania.

He suggested that real-time awareness issues, especially within electronic health record (EHR) systems, could explain the low follow-up rates. Blood test abnormalities are often flagged in red in EHRs, he said in an interview, but urine dipstick results typically remain in plain black and white.

“So, then it sort of requires that extra cognitive step to kind of look at that [result], and say, okay, that is pretty abnormal; I should do something about that,” he said.

Neil S. Skolnik, MD, a primary care physician at Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, was surprised by the findings. “If you get a urinalysis and there’s protein, normally you follow up,” Dr. Skolnik said in an interview. “I have a feeling that there’s something we’re not seeing here about what’s going on. It is hard to imagine that in only 1 out of 15 times that proteinuria is identified, is there any follow-up. I really don’t have a good explanation.”

Renee Marie Betancourt, MD, associate professor and vice chair of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, said it is hard to draw conclusions from the available data, but agreed that low visibility of results could be partially to blame.

“The chart doesn’t tell me [a urine dipstick result] is abnormal,” Dr. Betancourt said in an interview. “The chart just reports it, agnostic of normal or abnormal.”

Beyond issues with visibility, Dr. Betancourt described how primary care physicians are often so flooded with other concerns that a positive dipstick test can become a low priority, particularly among patients with CKD, who typically have other health issues.

“I oftentimes spend the majority of my visit on the patient’s concerns, and sometimes, beyond their concerns, I have concerns, and [a urine dipstick result] might not make it to the top of the list,” she said.
 

EHR-Based Interventions Might Help Improve Follow-up

Dr. Chang suggested that improved visibility of dipstick results could help, or possibly EHR-integrated clinical decision tools.

Dr. Betancourt and colleagues at Penn Medicine are actively working on such a solution. Their EHR-based intervention is aimed at identifying and managing patients with CKD. The present design, slated for pilot testing at one or two primary care clinics beginning in January 2025, depends upon estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to flag CKD patients, with ACR testing recommended yearly to predict disease progression.

Although urine dipstick findings are not currently a part of this software pathway, the findings from the present study might influence future strategy.

“I’m going to take this to our collaborators and ask about opportunities to ... encourage providers to be more active with dipsticks,” Dr. Betancourt said.
 

Newer Medications Are Effective, but Prescribing Challenges Remain 

Ideally, CKD screening improvements will unlock a greater goal: prescribing kidney-protecting medications to patients who need them — as soon as they need them.

Here might lie the real knowledge gap among experienced primary care physicians, Dr. Chang suggested. “In the past, there wasn’t quite as much that you could do about having proteinuria,” he said. “But now we have lots more medications ... it’s not just tracking that they have a bad prognostic factor. [Proteinuria is] actually something that we can act upon.”

Who exactly should be prescribing these kidney-protecting medications, however, remains contested, as agents like GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors yield benefits across specialties, including nephrology, cardiology, and endocrinology.

“Everyone’s going to have to work together,” Dr. Chang said. “You can’t really put it all on the [primary care physician] to quarterback everything.”

And, regardless of who throws the ball, a touchdown is not guaranteed.

Dr. Betancourt called out the high cost of these newer drugs and described how some of her patients, already facing multiple health inequities, are left without.

“I have patients who cannot fill these medications because the copay is too high,” she said. “Just last week I received a message from a patient who stopped taking his SGLT2 inhibitor because the cost was too high ... it was over $300 per month.”

This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors’ conflicts of interests are available in the original paper. Dr. Skolnik and Dr. Betancourt reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Only 1 in 15 urine dipstick tests showing proteinuria in the primary care setting are followed up with albuminuria quantification testing, according to investigators.

These findings expose a broad gap in screening for chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is especially concerning since newer kidney-protecting agents are more effective when prescribed earlier in the disease course, reported lead author Yunwen Xu, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues.

“Evidence-based prescription of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (nsMRAs) relies on the level of albuminuria,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Although urine albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) is the most accurate method for quantifying albuminuria, dipstick urinalysis tests are inexpensive and are often used as an initial screening test, with guidelines recommending follow-up ACR testing if the protein dipstick test result is abnormal.”

Despite this guidance, real-world follow-up rates have been unknown, prompting the present study. Real-world data show a low follow-up rate. Dr. Xu and colleagues analyzed data from 1 million patients in 33 health systems who underwent urine dipstick testing in a primary care setting.

Across this population, 13% of patients had proteinuria, but only 6.7% underwent follow-up albuminuria quantification testing within the next year. ACR was the most common method (86%).

Likelihood of follow-up increased slightly with the level of proteinuria detected; however, absolute differences were marginal, with a 3+ result yielding a follow-up rate of just 8%, compared with 7.3% for a 2+ result and 6.3% for a 1+ result. When albuminuria quantification tests were conducted, 1+, 2+, and 3+ dipstick results were associated with albuminuria rates of 36.3%, 53.0%, and 64.9%, respectively.

Patients with diabetes had the highest follow-up rate, at 16.6%, vs 3.8% for those without diabetes.
 

Reasons for Low Follow-up Unclear

The dataset did not include information about reasons for ordering urinalyses, whether primary care providers knew about the abnormal dipstick tests, or awareness of guideline recommendations.

“I think they know it should be done,” said principal investigator Alexander R. Chang, MD, associate professor in the department of nephrology and population health sciences at Geisinger Health, Danville, Pennsylvania.

He suggested that real-time awareness issues, especially within electronic health record (EHR) systems, could explain the low follow-up rates. Blood test abnormalities are often flagged in red in EHRs, he said in an interview, but urine dipstick results typically remain in plain black and white.

“So, then it sort of requires that extra cognitive step to kind of look at that [result], and say, okay, that is pretty abnormal; I should do something about that,” he said.

Neil S. Skolnik, MD, a primary care physician at Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, was surprised by the findings. “If you get a urinalysis and there’s protein, normally you follow up,” Dr. Skolnik said in an interview. “I have a feeling that there’s something we’re not seeing here about what’s going on. It is hard to imagine that in only 1 out of 15 times that proteinuria is identified, is there any follow-up. I really don’t have a good explanation.”

Renee Marie Betancourt, MD, associate professor and vice chair of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, said it is hard to draw conclusions from the available data, but agreed that low visibility of results could be partially to blame.

“The chart doesn’t tell me [a urine dipstick result] is abnormal,” Dr. Betancourt said in an interview. “The chart just reports it, agnostic of normal or abnormal.”

Beyond issues with visibility, Dr. Betancourt described how primary care physicians are often so flooded with other concerns that a positive dipstick test can become a low priority, particularly among patients with CKD, who typically have other health issues.

“I oftentimes spend the majority of my visit on the patient’s concerns, and sometimes, beyond their concerns, I have concerns, and [a urine dipstick result] might not make it to the top of the list,” she said.
 

EHR-Based Interventions Might Help Improve Follow-up

Dr. Chang suggested that improved visibility of dipstick results could help, or possibly EHR-integrated clinical decision tools.

Dr. Betancourt and colleagues at Penn Medicine are actively working on such a solution. Their EHR-based intervention is aimed at identifying and managing patients with CKD. The present design, slated for pilot testing at one or two primary care clinics beginning in January 2025, depends upon estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to flag CKD patients, with ACR testing recommended yearly to predict disease progression.

Although urine dipstick findings are not currently a part of this software pathway, the findings from the present study might influence future strategy.

“I’m going to take this to our collaborators and ask about opportunities to ... encourage providers to be more active with dipsticks,” Dr. Betancourt said.
 

Newer Medications Are Effective, but Prescribing Challenges Remain 

Ideally, CKD screening improvements will unlock a greater goal: prescribing kidney-protecting medications to patients who need them — as soon as they need them.

Here might lie the real knowledge gap among experienced primary care physicians, Dr. Chang suggested. “In the past, there wasn’t quite as much that you could do about having proteinuria,” he said. “But now we have lots more medications ... it’s not just tracking that they have a bad prognostic factor. [Proteinuria is] actually something that we can act upon.”

Who exactly should be prescribing these kidney-protecting medications, however, remains contested, as agents like GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors yield benefits across specialties, including nephrology, cardiology, and endocrinology.

“Everyone’s going to have to work together,” Dr. Chang said. “You can’t really put it all on the [primary care physician] to quarterback everything.”

And, regardless of who throws the ball, a touchdown is not guaranteed.

Dr. Betancourt called out the high cost of these newer drugs and described how some of her patients, already facing multiple health inequities, are left without.

“I have patients who cannot fill these medications because the copay is too high,” she said. “Just last week I received a message from a patient who stopped taking his SGLT2 inhibitor because the cost was too high ... it was over $300 per month.”

This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors’ conflicts of interests are available in the original paper. Dr. Skolnik and Dr. Betancourt reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Only 1 in 15 urine dipstick tests showing proteinuria in the primary care setting are followed up with albuminuria quantification testing, according to investigators.

These findings expose a broad gap in screening for chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is especially concerning since newer kidney-protecting agents are more effective when prescribed earlier in the disease course, reported lead author Yunwen Xu, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues.

“Evidence-based prescription of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1) agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (nsMRAs) relies on the level of albuminuria,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Although urine albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) is the most accurate method for quantifying albuminuria, dipstick urinalysis tests are inexpensive and are often used as an initial screening test, with guidelines recommending follow-up ACR testing if the protein dipstick test result is abnormal.”

Despite this guidance, real-world follow-up rates have been unknown, prompting the present study. Real-world data show a low follow-up rate. Dr. Xu and colleagues analyzed data from 1 million patients in 33 health systems who underwent urine dipstick testing in a primary care setting.

Across this population, 13% of patients had proteinuria, but only 6.7% underwent follow-up albuminuria quantification testing within the next year. ACR was the most common method (86%).

Likelihood of follow-up increased slightly with the level of proteinuria detected; however, absolute differences were marginal, with a 3+ result yielding a follow-up rate of just 8%, compared with 7.3% for a 2+ result and 6.3% for a 1+ result. When albuminuria quantification tests were conducted, 1+, 2+, and 3+ dipstick results were associated with albuminuria rates of 36.3%, 53.0%, and 64.9%, respectively.

Patients with diabetes had the highest follow-up rate, at 16.6%, vs 3.8% for those without diabetes.
 

Reasons for Low Follow-up Unclear

The dataset did not include information about reasons for ordering urinalyses, whether primary care providers knew about the abnormal dipstick tests, or awareness of guideline recommendations.

“I think they know it should be done,” said principal investigator Alexander R. Chang, MD, associate professor in the department of nephrology and population health sciences at Geisinger Health, Danville, Pennsylvania.

He suggested that real-time awareness issues, especially within electronic health record (EHR) systems, could explain the low follow-up rates. Blood test abnormalities are often flagged in red in EHRs, he said in an interview, but urine dipstick results typically remain in plain black and white.

“So, then it sort of requires that extra cognitive step to kind of look at that [result], and say, okay, that is pretty abnormal; I should do something about that,” he said.

Neil S. Skolnik, MD, a primary care physician at Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, was surprised by the findings. “If you get a urinalysis and there’s protein, normally you follow up,” Dr. Skolnik said in an interview. “I have a feeling that there’s something we’re not seeing here about what’s going on. It is hard to imagine that in only 1 out of 15 times that proteinuria is identified, is there any follow-up. I really don’t have a good explanation.”

Renee Marie Betancourt, MD, associate professor and vice chair of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, said it is hard to draw conclusions from the available data, but agreed that low visibility of results could be partially to blame.

“The chart doesn’t tell me [a urine dipstick result] is abnormal,” Dr. Betancourt said in an interview. “The chart just reports it, agnostic of normal or abnormal.”

Beyond issues with visibility, Dr. Betancourt described how primary care physicians are often so flooded with other concerns that a positive dipstick test can become a low priority, particularly among patients with CKD, who typically have other health issues.

“I oftentimes spend the majority of my visit on the patient’s concerns, and sometimes, beyond their concerns, I have concerns, and [a urine dipstick result] might not make it to the top of the list,” she said.
 

EHR-Based Interventions Might Help Improve Follow-up

Dr. Chang suggested that improved visibility of dipstick results could help, or possibly EHR-integrated clinical decision tools.

Dr. Betancourt and colleagues at Penn Medicine are actively working on such a solution. Their EHR-based intervention is aimed at identifying and managing patients with CKD. The present design, slated for pilot testing at one or two primary care clinics beginning in January 2025, depends upon estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to flag CKD patients, with ACR testing recommended yearly to predict disease progression.

Although urine dipstick findings are not currently a part of this software pathway, the findings from the present study might influence future strategy.

“I’m going to take this to our collaborators and ask about opportunities to ... encourage providers to be more active with dipsticks,” Dr. Betancourt said.
 

Newer Medications Are Effective, but Prescribing Challenges Remain 

Ideally, CKD screening improvements will unlock a greater goal: prescribing kidney-protecting medications to patients who need them — as soon as they need them.

Here might lie the real knowledge gap among experienced primary care physicians, Dr. Chang suggested. “In the past, there wasn’t quite as much that you could do about having proteinuria,” he said. “But now we have lots more medications ... it’s not just tracking that they have a bad prognostic factor. [Proteinuria is] actually something that we can act upon.”

Who exactly should be prescribing these kidney-protecting medications, however, remains contested, as agents like GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors yield benefits across specialties, including nephrology, cardiology, and endocrinology.

“Everyone’s going to have to work together,” Dr. Chang said. “You can’t really put it all on the [primary care physician] to quarterback everything.”

And, regardless of who throws the ball, a touchdown is not guaranteed.

Dr. Betancourt called out the high cost of these newer drugs and described how some of her patients, already facing multiple health inequities, are left without.

“I have patients who cannot fill these medications because the copay is too high,” she said. “Just last week I received a message from a patient who stopped taking his SGLT2 inhibitor because the cost was too high ... it was over $300 per month.”

This study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors’ conflicts of interests are available in the original paper. Dr. Skolnik and Dr. Betancourt reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

High levels of urinary cadmium are associated with double the risk for global cognitive impairment in White adults, a new study shows. There was no such association between the heavy metal and cognitive function in Black adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators reviewed data on 2172 adults (mean age, 64 years; 61% White; 39% Black; 55% women) from the ongoing REGARDS population-based prospective cohort study in the United States who were free of cognitive impairment or stroke at baseline.
• Global cognitive impairment was assessed annually using the Six-Item Screener, and domain-based cognitive impairment was assessed every 2 years using the Enhanced Cognitive Battery.
• Blood and urine samples were collected from the participants at baseline, and levels of urinary cadmium were assessed using a urinary creatinine-correction method.
• Covariates included participants’ age, sex, smoking pack-years, alcohol consumption, and education level.
• Mean follow-up was 10 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Global cognitive impairment was observed in 195 cases and domain-based cognitive impairment in 53 cases.
• High levels of urinary cadmium were associated with double the risk of developing global cognitive impairment in White adults (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.18-3.64).
• No association was observed between urinary cadmium and global cognitive impairment in the overall cohort or in Black adults.
• Median smoking pack-years — a significant source of cadmium exposure for the US population — was significantly higher in White participants than Black participants (P = .001 for the highest tertile of urinary cadmium concentration).

IN PRACTICE:

“These results need to be confirmed with studies that measure cadmium levels over time, include more people and follow people over a longer time, but there are many reasons to reduce exposure to cadmium, whether it’s through implementing policies and regulations for air pollution and drinking water or people changing their behaviors by stopping smoking or being around cigarette smoke,” lead author Liping Lu, MD, PhD, MS, Columbia University, New York City, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

Urinary cadmium levels were tested only at baseline, which may not have captured changes in exposure over time. A limited number of patients with cognitive impairment used the Enhanced Cognitive Battery. The study did not include occupational information, and the potential for residual confounding from smoking could not be completely excluded. The follow-up time may have been insufficient for observing a significant effect on cognition, and competing risks for mortality associated with cadmium exposure could also have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was co-funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Several authors were partially supported by the NIH. Detailed disclosures are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

High levels of urinary cadmium are associated with double the risk for global cognitive impairment in White adults, a new study shows. There was no such association between the heavy metal and cognitive function in Black adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators reviewed data on 2172 adults (mean age, 64 years; 61% White; 39% Black; 55% women) from the ongoing REGARDS population-based prospective cohort study in the United States who were free of cognitive impairment or stroke at baseline.
• Global cognitive impairment was assessed annually using the Six-Item Screener, and domain-based cognitive impairment was assessed every 2 years using the Enhanced Cognitive Battery.
• Blood and urine samples were collected from the participants at baseline, and levels of urinary cadmium were assessed using a urinary creatinine-correction method.
• Covariates included participants’ age, sex, smoking pack-years, alcohol consumption, and education level.
• Mean follow-up was 10 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Global cognitive impairment was observed in 195 cases and domain-based cognitive impairment in 53 cases.
• High levels of urinary cadmium were associated with double the risk of developing global cognitive impairment in White adults (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.18-3.64).
• No association was observed between urinary cadmium and global cognitive impairment in the overall cohort or in Black adults.
• Median smoking pack-years — a significant source of cadmium exposure for the US population — was significantly higher in White participants than Black participants (P = .001 for the highest tertile of urinary cadmium concentration).

IN PRACTICE:

“These results need to be confirmed with studies that measure cadmium levels over time, include more people and follow people over a longer time, but there are many reasons to reduce exposure to cadmium, whether it’s through implementing policies and regulations for air pollution and drinking water or people changing their behaviors by stopping smoking or being around cigarette smoke,” lead author Liping Lu, MD, PhD, MS, Columbia University, New York City, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

Urinary cadmium levels were tested only at baseline, which may not have captured changes in exposure over time. A limited number of patients with cognitive impairment used the Enhanced Cognitive Battery. The study did not include occupational information, and the potential for residual confounding from smoking could not be completely excluded. The follow-up time may have been insufficient for observing a significant effect on cognition, and competing risks for mortality associated with cadmium exposure could also have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was co-funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Several authors were partially supported by the NIH. Detailed disclosures are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

High levels of urinary cadmium are associated with double the risk for global cognitive impairment in White adults, a new study shows. There was no such association between the heavy metal and cognitive function in Black adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators reviewed data on 2172 adults (mean age, 64 years; 61% White; 39% Black; 55% women) from the ongoing REGARDS population-based prospective cohort study in the United States who were free of cognitive impairment or stroke at baseline.
• Global cognitive impairment was assessed annually using the Six-Item Screener, and domain-based cognitive impairment was assessed every 2 years using the Enhanced Cognitive Battery.
• Blood and urine samples were collected from the participants at baseline, and levels of urinary cadmium were assessed using a urinary creatinine-correction method.
• Covariates included participants’ age, sex, smoking pack-years, alcohol consumption, and education level.
• Mean follow-up was 10 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Global cognitive impairment was observed in 195 cases and domain-based cognitive impairment in 53 cases.
• High levels of urinary cadmium were associated with double the risk of developing global cognitive impairment in White adults (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.18-3.64).
• No association was observed between urinary cadmium and global cognitive impairment in the overall cohort or in Black adults.
• Median smoking pack-years — a significant source of cadmium exposure for the US population — was significantly higher in White participants than Black participants (P = .001 for the highest tertile of urinary cadmium concentration).

IN PRACTICE:

“These results need to be confirmed with studies that measure cadmium levels over time, include more people and follow people over a longer time, but there are many reasons to reduce exposure to cadmium, whether it’s through implementing policies and regulations for air pollution and drinking water or people changing their behaviors by stopping smoking or being around cigarette smoke,” lead author Liping Lu, MD, PhD, MS, Columbia University, New York City, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

Urinary cadmium levels were tested only at baseline, which may not have captured changes in exposure over time. A limited number of patients with cognitive impairment used the Enhanced Cognitive Battery. The study did not include occupational information, and the potential for residual confounding from smoking could not be completely excluded. The follow-up time may have been insufficient for observing a significant effect on cognition, and competing risks for mortality associated with cadmium exposure could also have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was co-funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Several authors were partially supported by the NIH. Detailed disclosures are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with hypothyroidism treated with levothyroxine show no significant cognitive decline across the menopausal transition compared with those without thyroid disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Levothyroxine, the primary treatment for hypothyroidism, has been linked to perceived cognitive deficits, yet it is unclear whether this is due to the underlying condition being inadequately treated or other factors.
• Using data collected from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation, which encompasses five ethnic/racial groups from seven centers across the United States, researchers compared cognitive function over time between women with hypothyroidism treated with levothyroxine and those without thyroid disease.
• Participants underwent cognitive testing across three domains — processing speed, working memory, and episodic memory — which were assessed over a mean follow-up of 13 years.
• Further analyses assessed the impact of abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone on cognitive outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 2033 women included, 227 (mean age, 49.8 years) had levothyroxine-treated hypothyroidism and 1806 (mean age, 50.0 years) did not have thyroid disease; the proportion of women with premenopausal or early perimenopausal status at baseline was higher in the hypothyroidism group (54.2% vs 49.8%; P = .010).
• At baseline, levothyroxine-treated women had higher scores for processing speed (mean score, 56.5 vs 54.4; P = .006) and working memory (mean score, 6.8 vs 6.4; P = .018) than those without thyroid disease; however, no difference in episodic memory was observed between the groups.
• Over the study period, there was no significant difference in cognitive decline between the groups.
• There was no significant effect of levothyroxine-treated hypothyroidism on working memory or episodic memory, although an annual decline in processing speed was observed (P < .001).
• Sensitivity analyses determined that abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone did not affect cognitive outcomes in women with hypothyroidism.

IN PRACTICE:

When cognitive decline is observed in these patients, the authors advised that “clinicians should resist anchoring on inadequate treatment of hypothyroidism as the cause of these symptoms and may investigate other disease processes (eg, iron deficiency, B12 deficiency, sleep apnea, celiac disease).”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Matthew D. Ettleson, Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, University of Chicago, was published online in Thyroid.

LIMITATIONS:

The cognitive assessments in the study were not designed to provide a thorough evaluation of all aspects of cognitive function. The study may not have been adequately powered to detect small effects of levothyroxine-treated hypothyroidism on cognitive outcomes. The higher levels of education attained by the study population may have acted as a protective factor against cognitive decline, potentially biasing the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), DHHS, through the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with hypothyroidism treated with levothyroxine show no significant cognitive decline across the menopausal transition compared with those without thyroid disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Levothyroxine, the primary treatment for hypothyroidism, has been linked to perceived cognitive deficits, yet it is unclear whether this is due to the underlying condition being inadequately treated or other factors.
• Using data collected from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation, which encompasses five ethnic/racial groups from seven centers across the United States, researchers compared cognitive function over time between women with hypothyroidism treated with levothyroxine and those without thyroid disease.
• Participants underwent cognitive testing across three domains — processing speed, working memory, and episodic memory — which were assessed over a mean follow-up of 13 years.
• Further analyses assessed the impact of abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone on cognitive outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 2033 women included, 227 (mean age, 49.8 years) had levothyroxine-treated hypothyroidism and 1806 (mean age, 50.0 years) did not have thyroid disease; the proportion of women with premenopausal or early perimenopausal status at baseline was higher in the hypothyroidism group (54.2% vs 49.8%; P = .010).
• At baseline, levothyroxine-treated women had higher scores for processing speed (mean score, 56.5 vs 54.4; P = .006) and working memory (mean score, 6.8 vs 6.4; P = .018) than those without thyroid disease; however, no difference in episodic memory was observed between the groups.
• Over the study period, there was no significant difference in cognitive decline between the groups.
• There was no significant effect of levothyroxine-treated hypothyroidism on working memory or episodic memory, although an annual decline in processing speed was observed (P < .001).
• Sensitivity analyses determined that abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone did not affect cognitive outcomes in women with hypothyroidism.

IN PRACTICE:

When cognitive decline is observed in these patients, the authors advised that “clinicians should resist anchoring on inadequate treatment of hypothyroidism as the cause of these symptoms and may investigate other disease processes (eg, iron deficiency, B12 deficiency, sleep apnea, celiac disease).”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Matthew D. Ettleson, Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, University of Chicago, was published online in Thyroid.

LIMITATIONS:

The cognitive assessments in the study were not designed to provide a thorough evaluation of all aspects of cognitive function. The study may not have been adequately powered to detect small effects of levothyroxine-treated hypothyroidism on cognitive outcomes. The higher levels of education attained by the study population may have acted as a protective factor against cognitive decline, potentially biasing the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), DHHS, through the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with hypothyroidism treated with levothyroxine show no significant cognitive decline across the menopausal transition compared with those without thyroid disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Levothyroxine, the primary treatment for hypothyroidism, has been linked to perceived cognitive deficits, yet it is unclear whether this is due to the underlying condition being inadequately treated or other factors.
• Using data collected from the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation, which encompasses five ethnic/racial groups from seven centers across the United States, researchers compared cognitive function over time between women with hypothyroidism treated with levothyroxine and those without thyroid disease.
• Participants underwent cognitive testing across three domains — processing speed, working memory, and episodic memory — which were assessed over a mean follow-up of 13 years.
• Further analyses assessed the impact of abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone on cognitive outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 2033 women included, 227 (mean age, 49.8 years) had levothyroxine-treated hypothyroidism and 1806 (mean age, 50.0 years) did not have thyroid disease; the proportion of women with premenopausal or early perimenopausal status at baseline was higher in the hypothyroidism group (54.2% vs 49.8%; P = .010).
• At baseline, levothyroxine-treated women had higher scores for processing speed (mean score, 56.5 vs 54.4; P = .006) and working memory (mean score, 6.8 vs 6.4; P = .018) than those without thyroid disease; however, no difference in episodic memory was observed between the groups.
• Over the study period, there was no significant difference in cognitive decline between the groups.
• There was no significant effect of levothyroxine-treated hypothyroidism on working memory or episodic memory, although an annual decline in processing speed was observed (P < .001).
• Sensitivity analyses determined that abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone did not affect cognitive outcomes in women with hypothyroidism.

IN PRACTICE:

When cognitive decline is observed in these patients, the authors advised that “clinicians should resist anchoring on inadequate treatment of hypothyroidism as the cause of these symptoms and may investigate other disease processes (eg, iron deficiency, B12 deficiency, sleep apnea, celiac disease).”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Matthew D. Ettleson, Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, University of Chicago, was published online in Thyroid.

LIMITATIONS:

The cognitive assessments in the study were not designed to provide a thorough evaluation of all aspects of cognitive function. The study may not have been adequately powered to detect small effects of levothyroxine-treated hypothyroidism on cognitive outcomes. The higher levels of education attained by the study population may have acted as a protective factor against cognitive decline, potentially biasing the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), DHHS, through the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More women are enrolling into higher-paid physician specialty fields, especially surgery, but they still have a way to go before reaching parity with their male counterparts, an analysis found.

Rising Interest in Surgical Specialties

Among 490,188 students to “pipeline” specialties from 2008 to 2022 (47.4% women), the proportion of women entering higher-paid specialties grew from 32.7% to 40.8% (P = .003), powered by increased interest in surgical jobs, reported Karina Pereira-Lima, PhD, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues in JAMA.

“It was exciting to see the proportion of women entering high-compensation surgical specialties jump from 28.8% in 2008 to 42.4% in 2022,” Dr. Pereira-Lima told this news organization. “At the same time, the proportion of women entering high-compensation nonsurgical specialties didn’t change much over time, and we even saw a decrease in female applicants to those fields.”

The researchers launched the analysis to better understand the career choices of medical students. “We’ve been seeing a national trend where more women are entering the medical profession, with women now making up more than half of medical school students. At the same time, most of the highest compensation specialties have traditionally been dominated by men,” Dr. Pereira-Lima said. “Tracking changes in the proportion of women entering these programs over time can give us insight into whether we’re making progress toward more equitable gender representation in these high-compensation specialties.”
 

Highest vs Lowest Compensated Specialties

The researchers analyzed 2008-2022 data from students and applicants to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited residency programs in “pipeline” specialties, defined as those that lead to primary board certification.

Specialties defined as having the highest compensation, based on data from Doximity, were the surgical fields of neurosurgery, ophthalmology, orthopedic surgery, otorhinolaryngology, plastic surgery (integrated), surgery (general), thoracic surgery (integrated), urology, and vascular surgery (integrated) and the nonsurgical fields of anesthesiology, dermatology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and radiology (diagnostic).

The lowest-compensated fields were all nonsurgical: Child neurology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, internal medicine/pediatrics, medical genetics and genomics, neurology, nuclear medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pathology, pediatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and psychiatry.

The proportion of women entering lower-compensated specialties stayed steady from 2008 to 2022 (53.0% vs 53.3%, respectively; P = .44), as did the percentage entering nonsurgical specialties (37.6% vs 38.7%, respectively; P = .55).

Meanwhile, the proportion of women applicants to high-compensation nonsurgical specialties fell from 36.8% in 2009 to 34.3% in 2022 (P = .001), whereas the number grew in high-compensation surgical specialties from 28.1% in 2009 to 37.6% in 2022 (P < .001).
 

Implications for Future Representation

The findings suggest that “the issue of women’s underrepresentation isn’t just limited to surgical specialties,” Dr. Pereira-Lima said. “It’s affecting many of the highest-compensated specialties overall. Moving forward, it’ll be important to investigate what’s driving the increase in women entering these highly compensated surgical specialties and see if those same factors can be applied to other fields where women are still underrepresented.”

She added that it will take time for the dominance of women among medical students to translate into more representation in the physician workforce. Also, “studies show that female physicians have higher attrition rates than men. To achieve a more balanced gender representation in medicine, it’s crucial not just to have more women entering the profession, but to focus on addressing the barriers that hinder their career advancement.”

Shikha Jain, MD, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, an oncologist who’s studied gender representation in medicine, told this news organization that the rise in women entering surgical fields may be due to an increased focus on gender disparity. “It’s nice to see that we’re actually seeing some movement there,” she said, especially in light of findings that female surgeons have better outcomes than male surgeons.

However, research has shown that women in surgical specialties aren’t as highly compensated as men, she said. “Bullying, harassment, micro- and macro-aggressions, and gaslighting are all huge problems that continue to persist in healthcare. They’re a huge part of the reason many women weren’t in these specialties. With the increase in women entering these fields, I hope we see a real concerted effort to address these challenges so we can continue to see these trends moving forward.”

Dr. Pereira-Lima is supported by the National Institutes of Health, and another author is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. No author disclosures were reported. Dr. Jain had no disclosures.
 

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

More women are enrolling into higher-paid physician specialty fields, especially surgery, but they still have a way to go before reaching parity with their male counterparts, an analysis found.

Rising Interest in Surgical Specialties

Among 490,188 students to “pipeline” specialties from 2008 to 2022 (47.4% women), the proportion of women entering higher-paid specialties grew from 32.7% to 40.8% (P = .003), powered by increased interest in surgical jobs, reported Karina Pereira-Lima, PhD, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues in JAMA.

“It was exciting to see the proportion of women entering high-compensation surgical specialties jump from 28.8% in 2008 to 42.4% in 2022,” Dr. Pereira-Lima told this news organization. “At the same time, the proportion of women entering high-compensation nonsurgical specialties didn’t change much over time, and we even saw a decrease in female applicants to those fields.”

The researchers launched the analysis to better understand the career choices of medical students. “We’ve been seeing a national trend where more women are entering the medical profession, with women now making up more than half of medical school students. At the same time, most of the highest compensation specialties have traditionally been dominated by men,” Dr. Pereira-Lima said. “Tracking changes in the proportion of women entering these programs over time can give us insight into whether we’re making progress toward more equitable gender representation in these high-compensation specialties.”
 

Highest vs Lowest Compensated Specialties

The researchers analyzed 2008-2022 data from students and applicants to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited residency programs in “pipeline” specialties, defined as those that lead to primary board certification.

Specialties defined as having the highest compensation, based on data from Doximity, were the surgical fields of neurosurgery, ophthalmology, orthopedic surgery, otorhinolaryngology, plastic surgery (integrated), surgery (general), thoracic surgery (integrated), urology, and vascular surgery (integrated) and the nonsurgical fields of anesthesiology, dermatology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and radiology (diagnostic).

The lowest-compensated fields were all nonsurgical: Child neurology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, internal medicine/pediatrics, medical genetics and genomics, neurology, nuclear medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pathology, pediatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and psychiatry.

The proportion of women entering lower-compensated specialties stayed steady from 2008 to 2022 (53.0% vs 53.3%, respectively; P = .44), as did the percentage entering nonsurgical specialties (37.6% vs 38.7%, respectively; P = .55).

Meanwhile, the proportion of women applicants to high-compensation nonsurgical specialties fell from 36.8% in 2009 to 34.3% in 2022 (P = .001), whereas the number grew in high-compensation surgical specialties from 28.1% in 2009 to 37.6% in 2022 (P < .001).
 

Implications for Future Representation

The findings suggest that “the issue of women’s underrepresentation isn’t just limited to surgical specialties,” Dr. Pereira-Lima said. “It’s affecting many of the highest-compensated specialties overall. Moving forward, it’ll be important to investigate what’s driving the increase in women entering these highly compensated surgical specialties and see if those same factors can be applied to other fields where women are still underrepresented.”

She added that it will take time for the dominance of women among medical students to translate into more representation in the physician workforce. Also, “studies show that female physicians have higher attrition rates than men. To achieve a more balanced gender representation in medicine, it’s crucial not just to have more women entering the profession, but to focus on addressing the barriers that hinder their career advancement.”

Shikha Jain, MD, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, an oncologist who’s studied gender representation in medicine, told this news organization that the rise in women entering surgical fields may be due to an increased focus on gender disparity. “It’s nice to see that we’re actually seeing some movement there,” she said, especially in light of findings that female surgeons have better outcomes than male surgeons.

However, research has shown that women in surgical specialties aren’t as highly compensated as men, she said. “Bullying, harassment, micro- and macro-aggressions, and gaslighting are all huge problems that continue to persist in healthcare. They’re a huge part of the reason many women weren’t in these specialties. With the increase in women entering these fields, I hope we see a real concerted effort to address these challenges so we can continue to see these trends moving forward.”

Dr. Pereira-Lima is supported by the National Institutes of Health, and another author is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. No author disclosures were reported. Dr. Jain had no disclosures.
 

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

More women are enrolling into higher-paid physician specialty fields, especially surgery, but they still have a way to go before reaching parity with their male counterparts, an analysis found.

Rising Interest in Surgical Specialties

Among 490,188 students to “pipeline” specialties from 2008 to 2022 (47.4% women), the proportion of women entering higher-paid specialties grew from 32.7% to 40.8% (P = .003), powered by increased interest in surgical jobs, reported Karina Pereira-Lima, PhD, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and colleagues in JAMA.

“It was exciting to see the proportion of women entering high-compensation surgical specialties jump from 28.8% in 2008 to 42.4% in 2022,” Dr. Pereira-Lima told this news organization. “At the same time, the proportion of women entering high-compensation nonsurgical specialties didn’t change much over time, and we even saw a decrease in female applicants to those fields.”

The researchers launched the analysis to better understand the career choices of medical students. “We’ve been seeing a national trend where more women are entering the medical profession, with women now making up more than half of medical school students. At the same time, most of the highest compensation specialties have traditionally been dominated by men,” Dr. Pereira-Lima said. “Tracking changes in the proportion of women entering these programs over time can give us insight into whether we’re making progress toward more equitable gender representation in these high-compensation specialties.”
 

Highest vs Lowest Compensated Specialties

The researchers analyzed 2008-2022 data from students and applicants to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited residency programs in “pipeline” specialties, defined as those that lead to primary board certification.

Specialties defined as having the highest compensation, based on data from Doximity, were the surgical fields of neurosurgery, ophthalmology, orthopedic surgery, otorhinolaryngology, plastic surgery (integrated), surgery (general), thoracic surgery (integrated), urology, and vascular surgery (integrated) and the nonsurgical fields of anesthesiology, dermatology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and radiology (diagnostic).

The lowest-compensated fields were all nonsurgical: Child neurology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, internal medicine/pediatrics, medical genetics and genomics, neurology, nuclear medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pathology, pediatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and psychiatry.

The proportion of women entering lower-compensated specialties stayed steady from 2008 to 2022 (53.0% vs 53.3%, respectively; P = .44), as did the percentage entering nonsurgical specialties (37.6% vs 38.7%, respectively; P = .55).

Meanwhile, the proportion of women applicants to high-compensation nonsurgical specialties fell from 36.8% in 2009 to 34.3% in 2022 (P = .001), whereas the number grew in high-compensation surgical specialties from 28.1% in 2009 to 37.6% in 2022 (P < .001).
 

Implications for Future Representation

The findings suggest that “the issue of women’s underrepresentation isn’t just limited to surgical specialties,” Dr. Pereira-Lima said. “It’s affecting many of the highest-compensated specialties overall. Moving forward, it’ll be important to investigate what’s driving the increase in women entering these highly compensated surgical specialties and see if those same factors can be applied to other fields where women are still underrepresented.”

She added that it will take time for the dominance of women among medical students to translate into more representation in the physician workforce. Also, “studies show that female physicians have higher attrition rates than men. To achieve a more balanced gender representation in medicine, it’s crucial not just to have more women entering the profession, but to focus on addressing the barriers that hinder their career advancement.”

Shikha Jain, MD, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, an oncologist who’s studied gender representation in medicine, told this news organization that the rise in women entering surgical fields may be due to an increased focus on gender disparity. “It’s nice to see that we’re actually seeing some movement there,” she said, especially in light of findings that female surgeons have better outcomes than male surgeons.

However, research has shown that women in surgical specialties aren’t as highly compensated as men, she said. “Bullying, harassment, micro- and macro-aggressions, and gaslighting are all huge problems that continue to persist in healthcare. They’re a huge part of the reason many women weren’t in these specialties. With the increase in women entering these fields, I hope we see a real concerted effort to address these challenges so we can continue to see these trends moving forward.”

Dr. Pereira-Lima is supported by the National Institutes of Health, and another author is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. No author disclosures were reported. Dr. Jain had no disclosures.
 

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

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) now has a permanent pharmacogenomics service that provides genetic tests to give clinicians insight into the best medication options for their patients.

The tests, which have no extra cost, are available to all veterans, said pharmacist Jill S. Bates, PharmD, MS, executive director of the VA National Pharmacogenomics Program, who spoke in an interview and a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

Genetic testing is “a tool that can help optimize care that we provide for veterans,” she said. “Pharmacogenomics is additional information to help the clinician make a decision. We know that most veterans—greater than 90%—carry a variant in a pharmacogenomics gene that is actionable.”

The genetic tests can provide insight into the optimal medication for multiple conditions such as mental illness, gastrointestinal disorders, cancer, pain, and heart disease. According to a 2019 analysis of over 6 years of data, more than half of the VA patient population used medications whose efficacy may have been affected by detectable genetic variants.

For instance, Bates said tests can let clinicians know whether patients are susceptible to statin-associated muscle adverse effects if they take simvastatin, the cholesterol medication. An estimated 25.6% of the VA population has this variant.

Elsewhere on the cardiac front, an estimated 58.3% of the VA population has a genetic variant that increases sensitivity to the blood thinner warfarin.

Testing could help psychiatrists determine whether certain medications should not be prescribed—or should be prescribed at lower doses—in patients who’ve had adverse reactions to antidepressants, Bates said.

In cancer, Bates said, genetic testing can identify patients who have a genetic variant that boosts toxicity from fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy treatments, which include capecitabine, floxuridine, and fluorouracil. Meanwhile, an estimated 0.9% will have no reaction or limited reaction to capecitabine and fluorouracil, and 4.8% will have hypersensitivity to carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine. 

Tests can also identify a genetic variant that can lead to poor metabolism of the chemotherapy drug irinotecan, which is used to treat colon cancer. “In those patients, you’d want to reduce the dose by 20%,” Bates said. In other cases, alternate drugs may be the best strategy to address genetic variations.

Prior to 2019, clinicians had to order pharmacogenomic tests outside of the VA system, according to Bates. That year, a donation from Sanford Health brought VA pharmacogenomics to 40 pilot sites. Since then, more than 88,000 tests have been performed.

The VA has now made its pharmacogenomic program permanent, Bates said. As of early September, testing was available at 139 VA sites and is coming soon to 4 more. It’s not available at another 23 sites that are scattered across the country.

A tool in the VA electronic health record now reminds clinicians about the availability of genetic testing and allows them to order tests. However, testing isn’t available for patients who have had liver transplants or certain bone marrow transplants.

The VA is working on developing decision-making tools to help clinicians determine when the tests are appropriate, Bates said. It typically takes 2 to 3 weeks to get results, she said, adding that external laboratories provide results. “We eventually would like to bring in all pharmacogenomics testing to be conducted within the VA enterprise.”

Bates reported that she had no disclosures.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) now has a permanent pharmacogenomics service that provides genetic tests to give clinicians insight into the best medication options for their patients.

The tests, which have no extra cost, are available to all veterans, said pharmacist Jill S. Bates, PharmD, MS, executive director of the VA National Pharmacogenomics Program, who spoke in an interview and a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

Genetic testing is “a tool that can help optimize care that we provide for veterans,” she said. “Pharmacogenomics is additional information to help the clinician make a decision. We know that most veterans—greater than 90%—carry a variant in a pharmacogenomics gene that is actionable.”

The genetic tests can provide insight into the optimal medication for multiple conditions such as mental illness, gastrointestinal disorders, cancer, pain, and heart disease. According to a 2019 analysis of over 6 years of data, more than half of the VA patient population used medications whose efficacy may have been affected by detectable genetic variants.

For instance, Bates said tests can let clinicians know whether patients are susceptible to statin-associated muscle adverse effects if they take simvastatin, the cholesterol medication. An estimated 25.6% of the VA population has this variant.

Elsewhere on the cardiac front, an estimated 58.3% of the VA population has a genetic variant that increases sensitivity to the blood thinner warfarin.

Testing could help psychiatrists determine whether certain medications should not be prescribed—or should be prescribed at lower doses—in patients who’ve had adverse reactions to antidepressants, Bates said.

In cancer, Bates said, genetic testing can identify patients who have a genetic variant that boosts toxicity from fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy treatments, which include capecitabine, floxuridine, and fluorouracil. Meanwhile, an estimated 0.9% will have no reaction or limited reaction to capecitabine and fluorouracil, and 4.8% will have hypersensitivity to carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine. 

Tests can also identify a genetic variant that can lead to poor metabolism of the chemotherapy drug irinotecan, which is used to treat colon cancer. “In those patients, you’d want to reduce the dose by 20%,” Bates said. In other cases, alternate drugs may be the best strategy to address genetic variations.

Prior to 2019, clinicians had to order pharmacogenomic tests outside of the VA system, according to Bates. That year, a donation from Sanford Health brought VA pharmacogenomics to 40 pilot sites. Since then, more than 88,000 tests have been performed.

The VA has now made its pharmacogenomic program permanent, Bates said. As of early September, testing was available at 139 VA sites and is coming soon to 4 more. It’s not available at another 23 sites that are scattered across the country.

A tool in the VA electronic health record now reminds clinicians about the availability of genetic testing and allows them to order tests. However, testing isn’t available for patients who have had liver transplants or certain bone marrow transplants.

The VA is working on developing decision-making tools to help clinicians determine when the tests are appropriate, Bates said. It typically takes 2 to 3 weeks to get results, she said, adding that external laboratories provide results. “We eventually would like to bring in all pharmacogenomics testing to be conducted within the VA enterprise.”

Bates reported that she had no disclosures.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) now has a permanent pharmacogenomics service that provides genetic tests to give clinicians insight into the best medication options for their patients.

The tests, which have no extra cost, are available to all veterans, said pharmacist Jill S. Bates, PharmD, MS, executive director of the VA National Pharmacogenomics Program, who spoke in an interview and a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

Genetic testing is “a tool that can help optimize care that we provide for veterans,” she said. “Pharmacogenomics is additional information to help the clinician make a decision. We know that most veterans—greater than 90%—carry a variant in a pharmacogenomics gene that is actionable.”

The genetic tests can provide insight into the optimal medication for multiple conditions such as mental illness, gastrointestinal disorders, cancer, pain, and heart disease. According to a 2019 analysis of over 6 years of data, more than half of the VA patient population used medications whose efficacy may have been affected by detectable genetic variants.

For instance, Bates said tests can let clinicians know whether patients are susceptible to statin-associated muscle adverse effects if they take simvastatin, the cholesterol medication. An estimated 25.6% of the VA population has this variant.

Elsewhere on the cardiac front, an estimated 58.3% of the VA population has a genetic variant that increases sensitivity to the blood thinner warfarin.

Testing could help psychiatrists determine whether certain medications should not be prescribed—or should be prescribed at lower doses—in patients who’ve had adverse reactions to antidepressants, Bates said.

In cancer, Bates said, genetic testing can identify patients who have a genetic variant that boosts toxicity from fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy treatments, which include capecitabine, floxuridine, and fluorouracil. Meanwhile, an estimated 0.9% will have no reaction or limited reaction to capecitabine and fluorouracil, and 4.8% will have hypersensitivity to carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine. 

Tests can also identify a genetic variant that can lead to poor metabolism of the chemotherapy drug irinotecan, which is used to treat colon cancer. “In those patients, you’d want to reduce the dose by 20%,” Bates said. In other cases, alternate drugs may be the best strategy to address genetic variations.

Prior to 2019, clinicians had to order pharmacogenomic tests outside of the VA system, according to Bates. That year, a donation from Sanford Health brought VA pharmacogenomics to 40 pilot sites. Since then, more than 88,000 tests have been performed.

The VA has now made its pharmacogenomic program permanent, Bates said. As of early September, testing was available at 139 VA sites and is coming soon to 4 more. It’s not available at another 23 sites that are scattered across the country.

A tool in the VA electronic health record now reminds clinicians about the availability of genetic testing and allows them to order tests. However, testing isn’t available for patients who have had liver transplants or certain bone marrow transplants.

The VA is working on developing decision-making tools to help clinicians determine when the tests are appropriate, Bates said. It typically takes 2 to 3 weeks to get results, she said, adding that external laboratories provide results. “We eventually would like to bring in all pharmacogenomics testing to be conducted within the VA enterprise.”

Bates reported that she had no disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-aauz (Otulfi), a biosimilar that references Johnson & Johnson’s ustekinumab (Stelara).

This is the fourth ustekinumab biosimilar approved in the United States. Like the reference product, ustekinumab-aauz is indicated for:

• Patients 6 years or older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy
• Patients 6 years or older with active psoriatic arthritis
• Adult patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease
• Adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis

Ustekinumab-aauz, produced by a partnership between Fresenius Kabi and Formycon, has two formulations: subcutaneous injection (45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/mL solution in a single-dose prefilled syringe) or intravenous infusion (130 mg/26 mL solution in a single-dose vial).

The biosimilar will launch in the United States “no later than February 22, 2025,” according to the press release, “in accordance with the patent settlement between Fresenius Kabi, Formycon, and Johnson & Johnson.”

Ustekinumab-aauz is Fresenius Kabi’s fourth biosimilar granted US approval, behind adalimumab-aacf (Idacio), tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), and pegfilgrastim-fpgk (Stimufend).

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-aauz (Otulfi), a biosimilar that references Johnson & Johnson’s ustekinumab (Stelara).

This is the fourth ustekinumab biosimilar approved in the United States. Like the reference product, ustekinumab-aauz is indicated for:

• Patients 6 years or older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy
• Patients 6 years or older with active psoriatic arthritis
• Adult patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease
• Adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis

Ustekinumab-aauz, produced by a partnership between Fresenius Kabi and Formycon, has two formulations: subcutaneous injection (45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/mL solution in a single-dose prefilled syringe) or intravenous infusion (130 mg/26 mL solution in a single-dose vial).

The biosimilar will launch in the United States “no later than February 22, 2025,” according to the press release, “in accordance with the patent settlement between Fresenius Kabi, Formycon, and Johnson & Johnson.”

Ustekinumab-aauz is Fresenius Kabi’s fourth biosimilar granted US approval, behind adalimumab-aacf (Idacio), tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), and pegfilgrastim-fpgk (Stimufend).

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-aauz (Otulfi), a biosimilar that references Johnson & Johnson’s ustekinumab (Stelara).

This is the fourth ustekinumab biosimilar approved in the United States. Like the reference product, ustekinumab-aauz is indicated for:

• Patients 6 years or older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy
• Patients 6 years or older with active psoriatic arthritis
• Adult patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease
• Adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis

Ustekinumab-aauz, produced by a partnership between Fresenius Kabi and Formycon, has two formulations: subcutaneous injection (45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/mL solution in a single-dose prefilled syringe) or intravenous infusion (130 mg/26 mL solution in a single-dose vial).

The biosimilar will launch in the United States “no later than February 22, 2025,” according to the press release, “in accordance with the patent settlement between Fresenius Kabi, Formycon, and Johnson & Johnson.”

Ustekinumab-aauz is Fresenius Kabi’s fourth biosimilar granted US approval, behind adalimumab-aacf (Idacio), tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), and pegfilgrastim-fpgk (Stimufend).

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

COPENHAGEN — Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) is quickly maturing as a biomarker to predict disability in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), but it will add information to, not compete with, serum neurofilament light chain (sNFl) levels, according to multiple independent studies.

The basic consensus is that “elevated sNFl levels predict inflammatory-associated worsening, while sGFAP values correlate with progression independent of inflammation,” said Enric Monreal, MD, Immunology Department, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.

This key message was repeated by several researchers presenting data at the 2024 ECTRIMS 2004 meeting, including one delivered as a latebreaker. There was also general agreement that sGFAP will eventually be a routine prognostic tool even if more data are needed to validate how it will be used in routine MS management.
 

A New Biomarker for MS Disability Progression

Although apparently reliable for predicting MS disability, “sGFAP is about 5 years behind where we are with sNFl,” said Evan Madill, MD, a clinical research fellow at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Research Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston. He does think, however, that it is coming to clinical practice.

In the study he presented, 744 patients from the Brigham MS Research Center database were evaluated retrospectively for sGFAP levels and subsequent disability progression. Among this cohort, for which sGFAP levels were collected at baseline and over time, 46.5% had 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP) over follow-up.

On univariate analysis, sGFAP levels correlated with and predicted CDP, need for a new ambulatory aid, and conversion to secondary progressive MS (SPMS). For patients less than 60 years of age, all of these correlations were highly significant (P ≤ .002). On multivariate analysis, the significance was preserved for CDP (P = .032) and for need of a new ambulatory aid (P = .007), but it was lost for SPMS conversion.

Notably, his data suggest that a one-time baseline measurement of sGFAP was more useful than change in sGFAP as a predictor.

It is unclear why sGFAP is less predictive in older individuals, but Dr. Madill speculated that non-MS phenomena might play a role at older ages. Treatment did not influence sGFAP levels in this study, but Dr. Madill said most of the data were collected before anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies were widely available.

The observational study data presented by Dr. Monreal involved 725 patients drawn from 13 European hospitals. sGFAP and sNFl levels were evaluated from blood drawn within 12 months of MS onset. Over time these biomarkers had overlapping but different predictive strengths.

Consistent with previously published studies, which link elevations in sNFl to neuronal damage and elevations in sGFAP to astrogliosis, sGFAP was found to be more useful for predicting progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), particularly in patients with low sNFl levels.

Increases in sNFl were associated with an increased risk of both PIRA and relapse-associated worsening (RAW), but sNFl was more closely associated with RAW in untreated patients. The risk of PIRA and RAW were similar across GFAP and sNFl levels in those patients treated with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMT).

Overall, when stratifying the cohort into three groups, those with both low sNFl and low GFAP, those with high sNFl with low GFAP, and those with high GFAP and low sNFl, the relative risks of disability associated with PIRA and RAW diverged, suggesting these biomarkers correlate with different processes of progression.
 

Comparing sGFAP and sNFl

This same principle was explored further in the latebreaking presentation by Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, a clinical instructor, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. The objective of his study was to compare sGFAP and sNFl for predicting PIRA in patients on treatment.

The study included 212 patients from the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Cohort who were started on fingolimod or on B-cell depleting therapies like rituximab. After correcting for sex, age at onset, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, and other variables, Dr. Abdelhak also reported that the predictive values for PIRA were different for sGFAP relative to sNFl at least on the group level.

However, in this study, unlike the analysis of the Brigham MS Research Center data, changes in sGFAP over time when on treatment did have prognostic value, and there was a relationship between sGFAP levels and treatment. Although reductions in GFAP predicted less disability progression whether patients were treated with fingolimod B-cell depleting therapies, that patterns were different. Dr. Abdelhak, like the other investigators speaking at ECTRIMS, also said the data so far favor sGFAP over sNFl for predicting PIRA.

Each z-score unit change in sGFAP corresponded to a 47% lower risk of PIRA in follow-up over 6.8 years, Dr. Abdelhak reported, adding that the predictive value of sGFAP was “numerically stronger than the corresponding relation for sNFl.”

So far, clinical utility of sGFAP remains speculative. Most of the correlations he presented were on a group rather than the individual level. Moreover, Dr. Abdelhak cautioned that these correlations, based on observational data, do not necessarily reflect causation.

Nonetheless, remarking on the parallels of his data on sGFAP and sNFl with other studies presented at the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Abdelhak foresees a time when GFAP will be a prognostic tool, offering relative simplicity and lower cost than the current standard of imaging. He also sees a role in clinical research.

“Monitoring of sGFAP dynamics following DMT initiation could be used to prognosticate long-term PIRA risk and provide insights valuable for design and interpretation of trial outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Monreal reported financial relationships with Almirall, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Madill and Dr. Abdelhak reported no potential conflicts of interest.

COPENHAGEN — Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) is quickly maturing as a biomarker to predict disability in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), but it will add information to, not compete with, serum neurofilament light chain (sNFl) levels, according to multiple independent studies.

The basic consensus is that “elevated sNFl levels predict inflammatory-associated worsening, while sGFAP values correlate with progression independent of inflammation,” said Enric Monreal, MD, Immunology Department, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.

This key message was repeated by several researchers presenting data at the 2024 ECTRIMS 2004 meeting, including one delivered as a latebreaker. There was also general agreement that sGFAP will eventually be a routine prognostic tool even if more data are needed to validate how it will be used in routine MS management.
 

A New Biomarker for MS Disability Progression

Although apparently reliable for predicting MS disability, “sGFAP is about 5 years behind where we are with sNFl,” said Evan Madill, MD, a clinical research fellow at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Research Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston. He does think, however, that it is coming to clinical practice.

In the study he presented, 744 patients from the Brigham MS Research Center database were evaluated retrospectively for sGFAP levels and subsequent disability progression. Among this cohort, for which sGFAP levels were collected at baseline and over time, 46.5% had 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP) over follow-up.

On univariate analysis, sGFAP levels correlated with and predicted CDP, need for a new ambulatory aid, and conversion to secondary progressive MS (SPMS). For patients less than 60 years of age, all of these correlations were highly significant (P ≤ .002). On multivariate analysis, the significance was preserved for CDP (P = .032) and for need of a new ambulatory aid (P = .007), but it was lost for SPMS conversion.

Notably, his data suggest that a one-time baseline measurement of sGFAP was more useful than change in sGFAP as a predictor.

It is unclear why sGFAP is less predictive in older individuals, but Dr. Madill speculated that non-MS phenomena might play a role at older ages. Treatment did not influence sGFAP levels in this study, but Dr. Madill said most of the data were collected before anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies were widely available.

The observational study data presented by Dr. Monreal involved 725 patients drawn from 13 European hospitals. sGFAP and sNFl levels were evaluated from blood drawn within 12 months of MS onset. Over time these biomarkers had overlapping but different predictive strengths.

Consistent with previously published studies, which link elevations in sNFl to neuronal damage and elevations in sGFAP to astrogliosis, sGFAP was found to be more useful for predicting progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), particularly in patients with low sNFl levels.

Increases in sNFl were associated with an increased risk of both PIRA and relapse-associated worsening (RAW), but sNFl was more closely associated with RAW in untreated patients. The risk of PIRA and RAW were similar across GFAP and sNFl levels in those patients treated with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMT).

Overall, when stratifying the cohort into three groups, those with both low sNFl and low GFAP, those with high sNFl with low GFAP, and those with high GFAP and low sNFl, the relative risks of disability associated with PIRA and RAW diverged, suggesting these biomarkers correlate with different processes of progression.
 

Comparing sGFAP and sNFl

This same principle was explored further in the latebreaking presentation by Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, a clinical instructor, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. The objective of his study was to compare sGFAP and sNFl for predicting PIRA in patients on treatment.

The study included 212 patients from the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Cohort who were started on fingolimod or on B-cell depleting therapies like rituximab. After correcting for sex, age at onset, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, and other variables, Dr. Abdelhak also reported that the predictive values for PIRA were different for sGFAP relative to sNFl at least on the group level.

However, in this study, unlike the analysis of the Brigham MS Research Center data, changes in sGFAP over time when on treatment did have prognostic value, and there was a relationship between sGFAP levels and treatment. Although reductions in GFAP predicted less disability progression whether patients were treated with fingolimod B-cell depleting therapies, that patterns were different. Dr. Abdelhak, like the other investigators speaking at ECTRIMS, also said the data so far favor sGFAP over sNFl for predicting PIRA.

Each z-score unit change in sGFAP corresponded to a 47% lower risk of PIRA in follow-up over 6.8 years, Dr. Abdelhak reported, adding that the predictive value of sGFAP was “numerically stronger than the corresponding relation for sNFl.”

So far, clinical utility of sGFAP remains speculative. Most of the correlations he presented were on a group rather than the individual level. Moreover, Dr. Abdelhak cautioned that these correlations, based on observational data, do not necessarily reflect causation.

Nonetheless, remarking on the parallels of his data on sGFAP and sNFl with other studies presented at the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Abdelhak foresees a time when GFAP will be a prognostic tool, offering relative simplicity and lower cost than the current standard of imaging. He also sees a role in clinical research.

“Monitoring of sGFAP dynamics following DMT initiation could be used to prognosticate long-term PIRA risk and provide insights valuable for design and interpretation of trial outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Monreal reported financial relationships with Almirall, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Madill and Dr. Abdelhak reported no potential conflicts of interest.

COPENHAGEN — Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) is quickly maturing as a biomarker to predict disability in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), but it will add information to, not compete with, serum neurofilament light chain (sNFl) levels, according to multiple independent studies.

The basic consensus is that “elevated sNFl levels predict inflammatory-associated worsening, while sGFAP values correlate with progression independent of inflammation,” said Enric Monreal, MD, Immunology Department, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.

This key message was repeated by several researchers presenting data at the 2024 ECTRIMS 2004 meeting, including one delivered as a latebreaker. There was also general agreement that sGFAP will eventually be a routine prognostic tool even if more data are needed to validate how it will be used in routine MS management.
 

A New Biomarker for MS Disability Progression

Although apparently reliable for predicting MS disability, “sGFAP is about 5 years behind where we are with sNFl,” said Evan Madill, MD, a clinical research fellow at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Research Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston. He does think, however, that it is coming to clinical practice.

In the study he presented, 744 patients from the Brigham MS Research Center database were evaluated retrospectively for sGFAP levels and subsequent disability progression. Among this cohort, for which sGFAP levels were collected at baseline and over time, 46.5% had 6-month confirmed disability progression (CDP) over follow-up.

On univariate analysis, sGFAP levels correlated with and predicted CDP, need for a new ambulatory aid, and conversion to secondary progressive MS (SPMS). For patients less than 60 years of age, all of these correlations were highly significant (P ≤ .002). On multivariate analysis, the significance was preserved for CDP (P = .032) and for need of a new ambulatory aid (P = .007), but it was lost for SPMS conversion.

Notably, his data suggest that a one-time baseline measurement of sGFAP was more useful than change in sGFAP as a predictor.

It is unclear why sGFAP is less predictive in older individuals, but Dr. Madill speculated that non-MS phenomena might play a role at older ages. Treatment did not influence sGFAP levels in this study, but Dr. Madill said most of the data were collected before anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies were widely available.

The observational study data presented by Dr. Monreal involved 725 patients drawn from 13 European hospitals. sGFAP and sNFl levels were evaluated from blood drawn within 12 months of MS onset. Over time these biomarkers had overlapping but different predictive strengths.

Consistent with previously published studies, which link elevations in sNFl to neuronal damage and elevations in sGFAP to astrogliosis, sGFAP was found to be more useful for predicting progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA), particularly in patients with low sNFl levels.

Increases in sNFl were associated with an increased risk of both PIRA and relapse-associated worsening (RAW), but sNFl was more closely associated with RAW in untreated patients. The risk of PIRA and RAW were similar across GFAP and sNFl levels in those patients treated with high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies (DMT).

Overall, when stratifying the cohort into three groups, those with both low sNFl and low GFAP, those with high sNFl with low GFAP, and those with high GFAP and low sNFl, the relative risks of disability associated with PIRA and RAW diverged, suggesting these biomarkers correlate with different processes of progression.
 

Comparing sGFAP and sNFl

This same principle was explored further in the latebreaking presentation by Ahmed Abdelhak, MD, a clinical instructor, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. The objective of his study was to compare sGFAP and sNFl for predicting PIRA in patients on treatment.

The study included 212 patients from the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Cohort who were started on fingolimod or on B-cell depleting therapies like rituximab. After correcting for sex, age at onset, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, and other variables, Dr. Abdelhak also reported that the predictive values for PIRA were different for sGFAP relative to sNFl at least on the group level.

However, in this study, unlike the analysis of the Brigham MS Research Center data, changes in sGFAP over time when on treatment did have prognostic value, and there was a relationship between sGFAP levels and treatment. Although reductions in GFAP predicted less disability progression whether patients were treated with fingolimod B-cell depleting therapies, that patterns were different. Dr. Abdelhak, like the other investigators speaking at ECTRIMS, also said the data so far favor sGFAP over sNFl for predicting PIRA.

Each z-score unit change in sGFAP corresponded to a 47% lower risk of PIRA in follow-up over 6.8 years, Dr. Abdelhak reported, adding that the predictive value of sGFAP was “numerically stronger than the corresponding relation for sNFl.”

So far, clinical utility of sGFAP remains speculative. Most of the correlations he presented were on a group rather than the individual level. Moreover, Dr. Abdelhak cautioned that these correlations, based on observational data, do not necessarily reflect causation.

Nonetheless, remarking on the parallels of his data on sGFAP and sNFl with other studies presented at the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Abdelhak foresees a time when GFAP will be a prognostic tool, offering relative simplicity and lower cost than the current standard of imaging. He also sees a role in clinical research.

“Monitoring of sGFAP dynamics following DMT initiation could be used to prognosticate long-term PIRA risk and provide insights valuable for design and interpretation of trial outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Monreal reported financial relationships with Almirall, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi. Dr. Madill and Dr. Abdelhak reported no potential conflicts of interest.

The experimental monoclonal antibody tulisokibart safely induced clinical remission in a phase 2 randomized trial of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC).

In one cohort of 135 patients, the primary endpoint of clinical remission occurred in 26% of those given the novel antibody to tumor necrosis factor–like cytokine 1A (TL1A) vs 1% given placebo (95% CI, 14-37, P < .001). In a smaller cohort of 43 patients genetically pretested for likely response to the new biologic, remission after treatment was only slightly higher at 32% vs 11% (95% CI, 2-38, P = .02).

The incidence of adverse events was similar in both arms, and most events were mild.

Courtesy Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

The 12-week induction trial, conducted in 14 countries by the ARTEMIS-UC Study Group and led by Bruce E. Sands, MD, MS, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and system chief in the Division of Gastroenterology at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that important clinical benefit may be achieved through TL1A blockade in patients with UC,” Dr. Sands said in an interview, adding that this is the first rigorous study of a drug class with an entirely new mechanism of action that may be beneficial in other immune-mediated and fibrotic diseases. 

“And it is also the first prospective randomized controlled trial in IBD to incorporate a precision-medicine approach using a predictive biomarker for response in a drug development program,” he added.

Dr. Sands stressed the urgent need for new therapies since, despite the approval of multiple new classes of agents, both small molecules and biologics, “there is still a plateau of efficacy in that less than 50% of patients achieve remission at a year.”

He added that UC may progress over time owing to fibrosis of the bowel, a condition not directly or safely addressed by any existing therapies. “Identifying novel targets such as TL1A may allow us to address a different subpopulation of patients who may not respond to the targets addressed by existing therapies,” he said.

In agreement is Jason K. Hou, MD, MS, AGAF, an associate professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and section chief of gastroenterology at Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston, Texas. “Although it’s a very exciting time with more options in the last few years for treating UC, even inhibitors with new agents such as JAK inhibitors and interleukin 23 antagonists, many patients have no or only a partial response,” he said in an interview. “Targeting molecules, which has been studied for decades, may offer more than a shot in the dark.” 
 

Why Target TL1A?

Genome-wide studies have shown elevated TL1A, a member of the tumor necrosis factor superfamily, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

“The interaction of TL1A and its ligand, death domain receptor 3, contributes to the immune-mediated inflammation and fibrosis seen in IBD through the downstream production of proinflammatory cytokines by multiple different immune cells, and the elaboration of collagen by fibroblasts,” Dr. Sands explained.

With the intention of targeting TL1A, his group randomly assigned patients with moderate to severe active UC who were glucocorticoid dependent or had not responded to conventional or advanced therapies, with disease extending a minimum of 15 cm from the anal verge. Across arms, the age of the mainly White, non-Hispanic participants ranged from about 37 to about 42, 35%-53% were female, and disease duration was approximately 6-8 years. 

The arms received either placebo or intravenous tulisokibart at 1000 mg on day 1 and 500 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10. Cohort 1 included patients regardless of biomarker status for likelihood of response. Cohort 2 included only patients with a positive test for likelihood of response.

Dr. Hou was surprised that response to tulisokibart vs placebo was not greater in test-identified probable responders. “The biomarker didn’t make a huge difference, just a numerical one,” he said. “It may be that more genes are involved than the test could identify, and response is more complicated. Or perhaps the placebo response was particularly high in this small group. We need a deeper dive into why.” 
 

Earlier Application?

“This was a phase 2 study, so it’s too soon to say if tulisokibart could be used as early therapy or in severe disease,” Sands said. “However, the excellent safety profile and efficacy suggest that these populations should be explored in later studies. 

Further work is needed to validate the test to predict higher likelihood of response, he added, and recruiting for a phase 3 study is now underway.

The study was supported by Prometheus Biosciences, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Sands disclosed multiple ties to private companies, including research support, consulting, data safety monitoring, travel, a gift, and a stock option. Several coauthors reported, variously, research support from and/or consulting for multiple private companies. Others reported employment, variously, with Prometheus and/or Merck, Spyre Therapeutics, and Mirador Therapeutics, or patent holding for IBD drugs. Dr. Hou had no relevant competing interests to disclose but will participate in the phase 3 trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The experimental monoclonal antibody tulisokibart safely induced clinical remission in a phase 2 randomized trial of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC).

In one cohort of 135 patients, the primary endpoint of clinical remission occurred in 26% of those given the novel antibody to tumor necrosis factor–like cytokine 1A (TL1A) vs 1% given placebo (95% CI, 14-37, P < .001). In a smaller cohort of 43 patients genetically pretested for likely response to the new biologic, remission after treatment was only slightly higher at 32% vs 11% (95% CI, 2-38, P = .02).

The incidence of adverse events was similar in both arms, and most events were mild.

Courtesy Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

The 12-week induction trial, conducted in 14 countries by the ARTEMIS-UC Study Group and led by Bruce E. Sands, MD, MS, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and system chief in the Division of Gastroenterology at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that important clinical benefit may be achieved through TL1A blockade in patients with UC,” Dr. Sands said in an interview, adding that this is the first rigorous study of a drug class with an entirely new mechanism of action that may be beneficial in other immune-mediated and fibrotic diseases. 

“And it is also the first prospective randomized controlled trial in IBD to incorporate a precision-medicine approach using a predictive biomarker for response in a drug development program,” he added.

Dr. Sands stressed the urgent need for new therapies since, despite the approval of multiple new classes of agents, both small molecules and biologics, “there is still a plateau of efficacy in that less than 50% of patients achieve remission at a year.”

He added that UC may progress over time owing to fibrosis of the bowel, a condition not directly or safely addressed by any existing therapies. “Identifying novel targets such as TL1A may allow us to address a different subpopulation of patients who may not respond to the targets addressed by existing therapies,” he said.

In agreement is Jason K. Hou, MD, MS, AGAF, an associate professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and section chief of gastroenterology at Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston, Texas. “Although it’s a very exciting time with more options in the last few years for treating UC, even inhibitors with new agents such as JAK inhibitors and interleukin 23 antagonists, many patients have no or only a partial response,” he said in an interview. “Targeting molecules, which has been studied for decades, may offer more than a shot in the dark.” 
 

Why Target TL1A?

Genome-wide studies have shown elevated TL1A, a member of the tumor necrosis factor superfamily, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

“The interaction of TL1A and its ligand, death domain receptor 3, contributes to the immune-mediated inflammation and fibrosis seen in IBD through the downstream production of proinflammatory cytokines by multiple different immune cells, and the elaboration of collagen by fibroblasts,” Dr. Sands explained.

With the intention of targeting TL1A, his group randomly assigned patients with moderate to severe active UC who were glucocorticoid dependent or had not responded to conventional or advanced therapies, with disease extending a minimum of 15 cm from the anal verge. Across arms, the age of the mainly White, non-Hispanic participants ranged from about 37 to about 42, 35%-53% were female, and disease duration was approximately 6-8 years. 

The arms received either placebo or intravenous tulisokibart at 1000 mg on day 1 and 500 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10. Cohort 1 included patients regardless of biomarker status for likelihood of response. Cohort 2 included only patients with a positive test for likelihood of response.

Dr. Hou was surprised that response to tulisokibart vs placebo was not greater in test-identified probable responders. “The biomarker didn’t make a huge difference, just a numerical one,” he said. “It may be that more genes are involved than the test could identify, and response is more complicated. Or perhaps the placebo response was particularly high in this small group. We need a deeper dive into why.” 
 

Earlier Application?

“This was a phase 2 study, so it’s too soon to say if tulisokibart could be used as early therapy or in severe disease,” Sands said. “However, the excellent safety profile and efficacy suggest that these populations should be explored in later studies. 

Further work is needed to validate the test to predict higher likelihood of response, he added, and recruiting for a phase 3 study is now underway.

The study was supported by Prometheus Biosciences, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Sands disclosed multiple ties to private companies, including research support, consulting, data safety monitoring, travel, a gift, and a stock option. Several coauthors reported, variously, research support from and/or consulting for multiple private companies. Others reported employment, variously, with Prometheus and/or Merck, Spyre Therapeutics, and Mirador Therapeutics, or patent holding for IBD drugs. Dr. Hou had no relevant competing interests to disclose but will participate in the phase 3 trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The experimental monoclonal antibody tulisokibart safely induced clinical remission in a phase 2 randomized trial of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC).

In one cohort of 135 patients, the primary endpoint of clinical remission occurred in 26% of those given the novel antibody to tumor necrosis factor–like cytokine 1A (TL1A) vs 1% given placebo (95% CI, 14-37, P < .001). In a smaller cohort of 43 patients genetically pretested for likely response to the new biologic, remission after treatment was only slightly higher at 32% vs 11% (95% CI, 2-38, P = .02).

The incidence of adverse events was similar in both arms, and most events were mild.

Courtesy Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

The 12-week induction trial, conducted in 14 countries by the ARTEMIS-UC Study Group and led by Bruce E. Sands, MD, MS, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and system chief in the Division of Gastroenterology at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that important clinical benefit may be achieved through TL1A blockade in patients with UC,” Dr. Sands said in an interview, adding that this is the first rigorous study of a drug class with an entirely new mechanism of action that may be beneficial in other immune-mediated and fibrotic diseases. 

“And it is also the first prospective randomized controlled trial in IBD to incorporate a precision-medicine approach using a predictive biomarker for response in a drug development program,” he added.

Dr. Sands stressed the urgent need for new therapies since, despite the approval of multiple new classes of agents, both small molecules and biologics, “there is still a plateau of efficacy in that less than 50% of patients achieve remission at a year.”

He added that UC may progress over time owing to fibrosis of the bowel, a condition not directly or safely addressed by any existing therapies. “Identifying novel targets such as TL1A may allow us to address a different subpopulation of patients who may not respond to the targets addressed by existing therapies,” he said.

In agreement is Jason K. Hou, MD, MS, AGAF, an associate professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and section chief of gastroenterology at Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston, Texas. “Although it’s a very exciting time with more options in the last few years for treating UC, even inhibitors with new agents such as JAK inhibitors and interleukin 23 antagonists, many patients have no or only a partial response,” he said in an interview. “Targeting molecules, which has been studied for decades, may offer more than a shot in the dark.” 
 

Why Target TL1A?

Genome-wide studies have shown elevated TL1A, a member of the tumor necrosis factor superfamily, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

“The interaction of TL1A and its ligand, death domain receptor 3, contributes to the immune-mediated inflammation and fibrosis seen in IBD through the downstream production of proinflammatory cytokines by multiple different immune cells, and the elaboration of collagen by fibroblasts,” Dr. Sands explained.

With the intention of targeting TL1A, his group randomly assigned patients with moderate to severe active UC who were glucocorticoid dependent or had not responded to conventional or advanced therapies, with disease extending a minimum of 15 cm from the anal verge. Across arms, the age of the mainly White, non-Hispanic participants ranged from about 37 to about 42, 35%-53% were female, and disease duration was approximately 6-8 years. 

The arms received either placebo or intravenous tulisokibart at 1000 mg on day 1 and 500 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10. Cohort 1 included patients regardless of biomarker status for likelihood of response. Cohort 2 included only patients with a positive test for likelihood of response.

Dr. Hou was surprised that response to tulisokibart vs placebo was not greater in test-identified probable responders. “The biomarker didn’t make a huge difference, just a numerical one,” he said. “It may be that more genes are involved than the test could identify, and response is more complicated. Or perhaps the placebo response was particularly high in this small group. We need a deeper dive into why.” 
 

Earlier Application?

“This was a phase 2 study, so it’s too soon to say if tulisokibart could be used as early therapy or in severe disease,” Sands said. “However, the excellent safety profile and efficacy suggest that these populations should be explored in later studies. 

Further work is needed to validate the test to predict higher likelihood of response, he added, and recruiting for a phase 3 study is now underway.

The study was supported by Prometheus Biosciences, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Sands disclosed multiple ties to private companies, including research support, consulting, data safety monitoring, travel, a gift, and a stock option. Several coauthors reported, variously, research support from and/or consulting for multiple private companies. Others reported employment, variously, with Prometheus and/or Merck, Spyre Therapeutics, and Mirador Therapeutics, or patent holding for IBD drugs. Dr. Hou had no relevant competing interests to disclose but will participate in the phase 3 trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with intermediate- or low-risk localized prostate cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy are both safe and effective options, according to results of the phase 3 randomized controlled PARTIQoL trial.

With both techniques, disease control rates were over 90%, with virtually no difference in bowel function or other quality-of-life ratings after 2 years, reported Jason Efstathiou, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

“This is a tremendous study [that] really shows us we have two great options, with equal results across the board for both control rates and toxicity rates,” said Sameer Keole, MD, incoming ASTRO president, during a press briefing.

“These control rates are phenomenal, and the complication rates were very low,” continued Dr. Keole, with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “I think men can go and seek definitive treatment when it’s appropriate with a radiation oncologist and know that whether it’s proton therapy or IMRT; it’s an excellent treatment option.”

Overall, about 70% of new cases of prostate cancer each year are localized disease, which represents about 200,000 patients in the United States each year, Dr. Efstathiou explained. These patients have several treatment options, including different choices for external beam radiation therapy.

“Because many of these patients are going to survive their cancer and live many years after treatment, quality of life becomes paramount because they’re at risk for long-term posttreatment morbidity,” Dr. Efstathiou said. “Quality of life will inform their decision-making.”

Dr. Efstathiou noted that proton beam therapy comes with certain dosimetric advantages with the potential to reduce morbidity and improve cancer outcomes, but it is generally more resource intensive and costly than IMRT.

The PARTIQoL multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial compared patient-reported quality of life after external beam radiation using either IMRT or proton beam therapy to determine whether one performs better on the local control and toxicity fronts.

After stratifying by institution, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), rectal spacer use (no vs yes), and moderate hypofractionation (no vs yes), participants were randomized to either proton beam therapy or IMRT.

Patients were followed longitudinally for 60 months after completing radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was bowel function at 24 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument. Secondary outcomes included urinary and erectile function, sexual function, toxicity and efficacy, or disease control endpoints.

Of the 450 patients randomized, 221 of 226 (97.8%) randomized to proton beam therapy and 216 of 224 (96.4%) randomized to IMRT started on their respective treatments, and 167 and 162, respectively, completed the EPIC at 24 months. This represents about a 27% rate of missing data, which “was much better than anticipated,” Dr. Efstathiou noted.

For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between proton beam therapy and IMRT in mean change of the EPIC bowel score at 24 months, with both treatment groups showing only a small, clinically nonrelevant decline from baseline. There was only about a 2% decrease on a 100-point scale in bowel quality of life after 2 years, Dr. Efstathiou reported.

Similarly, the team noted no difference in bowel function at earlier or later time points. “We see some small fluctuations, but at no time point did these reach statistical significance,” he noted.

There were also no differences observed in the other domains at any point, including urinary incontinence, urinary irritation, or sexual function.

Turning to disease control, Dr. Efstathiou and colleagues found no difference between the two groups in progression-free survival. The progression-free survival rate was 99% at 24 months and 93.7% at 60 months with IMRT, compared with 98.1% at 24 months and 93.4% at 60 months with proton beam therapy.

When looking at key subgroups or factors, the team reported no sustained difference in any quality-of-life domain or in cancer control.

Patient monitoring over a longer follow-up period is ongoing. Dr. Efstathiou noted that the PARTIQoL trial was limited to localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients receiving either conventionally or moderately hypofractionated therapy. The trial also did not address the full range of disease scope, including higher risk disease, nodal therapy, concurrent use of hormonal therapy or other systemic therapy, local recurrent situations, or retreatment situations.

Dr. Efstathiou noted that because both proton therapy and IMRT continue to evolve, there is ongoing work to optimize the delivery of both.

Overall, the PARTIQoL trial results demonstrate “equivalent outcomes, with superb cancer control rates and extremely low toxicity from both treatments,” Jessica Karen Wong, MD, MEng, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“Both are excellent treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Dr. Wong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “This study corroborates prior single and multi-institutional experiences with the statistical power and rigorous methods of a clinical trial. Dr Efstathiou and authors should be commended for this comprehensive and well-run trial.”

Discussant for the study, Curtiland Deville, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, agreed that patients in the trial did “exceedingly well,” regardless of whether patients received IMRT or proton therapy.

Dr. Deville said the “fundamental question regarding the use of proton therapy for prostate cancer remains — is there a clinical benefit to protons that justifies their increased costs in this setting? In a cost-neutral setting, it may still be considered very reasonable to deliver proton therapy for prostate cancer.”

In his view, this study is “practice informing” but not yet “practice changing as we await the imminent findings of the COMPARE trial,” which uses a pragmatic design powered to assess the co-primary patient-reported outcome endpoints of EPIC bowel summary, urinary function, and sexual function scores at 2 years, and which enrolled over 2500 patients.

The study has no commercial funding. Dr. Efstathiou disclosed various relationships with IBA Proton Therapy, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Lantheus/Progenics, Astellas/Pfizer, Elekta, Uptodate, Merck, Roivant Pharma, Myovant Sciences, EMD Serono, Bayer Healthcare, Janssen, Pfizer, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Angiodynamics, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keole and Dr. Wong had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Deville is deputy editor of the ASTRO Red Journal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with intermediate- or low-risk localized prostate cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy are both safe and effective options, according to results of the phase 3 randomized controlled PARTIQoL trial.

With both techniques, disease control rates were over 90%, with virtually no difference in bowel function or other quality-of-life ratings after 2 years, reported Jason Efstathiou, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

“This is a tremendous study [that] really shows us we have two great options, with equal results across the board for both control rates and toxicity rates,” said Sameer Keole, MD, incoming ASTRO president, during a press briefing.

“These control rates are phenomenal, and the complication rates were very low,” continued Dr. Keole, with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “I think men can go and seek definitive treatment when it’s appropriate with a radiation oncologist and know that whether it’s proton therapy or IMRT; it’s an excellent treatment option.”

Overall, about 70% of new cases of prostate cancer each year are localized disease, which represents about 200,000 patients in the United States each year, Dr. Efstathiou explained. These patients have several treatment options, including different choices for external beam radiation therapy.

“Because many of these patients are going to survive their cancer and live many years after treatment, quality of life becomes paramount because they’re at risk for long-term posttreatment morbidity,” Dr. Efstathiou said. “Quality of life will inform their decision-making.”

Dr. Efstathiou noted that proton beam therapy comes with certain dosimetric advantages with the potential to reduce morbidity and improve cancer outcomes, but it is generally more resource intensive and costly than IMRT.

The PARTIQoL multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial compared patient-reported quality of life after external beam radiation using either IMRT or proton beam therapy to determine whether one performs better on the local control and toxicity fronts.

After stratifying by institution, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), rectal spacer use (no vs yes), and moderate hypofractionation (no vs yes), participants were randomized to either proton beam therapy or IMRT.

Patients were followed longitudinally for 60 months after completing radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was bowel function at 24 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument. Secondary outcomes included urinary and erectile function, sexual function, toxicity and efficacy, or disease control endpoints.

Of the 450 patients randomized, 221 of 226 (97.8%) randomized to proton beam therapy and 216 of 224 (96.4%) randomized to IMRT started on their respective treatments, and 167 and 162, respectively, completed the EPIC at 24 months. This represents about a 27% rate of missing data, which “was much better than anticipated,” Dr. Efstathiou noted.

For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between proton beam therapy and IMRT in mean change of the EPIC bowel score at 24 months, with both treatment groups showing only a small, clinically nonrelevant decline from baseline. There was only about a 2% decrease on a 100-point scale in bowel quality of life after 2 years, Dr. Efstathiou reported.

Similarly, the team noted no difference in bowel function at earlier or later time points. “We see some small fluctuations, but at no time point did these reach statistical significance,” he noted.

There were also no differences observed in the other domains at any point, including urinary incontinence, urinary irritation, or sexual function.

Turning to disease control, Dr. Efstathiou and colleagues found no difference between the two groups in progression-free survival. The progression-free survival rate was 99% at 24 months and 93.7% at 60 months with IMRT, compared with 98.1% at 24 months and 93.4% at 60 months with proton beam therapy.

When looking at key subgroups or factors, the team reported no sustained difference in any quality-of-life domain or in cancer control.

Patient monitoring over a longer follow-up period is ongoing. Dr. Efstathiou noted that the PARTIQoL trial was limited to localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients receiving either conventionally or moderately hypofractionated therapy. The trial also did not address the full range of disease scope, including higher risk disease, nodal therapy, concurrent use of hormonal therapy or other systemic therapy, local recurrent situations, or retreatment situations.

Dr. Efstathiou noted that because both proton therapy and IMRT continue to evolve, there is ongoing work to optimize the delivery of both.

Overall, the PARTIQoL trial results demonstrate “equivalent outcomes, with superb cancer control rates and extremely low toxicity from both treatments,” Jessica Karen Wong, MD, MEng, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“Both are excellent treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Dr. Wong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “This study corroborates prior single and multi-institutional experiences with the statistical power and rigorous methods of a clinical trial. Dr Efstathiou and authors should be commended for this comprehensive and well-run trial.”

Discussant for the study, Curtiland Deville, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, agreed that patients in the trial did “exceedingly well,” regardless of whether patients received IMRT or proton therapy.

Dr. Deville said the “fundamental question regarding the use of proton therapy for prostate cancer remains — is there a clinical benefit to protons that justifies their increased costs in this setting? In a cost-neutral setting, it may still be considered very reasonable to deliver proton therapy for prostate cancer.”

In his view, this study is “practice informing” but not yet “practice changing as we await the imminent findings of the COMPARE trial,” which uses a pragmatic design powered to assess the co-primary patient-reported outcome endpoints of EPIC bowel summary, urinary function, and sexual function scores at 2 years, and which enrolled over 2500 patients.

The study has no commercial funding. Dr. Efstathiou disclosed various relationships with IBA Proton Therapy, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Lantheus/Progenics, Astellas/Pfizer, Elekta, Uptodate, Merck, Roivant Pharma, Myovant Sciences, EMD Serono, Bayer Healthcare, Janssen, Pfizer, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Angiodynamics, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keole and Dr. Wong had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Deville is deputy editor of the ASTRO Red Journal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with intermediate- or low-risk localized prostate cancer, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy are both safe and effective options, according to results of the phase 3 randomized controlled PARTIQoL trial.

With both techniques, disease control rates were over 90%, with virtually no difference in bowel function or other quality-of-life ratings after 2 years, reported Jason Efstathiou, MD, PhD, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO).

“This is a tremendous study [that] really shows us we have two great options, with equal results across the board for both control rates and toxicity rates,” said Sameer Keole, MD, incoming ASTRO president, during a press briefing.

“These control rates are phenomenal, and the complication rates were very low,” continued Dr. Keole, with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona. “I think men can go and seek definitive treatment when it’s appropriate with a radiation oncologist and know that whether it’s proton therapy or IMRT; it’s an excellent treatment option.”

Overall, about 70% of new cases of prostate cancer each year are localized disease, which represents about 200,000 patients in the United States each year, Dr. Efstathiou explained. These patients have several treatment options, including different choices for external beam radiation therapy.

“Because many of these patients are going to survive their cancer and live many years after treatment, quality of life becomes paramount because they’re at risk for long-term posttreatment morbidity,” Dr. Efstathiou said. “Quality of life will inform their decision-making.”

Dr. Efstathiou noted that proton beam therapy comes with certain dosimetric advantages with the potential to reduce morbidity and improve cancer outcomes, but it is generally more resource intensive and costly than IMRT.

The PARTIQoL multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial compared patient-reported quality of life after external beam radiation using either IMRT or proton beam therapy to determine whether one performs better on the local control and toxicity fronts.

After stratifying by institution, age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years), rectal spacer use (no vs yes), and moderate hypofractionation (no vs yes), participants were randomized to either proton beam therapy or IMRT.

Patients were followed longitudinally for 60 months after completing radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was bowel function at 24 months using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) instrument. Secondary outcomes included urinary and erectile function, sexual function, toxicity and efficacy, or disease control endpoints.

Of the 450 patients randomized, 221 of 226 (97.8%) randomized to proton beam therapy and 216 of 224 (96.4%) randomized to IMRT started on their respective treatments, and 167 and 162, respectively, completed the EPIC at 24 months. This represents about a 27% rate of missing data, which “was much better than anticipated,” Dr. Efstathiou noted.

For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between proton beam therapy and IMRT in mean change of the EPIC bowel score at 24 months, with both treatment groups showing only a small, clinically nonrelevant decline from baseline. There was only about a 2% decrease on a 100-point scale in bowel quality of life after 2 years, Dr. Efstathiou reported.

Similarly, the team noted no difference in bowel function at earlier or later time points. “We see some small fluctuations, but at no time point did these reach statistical significance,” he noted.

There were also no differences observed in the other domains at any point, including urinary incontinence, urinary irritation, or sexual function.

Turning to disease control, Dr. Efstathiou and colleagues found no difference between the two groups in progression-free survival. The progression-free survival rate was 99% at 24 months and 93.7% at 60 months with IMRT, compared with 98.1% at 24 months and 93.4% at 60 months with proton beam therapy.

When looking at key subgroups or factors, the team reported no sustained difference in any quality-of-life domain or in cancer control.

Patient monitoring over a longer follow-up period is ongoing. Dr. Efstathiou noted that the PARTIQoL trial was limited to localized low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients receiving either conventionally or moderately hypofractionated therapy. The trial also did not address the full range of disease scope, including higher risk disease, nodal therapy, concurrent use of hormonal therapy or other systemic therapy, local recurrent situations, or retreatment situations.

Dr. Efstathiou noted that because both proton therapy and IMRT continue to evolve, there is ongoing work to optimize the delivery of both.

Overall, the PARTIQoL trial results demonstrate “equivalent outcomes, with superb cancer control rates and extremely low toxicity from both treatments,” Jessica Karen Wong, MD, MEng, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“Both are excellent treatments for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients,” said Dr. Wong, Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “This study corroborates prior single and multi-institutional experiences with the statistical power and rigorous methods of a clinical trial. Dr Efstathiou and authors should be commended for this comprehensive and well-run trial.”

Discussant for the study, Curtiland Deville, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, agreed that patients in the trial did “exceedingly well,” regardless of whether patients received IMRT or proton therapy.

Dr. Deville said the “fundamental question regarding the use of proton therapy for prostate cancer remains — is there a clinical benefit to protons that justifies their increased costs in this setting? In a cost-neutral setting, it may still be considered very reasonable to deliver proton therapy for prostate cancer.”

In his view, this study is “practice informing” but not yet “practice changing as we await the imminent findings of the COMPARE trial,” which uses a pragmatic design powered to assess the co-primary patient-reported outcome endpoints of EPIC bowel summary, urinary function, and sexual function scores at 2 years, and which enrolled over 2500 patients.

The study has no commercial funding. Dr. Efstathiou disclosed various relationships with IBA Proton Therapy, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Lantheus/Progenics, Astellas/Pfizer, Elekta, Uptodate, Merck, Roivant Pharma, Myovant Sciences, EMD Serono, Bayer Healthcare, Janssen, Pfizer, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Angiodynamics, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Keole and Dr. Wong had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Deville is deputy editor of the ASTRO Red Journal.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival outcomes over adjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (ASCRT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.

Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.

Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
 

Different Approaches in ESCC

Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.

This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”

In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.

Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.

The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.

They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.

In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
 

More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes

One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.

The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.

Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).

There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.

The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.

Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).

Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”

However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.

While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.

“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”

Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.

“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”

Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”

Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.

No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival outcomes over adjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (ASCRT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.

Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.

Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
 

Different Approaches in ESCC

Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.

This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”

In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.

Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.

The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.

They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.

In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
 

More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes

One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.

The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.

Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).

There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.

The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.

Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).

Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”

However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.

While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.

“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”

Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.

“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”

Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”

Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.

No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy significantly improves survival outcomes over adjuvant sequential chemoradiotherapy (ASCRT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, confirmed the first randomized trial to directly compare the two approaches.

Yaoyao Zhu, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Shanghai, China, presented the new research at the annual World Conference on Lung Cancer on September 10.

Based on the findings, neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCCRT) followed by surgical resection “should be regarded as the standard of care for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the Chinese population,” Dr. Zhu said.
 

Different Approaches in ESCC

Dr. Zhu began her presentation by underscoring that in Western countries, NCCRT followed by surgery has been the standard treatment for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer since the publication of the CROSS trial in 2012, which compared neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery with surgery alone.

This demonstrated that preoperative chemoradiotherapy improved survival by 34% in patients with potentially curable esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer, while adverse event rates were deemed “acceptable.”

In contrast, in most centers in China, clinicians opt for performing surgery followed by ASCRT.

Dr. Zhu pointed out that as previous randomized controlled trials have used surgery alone as the comparator arm, it has not been shown definitively that NCCRT plus surgery is superior to surgery followed by ASCRT.

The researchers, therefore, conducted the NEOTERIC trial, which enrolled patients with clinically resectable, locally advanced ESCC, defined as clinical stage T1-2N1M0 or T3-4N0-1M0.

They were randomized to one of two arms. The NCCRT arm involved 6 weeks of carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy alongside radiotherapy delivered as 50.4 Gy over 28 fractions. After an interval of 4-6 weeks, the patients underwent surgery, followed by an optional two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 4-6 weeks later.

In the ASCRT arm, patients underwent surgery straightaway, waited for 4-6 weeks, then had two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel 3 weeks apart, followed by the same radiotherapy regimen as in the first arm. About 2-4 weeks later, patients could then undergo another two cycles of carboplatin plus paclitaxel.
 

More Than Doubling of Survival Outcomes

One hundred patients were assigned to NCCRT and 104 to ASCRT. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of their baseline characteristics.

The vast majority of patients were men, just over two thirds were smokers, and the median age was around 60 years. The median tumor length was approximately 5 cm, and around half of tumors were located in the middle third of the esophagus.

Median disease-free survival was markedly longer with NCCRT, at 51.0 months vs 14.0 months in the ASCRT arm (P = .01). Similarly, median overall survival was far longer with neoadjuvant therapy, at 79.0 months, vs 38.0 months when waiting until after surgery to provide chemoradiotherapy (P = .025).

There were no significant differences in postsurgical complications between the two arms, and no significant differences in rates of grade 3-4 hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities. There were also no chemoradiotherapy-related deaths.

The most common toxicities across the two study arms were esophagitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia.

Overall, the rates of recurrence were significantly lower with NCCRT than with ASCRT (58.0% vs 66.3%; P = .020). This included significant reductions in both locoregional (P = .012) and distant recurrence (P = .009).

Jaffer A. Ajani, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, underlined that the experimental arm of the trial, with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, “has been the standard of care in the United States for a long time, particularly for squamous carcinoma.”

However, he said in an interview that it is not a standard of care in China and clinicians continue with adjuvant therapy. This is despite a recent study conducted in Hong Kong that concluded that patients should not be given any treatment after surgery “because they do worse” than those given neoadjuvant therapy, he continued.

While Dr. Ajani noted that the current analysis is underpowered to provide a definitive conclusion, it remains “an important study for Chinese patients.

“Hopefully, it will be well advertised in China, and all the providers switch [to NCCRT]. This could push them to abandon what in the West was considered harmful.”

Dr. Ajani explained the reason neoadjuvant therapy performs better than adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is it “may be mopping up some of the micro metastatic disease, which is difficult to do after surgery,” especially as many patients cannot tolerate postoperative treatment.

“It may be that the majority of patients don’t even get [adjuvant therapy], and those who get it don’t seem to benefit.”

Vishwanath Sathyanarayanan, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Professor and Academic Advisor, Department of Medical Oncology, Apollo Cancer Centers, Bangalore, India, agreed that the study reinforces that “NCCRT continues to remain the standard of care in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.”

Consequently, there are “no implications for clinical practice” for providers in the West from these study results, “particularly as NCCRT significantly improves outcomes vs ASCRT with a similar toxicity profile,” he said in an interview.

No funding was declared. Dr. Zhu declared no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.