Marcia Frellick

Patients at least 75 years old saw a reduced risk of overall cardiovascular incidence with statin therapy without increased risk of severe adverse effects in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Of note, the benefits and safety of statin therapy were consistently found in adults aged 85 years or older,” wrote the authors, led by Wanchun Xu, a PhD student with the Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, in the Special Administrative Region, China.

Geriatrician Jerry H. Gurwitz, MD, the Dr. John Meyers Professor in Primary Care Medicine at UMass Chan Medical School in Boston, said he found the results of this trial “remarkable,” but is awaiting the results of the much-anticipated randomized, controlled PREVENTABLE trial years from now for more definitive evidence.
 

Little Consensus on Statins for This Age Group

Prescribing statins for primary prevention of CVD in the most senior patient groups has been controversial. There is little consensus as patients in this age group have been underrepresented in randomized controlled trials.

Major guidelines for use of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, exclude specific guidance for statin use in patients older than 75, citing insufficient evidence.

Ms. Xu and colleagues used territory-wide electronic health records in a sequential target trial emulation comparing matched cohorts that did or did not start statins. There were 42,680 matched person-trials in the group of patients aged 75-84 years and 5,390 matched person-trials in the 85 and older group. The average follow-up was 5.3 years and people with CVDs at baseline, such as coronary heart disease, were excluded. Patients who met indications for statin initiation from January 2008 to December 2015 were included.

Risk Reduction Seen in Both Senior Groups

Of the 42,680 matched person-trials in the 75-84 age group, 9676 developed cardiovascular disease; of the 5390 in the 85-plus group, 1600 developed CVD.

In the younger cohort, the 5-year reduced risk for overall CVD incidence when statin therapy was initiated was 1.20% (95% CI, 0.57%-1.82%) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; 5.00% (95% CI, 1.11%-8.89%) in the per protocol (PP) analysis.

Reduced risk for overall CVD incidence in the 85-and-older group when statins were initiated was 4.44% in the ITT analysis (95% CI, 1.40%-7.48%); and 12.50% in the PP analysis (95% CI, 4.33%-20.66%). There was no significantly increased risk for liver dysfunction or myopathies in either age group, the authors stated.

One of the biggest strengths of the study is the use of population-based data over a long period. One of the limitations was that the researchers were not able to measure lifestyle factors such as diet and physical activity in their analysis.

Dr. Gurwitz, who has done drug research in older adults for decades, said “the results are very compelling,” and in the oldest group “almost too compelling. Wow.”

Numbers Needed to Treat Are Strikingly Low

He noted that the authors thoroughly acknowledge limitations of the trial. But he also pointed to the impressive number needed to treat reported by the researchers.

The authors stated: “[O]n the basis of the estimated absolute risk reduction in the PP analysis, the number needed to treat [NNT] to prevent 1 CVD event in 5 years was 20 (95% CI, 11-90) in those aged 75-84 years and 8 (95% CI, 5-23) in those aged 85 years or older.”

For perspective, he said, “Sometimes you’re seeing numbers needed to treat for vaccinations of 400 to prevent one hospitalization. They are using real-world information and they are seeing this remarkable effect. If it’s that good in the real world, it’s going to be even better in a clinical trial. That’s why I have some reservations about whether it’s really that good.”

Dr. Gurwitz said, “I’m not ready to start an 87-year-old on statin therapy who hasn’t been on it before for primary prevention, despite the results of this very well done study.” He will await the findings of PREVENTABLE, which aims to enroll 20,000 people at least 75 years old to look at statin use. But in the meantime, he will discuss the Xu et al. results and other evidence with patients if they request statins and may prescribe them as part of shared decision making.

He said the question of whether to use statins in primary prevention is similar to the question of whether to use aspirin as primary prevention for CVD in older adults.

Originally, “Most of us thought, yes, it’s probably a good thing,” he said, but now “there have been a lot of deprescribing efforts to get older people off of aspirin.

“In the United States, believe it or not, 48% of people 75 and older are on statins already,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “Maybe that’s good,” he said, but added physicians won’t know for sure until PREVENTABLE results are in.

“If I didn’t already know the PREVENTABLE trial was going on, and it was never going to happen, I would find this [Xu et al. study] very influential,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “I’m willing to wait.”

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund, Health Bureau, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Coauthors reported grants from the Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, the Malaysian College of Family Physicians, and the International Association of Chinese Nephrologists in Hong Kong. Dr. Gurwitz reported no relevant financial relationships.

Patients at least 75 years old saw a reduced risk of overall cardiovascular incidence with statin therapy without increased risk of severe adverse effects in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Of note, the benefits and safety of statin therapy were consistently found in adults aged 85 years or older,” wrote the authors, led by Wanchun Xu, a PhD student with the Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, in the Special Administrative Region, China.

Geriatrician Jerry H. Gurwitz, MD, the Dr. John Meyers Professor in Primary Care Medicine at UMass Chan Medical School in Boston, said he found the results of this trial “remarkable,” but is awaiting the results of the much-anticipated randomized, controlled PREVENTABLE trial years from now for more definitive evidence.
 

Little Consensus on Statins for This Age Group

Prescribing statins for primary prevention of CVD in the most senior patient groups has been controversial. There is little consensus as patients in this age group have been underrepresented in randomized controlled trials.

Major guidelines for use of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, exclude specific guidance for statin use in patients older than 75, citing insufficient evidence.

Ms. Xu and colleagues used territory-wide electronic health records in a sequential target trial emulation comparing matched cohorts that did or did not start statins. There were 42,680 matched person-trials in the group of patients aged 75-84 years and 5,390 matched person-trials in the 85 and older group. The average follow-up was 5.3 years and people with CVDs at baseline, such as coronary heart disease, were excluded. Patients who met indications for statin initiation from January 2008 to December 2015 were included.

Risk Reduction Seen in Both Senior Groups

Of the 42,680 matched person-trials in the 75-84 age group, 9676 developed cardiovascular disease; of the 5390 in the 85-plus group, 1600 developed CVD.

In the younger cohort, the 5-year reduced risk for overall CVD incidence when statin therapy was initiated was 1.20% (95% CI, 0.57%-1.82%) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; 5.00% (95% CI, 1.11%-8.89%) in the per protocol (PP) analysis.

Reduced risk for overall CVD incidence in the 85-and-older group when statins were initiated was 4.44% in the ITT analysis (95% CI, 1.40%-7.48%); and 12.50% in the PP analysis (95% CI, 4.33%-20.66%). There was no significantly increased risk for liver dysfunction or myopathies in either age group, the authors stated.

One of the biggest strengths of the study is the use of population-based data over a long period. One of the limitations was that the researchers were not able to measure lifestyle factors such as diet and physical activity in their analysis.

Dr. Gurwitz, who has done drug research in older adults for decades, said “the results are very compelling,” and in the oldest group “almost too compelling. Wow.”

Numbers Needed to Treat Are Strikingly Low

He noted that the authors thoroughly acknowledge limitations of the trial. But he also pointed to the impressive number needed to treat reported by the researchers.

The authors stated: “[O]n the basis of the estimated absolute risk reduction in the PP analysis, the number needed to treat [NNT] to prevent 1 CVD event in 5 years was 20 (95% CI, 11-90) in those aged 75-84 years and 8 (95% CI, 5-23) in those aged 85 years or older.”

For perspective, he said, “Sometimes you’re seeing numbers needed to treat for vaccinations of 400 to prevent one hospitalization. They are using real-world information and they are seeing this remarkable effect. If it’s that good in the real world, it’s going to be even better in a clinical trial. That’s why I have some reservations about whether it’s really that good.”

Dr. Gurwitz said, “I’m not ready to start an 87-year-old on statin therapy who hasn’t been on it before for primary prevention, despite the results of this very well done study.” He will await the findings of PREVENTABLE, which aims to enroll 20,000 people at least 75 years old to look at statin use. But in the meantime, he will discuss the Xu et al. results and other evidence with patients if they request statins and may prescribe them as part of shared decision making.

He said the question of whether to use statins in primary prevention is similar to the question of whether to use aspirin as primary prevention for CVD in older adults.

Originally, “Most of us thought, yes, it’s probably a good thing,” he said, but now “there have been a lot of deprescribing efforts to get older people off of aspirin.

“In the United States, believe it or not, 48% of people 75 and older are on statins already,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “Maybe that’s good,” he said, but added physicians won’t know for sure until PREVENTABLE results are in.

“If I didn’t already know the PREVENTABLE trial was going on, and it was never going to happen, I would find this [Xu et al. study] very influential,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “I’m willing to wait.”

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund, Health Bureau, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Coauthors reported grants from the Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, the Malaysian College of Family Physicians, and the International Association of Chinese Nephrologists in Hong Kong. Dr. Gurwitz reported no relevant financial relationships.

Patients at least 75 years old saw a reduced risk of overall cardiovascular incidence with statin therapy without increased risk of severe adverse effects in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Of note, the benefits and safety of statin therapy were consistently found in adults aged 85 years or older,” wrote the authors, led by Wanchun Xu, a PhD student with the Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, in the Special Administrative Region, China.

Geriatrician Jerry H. Gurwitz, MD, the Dr. John Meyers Professor in Primary Care Medicine at UMass Chan Medical School in Boston, said he found the results of this trial “remarkable,” but is awaiting the results of the much-anticipated randomized, controlled PREVENTABLE trial years from now for more definitive evidence.
 

Little Consensus on Statins for This Age Group

Prescribing statins for primary prevention of CVD in the most senior patient groups has been controversial. There is little consensus as patients in this age group have been underrepresented in randomized controlled trials.

Major guidelines for use of statins in the primary prevention of CVD, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, exclude specific guidance for statin use in patients older than 75, citing insufficient evidence.

Ms. Xu and colleagues used territory-wide electronic health records in a sequential target trial emulation comparing matched cohorts that did or did not start statins. There were 42,680 matched person-trials in the group of patients aged 75-84 years and 5,390 matched person-trials in the 85 and older group. The average follow-up was 5.3 years and people with CVDs at baseline, such as coronary heart disease, were excluded. Patients who met indications for statin initiation from January 2008 to December 2015 were included.

Risk Reduction Seen in Both Senior Groups

Of the 42,680 matched person-trials in the 75-84 age group, 9676 developed cardiovascular disease; of the 5390 in the 85-plus group, 1600 developed CVD.

In the younger cohort, the 5-year reduced risk for overall CVD incidence when statin therapy was initiated was 1.20% (95% CI, 0.57%-1.82%) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; 5.00% (95% CI, 1.11%-8.89%) in the per protocol (PP) analysis.

Reduced risk for overall CVD incidence in the 85-and-older group when statins were initiated was 4.44% in the ITT analysis (95% CI, 1.40%-7.48%); and 12.50% in the PP analysis (95% CI, 4.33%-20.66%). There was no significantly increased risk for liver dysfunction or myopathies in either age group, the authors stated.

One of the biggest strengths of the study is the use of population-based data over a long period. One of the limitations was that the researchers were not able to measure lifestyle factors such as diet and physical activity in their analysis.

Dr. Gurwitz, who has done drug research in older adults for decades, said “the results are very compelling,” and in the oldest group “almost too compelling. Wow.”

Numbers Needed to Treat Are Strikingly Low

He noted that the authors thoroughly acknowledge limitations of the trial. But he also pointed to the impressive number needed to treat reported by the researchers.

The authors stated: “[O]n the basis of the estimated absolute risk reduction in the PP analysis, the number needed to treat [NNT] to prevent 1 CVD event in 5 years was 20 (95% CI, 11-90) in those aged 75-84 years and 8 (95% CI, 5-23) in those aged 85 years or older.”

For perspective, he said, “Sometimes you’re seeing numbers needed to treat for vaccinations of 400 to prevent one hospitalization. They are using real-world information and they are seeing this remarkable effect. If it’s that good in the real world, it’s going to be even better in a clinical trial. That’s why I have some reservations about whether it’s really that good.”

Dr. Gurwitz said, “I’m not ready to start an 87-year-old on statin therapy who hasn’t been on it before for primary prevention, despite the results of this very well done study.” He will await the findings of PREVENTABLE, which aims to enroll 20,000 people at least 75 years old to look at statin use. But in the meantime, he will discuss the Xu et al. results and other evidence with patients if they request statins and may prescribe them as part of shared decision making.

He said the question of whether to use statins in primary prevention is similar to the question of whether to use aspirin as primary prevention for CVD in older adults.

Originally, “Most of us thought, yes, it’s probably a good thing,” he said, but now “there have been a lot of deprescribing efforts to get older people off of aspirin.

“In the United States, believe it or not, 48% of people 75 and older are on statins already,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “Maybe that’s good,” he said, but added physicians won’t know for sure until PREVENTABLE results are in.

“If I didn’t already know the PREVENTABLE trial was going on, and it was never going to happen, I would find this [Xu et al. study] very influential,” Dr. Gurwitz said. “I’m willing to wait.”

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund, Health Bureau, the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Coauthors reported grants from the Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, the Malaysian College of Family Physicians, and the International Association of Chinese Nephrologists in Hong Kong. Dr. Gurwitz reported no relevant financial relationships.

Patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated in practices that have high rates of giving systemic care in the last two weeks of life do not have longer survival rates than patients in practices that have low rates of such care.

This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
 

How Was the Study Conducted?

Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.

What Were the Main Findings?

“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.

“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”

An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
 

How Does This Study Add to the Literature?

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.

But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.

Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.

“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”

This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.

 

Could This Change Practice?

The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.

Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.

“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.

“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”

Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated in practices that have high rates of giving systemic care in the last two weeks of life do not have longer survival rates than patients in practices that have low rates of such care.

This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
 

How Was the Study Conducted?

Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.

What Were the Main Findings?

“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.

“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”

An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
 

How Does This Study Add to the Literature?

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.

But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.

Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.

“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”

This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.

 

Could This Change Practice?

The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.

Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.

“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.

“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”

Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated in practices that have high rates of giving systemic care in the last two weeks of life do not have longer survival rates than patients in practices that have low rates of such care.

This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
 

How Was the Study Conducted?

Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.

What Were the Main Findings?

“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.

“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”

An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
 

How Does This Study Add to the Literature?

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.

But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.

Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.

“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”

This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.

 

Could This Change Practice?

The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.

Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.

“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.

“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”

Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.

An online program aimed at helping those with binge-eating disorder (BED), based on completing cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) modules, showed positive results in a randomized, controlled trial. The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, led by Luise Pruessner, MS, with the Department of Psychology at Heidelberg University in Germany, 154 patients (96% female; average age 35.9) who met the criteria for BED were randomized 1-to-1 to the intervention or control group.
 

12-Week CBT Program with 6 Modules

The intervention group had access to a 12-week CBT online program with a core curriculum of six mandatory modules of texts and videos, focused on self-monitoring of binge eating, psychoeducation, and regulating emotion. Each could be accessed only after the previous module was completed. Participants also chose six specialization areas to personalize the experience. Email reminders were sent to participants who delayed starting the program to boost initial and continuing engagement.

The control group had no access to the program and participants were told they were on a 12-week waiting list for it. They could explore other treatments during that time, an option that mimics real-world experiences. The design choice also helped navigate the ethics of withholding a potentially effective treatment.
 

Significant Improvement in Outcomes

The intervention group had a significant reduction in binge-eating episodes, the primary outcome, compared with the control group. In the intervention group, the average number of episodes decreased from 14.79 at baseline to 6.07 (95% confidence interval, −11.31 to −6.72; P < .001). The reduction surpassed the clinically meaningful threshold of 3.97 episodes. The control group, as expected, had no significant reductions in episodes.

The intervention group also showed improvement in outcomes including well-being, self-esteem, and emotional regulation and reductions in clinical impairment, depression, and anxiety. “However, there were no meaningful between-group differences regarding changes in work capacity,” the authors noted.

In an invited commentary, Andrea Graham, PhD, with the Center for Behavioral Intervention Technologies at the Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that BED “is a prevalent, serious, and impairing psychiatric illness.”

The study authors pointed out that BED is one of the most prevalent eating disorders, affecting “1.0% to 2.8% of the population over their lifetimes.”

Dr. Graham notes that while there are evidence-based, face-to-face psychological treatments, many patients have considerable barriers to accessing those services.
 

Digital Intervention Advantages

“Digital interventions, such as the one evaluated by Pruessner and colleagues, have the potential to curb the mental health crisis by reaching large numbers of people in need” in the moments they need help most, she wrote.

She added that with BED, eating decisions and signals for dysregulated eating occur frequently throughout the day, highlighting the need for on-demand and immediate access to self-help, like the solution Ms. Pruessner and colleagues describe.

“The importance of Pruessner and colleagues’ findings is strengthened because their digital intervention did not rely on human support for delivery,” she wrote. Relying on human intervention poses financial challenges for achieving scale.

“Therefore, self-help interventions that achieve clinically significant improvements in outcomes present an important opportunity for closing the treatment gap for binge eating. Given its effectiveness, the critical next step is to learn where and how to implement this intervention to broadly reach individuals in need,” Dr. Graham wrote.

Primary care clinicians don’t typically intervene in eating disorders and a self-help intervention might help address that gap, she added.

“However, a first step would require increasing screening for eating disorders in primary care,” Dr. Graham pointed out.

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Graham reports grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. She reports receiving a grant from the NIDDK-funded Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research, Dean’s Office of the Biological Sciences Division of the University of Chicago and Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University; and being an adviser to Alavida Health.

An online program aimed at helping those with binge-eating disorder (BED), based on completing cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) modules, showed positive results in a randomized, controlled trial. The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, led by Luise Pruessner, MS, with the Department of Psychology at Heidelberg University in Germany, 154 patients (96% female; average age 35.9) who met the criteria for BED were randomized 1-to-1 to the intervention or control group.
 

12-Week CBT Program with 6 Modules

The intervention group had access to a 12-week CBT online program with a core curriculum of six mandatory modules of texts and videos, focused on self-monitoring of binge eating, psychoeducation, and regulating emotion. Each could be accessed only after the previous module was completed. Participants also chose six specialization areas to personalize the experience. Email reminders were sent to participants who delayed starting the program to boost initial and continuing engagement.

The control group had no access to the program and participants were told they were on a 12-week waiting list for it. They could explore other treatments during that time, an option that mimics real-world experiences. The design choice also helped navigate the ethics of withholding a potentially effective treatment.
 

Significant Improvement in Outcomes

The intervention group had a significant reduction in binge-eating episodes, the primary outcome, compared with the control group. In the intervention group, the average number of episodes decreased from 14.79 at baseline to 6.07 (95% confidence interval, −11.31 to −6.72; P < .001). The reduction surpassed the clinically meaningful threshold of 3.97 episodes. The control group, as expected, had no significant reductions in episodes.

The intervention group also showed improvement in outcomes including well-being, self-esteem, and emotional regulation and reductions in clinical impairment, depression, and anxiety. “However, there were no meaningful between-group differences regarding changes in work capacity,” the authors noted.

In an invited commentary, Andrea Graham, PhD, with the Center for Behavioral Intervention Technologies at the Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that BED “is a prevalent, serious, and impairing psychiatric illness.”

The study authors pointed out that BED is one of the most prevalent eating disorders, affecting “1.0% to 2.8% of the population over their lifetimes.”

Dr. Graham notes that while there are evidence-based, face-to-face psychological treatments, many patients have considerable barriers to accessing those services.
 

Digital Intervention Advantages

“Digital interventions, such as the one evaluated by Pruessner and colleagues, have the potential to curb the mental health crisis by reaching large numbers of people in need” in the moments they need help most, she wrote.

She added that with BED, eating decisions and signals for dysregulated eating occur frequently throughout the day, highlighting the need for on-demand and immediate access to self-help, like the solution Ms. Pruessner and colleagues describe.

“The importance of Pruessner and colleagues’ findings is strengthened because their digital intervention did not rely on human support for delivery,” she wrote. Relying on human intervention poses financial challenges for achieving scale.

“Therefore, self-help interventions that achieve clinically significant improvements in outcomes present an important opportunity for closing the treatment gap for binge eating. Given its effectiveness, the critical next step is to learn where and how to implement this intervention to broadly reach individuals in need,” Dr. Graham wrote.

Primary care clinicians don’t typically intervene in eating disorders and a self-help intervention might help address that gap, she added.

“However, a first step would require increasing screening for eating disorders in primary care,” Dr. Graham pointed out.

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Graham reports grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. She reports receiving a grant from the NIDDK-funded Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research, Dean’s Office of the Biological Sciences Division of the University of Chicago and Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University; and being an adviser to Alavida Health.

An online program aimed at helping those with binge-eating disorder (BED), based on completing cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) modules, showed positive results in a randomized, controlled trial. The findings were published in JAMA Network Open.

In the study, led by Luise Pruessner, MS, with the Department of Psychology at Heidelberg University in Germany, 154 patients (96% female; average age 35.9) who met the criteria for BED were randomized 1-to-1 to the intervention or control group.
 

12-Week CBT Program with 6 Modules

The intervention group had access to a 12-week CBT online program with a core curriculum of six mandatory modules of texts and videos, focused on self-monitoring of binge eating, psychoeducation, and regulating emotion. Each could be accessed only after the previous module was completed. Participants also chose six specialization areas to personalize the experience. Email reminders were sent to participants who delayed starting the program to boost initial and continuing engagement.

The control group had no access to the program and participants were told they were on a 12-week waiting list for it. They could explore other treatments during that time, an option that mimics real-world experiences. The design choice also helped navigate the ethics of withholding a potentially effective treatment.
 

Significant Improvement in Outcomes

The intervention group had a significant reduction in binge-eating episodes, the primary outcome, compared with the control group. In the intervention group, the average number of episodes decreased from 14.79 at baseline to 6.07 (95% confidence interval, −11.31 to −6.72; P < .001). The reduction surpassed the clinically meaningful threshold of 3.97 episodes. The control group, as expected, had no significant reductions in episodes.

The intervention group also showed improvement in outcomes including well-being, self-esteem, and emotional regulation and reductions in clinical impairment, depression, and anxiety. “However, there were no meaningful between-group differences regarding changes in work capacity,” the authors noted.

In an invited commentary, Andrea Graham, PhD, with the Center for Behavioral Intervention Technologies at the Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that BED “is a prevalent, serious, and impairing psychiatric illness.”

The study authors pointed out that BED is one of the most prevalent eating disorders, affecting “1.0% to 2.8% of the population over their lifetimes.”

Dr. Graham notes that while there are evidence-based, face-to-face psychological treatments, many patients have considerable barriers to accessing those services.
 

Digital Intervention Advantages

“Digital interventions, such as the one evaluated by Pruessner and colleagues, have the potential to curb the mental health crisis by reaching large numbers of people in need” in the moments they need help most, she wrote.

She added that with BED, eating decisions and signals for dysregulated eating occur frequently throughout the day, highlighting the need for on-demand and immediate access to self-help, like the solution Ms. Pruessner and colleagues describe.

“The importance of Pruessner and colleagues’ findings is strengthened because their digital intervention did not rely on human support for delivery,” she wrote. Relying on human intervention poses financial challenges for achieving scale.

“Therefore, self-help interventions that achieve clinically significant improvements in outcomes present an important opportunity for closing the treatment gap for binge eating. Given its effectiveness, the critical next step is to learn where and how to implement this intervention to broadly reach individuals in need,” Dr. Graham wrote.

Primary care clinicians don’t typically intervene in eating disorders and a self-help intervention might help address that gap, she added.

“However, a first step would require increasing screening for eating disorders in primary care,” Dr. Graham pointed out.

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Graham reports grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. She reports receiving a grant from the NIDDK-funded Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research, Dean’s Office of the Biological Sciences Division of the University of Chicago and Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University; and being an adviser to Alavida Health.

A new systematic literature review adds complexity to the controversy over testosterone’s relationship to risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality.

Last year, the TRAVERSE (Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-term Vascular Events and Efficacy ResponSE in Hypogonadal Men) trial was the first randomized, placebo-controlled study designed and powered to determine whether testosterone therapy increased risk for major cardiovascular events in men (ages 45-80 years). Its conclusions provided reassurance that modest use of testosterone therapy short term does not increase CVD risk.

But other studies have had different conclusions and TRAVERSE left unanswered questions, so Bu B. Yeap, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Western Australia in Crawley, and colleagues completed a literature review with 11 prospective cohort studies of community-dwelling men with sex steroid levels measured with mass spectrometry. Nine of the studies provided individual participation data (IPD); two used aggregate data, and all had at least 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine .

Dr. Yeap’s team concluded that certain groups of men have higher risk for CVD events. In this study, men with very low testosterone, high luteinizing hormone (LH), or very low estradiol concentrations had higher all-cause mortality. Sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) concentration was positively associated and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) levels were nonlinearly associated with all-cause mortality and CVD mortality.

The testosterone level below which men had higher risk of death from any cause was 7.4 nmol/L (213 ng/dL), regardless of LH concentration, the researchers concluded, writing, “This adds to information on reference ranges based on distributions of testosterone in selected samples of healthy men.”

The link between higher SHBG concentrations and higher all-cause mortality “may be related to its role as the major binding protein for sex steroids in the circulation,” the authors wrote. “We found a U-shaped association of DHT with all-cause and CVD-related mortality risks, which were higher at lower and very high DHT concentrations. Men with very low DHT concentrations also had increased risk for incident CVD events. Further investigation into potential underlying mechanisms for these associations is warranted.”
 

Rigorous Methodology Adds Value

Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, with the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, pointed out in an accompanying editorial that the study’s findings are particularly valuable because of the team’s rigorous methodology. The team measured testosterone with the gold standard, mass spectrometry, which can also measure DHT and estradiol more accurately than widely available commercial immunoassays, which “are inaccurate for measurement of these sex steroids in men, who typically have low serum concentrations of these two metabolites of testosterone,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Also, the researchers obtained raw data from the nine IPD studies and reanalyzed the combined data, which allows for more sophisticated analysis when combining data from multiple studies, Dr. Anawalt explained.

The main finding from the Yeap et al. study, he wrote, is that high testosterone concentrations at baseline were not linked with increased deaths from CVD or from all causes “but very low serum total testosterone concentrations at baseline were.

“It is tempting to hypothesize that testosterone therapy might have cardiovascular benefits solely in patients with very low concentrations of serum total testosterone,” Dr. Anawalt wrote.

He pointed out as particularly interesting the findings for DHT and estradiol.

“The finding that a low serum estradiol concentration is associated with higher all-cause mortality adds another reason (in addition to the adverse effects on body fat and bone health) to avoid aromatase inhibitors that are commonly taken by persons who use anabolic steroids,” he wrote. “The prospect of a U-shaped curve for the relationship between serum DHT and higher cardiovascular risk warrants further study.”

The work is funded by the Government of Western Australia and Lawley Pharmaceuticals. The authors’ and editorial writer’s conflicts of interest are listed in the full study.

A new systematic literature review adds complexity to the controversy over testosterone’s relationship to risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality.

Last year, the TRAVERSE (Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-term Vascular Events and Efficacy ResponSE in Hypogonadal Men) trial was the first randomized, placebo-controlled study designed and powered to determine whether testosterone therapy increased risk for major cardiovascular events in men (ages 45-80 years). Its conclusions provided reassurance that modest use of testosterone therapy short term does not increase CVD risk.

But other studies have had different conclusions and TRAVERSE left unanswered questions, so Bu B. Yeap, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Western Australia in Crawley, and colleagues completed a literature review with 11 prospective cohort studies of community-dwelling men with sex steroid levels measured with mass spectrometry. Nine of the studies provided individual participation data (IPD); two used aggregate data, and all had at least 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine .

Dr. Yeap’s team concluded that certain groups of men have higher risk for CVD events. In this study, men with very low testosterone, high luteinizing hormone (LH), or very low estradiol concentrations had higher all-cause mortality. Sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) concentration was positively associated and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) levels were nonlinearly associated with all-cause mortality and CVD mortality.

The testosterone level below which men had higher risk of death from any cause was 7.4 nmol/L (213 ng/dL), regardless of LH concentration, the researchers concluded, writing, “This adds to information on reference ranges based on distributions of testosterone in selected samples of healthy men.”

The link between higher SHBG concentrations and higher all-cause mortality “may be related to its role as the major binding protein for sex steroids in the circulation,” the authors wrote. “We found a U-shaped association of DHT with all-cause and CVD-related mortality risks, which were higher at lower and very high DHT concentrations. Men with very low DHT concentrations also had increased risk for incident CVD events. Further investigation into potential underlying mechanisms for these associations is warranted.”
 

Rigorous Methodology Adds Value

Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, with the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, pointed out in an accompanying editorial that the study’s findings are particularly valuable because of the team’s rigorous methodology. The team measured testosterone with the gold standard, mass spectrometry, which can also measure DHT and estradiol more accurately than widely available commercial immunoassays, which “are inaccurate for measurement of these sex steroids in men, who typically have low serum concentrations of these two metabolites of testosterone,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Also, the researchers obtained raw data from the nine IPD studies and reanalyzed the combined data, which allows for more sophisticated analysis when combining data from multiple studies, Dr. Anawalt explained.

The main finding from the Yeap et al. study, he wrote, is that high testosterone concentrations at baseline were not linked with increased deaths from CVD or from all causes “but very low serum total testosterone concentrations at baseline were.

“It is tempting to hypothesize that testosterone therapy might have cardiovascular benefits solely in patients with very low concentrations of serum total testosterone,” Dr. Anawalt wrote.

He pointed out as particularly interesting the findings for DHT and estradiol.

“The finding that a low serum estradiol concentration is associated with higher all-cause mortality adds another reason (in addition to the adverse effects on body fat and bone health) to avoid aromatase inhibitors that are commonly taken by persons who use anabolic steroids,” he wrote. “The prospect of a U-shaped curve for the relationship between serum DHT and higher cardiovascular risk warrants further study.”

The work is funded by the Government of Western Australia and Lawley Pharmaceuticals. The authors’ and editorial writer’s conflicts of interest are listed in the full study.

A new systematic literature review adds complexity to the controversy over testosterone’s relationship to risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality.

Last year, the TRAVERSE (Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-term Vascular Events and Efficacy ResponSE in Hypogonadal Men) trial was the first randomized, placebo-controlled study designed and powered to determine whether testosterone therapy increased risk for major cardiovascular events in men (ages 45-80 years). Its conclusions provided reassurance that modest use of testosterone therapy short term does not increase CVD risk.

But other studies have had different conclusions and TRAVERSE left unanswered questions, so Bu B. Yeap, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Western Australia in Crawley, and colleagues completed a literature review with 11 prospective cohort studies of community-dwelling men with sex steroid levels measured with mass spectrometry. Nine of the studies provided individual participation data (IPD); two used aggregate data, and all had at least 5 years of follow-up.

The findings were published in Annals of Internal Medicine .

Dr. Yeap’s team concluded that certain groups of men have higher risk for CVD events. In this study, men with very low testosterone, high luteinizing hormone (LH), or very low estradiol concentrations had higher all-cause mortality. Sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) concentration was positively associated and dihydrotestosterone (DHT) levels were nonlinearly associated with all-cause mortality and CVD mortality.

The testosterone level below which men had higher risk of death from any cause was 7.4 nmol/L (213 ng/dL), regardless of LH concentration, the researchers concluded, writing, “This adds to information on reference ranges based on distributions of testosterone in selected samples of healthy men.”

The link between higher SHBG concentrations and higher all-cause mortality “may be related to its role as the major binding protein for sex steroids in the circulation,” the authors wrote. “We found a U-shaped association of DHT with all-cause and CVD-related mortality risks, which were higher at lower and very high DHT concentrations. Men with very low DHT concentrations also had increased risk for incident CVD events. Further investigation into potential underlying mechanisms for these associations is warranted.”
 

Rigorous Methodology Adds Value

Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, with the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, pointed out in an accompanying editorial that the study’s findings are particularly valuable because of the team’s rigorous methodology. The team measured testosterone with the gold standard, mass spectrometry, which can also measure DHT and estradiol more accurately than widely available commercial immunoassays, which “are inaccurate for measurement of these sex steroids in men, who typically have low serum concentrations of these two metabolites of testosterone,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Also, the researchers obtained raw data from the nine IPD studies and reanalyzed the combined data, which allows for more sophisticated analysis when combining data from multiple studies, Dr. Anawalt explained.

The main finding from the Yeap et al. study, he wrote, is that high testosterone concentrations at baseline were not linked with increased deaths from CVD or from all causes “but very low serum total testosterone concentrations at baseline were.

“It is tempting to hypothesize that testosterone therapy might have cardiovascular benefits solely in patients with very low concentrations of serum total testosterone,” Dr. Anawalt wrote.

He pointed out as particularly interesting the findings for DHT and estradiol.

“The finding that a low serum estradiol concentration is associated with higher all-cause mortality adds another reason (in addition to the adverse effects on body fat and bone health) to avoid aromatase inhibitors that are commonly taken by persons who use anabolic steroids,” he wrote. “The prospect of a U-shaped curve for the relationship between serum DHT and higher cardiovascular risk warrants further study.”

The work is funded by the Government of Western Australia and Lawley Pharmaceuticals. The authors’ and editorial writer’s conflicts of interest are listed in the full study.

The expression of the protein Nectin-4 can predict how patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (m)UC will respond to the anti-Nectin-4 antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) enfortumab vedotin (EV), a new study finds.

Identifying biomarkers to predict how patients will respond to targeted therapies is crucial to improve treatments for patients with cancer, authors Niklas Klümper, MD, with the Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology at University Hospital Bonn, in Germany, and colleagues, wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01983).

The researchers used a Nectin-4-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay in an (m)UC cohort of 108 patients to test Nectin-4’s ability to predict responses, analyzing slides with a fluorescence microscope. The copy number variations (CNVs) were correlated with membranous Nectin-4 protein expression, responses to EV treatment, and outcomes.

They also evaluated the prognostic value of Nectin-4 CNVs with biopsies of 103 (m)UC patients not treated with EV. Additionally, they searched The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data sets (10,712 patients across 32 cancer types) for Nectin-4 CNVs.
 

Why Was This Study Done?

Urothelial carcinoma accounts for 90% of bladder cancer cases globally. Though EV was approved to treat (m)UC in 2019, lasting benefit has been achieved only in a small subset of patients.

EV is given to all without selecting patients based on biomarkers that may predict how well they will respond to EV. In this study, researchers investigated whether response to EV was better when people had amplification — defined as increased numbers of copies — of Nectin-4.
 

How Common Is It for Patients With (m)UC to Have Nectin-4 Amplifications?

Nectin-4 amplifications happen frequently in (m)UC; they occurred in about 26% of the (m)UC patients the researchers studied, according to the new paper.

The amplifications are frequent in other cancer types as well, and this study suggests that this biomarker is a promising candidate for developing Nectin-4–targeted antibody-drug conjugates for other cancers.

“Nectin-4 amplifications can be found in 5%-10% of breast cancer and non–small cell lung cancer, both tumor types with a high impact on all-cancer mortality, which are currently being evaluated for EV response,” the authors wrote.

Currently, (m)UC is the only cancer for which EV is approved as standard-of-care, the researchers explain, in their paper.
 

What Were the Differences Between the EV and Non-EV Groups?

Almost all (27 of the 28) patients in the cohort (96%) who had Nectin-4 amplifications had objective responses to EV compared with 24 of 74 (32%) in the group without amplifications (P less than .001). Among the 96% with a response, 82% had partial response and 14% had a complete response.

The amplifications for those treated with EV were linked with longer progression-free survival (90% 12-month PFS vs 41% for those with nonamplified tumors) and longer overall survival (OS).

For those patients treated with EV who had the amplifications, OS was not reached. This was because the researchers could not calculate the OS at 12 months for this group due to more than half of the patients still being alive at that time. That finding contrasts with a median OS of 8.8 months in those patients treated with EV who did not have the amplifications.

EV-treated patients who had Nectin-4 amplifications had a 92% lower risk of death compared with EV-treated patients without the amplifications, according to an analysis that adjusted for factors including age and sex.

“Importantly, in the non–EV-treated patients with (m)UC, Nectin-4 amplifications have no impact on OS [overall survival], suggesting that Nectin-4 amplifications are neither indicating aggressive nor favorable tumor biology, strengthening its potential value as a pure predictive biomarker,” the researchers wrote.
 

What Are the Implications of These Findings?

“[O]ur study suggests that Nectin-4 amplification is a simple, valuable, and easy-to-implement predictive biomarker for EV in patients with (m)UC. The frequent occurrence of Nectin-4 amplifications in other cancer types suggests that this biomarker is a promising candidate with broader applicability for clinical development of Nectin-4-targeted ADCs in a tumor-agnostic context.”

Choosing the best therapy sequence for (m)UC is crucial, the authors write. Considering Nectin-4 amplifications could inform EV drug development — even at earlier stages of the disease — by defining which patient subgroup has the highest chance for long-term benefit.

The authors acknowledge that the primary limitation of the study is that it is retrospective, using archived primary and metastatic tumor specimens with varying ranges between the time of tumor sampling and start of EV treatment.

“Therefore, our data are hypothesis-generating and prospective confirmation in larger, biomarker-driven trials is mandatory,” the authors wrote.

They note that EV plus pembrolizumab [Keytruda] (EV/P) was recently approved as the new standard of care in first-line treatment for (m)UC, so the predictive value of Nectin-4 amplification in this new treatment setting warrants further research.

Dr. Klümper reports stock and other ownership interests in Bicycle Therapeutics, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, and Immatics; and honoraria for Astellas Pharma and MSD Oncology; and consulting or advisory roles with Astellas Pharma, MSD Oncology, and Eisai. He reports travel reimbursements from Ipsen, Photocure, and MSD Oncology. Other author disclosures are available with the full text of the paper.

The expression of the protein Nectin-4 can predict how patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (m)UC will respond to the anti-Nectin-4 antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) enfortumab vedotin (EV), a new study finds.

Identifying biomarkers to predict how patients will respond to targeted therapies is crucial to improve treatments for patients with cancer, authors Niklas Klümper, MD, with the Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology at University Hospital Bonn, in Germany, and colleagues, wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01983).

The researchers used a Nectin-4-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay in an (m)UC cohort of 108 patients to test Nectin-4’s ability to predict responses, analyzing slides with a fluorescence microscope. The copy number variations (CNVs) were correlated with membranous Nectin-4 protein expression, responses to EV treatment, and outcomes.

They also evaluated the prognostic value of Nectin-4 CNVs with biopsies of 103 (m)UC patients not treated with EV. Additionally, they searched The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data sets (10,712 patients across 32 cancer types) for Nectin-4 CNVs.
 

Why Was This Study Done?

Urothelial carcinoma accounts for 90% of bladder cancer cases globally. Though EV was approved to treat (m)UC in 2019, lasting benefit has been achieved only in a small subset of patients.

EV is given to all without selecting patients based on biomarkers that may predict how well they will respond to EV. In this study, researchers investigated whether response to EV was better when people had amplification — defined as increased numbers of copies — of Nectin-4.
 

How Common Is It for Patients With (m)UC to Have Nectin-4 Amplifications?

Nectin-4 amplifications happen frequently in (m)UC; they occurred in about 26% of the (m)UC patients the researchers studied, according to the new paper.

The amplifications are frequent in other cancer types as well, and this study suggests that this biomarker is a promising candidate for developing Nectin-4–targeted antibody-drug conjugates for other cancers.

“Nectin-4 amplifications can be found in 5%-10% of breast cancer and non–small cell lung cancer, both tumor types with a high impact on all-cancer mortality, which are currently being evaluated for EV response,” the authors wrote.

Currently, (m)UC is the only cancer for which EV is approved as standard-of-care, the researchers explain, in their paper.
 

What Were the Differences Between the EV and Non-EV Groups?

Almost all (27 of the 28) patients in the cohort (96%) who had Nectin-4 amplifications had objective responses to EV compared with 24 of 74 (32%) in the group without amplifications (P less than .001). Among the 96% with a response, 82% had partial response and 14% had a complete response.

The amplifications for those treated with EV were linked with longer progression-free survival (90% 12-month PFS vs 41% for those with nonamplified tumors) and longer overall survival (OS).

For those patients treated with EV who had the amplifications, OS was not reached. This was because the researchers could not calculate the OS at 12 months for this group due to more than half of the patients still being alive at that time. That finding contrasts with a median OS of 8.8 months in those patients treated with EV who did not have the amplifications.

EV-treated patients who had Nectin-4 amplifications had a 92% lower risk of death compared with EV-treated patients without the amplifications, according to an analysis that adjusted for factors including age and sex.

“Importantly, in the non–EV-treated patients with (m)UC, Nectin-4 amplifications have no impact on OS [overall survival], suggesting that Nectin-4 amplifications are neither indicating aggressive nor favorable tumor biology, strengthening its potential value as a pure predictive biomarker,” the researchers wrote.
 

What Are the Implications of These Findings?

“[O]ur study suggests that Nectin-4 amplification is a simple, valuable, and easy-to-implement predictive biomarker for EV in patients with (m)UC. The frequent occurrence of Nectin-4 amplifications in other cancer types suggests that this biomarker is a promising candidate with broader applicability for clinical development of Nectin-4-targeted ADCs in a tumor-agnostic context.”

Choosing the best therapy sequence for (m)UC is crucial, the authors write. Considering Nectin-4 amplifications could inform EV drug development — even at earlier stages of the disease — by defining which patient subgroup has the highest chance for long-term benefit.

The authors acknowledge that the primary limitation of the study is that it is retrospective, using archived primary and metastatic tumor specimens with varying ranges between the time of tumor sampling and start of EV treatment.

“Therefore, our data are hypothesis-generating and prospective confirmation in larger, biomarker-driven trials is mandatory,” the authors wrote.

They note that EV plus pembrolizumab [Keytruda] (EV/P) was recently approved as the new standard of care in first-line treatment for (m)UC, so the predictive value of Nectin-4 amplification in this new treatment setting warrants further research.

Dr. Klümper reports stock and other ownership interests in Bicycle Therapeutics, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, and Immatics; and honoraria for Astellas Pharma and MSD Oncology; and consulting or advisory roles with Astellas Pharma, MSD Oncology, and Eisai. He reports travel reimbursements from Ipsen, Photocure, and MSD Oncology. Other author disclosures are available with the full text of the paper.

The expression of the protein Nectin-4 can predict how patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (m)UC will respond to the anti-Nectin-4 antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) enfortumab vedotin (EV), a new study finds.

Identifying biomarkers to predict how patients will respond to targeted therapies is crucial to improve treatments for patients with cancer, authors Niklas Klümper, MD, with the Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology at University Hospital Bonn, in Germany, and colleagues, wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01983).

The researchers used a Nectin-4-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay in an (m)UC cohort of 108 patients to test Nectin-4’s ability to predict responses, analyzing slides with a fluorescence microscope. The copy number variations (CNVs) were correlated with membranous Nectin-4 protein expression, responses to EV treatment, and outcomes.

They also evaluated the prognostic value of Nectin-4 CNVs with biopsies of 103 (m)UC patients not treated with EV. Additionally, they searched The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data sets (10,712 patients across 32 cancer types) for Nectin-4 CNVs.
 

Why Was This Study Done?

Urothelial carcinoma accounts for 90% of bladder cancer cases globally. Though EV was approved to treat (m)UC in 2019, lasting benefit has been achieved only in a small subset of patients.

EV is given to all without selecting patients based on biomarkers that may predict how well they will respond to EV. In this study, researchers investigated whether response to EV was better when people had amplification — defined as increased numbers of copies — of Nectin-4.
 

How Common Is It for Patients With (m)UC to Have Nectin-4 Amplifications?

Nectin-4 amplifications happen frequently in (m)UC; they occurred in about 26% of the (m)UC patients the researchers studied, according to the new paper.

The amplifications are frequent in other cancer types as well, and this study suggests that this biomarker is a promising candidate for developing Nectin-4–targeted antibody-drug conjugates for other cancers.

“Nectin-4 amplifications can be found in 5%-10% of breast cancer and non–small cell lung cancer, both tumor types with a high impact on all-cancer mortality, which are currently being evaluated for EV response,” the authors wrote.

Currently, (m)UC is the only cancer for which EV is approved as standard-of-care, the researchers explain, in their paper.
 

What Were the Differences Between the EV and Non-EV Groups?

Almost all (27 of the 28) patients in the cohort (96%) who had Nectin-4 amplifications had objective responses to EV compared with 24 of 74 (32%) in the group without amplifications (P less than .001). Among the 96% with a response, 82% had partial response and 14% had a complete response.

The amplifications for those treated with EV were linked with longer progression-free survival (90% 12-month PFS vs 41% for those with nonamplified tumors) and longer overall survival (OS).

For those patients treated with EV who had the amplifications, OS was not reached. This was because the researchers could not calculate the OS at 12 months for this group due to more than half of the patients still being alive at that time. That finding contrasts with a median OS of 8.8 months in those patients treated with EV who did not have the amplifications.

EV-treated patients who had Nectin-4 amplifications had a 92% lower risk of death compared with EV-treated patients without the amplifications, according to an analysis that adjusted for factors including age and sex.

“Importantly, in the non–EV-treated patients with (m)UC, Nectin-4 amplifications have no impact on OS [overall survival], suggesting that Nectin-4 amplifications are neither indicating aggressive nor favorable tumor biology, strengthening its potential value as a pure predictive biomarker,” the researchers wrote.
 

What Are the Implications of These Findings?

“[O]ur study suggests that Nectin-4 amplification is a simple, valuable, and easy-to-implement predictive biomarker for EV in patients with (m)UC. The frequent occurrence of Nectin-4 amplifications in other cancer types suggests that this biomarker is a promising candidate with broader applicability for clinical development of Nectin-4-targeted ADCs in a tumor-agnostic context.”

Choosing the best therapy sequence for (m)UC is crucial, the authors write. Considering Nectin-4 amplifications could inform EV drug development — even at earlier stages of the disease — by defining which patient subgroup has the highest chance for long-term benefit.

The authors acknowledge that the primary limitation of the study is that it is retrospective, using archived primary and metastatic tumor specimens with varying ranges between the time of tumor sampling and start of EV treatment.

“Therefore, our data are hypothesis-generating and prospective confirmation in larger, biomarker-driven trials is mandatory,” the authors wrote.

They note that EV plus pembrolizumab [Keytruda] (EV/P) was recently approved as the new standard of care in first-line treatment for (m)UC, so the predictive value of Nectin-4 amplification in this new treatment setting warrants further research.

Dr. Klümper reports stock and other ownership interests in Bicycle Therapeutics, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan, and Immatics; and honoraria for Astellas Pharma and MSD Oncology; and consulting or advisory roles with Astellas Pharma, MSD Oncology, and Eisai. He reports travel reimbursements from Ipsen, Photocure, and MSD Oncology. Other author disclosures are available with the full text of the paper.

An evolving legal landscape surrounding medication abortion has left physicians with as many questions as patients. A panel of clinicians at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians offered guidance on how to help patients who choose medication abortion, which is available to women until 10 weeks of gestation.

Approved in 2000, abortion pills have become the most common method for terminating pregnancy in the United States, accounting for 63% of all abortions in 2023. The US Supreme Court is reviewing access to medication abortions, with a decision expected within months.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 29 states as of February restrict access to medication abortion, either by limiting or banning the use of the drugs or by curtailing who can prescribe them and under what circumstances.
 

First, Determine Gestational Age

Cynthia Chuang, MD, MSc, an internist and professor of medicine at Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, said in most cases, a woman can pinpoint the date of the first day of her last menstrual period, and the physician can confirm gestational age is 70 days or less. An ultrasound should be performed if the date of the last period is uncertain, she said, or if ectopic pregnancy is suspected, periods are irregular, or ultrasound is legally required in the state.

Women are not eligible for abortion pills if they have a bleeding or clotting disorder, have an intrauterine device, have adrenal insufficiency or chronic steroid use, or have porphyria or hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL, she said.

“If the person has a known hemoglobin of less than 9, we would suggest that person have a procedural abortion,” Dr. Chuang said.
 

Components of Medication

Patients first receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone, which separates the pregnancy from the uterine wall. “Typically, people don’t experience side effects from the mifepristone alone,” Dr. Chaung said.

In the next 48 hours, the patient takes 800 mcg of misoprostol, either vaginally or buccally. “Patients can expect heavy cramping and bleeding 1-2 days after taking misoprostol,” she said. The bleeding should gradually subside over the following week or 2, she said. If the gestational age is 9 weeks or more, a second dose of misoprostol can be administered 3-6 hours after the first dose to improve efficacy.

If mifepristone is not available, misoprostol can be used alone in three doses spaced 3 hours apart, Dr. Chuang said.

The failure rate for mifepristone plus misoprostol has been calculated at 2% if the gestational age is less than 7 weeks. For misoprostol alone, the failure rate varies by the study, depending on gestational age and population analyzed, Dr. Chuang said. A 2023 meta-analysis in Contraception put the failure rate at 11%.
 

When to Call the Clinician

Dr. Chuang said clinicians should instruct women who have taken abortion pills to call the clinic if they are soaking through two sanitary pads an hour for more than 1 hour, if there is little to no bleeding, or if they think the medication isn’t working after taking the full regimen.

Mindy Sobota, MD, MS, an internist and associate professor of medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, recommended a continuing medical education site for evidence-based guidance on how best to talk with women about medication abortions.

She also recommended physicians and patients consult the Plan C website for guidance on telehealth services and price information on receiving abortion pills by mail in every state. “It’s a very reliable and safe clearing house,” Dr. Sobota said.

Internists should let patients know that whatever their choices are around pregnancy, they are open to discussing those choices and helping them through the process, Dr. Sobota said, adding that she makes those statements in annual visits.

Alexandra Bachorik, MD, EdM, director of education in the Women’s Health Unit and assistant professor of medicine at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, said patients in restrictive states who need financial help related to obtaining abortion services in a less restricted state can visit the National Network of Abortion Funds, which can help people with travel or housing expenses.

Facilitating access to a clinic in a less restrictive state may be helpful to people approaching a gestational age limit, she said.

Adelaide McClintock, MD, an internist and assistant professor of general internal medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, Washington, noted that even clinicians who cannot legally prescribe abortion pills can support their patients by providing resources and counseling on options before, during, and after pregnancy. Those who live in restrictive states also can provide support to women who have traveled to less restrictive states for an abortion if they have postabortion complications, she said.

She recommended the Reproductive Health Access Project website for a comprehensive guide for evidence-based care and counseling patients about all choices in reproductive healthcare.

Panelists urged clinicians to get familiar with abortion-access resources and keep them at their fingertips in practice. Patient requests for the services are common, she noted, as “one in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45.”

Dr. Chuang, Dr. McClintock, Dr. Sobota, and Dr. Bachorik reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An evolving legal landscape surrounding medication abortion has left physicians with as many questions as patients. A panel of clinicians at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians offered guidance on how to help patients who choose medication abortion, which is available to women until 10 weeks of gestation.

Approved in 2000, abortion pills have become the most common method for terminating pregnancy in the United States, accounting for 63% of all abortions in 2023. The US Supreme Court is reviewing access to medication abortions, with a decision expected within months.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 29 states as of February restrict access to medication abortion, either by limiting or banning the use of the drugs or by curtailing who can prescribe them and under what circumstances.
 

First, Determine Gestational Age

Cynthia Chuang, MD, MSc, an internist and professor of medicine at Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, said in most cases, a woman can pinpoint the date of the first day of her last menstrual period, and the physician can confirm gestational age is 70 days or less. An ultrasound should be performed if the date of the last period is uncertain, she said, or if ectopic pregnancy is suspected, periods are irregular, or ultrasound is legally required in the state.

Women are not eligible for abortion pills if they have a bleeding or clotting disorder, have an intrauterine device, have adrenal insufficiency or chronic steroid use, or have porphyria or hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL, she said.

“If the person has a known hemoglobin of less than 9, we would suggest that person have a procedural abortion,” Dr. Chuang said.
 

Components of Medication

Patients first receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone, which separates the pregnancy from the uterine wall. “Typically, people don’t experience side effects from the mifepristone alone,” Dr. Chaung said.

In the next 48 hours, the patient takes 800 mcg of misoprostol, either vaginally or buccally. “Patients can expect heavy cramping and bleeding 1-2 days after taking misoprostol,” she said. The bleeding should gradually subside over the following week or 2, she said. If the gestational age is 9 weeks or more, a second dose of misoprostol can be administered 3-6 hours after the first dose to improve efficacy.

If mifepristone is not available, misoprostol can be used alone in three doses spaced 3 hours apart, Dr. Chuang said.

The failure rate for mifepristone plus misoprostol has been calculated at 2% if the gestational age is less than 7 weeks. For misoprostol alone, the failure rate varies by the study, depending on gestational age and population analyzed, Dr. Chuang said. A 2023 meta-analysis in Contraception put the failure rate at 11%.
 

When to Call the Clinician

Dr. Chuang said clinicians should instruct women who have taken abortion pills to call the clinic if they are soaking through two sanitary pads an hour for more than 1 hour, if there is little to no bleeding, or if they think the medication isn’t working after taking the full regimen.

Mindy Sobota, MD, MS, an internist and associate professor of medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, recommended a continuing medical education site for evidence-based guidance on how best to talk with women about medication abortions.

She also recommended physicians and patients consult the Plan C website for guidance on telehealth services and price information on receiving abortion pills by mail in every state. “It’s a very reliable and safe clearing house,” Dr. Sobota said.

Internists should let patients know that whatever their choices are around pregnancy, they are open to discussing those choices and helping them through the process, Dr. Sobota said, adding that she makes those statements in annual visits.

Alexandra Bachorik, MD, EdM, director of education in the Women’s Health Unit and assistant professor of medicine at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, said patients in restrictive states who need financial help related to obtaining abortion services in a less restricted state can visit the National Network of Abortion Funds, which can help people with travel or housing expenses.

Facilitating access to a clinic in a less restrictive state may be helpful to people approaching a gestational age limit, she said.

Adelaide McClintock, MD, an internist and assistant professor of general internal medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, Washington, noted that even clinicians who cannot legally prescribe abortion pills can support their patients by providing resources and counseling on options before, during, and after pregnancy. Those who live in restrictive states also can provide support to women who have traveled to less restrictive states for an abortion if they have postabortion complications, she said.

She recommended the Reproductive Health Access Project website for a comprehensive guide for evidence-based care and counseling patients about all choices in reproductive healthcare.

Panelists urged clinicians to get familiar with abortion-access resources and keep them at their fingertips in practice. Patient requests for the services are common, she noted, as “one in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45.”

Dr. Chuang, Dr. McClintock, Dr. Sobota, and Dr. Bachorik reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An evolving legal landscape surrounding medication abortion has left physicians with as many questions as patients. A panel of clinicians at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians offered guidance on how to help patients who choose medication abortion, which is available to women until 10 weeks of gestation.

Approved in 2000, abortion pills have become the most common method for terminating pregnancy in the United States, accounting for 63% of all abortions in 2023. The US Supreme Court is reviewing access to medication abortions, with a decision expected within months.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 29 states as of February restrict access to medication abortion, either by limiting or banning the use of the drugs or by curtailing who can prescribe them and under what circumstances.
 

First, Determine Gestational Age

Cynthia Chuang, MD, MSc, an internist and professor of medicine at Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, said in most cases, a woman can pinpoint the date of the first day of her last menstrual period, and the physician can confirm gestational age is 70 days or less. An ultrasound should be performed if the date of the last period is uncertain, she said, or if ectopic pregnancy is suspected, periods are irregular, or ultrasound is legally required in the state.

Women are not eligible for abortion pills if they have a bleeding or clotting disorder, have an intrauterine device, have adrenal insufficiency or chronic steroid use, or have porphyria or hemoglobin levels < 9 g/dL, she said.

“If the person has a known hemoglobin of less than 9, we would suggest that person have a procedural abortion,” Dr. Chuang said.
 

Components of Medication

Patients first receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone, which separates the pregnancy from the uterine wall. “Typically, people don’t experience side effects from the mifepristone alone,” Dr. Chaung said.

In the next 48 hours, the patient takes 800 mcg of misoprostol, either vaginally or buccally. “Patients can expect heavy cramping and bleeding 1-2 days after taking misoprostol,” she said. The bleeding should gradually subside over the following week or 2, she said. If the gestational age is 9 weeks or more, a second dose of misoprostol can be administered 3-6 hours after the first dose to improve efficacy.

If mifepristone is not available, misoprostol can be used alone in three doses spaced 3 hours apart, Dr. Chuang said.

The failure rate for mifepristone plus misoprostol has been calculated at 2% if the gestational age is less than 7 weeks. For misoprostol alone, the failure rate varies by the study, depending on gestational age and population analyzed, Dr. Chuang said. A 2023 meta-analysis in Contraception put the failure rate at 11%.
 

When to Call the Clinician

Dr. Chuang said clinicians should instruct women who have taken abortion pills to call the clinic if they are soaking through two sanitary pads an hour for more than 1 hour, if there is little to no bleeding, or if they think the medication isn’t working after taking the full regimen.

Mindy Sobota, MD, MS, an internist and associate professor of medicine at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, recommended a continuing medical education site for evidence-based guidance on how best to talk with women about medication abortions.

She also recommended physicians and patients consult the Plan C website for guidance on telehealth services and price information on receiving abortion pills by mail in every state. “It’s a very reliable and safe clearing house,” Dr. Sobota said.

Internists should let patients know that whatever their choices are around pregnancy, they are open to discussing those choices and helping them through the process, Dr. Sobota said, adding that she makes those statements in annual visits.

Alexandra Bachorik, MD, EdM, director of education in the Women’s Health Unit and assistant professor of medicine at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, said patients in restrictive states who need financial help related to obtaining abortion services in a less restricted state can visit the National Network of Abortion Funds, which can help people with travel or housing expenses.

Facilitating access to a clinic in a less restrictive state may be helpful to people approaching a gestational age limit, she said.

Adelaide McClintock, MD, an internist and assistant professor of general internal medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, Washington, noted that even clinicians who cannot legally prescribe abortion pills can support their patients by providing resources and counseling on options before, during, and after pregnancy. Those who live in restrictive states also can provide support to women who have traveled to less restrictive states for an abortion if they have postabortion complications, she said.

She recommended the Reproductive Health Access Project website for a comprehensive guide for evidence-based care and counseling patients about all choices in reproductive healthcare.

Panelists urged clinicians to get familiar with abortion-access resources and keep them at their fingertips in practice. Patient requests for the services are common, she noted, as “one in four women will have an abortion by the age of 45.”

Dr. Chuang, Dr. McClintock, Dr. Sobota, and Dr. Bachorik reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical guidelines on age-related hearing loss (ARHL), published in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, highlight referral recommendations for all clinicians, including primary care doctors, who often are the first clinicians to screen for and address the condition.

Betty S. Tsai Do, MD, with the department of head & neck surgery at Kaiser Permanente in Walnut Creek, California, is the first author for the guidelines, which recommend screening patients 50 years or older at the time of a healthcare encounter. They also detail when to test and refer.
 

Three ‘Strong Recommendations’

Three of the action points are labeled “strong recommendations.” They are:

• If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should conduct an audiogram or refer to a clinician who can conduct one.
• Clinicians should offer, or refer to a specialist who can offer, appropriately fit amplification, such as hearing aids.
• If patients have appropriately fit amplification and still have trouble with hearing and understanding speech, clinicians should refer patients to see if they are good candidates for a cochlear implant.

The authors note that ARHL is the most common sensory deficit seen in older patients, but it is underdiagnosed and undertreated. “Between ages 65 and 74, one in three adults experience hearing loss and almost 50% of those 75 years of age or older will report hearing loss according to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.” Consequences of the untreated deficit, in addition to limiting ability to communicate, include higher risk of dementia, cardiovascular disease, depression, falls, and workplace marginalization.

Until now, there have been no evidence-based clinical guidelines on when to screen, test, and refer. Though previously proposed quality improvement measures have defined ARHL as starting at age 60, these guidelines include those 50 and older to promote earlier detection.
 

Guidelines Only Part of the Solution

While the guidelines are a step in the right direction, they won’t address some persistent barriers to changing practice, said Michael McKee, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician and co-director of the Center for Disability Health and Wellness at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who was not part of the guideline team.

“I think [the guidelines] will raise the awareness on why it’s important to address hearing loss,” he says. “Many primary care providers don’t elevate hearing loss as a priority topic. The problem is that we’re struggling with getting things in place to have a more supportive system to carry out those recommendations.”
 

Lack of Training and Support

The problems include lack of training on hearing loss for physicians, starting with medical school. Another complication is time: A conversation about hearing loss adds to the multitude of conversations a primary care provider is expected to have with their patients in a short visit.

Additionally, when hearing loss is suspected, an audiologist may be hard to find to perform the audiogram, Dr. McKee says. If patients agree to see an audiologist and that specialist finds hearing loss, patients may not want to wear a device due to stigma or may not be able to afford a device that will fit properly and truly benefit them because Medicare does not cover hearing aids.

“Only about 20-plus percent of those eligible for hearing aids get them,” he said. Hearing aids available over the counter help some people, but may be difficult to fit properly and may be hard for some to use correctly, he added.

“That comes back to the primary care provider, so it’s unfortunately a very unsatisfying course,” he said.
 

‘Primary Care Providers Do Value Guidelines’

However, “Primary care providers do value guidelines. They do value strong recommendations,” he said. We are trying to figure out how we can support people with unaddressed hearing loss in the primary care setting, Dr. McKee said. “Once we get there, we need to advocate for an expansion of coverage,” he said.

The authors note that the messages in the guidelines are important for all clinicians.

“The impact of hearing loss and screening should not be the sole responsibility of an audiologist, an otolaryngologist, nor primary care provider. Any time and place that a patient interacts with the healthcare system is an opportunity for preventive healthcare, such as hearing screening, to occur,” they write.

Funding for this research was provided by the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Dr. Do and Dr. McKee report no relevant financial relationships. Full disclosures of the co-authors are listed with the full text of the paper.
 

Clinical guidelines on age-related hearing loss (ARHL), published in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, highlight referral recommendations for all clinicians, including primary care doctors, who often are the first clinicians to screen for and address the condition.

Betty S. Tsai Do, MD, with the department of head & neck surgery at Kaiser Permanente in Walnut Creek, California, is the first author for the guidelines, which recommend screening patients 50 years or older at the time of a healthcare encounter. They also detail when to test and refer.
 

Three ‘Strong Recommendations’

Three of the action points are labeled “strong recommendations.” They are:

• If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should conduct an audiogram or refer to a clinician who can conduct one.
• Clinicians should offer, or refer to a specialist who can offer, appropriately fit amplification, such as hearing aids.
• If patients have appropriately fit amplification and still have trouble with hearing and understanding speech, clinicians should refer patients to see if they are good candidates for a cochlear implant.

The authors note that ARHL is the most common sensory deficit seen in older patients, but it is underdiagnosed and undertreated. “Between ages 65 and 74, one in three adults experience hearing loss and almost 50% of those 75 years of age or older will report hearing loss according to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.” Consequences of the untreated deficit, in addition to limiting ability to communicate, include higher risk of dementia, cardiovascular disease, depression, falls, and workplace marginalization.

Until now, there have been no evidence-based clinical guidelines on when to screen, test, and refer. Though previously proposed quality improvement measures have defined ARHL as starting at age 60, these guidelines include those 50 and older to promote earlier detection.
 

Guidelines Only Part of the Solution

While the guidelines are a step in the right direction, they won’t address some persistent barriers to changing practice, said Michael McKee, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician and co-director of the Center for Disability Health and Wellness at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who was not part of the guideline team.

“I think [the guidelines] will raise the awareness on why it’s important to address hearing loss,” he says. “Many primary care providers don’t elevate hearing loss as a priority topic. The problem is that we’re struggling with getting things in place to have a more supportive system to carry out those recommendations.”
 

Lack of Training and Support

The problems include lack of training on hearing loss for physicians, starting with medical school. Another complication is time: A conversation about hearing loss adds to the multitude of conversations a primary care provider is expected to have with their patients in a short visit.

Additionally, when hearing loss is suspected, an audiologist may be hard to find to perform the audiogram, Dr. McKee says. If patients agree to see an audiologist and that specialist finds hearing loss, patients may not want to wear a device due to stigma or may not be able to afford a device that will fit properly and truly benefit them because Medicare does not cover hearing aids.

“Only about 20-plus percent of those eligible for hearing aids get them,” he said. Hearing aids available over the counter help some people, but may be difficult to fit properly and may be hard for some to use correctly, he added.

“That comes back to the primary care provider, so it’s unfortunately a very unsatisfying course,” he said.
 

‘Primary Care Providers Do Value Guidelines’

However, “Primary care providers do value guidelines. They do value strong recommendations,” he said. We are trying to figure out how we can support people with unaddressed hearing loss in the primary care setting, Dr. McKee said. “Once we get there, we need to advocate for an expansion of coverage,” he said.

The authors note that the messages in the guidelines are important for all clinicians.

“The impact of hearing loss and screening should not be the sole responsibility of an audiologist, an otolaryngologist, nor primary care provider. Any time and place that a patient interacts with the healthcare system is an opportunity for preventive healthcare, such as hearing screening, to occur,” they write.

Funding for this research was provided by the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Dr. Do and Dr. McKee report no relevant financial relationships. Full disclosures of the co-authors are listed with the full text of the paper.
 

Clinical guidelines on age-related hearing loss (ARHL), published in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, highlight referral recommendations for all clinicians, including primary care doctors, who often are the first clinicians to screen for and address the condition.

Betty S. Tsai Do, MD, with the department of head & neck surgery at Kaiser Permanente in Walnut Creek, California, is the first author for the guidelines, which recommend screening patients 50 years or older at the time of a healthcare encounter. They also detail when to test and refer.
 

Three ‘Strong Recommendations’

Three of the action points are labeled “strong recommendations.” They are:

• If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should conduct an audiogram or refer to a clinician who can conduct one.
• Clinicians should offer, or refer to a specialist who can offer, appropriately fit amplification, such as hearing aids.
• If patients have appropriately fit amplification and still have trouble with hearing and understanding speech, clinicians should refer patients to see if they are good candidates for a cochlear implant.

The authors note that ARHL is the most common sensory deficit seen in older patients, but it is underdiagnosed and undertreated. “Between ages 65 and 74, one in three adults experience hearing loss and almost 50% of those 75 years of age or older will report hearing loss according to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.” Consequences of the untreated deficit, in addition to limiting ability to communicate, include higher risk of dementia, cardiovascular disease, depression, falls, and workplace marginalization.

Until now, there have been no evidence-based clinical guidelines on when to screen, test, and refer. Though previously proposed quality improvement measures have defined ARHL as starting at age 60, these guidelines include those 50 and older to promote earlier detection.
 

Guidelines Only Part of the Solution

While the guidelines are a step in the right direction, they won’t address some persistent barriers to changing practice, said Michael McKee, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician and co-director of the Center for Disability Health and Wellness at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who was not part of the guideline team.

“I think [the guidelines] will raise the awareness on why it’s important to address hearing loss,” he says. “Many primary care providers don’t elevate hearing loss as a priority topic. The problem is that we’re struggling with getting things in place to have a more supportive system to carry out those recommendations.”
 

Lack of Training and Support

The problems include lack of training on hearing loss for physicians, starting with medical school. Another complication is time: A conversation about hearing loss adds to the multitude of conversations a primary care provider is expected to have with their patients in a short visit.

Additionally, when hearing loss is suspected, an audiologist may be hard to find to perform the audiogram, Dr. McKee says. If patients agree to see an audiologist and that specialist finds hearing loss, patients may not want to wear a device due to stigma or may not be able to afford a device that will fit properly and truly benefit them because Medicare does not cover hearing aids.

“Only about 20-plus percent of those eligible for hearing aids get them,” he said. Hearing aids available over the counter help some people, but may be difficult to fit properly and may be hard for some to use correctly, he added.

“That comes back to the primary care provider, so it’s unfortunately a very unsatisfying course,” he said.
 

‘Primary Care Providers Do Value Guidelines’

However, “Primary care providers do value guidelines. They do value strong recommendations,” he said. We are trying to figure out how we can support people with unaddressed hearing loss in the primary care setting, Dr. McKee said. “Once we get there, we need to advocate for an expansion of coverage,” he said.

The authors note that the messages in the guidelines are important for all clinicians.

“The impact of hearing loss and screening should not be the sole responsibility of an audiologist, an otolaryngologist, nor primary care provider. Any time and place that a patient interacts with the healthcare system is an opportunity for preventive healthcare, such as hearing screening, to occur,” they write.

Funding for this research was provided by the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Dr. Do and Dr. McKee report no relevant financial relationships. Full disclosures of the co-authors are listed with the full text of the paper.
 

The utility of cannabinoids to treat most medical conditions remains uncertain at best, but for at least three indications the data lean in favor of effectiveness, Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, told attendees recently at the 2024 American College of Physicians Internal Medicine meeting.

Those are neuropathic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting, and spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis, said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and medical director for primary care/behavioral health integration at Cambridge Health Alliance in Somerville, Massachusetts.

Dearth of Research Persists

Research is sorely lacking and of low quality in the field for many reasons, Dr. Grossman said. Most of the products tested come from outside the United States and often are synthetic and taken orally — which does not match the real-world use when patients go to dispensaries for cannabis derived directly from plants (or the plant product itself). And studies often rely on self-report.

Chronic pain is by far the top reason patients say they use medical cannabis, Dr. Grossman said. A Cochrane review of 16 studies found only that the potential benefits of cannabis may outweigh the potential harms for chronic neuropathic pain.
 

No Evidence in OUD

Dr. Grossman said she is frequently asked if cannabis can help people quit taking opioids. The answer seems to be no. A study published earlier this year in states with legalized medical or recreational cannabis found no difference between rates of opioid overdose compared with states with no such laws. “It seems like it doesn’t do anything to help us with our opioid problem,” she said.

Nor does high-quality evidence exist showing use of cannabis can improve sleep, she said. A 2022 systematic review found fewer than half of studies showed the substance useful for sleep outcomes. “Where studies were positives, it was in people who had chronic pain,” Dr. Grossman noted. Research indicates cannabis may have substantial benefit for chronic pain compared with placebo.
 

Potential Harms

If the medical benefits of cannabis are murky, the evidence for its potential harms, at least in the short term, are clearer, according to Dr. Grossman. A simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care includes sedation, feeling high, dizziness, speech disorders, muscle twitching, hypotension, and several other conditions among the potential hazards of the drug. 

But the potential for long-term harm is uncertain. “All the evidence comes from people who have been using it for recreational reasons,” where there may be co-use of tobacco, self-reported outcomes, and recall bias, she said. The characteristics of people using cannabis recreationally often differ from those using it medicinally.
 

Use With Other Controlled Substances

Dr. Grossman said clinicians should consider whether the co-use of cannabis and other controlled substances, such as benzodiazepines, opioids, or Adderall, raises the potential risks associated with those drugs. “Ultimately it comes down to talking to your patients,” she said. If a toxicity screen shows the presence of controlled substances, ask about their experience with the drugs they are using and let them know your main concern is their safety.

Dr. Grossman reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The utility of cannabinoids to treat most medical conditions remains uncertain at best, but for at least three indications the data lean in favor of effectiveness, Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, told attendees recently at the 2024 American College of Physicians Internal Medicine meeting.

Those are neuropathic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting, and spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis, said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and medical director for primary care/behavioral health integration at Cambridge Health Alliance in Somerville, Massachusetts.

Dearth of Research Persists

Research is sorely lacking and of low quality in the field for many reasons, Dr. Grossman said. Most of the products tested come from outside the United States and often are synthetic and taken orally — which does not match the real-world use when patients go to dispensaries for cannabis derived directly from plants (or the plant product itself). And studies often rely on self-report.

Chronic pain is by far the top reason patients say they use medical cannabis, Dr. Grossman said. A Cochrane review of 16 studies found only that the potential benefits of cannabis may outweigh the potential harms for chronic neuropathic pain.
 

No Evidence in OUD

Dr. Grossman said she is frequently asked if cannabis can help people quit taking opioids. The answer seems to be no. A study published earlier this year in states with legalized medical or recreational cannabis found no difference between rates of opioid overdose compared with states with no such laws. “It seems like it doesn’t do anything to help us with our opioid problem,” she said.

Nor does high-quality evidence exist showing use of cannabis can improve sleep, she said. A 2022 systematic review found fewer than half of studies showed the substance useful for sleep outcomes. “Where studies were positives, it was in people who had chronic pain,” Dr. Grossman noted. Research indicates cannabis may have substantial benefit for chronic pain compared with placebo.
 

Potential Harms

If the medical benefits of cannabis are murky, the evidence for its potential harms, at least in the short term, are clearer, according to Dr. Grossman. A simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care includes sedation, feeling high, dizziness, speech disorders, muscle twitching, hypotension, and several other conditions among the potential hazards of the drug. 

But the potential for long-term harm is uncertain. “All the evidence comes from people who have been using it for recreational reasons,” where there may be co-use of tobacco, self-reported outcomes, and recall bias, she said. The characteristics of people using cannabis recreationally often differ from those using it medicinally.
 

Use With Other Controlled Substances

Dr. Grossman said clinicians should consider whether the co-use of cannabis and other controlled substances, such as benzodiazepines, opioids, or Adderall, raises the potential risks associated with those drugs. “Ultimately it comes down to talking to your patients,” she said. If a toxicity screen shows the presence of controlled substances, ask about their experience with the drugs they are using and let them know your main concern is their safety.

Dr. Grossman reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The utility of cannabinoids to treat most medical conditions remains uncertain at best, but for at least three indications the data lean in favor of effectiveness, Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, told attendees recently at the 2024 American College of Physicians Internal Medicine meeting.

Those are neuropathic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting, and spasticity in people with multiple sclerosis, said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and medical director for primary care/behavioral health integration at Cambridge Health Alliance in Somerville, Massachusetts.

Dearth of Research Persists

Research is sorely lacking and of low quality in the field for many reasons, Dr. Grossman said. Most of the products tested come from outside the United States and often are synthetic and taken orally — which does not match the real-world use when patients go to dispensaries for cannabis derived directly from plants (or the plant product itself). And studies often rely on self-report.

Chronic pain is by far the top reason patients say they use medical cannabis, Dr. Grossman said. A Cochrane review of 16 studies found only that the potential benefits of cannabis may outweigh the potential harms for chronic neuropathic pain.
 

No Evidence in OUD

Dr. Grossman said she is frequently asked if cannabis can help people quit taking opioids. The answer seems to be no. A study published earlier this year in states with legalized medical or recreational cannabis found no difference between rates of opioid overdose compared with states with no such laws. “It seems like it doesn’t do anything to help us with our opioid problem,” she said.

Nor does high-quality evidence exist showing use of cannabis can improve sleep, she said. A 2022 systematic review found fewer than half of studies showed the substance useful for sleep outcomes. “Where studies were positives, it was in people who had chronic pain,” Dr. Grossman noted. Research indicates cannabis may have substantial benefit for chronic pain compared with placebo.
 

Potential Harms

If the medical benefits of cannabis are murky, the evidence for its potential harms, at least in the short term, are clearer, according to Dr. Grossman. A simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care includes sedation, feeling high, dizziness, speech disorders, muscle twitching, hypotension, and several other conditions among the potential hazards of the drug. 

But the potential for long-term harm is uncertain. “All the evidence comes from people who have been using it for recreational reasons,” where there may be co-use of tobacco, self-reported outcomes, and recall bias, she said. The characteristics of people using cannabis recreationally often differ from those using it medicinally.
 

Use With Other Controlled Substances

Dr. Grossman said clinicians should consider whether the co-use of cannabis and other controlled substances, such as benzodiazepines, opioids, or Adderall, raises the potential risks associated with those drugs. “Ultimately it comes down to talking to your patients,” she said. If a toxicity screen shows the presence of controlled substances, ask about their experience with the drugs they are using and let them know your main concern is their safety.

Dr. Grossman reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After cow-to-cow transmission of avian influenza A subtype H5N1 in US dairy herds led to a cow-to-human transmission in Texas, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials convened a panel of experts for a scientific symposium on Thursday to talk about the public health implications.

“The risk to the general public remains low,” said Vivien Dugan, PhD, director of the Influenza Division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And should there be an outbreak, vaccine development measures are in place, she added.

From the sequencing data, “we can expect and anticipate that [the candidate vaccine viruses] will provide good protection,” she explained.

Establishing candidate vaccine viruses “are the precursor to moving into large-scale vaccine production,” Dr. Dugan explained. Should that be needed, the candidate viruses can be used by manufacturers to produce new vaccines.

The CDC is also actively partnering with commercial diagnostic developers and testing companies in case there is a need to scale-up testing, Dr. Dugan said.

The only current human case in the United States was reported on April 1 and confirmed by the CDC within 24 hours, reported Sonja Olsen, PhD, associate director for preparedness and response of the Influenza Division at the CDC.

The person had direct exposure to cattle and reported eye redness, consistent with conjunctivitis, as the only symptom. The person received treatment and has recovered, and there were no reports of illness among the person’s household contacts, Dr. Olsen said.
 

Person With the Virus Has Recovered

The only other detection of the virus in a human in the United States was in 2022 and it was associated with infected poultry exposure. That person also had mild illness and recovered, Dr. Olsen explained.

Since 1997, when the first case of human infection was reported globally, “there have been 909 [human cases] reported from 23 countries,” Dr. Olsen said. “About half [52%] of the human cases have resulted in death.” Only a small number of human cases have been reported since 2015, but since 2022, more than two dozen human cases have been reported to the World Health Organization.

Experience with the virus in the United States has been about a year behind that in Europe, said Rosemary Sifford, DVM, chief veterinary officer at the US Department of Agriculture. In the United States, the first detection — in January 2022 — was in wild birds; this was followed the next month by the first detection in a commercial poultry flock.

In March of this year, the United States had its first detection in cattle, specifically dairy cattle. But testing has shown that “it remains very much an avian virus. It’s not becoming a bovine virus,” Dr. Sifford reported.
 

Detected in Cattle

Earlier this week, in an effort to minimize the risk of disease spread, the USDA issued a federal order that requires the reporting of positive influenza tests in livestock and mandatory testing for influenza of dairy cattle before interstate movement.

“As of today, there are affected herds in 33 farms across eight states,” reported Dr. Olsen.

Tests are ongoing to determine how the virus is traveling, but “what we can say is that there’s a high viral load in the milk in the cattle, and it appears that the transmission is happening mostly within the lactating herds,” Dr. Sifford reported. It is unclear whether that is happening during the milking of the cows or whether contaminated milk from a cow with a high viral load is transmitting the virus to other cattle.

“We are strongly encouraging producers to limit the movement of cattle, particularly lactating cattle, as much as possible,” she says.
 

Milk Is Likely the Source of Transmission

“We haven’t seen anything that would change our assessment that the commercial milk supply is safe,” says Donald Prater, DVM, acting director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In the federal and state milk safety system, he explained, nearly 99% of the commercial milk supply comes from farms that participate in the Grade A program and follow the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, which outlines pasteurization requirements.

Because detection of the virus in dairy cattle is new, there are many questions to be answered in research, he reported. Among them:

• What level of virus might be leaving the farms from shedding by apparently healthy cows?
• Does any live virus survive the pasteurization process?
• Do different methods of pasteurization and dairy production have different effects on the viability of H5N1?
• Are effects different in various forms of dairy products, such as cheese and cream?

A critical question regarding the potential risk to humans is how much milk would have to be consumed for the virus to become an established infection. That information is essential to determine “what type of pasteurization criteria” are needed to provide “acceptable public health outcomes,” Dr. Prater said.

The CDC is currently using the flu surveillance system to monitor for H5N1 activity in people. The systems show no current indicators of unusual influenza activity in people.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After cow-to-cow transmission of avian influenza A subtype H5N1 in US dairy herds led to a cow-to-human transmission in Texas, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials convened a panel of experts for a scientific symposium on Thursday to talk about the public health implications.

“The risk to the general public remains low,” said Vivien Dugan, PhD, director of the Influenza Division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And should there be an outbreak, vaccine development measures are in place, she added.

From the sequencing data, “we can expect and anticipate that [the candidate vaccine viruses] will provide good protection,” she explained.

Establishing candidate vaccine viruses “are the precursor to moving into large-scale vaccine production,” Dr. Dugan explained. Should that be needed, the candidate viruses can be used by manufacturers to produce new vaccines.

The CDC is also actively partnering with commercial diagnostic developers and testing companies in case there is a need to scale-up testing, Dr. Dugan said.

The only current human case in the United States was reported on April 1 and confirmed by the CDC within 24 hours, reported Sonja Olsen, PhD, associate director for preparedness and response of the Influenza Division at the CDC.

The person had direct exposure to cattle and reported eye redness, consistent with conjunctivitis, as the only symptom. The person received treatment and has recovered, and there were no reports of illness among the person’s household contacts, Dr. Olsen said.
 

Person With the Virus Has Recovered

The only other detection of the virus in a human in the United States was in 2022 and it was associated with infected poultry exposure. That person also had mild illness and recovered, Dr. Olsen explained.

Since 1997, when the first case of human infection was reported globally, “there have been 909 [human cases] reported from 23 countries,” Dr. Olsen said. “About half [52%] of the human cases have resulted in death.” Only a small number of human cases have been reported since 2015, but since 2022, more than two dozen human cases have been reported to the World Health Organization.

Experience with the virus in the United States has been about a year behind that in Europe, said Rosemary Sifford, DVM, chief veterinary officer at the US Department of Agriculture. In the United States, the first detection — in January 2022 — was in wild birds; this was followed the next month by the first detection in a commercial poultry flock.

In March of this year, the United States had its first detection in cattle, specifically dairy cattle. But testing has shown that “it remains very much an avian virus. It’s not becoming a bovine virus,” Dr. Sifford reported.
 

Detected in Cattle

Earlier this week, in an effort to minimize the risk of disease spread, the USDA issued a federal order that requires the reporting of positive influenza tests in livestock and mandatory testing for influenza of dairy cattle before interstate movement.

“As of today, there are affected herds in 33 farms across eight states,” reported Dr. Olsen.

Tests are ongoing to determine how the virus is traveling, but “what we can say is that there’s a high viral load in the milk in the cattle, and it appears that the transmission is happening mostly within the lactating herds,” Dr. Sifford reported. It is unclear whether that is happening during the milking of the cows or whether contaminated milk from a cow with a high viral load is transmitting the virus to other cattle.

“We are strongly encouraging producers to limit the movement of cattle, particularly lactating cattle, as much as possible,” she says.
 

Milk Is Likely the Source of Transmission

“We haven’t seen anything that would change our assessment that the commercial milk supply is safe,” says Donald Prater, DVM, acting director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In the federal and state milk safety system, he explained, nearly 99% of the commercial milk supply comes from farms that participate in the Grade A program and follow the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, which outlines pasteurization requirements.

Because detection of the virus in dairy cattle is new, there are many questions to be answered in research, he reported. Among them:

• What level of virus might be leaving the farms from shedding by apparently healthy cows?
• Does any live virus survive the pasteurization process?
• Do different methods of pasteurization and dairy production have different effects on the viability of H5N1?
• Are effects different in various forms of dairy products, such as cheese and cream?

A critical question regarding the potential risk to humans is how much milk would have to be consumed for the virus to become an established infection. That information is essential to determine “what type of pasteurization criteria” are needed to provide “acceptable public health outcomes,” Dr. Prater said.

The CDC is currently using the flu surveillance system to monitor for H5N1 activity in people. The systems show no current indicators of unusual influenza activity in people.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After cow-to-cow transmission of avian influenza A subtype H5N1 in US dairy herds led to a cow-to-human transmission in Texas, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials convened a panel of experts for a scientific symposium on Thursday to talk about the public health implications.

“The risk to the general public remains low,” said Vivien Dugan, PhD, director of the Influenza Division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And should there be an outbreak, vaccine development measures are in place, she added.

From the sequencing data, “we can expect and anticipate that [the candidate vaccine viruses] will provide good protection,” she explained.

Establishing candidate vaccine viruses “are the precursor to moving into large-scale vaccine production,” Dr. Dugan explained. Should that be needed, the candidate viruses can be used by manufacturers to produce new vaccines.

The CDC is also actively partnering with commercial diagnostic developers and testing companies in case there is a need to scale-up testing, Dr. Dugan said.

The only current human case in the United States was reported on April 1 and confirmed by the CDC within 24 hours, reported Sonja Olsen, PhD, associate director for preparedness and response of the Influenza Division at the CDC.

The person had direct exposure to cattle and reported eye redness, consistent with conjunctivitis, as the only symptom. The person received treatment and has recovered, and there were no reports of illness among the person’s household contacts, Dr. Olsen said.
 

Person With the Virus Has Recovered

The only other detection of the virus in a human in the United States was in 2022 and it was associated with infected poultry exposure. That person also had mild illness and recovered, Dr. Olsen explained.

Since 1997, when the first case of human infection was reported globally, “there have been 909 [human cases] reported from 23 countries,” Dr. Olsen said. “About half [52%] of the human cases have resulted in death.” Only a small number of human cases have been reported since 2015, but since 2022, more than two dozen human cases have been reported to the World Health Organization.

Experience with the virus in the United States has been about a year behind that in Europe, said Rosemary Sifford, DVM, chief veterinary officer at the US Department of Agriculture. In the United States, the first detection — in January 2022 — was in wild birds; this was followed the next month by the first detection in a commercial poultry flock.

In March of this year, the United States had its first detection in cattle, specifically dairy cattle. But testing has shown that “it remains very much an avian virus. It’s not becoming a bovine virus,” Dr. Sifford reported.
 

Detected in Cattle

Earlier this week, in an effort to minimize the risk of disease spread, the USDA issued a federal order that requires the reporting of positive influenza tests in livestock and mandatory testing for influenza of dairy cattle before interstate movement.

“As of today, there are affected herds in 33 farms across eight states,” reported Dr. Olsen.

Tests are ongoing to determine how the virus is traveling, but “what we can say is that there’s a high viral load in the milk in the cattle, and it appears that the transmission is happening mostly within the lactating herds,” Dr. Sifford reported. It is unclear whether that is happening during the milking of the cows or whether contaminated milk from a cow with a high viral load is transmitting the virus to other cattle.

“We are strongly encouraging producers to limit the movement of cattle, particularly lactating cattle, as much as possible,” she says.
 

Milk Is Likely the Source of Transmission

“We haven’t seen anything that would change our assessment that the commercial milk supply is safe,” says Donald Prater, DVM, acting director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In the federal and state milk safety system, he explained, nearly 99% of the commercial milk supply comes from farms that participate in the Grade A program and follow the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, which outlines pasteurization requirements.

Because detection of the virus in dairy cattle is new, there are many questions to be answered in research, he reported. Among them:

• What level of virus might be leaving the farms from shedding by apparently healthy cows?
• Does any live virus survive the pasteurization process?
• Do different methods of pasteurization and dairy production have different effects on the viability of H5N1?
• Are effects different in various forms of dairy products, such as cheese and cream?

A critical question regarding the potential risk to humans is how much milk would have to be consumed for the virus to become an established infection. That information is essential to determine “what type of pasteurization criteria” are needed to provide “acceptable public health outcomes,” Dr. Prater said.

The CDC is currently using the flu surveillance system to monitor for H5N1 activity in people. The systems show no current indicators of unusual influenza activity in people.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

*The first thing Ann Garment, MD, wants all clinicians to know about buprenorphine is that [where state law permits] any prescriber with a DEA registration number “is able to prescribe buprenorphine and should be ready and willing to prescribe” the medication.

*A change in federal law means that for most providers “there is no longer any extra paperwork or training required to prescribe buprenorphine,” said Dr. Garment, clinical associate professor at New York University and chief of general internal medicine at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, during a presentation on April 19 at the American College of Physicians (ACP-IM) Internal Medicine Meeting 2024.

Dr. Garment, who specializes in opioid use disorder (OUD), described the current “third wave” of increasing opioid overdose deaths fueled by the increase of synthetic opioids in the drug supply. The third wave started in 2013 with the rise in use of fentanyl and tramadol. The 107,000 number of overdose deaths in the United States in 2021 was more than six times that in 1999, and 75% involved opioids.

“Now, more than ever,” Dr. Garment said, “opioid use disorder should be treated from the primary care setting.”
 

How to Identify OUD

Dr. Garment recommended asking a single question to screen for OUD: “How many times in the past year have you used an illegal drug or used a prescription medication for nonmedical reasons?”

If the patient says any number above zero, that should trigger suspicion of active OUD. “It’s less sensitive for picking up on people who have a prior opioid use disorder history or are only exhibiting risky opioid use that wouldn’t constitute opioid use disorder yet,” she said.

If someone screens positive, to verify OUD, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders identifies criteria for any substance abuse disorder with two general themes: Loss of control and continued use despite negative consequences.

“If you have a patient who is getting prescribed opioids and they have opioid tolerance or withdrawal, that does not mean they have opioid use disorder,” she said.
 

Medication for OUD

Medication is the top treatment for OUD, according to Dr. Garment. Psychosocial treatments can help some but not all people with OUD, she said. “It is not a requirement for a patient to engage in psychosocial treatment in order to get a medication for opioid use disorder, so please do not let that be a barrier for your patients,” she said.

Buprenorphine has advantages over other medications for OUD, including methadone and naltrexone.

Methadone must be obtained daily at a methadone clinic instead of at a local pharmacy. And escalating doses of methadone carry an increased risk for overdose and respiratory problems and potential drug-drug interactions, Dr. Garment added.

One downside with naltrexone is loss of tolerance, she said. If a patient has been using naltrexone to treat OUD and they decide to resume taking opioids, “they no longer can use the same amount of opioids that they were using before” because they have lost their tolerance and now are at a risk for overdose with their usual amount, she said. What’s more, naltrexone has not been shown to reduce overdose deaths.

Finally, she said, buprenorphine, “is an incredibly safe medication. If anyone in this room has ever prescribed coumadin or insulin, I’m going to tell you: This is much safer.”

• The drug is a partial, as opposed to full, opioid agonist, so as the dose increases, the patient experiences less withdrawal and fewer opioid cravings. As a result, they will hit a ceiling effect that avoids euphoria, respiratory depression, or overdose.
• Buprenorphine is “stickier” than other OUD medications: “If I’m taking buprenorphine and I decide to use some [oxycodone], what’s going to happen is that very little of that, if any, is going to get bound to my opioid receptors because buprenorphine is so sticky and adherent, it’s not going to let other opioids on.”
• Most buprenorphine is co-formulated with naloxone, an opioid antagonist. If a patient tries to get high from buprenorphine and tries to snort or inject it, naloxone will kick in and cancel out the buprenorphine.

Dr. Garment said she obtains urine screens ideally twice a year. If other drugs show up on the test, she said, she speaks with the patient about their drug use. “It’s never a reason to discharge someone from a practice,” she said.

Dr. Garment reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on April 29, 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

*The first thing Ann Garment, MD, wants all clinicians to know about buprenorphine is that [where state law permits] any prescriber with a DEA registration number “is able to prescribe buprenorphine and should be ready and willing to prescribe” the medication.

*A change in federal law means that for most providers “there is no longer any extra paperwork or training required to prescribe buprenorphine,” said Dr. Garment, clinical associate professor at New York University and chief of general internal medicine at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, during a presentation on April 19 at the American College of Physicians (ACP-IM) Internal Medicine Meeting 2024.

Dr. Garment, who specializes in opioid use disorder (OUD), described the current “third wave” of increasing opioid overdose deaths fueled by the increase of synthetic opioids in the drug supply. The third wave started in 2013 with the rise in use of fentanyl and tramadol. The 107,000 number of overdose deaths in the United States in 2021 was more than six times that in 1999, and 75% involved opioids.

“Now, more than ever,” Dr. Garment said, “opioid use disorder should be treated from the primary care setting.”
 

How to Identify OUD

Dr. Garment recommended asking a single question to screen for OUD: “How many times in the past year have you used an illegal drug or used a prescription medication for nonmedical reasons?”

If the patient says any number above zero, that should trigger suspicion of active OUD. “It’s less sensitive for picking up on people who have a prior opioid use disorder history or are only exhibiting risky opioid use that wouldn’t constitute opioid use disorder yet,” she said.

If someone screens positive, to verify OUD, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders identifies criteria for any substance abuse disorder with two general themes: Loss of control and continued use despite negative consequences.

“If you have a patient who is getting prescribed opioids and they have opioid tolerance or withdrawal, that does not mean they have opioid use disorder,” she said.
 

Medication for OUD

Medication is the top treatment for OUD, according to Dr. Garment. Psychosocial treatments can help some but not all people with OUD, she said. “It is not a requirement for a patient to engage in psychosocial treatment in order to get a medication for opioid use disorder, so please do not let that be a barrier for your patients,” she said.

Buprenorphine has advantages over other medications for OUD, including methadone and naltrexone.

Methadone must be obtained daily at a methadone clinic instead of at a local pharmacy. And escalating doses of methadone carry an increased risk for overdose and respiratory problems and potential drug-drug interactions, Dr. Garment added.

One downside with naltrexone is loss of tolerance, she said. If a patient has been using naltrexone to treat OUD and they decide to resume taking opioids, “they no longer can use the same amount of opioids that they were using before” because they have lost their tolerance and now are at a risk for overdose with their usual amount, she said. What’s more, naltrexone has not been shown to reduce overdose deaths.

Finally, she said, buprenorphine, “is an incredibly safe medication. If anyone in this room has ever prescribed coumadin or insulin, I’m going to tell you: This is much safer.”

• The drug is a partial, as opposed to full, opioid agonist, so as the dose increases, the patient experiences less withdrawal and fewer opioid cravings. As a result, they will hit a ceiling effect that avoids euphoria, respiratory depression, or overdose.
• Buprenorphine is “stickier” than other OUD medications: “If I’m taking buprenorphine and I decide to use some [oxycodone], what’s going to happen is that very little of that, if any, is going to get bound to my opioid receptors because buprenorphine is so sticky and adherent, it’s not going to let other opioids on.”
• Most buprenorphine is co-formulated with naloxone, an opioid antagonist. If a patient tries to get high from buprenorphine and tries to snort or inject it, naloxone will kick in and cancel out the buprenorphine.

Dr. Garment said she obtains urine screens ideally twice a year. If other drugs show up on the test, she said, she speaks with the patient about their drug use. “It’s never a reason to discharge someone from a practice,” she said.

Dr. Garment reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on April 29, 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

*The first thing Ann Garment, MD, wants all clinicians to know about buprenorphine is that [where state law permits] any prescriber with a DEA registration number “is able to prescribe buprenorphine and should be ready and willing to prescribe” the medication.

*A change in federal law means that for most providers “there is no longer any extra paperwork or training required to prescribe buprenorphine,” said Dr. Garment, clinical associate professor at New York University and chief of general internal medicine at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, during a presentation on April 19 at the American College of Physicians (ACP-IM) Internal Medicine Meeting 2024.

Dr. Garment, who specializes in opioid use disorder (OUD), described the current “third wave” of increasing opioid overdose deaths fueled by the increase of synthetic opioids in the drug supply. The third wave started in 2013 with the rise in use of fentanyl and tramadol. The 107,000 number of overdose deaths in the United States in 2021 was more than six times that in 1999, and 75% involved opioids.

“Now, more than ever,” Dr. Garment said, “opioid use disorder should be treated from the primary care setting.”
 

How to Identify OUD

Dr. Garment recommended asking a single question to screen for OUD: “How many times in the past year have you used an illegal drug or used a prescription medication for nonmedical reasons?”

If the patient says any number above zero, that should trigger suspicion of active OUD. “It’s less sensitive for picking up on people who have a prior opioid use disorder history or are only exhibiting risky opioid use that wouldn’t constitute opioid use disorder yet,” she said.

If someone screens positive, to verify OUD, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders identifies criteria for any substance abuse disorder with two general themes: Loss of control and continued use despite negative consequences.

“If you have a patient who is getting prescribed opioids and they have opioid tolerance or withdrawal, that does not mean they have opioid use disorder,” she said.
 

Medication for OUD

Medication is the top treatment for OUD, according to Dr. Garment. Psychosocial treatments can help some but not all people with OUD, she said. “It is not a requirement for a patient to engage in psychosocial treatment in order to get a medication for opioid use disorder, so please do not let that be a barrier for your patients,” she said.

Buprenorphine has advantages over other medications for OUD, including methadone and naltrexone.

Methadone must be obtained daily at a methadone clinic instead of at a local pharmacy. And escalating doses of methadone carry an increased risk for overdose and respiratory problems and potential drug-drug interactions, Dr. Garment added.

One downside with naltrexone is loss of tolerance, she said. If a patient has been using naltrexone to treat OUD and they decide to resume taking opioids, “they no longer can use the same amount of opioids that they were using before” because they have lost their tolerance and now are at a risk for overdose with their usual amount, she said. What’s more, naltrexone has not been shown to reduce overdose deaths.

Finally, she said, buprenorphine, “is an incredibly safe medication. If anyone in this room has ever prescribed coumadin or insulin, I’m going to tell you: This is much safer.”

• The drug is a partial, as opposed to full, opioid agonist, so as the dose increases, the patient experiences less withdrawal and fewer opioid cravings. As a result, they will hit a ceiling effect that avoids euphoria, respiratory depression, or overdose.
• Buprenorphine is “stickier” than other OUD medications: “If I’m taking buprenorphine and I decide to use some [oxycodone], what’s going to happen is that very little of that, if any, is going to get bound to my opioid receptors because buprenorphine is so sticky and adherent, it’s not going to let other opioids on.”
• Most buprenorphine is co-formulated with naloxone, an opioid antagonist. If a patient tries to get high from buprenorphine and tries to snort or inject it, naloxone will kick in and cancel out the buprenorphine.

Dr. Garment said she obtains urine screens ideally twice a year. If other drugs show up on the test, she said, she speaks with the patient about their drug use. “It’s never a reason to discharge someone from a practice,” she said.

Dr. Garment reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on April 29, 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.