Federal Practitioner

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously has agreed that the next COVID-19 vaccines should target the XBB variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus now in circulation in the United States, but questioned whether the population as a whole needs booster shots and how often they should be given.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the FDA voted 21-0 in favor of the recommendation about the strain to be used in the next crop of vaccines.

In the briefing document for the meeting, FDA staff said the available evidence suggests that a monovalent (single-strain) XBB-lineage vaccine “is warranted” for the 2023-2024 vaccination campaign and would replace the current bivalent vaccine, which targets the original version of the virus and two strains from the Omicron variant.

FDA staff also noted how such a shift would be in line with the World Health Organization toward targeting the XBB family of subvariants. European regulators have done this as well. 

The FDA is not obligated to act on the panel’s recommendations. But the agency often does and is highly likely to do so in this case. Vaccine companies will need the recommendation from the FDA to begin making vaccines for the fall.
 

New shot every year?

The FDA asked its expert panel to vote only on the question about the makeup of future vaccines in terms of which strain to include. 

But panelists also raised other questions during the meeting, including concerns about moves toward tying COVID vaccinations into the model of annual flu shots. 

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, argued for greater focus on the response of T cells after vaccination, even in light of the already recognized waning of antibody protection. 

In a recent Substack article, Dr. Offit called T cells the “unsung hero” of the pandemic. They take longer to develop after infection or vaccination than the antibodies that first attack the virus, but immune memory cells called B and T cells “are long-lived,” and their “protection against severe disease often lasts for years and sometimes decades.”

Dr. Offit said he was concerned about using a blanket approach for future recommendations for COVID vaccinations, following the one now in place for influenza vaccines.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends flu shots for everyone 6 months and older, with rare exceptions. 

“We need to continue to define who those high-risk groups are and not make this a recommendation for everybody every season,” he said.

Dr. Offit offered his own experience as an example. While he had been vaccinated against the virus’s early Wuhan strain, he still was infected, most likely with a variant that emerged later. 

“That was a drifted virus. That’s why I had a mild infection but I didn’t have a severe infection, because presumably I had T cells which prevented that severe infection, which may last for years,” Dr. Offit said.

Pfizer and Moderna, the two companies that make mRNA-based COVID vaccines, are working on experimental products meant to protect against both flu and SARS-COv-2 in one shot. Novavax, maker of a more traditional protein-based COVID shot, is doing the same. 

The idea of these combination products is to make it more convenient for people to protect against both viruses, while also offering companies some marketing advantages.

But without referring to these drugmakers’ plans for future combo flu-COVID shots, members of the FDA panel raised objections to an assumption of routine annual vaccines against variants of SARS-CoV-2. 

Among the panelists who expressed concerns was Henry H. Bernstein, DO, a former member of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

Bernstein questioned the approach of dubbing these the “2023-2024 formulas,” as this approach conveyed a sense of an expectation for a need for annual vaccines, as happens with flu. 

“It’s not clear to me that this is a seasonal virus yet,” said Dr. Bernstein, who is also a professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y..

In response to Dr. Bernstein’s point, Arnold Monto, MD, the acting chair of the FDA panel, suggested such a pattern could emerge, while also agreeing that it’s too soon to say for sure.

A professor emeritus at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Dr. Monto’s career included pandemic planning and emergency response to virus outbreaks, including the 1968 Hong Kong influenza pandemic, avian influenza, and the original SARS.

“I think it’s premature to say that this virus will not become seasonal,” Dr. Monto said about SARS-CoV-2. “I agree. We’re not there yet, but we may be.”

At the end of the meeting, Dr. Monto recapped the meeting’s key points, noting that there was a general consensus that the XBB.1.5 subvariant would be the best to use in future COVID shots. 

He also noted that Novavax, which makes the more traditional protein-based vaccine, along with Pfizer and Moderna, already have honed in on this subvariant, which would allow for rapid development of updated COVID vaccines.

“The fact that most of the manufacturers are ready to work on an XBB 1.5 [vaccine] is an added reason to select this strain or this variant, given the immunologic data,” Dr. Monto said. 

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the demands involved in manufacturing vaccines tilts toward annual changes.

“Practically, we’re going to have one update per year, barring a heroic effort to deal with a strain that pops up that is essentially so different that it requires us to mobilize tremendous resources to address that strain change,” he said.

Dr. Marks questioned the panelists’ concerns about likening flu and COVID vaccination practices. The FDA staff’s intent was to try to help the public understand the need for follow-on vaccination.

“I’m really having trouble understanding that committee’s need to bristle against something that’s similar to influenza. People understand a yearly influenza vaccine,” Dr. Marks said. 

And it’s not certain when another major change in the COVID virus will follow the XBB subvariant, but it’s likely one will – and soon, Dr. Marks said. 

“It looks like, probably by next fall, there’ll be further drift from this,” he said.
 

Informing the public 

Dr. Marks also stressed the need to better convey the benefits of vaccination to people in the United States. 

CDC data estimate that 70% of the U.S. population completed an initial series of the original monovalent vaccines, with only 17% then getting bivalent shots. There’s even a decline among people ages 65 and older. CDC estimates 94% of this group completed their primary series, but only 43% got the bivalent booster dose.

“We have to do better because we have not done a good job today communicating to the American public what’s going on here,” Marks said.

Researchers also are still trying to determine the best timing for people to get additional COVID shots. Finding the “sweet spot” where people can maximize additional protection is tricky, with people most protected if they happen to get shot near the beginning of an uptick in viral spread, the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, PhD, MPH, told the panel during a presentation. 

“You’re going to get the best incremental benefit if it’s been longer since your last vaccine,” she said. “But of course, if you wait too long since your last vaccine, you’re left with very little protection, and so you’re at higher risk of severe illness.”

Like Dr. Marks, Dr. Link-Gelles stressed the need for persuading more people to get follow-on vaccines. 

“Most Americans, at this point, haven’t even received the bivalent and so are a year or more out from their monovalent dose and so have relatively little protection left,” she said.

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

An electronic exhaled breath analyzer showed differences in breath profiles of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who did and did not develop lung cancer, based on data from a prospective study of approximately 800 individuals.

Lung cancer remains a major cause of death in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but many cases may go undetected in the early stage because of lack of screening and lack of validated predictive biomarkers, wrote Rianne de Vries, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Accurate, noninvasive tests to screen patients with COPD for lung cancer are needed, and molecular profiling of exhaled breath using electronic nose (eNose) technology has shown potential as a method of early detection by identifying patterns of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs), they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 682 adults with COPD and 211 with lung cancer who were enrolled in BreathCloud, a multicenter, observational study of healthy controls and individuals with suspected or confirmed diagnosis of asthma, COPD, or lung cancer.

Patients’ breath profiles were collected at study enrollment, between May 2017 and November 2018, using a metal oxide semiconductor eNose (SpiroNose).

Data from the eNose included the highest sensor peak normalized to the most stable sensor and the ratio between sensor peak and breath hold point. These variables were combined into four principal components (PCs) that captured 78.4% of variance in the dataset, and training and validation sets were constructed for all subjects. The researchers calculated a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, including the area under the curve (AUC).

All patients were treated with standard clinical care and were monitored for development of clinically diagnosed lung cancer for 2 years, confirmed via CT imaging. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and demographics at baseline were similar for patients with and without lung cancer.

After exclusion of 116 patients with both COPD and lung cancer, the analysis showed an accuracy of 90% and a ROC-AUC of 0.95.

Within 2 years of study enrollment, 37 patients with COPD (5.4%) developed lung cancer. In training sets and validation sets, the principal components one, two, and three were significantly different in patients with COPD who developed lung cancer and those who did not, (P = .002, P < .001, P < .001, respectively). The ROC-AUCs of the testing and validation sets were 0.89 and 0.86, respectively.

“Interestingly, the VOC pattern associated with early development of lung cancer in COPD did not match to the pattern related to lung cancer stages, as the former was mainly captured by PC2 and the latter by PC3,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This suggests that early identification of upcoming clinically manifest lung cancer in patients with COPD by eNose is not driven by VOCs that are predominantly associated with a particular stage of the disease,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CT scanning at baseline because of the real-world design, so the presence of any baseline tumors was unknown, although none of the COPD patients showed symptoms indicative of lung cancer at baseline, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that eNose technology can identify lung cancer-specific VOC patterns early in cancer development in COPD patients, which provides a possible opportunity for early intervention, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. De Vries disclosed personal fees and a substantial interest in the start-up company Breathomix.

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

An electronic exhaled breath analyzer showed differences in breath profiles of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who did and did not develop lung cancer, based on data from a prospective study of approximately 800 individuals.

Lung cancer remains a major cause of death in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but many cases may go undetected in the early stage because of lack of screening and lack of validated predictive biomarkers, wrote Rianne de Vries, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Accurate, noninvasive tests to screen patients with COPD for lung cancer are needed, and molecular profiling of exhaled breath using electronic nose (eNose) technology has shown potential as a method of early detection by identifying patterns of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs), they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 682 adults with COPD and 211 with lung cancer who were enrolled in BreathCloud, a multicenter, observational study of healthy controls and individuals with suspected or confirmed diagnosis of asthma, COPD, or lung cancer.

Patients’ breath profiles were collected at study enrollment, between May 2017 and November 2018, using a metal oxide semiconductor eNose (SpiroNose).

Data from the eNose included the highest sensor peak normalized to the most stable sensor and the ratio between sensor peak and breath hold point. These variables were combined into four principal components (PCs) that captured 78.4% of variance in the dataset, and training and validation sets were constructed for all subjects. The researchers calculated a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, including the area under the curve (AUC).

All patients were treated with standard clinical care and were monitored for development of clinically diagnosed lung cancer for 2 years, confirmed via CT imaging. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and demographics at baseline were similar for patients with and without lung cancer.

After exclusion of 116 patients with both COPD and lung cancer, the analysis showed an accuracy of 90% and a ROC-AUC of 0.95.

Within 2 years of study enrollment, 37 patients with COPD (5.4%) developed lung cancer. In training sets and validation sets, the principal components one, two, and three were significantly different in patients with COPD who developed lung cancer and those who did not, (P = .002, P < .001, P < .001, respectively). The ROC-AUCs of the testing and validation sets were 0.89 and 0.86, respectively.

“Interestingly, the VOC pattern associated with early development of lung cancer in COPD did not match to the pattern related to lung cancer stages, as the former was mainly captured by PC2 and the latter by PC3,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This suggests that early identification of upcoming clinically manifest lung cancer in patients with COPD by eNose is not driven by VOCs that are predominantly associated with a particular stage of the disease,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CT scanning at baseline because of the real-world design, so the presence of any baseline tumors was unknown, although none of the COPD patients showed symptoms indicative of lung cancer at baseline, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that eNose technology can identify lung cancer-specific VOC patterns early in cancer development in COPD patients, which provides a possible opportunity for early intervention, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. De Vries disclosed personal fees and a substantial interest in the start-up company Breathomix.

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

An electronic exhaled breath analyzer showed differences in breath profiles of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who did and did not develop lung cancer, based on data from a prospective study of approximately 800 individuals.

Lung cancer remains a major cause of death in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but many cases may go undetected in the early stage because of lack of screening and lack of validated predictive biomarkers, wrote Rianne de Vries, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Accurate, noninvasive tests to screen patients with COPD for lung cancer are needed, and molecular profiling of exhaled breath using electronic nose (eNose) technology has shown potential as a method of early detection by identifying patterns of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs), they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 682 adults with COPD and 211 with lung cancer who were enrolled in BreathCloud, a multicenter, observational study of healthy controls and individuals with suspected or confirmed diagnosis of asthma, COPD, or lung cancer.

Patients’ breath profiles were collected at study enrollment, between May 2017 and November 2018, using a metal oxide semiconductor eNose (SpiroNose).

Data from the eNose included the highest sensor peak normalized to the most stable sensor and the ratio between sensor peak and breath hold point. These variables were combined into four principal components (PCs) that captured 78.4% of variance in the dataset, and training and validation sets were constructed for all subjects. The researchers calculated a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, including the area under the curve (AUC).

All patients were treated with standard clinical care and were monitored for development of clinically diagnosed lung cancer for 2 years, confirmed via CT imaging. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and demographics at baseline were similar for patients with and without lung cancer.

After exclusion of 116 patients with both COPD and lung cancer, the analysis showed an accuracy of 90% and a ROC-AUC of 0.95.

Within 2 years of study enrollment, 37 patients with COPD (5.4%) developed lung cancer. In training sets and validation sets, the principal components one, two, and three were significantly different in patients with COPD who developed lung cancer and those who did not, (P = .002, P < .001, P < .001, respectively). The ROC-AUCs of the testing and validation sets were 0.89 and 0.86, respectively.

“Interestingly, the VOC pattern associated with early development of lung cancer in COPD did not match to the pattern related to lung cancer stages, as the former was mainly captured by PC2 and the latter by PC3,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This suggests that early identification of upcoming clinically manifest lung cancer in patients with COPD by eNose is not driven by VOCs that are predominantly associated with a particular stage of the disease,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of CT scanning at baseline because of the real-world design, so the presence of any baseline tumors was unknown, although none of the COPD patients showed symptoms indicative of lung cancer at baseline, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that eNose technology can identify lung cancer-specific VOC patterns early in cancer development in COPD patients, which provides a possible opportunity for early intervention, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. De Vries disclosed personal fees and a substantial interest in the start-up company Breathomix.

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

CHICAGO – Oncologist Denise Yardley, MD, isn’t used to expressing uncertainty when she tells patients about what’s in store for them in terms of drug treatment. But things are dramatically different now amid a severe national shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin, two common and crucial cancer drugs.

“There’s a regimen I’m thinking about,” Dr. Yardley told a new patient recently, “but we’ll have to wait until you finish your staging evaluation to see whether I can deliver this. Another regimen that’s a little more toxic is my second choice.” And, she added, the alternative chemotherapy treatment – anthracycline instead of carboplatin – requires a longer treatment period.

This ambiguity is hardly ideal, said Dr. Yardley, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville. “It’s another factor in being overwhelmed in a first-time visit and wanting to know the details about what your treatment is going to look like. You’re not walking out knowing exactly what you’re going to take or the exact timing so you can start mapping out your calendar and work schedule.”

This kind of scenario is becoming all too familiar this spring, according to oncologists who gathered at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). In interviews, these physicians said the limited supply of multiple cancer drugs – including the chemotherapies carboplatin and cisplatin – is having an unprecedented negative effect since their use is so widespread in cancer care.

“Every patient could get impacted. That’s why we need to address this sooner rather than later,” said oncologist Aditya Baria, MBBS, MPH, director of the Breast Cancer Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Shortages of cancer drugs are not unusual. Three-quarters of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations surveyed from 2019 to 2020 said shortages prompted treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens. But the current shortages are having a much wider impact.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recently reported that 93% of 27 member institutions surveyed in late May are short on carboplatin, and 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin. Plus, 20% of 19 centers said they weren’t able to continue carboplatin regimens for all patients. 

The drugs are mainstays of multiple types of treatment for a long list of cancer types including lung, breast, gynecologic, and many others.

Several scenarios are possible when the drugs are in short supply, said Dr. Yardley, who noted that the shortage is more severe than any she’s seen in her medical career of more than 3 decades. Patients may need to be switched to regimens with more side effects, even when they’re in the middle of a treatment, she said. Or patients might have to go longer between treatments.

In some cases, Dr. Yardley said, the shortage is forcing patients to go without an important component of a larger combination therapy regimen. “The Keynote 522 neoadjuvant regimen for triple-negative breast cancer has carboplatin given with Taxol [paclitaxel] and Keytruda [pembrolizumab]. We are just deleting the carboplatin.”

She added that carboplatin is part of the following so-called TCHP regimen for HER2+ early-stage breast cancer: Taxotere (docetaxel), carboplatin, Herceptin (trastuzumab), and Perjeta (pertuzumab).

“You can delete [carboplatin] or consider substituting cyclophosphamide for carboplatin,” she said. But she cautioned the Keynote 522 and TCHP regimens haven’t been tested without carboplatin in curative-intent trials.

At Duke University in Durham, N.C., doses of carboplatin for many patients are being lowered by a third to the level that’s commonly used for older and frail patients, said oncologist Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who works at the academic center and is the chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society.

“We don’t know if [the lower doses will negatively affect cancer patients’ outcomes]. What’s amazing is how many patients [are understanding about having to take smaller amounts of the chemotherapy],” he said.

Medical organizations are offering guidance. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology, for example, in late April recommended that oncologists increase intervals between chemotherapy treatments when appropriate, round down vial sizes to ensure “efficient use,” and eliminate or minimize use of cisplatin and carboplatin in certain platinum-resistant cancers.

In early June, ASCO published guidance regarding alternatives to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, which is also in short supply, in gastrointestinal cancer. As the guidance notes, some alternatives are more untested or more toxic than ideal treatments.

In addition, ASCO has a webpage devoted to news and resources about shortages of cancer drugs. It offers drug availability updates, general guidance, and breast cancer guidance. ASCO also offers ethical guidance about handling drug shortages.

Patients in clinical trials and those who hope to join them are especially vulnerable to the drug shortage, oncologists interviewed for this story said. Cisplatin and carboplatin are the backbones of many clinical trials, Dr. Yardley said. “When you can’t supply a drug in one of the [trial] arms, that puts the whole trial on pause.”

Even clinics that have managed to find adequate supplies of the drugs are planning for when they run out.

“Our institution and other institutions are trying to come up with a rationing protocol, deciding which patients are going to get access, and which ones have reasonable alternatives,” radiation oncologist Corey Speers MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. “In some settings, there really isn’t an effective alternative. Or the alternatives are tens of thousands of dollars more expensive.”

Oncologists also noted that cisplatin and carboplatin aren’t the only cancer drugs in short supply.

“Methotrexate is critically low, and 5FU [fluorouracil] is critically low,” Dr. Yardley said, referring to drugs that each treat several types of cancer. According to the May NCNN survey, 67% of respondents reported low supplies of methotrexate, and 26% said they were low on 5FU.

“Viscous lidocaine is a component of many supportive care mouth rinses for the stomatitis caused by our drugs but is not available at all,” Dr. Yardley said. 

She added that there are also low supplies of fludarabine, which is used to treat chronic lymphocytic lymphom; clofarabine, which is used to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia; and rasburicase, which is used to treat high levels of uric acid in patients on chemotherapy.

Dr. Speers said his institution is facing a shortage of capecitabine, which is used to treat several types of cancer.

“Numerous trials have demonstrated the improved, safety, efficacy, and convenience of oral capecitabine. With the shortage we’re having to use infusional 5FU, which not only is less convenient but also ends up being more costly and requires infusion room space or continuous infusion pumps. This impacts our ability to treat cancer patients,” he said. “Our capacity is becoming more limited to accommodate these added patients, and we have to use infusional formulations of a drug that previously was readily available via an oral formulation. Patients and caregivers now have to come to the cancer center for appointments and infusions that previously weren’t needed as they could take an oral pill.”

Dr. Speers added that his institution is rationing methotrexate. “We are now prioritizing patients being treated with curative intent and adjusting protocols to use the lowest allowable doses to conserve supply,” he said.

The roots of the platinum chemotherapy drug shortage link back to the India-based Intas Pharmaceuticals company, a major manufacturer of cisplatin and carboplatin. According to Kellyann Zuzulo, spokeperson for Accord Healthcare, an Instas U.S. subsidiary, a facility inspection in December 2022 prompted a decision to temporarily stop making the drugs. The inspection identified multiple problems.

“Intas and Accord are working with the FDA on a plan to return to manufacturing,” Ms. Zuzulo said in an interview. “This will allow for continued production of products that will be prioritized based on medical necessity. A date has not yet been confirmed in which the facility will return to manufacturing for cisplatin, carboplatin or any other products.”

Ms. Zuzulo said the company is not a health care provider and cannot offer advice to patients about alternatives.

Other companies that make cisplatin and carboplatin have also reported shortages. In interviews, representatives for Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said the companies have limited supplies because of increased demand – not because of manufacturing problems.

On June 12, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) reported that carboplatin remains in short supply, with all five companies that sell the drug listed as having limited or back-ordered supplies. Cisplatin is also in short supply, the organization reported in a June 9 update, although some is available.

In a June 12 update on methotrexate, ASHP said manufacturing delays at Accord have caused a shortage, and other companies are running low due to increased demand.

As for the future, Congress and the Biden administration, according to a report by Bloomberg, are trying to figure out what to do regarding shortages of cheap generic drugs such as cisplatin and carboplatin. The FDA is exploring a partnership with a Chinese drugmaker to make cisplatin, NBC News reported.

However, fixes will be challenging, according to former FDA commissioner and Pfizer board member, Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“This generic business, particularly for these complex drugs, these complex formulations, is not a healthy business right now. Yet it’s a vital business from a public standpoint,” he told CBS News.

In an interview, Dr. Kamal said that there is even talk about boosting the prices of cheap generic drugs “to ensure that there’s enough incentive for multiple manufacturers to be involved.”

Dr. Kamal said he is crossing his fingers that cutting chemotherapy doses at his clinic doesn’t result in worse outcomes for his patients.

“Right now, I think dropping someone by 25% or 30% is okay. And for some patients, particularly in a curative setting, we try to keep them at as much as 100% as possible. But there’s just a lot of unknowns,” he said.

CHICAGO – Oncologist Denise Yardley, MD, isn’t used to expressing uncertainty when she tells patients about what’s in store for them in terms of drug treatment. But things are dramatically different now amid a severe national shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin, two common and crucial cancer drugs.

“There’s a regimen I’m thinking about,” Dr. Yardley told a new patient recently, “but we’ll have to wait until you finish your staging evaluation to see whether I can deliver this. Another regimen that’s a little more toxic is my second choice.” And, she added, the alternative chemotherapy treatment – anthracycline instead of carboplatin – requires a longer treatment period.

This ambiguity is hardly ideal, said Dr. Yardley, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville. “It’s another factor in being overwhelmed in a first-time visit and wanting to know the details about what your treatment is going to look like. You’re not walking out knowing exactly what you’re going to take or the exact timing so you can start mapping out your calendar and work schedule.”

This kind of scenario is becoming all too familiar this spring, according to oncologists who gathered at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). In interviews, these physicians said the limited supply of multiple cancer drugs – including the chemotherapies carboplatin and cisplatin – is having an unprecedented negative effect since their use is so widespread in cancer care.

“Every patient could get impacted. That’s why we need to address this sooner rather than later,” said oncologist Aditya Baria, MBBS, MPH, director of the Breast Cancer Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Shortages of cancer drugs are not unusual. Three-quarters of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations surveyed from 2019 to 2020 said shortages prompted treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens. But the current shortages are having a much wider impact.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recently reported that 93% of 27 member institutions surveyed in late May are short on carboplatin, and 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin. Plus, 20% of 19 centers said they weren’t able to continue carboplatin regimens for all patients. 

The drugs are mainstays of multiple types of treatment for a long list of cancer types including lung, breast, gynecologic, and many others.

Several scenarios are possible when the drugs are in short supply, said Dr. Yardley, who noted that the shortage is more severe than any she’s seen in her medical career of more than 3 decades. Patients may need to be switched to regimens with more side effects, even when they’re in the middle of a treatment, she said. Or patients might have to go longer between treatments.

In some cases, Dr. Yardley said, the shortage is forcing patients to go without an important component of a larger combination therapy regimen. “The Keynote 522 neoadjuvant regimen for triple-negative breast cancer has carboplatin given with Taxol [paclitaxel] and Keytruda [pembrolizumab]. We are just deleting the carboplatin.”

She added that carboplatin is part of the following so-called TCHP regimen for HER2+ early-stage breast cancer: Taxotere (docetaxel), carboplatin, Herceptin (trastuzumab), and Perjeta (pertuzumab).

“You can delete [carboplatin] or consider substituting cyclophosphamide for carboplatin,” she said. But she cautioned the Keynote 522 and TCHP regimens haven’t been tested without carboplatin in curative-intent trials.

At Duke University in Durham, N.C., doses of carboplatin for many patients are being lowered by a third to the level that’s commonly used for older and frail patients, said oncologist Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who works at the academic center and is the chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society.

“We don’t know if [the lower doses will negatively affect cancer patients’ outcomes]. What’s amazing is how many patients [are understanding about having to take smaller amounts of the chemotherapy],” he said.

Medical organizations are offering guidance. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology, for example, in late April recommended that oncologists increase intervals between chemotherapy treatments when appropriate, round down vial sizes to ensure “efficient use,” and eliminate or minimize use of cisplatin and carboplatin in certain platinum-resistant cancers.

In early June, ASCO published guidance regarding alternatives to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, which is also in short supply, in gastrointestinal cancer. As the guidance notes, some alternatives are more untested or more toxic than ideal treatments.

In addition, ASCO has a webpage devoted to news and resources about shortages of cancer drugs. It offers drug availability updates, general guidance, and breast cancer guidance. ASCO also offers ethical guidance about handling drug shortages.

Patients in clinical trials and those who hope to join them are especially vulnerable to the drug shortage, oncologists interviewed for this story said. Cisplatin and carboplatin are the backbones of many clinical trials, Dr. Yardley said. “When you can’t supply a drug in one of the [trial] arms, that puts the whole trial on pause.”

Even clinics that have managed to find adequate supplies of the drugs are planning for when they run out.

“Our institution and other institutions are trying to come up with a rationing protocol, deciding which patients are going to get access, and which ones have reasonable alternatives,” radiation oncologist Corey Speers MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. “In some settings, there really isn’t an effective alternative. Or the alternatives are tens of thousands of dollars more expensive.”

Oncologists also noted that cisplatin and carboplatin aren’t the only cancer drugs in short supply.

“Methotrexate is critically low, and 5FU [fluorouracil] is critically low,” Dr. Yardley said, referring to drugs that each treat several types of cancer. According to the May NCNN survey, 67% of respondents reported low supplies of methotrexate, and 26% said they were low on 5FU.

“Viscous lidocaine is a component of many supportive care mouth rinses for the stomatitis caused by our drugs but is not available at all,” Dr. Yardley said. 

She added that there are also low supplies of fludarabine, which is used to treat chronic lymphocytic lymphom; clofarabine, which is used to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia; and rasburicase, which is used to treat high levels of uric acid in patients on chemotherapy.

Dr. Speers said his institution is facing a shortage of capecitabine, which is used to treat several types of cancer.

“Numerous trials have demonstrated the improved, safety, efficacy, and convenience of oral capecitabine. With the shortage we’re having to use infusional 5FU, which not only is less convenient but also ends up being more costly and requires infusion room space or continuous infusion pumps. This impacts our ability to treat cancer patients,” he said. “Our capacity is becoming more limited to accommodate these added patients, and we have to use infusional formulations of a drug that previously was readily available via an oral formulation. Patients and caregivers now have to come to the cancer center for appointments and infusions that previously weren’t needed as they could take an oral pill.”

Dr. Speers added that his institution is rationing methotrexate. “We are now prioritizing patients being treated with curative intent and adjusting protocols to use the lowest allowable doses to conserve supply,” he said.

The roots of the platinum chemotherapy drug shortage link back to the India-based Intas Pharmaceuticals company, a major manufacturer of cisplatin and carboplatin. According to Kellyann Zuzulo, spokeperson for Accord Healthcare, an Instas U.S. subsidiary, a facility inspection in December 2022 prompted a decision to temporarily stop making the drugs. The inspection identified multiple problems.

“Intas and Accord are working with the FDA on a plan to return to manufacturing,” Ms. Zuzulo said in an interview. “This will allow for continued production of products that will be prioritized based on medical necessity. A date has not yet been confirmed in which the facility will return to manufacturing for cisplatin, carboplatin or any other products.”

Ms. Zuzulo said the company is not a health care provider and cannot offer advice to patients about alternatives.

Other companies that make cisplatin and carboplatin have also reported shortages. In interviews, representatives for Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said the companies have limited supplies because of increased demand – not because of manufacturing problems.

On June 12, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) reported that carboplatin remains in short supply, with all five companies that sell the drug listed as having limited or back-ordered supplies. Cisplatin is also in short supply, the organization reported in a June 9 update, although some is available.

In a June 12 update on methotrexate, ASHP said manufacturing delays at Accord have caused a shortage, and other companies are running low due to increased demand.

As for the future, Congress and the Biden administration, according to a report by Bloomberg, are trying to figure out what to do regarding shortages of cheap generic drugs such as cisplatin and carboplatin. The FDA is exploring a partnership with a Chinese drugmaker to make cisplatin, NBC News reported.

However, fixes will be challenging, according to former FDA commissioner and Pfizer board member, Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“This generic business, particularly for these complex drugs, these complex formulations, is not a healthy business right now. Yet it’s a vital business from a public standpoint,” he told CBS News.

In an interview, Dr. Kamal said that there is even talk about boosting the prices of cheap generic drugs “to ensure that there’s enough incentive for multiple manufacturers to be involved.”

Dr. Kamal said he is crossing his fingers that cutting chemotherapy doses at his clinic doesn’t result in worse outcomes for his patients.

“Right now, I think dropping someone by 25% or 30% is okay. And for some patients, particularly in a curative setting, we try to keep them at as much as 100% as possible. But there’s just a lot of unknowns,” he said.

CHICAGO – Oncologist Denise Yardley, MD, isn’t used to expressing uncertainty when she tells patients about what’s in store for them in terms of drug treatment. But things are dramatically different now amid a severe national shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin, two common and crucial cancer drugs.

“There’s a regimen I’m thinking about,” Dr. Yardley told a new patient recently, “but we’ll have to wait until you finish your staging evaluation to see whether I can deliver this. Another regimen that’s a little more toxic is my second choice.” And, she added, the alternative chemotherapy treatment – anthracycline instead of carboplatin – requires a longer treatment period.

This ambiguity is hardly ideal, said Dr. Yardley, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville. “It’s another factor in being overwhelmed in a first-time visit and wanting to know the details about what your treatment is going to look like. You’re not walking out knowing exactly what you’re going to take or the exact timing so you can start mapping out your calendar and work schedule.”

This kind of scenario is becoming all too familiar this spring, according to oncologists who gathered at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). In interviews, these physicians said the limited supply of multiple cancer drugs – including the chemotherapies carboplatin and cisplatin – is having an unprecedented negative effect since their use is so widespread in cancer care.

“Every patient could get impacted. That’s why we need to address this sooner rather than later,” said oncologist Aditya Baria, MBBS, MPH, director of the Breast Cancer Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Shortages of cancer drugs are not unusual. Three-quarters of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations surveyed from 2019 to 2020 said shortages prompted treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens. But the current shortages are having a much wider impact.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recently reported that 93% of 27 member institutions surveyed in late May are short on carboplatin, and 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin. Plus, 20% of 19 centers said they weren’t able to continue carboplatin regimens for all patients. 

The drugs are mainstays of multiple types of treatment for a long list of cancer types including lung, breast, gynecologic, and many others.

Several scenarios are possible when the drugs are in short supply, said Dr. Yardley, who noted that the shortage is more severe than any she’s seen in her medical career of more than 3 decades. Patients may need to be switched to regimens with more side effects, even when they’re in the middle of a treatment, she said. Or patients might have to go longer between treatments.

In some cases, Dr. Yardley said, the shortage is forcing patients to go without an important component of a larger combination therapy regimen. “The Keynote 522 neoadjuvant regimen for triple-negative breast cancer has carboplatin given with Taxol [paclitaxel] and Keytruda [pembrolizumab]. We are just deleting the carboplatin.”

She added that carboplatin is part of the following so-called TCHP regimen for HER2+ early-stage breast cancer: Taxotere (docetaxel), carboplatin, Herceptin (trastuzumab), and Perjeta (pertuzumab).

“You can delete [carboplatin] or consider substituting cyclophosphamide for carboplatin,” she said. But she cautioned the Keynote 522 and TCHP regimens haven’t been tested without carboplatin in curative-intent trials.

At Duke University in Durham, N.C., doses of carboplatin for many patients are being lowered by a third to the level that’s commonly used for older and frail patients, said oncologist Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who works at the academic center and is the chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society.

“We don’t know if [the lower doses will negatively affect cancer patients’ outcomes]. What’s amazing is how many patients [are understanding about having to take smaller amounts of the chemotherapy],” he said.

Medical organizations are offering guidance. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology, for example, in late April recommended that oncologists increase intervals between chemotherapy treatments when appropriate, round down vial sizes to ensure “efficient use,” and eliminate or minimize use of cisplatin and carboplatin in certain platinum-resistant cancers.

In early June, ASCO published guidance regarding alternatives to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, which is also in short supply, in gastrointestinal cancer. As the guidance notes, some alternatives are more untested or more toxic than ideal treatments.

In addition, ASCO has a webpage devoted to news and resources about shortages of cancer drugs. It offers drug availability updates, general guidance, and breast cancer guidance. ASCO also offers ethical guidance about handling drug shortages.

Patients in clinical trials and those who hope to join them are especially vulnerable to the drug shortage, oncologists interviewed for this story said. Cisplatin and carboplatin are the backbones of many clinical trials, Dr. Yardley said. “When you can’t supply a drug in one of the [trial] arms, that puts the whole trial on pause.”

Even clinics that have managed to find adequate supplies of the drugs are planning for when they run out.

“Our institution and other institutions are trying to come up with a rationing protocol, deciding which patients are going to get access, and which ones have reasonable alternatives,” radiation oncologist Corey Speers MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. “In some settings, there really isn’t an effective alternative. Or the alternatives are tens of thousands of dollars more expensive.”

Oncologists also noted that cisplatin and carboplatin aren’t the only cancer drugs in short supply.

“Methotrexate is critically low, and 5FU [fluorouracil] is critically low,” Dr. Yardley said, referring to drugs that each treat several types of cancer. According to the May NCNN survey, 67% of respondents reported low supplies of methotrexate, and 26% said they were low on 5FU.

“Viscous lidocaine is a component of many supportive care mouth rinses for the stomatitis caused by our drugs but is not available at all,” Dr. Yardley said. 

She added that there are also low supplies of fludarabine, which is used to treat chronic lymphocytic lymphom; clofarabine, which is used to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia; and rasburicase, which is used to treat high levels of uric acid in patients on chemotherapy.

Dr. Speers said his institution is facing a shortage of capecitabine, which is used to treat several types of cancer.

“Numerous trials have demonstrated the improved, safety, efficacy, and convenience of oral capecitabine. With the shortage we’re having to use infusional 5FU, which not only is less convenient but also ends up being more costly and requires infusion room space or continuous infusion pumps. This impacts our ability to treat cancer patients,” he said. “Our capacity is becoming more limited to accommodate these added patients, and we have to use infusional formulations of a drug that previously was readily available via an oral formulation. Patients and caregivers now have to come to the cancer center for appointments and infusions that previously weren’t needed as they could take an oral pill.”

Dr. Speers added that his institution is rationing methotrexate. “We are now prioritizing patients being treated with curative intent and adjusting protocols to use the lowest allowable doses to conserve supply,” he said.

The roots of the platinum chemotherapy drug shortage link back to the India-based Intas Pharmaceuticals company, a major manufacturer of cisplatin and carboplatin. According to Kellyann Zuzulo, spokeperson for Accord Healthcare, an Instas U.S. subsidiary, a facility inspection in December 2022 prompted a decision to temporarily stop making the drugs. The inspection identified multiple problems.

“Intas and Accord are working with the FDA on a plan to return to manufacturing,” Ms. Zuzulo said in an interview. “This will allow for continued production of products that will be prioritized based on medical necessity. A date has not yet been confirmed in which the facility will return to manufacturing for cisplatin, carboplatin or any other products.”

Ms. Zuzulo said the company is not a health care provider and cannot offer advice to patients about alternatives.

Other companies that make cisplatin and carboplatin have also reported shortages. In interviews, representatives for Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said the companies have limited supplies because of increased demand – not because of manufacturing problems.

On June 12, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) reported that carboplatin remains in short supply, with all five companies that sell the drug listed as having limited or back-ordered supplies. Cisplatin is also in short supply, the organization reported in a June 9 update, although some is available.

In a June 12 update on methotrexate, ASHP said manufacturing delays at Accord have caused a shortage, and other companies are running low due to increased demand.

As for the future, Congress and the Biden administration, according to a report by Bloomberg, are trying to figure out what to do regarding shortages of cheap generic drugs such as cisplatin and carboplatin. The FDA is exploring a partnership with a Chinese drugmaker to make cisplatin, NBC News reported.

However, fixes will be challenging, according to former FDA commissioner and Pfizer board member, Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“This generic business, particularly for these complex drugs, these complex formulations, is not a healthy business right now. Yet it’s a vital business from a public standpoint,” he told CBS News.

In an interview, Dr. Kamal said that there is even talk about boosting the prices of cheap generic drugs “to ensure that there’s enough incentive for multiple manufacturers to be involved.”

Dr. Kamal said he is crossing his fingers that cutting chemotherapy doses at his clinic doesn’t result in worse outcomes for his patients.

“Right now, I think dropping someone by 25% or 30% is okay. And for some patients, particularly in a curative setting, we try to keep them at as much as 100% as possible. But there’s just a lot of unknowns,” he said.

Emilee Gibson, MD, recently graduated from Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and starts her ob.gyn. residency at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., later this month. Abortion is permitted in Illinois but banned in Tennessee, a factor she weighed cautiously when she applied for residencies.

Dr. Gibson told this news organization that medical students, not just those interested in ob.gyn., are starting to think more about what it means to move to a state where it might be difficult to access abortion care. “Just from a personal standpoint, that’s a little scary.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights last June threatened to derail ob.gyns. in training from pursuing the specialty or locating in states that have banned or limited abortion.

Early signals from the Dobbs v. Jackson decision suggest a potential decline in ob.gyn. residents choosing abortion-restrictive states, but some industry leaders, residents, and medical students say it may be too early to judge the full impact of the ruling because most students were already far along in their decision and application for a 2023 residency position.

At this point, some ob.gyn. students are planning careers on the basis of whether they have family ties in a particular state, whether limiting their search might hurt their potential to match in a competitive specialty, and whether their faith in the family planning and abortion training being offered by a program outweighs the drawbacks of being in a state with abortion bans or restrictions.

Lucy Brown, MD, a recent graduate of Indiana University, Indianapolis, said in an interview that she’d be “very nervous” about living and practicing in abortion-restricted Indiana if she were ready to start a family.

Dr. Brown said that she mostly limited applications in the recent Match to ob.gyn. residencies in states that protected abortion rights. Though she applied to a program in her home state of Kentucky, she noted that it – along with a program in Missouri – was very low on her rank list because of their abortion restrictions.

Ultimately, Dr. Brown matched at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, where she will receive abortion training and assist with abortions throughout her residency. Maryland’s abortion rights status was a big attraction, she said. “Abortion is integrated into every aspect of the education.”
 

By the numbers

For students applying to residencies this summer, evaluating the state legislative landscape is a little clearer than it was 1 year ago but is still evolving. As of June 1, 56 ob.gyn. residency programs and more than 1,100 medical residents are in states with the most restrictive bans in the country (19% of all programs), according to the Bixby Center for Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco.

In terms of the latest abortion laws: 14 states banned abortion, 2 states banned abortion between 6 and 12 weeks, and 9 states banned abortion between 15 and 22 weeks, whereas abortion is legal in 25 states and Washington, according to a recent analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The impact on residencies? The Association of American Medical Colleges recently reported a 2% drop in the number of U.S. MD seniors who applied to residencies and a 5% decline in the number of seniors who applied to ob.gyn. residencies. In states where abortion was banned, the number of senior applicants to ob.gyn. programs dropped by more than 10%, according to AAMC’s Research and Action Institute.

“U.S. MD seniors appear, in general, more likely to avoid states where abortions are banned,” said Atul Grover, MD, PhD, executive director of the Research and Action Institute. “That’s a big difference between states where there are abortion bans and gestational limits and states with no bans or limits; it’s almost twice as large,” Dr. Grover said in an interview. “The question is: Was it a 1-year blip or something that will be the beginning of a trend?”

In a statement to this news organization, officials from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics said that they were aware of the AAMC data but needed to further evaluate the impact of the Dobbs ruling.

A survey released at ACOG’s annual meeting in May found that 58% of third- and fourth-year medical students were unlikely to apply to a residency program in a state with abortion restrictions. Conducted after the Dobbs ruling last year, the survey found that future physicians are choosing where to attend residency according to state abortion policies, indicating that access to abortion care is changing the landscape of medical practice.

“For personal as well as professional reasons, reproductive health care access is now a key factor in residency match decisions as a result of Dobbs,” lead author Ariana Traub, MPH, said. She studies at Emory University, Atlanta, where abortion is restricted.

“Many students, including myself, struggle when trying to decide whether to stay in restricted states where the need is greatest (highest maternal mortality, infant mortality, lower number of physicians), versus going to an unrestricted state” for more comprehensive training and care, Ms. Traub said. “Regardless of this decision, Dobbs and subsequent abortion laws are making students question what matters most and how they can provide the best care.”

In another recently published survey, University of Miami fourth-year student Morgan Levy, MD, MPH, and colleagues found that 77% of students would prefer to apply to a residency program in a state that preserves access to abortion. Ensuring access to those services for themselves or a family member was a key factor, according to the paper published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

For Dr. Levy, who recently graduated from a school in abortion-restricted Florida and will soon apply to ob.gyn. residencies, the Dobbs decision made her more committed to becoming an ob.gyn., an interest she’s had since college, she said.

“I do not intend to limit my search,” Dr. Levy said in an interview. “In the states where there are restrictions in place, it’s really important to make sure that people are getting good care,” she said.
 

Differing perspective

Though survey and anecdotal data show that students and residents expressing hesitation about states with bans or restrictive laws, it appears that most who applied to residency programs during the 2023 Match did not shy away from those states. Almost all the open ob.gyn. residency positions were filled, according to the National Resident Matching Program.

There was no change in how U.S. MD seniors applying for 2023 residency ranked programs on the basis of whether abortion was legal, limited, or banned in the state where a program was based, Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, president and CEO of the NRMP, said.

“We’re seeing what we’ve seen over the past 5 years, and that is a very high fill rate, a very high rate of preference for ob.gyn., and not a heck of a lot of change,” Dr. Lamb said, noting that ob.gyn. programs continue to be very competitive. “We have more applicants than we have positions available,” she said.

In the most recent Match, there were 2,100 applicants (more than half U.S. MD seniors) for about 1,500 slots, with 1,499 initial matches, according to NRMP data. The overall fill rate was 99.7% after the Supplemental Offer and Assistance Program and Electronic Residency Applications process, NRMP reported. The results are similar to what NRMP reported as its previous all-time high year for ob.gyn. placements.

There was a dip in applicants from 2022 to 2023, even though the slots available stayed the same, but it was not markedly different from the previous 5 years, Dr. Lamb said.

“While the Dobbs decision may, indeed, have impacted applicant and application numbers to residency programs, interventions such as signaling may also contribute to the decrease in numbers of applications submitted as well,” AnnaMarie Connolly, MD, ACOG chief of education and academic affairs, and Arthur Ollendorff, MD, APOG president, said in a statement to this news organization.

For the first time in 2022, Match Day applicants were required to “signal” interest in a particular program in an effort to reduce the number of applications and cost to medical students, they noted.
 

Personal view

When it was time for Dr. Gibson to apply for ob.gyn. residencies, she wondered: Where do you apply in this landscape? But she did not limit her applications: “If I don’t apply to Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Iowa, I’m taking a lot of really great programs off the table.” She did not want to hurt her chances for a match in a competitive specialty, she said.

“Being in Tennessee is going to give me a very different, unique opportunity to hopefully do a lot of advocacy and lobbying and hopefully have my voice heard in maybe a different way than [in Illinois],” Dr. Gibson added.

Cassie Crifase, MPH, a fourth-year student at the University of Wisconsin–Madison applying to ob.gyn. residencies in next year’s Match, said in an interview that she’s concerned about the health risk of living in a state with abortion restrictions. Wisconsin is one of those.

“My list skews toward programs that are in abortion-protected states, but I also am applying to some programs that are in restricted states.” Those states would have to help her meet the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education training requirements. And, she said, she’d want to know if she could still advocate for abortion access in the state.

Sereena Jivraj, a third-year medical student at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, said that she won’t apply to programs in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and other nearby states with abortion restrictions. However, Texas is still on her list. “I’m from Texas, my family lives in Texas, and I go to school in Fort Worth, so I have made those connections,” Ms. Jivraj said.

Student advisers generally encourage ob.gyn. hopefuls to apply to 60-100 programs to ensure that they will match, Ms. Jivraj said. “How are you supposed to apply to 100 programs if many of them fall within states with high restrictions?”
 

What the future holds

Ms. Jivraj said that she’s concerned about what the future holds, especially if the law does not change in Texas. “I don’t want to go to work every day wondering if I’m going to go to jail for something that I say,” she said.

Dr. Crifase has similar fears. “I want to be able to provide the best care for my patients and that would require being able to do those procedures without having to have my first thought be: Is this legal?”

“Things feel very volatile and uncertain,” Pamela Merritt, executive director of the nonprofit Medical Students for Choice in Philadelphia, where abortion is permitted, said. “What we’re asking medical students to do right now is to envision a future in a profession, a lifetime of providing care, where the policies and procedures and standards of the profession are under attack by 26 state legislatures and the federal court system,” she said.

“I don’t think you’re going to see people as willing to take risk.” She added that if someone matches to a program and then has regrets, “You can’t easily jump from residency program to residency program.”

Dr. Levy believes that the impact of the Dobbs decision is “definitely going to be a more common question of applicants to their potential programs.”

Applicants undoubtedly are thinking about how abortion restrictions or bans might affect their own health or that of their partners or families, she said. In a 2022 survey, Dr. Levy and colleagues reported that abortion is not uncommon among physicians, with 11.5% of the 1,566 respondents who had been pregnant saying they had at least one therapeutic abortion.

Students are also considering the potential ramification of a ban on emergency contraception and laws that criminalize physicians’ provision of abortion care, Dr. Levy said. Another complicating factor is individuals’ family ties or roots in specific geographic areas, she said.

Prospective residents will also have a lot of questions about how they will receive family planning training, Dr. Levy commented. “If you’re somewhere that you can’t really provide full-spectrum reproductive health care, then the question will become: How is the program going to provide that training?”

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

Emilee Gibson, MD, recently graduated from Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and starts her ob.gyn. residency at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., later this month. Abortion is permitted in Illinois but banned in Tennessee, a factor she weighed cautiously when she applied for residencies.

Dr. Gibson told this news organization that medical students, not just those interested in ob.gyn., are starting to think more about what it means to move to a state where it might be difficult to access abortion care. “Just from a personal standpoint, that’s a little scary.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights last June threatened to derail ob.gyns. in training from pursuing the specialty or locating in states that have banned or limited abortion.

Early signals from the Dobbs v. Jackson decision suggest a potential decline in ob.gyn. residents choosing abortion-restrictive states, but some industry leaders, residents, and medical students say it may be too early to judge the full impact of the ruling because most students were already far along in their decision and application for a 2023 residency position.

At this point, some ob.gyn. students are planning careers on the basis of whether they have family ties in a particular state, whether limiting their search might hurt their potential to match in a competitive specialty, and whether their faith in the family planning and abortion training being offered by a program outweighs the drawbacks of being in a state with abortion bans or restrictions.

Lucy Brown, MD, a recent graduate of Indiana University, Indianapolis, said in an interview that she’d be “very nervous” about living and practicing in abortion-restricted Indiana if she were ready to start a family.

Dr. Brown said that she mostly limited applications in the recent Match to ob.gyn. residencies in states that protected abortion rights. Though she applied to a program in her home state of Kentucky, she noted that it – along with a program in Missouri – was very low on her rank list because of their abortion restrictions.

Ultimately, Dr. Brown matched at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, where she will receive abortion training and assist with abortions throughout her residency. Maryland’s abortion rights status was a big attraction, she said. “Abortion is integrated into every aspect of the education.”
 

By the numbers

For students applying to residencies this summer, evaluating the state legislative landscape is a little clearer than it was 1 year ago but is still evolving. As of June 1, 56 ob.gyn. residency programs and more than 1,100 medical residents are in states with the most restrictive bans in the country (19% of all programs), according to the Bixby Center for Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco.

In terms of the latest abortion laws: 14 states banned abortion, 2 states banned abortion between 6 and 12 weeks, and 9 states banned abortion between 15 and 22 weeks, whereas abortion is legal in 25 states and Washington, according to a recent analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The impact on residencies? The Association of American Medical Colleges recently reported a 2% drop in the number of U.S. MD seniors who applied to residencies and a 5% decline in the number of seniors who applied to ob.gyn. residencies. In states where abortion was banned, the number of senior applicants to ob.gyn. programs dropped by more than 10%, according to AAMC’s Research and Action Institute.

“U.S. MD seniors appear, in general, more likely to avoid states where abortions are banned,” said Atul Grover, MD, PhD, executive director of the Research and Action Institute. “That’s a big difference between states where there are abortion bans and gestational limits and states with no bans or limits; it’s almost twice as large,” Dr. Grover said in an interview. “The question is: Was it a 1-year blip or something that will be the beginning of a trend?”

In a statement to this news organization, officials from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics said that they were aware of the AAMC data but needed to further evaluate the impact of the Dobbs ruling.

A survey released at ACOG’s annual meeting in May found that 58% of third- and fourth-year medical students were unlikely to apply to a residency program in a state with abortion restrictions. Conducted after the Dobbs ruling last year, the survey found that future physicians are choosing where to attend residency according to state abortion policies, indicating that access to abortion care is changing the landscape of medical practice.

“For personal as well as professional reasons, reproductive health care access is now a key factor in residency match decisions as a result of Dobbs,” lead author Ariana Traub, MPH, said. She studies at Emory University, Atlanta, where abortion is restricted.

“Many students, including myself, struggle when trying to decide whether to stay in restricted states where the need is greatest (highest maternal mortality, infant mortality, lower number of physicians), versus going to an unrestricted state” for more comprehensive training and care, Ms. Traub said. “Regardless of this decision, Dobbs and subsequent abortion laws are making students question what matters most and how they can provide the best care.”

In another recently published survey, University of Miami fourth-year student Morgan Levy, MD, MPH, and colleagues found that 77% of students would prefer to apply to a residency program in a state that preserves access to abortion. Ensuring access to those services for themselves or a family member was a key factor, according to the paper published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

For Dr. Levy, who recently graduated from a school in abortion-restricted Florida and will soon apply to ob.gyn. residencies, the Dobbs decision made her more committed to becoming an ob.gyn., an interest she’s had since college, she said.

“I do not intend to limit my search,” Dr. Levy said in an interview. “In the states where there are restrictions in place, it’s really important to make sure that people are getting good care,” she said.
 

Differing perspective

Though survey and anecdotal data show that students and residents expressing hesitation about states with bans or restrictive laws, it appears that most who applied to residency programs during the 2023 Match did not shy away from those states. Almost all the open ob.gyn. residency positions were filled, according to the National Resident Matching Program.

There was no change in how U.S. MD seniors applying for 2023 residency ranked programs on the basis of whether abortion was legal, limited, or banned in the state where a program was based, Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, president and CEO of the NRMP, said.

“We’re seeing what we’ve seen over the past 5 years, and that is a very high fill rate, a very high rate of preference for ob.gyn., and not a heck of a lot of change,” Dr. Lamb said, noting that ob.gyn. programs continue to be very competitive. “We have more applicants than we have positions available,” she said.

In the most recent Match, there were 2,100 applicants (more than half U.S. MD seniors) for about 1,500 slots, with 1,499 initial matches, according to NRMP data. The overall fill rate was 99.7% after the Supplemental Offer and Assistance Program and Electronic Residency Applications process, NRMP reported. The results are similar to what NRMP reported as its previous all-time high year for ob.gyn. placements.

There was a dip in applicants from 2022 to 2023, even though the slots available stayed the same, but it was not markedly different from the previous 5 years, Dr. Lamb said.

“While the Dobbs decision may, indeed, have impacted applicant and application numbers to residency programs, interventions such as signaling may also contribute to the decrease in numbers of applications submitted as well,” AnnaMarie Connolly, MD, ACOG chief of education and academic affairs, and Arthur Ollendorff, MD, APOG president, said in a statement to this news organization.

For the first time in 2022, Match Day applicants were required to “signal” interest in a particular program in an effort to reduce the number of applications and cost to medical students, they noted.
 

Personal view

When it was time for Dr. Gibson to apply for ob.gyn. residencies, she wondered: Where do you apply in this landscape? But she did not limit her applications: “If I don’t apply to Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Iowa, I’m taking a lot of really great programs off the table.” She did not want to hurt her chances for a match in a competitive specialty, she said.

“Being in Tennessee is going to give me a very different, unique opportunity to hopefully do a lot of advocacy and lobbying and hopefully have my voice heard in maybe a different way than [in Illinois],” Dr. Gibson added.

Cassie Crifase, MPH, a fourth-year student at the University of Wisconsin–Madison applying to ob.gyn. residencies in next year’s Match, said in an interview that she’s concerned about the health risk of living in a state with abortion restrictions. Wisconsin is one of those.

“My list skews toward programs that are in abortion-protected states, but I also am applying to some programs that are in restricted states.” Those states would have to help her meet the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education training requirements. And, she said, she’d want to know if she could still advocate for abortion access in the state.

Sereena Jivraj, a third-year medical student at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, said that she won’t apply to programs in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and other nearby states with abortion restrictions. However, Texas is still on her list. “I’m from Texas, my family lives in Texas, and I go to school in Fort Worth, so I have made those connections,” Ms. Jivraj said.

Student advisers generally encourage ob.gyn. hopefuls to apply to 60-100 programs to ensure that they will match, Ms. Jivraj said. “How are you supposed to apply to 100 programs if many of them fall within states with high restrictions?”
 

What the future holds

Ms. Jivraj said that she’s concerned about what the future holds, especially if the law does not change in Texas. “I don’t want to go to work every day wondering if I’m going to go to jail for something that I say,” she said.

Dr. Crifase has similar fears. “I want to be able to provide the best care for my patients and that would require being able to do those procedures without having to have my first thought be: Is this legal?”

“Things feel very volatile and uncertain,” Pamela Merritt, executive director of the nonprofit Medical Students for Choice in Philadelphia, where abortion is permitted, said. “What we’re asking medical students to do right now is to envision a future in a profession, a lifetime of providing care, where the policies and procedures and standards of the profession are under attack by 26 state legislatures and the federal court system,” she said.

“I don’t think you’re going to see people as willing to take risk.” She added that if someone matches to a program and then has regrets, “You can’t easily jump from residency program to residency program.”

Dr. Levy believes that the impact of the Dobbs decision is “definitely going to be a more common question of applicants to their potential programs.”

Applicants undoubtedly are thinking about how abortion restrictions or bans might affect their own health or that of their partners or families, she said. In a 2022 survey, Dr. Levy and colleagues reported that abortion is not uncommon among physicians, with 11.5% of the 1,566 respondents who had been pregnant saying they had at least one therapeutic abortion.

Students are also considering the potential ramification of a ban on emergency contraception and laws that criminalize physicians’ provision of abortion care, Dr. Levy said. Another complicating factor is individuals’ family ties or roots in specific geographic areas, she said.

Prospective residents will also have a lot of questions about how they will receive family planning training, Dr. Levy commented. “If you’re somewhere that you can’t really provide full-spectrum reproductive health care, then the question will become: How is the program going to provide that training?”

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

Emilee Gibson, MD, recently graduated from Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and starts her ob.gyn. residency at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., later this month. Abortion is permitted in Illinois but banned in Tennessee, a factor she weighed cautiously when she applied for residencies.

Dr. Gibson told this news organization that medical students, not just those interested in ob.gyn., are starting to think more about what it means to move to a state where it might be difficult to access abortion care. “Just from a personal standpoint, that’s a little scary.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights last June threatened to derail ob.gyns. in training from pursuing the specialty or locating in states that have banned or limited abortion.

Early signals from the Dobbs v. Jackson decision suggest a potential decline in ob.gyn. residents choosing abortion-restrictive states, but some industry leaders, residents, and medical students say it may be too early to judge the full impact of the ruling because most students were already far along in their decision and application for a 2023 residency position.

At this point, some ob.gyn. students are planning careers on the basis of whether they have family ties in a particular state, whether limiting their search might hurt their potential to match in a competitive specialty, and whether their faith in the family planning and abortion training being offered by a program outweighs the drawbacks of being in a state with abortion bans or restrictions.

Lucy Brown, MD, a recent graduate of Indiana University, Indianapolis, said in an interview that she’d be “very nervous” about living and practicing in abortion-restricted Indiana if she were ready to start a family.

Dr. Brown said that she mostly limited applications in the recent Match to ob.gyn. residencies in states that protected abortion rights. Though she applied to a program in her home state of Kentucky, she noted that it – along with a program in Missouri – was very low on her rank list because of their abortion restrictions.

Ultimately, Dr. Brown matched at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, where she will receive abortion training and assist with abortions throughout her residency. Maryland’s abortion rights status was a big attraction, she said. “Abortion is integrated into every aspect of the education.”
 

By the numbers

For students applying to residencies this summer, evaluating the state legislative landscape is a little clearer than it was 1 year ago but is still evolving. As of June 1, 56 ob.gyn. residency programs and more than 1,100 medical residents are in states with the most restrictive bans in the country (19% of all programs), according to the Bixby Center for Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco.

In terms of the latest abortion laws: 14 states banned abortion, 2 states banned abortion between 6 and 12 weeks, and 9 states banned abortion between 15 and 22 weeks, whereas abortion is legal in 25 states and Washington, according to a recent analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The impact on residencies? The Association of American Medical Colleges recently reported a 2% drop in the number of U.S. MD seniors who applied to residencies and a 5% decline in the number of seniors who applied to ob.gyn. residencies. In states where abortion was banned, the number of senior applicants to ob.gyn. programs dropped by more than 10%, according to AAMC’s Research and Action Institute.

“U.S. MD seniors appear, in general, more likely to avoid states where abortions are banned,” said Atul Grover, MD, PhD, executive director of the Research and Action Institute. “That’s a big difference between states where there are abortion bans and gestational limits and states with no bans or limits; it’s almost twice as large,” Dr. Grover said in an interview. “The question is: Was it a 1-year blip or something that will be the beginning of a trend?”

In a statement to this news organization, officials from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics said that they were aware of the AAMC data but needed to further evaluate the impact of the Dobbs ruling.

A survey released at ACOG’s annual meeting in May found that 58% of third- and fourth-year medical students were unlikely to apply to a residency program in a state with abortion restrictions. Conducted after the Dobbs ruling last year, the survey found that future physicians are choosing where to attend residency according to state abortion policies, indicating that access to abortion care is changing the landscape of medical practice.

“For personal as well as professional reasons, reproductive health care access is now a key factor in residency match decisions as a result of Dobbs,” lead author Ariana Traub, MPH, said. She studies at Emory University, Atlanta, where abortion is restricted.

“Many students, including myself, struggle when trying to decide whether to stay in restricted states where the need is greatest (highest maternal mortality, infant mortality, lower number of physicians), versus going to an unrestricted state” for more comprehensive training and care, Ms. Traub said. “Regardless of this decision, Dobbs and subsequent abortion laws are making students question what matters most and how they can provide the best care.”

In another recently published survey, University of Miami fourth-year student Morgan Levy, MD, MPH, and colleagues found that 77% of students would prefer to apply to a residency program in a state that preserves access to abortion. Ensuring access to those services for themselves or a family member was a key factor, according to the paper published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

For Dr. Levy, who recently graduated from a school in abortion-restricted Florida and will soon apply to ob.gyn. residencies, the Dobbs decision made her more committed to becoming an ob.gyn., an interest she’s had since college, she said.

“I do not intend to limit my search,” Dr. Levy said in an interview. “In the states where there are restrictions in place, it’s really important to make sure that people are getting good care,” she said.
 

Differing perspective

Though survey and anecdotal data show that students and residents expressing hesitation about states with bans or restrictive laws, it appears that most who applied to residency programs during the 2023 Match did not shy away from those states. Almost all the open ob.gyn. residency positions were filled, according to the National Resident Matching Program.

There was no change in how U.S. MD seniors applying for 2023 residency ranked programs on the basis of whether abortion was legal, limited, or banned in the state where a program was based, Donna Lamb, DHSc, MBA, BSN, president and CEO of the NRMP, said.

“We’re seeing what we’ve seen over the past 5 years, and that is a very high fill rate, a very high rate of preference for ob.gyn., and not a heck of a lot of change,” Dr. Lamb said, noting that ob.gyn. programs continue to be very competitive. “We have more applicants than we have positions available,” she said.

In the most recent Match, there were 2,100 applicants (more than half U.S. MD seniors) for about 1,500 slots, with 1,499 initial matches, according to NRMP data. The overall fill rate was 99.7% after the Supplemental Offer and Assistance Program and Electronic Residency Applications process, NRMP reported. The results are similar to what NRMP reported as its previous all-time high year for ob.gyn. placements.

There was a dip in applicants from 2022 to 2023, even though the slots available stayed the same, but it was not markedly different from the previous 5 years, Dr. Lamb said.

“While the Dobbs decision may, indeed, have impacted applicant and application numbers to residency programs, interventions such as signaling may also contribute to the decrease in numbers of applications submitted as well,” AnnaMarie Connolly, MD, ACOG chief of education and academic affairs, and Arthur Ollendorff, MD, APOG president, said in a statement to this news organization.

For the first time in 2022, Match Day applicants were required to “signal” interest in a particular program in an effort to reduce the number of applications and cost to medical students, they noted.
 

Personal view

When it was time for Dr. Gibson to apply for ob.gyn. residencies, she wondered: Where do you apply in this landscape? But she did not limit her applications: “If I don’t apply to Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Iowa, I’m taking a lot of really great programs off the table.” She did not want to hurt her chances for a match in a competitive specialty, she said.

“Being in Tennessee is going to give me a very different, unique opportunity to hopefully do a lot of advocacy and lobbying and hopefully have my voice heard in maybe a different way than [in Illinois],” Dr. Gibson added.

Cassie Crifase, MPH, a fourth-year student at the University of Wisconsin–Madison applying to ob.gyn. residencies in next year’s Match, said in an interview that she’s concerned about the health risk of living in a state with abortion restrictions. Wisconsin is one of those.

“My list skews toward programs that are in abortion-protected states, but I also am applying to some programs that are in restricted states.” Those states would have to help her meet the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education training requirements. And, she said, she’d want to know if she could still advocate for abortion access in the state.

Sereena Jivraj, a third-year medical student at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, said that she won’t apply to programs in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and other nearby states with abortion restrictions. However, Texas is still on her list. “I’m from Texas, my family lives in Texas, and I go to school in Fort Worth, so I have made those connections,” Ms. Jivraj said.

Student advisers generally encourage ob.gyn. hopefuls to apply to 60-100 programs to ensure that they will match, Ms. Jivraj said. “How are you supposed to apply to 100 programs if many of them fall within states with high restrictions?”
 

What the future holds

Ms. Jivraj said that she’s concerned about what the future holds, especially if the law does not change in Texas. “I don’t want to go to work every day wondering if I’m going to go to jail for something that I say,” she said.

Dr. Crifase has similar fears. “I want to be able to provide the best care for my patients and that would require being able to do those procedures without having to have my first thought be: Is this legal?”

“Things feel very volatile and uncertain,” Pamela Merritt, executive director of the nonprofit Medical Students for Choice in Philadelphia, where abortion is permitted, said. “What we’re asking medical students to do right now is to envision a future in a profession, a lifetime of providing care, where the policies and procedures and standards of the profession are under attack by 26 state legislatures and the federal court system,” she said.

“I don’t think you’re going to see people as willing to take risk.” She added that if someone matches to a program and then has regrets, “You can’t easily jump from residency program to residency program.”

Dr. Levy believes that the impact of the Dobbs decision is “definitely going to be a more common question of applicants to their potential programs.”

Applicants undoubtedly are thinking about how abortion restrictions or bans might affect their own health or that of their partners or families, she said. In a 2022 survey, Dr. Levy and colleagues reported that abortion is not uncommon among physicians, with 11.5% of the 1,566 respondents who had been pregnant saying they had at least one therapeutic abortion.

Students are also considering the potential ramification of a ban on emergency contraception and laws that criminalize physicians’ provision of abortion care, Dr. Levy said. Another complicating factor is individuals’ family ties or roots in specific geographic areas, she said.

Prospective residents will also have a lot of questions about how they will receive family planning training, Dr. Levy commented. “If you’re somewhere that you can’t really provide full-spectrum reproductive health care, then the question will become: How is the program going to provide that training?”

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

It’s common knowledge that the recommended first-line treatment for obesity is behavioral or “lifestyle” intervention, with the goal of losing a modest amount of weight to gain significant health benefits. Unfortunately, when pursuing weight loss, patients often think they need to beat themselves up to stay motivated. I’ve heard patients call themselves “weak,” saying they need to “stop being lazy” and gain some self-control in order to be less of a “failure.” They label their bodies as “disgusting” and themselves as “worthless,” all because of their weight.

Some patients may worry that if they are kind to themselves or “too accepting” of their bodies, they’ll lose motivation to stick with their health behavior goals. In many people’s minds, weight management and body- and self-acceptance are mutually exclusive.

What if patients didn’t have to choose between the two? That’s a question that my colleagues and I have explored in recent research that attempts to reduce weight stigma as part of standard weight-related care.
 

Misguided societal view drives blame game

This tendency for people to blame and disparage themselves for their weight is largely driven by the misguided societal view of body weight as an issue of personal responsibility. We’re constantly exposed to messages telling us that there’s a narrow range of acceptable body weights and sizes, and that if we have enough willpower and discipline to eat healthily and exercise, then we should be able to control our weight. These messages are prevalent in the news and in social media, but often they are communicated in health care settings too. Narratives of this kind usually ignore the complex environmental and biological factors that contribute to body size and shape, instead attributing high body weight to laziness and moral failings.

Such messages exemplify weight bias and stigma, or the negative attitudes toward and mistreatment of individuals with a high body weight. Given society’s harsh judgment of people with larger bodies, it’s no surprise that many individuals internalize these beliefs and stigmatize themselves for their weight. This internalized or self-directed stigma is known to be harmful to mental and physical health.

Contrary to beliefs that negative self-talk and self-blame can be motivators to improve health, we know that high levels of weight self-stigma are linked to unhealthy eating behaviors and less engagement in physical activity, among other poor health outcomes. Thus, ironically, internalizing weight stigma actually undermines efforts to lose weight and maintain weight loss, rather than motivating healthy behavior change.
 

Combating internalized weight stigma

How do we combat these negative weight messages in our culture and reduce, or ideally prevent, internalization of judgment and blame? Fundamental changes in policies, health care practices, and public attitudes are needed to eradicate weight stigma. While such initiatives are underway, there are many individuals who have already experienced and internalized weight stigma and need support now. Interventions such as peer support and psychological counseling may be helpful for challenging negative, internalized beliefs about weight; learning to cope with exposure to weight stigma without internalizing it; increasing self-acceptance and self-compassion; and feeling empowered to fight back against weight bias and stigma.

In our latest study, my colleagues and I tested the long-term effects of including a group intervention to address weight stigma in a standard behavioral weight management program. More than 100 adults with obesity who had experienced and internalized weight stigma were recruited for this clinical trial, which randomly assigned participants to receive either the Weight Bias Internalization and Stigma (Weight BIAS) program combined with standard behavioral weight loss treatment, or standard weight loss treatment alone.

The Weight BIAS program adapted evidence-based psychotherapy techniques to target weight self-stigma, while also providing peer support in a group treatment format. Specific topics included challenging myths and stereotypes about weight; identifying and changing negative thought patterns related to weight and how they affect emotions and behaviors; and responding to experiences of weight stigma.

For example, to challenge negative thoughts (for example, that they were a “failure” because of their weight), patients worked together to examine all of the evidence that proved these beliefs were not true, and came up with ideas for how to revise these thoughts to be less judgmental and more fair and accurate.

Other topics focused on building confidence, increasing body- and self-acceptance, and advocating for themselves and others who are mistreated because of their weight. Many patients shared examples of stigmatizing experiences in health care settings and discussed what they could say or do when facing judgment or discrimination from health care providers, as well as the importance of finding health care providers who treated them with respect. Group discussions also tied in information relevant to health behavior goals, such as overcoming self-consciousness about weight to enjoy physical activity.

Participants were offered weekly group meetings for 20 weeks, followed by a year of less frequent meetings. At the study’s end, participants in the group that received weight loss treatment with the Weight BIAS program on average lost about 7% of their starting weight, compared with an average weight loss of about 5% in the group that received weight loss treatment alone. Weight losses of these magnitudes are known to have meaningful health benefits. Results from our study showed comparable improvements in most outcomes across groups, with some added benefit of the Weight BIAS program for certain psychological and behavioral outcomes. These findings challenge the notion that reducing weight stigma and promoting body acceptance will undermine motivation to engage in healthy behaviors and lose weight. We found no such effect.
 

What did participants say?

When asked questions such as how much they liked the program, what they learned, and how they used the new skills and changed their self-perceptions, participants who received the Weight BIAS program gave higher ratings than those who received only the weight loss treatment. Positive feedback from free-response questions indicated that many participants identified social support as their favorite aspect of the program. Others highlighted how the program helped them to gain “the ability to think differently about myself and other people” and “an understanding that weight really is separate from the person.” They also described how they brought together the goals of weight loss and body and self-acceptance, saying, “I am more accepting of me and at the same time more dedicated to obtaining a healthier weight,” and “It’s okay to be happy the way I am and still want to change.”

Participants who didn’t receive the Weight BIAS program also shared positive feedback, writing that their favorite part of the program was “being part of such a supportive group of people who can relate to the things that I think and feel” and that they learned “how not to be so hard on myself.” This might suggest that even without an intervention specifically for weight stigma, providing respectful, compassionate care and peer support may help patients to feel less alone and to be kinder to themselves.

Our study results suggest that reducing negative self-talk and internalized beliefs about weight certainly won’t undermine treatment outcomes and may have some benefits beyond standard weight loss treatment. At the same time, we also all need to do our part to change how society views and treats people with larger bodies and prevent the harms of experiencing and internalizing weight stigma.

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number K23HL140176. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
 

Dr. Pearl is assistant professor, clinical and health psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s common knowledge that the recommended first-line treatment for obesity is behavioral or “lifestyle” intervention, with the goal of losing a modest amount of weight to gain significant health benefits. Unfortunately, when pursuing weight loss, patients often think they need to beat themselves up to stay motivated. I’ve heard patients call themselves “weak,” saying they need to “stop being lazy” and gain some self-control in order to be less of a “failure.” They label their bodies as “disgusting” and themselves as “worthless,” all because of their weight.

Some patients may worry that if they are kind to themselves or “too accepting” of their bodies, they’ll lose motivation to stick with their health behavior goals. In many people’s minds, weight management and body- and self-acceptance are mutually exclusive.

What if patients didn’t have to choose between the two? That’s a question that my colleagues and I have explored in recent research that attempts to reduce weight stigma as part of standard weight-related care.
 

Misguided societal view drives blame game

This tendency for people to blame and disparage themselves for their weight is largely driven by the misguided societal view of body weight as an issue of personal responsibility. We’re constantly exposed to messages telling us that there’s a narrow range of acceptable body weights and sizes, and that if we have enough willpower and discipline to eat healthily and exercise, then we should be able to control our weight. These messages are prevalent in the news and in social media, but often they are communicated in health care settings too. Narratives of this kind usually ignore the complex environmental and biological factors that contribute to body size and shape, instead attributing high body weight to laziness and moral failings.

Such messages exemplify weight bias and stigma, or the negative attitudes toward and mistreatment of individuals with a high body weight. Given society’s harsh judgment of people with larger bodies, it’s no surprise that many individuals internalize these beliefs and stigmatize themselves for their weight. This internalized or self-directed stigma is known to be harmful to mental and physical health.

Contrary to beliefs that negative self-talk and self-blame can be motivators to improve health, we know that high levels of weight self-stigma are linked to unhealthy eating behaviors and less engagement in physical activity, among other poor health outcomes. Thus, ironically, internalizing weight stigma actually undermines efforts to lose weight and maintain weight loss, rather than motivating healthy behavior change.
 

Combating internalized weight stigma

How do we combat these negative weight messages in our culture and reduce, or ideally prevent, internalization of judgment and blame? Fundamental changes in policies, health care practices, and public attitudes are needed to eradicate weight stigma. While such initiatives are underway, there are many individuals who have already experienced and internalized weight stigma and need support now. Interventions such as peer support and psychological counseling may be helpful for challenging negative, internalized beliefs about weight; learning to cope with exposure to weight stigma without internalizing it; increasing self-acceptance and self-compassion; and feeling empowered to fight back against weight bias and stigma.

In our latest study, my colleagues and I tested the long-term effects of including a group intervention to address weight stigma in a standard behavioral weight management program. More than 100 adults with obesity who had experienced and internalized weight stigma were recruited for this clinical trial, which randomly assigned participants to receive either the Weight Bias Internalization and Stigma (Weight BIAS) program combined with standard behavioral weight loss treatment, or standard weight loss treatment alone.

The Weight BIAS program adapted evidence-based psychotherapy techniques to target weight self-stigma, while also providing peer support in a group treatment format. Specific topics included challenging myths and stereotypes about weight; identifying and changing negative thought patterns related to weight and how they affect emotions and behaviors; and responding to experiences of weight stigma.

For example, to challenge negative thoughts (for example, that they were a “failure” because of their weight), patients worked together to examine all of the evidence that proved these beliefs were not true, and came up with ideas for how to revise these thoughts to be less judgmental and more fair and accurate.

Other topics focused on building confidence, increasing body- and self-acceptance, and advocating for themselves and others who are mistreated because of their weight. Many patients shared examples of stigmatizing experiences in health care settings and discussed what they could say or do when facing judgment or discrimination from health care providers, as well as the importance of finding health care providers who treated them with respect. Group discussions also tied in information relevant to health behavior goals, such as overcoming self-consciousness about weight to enjoy physical activity.

Participants were offered weekly group meetings for 20 weeks, followed by a year of less frequent meetings. At the study’s end, participants in the group that received weight loss treatment with the Weight BIAS program on average lost about 7% of their starting weight, compared with an average weight loss of about 5% in the group that received weight loss treatment alone. Weight losses of these magnitudes are known to have meaningful health benefits. Results from our study showed comparable improvements in most outcomes across groups, with some added benefit of the Weight BIAS program for certain psychological and behavioral outcomes. These findings challenge the notion that reducing weight stigma and promoting body acceptance will undermine motivation to engage in healthy behaviors and lose weight. We found no such effect.
 

What did participants say?

When asked questions such as how much they liked the program, what they learned, and how they used the new skills and changed their self-perceptions, participants who received the Weight BIAS program gave higher ratings than those who received only the weight loss treatment. Positive feedback from free-response questions indicated that many participants identified social support as their favorite aspect of the program. Others highlighted how the program helped them to gain “the ability to think differently about myself and other people” and “an understanding that weight really is separate from the person.” They also described how they brought together the goals of weight loss and body and self-acceptance, saying, “I am more accepting of me and at the same time more dedicated to obtaining a healthier weight,” and “It’s okay to be happy the way I am and still want to change.”

Participants who didn’t receive the Weight BIAS program also shared positive feedback, writing that their favorite part of the program was “being part of such a supportive group of people who can relate to the things that I think and feel” and that they learned “how not to be so hard on myself.” This might suggest that even without an intervention specifically for weight stigma, providing respectful, compassionate care and peer support may help patients to feel less alone and to be kinder to themselves.

Our study results suggest that reducing negative self-talk and internalized beliefs about weight certainly won’t undermine treatment outcomes and may have some benefits beyond standard weight loss treatment. At the same time, we also all need to do our part to change how society views and treats people with larger bodies and prevent the harms of experiencing and internalizing weight stigma.

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number K23HL140176. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
 

Dr. Pearl is assistant professor, clinical and health psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s common knowledge that the recommended first-line treatment for obesity is behavioral or “lifestyle” intervention, with the goal of losing a modest amount of weight to gain significant health benefits. Unfortunately, when pursuing weight loss, patients often think they need to beat themselves up to stay motivated. I’ve heard patients call themselves “weak,” saying they need to “stop being lazy” and gain some self-control in order to be less of a “failure.” They label their bodies as “disgusting” and themselves as “worthless,” all because of their weight.

Some patients may worry that if they are kind to themselves or “too accepting” of their bodies, they’ll lose motivation to stick with their health behavior goals. In many people’s minds, weight management and body- and self-acceptance are mutually exclusive.

What if patients didn’t have to choose between the two? That’s a question that my colleagues and I have explored in recent research that attempts to reduce weight stigma as part of standard weight-related care.
 

Misguided societal view drives blame game

This tendency for people to blame and disparage themselves for their weight is largely driven by the misguided societal view of body weight as an issue of personal responsibility. We’re constantly exposed to messages telling us that there’s a narrow range of acceptable body weights and sizes, and that if we have enough willpower and discipline to eat healthily and exercise, then we should be able to control our weight. These messages are prevalent in the news and in social media, but often they are communicated in health care settings too. Narratives of this kind usually ignore the complex environmental and biological factors that contribute to body size and shape, instead attributing high body weight to laziness and moral failings.

Such messages exemplify weight bias and stigma, or the negative attitudes toward and mistreatment of individuals with a high body weight. Given society’s harsh judgment of people with larger bodies, it’s no surprise that many individuals internalize these beliefs and stigmatize themselves for their weight. This internalized or self-directed stigma is known to be harmful to mental and physical health.

Contrary to beliefs that negative self-talk and self-blame can be motivators to improve health, we know that high levels of weight self-stigma are linked to unhealthy eating behaviors and less engagement in physical activity, among other poor health outcomes. Thus, ironically, internalizing weight stigma actually undermines efforts to lose weight and maintain weight loss, rather than motivating healthy behavior change.
 

Combating internalized weight stigma

How do we combat these negative weight messages in our culture and reduce, or ideally prevent, internalization of judgment and blame? Fundamental changes in policies, health care practices, and public attitudes are needed to eradicate weight stigma. While such initiatives are underway, there are many individuals who have already experienced and internalized weight stigma and need support now. Interventions such as peer support and psychological counseling may be helpful for challenging negative, internalized beliefs about weight; learning to cope with exposure to weight stigma without internalizing it; increasing self-acceptance and self-compassion; and feeling empowered to fight back against weight bias and stigma.

In our latest study, my colleagues and I tested the long-term effects of including a group intervention to address weight stigma in a standard behavioral weight management program. More than 100 adults with obesity who had experienced and internalized weight stigma were recruited for this clinical trial, which randomly assigned participants to receive either the Weight Bias Internalization and Stigma (Weight BIAS) program combined with standard behavioral weight loss treatment, or standard weight loss treatment alone.

The Weight BIAS program adapted evidence-based psychotherapy techniques to target weight self-stigma, while also providing peer support in a group treatment format. Specific topics included challenging myths and stereotypes about weight; identifying and changing negative thought patterns related to weight and how they affect emotions and behaviors; and responding to experiences of weight stigma.

For example, to challenge negative thoughts (for example, that they were a “failure” because of their weight), patients worked together to examine all of the evidence that proved these beliefs were not true, and came up with ideas for how to revise these thoughts to be less judgmental and more fair and accurate.

Other topics focused on building confidence, increasing body- and self-acceptance, and advocating for themselves and others who are mistreated because of their weight. Many patients shared examples of stigmatizing experiences in health care settings and discussed what they could say or do when facing judgment or discrimination from health care providers, as well as the importance of finding health care providers who treated them with respect. Group discussions also tied in information relevant to health behavior goals, such as overcoming self-consciousness about weight to enjoy physical activity.

Participants were offered weekly group meetings for 20 weeks, followed by a year of less frequent meetings. At the study’s end, participants in the group that received weight loss treatment with the Weight BIAS program on average lost about 7% of their starting weight, compared with an average weight loss of about 5% in the group that received weight loss treatment alone. Weight losses of these magnitudes are known to have meaningful health benefits. Results from our study showed comparable improvements in most outcomes across groups, with some added benefit of the Weight BIAS program for certain psychological and behavioral outcomes. These findings challenge the notion that reducing weight stigma and promoting body acceptance will undermine motivation to engage in healthy behaviors and lose weight. We found no such effect.
 

What did participants say?

When asked questions such as how much they liked the program, what they learned, and how they used the new skills and changed their self-perceptions, participants who received the Weight BIAS program gave higher ratings than those who received only the weight loss treatment. Positive feedback from free-response questions indicated that many participants identified social support as their favorite aspect of the program. Others highlighted how the program helped them to gain “the ability to think differently about myself and other people” and “an understanding that weight really is separate from the person.” They also described how they brought together the goals of weight loss and body and self-acceptance, saying, “I am more accepting of me and at the same time more dedicated to obtaining a healthier weight,” and “It’s okay to be happy the way I am and still want to change.”

Participants who didn’t receive the Weight BIAS program also shared positive feedback, writing that their favorite part of the program was “being part of such a supportive group of people who can relate to the things that I think and feel” and that they learned “how not to be so hard on myself.” This might suggest that even without an intervention specifically for weight stigma, providing respectful, compassionate care and peer support may help patients to feel less alone and to be kinder to themselves.

Our study results suggest that reducing negative self-talk and internalized beliefs about weight certainly won’t undermine treatment outcomes and may have some benefits beyond standard weight loss treatment. At the same time, we also all need to do our part to change how society views and treats people with larger bodies and prevent the harms of experiencing and internalizing weight stigma.

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number K23HL140176. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
 

Dr. Pearl is assistant professor, clinical and health psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

DENVER – In the ongoing absence of a reliable biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS), misdiagnosis is a common and persistent problem that potentially puts patients at prolonged and unnecessary risk. Experts warn that false-negative diagnoses cause treatment delays, while false-positive diagnoses run the risk for potential harm from needless treatment.

“MS has a misdiagnosis problem,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and vice chair (academic affairs), department of neurology, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, in presenting on the issue at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“We currently lack a diagnostic biomarker test, yet diagnosis is key. If you get it wrong – that really can be a problem,” Dr. Coyle said. Recent research indicates that MS misdiagnosis is a widespread problem, she added.

For instance, one research paper reported that nearly 20% of patients were misdiagnosed with MS and that more than 50% carried the misdiagnosis for at least 3 years, while 5% were misdiagnosed for 20 years or more.

The misdiagnosis problem is also reflected at large MS referral centers, where 30%-67% of patients turn out not to have the disease, Dr. Coyle noted.

A study from Argentina further highlights some of the key characteristics of misdiagnosis. In this study, examination of a cohort of 572 patients diagnosed with MS revealed that 16% were incorrectly diagnosed with MS and that women were at an 83% greater risk for misdiagnosis than men. Furthermore, the study showed that MS misdiagnosis increased by 8% per year of older age. The most frequent confirmed diagnoses among those who had been initially misdiagnosed as having MS were cerebrovascular disease, radiologically isolated syndrome, and headache.

The majority (83%) of patients incorrectly diagnosed with MS had an atypical presentation that did not indicate demyelination, 70% had an atypical brain magnetic resonance imaging, and 61% received a prescription for a disease-modifying treatment (DMT), despite not having confirmed MS.
 

The dangers of misdiagnosis

Misdiagnosis and incorrect treatment can be particularly dangerous if patients are diagnosed with MS when, in fact, they have neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), commonly mistaken for MS, Dr. Coyle noted.

“Several MS DMTs make NMOSD worse. You are also basically giving an unnecessary and inappropriate drug with potential side effects to the misdiagnosed patient,” she said.

There have been some advances in MS diagnosis on MRI. However, there are many caveats, Dr. Coyle noted.

For instance, leptomeningeal enhancement has been considered as an MS diagnostic indicator, but it is not unique to MS, Dr. Coyle noted. In addition, subpial demyelination is MS specific, but it is hard to see and is often missed, she added.

Central vein sign has received significant attention as an important MRI marker for MS, but, Dr. Coyle said, it is “not ready for prime time. It’s somewhat tedious and you need to use special protocols to identify it,” she said.

In the future, artificial intelligence and deep learning may be key to improving some of these technologies, Dr. Coyle noted.
 

Best hope for an accurate diagnosis

In the meantime, Dr. Coyle said she believes spinal fluid evaluation offers the best chance for a reliable MS diagnosis and is her preference. “I personally find spinal fluid to be extremely helpful to support MS diagnosis. Spinal fluid oligoclonal bands are positive in the vast majority of people with MS, and it is an independent finding from MRI to support an MS diagnosis. Added to MRI, it makes you much more comfortable,” she said.

Dr. Coyle said that a comprehensive workup should include:

• A thorough neurologic history and exam.
• MRI of the brain and spinal cord ensuring use of the MS protocol, and personally reading the studies with a neuroradiologist.
• Adding spinal fluid evaluation, especially in any atypical cases.
• Ruling out myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody disease and NMOSD, diseases that mimic relapsing MS, via blood IgG to aquaporin 4.

“You want to be as certain as possible. Everything starts with a thorough workup,” Dr. Coyle said.

Dr. Coyle’s disclosures include consulting, nonbranded speaker fees, and/or research support with Actelion, Alkermes, Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, MedDay, Labcorp, Eli Lilly, Mylan, NINDS, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TG Therapeutics.

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

DENVER – In the ongoing absence of a reliable biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS), misdiagnosis is a common and persistent problem that potentially puts patients at prolonged and unnecessary risk. Experts warn that false-negative diagnoses cause treatment delays, while false-positive diagnoses run the risk for potential harm from needless treatment.

“MS has a misdiagnosis problem,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and vice chair (academic affairs), department of neurology, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, in presenting on the issue at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“We currently lack a diagnostic biomarker test, yet diagnosis is key. If you get it wrong – that really can be a problem,” Dr. Coyle said. Recent research indicates that MS misdiagnosis is a widespread problem, she added.

For instance, one research paper reported that nearly 20% of patients were misdiagnosed with MS and that more than 50% carried the misdiagnosis for at least 3 years, while 5% were misdiagnosed for 20 years or more.

The misdiagnosis problem is also reflected at large MS referral centers, where 30%-67% of patients turn out not to have the disease, Dr. Coyle noted.

A study from Argentina further highlights some of the key characteristics of misdiagnosis. In this study, examination of a cohort of 572 patients diagnosed with MS revealed that 16% were incorrectly diagnosed with MS and that women were at an 83% greater risk for misdiagnosis than men. Furthermore, the study showed that MS misdiagnosis increased by 8% per year of older age. The most frequent confirmed diagnoses among those who had been initially misdiagnosed as having MS were cerebrovascular disease, radiologically isolated syndrome, and headache.

The majority (83%) of patients incorrectly diagnosed with MS had an atypical presentation that did not indicate demyelination, 70% had an atypical brain magnetic resonance imaging, and 61% received a prescription for a disease-modifying treatment (DMT), despite not having confirmed MS.
 

The dangers of misdiagnosis

Misdiagnosis and incorrect treatment can be particularly dangerous if patients are diagnosed with MS when, in fact, they have neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), commonly mistaken for MS, Dr. Coyle noted.

“Several MS DMTs make NMOSD worse. You are also basically giving an unnecessary and inappropriate drug with potential side effects to the misdiagnosed patient,” she said.

There have been some advances in MS diagnosis on MRI. However, there are many caveats, Dr. Coyle noted.

For instance, leptomeningeal enhancement has been considered as an MS diagnostic indicator, but it is not unique to MS, Dr. Coyle noted. In addition, subpial demyelination is MS specific, but it is hard to see and is often missed, she added.

Central vein sign has received significant attention as an important MRI marker for MS, but, Dr. Coyle said, it is “not ready for prime time. It’s somewhat tedious and you need to use special protocols to identify it,” she said.

In the future, artificial intelligence and deep learning may be key to improving some of these technologies, Dr. Coyle noted.
 

Best hope for an accurate diagnosis

In the meantime, Dr. Coyle said she believes spinal fluid evaluation offers the best chance for a reliable MS diagnosis and is her preference. “I personally find spinal fluid to be extremely helpful to support MS diagnosis. Spinal fluid oligoclonal bands are positive in the vast majority of people with MS, and it is an independent finding from MRI to support an MS diagnosis. Added to MRI, it makes you much more comfortable,” she said.

Dr. Coyle said that a comprehensive workup should include:

• A thorough neurologic history and exam.
• MRI of the brain and spinal cord ensuring use of the MS protocol, and personally reading the studies with a neuroradiologist.
• Adding spinal fluid evaluation, especially in any atypical cases.
• Ruling out myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody disease and NMOSD, diseases that mimic relapsing MS, via blood IgG to aquaporin 4.

“You want to be as certain as possible. Everything starts with a thorough workup,” Dr. Coyle said.

Dr. Coyle’s disclosures include consulting, nonbranded speaker fees, and/or research support with Actelion, Alkermes, Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, MedDay, Labcorp, Eli Lilly, Mylan, NINDS, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TG Therapeutics.

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

DENVER – In the ongoing absence of a reliable biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS), misdiagnosis is a common and persistent problem that potentially puts patients at prolonged and unnecessary risk. Experts warn that false-negative diagnoses cause treatment delays, while false-positive diagnoses run the risk for potential harm from needless treatment.

“MS has a misdiagnosis problem,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and vice chair (academic affairs), department of neurology, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, in presenting on the issue at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“We currently lack a diagnostic biomarker test, yet diagnosis is key. If you get it wrong – that really can be a problem,” Dr. Coyle said. Recent research indicates that MS misdiagnosis is a widespread problem, she added.

For instance, one research paper reported that nearly 20% of patients were misdiagnosed with MS and that more than 50% carried the misdiagnosis for at least 3 years, while 5% were misdiagnosed for 20 years or more.

The misdiagnosis problem is also reflected at large MS referral centers, where 30%-67% of patients turn out not to have the disease, Dr. Coyle noted.

A study from Argentina further highlights some of the key characteristics of misdiagnosis. In this study, examination of a cohort of 572 patients diagnosed with MS revealed that 16% were incorrectly diagnosed with MS and that women were at an 83% greater risk for misdiagnosis than men. Furthermore, the study showed that MS misdiagnosis increased by 8% per year of older age. The most frequent confirmed diagnoses among those who had been initially misdiagnosed as having MS were cerebrovascular disease, radiologically isolated syndrome, and headache.

The majority (83%) of patients incorrectly diagnosed with MS had an atypical presentation that did not indicate demyelination, 70% had an atypical brain magnetic resonance imaging, and 61% received a prescription for a disease-modifying treatment (DMT), despite not having confirmed MS.
 

The dangers of misdiagnosis

Misdiagnosis and incorrect treatment can be particularly dangerous if patients are diagnosed with MS when, in fact, they have neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), commonly mistaken for MS, Dr. Coyle noted.

“Several MS DMTs make NMOSD worse. You are also basically giving an unnecessary and inappropriate drug with potential side effects to the misdiagnosed patient,” she said.

There have been some advances in MS diagnosis on MRI. However, there are many caveats, Dr. Coyle noted.

For instance, leptomeningeal enhancement has been considered as an MS diagnostic indicator, but it is not unique to MS, Dr. Coyle noted. In addition, subpial demyelination is MS specific, but it is hard to see and is often missed, she added.

Central vein sign has received significant attention as an important MRI marker for MS, but, Dr. Coyle said, it is “not ready for prime time. It’s somewhat tedious and you need to use special protocols to identify it,” she said.

In the future, artificial intelligence and deep learning may be key to improving some of these technologies, Dr. Coyle noted.
 

Best hope for an accurate diagnosis

In the meantime, Dr. Coyle said she believes spinal fluid evaluation offers the best chance for a reliable MS diagnosis and is her preference. “I personally find spinal fluid to be extremely helpful to support MS diagnosis. Spinal fluid oligoclonal bands are positive in the vast majority of people with MS, and it is an independent finding from MRI to support an MS diagnosis. Added to MRI, it makes you much more comfortable,” she said.

Dr. Coyle said that a comprehensive workup should include:

• A thorough neurologic history and exam.
• MRI of the brain and spinal cord ensuring use of the MS protocol, and personally reading the studies with a neuroradiologist.
• Adding spinal fluid evaluation, especially in any atypical cases.
• Ruling out myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody disease and NMOSD, diseases that mimic relapsing MS, via blood IgG to aquaporin 4.

“You want to be as certain as possible. Everything starts with a thorough workup,” Dr. Coyle said.

Dr. Coyle’s disclosures include consulting, nonbranded speaker fees, and/or research support with Actelion, Alkermes, Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, MedDay, Labcorp, Eli Lilly, Mylan, NINDS, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TG Therapeutics.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

CHICAGO – For the chief patient officer of the American Cancer Society, this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology was a gem. And it didn’t just sparkle because of the sequined Taylor Swift fans clogging the nearby streets during the meeting.

Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who is also an oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said he was impressed by a pair of landmark studies released at the meeting that show hidden cancer can be targeted with “really remarkable outcomes.” He also highlighted sessions that examined the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology, during an interview.

Below are lightly edited excerpts from a conversation with Dr. Kamal:



Question: What are some of most groundbreaking studies released at ASCO?

Answer: One is an interim analysis of the NATALEE trial, which involved patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast tumors. This phase 3 randomized trial compared maintenance therapy with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali) plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone in patients with node-positive or node-negative and stage II or III HR+/HER– breast cancer.

For a long time, the standard care in these patients has been to use endocrine therapy alone. This is the first big trial to show that upstream usage of additional therapy in early stages is also beneficial for disease-free survival. The 3-year invasive disease-free survival rate was 90.4% in the rebociclib-endocrine therapy group vs. 87.1% for patients who received only endocrine therapy (P = .0014).



Q: How do these findings add to current knowledge?

A: Typically, we let people get metastatic disease before we use CDK4/6 inhibitors. These findings show that systemic treatment beyond endocrine therapy will be helpful in cases where you’ve got smaller disease that has not spread yet.

Even in patients with node-negative breast cancer, micrometastatic disease is clearly there, because the medication killed the negative lymph nodes.



Q: What else struck you as especially important research?

A: The NATALEE findings match what we saw in another study – the ADAURA trial, which looked at adjuvant osimertinib in non–small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR-mutated, stage IB to IIIA disease – cancer that has not spread to the lymph nodes.

This is another example where you have a treatment being used in earlier-stage disease that’s showing really remarkable outcomes. The study found that 5-year overall survival was 88% in an osimertinib group vs. 78% in a placebo group (P < .001). This is a disease where, in stage IB, we wouldn’t even necessarily give these patients treatment at all, other than surgical resection of the tumor and maybe give them a little bit of chemotherapy.

Even in these smaller, early tumors, osimertinib makes a difference.



Q: As a whole, what are these studies telling us about cancer cells that can’t be easily detected?

A: To find a disease-free survival benefit with adding ribociclib in a stage II, stage III setting, particularly in node-negative disease, is remarkable because it says that the cells in hiding are bad actors, and they are going to cause trouble. The study shows that medications can find these cells and reverse that risk of bad outcomes.

If you think about the paradigm of cancer, that’s pretty remarkable because the ADAURA trial does the same thing: You do surgery for [early-stage] lung cancers that have not spread to the lymph nodes and you figure, “Well, I’ve got it all, right? The margins are real big, healthy, clean.” And yet, people still have recurrences, and you ask the same question: “Can any medicine find those few cells, the hundreds of cells that are still left somewhere in hiding?” And the answer is again, yes. It’s changing the paradigm of our understanding of minimal residual disease.

That’s why there’s so much interest in liquid biopsies. Let’s say that after treatment we don’t see any cancer radiologically, but there’s a signal from a liquid biopsy [detecting residual cancer]. These two trials demonstrate that there’s something we can do about it.



Q: There were quite a few studies about artificial intelligence released at ASCO. Where do we stand on that front?

A: We’re just at the beginning of people thinking about the use of generative AI for clinical decision support, clinical trial matching, and pathology review. But AI, at least for now, still has the issue of making up things that aren’t true. That’s not something patients are going to be okay with.



Q: How can AI be helpful to medical providers considering its limitations?

A: AI is going to be very good at the data-to-information transition. You’ll start seeing people use AI to start clinical notes for them and to match patients to the best clinical trials for them. But fundamentally, the clinician’s role will continue to be to check facts and offer wisdom.



Q: Will AI threaten the careers of oncologists?

A: The body of knowledge about oncology is growing exponentially, and no one can actually keep up. There’s so much data that’s out there that needs to be turned into usable information amid a shortage of oncologists. At the same time, the prevalence of cancer is going up, even though mortality is going down.

Synthesis of data is what oncologists are waiting for from AI. They’ll welcome it as opposed to being worried. That’s the sentiment I heard from my colleagues.

Dr. Kamal has no disclosures.