Hematology News

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

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

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

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

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

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

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

The term “reform school” is a bit outdated. It used to refer to institutions where young offenders were sent instead of prison. Some argue that pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) should bypass reform school and go straight to prison. “PBM reform” has become a ubiquitous term, encompassing any legislative or regulatory efforts aimed at curbing PBMs’ bad behavior. When discussing PBM reform, it’s crucial to understand the various segments of the healthcare system affected by PBMs. This complexity often makes it challenging to determine what these reform packages would actually achieve and who they would benefit.

Pharmacists have long been vocal critics of PBMs, and while their issues are extremely important, it is essential to remember that the ultimate victims of PBM misconduct, in terms of access to care, are patients. At some point, we will all be patients, making this issue universally relevant. It has been quite challenging to follow federal legislation on this topic as these packages attempt to address a number of bad behaviors by PBMs affecting a variety of victims. This discussion will examine those reforms that would directly improve patient’s access to available and affordable medications.
 

Policy Categories of PBM Reform

There are five policy categories of PBM reform legislation overall, including three that have the greatest potential to directly address patient needs. The first is patient access to medications (utilization management, copay assistance, prior authorization, etc.), followed by delinking drug list prices from PBM income and pass-through of price concessions from the manufacturer. The remaining two categories involve transparency and pharmacy-facing reform, both of which are very important. However, this discussion will revolve around the first three categories. It should be noted that many of the legislation packages addressing the categories of patient access, delinking, and pass-through also include transparency issues, particularly as they relate to pharmacy-facing issues.

Patient Access to Medications — Step Therapy Legislation

One of the major obstacles to patient access to medications is the use of PBM utilization management tools such as step therapy (“fail first”), prior authorizations, nonmedical switching, and formulary exclusions. These tools dictate when patients can obtain necessary medications and for how long patients who are stable on their current treatments can remain on them.

While many states have enacted step therapy reforms to prevent stable patients from being whip-sawed between medications that maximize PBM profits (often labeled as “savings”), these state protections apply only to state-regulated health plans. These include fully insured health plans and those offered through the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace. It also includes state employees, state corrections, and, in some cases, state labor unions. State legislation does not extend to patients covered by employer self-insured health plans, called ERISA plans for the federal law that governs employee benefit plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. These ERISA plans include nearly 35 million people nationwide.

This is where the Safe Step Act (S.652/H.R.2630) becomes crucial, as it allows employees to request exceptions to harmful fail-first protocols. The bill has gained significant momentum, having been reported out of the Senate HELP Committee and discussed in House markups. The Safe Step Act would mandate that an exception to a step therapy protocol must be granted if:

• The required treatment has been ineffective
• The treatment is expected to be ineffective, and delaying effective treatment would lead to irreversible consequences
• The treatment will cause or is likely to cause an adverse reaction
• The treatment is expected to prevent the individual from performing daily activities or occupational responsibilities
• The individual is stable on their current prescription drugs
• There are other circumstances as determined by the Employee Benefits Security Administration

This legislation is vital for ensuring that patients have timely access to the medications they need without unnecessary delays or disruptions.
 

Patient Access to Medications — Prior Authorizations

Another significant issue affecting patient access to medications is prior authorizations (PAs). According to an American Medical Association survey, nearly one in four physicians (24%) report that a PA has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care. In rheumatology, PAs often result in delays in care (even for those initially approved) and a significant increase in steroid usage. In particular, PAs in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are harmful to Medicare beneficiaries.

The Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R.8702 / S.4532) aims to reform PAs used in MA plans, making the process more efficient and transparent to improve access to care for seniors. Unfortunately, it does not cover Part D drugs and may only cover Part B drugs depending on the MA plan’s benefit package. Here are the key provisions of the act:

• Electronic PA: Implementing real-time decisions for routinely approved items and services.
• Transparency: Requiring annual publication of PA information, such as the percentage of requests approved and the average response time.
• Quality and Timeliness Standards: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will set standards for the quality and timeliness of PA determinations.
• Streamlining Approvals: Simplifying the approval process and reducing the time allowed for health plans to consider PA requests.

This bill passed the House in September 2022 but stalled in the Senate because of an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office score. CMS has since finalized portions of this bill via regulation, zeroing out the CBO score and increasing the chances of its passage.
 

Delinking Drug Prices from PBM Income and Pass-Through of Price Concessions

Affordability is a crucial aspect of accessibility, especially when it comes to medications. Over the years, we’ve learned that PBMs often favor placing the highest list price drugs on formularies because the rebates and various fees they receive from manufacturers are based on a percentage of the list price. In other words, the higher the medication’s price, the more money the PBM makes.

This practice is evident in both commercial and government formularies, where brand-name drugs are often preferred, while lower-priced generics are either excluded or placed on higher tiers. As a result, while major PBMs benefit from these rebates and fees, patients continue to pay their cost share based on the list price of the medication.

To improve the affordability of medications, a key aspect of PBM reform should be to disincentivize PBMs from selecting higher-priced medications and/or require the pass-through of manufacturer price concessions to patients.

Several major PBM reform bills are currently being considered that address either the delinking of price concessions from the list price of the drug or some form of pass-through of these concessions. These reforms are essential to ensure that patients can access affordable medications without being burdened by inflated costs.

The legislation includes the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Reform Act (S.1339); the Modernizing & Ensuring PBM Accountability Act (S.2973); the Better Mental Health Care, Lower Cost Drugs, and Extenders Act (S.3430); the Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act (H.R. 2880); the DRUG Act (S.2474 / H.R.6283); and the Share the Savings with Seniors Act (S.2474 / H.R.5376).

As with all legislation, there are limitations and compromises in each of these. However, these bills are a good first step in addressing PBM remuneration (rebates and fees) based on the list price of the drug and/or passing through to the patient the benefit of manufacturer price concessions. By focusing on key areas like utilization management, delinking drug prices from PBM income, and allowing patients to directly benefit from manufacturer price concessions, we can work toward a more equitable and efficient healthcare system. Reigning in PBM bad behavior is a challenge, but the potential benefits for patient care and access make it a crucial fight worth pursuing.

Please help in efforts to improve patients’ access to available and affordable medications by contacting your representatives in Congress to impart to them the importance of passing legislation. The CSRO’s legislative map tool can help to inform you of the latest information on these and other bills and assist you in engaging with your representatives on them.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. She has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

At a conference on hematologic oncology, two sickle cell experts faced off in a debate about whether gene therapy or alternative stem-cell transplant is the best option for patients who don’t have an available matched sibling donor. 

“If there is an indication for intervention, for a curative therapy, in the absence of a matched sibling donor, gene therapy is the first choice,” Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, argued in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) in Houston.

“In the registries, alternative transplant outcomes are pretty poor, although there is some encouraging data coming up. The time is not there yet when this is the [best] choice.”

But Adetola Kassim, MBBS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who don’t qualify for a matched sibling donor transplant can still have good transplant options. And the results can be impressive.

“Once you’re engrafted, and you don’t lose your graft, the effect in transplant is lifelong,” he said. When it comes to long-lasting effects, he added, “we’re not sure yet about gene therapy.”

As Dr. Kassim noted, SCD continues to take a huge toll.

“Median survival for patients with sickle cell anemia remains stuck in the fifth decade of life with no change in 25 years,” he said. Heart, lung, and kidney complications account for 50% of identifiable causes of death, followed by about 26% attributed to cardiovascular disease, he said. “The question here is about which therapy can impact the most debilitating complication in children, which is stroke, and improve survival in adults with progressive organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Boelens said there are “huge barriers” to stem cell transplant in SCD because only 15% of patients eligible for the treatment have a matched related donor, and only 10% have a matched related or unrelated donor.

“There’s also a lack of financial and psychosocial support in many of the families. There is also parental refusal because of the mortality risk, and there’s also physician refusal because hematologists aren’t always in the same hospitals as the transplant programs.”

Dr. Boelens highlighted a 2019 study of data from 2008-2017 that found outcomes in unmatched donor transplantations are “not great,” with higher risk for mortality and graft failure.

As an alternative, he said, two gene therapies, both gene “additions,” are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy) and betibeglogene autotemcel (LentiGlobin, Zynteglo). There’s also a gene “correction” option in the works, but it’s not yet ready for prime time, he said.

In the two approved gene therapy treatments, stem cells are removed from the patient, modified/manufactured in an outside facility, and then engrafted.

The advantages of gene therapy include no need to find a donor or worry about graft resistance, and there’s no need for immunosuppression, he said. However, the process takes a long time, there’s limited long-term data, and there’s a risk for loss of fertility and other chemotherapy-related adverse effects.

For his part, Dr. Kassim noted how several groups are excluded from the strong outcomes in matched sibling donor stem-cell transplants: Children with strokes and no eligible donors, others without eligible donors, and adults with severe disease and organ dysfunction who are typically excluded.

“We need transplants with less toxicity and alternative donors,” he said. Another challenge: “How do we decrease graft failure without increasing transplant-related mortality?”

Researchers are exploring several strategies to adjust drug therapy during conditioning, Dr. Kassim said, and he led a promising phase II study that explored one approach. The results of that study were recently published in the journal Blood. Graft failures were very low in both adults and children, he said, and 2-year survival among 70 patients was 94.8%. The five deaths were related to infection.

The evidence about the various strategies shows that “virtually all SCD patients, except those with severe heart, lung, or kidney disease” can benefit from a curative transplant, Dr. Kassim said.

Dr. Boelens had no disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Kassim were not provided, but he recently reported no disclosures in a report about transplants in SCD.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At a conference on hematologic oncology, two sickle cell experts faced off in a debate about whether gene therapy or alternative stem-cell transplant is the best option for patients who don’t have an available matched sibling donor. 

“If there is an indication for intervention, for a curative therapy, in the absence of a matched sibling donor, gene therapy is the first choice,” Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, argued in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) in Houston.

“In the registries, alternative transplant outcomes are pretty poor, although there is some encouraging data coming up. The time is not there yet when this is the [best] choice.”

But Adetola Kassim, MBBS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who don’t qualify for a matched sibling donor transplant can still have good transplant options. And the results can be impressive.

“Once you’re engrafted, and you don’t lose your graft, the effect in transplant is lifelong,” he said. When it comes to long-lasting effects, he added, “we’re not sure yet about gene therapy.”

As Dr. Kassim noted, SCD continues to take a huge toll.

“Median survival for patients with sickle cell anemia remains stuck in the fifth decade of life with no change in 25 years,” he said. Heart, lung, and kidney complications account for 50% of identifiable causes of death, followed by about 26% attributed to cardiovascular disease, he said. “The question here is about which therapy can impact the most debilitating complication in children, which is stroke, and improve survival in adults with progressive organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Boelens said there are “huge barriers” to stem cell transplant in SCD because only 15% of patients eligible for the treatment have a matched related donor, and only 10% have a matched related or unrelated donor.

“There’s also a lack of financial and psychosocial support in many of the families. There is also parental refusal because of the mortality risk, and there’s also physician refusal because hematologists aren’t always in the same hospitals as the transplant programs.”

Dr. Boelens highlighted a 2019 study of data from 2008-2017 that found outcomes in unmatched donor transplantations are “not great,” with higher risk for mortality and graft failure.

As an alternative, he said, two gene therapies, both gene “additions,” are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy) and betibeglogene autotemcel (LentiGlobin, Zynteglo). There’s also a gene “correction” option in the works, but it’s not yet ready for prime time, he said.

In the two approved gene therapy treatments, stem cells are removed from the patient, modified/manufactured in an outside facility, and then engrafted.

The advantages of gene therapy include no need to find a donor or worry about graft resistance, and there’s no need for immunosuppression, he said. However, the process takes a long time, there’s limited long-term data, and there’s a risk for loss of fertility and other chemotherapy-related adverse effects.

For his part, Dr. Kassim noted how several groups are excluded from the strong outcomes in matched sibling donor stem-cell transplants: Children with strokes and no eligible donors, others without eligible donors, and adults with severe disease and organ dysfunction who are typically excluded.

“We need transplants with less toxicity and alternative donors,” he said. Another challenge: “How do we decrease graft failure without increasing transplant-related mortality?”

Researchers are exploring several strategies to adjust drug therapy during conditioning, Dr. Kassim said, and he led a promising phase II study that explored one approach. The results of that study were recently published in the journal Blood. Graft failures were very low in both adults and children, he said, and 2-year survival among 70 patients was 94.8%. The five deaths were related to infection.

The evidence about the various strategies shows that “virtually all SCD patients, except those with severe heart, lung, or kidney disease” can benefit from a curative transplant, Dr. Kassim said.

Dr. Boelens had no disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Kassim were not provided, but he recently reported no disclosures in a report about transplants in SCD.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At a conference on hematologic oncology, two sickle cell experts faced off in a debate about whether gene therapy or alternative stem-cell transplant is the best option for patients who don’t have an available matched sibling donor. 

“If there is an indication for intervention, for a curative therapy, in the absence of a matched sibling donor, gene therapy is the first choice,” Jaap-Jan Boelens, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, argued in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) in Houston.

“In the registries, alternative transplant outcomes are pretty poor, although there is some encouraging data coming up. The time is not there yet when this is the [best] choice.”

But Adetola Kassim, MBBS, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, said patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) who don’t qualify for a matched sibling donor transplant can still have good transplant options. And the results can be impressive.

“Once you’re engrafted, and you don’t lose your graft, the effect in transplant is lifelong,” he said. When it comes to long-lasting effects, he added, “we’re not sure yet about gene therapy.”

As Dr. Kassim noted, SCD continues to take a huge toll.

“Median survival for patients with sickle cell anemia remains stuck in the fifth decade of life with no change in 25 years,” he said. Heart, lung, and kidney complications account for 50% of identifiable causes of death, followed by about 26% attributed to cardiovascular disease, he said. “The question here is about which therapy can impact the most debilitating complication in children, which is stroke, and improve survival in adults with progressive organ dysfunction.”

Dr. Boelens said there are “huge barriers” to stem cell transplant in SCD because only 15% of patients eligible for the treatment have a matched related donor, and only 10% have a matched related or unrelated donor.

“There’s also a lack of financial and psychosocial support in many of the families. There is also parental refusal because of the mortality risk, and there’s also physician refusal because hematologists aren’t always in the same hospitals as the transplant programs.”

Dr. Boelens highlighted a 2019 study of data from 2008-2017 that found outcomes in unmatched donor transplantations are “not great,” with higher risk for mortality and graft failure.

As an alternative, he said, two gene therapies, both gene “additions,” are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They are exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, Casgevy) and betibeglogene autotemcel (LentiGlobin, Zynteglo). There’s also a gene “correction” option in the works, but it’s not yet ready for prime time, he said.

In the two approved gene therapy treatments, stem cells are removed from the patient, modified/manufactured in an outside facility, and then engrafted.

The advantages of gene therapy include no need to find a donor or worry about graft resistance, and there’s no need for immunosuppression, he said. However, the process takes a long time, there’s limited long-term data, and there’s a risk for loss of fertility and other chemotherapy-related adverse effects.

For his part, Dr. Kassim noted how several groups are excluded from the strong outcomes in matched sibling donor stem-cell transplants: Children with strokes and no eligible donors, others without eligible donors, and adults with severe disease and organ dysfunction who are typically excluded.

“We need transplants with less toxicity and alternative donors,” he said. Another challenge: “How do we decrease graft failure without increasing transplant-related mortality?”

Researchers are exploring several strategies to adjust drug therapy during conditioning, Dr. Kassim said, and he led a promising phase II study that explored one approach. The results of that study were recently published in the journal Blood. Graft failures were very low in both adults and children, he said, and 2-year survival among 70 patients was 94.8%. The five deaths were related to infection.

The evidence about the various strategies shows that “virtually all SCD patients, except those with severe heart, lung, or kidney disease” can benefit from a curative transplant, Dr. Kassim said.

Dr. Boelens had no disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Kassim were not provided, but he recently reported no disclosures in a report about transplants in SCD.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Research offers promising insights into the ideal frontline therapies for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), but there are continued unmet needs in the relapsed/refractory setting, blood cancer specialists told colleagues. 

In the frontline setting, findings suggest that regimens should differ significantly on the basis of whether patients are older or younger, whereas more data are needed to understand whether treatment can overcome poor prognoses in patients with TP53 mutations, lymphoma specialist Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) 2024 in Houston, Texas.

On the relapsed/refractory front, patients need better options after treatment with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, Krish Patel, MD, a lymphoma specialist with Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, said in an adjoining presentation. Fortunately, he said, some treatments are showing early promise.

Here’s a closer look at the presentations by Dr. Wagner-Johnston and Dr. Patel.
 

Frontline MCL: Age Helps Determine Best Approach

“For older and less fit patients, the standard approach has typically been bendamustine (Bendeka, Treanda) and rituximab (Rituxan), and the median progression-free survival is about 4 years, with overall survival not reached at a median 5 years of follow-up,” Dr. Wagner-Johnston said. 

Low doses of the chemotherapy drug cytarabine have been added to the bendamustine-rituximab regimen, with encouraging results, she said. “Certainly there’s more toxicity associated even with lower doses, but those data look fairly promising.”

For younger and fit patients, “the standard of care approach has been to administer intensive chemoimmunotherapy that contains high-dose cytarabine, and then that’s typically followed with an autologous stem cell transplant,” she said. A 2016 study reported median progression-free survival of 8.5 years and median overall survival of 12.7 years.

Now, second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “look very promising” in the frontline setting, Dr. Wagner-Johnston said.

The road has been rocky, however. The SHINE trial of more than 500 patients aged over 65 found that adding ibrutinib to bendamustine-rituximab improved progression-free survival. “However, progression-free survival did not [connect] to an overall survival benefit, and that’s likely due to the toxicity seen with ibrutinib,” she said. 

“It’s not surprising to many of you that ibrutinib has been removed from the FDA label for mantle cell lymphoma,” she said. However, “second-generation [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] are known to be associated with less toxicity and potentially increased potency.”

What about Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in younger and fitter patients? The TRIANGLE trial demonstrated their benefit, Dr. Wagner-Johnston said, linking ibrutinib to improvement in progression-free survival. 

However, “it’s really too early to evaluate the statistical significance for overall survival.” And while the study looks at therapy without stem cell transplant, she believes it’s too early to know whether that’s a good option. 

Dr. Wagner-Johnston tackled another topic: Can Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors overcome the poor prognosis seen with MCL with TP53 mutation? For now, the limitations of research makes it “hard to know,” she said, although early results of the BOVen trial are promising. 
 

Relapsed/Refractory MCL: Better Options Are Still Needed

In his presentation, Dr. Patel spoke about therapy in patients with MCL and relapsed/refractory disease. “We know that outcomes for patients who progress on covalent [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] is really dismal,” he said. “This has been shown by multiple groups now across the globe.”

Noncovalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors are now an option, he noted. “We do understand that they work for some patients, and it can be quite useful, but even noncovalent [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] themselves are susceptible to resistance mutations. We’ve seen that in the [chronic lymphocytic leukemia] world.”

Dr. Patel asked the audience, “Why not just give everybody CAR T-cells, post-[Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors]? You get a CAR T-cell! You get a CAR T-cell! Everybody gets one.”

However, he noted, “Unfortunately, mantle cell lymphoma patients experience the worst high-grade toxicity when receiving CD19[-targeted] CAR T-cells.” 

Are there better options? At the moment, “really, really early data” suggest benefits from molecular glues and degraders, novel inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, novel CAR T-cells, and bispecific antibodies, Dr. Patel said.

“All of these tools are in clinical trials, and hopefully some of them will help,” he said.

Disclosures were not provided. Dr. Wagner-Johnston recently disclosed advisory committee/board of directors’ relationships with ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, Calibr, and Verastem. Dr. Patel recently disclosed ties with a long list of pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, and others.
 

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

Research offers promising insights into the ideal frontline therapies for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), but there are continued unmet needs in the relapsed/refractory setting, blood cancer specialists told colleagues. 

In the frontline setting, findings suggest that regimens should differ significantly on the basis of whether patients are older or younger, whereas more data are needed to understand whether treatment can overcome poor prognoses in patients with TP53 mutations, lymphoma specialist Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) 2024 in Houston, Texas.

On the relapsed/refractory front, patients need better options after treatment with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, Krish Patel, MD, a lymphoma specialist with Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, said in an adjoining presentation. Fortunately, he said, some treatments are showing early promise.

Here’s a closer look at the presentations by Dr. Wagner-Johnston and Dr. Patel.
 

Frontline MCL: Age Helps Determine Best Approach

“For older and less fit patients, the standard approach has typically been bendamustine (Bendeka, Treanda) and rituximab (Rituxan), and the median progression-free survival is about 4 years, with overall survival not reached at a median 5 years of follow-up,” Dr. Wagner-Johnston said. 

Low doses of the chemotherapy drug cytarabine have been added to the bendamustine-rituximab regimen, with encouraging results, she said. “Certainly there’s more toxicity associated even with lower doses, but those data look fairly promising.”

For younger and fit patients, “the standard of care approach has been to administer intensive chemoimmunotherapy that contains high-dose cytarabine, and then that’s typically followed with an autologous stem cell transplant,” she said. A 2016 study reported median progression-free survival of 8.5 years and median overall survival of 12.7 years.

Now, second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “look very promising” in the frontline setting, Dr. Wagner-Johnston said.

The road has been rocky, however. The SHINE trial of more than 500 patients aged over 65 found that adding ibrutinib to bendamustine-rituximab improved progression-free survival. “However, progression-free survival did not [connect] to an overall survival benefit, and that’s likely due to the toxicity seen with ibrutinib,” she said. 

“It’s not surprising to many of you that ibrutinib has been removed from the FDA label for mantle cell lymphoma,” she said. However, “second-generation [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] are known to be associated with less toxicity and potentially increased potency.”

What about Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in younger and fitter patients? The TRIANGLE trial demonstrated their benefit, Dr. Wagner-Johnston said, linking ibrutinib to improvement in progression-free survival. 

However, “it’s really too early to evaluate the statistical significance for overall survival.” And while the study looks at therapy without stem cell transplant, she believes it’s too early to know whether that’s a good option. 

Dr. Wagner-Johnston tackled another topic: Can Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors overcome the poor prognosis seen with MCL with TP53 mutation? For now, the limitations of research makes it “hard to know,” she said, although early results of the BOVen trial are promising. 
 

Relapsed/Refractory MCL: Better Options Are Still Needed

In his presentation, Dr. Patel spoke about therapy in patients with MCL and relapsed/refractory disease. “We know that outcomes for patients who progress on covalent [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] is really dismal,” he said. “This has been shown by multiple groups now across the globe.”

Noncovalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors are now an option, he noted. “We do understand that they work for some patients, and it can be quite useful, but even noncovalent [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] themselves are susceptible to resistance mutations. We’ve seen that in the [chronic lymphocytic leukemia] world.”

Dr. Patel asked the audience, “Why not just give everybody CAR T-cells, post-[Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors]? You get a CAR T-cell! You get a CAR T-cell! Everybody gets one.”

However, he noted, “Unfortunately, mantle cell lymphoma patients experience the worst high-grade toxicity when receiving CD19[-targeted] CAR T-cells.” 

Are there better options? At the moment, “really, really early data” suggest benefits from molecular glues and degraders, novel inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, novel CAR T-cells, and bispecific antibodies, Dr. Patel said.

“All of these tools are in clinical trials, and hopefully some of them will help,” he said.

Disclosures were not provided. Dr. Wagner-Johnston recently disclosed advisory committee/board of directors’ relationships with ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, Calibr, and Verastem. Dr. Patel recently disclosed ties with a long list of pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, and others.
 

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

Research offers promising insights into the ideal frontline therapies for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), but there are continued unmet needs in the relapsed/refractory setting, blood cancer specialists told colleagues. 

In the frontline setting, findings suggest that regimens should differ significantly on the basis of whether patients are older or younger, whereas more data are needed to understand whether treatment can overcome poor prognoses in patients with TP53 mutations, lymphoma specialist Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology (SOHO) 2024 in Houston, Texas.

On the relapsed/refractory front, patients need better options after treatment with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, Krish Patel, MD, a lymphoma specialist with Swedish Cancer Institute in Seattle, said in an adjoining presentation. Fortunately, he said, some treatments are showing early promise.

Here’s a closer look at the presentations by Dr. Wagner-Johnston and Dr. Patel.
 

Frontline MCL: Age Helps Determine Best Approach

“For older and less fit patients, the standard approach has typically been bendamustine (Bendeka, Treanda) and rituximab (Rituxan), and the median progression-free survival is about 4 years, with overall survival not reached at a median 5 years of follow-up,” Dr. Wagner-Johnston said. 

Low doses of the chemotherapy drug cytarabine have been added to the bendamustine-rituximab regimen, with encouraging results, she said. “Certainly there’s more toxicity associated even with lower doses, but those data look fairly promising.”

For younger and fit patients, “the standard of care approach has been to administer intensive chemoimmunotherapy that contains high-dose cytarabine, and then that’s typically followed with an autologous stem cell transplant,” she said. A 2016 study reported median progression-free survival of 8.5 years and median overall survival of 12.7 years.

Now, second-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors “look very promising” in the frontline setting, Dr. Wagner-Johnston said.

The road has been rocky, however. The SHINE trial of more than 500 patients aged over 65 found that adding ibrutinib to bendamustine-rituximab improved progression-free survival. “However, progression-free survival did not [connect] to an overall survival benefit, and that’s likely due to the toxicity seen with ibrutinib,” she said. 

“It’s not surprising to many of you that ibrutinib has been removed from the FDA label for mantle cell lymphoma,” she said. However, “second-generation [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] are known to be associated with less toxicity and potentially increased potency.”

What about Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in younger and fitter patients? The TRIANGLE trial demonstrated their benefit, Dr. Wagner-Johnston said, linking ibrutinib to improvement in progression-free survival. 

However, “it’s really too early to evaluate the statistical significance for overall survival.” And while the study looks at therapy without stem cell transplant, she believes it’s too early to know whether that’s a good option. 

Dr. Wagner-Johnston tackled another topic: Can Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors overcome the poor prognosis seen with MCL with TP53 mutation? For now, the limitations of research makes it “hard to know,” she said, although early results of the BOVen trial are promising. 
 

Relapsed/Refractory MCL: Better Options Are Still Needed

In his presentation, Dr. Patel spoke about therapy in patients with MCL and relapsed/refractory disease. “We know that outcomes for patients who progress on covalent [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] is really dismal,” he said. “This has been shown by multiple groups now across the globe.”

Noncovalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors are now an option, he noted. “We do understand that they work for some patients, and it can be quite useful, but even noncovalent [Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors] themselves are susceptible to resistance mutations. We’ve seen that in the [chronic lymphocytic leukemia] world.”

Dr. Patel asked the audience, “Why not just give everybody CAR T-cells, post-[Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors]? You get a CAR T-cell! You get a CAR T-cell! Everybody gets one.”

However, he noted, “Unfortunately, mantle cell lymphoma patients experience the worst high-grade toxicity when receiving CD19[-targeted] CAR T-cells.” 

Are there better options? At the moment, “really, really early data” suggest benefits from molecular glues and degraders, novel inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, novel CAR T-cells, and bispecific antibodies, Dr. Patel said.

“All of these tools are in clinical trials, and hopefully some of them will help,” he said.

Disclosures were not provided. Dr. Wagner-Johnston recently disclosed advisory committee/board of directors’ relationships with ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, Calibr, and Verastem. Dr. Patel recently disclosed ties with a long list of pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, and others.
 

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has emerged as a game changer for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), but questions remain as to how — and when — the immunotherapy will best be used for patients who experience disease relapse.

Will CAR T be best used in early relapse? Experts debated this question at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology. Based on attendees’ votes, at least one side of the debate emerged victorious.

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, came out swinging with earnest support for using CAR T in early relapse. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, argued in favor of being “a little more circumspect.”
 

Dr. Patel: Yes, Earlier Is Better

A pre-debate audience poll leaned Dr. Patel’s way, with about 59% of 73 votes favoring CAR T in early relapse, 33% favoring reserving CAR T for patients who relapse after three or more lines of therapy, and 8% undecided.

“CAR T is not just a drug — it’s an actual therapy that takes a lot of logistics, as well as bridging therapy and all these other things to take into account,” said Dr. Patel. “And again, when I can go earlier, I have control over some of this.”

Furthermore, randomized phase 3 data from the KarMMA-3 study and the CARTITUDE-4 study showed that multiple standard therapies were not as good as CAR T in the early relapse setting, she said, pointing to the respective hazard ratios for disease progression or death with CAR T vs standard therapies of 0.49 and 0.26.

CARTITUDE-4 also suggested that manufacturing failures are more likely in later relapse — when time is already of greater essence, she said, noting that it can take an additional 3 months when restarting the process.

When it comes to toxicity, yes, it is a concern, she said.

“But we know how to decrease toxicity,” she stressed. “And again, with our second- and third-line approaches, we actually have better therapies to give for bridging.”

Quality of life is another important consideration, Dr. Patel said, noting only CAR T offers a “one-and-done” therapy that helps patients “truly feel better.”

“They’re not having to come into hospitals as often, and this is not just for months; it’s for years,” she said. “To be able to give that to somebody is huge, and again, we have objective data that show that compared to our standard of care therapies, patients do better in almost every realm of quality of life metrics.”

Dr. Patel also pointed to recent data from a retrospective study showing that for bridging therapy, less is more when disease is controlled, and in the early-line setting, more and safer options are available for reducing tumor burden.

Early CAR T is better for older or frail patients as well, she argued, noting that these patients don’t have time to wait, and a new study demonstrates that they tend to do well with CAR T in the early relapse setting.

The choice for early CAR T is clear in patients with high-risk disease, but Dr. Patel stressed that it shouldn’t be reserved for those patients, asking, “When has anything worked well for patients with high-risk disease and not [also] better for standard-risk patients?”

“And why give only 20%-25% of your patients [who actually reach fifth-line treatment] access to something that we know has really revolutionized myeloma therapy?” she said.

Many patients don’t have access, and that’s an issue, she acknowledged, adding: “But for those who do, we really should be giving it to them as soon as possible.”
 

Dr. Usmani: Reserve CAR T for Later Relapse

Not so fast, said Dr. Usmani. “All of these therapies are doing wonders for our patients, and we believe in them, but we have to be a little circumspect in looking at this data more closely and not just with emotions,” he added, noting that many options exist for patients in a first or second relapse, and new options are emerging.

There is also a “harsh reality” in terms of CAR T availability, he noted, explaining that, in 2021, about 180,000 people were living with MM, and about two thirds of those had relapsed disease. Meanwhile, fewer than 1000 CAR T products have been delivered each year for patients with relapsed MM since they were approved in this setting in the United States.

“So, it’s a pipe dream, seriously, that we will be able to utilize CAR T for all patients in early relapsed disease,” he said, adding that capacity will remain an issue because of limited resources.

The existing data, including from KarMMa-3 and CARTITUDE-4, show little potential for long-term benefit with early vs later CAR T.

“There is no plateau,” he said of the survival curves in KarMMa-3, underscoring the lack of a difference in overall survival benefit based on CAR T timing.

The CARTITUDE-4 curves “look great,” and it may be that a “small plateau emerges,” but they don’t demonstrate a benefit of earlier vs later CAR T, he said.

As Dr. Patel noted, there are few treatment options for patients with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and immunomodulatory drug resistance at first relapse. However, that situation will soon change, Dr. Usmani stated.

“Guess what? Belamaf is coming to the rescue!” he said of the off-the-shelf and more accessible B-cell maturation antigen-targeted antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin, which has recently been evaluated in the DREAMM 7 and DREAMM 8 trials.

DREAMM 7 demonstrated improved survival vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in the relapsed/refractory MM setting when used in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. DREAMM 8 shows similar benefit with belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone vs pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

“Belamaf combinations in the one to three lines [of prior therapy] setting look really good,” he said, noting a particular benefit for progression-free survival and a trend toward improved overall survival.

Considering these factors, as well as the risk for cytopenias and the subsequent risk for infection in most patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy and the known potential risk for secondary malignancies, Dr. Usmani said that he will remain “in the camp of being really careful in selecting CAR T patients for early relapse” until more is known about the risks.

“CAR T for all is not the answer. I think we have to be careful in picking CAR T patients; it’s not a zero-sum game here,” he said, stressing that “there are too many unknowns with the use of early CAR T therapy.”

“It makes sense in some, but not for everyone,” he said, emphasizing the importance of including patients in the discussion.

“The great thing is we have all these options for our patients,” he said.

Dr. Usmani persuaded at least a few colleagues: The final vote showed 42% of 124 voters supported early CAR T, compared with 52% who supported CAR T after three or more lines of therapy and 6% who remained undecided.

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has emerged as a game changer for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), but questions remain as to how — and when — the immunotherapy will best be used for patients who experience disease relapse.

Will CAR T be best used in early relapse? Experts debated this question at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology. Based on attendees’ votes, at least one side of the debate emerged victorious.

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, came out swinging with earnest support for using CAR T in early relapse. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, argued in favor of being “a little more circumspect.”
 

Dr. Patel: Yes, Earlier Is Better

A pre-debate audience poll leaned Dr. Patel’s way, with about 59% of 73 votes favoring CAR T in early relapse, 33% favoring reserving CAR T for patients who relapse after three or more lines of therapy, and 8% undecided.

“CAR T is not just a drug — it’s an actual therapy that takes a lot of logistics, as well as bridging therapy and all these other things to take into account,” said Dr. Patel. “And again, when I can go earlier, I have control over some of this.”

Furthermore, randomized phase 3 data from the KarMMA-3 study and the CARTITUDE-4 study showed that multiple standard therapies were not as good as CAR T in the early relapse setting, she said, pointing to the respective hazard ratios for disease progression or death with CAR T vs standard therapies of 0.49 and 0.26.

CARTITUDE-4 also suggested that manufacturing failures are more likely in later relapse — when time is already of greater essence, she said, noting that it can take an additional 3 months when restarting the process.

When it comes to toxicity, yes, it is a concern, she said.

“But we know how to decrease toxicity,” she stressed. “And again, with our second- and third-line approaches, we actually have better therapies to give for bridging.”

Quality of life is another important consideration, Dr. Patel said, noting only CAR T offers a “one-and-done” therapy that helps patients “truly feel better.”

“They’re not having to come into hospitals as often, and this is not just for months; it’s for years,” she said. “To be able to give that to somebody is huge, and again, we have objective data that show that compared to our standard of care therapies, patients do better in almost every realm of quality of life metrics.”

Dr. Patel also pointed to recent data from a retrospective study showing that for bridging therapy, less is more when disease is controlled, and in the early-line setting, more and safer options are available for reducing tumor burden.

Early CAR T is better for older or frail patients as well, she argued, noting that these patients don’t have time to wait, and a new study demonstrates that they tend to do well with CAR T in the early relapse setting.

The choice for early CAR T is clear in patients with high-risk disease, but Dr. Patel stressed that it shouldn’t be reserved for those patients, asking, “When has anything worked well for patients with high-risk disease and not [also] better for standard-risk patients?”

“And why give only 20%-25% of your patients [who actually reach fifth-line treatment] access to something that we know has really revolutionized myeloma therapy?” she said.

Many patients don’t have access, and that’s an issue, she acknowledged, adding: “But for those who do, we really should be giving it to them as soon as possible.”
 

Dr. Usmani: Reserve CAR T for Later Relapse

Not so fast, said Dr. Usmani. “All of these therapies are doing wonders for our patients, and we believe in them, but we have to be a little circumspect in looking at this data more closely and not just with emotions,” he added, noting that many options exist for patients in a first or second relapse, and new options are emerging.

There is also a “harsh reality” in terms of CAR T availability, he noted, explaining that, in 2021, about 180,000 people were living with MM, and about two thirds of those had relapsed disease. Meanwhile, fewer than 1000 CAR T products have been delivered each year for patients with relapsed MM since they were approved in this setting in the United States.

“So, it’s a pipe dream, seriously, that we will be able to utilize CAR T for all patients in early relapsed disease,” he said, adding that capacity will remain an issue because of limited resources.

The existing data, including from KarMMa-3 and CARTITUDE-4, show little potential for long-term benefit with early vs later CAR T.

“There is no plateau,” he said of the survival curves in KarMMa-3, underscoring the lack of a difference in overall survival benefit based on CAR T timing.

The CARTITUDE-4 curves “look great,” and it may be that a “small plateau emerges,” but they don’t demonstrate a benefit of earlier vs later CAR T, he said.

As Dr. Patel noted, there are few treatment options for patients with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and immunomodulatory drug resistance at first relapse. However, that situation will soon change, Dr. Usmani stated.

“Guess what? Belamaf is coming to the rescue!” he said of the off-the-shelf and more accessible B-cell maturation antigen-targeted antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin, which has recently been evaluated in the DREAMM 7 and DREAMM 8 trials.

DREAMM 7 demonstrated improved survival vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in the relapsed/refractory MM setting when used in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. DREAMM 8 shows similar benefit with belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone vs pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

“Belamaf combinations in the one to three lines [of prior therapy] setting look really good,” he said, noting a particular benefit for progression-free survival and a trend toward improved overall survival.

Considering these factors, as well as the risk for cytopenias and the subsequent risk for infection in most patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy and the known potential risk for secondary malignancies, Dr. Usmani said that he will remain “in the camp of being really careful in selecting CAR T patients for early relapse” until more is known about the risks.

“CAR T for all is not the answer. I think we have to be careful in picking CAR T patients; it’s not a zero-sum game here,” he said, stressing that “there are too many unknowns with the use of early CAR T therapy.”

“It makes sense in some, but not for everyone,” he said, emphasizing the importance of including patients in the discussion.

“The great thing is we have all these options for our patients,” he said.

Dr. Usmani persuaded at least a few colleagues: The final vote showed 42% of 124 voters supported early CAR T, compared with 52% who supported CAR T after three or more lines of therapy and 6% who remained undecided.

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

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has emerged as a game changer for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), but questions remain as to how — and when — the immunotherapy will best be used for patients who experience disease relapse.

Will CAR T be best used in early relapse? Experts debated this question at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology. Based on attendees’ votes, at least one side of the debate emerged victorious.

Krina Patel, MD, an associate professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, came out swinging with earnest support for using CAR T in early relapse. Saad Z. Usmani, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, argued in favor of being “a little more circumspect.”
 

Dr. Patel: Yes, Earlier Is Better

A pre-debate audience poll leaned Dr. Patel’s way, with about 59% of 73 votes favoring CAR T in early relapse, 33% favoring reserving CAR T for patients who relapse after three or more lines of therapy, and 8% undecided.

“CAR T is not just a drug — it’s an actual therapy that takes a lot of logistics, as well as bridging therapy and all these other things to take into account,” said Dr. Patel. “And again, when I can go earlier, I have control over some of this.”

Furthermore, randomized phase 3 data from the KarMMA-3 study and the CARTITUDE-4 study showed that multiple standard therapies were not as good as CAR T in the early relapse setting, she said, pointing to the respective hazard ratios for disease progression or death with CAR T vs standard therapies of 0.49 and 0.26.

CARTITUDE-4 also suggested that manufacturing failures are more likely in later relapse — when time is already of greater essence, she said, noting that it can take an additional 3 months when restarting the process.

When it comes to toxicity, yes, it is a concern, she said.

“But we know how to decrease toxicity,” she stressed. “And again, with our second- and third-line approaches, we actually have better therapies to give for bridging.”

Quality of life is another important consideration, Dr. Patel said, noting only CAR T offers a “one-and-done” therapy that helps patients “truly feel better.”

“They’re not having to come into hospitals as often, and this is not just for months; it’s for years,” she said. “To be able to give that to somebody is huge, and again, we have objective data that show that compared to our standard of care therapies, patients do better in almost every realm of quality of life metrics.”

Dr. Patel also pointed to recent data from a retrospective study showing that for bridging therapy, less is more when disease is controlled, and in the early-line setting, more and safer options are available for reducing tumor burden.

Early CAR T is better for older or frail patients as well, she argued, noting that these patients don’t have time to wait, and a new study demonstrates that they tend to do well with CAR T in the early relapse setting.

The choice for early CAR T is clear in patients with high-risk disease, but Dr. Patel stressed that it shouldn’t be reserved for those patients, asking, “When has anything worked well for patients with high-risk disease and not [also] better for standard-risk patients?”

“And why give only 20%-25% of your patients [who actually reach fifth-line treatment] access to something that we know has really revolutionized myeloma therapy?” she said.

Many patients don’t have access, and that’s an issue, she acknowledged, adding: “But for those who do, we really should be giving it to them as soon as possible.”
 

Dr. Usmani: Reserve CAR T for Later Relapse

Not so fast, said Dr. Usmani. “All of these therapies are doing wonders for our patients, and we believe in them, but we have to be a little circumspect in looking at this data more closely and not just with emotions,” he added, noting that many options exist for patients in a first or second relapse, and new options are emerging.

There is also a “harsh reality” in terms of CAR T availability, he noted, explaining that, in 2021, about 180,000 people were living with MM, and about two thirds of those had relapsed disease. Meanwhile, fewer than 1000 CAR T products have been delivered each year for patients with relapsed MM since they were approved in this setting in the United States.

“So, it’s a pipe dream, seriously, that we will be able to utilize CAR T for all patients in early relapsed disease,” he said, adding that capacity will remain an issue because of limited resources.

The existing data, including from KarMMa-3 and CARTITUDE-4, show little potential for long-term benefit with early vs later CAR T.

“There is no plateau,” he said of the survival curves in KarMMa-3, underscoring the lack of a difference in overall survival benefit based on CAR T timing.

The CARTITUDE-4 curves “look great,” and it may be that a “small plateau emerges,” but they don’t demonstrate a benefit of earlier vs later CAR T, he said.

As Dr. Patel noted, there are few treatment options for patients with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody and immunomodulatory drug resistance at first relapse. However, that situation will soon change, Dr. Usmani stated.

“Guess what? Belamaf is coming to the rescue!” he said of the off-the-shelf and more accessible B-cell maturation antigen-targeted antibody-drug conjugate belantamab mafodotin, which has recently been evaluated in the DREAMM 7 and DREAMM 8 trials.

DREAMM 7 demonstrated improved survival vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in the relapsed/refractory MM setting when used in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. DREAMM 8 shows similar benefit with belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone vs pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in lenalidomide-exposed patients with relapsed or refractory MM.

“Belamaf combinations in the one to three lines [of prior therapy] setting look really good,” he said, noting a particular benefit for progression-free survival and a trend toward improved overall survival.

Considering these factors, as well as the risk for cytopenias and the subsequent risk for infection in most patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy and the known potential risk for secondary malignancies, Dr. Usmani said that he will remain “in the camp of being really careful in selecting CAR T patients for early relapse” until more is known about the risks.

“CAR T for all is not the answer. I think we have to be careful in picking CAR T patients; it’s not a zero-sum game here,” he said, stressing that “there are too many unknowns with the use of early CAR T therapy.”

“It makes sense in some, but not for everyone,” he said, emphasizing the importance of including patients in the discussion.

“The great thing is we have all these options for our patients,” he said.

Dr. Usmani persuaded at least a few colleagues: The final vote showed 42% of 124 voters supported early CAR T, compared with 52% who supported CAR T after three or more lines of therapy and 6% who remained undecided.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

The University of Virginia (UVA) is defending the CEO of its health system and its medical school dean in the wake of a very public call for their removal.

At least 128 members of the University of Virginia faculty who are employed by both the medical school and the UVA Physicians Group wrote to the UVA Board of Visitors and its peer-elected faculty leaders, expressing no confidence in K. Craig Kent, MD, CEO of UVA Health and executive vice president for health affairs, and Melina Kibbe, MD, dean of the medical school and chief health affairs officer.

Dr. Kibbe, a vascular surgeon and researcher, is also the editor in chief of JAMA Surgery.

“We call for the immediate removal of Craig Kent and Melina Kibbe,” wrote the physicians.

The letter alleged that patient safety was compromised because doctors, nurses, and other staff were pressured to abstain from reporting safety concerns and that physicians had been hired “despite concerns regarding integrity and quality.” Those who raised safety concerns faced “explicit and implicit threats and retaliation,” including delays and denials of promotion and tenure, said the letter.

The September 5 letter did not include signatures. The authors said that names were being protected, but that they would share the names with a limited audience.

UVA President Jim Ryan took issue with the notion that the signees were anonymous. He said in his own letter to medical school faculty that some of the accusations were about matters that had already been addressed or that were being worked on. As far as allegations that he was not previously aware of, “we will do our best to investigate,” he said.

The faculty who signed the letter “have besmirched the reputations of not just Melina and Craig,” wrote Mr. Ryan. “They have unfairly — and I trust unwittingly — cast a shadow over the great work of the entire health system and medical school.”

The authors claimed that reports about bullying and harassment of trainees had been “suppressed, minimized, and subsequently altered.”

And they said that spending on leadership was prioritized over addressing clinical and technical staff shortages. Whistleblowers who reported fraud were not protected, and clinicians were pressured to modify patient records to “obfuscate adverse outcomes and boost productivity metrics,” they wrote.

The 128 members of the UVA Physicians Group who signed the letter represent about 10% of the 1400 medical school faculty members.

It is not the first time that Dr. Kent has been given a vote of no confidence. In 2017, when he was the dean of the College of Medicine at the Ohio State University, Dr. Kent was accused in a “no confidence” letter from 25 physicians and faculty of helping to undermine the school’s mission and taking actions that led to resignations and early retirements of many staff, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

William G. Crutchfield Jr., a member of the UVA Health System Board, defended Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe in a lengthy statement shared with this news organization. He said that UVA Health’s four hospitals had received “A” ratings for safety, and that the system has a 5.1% turnover rate compared with a national average of 8.3%.

Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe have recruited faculty from top academic medical centers, Mr. Crutchfield wrote.

“If our work environment were so toxic, these people would not have joined our faculty,” he wrote.

Mr. Crutchfield credited Dr. Kent and Dr. Kibbe with crafting a new 10-year strategic plan and for hiring a chief strategy officer to lead the plan — a move that replaced “expensive outside consultants.”

Mr. Ryan said in his letter that his inbox “is overflowing with testimonials from some of the 1200-plus faculty who did not sign the letter, who attest that the health system today — under Melina and Craig’s leadership — is in the best shape it has ever been in, and that they have addressed changes that have needed to be made for more than two decades.”

A request to see some of these positive testimonials was not answered by press time.

Mr. Crutchfield, like Mr. Ryan, said that the letter writers were doing more harm than good.

“If a small cabal of people hiding behind anonymity can force outstanding leaders out of UVA, it will make it extremely difficult to recruit outstanding new physicians, nurses, technicians, and administrators,” he wrote.

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

TOPLINE:

MADRID — Elevated interleukin (IL) 6 levels are associated with an increased risk for obesity-related cancers in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D), potentially enabling the identification of higher-risk individuals through a simple blood test.

METHODOLOGY:

• T2D is associated with an increased risk for obesity-related cancers, including breast, renal, uterine, thyroid, ovarian, and gastrointestinal cancers, as well as multiple myeloma, possibly because of chronic low-grade inflammation.
• Researchers explored whether the markers of inflammation IL-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) can serve as predictive biomarkers for obesity-related cancers in patients recently diagnosed with T2D.
• They identified patients with recent-onset T2D and no prior history of cancer participating in the ongoing Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes cohort study.
• At study initiation, plasma levels of IL-6 and TNF-alpha were measured using Meso Scale Discovery assays, and serum levels of hsCRP were measured using immunofluorometric assays.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 6,466 eligible patients (40.5% women; median age, 60.9 years), 327 developed obesity-related cancers over a median follow-up of 8.8 years.
• Each SD increase in log-transformed IL-6 levels increased the risk for obesity-related cancers by 19%.
• The researchers did not find a strong association between TNF-alpha or hsCRP and obesity-related cancers.
• The addition of baseline IL-6 levels to other well-known risk factors for obesity-related cancers improved the performance of a cancer prediction model from 0.685 to 0.693, translating to a small but important increase in the ability to predict whether an individual would develop one of these cancers.

IN PRACTICE:

“In future, a simple blood test could identify those at higher risk of the cancers,” said the study’s lead author in an accompanying press release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mathilde D. Bennetsen, Steno Diabetes Center Odense, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and published online on August 27 as an early release from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed in this abstract. However, the reliance on registry data may have introduced potential biases related to data accuracy and completeness.

DISCLOSURES:

The Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes was supported by grants from the Danish Agency for Science and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

MADRID — Elevated interleukin (IL) 6 levels are associated with an increased risk for obesity-related cancers in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D), potentially enabling the identification of higher-risk individuals through a simple blood test.

METHODOLOGY:

• T2D is associated with an increased risk for obesity-related cancers, including breast, renal, uterine, thyroid, ovarian, and gastrointestinal cancers, as well as multiple myeloma, possibly because of chronic low-grade inflammation.
• Researchers explored whether the markers of inflammation IL-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) can serve as predictive biomarkers for obesity-related cancers in patients recently diagnosed with T2D.
• They identified patients with recent-onset T2D and no prior history of cancer participating in the ongoing Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes cohort study.
• At study initiation, plasma levels of IL-6 and TNF-alpha were measured using Meso Scale Discovery assays, and serum levels of hsCRP were measured using immunofluorometric assays.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 6,466 eligible patients (40.5% women; median age, 60.9 years), 327 developed obesity-related cancers over a median follow-up of 8.8 years.
• Each SD increase in log-transformed IL-6 levels increased the risk for obesity-related cancers by 19%.
• The researchers did not find a strong association between TNF-alpha or hsCRP and obesity-related cancers.
• The addition of baseline IL-6 levels to other well-known risk factors for obesity-related cancers improved the performance of a cancer prediction model from 0.685 to 0.693, translating to a small but important increase in the ability to predict whether an individual would develop one of these cancers.

IN PRACTICE:

“In future, a simple blood test could identify those at higher risk of the cancers,” said the study’s lead author in an accompanying press release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mathilde D. Bennetsen, Steno Diabetes Center Odense, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and published online on August 27 as an early release from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed in this abstract. However, the reliance on registry data may have introduced potential biases related to data accuracy and completeness.

DISCLOSURES:

The Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes was supported by grants from the Danish Agency for Science and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

MADRID — Elevated interleukin (IL) 6 levels are associated with an increased risk for obesity-related cancers in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D), potentially enabling the identification of higher-risk individuals through a simple blood test.

METHODOLOGY:

• T2D is associated with an increased risk for obesity-related cancers, including breast, renal, uterine, thyroid, ovarian, and gastrointestinal cancers, as well as multiple myeloma, possibly because of chronic low-grade inflammation.
• Researchers explored whether the markers of inflammation IL-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) can serve as predictive biomarkers for obesity-related cancers in patients recently diagnosed with T2D.
• They identified patients with recent-onset T2D and no prior history of cancer participating in the ongoing Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes cohort study.
• At study initiation, plasma levels of IL-6 and TNF-alpha were measured using Meso Scale Discovery assays, and serum levels of hsCRP were measured using immunofluorometric assays.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 6,466 eligible patients (40.5% women; median age, 60.9 years), 327 developed obesity-related cancers over a median follow-up of 8.8 years.
• Each SD increase in log-transformed IL-6 levels increased the risk for obesity-related cancers by 19%.
• The researchers did not find a strong association between TNF-alpha or hsCRP and obesity-related cancers.
• The addition of baseline IL-6 levels to other well-known risk factors for obesity-related cancers improved the performance of a cancer prediction model from 0.685 to 0.693, translating to a small but important increase in the ability to predict whether an individual would develop one of these cancers.

IN PRACTICE:

“In future, a simple blood test could identify those at higher risk of the cancers,” said the study’s lead author in an accompanying press release.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Mathilde D. Bennetsen, Steno Diabetes Center Odense, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, and published online on August 27 as an early release from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed in this abstract. However, the reliance on registry data may have introduced potential biases related to data accuracy and completeness.

DISCLOSURES:

The Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes was supported by grants from the Danish Agency for Science and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). But should patients take a break from them?

At the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology, two hematologist-oncologists — Inhye Ahn, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, and Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University in Columbus — faced off in a debate. Ahn said the drugs can indeed be discontinued, while Rogers argued against stopping the medications.

“When I talk to my own patient about standard of care options in CLL, I use the analogy of a marathon and a sprint,” Dr. Ahn said. A marathon refers to continuous treatment with Bruton’s kinase inhibitors given daily for years, while the sprint refers to the combination of venetoclax with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody given over 12 cycles for the frontline regimen and 2 years for refractory CLL.

“I tell them these are both considered very efficacious regimens and well tolerated, one is by IV [the venetoclax regimen] and the other isn’t [Bruton’s kinase inhibitors], and they have different toxicity profile. I ask them what would you do? The most common question that I get from my patient is, ‘why would anyone do a marathon?’ ”

It’s not solely the length of treatment that’s important, Dr. Ahn said, as toxicities from the long-term use of Bruton’s kinase inhibitors build up over time and can lead to hypertension, arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death.

In addition, she said, infections can occur, as well as hampered vaccine response, an important risk in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. The cost of the drugs is high and adds up over time, and continuous use can boost resistance.

Is there a way to turn the marathon of Bruton’s kinase inhibitor use into a sprint without hurting patients? The answer is yes, through temporary discontinuation, Dr. Ahn said, although she cautioned that early cessation could lead to disease flare. “We dipped into our own database of 84 CLL patients treated with ibrutinib, and our conclusion was that temporary dose interruption or dose reduction did not impact progression-free survival”

Moving forward, she said, “more research is needed to define the optimal regimen that would lead to treatment cessation, the optimal patient population, who would benefit most from the cessation strategy, treatment duration, and how we define success.” For her part, Dr. Rogers argued that the continuous use of Bruton’s kinase inhibitors is “really the most effective treatment we have in CLL.”

It’s clear that “responses deepen with continued treatment,” Dr. Rogers said, noting that remission times grow over years of treatment. She highlighted a 2022 study of patients with CLL who took ibrutinib that found complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery was 7% at 12 months and 34% at 7 years. When patients quit taking the drugs, “you don’t get to maximize your patient’s response to this treatment.”

Dr. Rogers also noted that the RESONATE-2 trial found that ibrutinib is linked to the longest median progression-free survival of any CLL treatment at 8.9 years. “That really struck me a very effective initial therapy.”

Indeed, “when you’re offering someone initial therapy with a Bruton’s kinase inhibitor as a continuous treatment strategy, you can tell people that they can expect a normal lifespan with this approach. That’s extremely important when you’re talking to patients about whether they might want to alter their leukemia treatment.”

Finally, she noted that discontinuation of ibrutinib was linked to shorter survival in early research. “This was the first suggestion that discontinuation is not good.”

Dr. Rogers said that discontinuing the drugs is sometimes necessary because of adverse events, but patients can “certainly switch to a more tolerable Bruton’s kinase inhibitor. With the options available today, that should be a strategy that’s considered.”

Audience members at the debate were invited to respond to a live online survey about whether Bruton’s kinase inhibitors can be discontinued. Among 49 respondents, most (52.3%) said no, 42.8% said yes, and the rest were undecided/other.

Disclosures for the speakers were not provided. Dr. Ahn disclosed consulting for BeiGene and AstraZeneca. Dr. Rogers disclosed receiving research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Janssen, and Novartis; consulting for AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Genentech, and LOXO@Lilly; and receiving travel funding from AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). But should patients take a break from them?

At the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology, two hematologist-oncologists — Inhye Ahn, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, and Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University in Columbus — faced off in a debate. Ahn said the drugs can indeed be discontinued, while Rogers argued against stopping the medications.

“When I talk to my own patient about standard of care options in CLL, I use the analogy of a marathon and a sprint,” Dr. Ahn said. A marathon refers to continuous treatment with Bruton’s kinase inhibitors given daily for years, while the sprint refers to the combination of venetoclax with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody given over 12 cycles for the frontline regimen and 2 years for refractory CLL.

“I tell them these are both considered very efficacious regimens and well tolerated, one is by IV [the venetoclax regimen] and the other isn’t [Bruton’s kinase inhibitors], and they have different toxicity profile. I ask them what would you do? The most common question that I get from my patient is, ‘why would anyone do a marathon?’ ”

It’s not solely the length of treatment that’s important, Dr. Ahn said, as toxicities from the long-term use of Bruton’s kinase inhibitors build up over time and can lead to hypertension, arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death.

In addition, she said, infections can occur, as well as hampered vaccine response, an important risk in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. The cost of the drugs is high and adds up over time, and continuous use can boost resistance.

Is there a way to turn the marathon of Bruton’s kinase inhibitor use into a sprint without hurting patients? The answer is yes, through temporary discontinuation, Dr. Ahn said, although she cautioned that early cessation could lead to disease flare. “We dipped into our own database of 84 CLL patients treated with ibrutinib, and our conclusion was that temporary dose interruption or dose reduction did not impact progression-free survival”

Moving forward, she said, “more research is needed to define the optimal regimen that would lead to treatment cessation, the optimal patient population, who would benefit most from the cessation strategy, treatment duration, and how we define success.” For her part, Dr. Rogers argued that the continuous use of Bruton’s kinase inhibitors is “really the most effective treatment we have in CLL.”

It’s clear that “responses deepen with continued treatment,” Dr. Rogers said, noting that remission times grow over years of treatment. She highlighted a 2022 study of patients with CLL who took ibrutinib that found complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery was 7% at 12 months and 34% at 7 years. When patients quit taking the drugs, “you don’t get to maximize your patient’s response to this treatment.”

Dr. Rogers also noted that the RESONATE-2 trial found that ibrutinib is linked to the longest median progression-free survival of any CLL treatment at 8.9 years. “That really struck me a very effective initial therapy.”

Indeed, “when you’re offering someone initial therapy with a Bruton’s kinase inhibitor as a continuous treatment strategy, you can tell people that they can expect a normal lifespan with this approach. That’s extremely important when you’re talking to patients about whether they might want to alter their leukemia treatment.”

Finally, she noted that discontinuation of ibrutinib was linked to shorter survival in early research. “This was the first suggestion that discontinuation is not good.”

Dr. Rogers said that discontinuing the drugs is sometimes necessary because of adverse events, but patients can “certainly switch to a more tolerable Bruton’s kinase inhibitor. With the options available today, that should be a strategy that’s considered.”

Audience members at the debate were invited to respond to a live online survey about whether Bruton’s kinase inhibitors can be discontinued. Among 49 respondents, most (52.3%) said no, 42.8% said yes, and the rest were undecided/other.

Disclosures for the speakers were not provided. Dr. Ahn disclosed consulting for BeiGene and AstraZeneca. Dr. Rogers disclosed receiving research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Janssen, and Novartis; consulting for AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Genentech, and LOXO@Lilly; and receiving travel funding from AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). But should patients take a break from them?

At the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology, two hematologist-oncologists — Inhye Ahn, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, and Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University in Columbus — faced off in a debate. Ahn said the drugs can indeed be discontinued, while Rogers argued against stopping the medications.

“When I talk to my own patient about standard of care options in CLL, I use the analogy of a marathon and a sprint,” Dr. Ahn said. A marathon refers to continuous treatment with Bruton’s kinase inhibitors given daily for years, while the sprint refers to the combination of venetoclax with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody given over 12 cycles for the frontline regimen and 2 years for refractory CLL.

“I tell them these are both considered very efficacious regimens and well tolerated, one is by IV [the venetoclax regimen] and the other isn’t [Bruton’s kinase inhibitors], and they have different toxicity profile. I ask them what would you do? The most common question that I get from my patient is, ‘why would anyone do a marathon?’ ”

It’s not solely the length of treatment that’s important, Dr. Ahn said, as toxicities from the long-term use of Bruton’s kinase inhibitors build up over time and can lead to hypertension, arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death.

In addition, she said, infections can occur, as well as hampered vaccine response, an important risk in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. The cost of the drugs is high and adds up over time, and continuous use can boost resistance.

Is there a way to turn the marathon of Bruton’s kinase inhibitor use into a sprint without hurting patients? The answer is yes, through temporary discontinuation, Dr. Ahn said, although she cautioned that early cessation could lead to disease flare. “We dipped into our own database of 84 CLL patients treated with ibrutinib, and our conclusion was that temporary dose interruption or dose reduction did not impact progression-free survival”

Moving forward, she said, “more research is needed to define the optimal regimen that would lead to treatment cessation, the optimal patient population, who would benefit most from the cessation strategy, treatment duration, and how we define success.” For her part, Dr. Rogers argued that the continuous use of Bruton’s kinase inhibitors is “really the most effective treatment we have in CLL.”

It’s clear that “responses deepen with continued treatment,” Dr. Rogers said, noting that remission times grow over years of treatment. She highlighted a 2022 study of patients with CLL who took ibrutinib that found complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery was 7% at 12 months and 34% at 7 years. When patients quit taking the drugs, “you don’t get to maximize your patient’s response to this treatment.”

Dr. Rogers also noted that the RESONATE-2 trial found that ibrutinib is linked to the longest median progression-free survival of any CLL treatment at 8.9 years. “That really struck me a very effective initial therapy.”

Indeed, “when you’re offering someone initial therapy with a Bruton’s kinase inhibitor as a continuous treatment strategy, you can tell people that they can expect a normal lifespan with this approach. That’s extremely important when you’re talking to patients about whether they might want to alter their leukemia treatment.”

Finally, she noted that discontinuation of ibrutinib was linked to shorter survival in early research. “This was the first suggestion that discontinuation is not good.”

Dr. Rogers said that discontinuing the drugs is sometimes necessary because of adverse events, but patients can “certainly switch to a more tolerable Bruton’s kinase inhibitor. With the options available today, that should be a strategy that’s considered.”

Audience members at the debate were invited to respond to a live online survey about whether Bruton’s kinase inhibitors can be discontinued. Among 49 respondents, most (52.3%) said no, 42.8% said yes, and the rest were undecided/other.

Disclosures for the speakers were not provided. Dr. Ahn disclosed consulting for BeiGene and AstraZeneca. Dr. Rogers disclosed receiving research funding from Genentech, AbbVie, Janssen, and Novartis; consulting for AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Genentech, and LOXO@Lilly; and receiving travel funding from AstraZeneca.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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

With huge shifts over the past decade in the way doctors are employed — half of all doctors now work for a health system or large medical group — the idea of unionizing is not only being explored but gaining traction within the profession. In fact, 8% of the physician workforce (or 70,000 physicians) belong to a union, according to statistics gathered in 2022.

Exact numbers are hard to come by, and, interestingly, although the American Medical Association (AMA) “ supports the right of physicians to engage in collective bargaining,” the organization doesn’t track union membership among physicians, according to an AMA spokesperson. 
 

Forming a Union

One challenge is that forming a union is not only time-consuming but also difficult, owing to several barriers. For starters, the laws dictating unionization differ by state, and the rules governing unionization vary if a hospital is public or private. If there’s enough momentum from doctors leading unionization efforts, approval from hospital leaders is required before an official election can be requested from the National Labor Relations Board.

That said, for doctors who are in a union — the two most popular are the Union of American Physicians and Dentists and the Doctors Council branch of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—the benefits are immense, especially because union members can focus on what matters, such as providing the best patient care possible.

For a profession that historically has not been unionized, this year alone, nine medical residency programs at hospitals such as Stanford Health, Montefiore Medical Center, and the University of Pennsylvania, formed unions, reported WBUR in Boston.
 

Belonging Matters 

“When you build a relationship with your patients, it’s special, and that connection isn’t replaceable,” said Nicholas VenOsdel, MD, a pediatrician at Allina Health Primary Care in Hastings, Minnesota, and a union member of the Doctors Council. “However, a lot of us have felt like that hasn’t been respected as the climate of healthcare has changed so fast.”

In fact, autonomy over how much time doctors spend with patients is driving a lot of interest in unionization.

“We don’t necessarily have that autonomy now,” said Amber Higgins, MD, an emergency physician and an obstetrician at ChristianaCare, a hospital network in Newark, Delaware, and a member of the Doctors Council. “There are so many other demands, whether it’s billing, patient documentation, or other demands from the employer, and all of that takes time away from patient care.”

Another primary driver of physician unionization is the physician burnout epidemic. Physicians collectively complain that they spend more time on electronic health record documentation and bureaucratic administration. Yet if unions can improve these working conditions, the benefit to physicians and their patients would be a welcome change.

Union members are bullish and believe that having a cohesive voice will make a difference.

“We need to use our collective voices to get back to focusing on patient care instead of staring at a computer screen for 80% of the day,” Dr. Higgins told this news organization. “So much of medicine involves getting to the correct diagnosis, listening to patients, observing them, and building a relationship with them. We need time to build that.”

With corporate consolidation and a profit-driven mandate by healthcare systems, doctors are increasingly frustrated and feel that their voices haven’t been heard enough when it comes to issues like workplace safety, working hours, and benefits, said Stuart Bussey, MD, JD, a family practice physician and president of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in Sacramento, California. 

However, he adds that urging doctors to join together to fight for a better working environment hasn’t been easy.

“Doctors are individualists, and they don’t know how to work in packs like hospital administrators do,” said Dr. Bussey. “They’re hard to organize, but I want them to understand that unless they join hands, sign petitions, and speak as one voice, they’re going to lose out on an amazing opportunity.”
 

Overcoming Misperceptions About Unions

One barrier to doctors getting involved is the sentiment that unions might do the opposite of what’s intended — that is, they might further reduce a doctor’s autonomy and work flexibility. Or there may be a perception that the drive to join a union is predicated on making more money. 

Though he’s now in a union, Dr. VenOsdel, who has been in a hospital-based practice for 7 years, admits that he initially felt very differently about unions than he does today.

“Even though I have family members in healthcare unions, I had a neutral to even slightly negative view of unions,” said Dr. VenOsdel. “It took me working directly with the Minnesota Nurses Association and the Doctors Council to learn the other side of the story.”

Armed with more information, he began lobbying for stricter rules about how his state’s large healthcare systems were closing hospitals and ending much-needed community services.

“I remember standing at the Capitol in Minnesota and telling one of the members that I once felt negatively about unions,” he added. “I realized then that I only knew what employers were telling me via such things as emails about strikes — that information was all being shared from the employers’ perspective.”

The other misperception is that unions only exist to argue against management, including against colleagues who are also part of the management structure, said Dr. Higgins.

“Some doctors perceive being in a union as ‘how can those same leaders also be in a union,’” she said. She feels that they currently don’t have leadership representing them that can help with such things as restructuring their support teams or getting them help with certain tasks. “That’s another way unions can help.” 
 

Social Justice Plays a Role

For Dr. VenOsdel, being part of a union has helped him return to what he calls the “art” of medicine.

“Philosophically, the union gave me an option for change in what felt like a hopeless situation,” he said. “It wasn’t just that I was tossing the keys to someone else and saying, ‘I can’t fix this.’ Instead, we’re taking the reins back and fixing things ourselves.”

Bussey argues that as the uneven balance between administrators and providers in many healthcare organizations grows, the time to consider forming a union is now.

“We’re in a $4 trillion medical industrial revolution,” he said. “Administrators and bureaucrats are multiplying 30-fold times vs providers, and most of that $4 trillion supports things that don’t contribute to the doctor-patient relationship.”

Furthermore, union proponents say that where a one-on-one relationship between doctor and patient once existed, that has now been “triangulated” to include administrators.

“We’ve lost power in every way,” Dr. Bussey said. “We have the degrees, the liability, and the knowledge — we should have more power to make our workplaces safer and better.”

Ultimately, for some unionized doctors, the very holding of a union card is rooted in supporting social justice issues.

“When doctors realize how powerful a tool a union can be for social justice and change, this will alter perceptions of unions within our profession,” Dr. VenOsdel said. “Our union helps give us a voice to stand up for other staff who aren’t unionized and, most importantly, to stand up for the patients who need us.”
 

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