News

More than 3 decades ago, John E. Sarno, MD, published Healing Back Pain, a popular book that garnered something of a cult following. Looking at his own practice, Dr. Sarno, a rehabilitation medicine specialist in New York, saw that most of his patients with chronic pain did not have evidence of acute injury or degenerative disk disease. Their persistent pain appeared to be independent of any structural damage to the spine. Dr. Sarno attributed the pain to what he called tension myoneural syndrome (TMS), or the body’s reaction to suppressed stress and emotional turmoil. Resolving that psychological conflict, Dr. Sarno believed, would lead to an improvement in pain.
 

Dr. Sarno’s theory has met skepticism from the mainstream community, but glowing testimonies from patients who say they benefited from his strategies fill the Internet. Dr. Sarno wrote several books on his ideas before his death in 2017. But he published only one peer-reviewed study, a 2003 review in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation coauthored by Ira Rashbaum, MD.

This news organization spoke recently with Dr. Rashbaum, a physiatrist and chief of tension myoneural syndrome at NYU Langone Health, New York, about TMS and how he manages patients with chronic pain. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What is your theory of back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: My null hypothesis is that back pain is not due to psychological issues, so as to not be a biased doctor, I try to accept the null hypothesis or reject the null hypothesis. In most cases chronic back pain is not due to structural etiology. My sense is it’s a mind-body issue – the avoidance of feeling strong emotions like anger, rage, sadness, fear, shame, and guilt. Patients can embrace psychoeducational programs and if they don’t get better, we work with a psychotherapist or a licensed mental health counselor to help work through the patient’s feelings. That’s my experience over a number of years.

How do you determine if a patient has back pain from a mind-body issue or another cause?

Dr. Rashbaum: I do a very careful medical history, including a physical examination and review of any diagnostic studies they’ve undergone. In most situations, there’s not really a medical cause of the back pain. For instance, a lot of asymptomatic individuals have all sorts of horrible findings on medical imaging like CTs and MRIs, and the reverse is also true – many people with negative findings on imaging tests experience significant pain. My job as a diagnostician is to see how much of this is really a mind-body problem or something that stems from structural pathology.

How well do your patients react to being told that their back pain is, in a way, “in their head?”

Dr. Rashbaum: I have a skewed population. I’m sort of like a guru in mind-body back pain, so the people who come to me are already thinking along those lines. I ask: “What’s going on in your life?” Maybe there are job issues, marital issues, health issues, and I’d say that it’s certainly possible that stress can be causing this back pain.

Sometimes when I see a patient referred from another physician, I’m a bit hesitant to ask about what’s going on in their life. Even earlier today, I’d seen a patient with back pain and I had a sense that they were not really going to be open to a mind-body approach. So I said, do physical therapy.

What do you recommend primary care clinicians do with patients with back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: You have to do a proper neurologic examination and musculoskeletal examination. It’s a tough situation because doctors in primary care have limited time to take care of patients. It’s difficult to have a deeper dive just to kind of see what’s going on in their life. But you can recommend useful agents like acetaminophen and muscle relaxants, which are sometimes okay.

What sorts of things do you tell patients to say to themselves when they’re experiencing pain? 

Dr. Rashbaum: If the pain is severe, I recommend they take medication – over-the-counter analgesics or a muscle relaxant, if they have them – and take a warm shower or bath. I prefer acetaminophen up to three times per day, if that’s okay with the patient’s primary care physician, over NSAIDs because most pain is noninflammatory in nature. Once the pain is more manageable, patients should journal about what’s going on in their lives and/or meditate, and try to feel any strong emotions, such as anger, sadness, or fear.

What do you say to clinicians who are dismissive of the notion that chronic pain may stem from emotional repression, and that addressing the latter can resolve the former – particularly those who point to a lack of peer-reviewed data for such a link?

Dr. Rashbaum: I would tell them they could be looking harder for that evidence. For example, in a patient page from JAMA from April 24, 2013, on low back pain, often the cause of back pain is unknown. There are data in spine surgical journals that patients with psychological issues do worse with spine surgery. And in 2016 JAMA published a study from Cherkin and colleagues, which found that, among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with mindfulness-based stress reduction or cognitive behavioral therapy resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, compared with usual care.

My feeling is that these psychosocial interventions are easy to try, relatively inexpensive, noninvasive, and, in my experience, often can lead to marked improvements. I believe that, for the vast majority of people with chronic pain, it makes much more sense to start by addressing mind-body issues than turning to that approach as a last resort.

Dr. Rashbaum reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 3 decades ago, John E. Sarno, MD, published Healing Back Pain, a popular book that garnered something of a cult following. Looking at his own practice, Dr. Sarno, a rehabilitation medicine specialist in New York, saw that most of his patients with chronic pain did not have evidence of acute injury or degenerative disk disease. Their persistent pain appeared to be independent of any structural damage to the spine. Dr. Sarno attributed the pain to what he called tension myoneural syndrome (TMS), or the body’s reaction to suppressed stress and emotional turmoil. Resolving that psychological conflict, Dr. Sarno believed, would lead to an improvement in pain.
 

Dr. Sarno’s theory has met skepticism from the mainstream community, but glowing testimonies from patients who say they benefited from his strategies fill the Internet. Dr. Sarno wrote several books on his ideas before his death in 2017. But he published only one peer-reviewed study, a 2003 review in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation coauthored by Ira Rashbaum, MD.

This news organization spoke recently with Dr. Rashbaum, a physiatrist and chief of tension myoneural syndrome at NYU Langone Health, New York, about TMS and how he manages patients with chronic pain. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What is your theory of back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: My null hypothesis is that back pain is not due to psychological issues, so as to not be a biased doctor, I try to accept the null hypothesis or reject the null hypothesis. In most cases chronic back pain is not due to structural etiology. My sense is it’s a mind-body issue – the avoidance of feeling strong emotions like anger, rage, sadness, fear, shame, and guilt. Patients can embrace psychoeducational programs and if they don’t get better, we work with a psychotherapist or a licensed mental health counselor to help work through the patient’s feelings. That’s my experience over a number of years.

How do you determine if a patient has back pain from a mind-body issue or another cause?

Dr. Rashbaum: I do a very careful medical history, including a physical examination and review of any diagnostic studies they’ve undergone. In most situations, there’s not really a medical cause of the back pain. For instance, a lot of asymptomatic individuals have all sorts of horrible findings on medical imaging like CTs and MRIs, and the reverse is also true – many people with negative findings on imaging tests experience significant pain. My job as a diagnostician is to see how much of this is really a mind-body problem or something that stems from structural pathology.

How well do your patients react to being told that their back pain is, in a way, “in their head?”

Dr. Rashbaum: I have a skewed population. I’m sort of like a guru in mind-body back pain, so the people who come to me are already thinking along those lines. I ask: “What’s going on in your life?” Maybe there are job issues, marital issues, health issues, and I’d say that it’s certainly possible that stress can be causing this back pain.

Sometimes when I see a patient referred from another physician, I’m a bit hesitant to ask about what’s going on in their life. Even earlier today, I’d seen a patient with back pain and I had a sense that they were not really going to be open to a mind-body approach. So I said, do physical therapy.

What do you recommend primary care clinicians do with patients with back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: You have to do a proper neurologic examination and musculoskeletal examination. It’s a tough situation because doctors in primary care have limited time to take care of patients. It’s difficult to have a deeper dive just to kind of see what’s going on in their life. But you can recommend useful agents like acetaminophen and muscle relaxants, which are sometimes okay.

What sorts of things do you tell patients to say to themselves when they’re experiencing pain? 

Dr. Rashbaum: If the pain is severe, I recommend they take medication – over-the-counter analgesics or a muscle relaxant, if they have them – and take a warm shower or bath. I prefer acetaminophen up to three times per day, if that’s okay with the patient’s primary care physician, over NSAIDs because most pain is noninflammatory in nature. Once the pain is more manageable, patients should journal about what’s going on in their lives and/or meditate, and try to feel any strong emotions, such as anger, sadness, or fear.

What do you say to clinicians who are dismissive of the notion that chronic pain may stem from emotional repression, and that addressing the latter can resolve the former – particularly those who point to a lack of peer-reviewed data for such a link?

Dr. Rashbaum: I would tell them they could be looking harder for that evidence. For example, in a patient page from JAMA from April 24, 2013, on low back pain, often the cause of back pain is unknown. There are data in spine surgical journals that patients with psychological issues do worse with spine surgery. And in 2016 JAMA published a study from Cherkin and colleagues, which found that, among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with mindfulness-based stress reduction or cognitive behavioral therapy resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, compared with usual care.

My feeling is that these psychosocial interventions are easy to try, relatively inexpensive, noninvasive, and, in my experience, often can lead to marked improvements. I believe that, for the vast majority of people with chronic pain, it makes much more sense to start by addressing mind-body issues than turning to that approach as a last resort.

Dr. Rashbaum reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 3 decades ago, John E. Sarno, MD, published Healing Back Pain, a popular book that garnered something of a cult following. Looking at his own practice, Dr. Sarno, a rehabilitation medicine specialist in New York, saw that most of his patients with chronic pain did not have evidence of acute injury or degenerative disk disease. Their persistent pain appeared to be independent of any structural damage to the spine. Dr. Sarno attributed the pain to what he called tension myoneural syndrome (TMS), or the body’s reaction to suppressed stress and emotional turmoil. Resolving that psychological conflict, Dr. Sarno believed, would lead to an improvement in pain.
 

Dr. Sarno’s theory has met skepticism from the mainstream community, but glowing testimonies from patients who say they benefited from his strategies fill the Internet. Dr. Sarno wrote several books on his ideas before his death in 2017. But he published only one peer-reviewed study, a 2003 review in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation coauthored by Ira Rashbaum, MD.

This news organization spoke recently with Dr. Rashbaum, a physiatrist and chief of tension myoneural syndrome at NYU Langone Health, New York, about TMS and how he manages patients with chronic pain. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What is your theory of back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: My null hypothesis is that back pain is not due to psychological issues, so as to not be a biased doctor, I try to accept the null hypothesis or reject the null hypothesis. In most cases chronic back pain is not due to structural etiology. My sense is it’s a mind-body issue – the avoidance of feeling strong emotions like anger, rage, sadness, fear, shame, and guilt. Patients can embrace psychoeducational programs and if they don’t get better, we work with a psychotherapist or a licensed mental health counselor to help work through the patient’s feelings. That’s my experience over a number of years.

How do you determine if a patient has back pain from a mind-body issue or another cause?

Dr. Rashbaum: I do a very careful medical history, including a physical examination and review of any diagnostic studies they’ve undergone. In most situations, there’s not really a medical cause of the back pain. For instance, a lot of asymptomatic individuals have all sorts of horrible findings on medical imaging like CTs and MRIs, and the reverse is also true – many people with negative findings on imaging tests experience significant pain. My job as a diagnostician is to see how much of this is really a mind-body problem or something that stems from structural pathology.

How well do your patients react to being told that their back pain is, in a way, “in their head?”

Dr. Rashbaum: I have a skewed population. I’m sort of like a guru in mind-body back pain, so the people who come to me are already thinking along those lines. I ask: “What’s going on in your life?” Maybe there are job issues, marital issues, health issues, and I’d say that it’s certainly possible that stress can be causing this back pain.

Sometimes when I see a patient referred from another physician, I’m a bit hesitant to ask about what’s going on in their life. Even earlier today, I’d seen a patient with back pain and I had a sense that they were not really going to be open to a mind-body approach. So I said, do physical therapy.

What do you recommend primary care clinicians do with patients with back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: You have to do a proper neurologic examination and musculoskeletal examination. It’s a tough situation because doctors in primary care have limited time to take care of patients. It’s difficult to have a deeper dive just to kind of see what’s going on in their life. But you can recommend useful agents like acetaminophen and muscle relaxants, which are sometimes okay.

What sorts of things do you tell patients to say to themselves when they’re experiencing pain? 

Dr. Rashbaum: If the pain is severe, I recommend they take medication – over-the-counter analgesics or a muscle relaxant, if they have them – and take a warm shower or bath. I prefer acetaminophen up to three times per day, if that’s okay with the patient’s primary care physician, over NSAIDs because most pain is noninflammatory in nature. Once the pain is more manageable, patients should journal about what’s going on in their lives and/or meditate, and try to feel any strong emotions, such as anger, sadness, or fear.

What do you say to clinicians who are dismissive of the notion that chronic pain may stem from emotional repression, and that addressing the latter can resolve the former – particularly those who point to a lack of peer-reviewed data for such a link?

Dr. Rashbaum: I would tell them they could be looking harder for that evidence. For example, in a patient page from JAMA from April 24, 2013, on low back pain, often the cause of back pain is unknown. There are data in spine surgical journals that patients with psychological issues do worse with spine surgery. And in 2016 JAMA published a study from Cherkin and colleagues, which found that, among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with mindfulness-based stress reduction or cognitive behavioral therapy resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, compared with usual care.

My feeling is that these psychosocial interventions are easy to try, relatively inexpensive, noninvasive, and, in my experience, often can lead to marked improvements. I believe that, for the vast majority of people with chronic pain, it makes much more sense to start by addressing mind-body issues than turning to that approach as a last resort.

Dr. Rashbaum reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The newest version of the COVID-19 vaccine will be available by the end of September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The updated vaccine still needs final sign-offs from the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.

“We anticipate that they are going to be available for most folks by the third or fourth week of September,” Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, said on a podcast hosted by former White House COVID adviser Andy Slavitt. “We are likely to see this as a recommendation as an annual COVID shot, just as we have an annual flu shot. I think that will give folks more clarity on whether they should get one or not.”

For people who are considering now whether they should get the currently available COVID vaccine or wait until the new one comes out, Dr. Cohen said that depends on a person’s individual risk. People who are 65 or older or who have multiple health conditions should go ahead and get the currently available shot if it’s been more than 6-8 months since their last dose. For all other people, it’s OK to wait for the new version.

Analysts expect low demand for the updated vaccine. About 240 million people in the United States got at least one dose when vaccines first became available in 2021, Reuters reported, but that number dropped to less than 50 million getting the most updated shot in the fall of 2022.

“Take a look at what happened last winter. It was 50 million in the U.S., and it seems likely to be lower than that, given that there’s less concern about COVID this year than last year,” Michael Yee, a health care industry analyst for the firm Jefferies, told Reuters.

Dr. Cohen noted during the podcast that the recent uptick in virus activity should be taken in context. 

“What we’re seeing right now in August of 2023 are small increases of folks getting COVID. We are still at some of the lowest hospitalizations that we’ve been at in the past 3 years,” she said. “Even a 10% increase on a very, very small number is still very small. My level of concern continues to be low.”

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

The newest version of the COVID-19 vaccine will be available by the end of September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The updated vaccine still needs final sign-offs from the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.

“We anticipate that they are going to be available for most folks by the third or fourth week of September,” Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, said on a podcast hosted by former White House COVID adviser Andy Slavitt. “We are likely to see this as a recommendation as an annual COVID shot, just as we have an annual flu shot. I think that will give folks more clarity on whether they should get one or not.”

For people who are considering now whether they should get the currently available COVID vaccine or wait until the new one comes out, Dr. Cohen said that depends on a person’s individual risk. People who are 65 or older or who have multiple health conditions should go ahead and get the currently available shot if it’s been more than 6-8 months since their last dose. For all other people, it’s OK to wait for the new version.

Analysts expect low demand for the updated vaccine. About 240 million people in the United States got at least one dose when vaccines first became available in 2021, Reuters reported, but that number dropped to less than 50 million getting the most updated shot in the fall of 2022.

“Take a look at what happened last winter. It was 50 million in the U.S., and it seems likely to be lower than that, given that there’s less concern about COVID this year than last year,” Michael Yee, a health care industry analyst for the firm Jefferies, told Reuters.

Dr. Cohen noted during the podcast that the recent uptick in virus activity should be taken in context. 

“What we’re seeing right now in August of 2023 are small increases of folks getting COVID. We are still at some of the lowest hospitalizations that we’ve been at in the past 3 years,” she said. “Even a 10% increase on a very, very small number is still very small. My level of concern continues to be low.”

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

The newest version of the COVID-19 vaccine will be available by the end of September, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The updated vaccine still needs final sign-offs from the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC.

“We anticipate that they are going to be available for most folks by the third or fourth week of September,” Director Mandy Cohen, MD, MPH, said on a podcast hosted by former White House COVID adviser Andy Slavitt. “We are likely to see this as a recommendation as an annual COVID shot, just as we have an annual flu shot. I think that will give folks more clarity on whether they should get one or not.”

For people who are considering now whether they should get the currently available COVID vaccine or wait until the new one comes out, Dr. Cohen said that depends on a person’s individual risk. People who are 65 or older or who have multiple health conditions should go ahead and get the currently available shot if it’s been more than 6-8 months since their last dose. For all other people, it’s OK to wait for the new version.

Analysts expect low demand for the updated vaccine. About 240 million people in the United States got at least one dose when vaccines first became available in 2021, Reuters reported, but that number dropped to less than 50 million getting the most updated shot in the fall of 2022.

“Take a look at what happened last winter. It was 50 million in the U.S., and it seems likely to be lower than that, given that there’s less concern about COVID this year than last year,” Michael Yee, a health care industry analyst for the firm Jefferies, told Reuters.

Dr. Cohen noted during the podcast that the recent uptick in virus activity should be taken in context. 

“What we’re seeing right now in August of 2023 are small increases of folks getting COVID. We are still at some of the lowest hospitalizations that we’ve been at in the past 3 years,” she said. “Even a 10% increase on a very, very small number is still very small. My level of concern continues to be low.”

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com .

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to the off-the-shelf biologic agent elranatamab (Elrexfio) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

The B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CD3-targeted bispecific antibody (BsAb) was given Priority Review in February and had previously received Breakthrough Therapy Designation for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), according to Pfizer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

FDA approval was based on favorable response and duration of response rates in the single-arm, phase 2 MagnetisMM-3 trial. The trial showed meaningful responses in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM who received elranatamab as their first BCMA-directed therapy.

The overall response rate in 97 BCMA-naive patients (cohort A) who previously received at least four lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, was 58%, with an estimated 82% maintaining the response for 9 months or longer. Median time to first response was 1.2 months.

In 63 patients who received at least four prior lines of therapy, which also included a BCMA-directed therapy, the overall response rate was 33% after median follow-up of 10.2 months. An estimated 84% maintained a response for at least 9 months.

Elranatamab was given subcutaneously at a dose of 76 mg weekly on a 28-day cycle with a step-up priming dose regimen. The priming regimen included 12 mg and 32 mg doses on days 1 and 4, respectively, during cycle 1. Patients who received at least six cycles and showed at least a partial response for 2 or more months had a biweekly dosing interval.

Elranatamab carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicity, as well as warnings and precautions for infections, neutropenia, hepatotoxicity, and embryo–fetal toxicity. Therefore, the agent is available only through a restricted Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

The boxed warning is included in the full prescribing information.

A confirmatory trial to gather additional safety and efficacy data was launched in 2022. Continued FDA approval is contingent on confirmed safety and efficacy data.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to the off-the-shelf biologic agent elranatamab (Elrexfio) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

The B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CD3-targeted bispecific antibody (BsAb) was given Priority Review in February and had previously received Breakthrough Therapy Designation for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), according to Pfizer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

FDA approval was based on favorable response and duration of response rates in the single-arm, phase 2 MagnetisMM-3 trial. The trial showed meaningful responses in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM who received elranatamab as their first BCMA-directed therapy.

The overall response rate in 97 BCMA-naive patients (cohort A) who previously received at least four lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, was 58%, with an estimated 82% maintaining the response for 9 months or longer. Median time to first response was 1.2 months.

In 63 patients who received at least four prior lines of therapy, which also included a BCMA-directed therapy, the overall response rate was 33% after median follow-up of 10.2 months. An estimated 84% maintained a response for at least 9 months.

Elranatamab was given subcutaneously at a dose of 76 mg weekly on a 28-day cycle with a step-up priming dose regimen. The priming regimen included 12 mg and 32 mg doses on days 1 and 4, respectively, during cycle 1. Patients who received at least six cycles and showed at least a partial response for 2 or more months had a biweekly dosing interval.

Elranatamab carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicity, as well as warnings and precautions for infections, neutropenia, hepatotoxicity, and embryo–fetal toxicity. Therefore, the agent is available only through a restricted Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

The boxed warning is included in the full prescribing information.

A confirmatory trial to gather additional safety and efficacy data was launched in 2022. Continued FDA approval is contingent on confirmed safety and efficacy data.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to the off-the-shelf biologic agent elranatamab (Elrexfio) for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

The B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CD3-targeted bispecific antibody (BsAb) was given Priority Review in February and had previously received Breakthrough Therapy Designation for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), according to Pfizer.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

FDA approval was based on favorable response and duration of response rates in the single-arm, phase 2 MagnetisMM-3 trial. The trial showed meaningful responses in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM who received elranatamab as their first BCMA-directed therapy.

The overall response rate in 97 BCMA-naive patients (cohort A) who previously received at least four lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, was 58%, with an estimated 82% maintaining the response for 9 months or longer. Median time to first response was 1.2 months.

In 63 patients who received at least four prior lines of therapy, which also included a BCMA-directed therapy, the overall response rate was 33% after median follow-up of 10.2 months. An estimated 84% maintained a response for at least 9 months.

Elranatamab was given subcutaneously at a dose of 76 mg weekly on a 28-day cycle with a step-up priming dose regimen. The priming regimen included 12 mg and 32 mg doses on days 1 and 4, respectively, during cycle 1. Patients who received at least six cycles and showed at least a partial response for 2 or more months had a biweekly dosing interval.

Elranatamab carries a boxed warning for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicity, as well as warnings and precautions for infections, neutropenia, hepatotoxicity, and embryo–fetal toxicity. Therefore, the agent is available only through a restricted Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

The boxed warning is included in the full prescribing information.

A confirmatory trial to gather additional safety and efficacy data was launched in 2022. Continued FDA approval is contingent on confirmed safety and efficacy data.

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

Primary care practitioners have an important role to play in helping to diagnose people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) much sooner than is currently being achieved, according to several experts who are championing the need for the earlier diagnosis of the condition.

AxSpA is an inflammatory condition of the spine and joints that often goes undiagnosed for many years. Worldwide, the average time to diagnosis was found to be up to 6 years in a recent systematic review. But patient advocacy groups in both the United Kingdom and United States say that the delay can be much longer, possibly up to 10 years or more.
 

Being aware is key

“We know people get significant pain and functional difficulties if it’s not picked up early, and that impacts on patients financially,” said Toby Wallace, MBChB, a general practitioner based at the Derwent Practice in Malton, North Yorkshire, England, and one of 12 Champions in Primary Care for the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society in the United Kingdom.

Being aware of the condition is vital to improving the time to patients getting diagnosed and treated, Dr. Wallace said in an interview. The quicker patients can be identified and referred onward on to a specialist rheumatology colleague means the sooner they will receive the appropriate care.
 

Chronic back pain

One of the key symptoms of axSpA is back pain, said Dr. Wallace. Back pain is an “extremely common” symptom seen in primary care – an estimated 60% or more of adults will have a back problem in their lifetime – but with axSpA, “it’s more about it being a persistent pain that is not going away.”

Fellow NASS Primary Care Champion and advanced practice physiotherapist Sam Bhide, MSc, calls them the “frequent flyers.”

As a first-contact practitioner, much of her practice consists of seeing people presenting with back pain, many of whom may have already been seen by other professionals but diagnosed with mechanical back pain.

“These patients return due to lack of improvement in their ongoing back pain symptoms,” Ms. Bhide noted. But how do you know if it is axSpA causing the pain?

“Normally, we would look for people who have had back pain for more than 3 months, or that gradually progresses on and off over weeks, months, or years, and their symptoms ease but do not resolve completely,” she said.
 

Eased by exercise and medication

“Essentially we are looking for people with inflammatory back pain,” Ms. Bhide explains.

The pain is often eased with anti-inflammatory medication and with exercise, “which is why these people get missed because they are managing their symptoms with exercises and their anti-inflammatories,” she said.
 

Sleep disturbance and morning stiffness

Sleep disturbance and feeling stiff in the spine for at least 30 minutes upon waking in the morning are other big indicators that chronic back pain may be due to axSpA, Dr. Wallace said.

“Waking in the early hours of the morning with pain or stiffness and having to get up and move around is fairly usual.”

Signs and symptoms

• Age < 45 years.

• Chronic back pain (3+ months).
• Morning stiffness (> 30 minutes).
• Improvement with exercise, not rest.
• Responds to anti-inflammatory medications.
• Night awakenings due to pain.
• Alternating buttock pain.
• Enthesitis and tendonitis.
• Swollen fingers or toes (dactylitis).

Aged under 45 years

AxSpA typically occurs in younger people, but it can be diagnosed at a later age, said Raj Sengupta, MBBS, a consultant rheumatologist and clinical lead for axSpA at the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases in Bath, England.

“In someone who’s under the age of 45, if they’ve had more than 3 months of back pain, then you should be thinking about axial spondyloarthritis already,” he said.

“The proviso is that in someone who’s older, actually asking them when their back pain started is relevant, because that person may have had symptoms that started at age 20, but for whatever reason, they didn’t seek help,” said Dr. Sengupta. “They could still have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis.”
 

Women can be affected as much as men

Importantly, it appears that women can be just as affected as men, particularly in the early stages of the disease, said Dr. Sengupta.

“In the old days, people just thought of it as a ‘men-only’ disease, but what we’ve learned is that the earlier stage of the disease, the prevalence is much more 50:50,” he said.

“The sad part is that over the years women have been really underdiagnosed because of this false message that has gone about, saying women can’t get it. So, sadly, you see greater delays in diagnosis in women because of that.”
 

Other symptoms and associated conditions

In people with early axSpA, “pain tends to be over the sacroiliac joints, which is over the buttocks, so it’s often confused with sciatica,” explains Dr. Sengupta. Alternating buttock pain is something to take note of, as is tendonitis and enthesitis. The latter is inflammation where the tendons or ligaments are inserted into bone, so it means that people may have problems such as Achilles heel, tennis elbow, or even musculoskeletal chest pain. Dactylitis – swollen fingers or toes – is another sign seen in some people with axSpA.

Associated conditions (including family history)

• Psoriasis.
• Inflammatory bowel disease.
• Eye inflammation (uveitis or iritis).

“Family history is also really important,” although not essential, Dr. Sengupta said. And not only if there is axSpA in the family, but also if there are other conditions such as psoriasis or inflammatory bowel disease. Another commonly associated condition is eye inflammation, which can be uveitis or iritis.
 

What about tests and tools?

Testing for HLA-B27 – which has a known association with axSpA – and measuring blood levels of C-reactive protein may be helpful, but “even if they are normal, that shouldn’t be reassuring you that this can’t be ankylosing spondylitis [in a patient with a] strong inflammatory back pain story.”

Ordering an MRI scan may be possible within primary care, depending on where you are in the world, but the results do need to be interpreted with expert eyes, Dr. Sengupta advises.

There are online tools available to help with the diagnosis of axSpA, Dr. Sengupta said, such as the Spondyloarthritis Diagnosis Evaluation Tool (SPADE). Efforts are also underway to create online systems that help to flag symptoms in general practice.
 

Tests and tools

• HLA-B27 association.
• Elevated C-reactive protein.
• Sacroiliitis on MRI.
• SPADE tool.

The bottom line is that many more patients could potentially be identified earlier in primary care by careful assessment of the clinical symptoms and asking about the family history and associated conditions.

At its simplest, if you see “someone under the age of 45, if they’ve had 3 months of back pain, and they keep on coming back to say, ‘My back’s really bad,’ think about axial spondyloarthritis,” said Dr. Sengupta.

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

Primary care practitioners have an important role to play in helping to diagnose people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) much sooner than is currently being achieved, according to several experts who are championing the need for the earlier diagnosis of the condition.

AxSpA is an inflammatory condition of the spine and joints that often goes undiagnosed for many years. Worldwide, the average time to diagnosis was found to be up to 6 years in a recent systematic review. But patient advocacy groups in both the United Kingdom and United States say that the delay can be much longer, possibly up to 10 years or more.
 

Being aware is key

“We know people get significant pain and functional difficulties if it’s not picked up early, and that impacts on patients financially,” said Toby Wallace, MBChB, a general practitioner based at the Derwent Practice in Malton, North Yorkshire, England, and one of 12 Champions in Primary Care for the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society in the United Kingdom.

Being aware of the condition is vital to improving the time to patients getting diagnosed and treated, Dr. Wallace said in an interview. The quicker patients can be identified and referred onward on to a specialist rheumatology colleague means the sooner they will receive the appropriate care.
 

Chronic back pain

One of the key symptoms of axSpA is back pain, said Dr. Wallace. Back pain is an “extremely common” symptom seen in primary care – an estimated 60% or more of adults will have a back problem in their lifetime – but with axSpA, “it’s more about it being a persistent pain that is not going away.”

Fellow NASS Primary Care Champion and advanced practice physiotherapist Sam Bhide, MSc, calls them the “frequent flyers.”

As a first-contact practitioner, much of her practice consists of seeing people presenting with back pain, many of whom may have already been seen by other professionals but diagnosed with mechanical back pain.

“These patients return due to lack of improvement in their ongoing back pain symptoms,” Ms. Bhide noted. But how do you know if it is axSpA causing the pain?

“Normally, we would look for people who have had back pain for more than 3 months, or that gradually progresses on and off over weeks, months, or years, and their symptoms ease but do not resolve completely,” she said.
 

Eased by exercise and medication

“Essentially we are looking for people with inflammatory back pain,” Ms. Bhide explains.

The pain is often eased with anti-inflammatory medication and with exercise, “which is why these people get missed because they are managing their symptoms with exercises and their anti-inflammatories,” she said.
 

Sleep disturbance and morning stiffness

Sleep disturbance and feeling stiff in the spine for at least 30 minutes upon waking in the morning are other big indicators that chronic back pain may be due to axSpA, Dr. Wallace said.

“Waking in the early hours of the morning with pain or stiffness and having to get up and move around is fairly usual.”

Signs and symptoms

• Age < 45 years.

• Chronic back pain (3+ months).
• Morning stiffness (> 30 minutes).
• Improvement with exercise, not rest.
• Responds to anti-inflammatory medications.
• Night awakenings due to pain.
• Alternating buttock pain.
• Enthesitis and tendonitis.
• Swollen fingers or toes (dactylitis).

Aged under 45 years

AxSpA typically occurs in younger people, but it can be diagnosed at a later age, said Raj Sengupta, MBBS, a consultant rheumatologist and clinical lead for axSpA at the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases in Bath, England.

“In someone who’s under the age of 45, if they’ve had more than 3 months of back pain, then you should be thinking about axial spondyloarthritis already,” he said.

“The proviso is that in someone who’s older, actually asking them when their back pain started is relevant, because that person may have had symptoms that started at age 20, but for whatever reason, they didn’t seek help,” said Dr. Sengupta. “They could still have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis.”
 

Women can be affected as much as men

Importantly, it appears that women can be just as affected as men, particularly in the early stages of the disease, said Dr. Sengupta.

“In the old days, people just thought of it as a ‘men-only’ disease, but what we’ve learned is that the earlier stage of the disease, the prevalence is much more 50:50,” he said.

“The sad part is that over the years women have been really underdiagnosed because of this false message that has gone about, saying women can’t get it. So, sadly, you see greater delays in diagnosis in women because of that.”
 

Other symptoms and associated conditions

In people with early axSpA, “pain tends to be over the sacroiliac joints, which is over the buttocks, so it’s often confused with sciatica,” explains Dr. Sengupta. Alternating buttock pain is something to take note of, as is tendonitis and enthesitis. The latter is inflammation where the tendons or ligaments are inserted into bone, so it means that people may have problems such as Achilles heel, tennis elbow, or even musculoskeletal chest pain. Dactylitis – swollen fingers or toes – is another sign seen in some people with axSpA.

Associated conditions (including family history)

• Psoriasis.
• Inflammatory bowel disease.
• Eye inflammation (uveitis or iritis).

“Family history is also really important,” although not essential, Dr. Sengupta said. And not only if there is axSpA in the family, but also if there are other conditions such as psoriasis or inflammatory bowel disease. Another commonly associated condition is eye inflammation, which can be uveitis or iritis.
 

What about tests and tools?

Testing for HLA-B27 – which has a known association with axSpA – and measuring blood levels of C-reactive protein may be helpful, but “even if they are normal, that shouldn’t be reassuring you that this can’t be ankylosing spondylitis [in a patient with a] strong inflammatory back pain story.”

Ordering an MRI scan may be possible within primary care, depending on where you are in the world, but the results do need to be interpreted with expert eyes, Dr. Sengupta advises.

There are online tools available to help with the diagnosis of axSpA, Dr. Sengupta said, such as the Spondyloarthritis Diagnosis Evaluation Tool (SPADE). Efforts are also underway to create online systems that help to flag symptoms in general practice.
 

Tests and tools

• HLA-B27 association.
• Elevated C-reactive protein.
• Sacroiliitis on MRI.
• SPADE tool.

The bottom line is that many more patients could potentially be identified earlier in primary care by careful assessment of the clinical symptoms and asking about the family history and associated conditions.

At its simplest, if you see “someone under the age of 45, if they’ve had 3 months of back pain, and they keep on coming back to say, ‘My back’s really bad,’ think about axial spondyloarthritis,” said Dr. Sengupta.

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

Primary care practitioners have an important role to play in helping to diagnose people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) much sooner than is currently being achieved, according to several experts who are championing the need for the earlier diagnosis of the condition.

AxSpA is an inflammatory condition of the spine and joints that often goes undiagnosed for many years. Worldwide, the average time to diagnosis was found to be up to 6 years in a recent systematic review. But patient advocacy groups in both the United Kingdom and United States say that the delay can be much longer, possibly up to 10 years or more.
 

Being aware is key

“We know people get significant pain and functional difficulties if it’s not picked up early, and that impacts on patients financially,” said Toby Wallace, MBChB, a general practitioner based at the Derwent Practice in Malton, North Yorkshire, England, and one of 12 Champions in Primary Care for the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society in the United Kingdom.

Being aware of the condition is vital to improving the time to patients getting diagnosed and treated, Dr. Wallace said in an interview. The quicker patients can be identified and referred onward on to a specialist rheumatology colleague means the sooner they will receive the appropriate care.
 

Chronic back pain

One of the key symptoms of axSpA is back pain, said Dr. Wallace. Back pain is an “extremely common” symptom seen in primary care – an estimated 60% or more of adults will have a back problem in their lifetime – but with axSpA, “it’s more about it being a persistent pain that is not going away.”

Fellow NASS Primary Care Champion and advanced practice physiotherapist Sam Bhide, MSc, calls them the “frequent flyers.”

As a first-contact practitioner, much of her practice consists of seeing people presenting with back pain, many of whom may have already been seen by other professionals but diagnosed with mechanical back pain.

“These patients return due to lack of improvement in their ongoing back pain symptoms,” Ms. Bhide noted. But how do you know if it is axSpA causing the pain?

“Normally, we would look for people who have had back pain for more than 3 months, or that gradually progresses on and off over weeks, months, or years, and their symptoms ease but do not resolve completely,” she said.
 

Eased by exercise and medication

“Essentially we are looking for people with inflammatory back pain,” Ms. Bhide explains.

The pain is often eased with anti-inflammatory medication and with exercise, “which is why these people get missed because they are managing their symptoms with exercises and their anti-inflammatories,” she said.
 

Sleep disturbance and morning stiffness

Sleep disturbance and feeling stiff in the spine for at least 30 minutes upon waking in the morning are other big indicators that chronic back pain may be due to axSpA, Dr. Wallace said.

“Waking in the early hours of the morning with pain or stiffness and having to get up and move around is fairly usual.”

Signs and symptoms

• Age < 45 years.

• Chronic back pain (3+ months).
• Morning stiffness (> 30 minutes).
• Improvement with exercise, not rest.
• Responds to anti-inflammatory medications.
• Night awakenings due to pain.
• Alternating buttock pain.
• Enthesitis and tendonitis.
• Swollen fingers or toes (dactylitis).

Aged under 45 years

AxSpA typically occurs in younger people, but it can be diagnosed at a later age, said Raj Sengupta, MBBS, a consultant rheumatologist and clinical lead for axSpA at the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases in Bath, England.

“In someone who’s under the age of 45, if they’ve had more than 3 months of back pain, then you should be thinking about axial spondyloarthritis already,” he said.

“The proviso is that in someone who’s older, actually asking them when their back pain started is relevant, because that person may have had symptoms that started at age 20, but for whatever reason, they didn’t seek help,” said Dr. Sengupta. “They could still have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis.”
 

Women can be affected as much as men

Importantly, it appears that women can be just as affected as men, particularly in the early stages of the disease, said Dr. Sengupta.

“In the old days, people just thought of it as a ‘men-only’ disease, but what we’ve learned is that the earlier stage of the disease, the prevalence is much more 50:50,” he said.

“The sad part is that over the years women have been really underdiagnosed because of this false message that has gone about, saying women can’t get it. So, sadly, you see greater delays in diagnosis in women because of that.”
 

Other symptoms and associated conditions

In people with early axSpA, “pain tends to be over the sacroiliac joints, which is over the buttocks, so it’s often confused with sciatica,” explains Dr. Sengupta. Alternating buttock pain is something to take note of, as is tendonitis and enthesitis. The latter is inflammation where the tendons or ligaments are inserted into bone, so it means that people may have problems such as Achilles heel, tennis elbow, or even musculoskeletal chest pain. Dactylitis – swollen fingers or toes – is another sign seen in some people with axSpA.

Associated conditions (including family history)

• Psoriasis.
• Inflammatory bowel disease.
• Eye inflammation (uveitis or iritis).

“Family history is also really important,” although not essential, Dr. Sengupta said. And not only if there is axSpA in the family, but also if there are other conditions such as psoriasis or inflammatory bowel disease. Another commonly associated condition is eye inflammation, which can be uveitis or iritis.
 

What about tests and tools?

Testing for HLA-B27 – which has a known association with axSpA – and measuring blood levels of C-reactive protein may be helpful, but “even if they are normal, that shouldn’t be reassuring you that this can’t be ankylosing spondylitis [in a patient with a] strong inflammatory back pain story.”

Ordering an MRI scan may be possible within primary care, depending on where you are in the world, but the results do need to be interpreted with expert eyes, Dr. Sengupta advises.

There are online tools available to help with the diagnosis of axSpA, Dr. Sengupta said, such as the Spondyloarthritis Diagnosis Evaluation Tool (SPADE). Efforts are also underway to create online systems that help to flag symptoms in general practice.
 

Tests and tools

• HLA-B27 association.
• Elevated C-reactive protein.
• Sacroiliitis on MRI.
• SPADE tool.

The bottom line is that many more patients could potentially be identified earlier in primary care by careful assessment of the clinical symptoms and asking about the family history and associated conditions.

At its simplest, if you see “someone under the age of 45, if they’ve had 3 months of back pain, and they keep on coming back to say, ‘My back’s really bad,’ think about axial spondyloarthritis,” said Dr. Sengupta.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate (Akeega, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat BRCA-positive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious disease, as determined by an FDA-approved test.

The once-daily dual-action tablet is the first-and-only orally administered treatment combining the PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone acetate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA’s approval was based on findings from the phase 3 MAGNITUDE precision medicine study, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 423 patients, 225 (53%) of whom had BRCA gene mutations as determined using a tissue assay such as FoundationOne CDx.

Among the subgroup with a BRCA mutation, radiographic progression-free survival was a median of 16.6 months vs. 10.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.79; P = .0014). In this subgroup, an exploratory overall survival analysis demonstrated a median of 30.4 months vs. 28.6 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12), favoring the treatment arm.

Although the overall cohort (those with and without BRCA mutations) demonstrated a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, the subgroup with non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations did not demonstrate a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, which indicates that the benefit observed was “primarily attributed” to the results in the subgroup of patients with BRCA mutations, according to the FDA.

The safety profile of niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone was consistent with the known safety profile of each FDA-approved monotherapy. Serious adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the treatment arm. These most often included musculoskeletal pain (44% vs. 42%), fatigue (43% vs. 30%), constipation (34% vs. 20%), hypertension (33% vs. 27%), and nausea (33% vs. 21%).

An adverse reaction led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 15% of patients.

“As a physician, identifying patients with a worse prognosis is a priority, especially those whose cancers have a BRCA mutation,” principal investigator Kim Chi, MD, stated in the Janssen press release. “We prospectively designed the MAGNITUDE study to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from targeted treatment with AKEEGA and to help us understand how we can potentially achieve better health outcomes for patients.”

About 10%-15% of patients who develop metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have BRCA gene alterations, and those patients are more likely to have aggressive disease, poor outcomes, and shorter survival. Therefore, this new agent “brings an important treatment option to patients with prostate cancer as they consider their road ahead,” said Shelby Moneer, vice president of patient programs and education at ZERO Prostate Cancer.

The prescribing information lists the recommended dose at 200 mg niraparib and 1,000 mg abiraterone once daily in combination with 10 mg of prednisone daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy.

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device by using the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate (Akeega, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat BRCA-positive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious disease, as determined by an FDA-approved test.

The once-daily dual-action tablet is the first-and-only orally administered treatment combining the PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone acetate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA’s approval was based on findings from the phase 3 MAGNITUDE precision medicine study, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 423 patients, 225 (53%) of whom had BRCA gene mutations as determined using a tissue assay such as FoundationOne CDx.

Among the subgroup with a BRCA mutation, radiographic progression-free survival was a median of 16.6 months vs. 10.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.79; P = .0014). In this subgroup, an exploratory overall survival analysis demonstrated a median of 30.4 months vs. 28.6 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12), favoring the treatment arm.

Although the overall cohort (those with and without BRCA mutations) demonstrated a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, the subgroup with non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations did not demonstrate a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, which indicates that the benefit observed was “primarily attributed” to the results in the subgroup of patients with BRCA mutations, according to the FDA.

The safety profile of niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone was consistent with the known safety profile of each FDA-approved monotherapy. Serious adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the treatment arm. These most often included musculoskeletal pain (44% vs. 42%), fatigue (43% vs. 30%), constipation (34% vs. 20%), hypertension (33% vs. 27%), and nausea (33% vs. 21%).

An adverse reaction led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 15% of patients.

“As a physician, identifying patients with a worse prognosis is a priority, especially those whose cancers have a BRCA mutation,” principal investigator Kim Chi, MD, stated in the Janssen press release. “We prospectively designed the MAGNITUDE study to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from targeted treatment with AKEEGA and to help us understand how we can potentially achieve better health outcomes for patients.”

About 10%-15% of patients who develop metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have BRCA gene alterations, and those patients are more likely to have aggressive disease, poor outcomes, and shorter survival. Therefore, this new agent “brings an important treatment option to patients with prostate cancer as they consider their road ahead,” said Shelby Moneer, vice president of patient programs and education at ZERO Prostate Cancer.

The prescribing information lists the recommended dose at 200 mg niraparib and 1,000 mg abiraterone once daily in combination with 10 mg of prednisone daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy.

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device by using the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate (Akeega, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat BRCA-positive, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious disease, as determined by an FDA-approved test.

The once-daily dual-action tablet is the first-and-only orally administered treatment combining the PARP inhibitor niraparib with abiraterone acetate.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The FDA’s approval was based on findings from the phase 3 MAGNITUDE precision medicine study, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 423 patients, 225 (53%) of whom had BRCA gene mutations as determined using a tissue assay such as FoundationOne CDx.

Among the subgroup with a BRCA mutation, radiographic progression-free survival was a median of 16.6 months vs. 10.9 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.79; P = .0014). In this subgroup, an exploratory overall survival analysis demonstrated a median of 30.4 months vs. 28.6 months (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12), favoring the treatment arm.

Although the overall cohort (those with and without BRCA mutations) demonstrated a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, the subgroup with non-BRCA homologous recombination repair mutations did not demonstrate a significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival, which indicates that the benefit observed was “primarily attributed” to the results in the subgroup of patients with BRCA mutations, according to the FDA.

The safety profile of niraparib and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone was consistent with the known safety profile of each FDA-approved monotherapy. Serious adverse events occurred in 41% of patients in the treatment arm. These most often included musculoskeletal pain (44% vs. 42%), fatigue (43% vs. 30%), constipation (34% vs. 20%), hypertension (33% vs. 27%), and nausea (33% vs. 21%).

An adverse reaction led to permanent discontinuation of treatment in 15% of patients.

“As a physician, identifying patients with a worse prognosis is a priority, especially those whose cancers have a BRCA mutation,” principal investigator Kim Chi, MD, stated in the Janssen press release. “We prospectively designed the MAGNITUDE study to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from targeted treatment with AKEEGA and to help us understand how we can potentially achieve better health outcomes for patients.”

About 10%-15% of patients who develop metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have BRCA gene alterations, and those patients are more likely to have aggressive disease, poor outcomes, and shorter survival. Therefore, this new agent “brings an important treatment option to patients with prostate cancer as they consider their road ahead,” said Shelby Moneer, vice president of patient programs and education at ZERO Prostate Cancer.

The prescribing information lists the recommended dose at 200 mg niraparib and 1,000 mg abiraterone once daily in combination with 10 mg of prednisone daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients should also receive a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog concurrently or should have had bilateral orchiectomy.

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device by using the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among military veterans who die by suicide, those who experience a traumatic brain injury (TBI) during service take their lives 21% sooner after deployment than those without a TBI history, a new study shows.

Investigators also found that increases in new mental health diagnoses are significantly higher in soldiers with a history of TBI – in some cases, strikingly higher. For example, cases of substance use disorder rose by 100% among veterans with TBI compared to just 14.5% in those with no brain injury.

Veterans Health Administration

“We had had pieces of these findings for a long time but to be able to lay out this longitudinal story over time is the part that’s new and important to really switch the focus to people’s whole lives and things that happen over time, both psychological and physical,” lead author Lisa Brenner, PhD, director of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Aurora, Colo., said in an interview.

“If we take that life-course view, it’s a very different way about thinking about conceptualizing exposures and conceptualizing risk and it’s a different way of thinking about treatment and prevention,” added Dr. Brenner, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation, psychiatry, and neurology at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “I think that definitely applies to civilian populations.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Largest, longest study to date

Researchers have long suspected that TBI and a higher rate of new mental illness and a shorter time to suicide are all somehow linked. But this study examined all three components longitudinally, in what is thought to be the largest and longest study on the topic to date, including more than 860,000 people who were followed for up to a decade.

Investigators studied health data from the Substance Use and Psychological Injury Combat Study database on 860,892 U.S. Army soldiers who returned from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2008 and 2014 and were 18-24 years old at the end of that deployment. They then examined new mental health diagnoses and suicide trends over time.

Nearly 109,000 (12.6%) experienced a TBI during deployment, and 2,695 had died by suicide through the end of 2018.

New-onset diagnoses of anxiety, mood disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use, and substance use disorder (SUD) after deployment were all more common in soldiers who experienced PTSD while serving compared with those with no history of TBI.

There was a 67.7% increase in mood disorders in participants with TBI compared with a 37.5% increase in those without TBI. The increase in new cases of alcohol use disorder was also greater in the TBI group (a 31.9% increase vs. a 10.3% increase).

But the sharpest difference was the increase in substance use disorder among those with TBI, which rose 100% compared with a 14.5% increase in solders with no history of TBI.
 

Sharp differences in time to suicide

Death by suicide was only slightly more common in those with TBI compared with those without (0.4% vs. 0.3%, respectively). But those with a brain injury committed suicide 21.3% sooner than did those without a head injury, after the researchers controlled for sex, age, race, ethnicity, and fiscal year of return from deployment.

Time to suicide was faster in those with a TBI and two or more new mental health diagnoses and fastest among those with TBI and a new SUD diagnosis, who took their own lives 62.8% faster than did those without a TBI.

The findings offer an important message to medical professionals in many different specialties, Dr. Brenner said.

“Folks in mental health probably have a lot of patients who have brain injury in their practice, and they don’t know it and that’s an important thing to know,” she said, adding that “neurologists should screen for depression and other mental health conditions and make sure those people have evidence-based treatments for those mental health conditions while they’re addressing the TBI-related symptoms.”
 

Applicable to civilians?

“The complex interplay between TBI, its potential effects on mental health, and risk of suicide remains a vexing focus of ongoing investigations and academic inquiry,” Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Network and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The study builds on earlier work, they added, and praised the study’s longitudinal design and large cohort as key to the findings. The data on increased rates of new-onset substance use disorder, which was also associated with a faster time to suicide in the TBI group, were of particular interest.

“In this work, Brenner and colleagues identified substance use disorder as a key factor in faster time to suicide for active-duty service members with a history of TBI compared with those without TBI and theorized that a multiple stress or exposure burden may enhance risk,” they wrote. “This theory is reasonable and has been postulated among individuals with medical sequelae linked to TBI.”

However, the authors caution against applying these findings in military veterans to civilians.

“While this work is critical in the military population, caution should be given to avoid direct generalization to other populations, such as athletes, for whom the linkage to suicidal ideation is less understood,” they wrote.

The study was funded by National Institute of Mental Health and Office of the Director at National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brenner has received personal fees from Wolters Kluwer, Rand, American Psychological Association, and Oxford University Press and serves as a consultant to sports leagues via her university affiliation. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving royalties from Springer/Demos; serving as a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Neurotrauma and Frontiers in Neurology and scientific advisory boards of Myomo, Nanodiagnostics, Onecare.ai, and Kisbee; and evaluating patients in the MGH Brain and Body-TRUST Program, which is funded by the National Football League Players Association.
 

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

Among military veterans who die by suicide, those who experience a traumatic brain injury (TBI) during service take their lives 21% sooner after deployment than those without a TBI history, a new study shows.

Investigators also found that increases in new mental health diagnoses are significantly higher in soldiers with a history of TBI – in some cases, strikingly higher. For example, cases of substance use disorder rose by 100% among veterans with TBI compared to just 14.5% in those with no brain injury.

Veterans Health Administration

“We had had pieces of these findings for a long time but to be able to lay out this longitudinal story over time is the part that’s new and important to really switch the focus to people’s whole lives and things that happen over time, both psychological and physical,” lead author Lisa Brenner, PhD, director of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Aurora, Colo., said in an interview.

“If we take that life-course view, it’s a very different way about thinking about conceptualizing exposures and conceptualizing risk and it’s a different way of thinking about treatment and prevention,” added Dr. Brenner, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation, psychiatry, and neurology at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “I think that definitely applies to civilian populations.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Largest, longest study to date

Researchers have long suspected that TBI and a higher rate of new mental illness and a shorter time to suicide are all somehow linked. But this study examined all three components longitudinally, in what is thought to be the largest and longest study on the topic to date, including more than 860,000 people who were followed for up to a decade.

Investigators studied health data from the Substance Use and Psychological Injury Combat Study database on 860,892 U.S. Army soldiers who returned from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2008 and 2014 and were 18-24 years old at the end of that deployment. They then examined new mental health diagnoses and suicide trends over time.

Nearly 109,000 (12.6%) experienced a TBI during deployment, and 2,695 had died by suicide through the end of 2018.

New-onset diagnoses of anxiety, mood disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use, and substance use disorder (SUD) after deployment were all more common in soldiers who experienced PTSD while serving compared with those with no history of TBI.

There was a 67.7% increase in mood disorders in participants with TBI compared with a 37.5% increase in those without TBI. The increase in new cases of alcohol use disorder was also greater in the TBI group (a 31.9% increase vs. a 10.3% increase).

But the sharpest difference was the increase in substance use disorder among those with TBI, which rose 100% compared with a 14.5% increase in solders with no history of TBI.
 

Sharp differences in time to suicide

Death by suicide was only slightly more common in those with TBI compared with those without (0.4% vs. 0.3%, respectively). But those with a brain injury committed suicide 21.3% sooner than did those without a head injury, after the researchers controlled for sex, age, race, ethnicity, and fiscal year of return from deployment.

Time to suicide was faster in those with a TBI and two or more new mental health diagnoses and fastest among those with TBI and a new SUD diagnosis, who took their own lives 62.8% faster than did those without a TBI.

The findings offer an important message to medical professionals in many different specialties, Dr. Brenner said.

“Folks in mental health probably have a lot of patients who have brain injury in their practice, and they don’t know it and that’s an important thing to know,” she said, adding that “neurologists should screen for depression and other mental health conditions and make sure those people have evidence-based treatments for those mental health conditions while they’re addressing the TBI-related symptoms.”
 

Applicable to civilians?

“The complex interplay between TBI, its potential effects on mental health, and risk of suicide remains a vexing focus of ongoing investigations and academic inquiry,” Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Network and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The study builds on earlier work, they added, and praised the study’s longitudinal design and large cohort as key to the findings. The data on increased rates of new-onset substance use disorder, which was also associated with a faster time to suicide in the TBI group, were of particular interest.

“In this work, Brenner and colleagues identified substance use disorder as a key factor in faster time to suicide for active-duty service members with a history of TBI compared with those without TBI and theorized that a multiple stress or exposure burden may enhance risk,” they wrote. “This theory is reasonable and has been postulated among individuals with medical sequelae linked to TBI.”

However, the authors caution against applying these findings in military veterans to civilians.

“While this work is critical in the military population, caution should be given to avoid direct generalization to other populations, such as athletes, for whom the linkage to suicidal ideation is less understood,” they wrote.

The study was funded by National Institute of Mental Health and Office of the Director at National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brenner has received personal fees from Wolters Kluwer, Rand, American Psychological Association, and Oxford University Press and serves as a consultant to sports leagues via her university affiliation. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving royalties from Springer/Demos; serving as a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Neurotrauma and Frontiers in Neurology and scientific advisory boards of Myomo, Nanodiagnostics, Onecare.ai, and Kisbee; and evaluating patients in the MGH Brain and Body-TRUST Program, which is funded by the National Football League Players Association.
 

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

Among military veterans who die by suicide, those who experience a traumatic brain injury (TBI) during service take their lives 21% sooner after deployment than those without a TBI history, a new study shows.

Investigators also found that increases in new mental health diagnoses are significantly higher in soldiers with a history of TBI – in some cases, strikingly higher. For example, cases of substance use disorder rose by 100% among veterans with TBI compared to just 14.5% in those with no brain injury.

Veterans Health Administration

“We had had pieces of these findings for a long time but to be able to lay out this longitudinal story over time is the part that’s new and important to really switch the focus to people’s whole lives and things that happen over time, both psychological and physical,” lead author Lisa Brenner, PhD, director of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Aurora, Colo., said in an interview.

“If we take that life-course view, it’s a very different way about thinking about conceptualizing exposures and conceptualizing risk and it’s a different way of thinking about treatment and prevention,” added Dr. Brenner, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation, psychiatry, and neurology at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “I think that definitely applies to civilian populations.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Largest, longest study to date

Researchers have long suspected that TBI and a higher rate of new mental illness and a shorter time to suicide are all somehow linked. But this study examined all three components longitudinally, in what is thought to be the largest and longest study on the topic to date, including more than 860,000 people who were followed for up to a decade.

Investigators studied health data from the Substance Use and Psychological Injury Combat Study database on 860,892 U.S. Army soldiers who returned from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2008 and 2014 and were 18-24 years old at the end of that deployment. They then examined new mental health diagnoses and suicide trends over time.

Nearly 109,000 (12.6%) experienced a TBI during deployment, and 2,695 had died by suicide through the end of 2018.

New-onset diagnoses of anxiety, mood disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use, and substance use disorder (SUD) after deployment were all more common in soldiers who experienced PTSD while serving compared with those with no history of TBI.

There was a 67.7% increase in mood disorders in participants with TBI compared with a 37.5% increase in those without TBI. The increase in new cases of alcohol use disorder was also greater in the TBI group (a 31.9% increase vs. a 10.3% increase).

But the sharpest difference was the increase in substance use disorder among those with TBI, which rose 100% compared with a 14.5% increase in solders with no history of TBI.
 

Sharp differences in time to suicide

Death by suicide was only slightly more common in those with TBI compared with those without (0.4% vs. 0.3%, respectively). But those with a brain injury committed suicide 21.3% sooner than did those without a head injury, after the researchers controlled for sex, age, race, ethnicity, and fiscal year of return from deployment.

Time to suicide was faster in those with a TBI and two or more new mental health diagnoses and fastest among those with TBI and a new SUD diagnosis, who took their own lives 62.8% faster than did those without a TBI.

The findings offer an important message to medical professionals in many different specialties, Dr. Brenner said.

“Folks in mental health probably have a lot of patients who have brain injury in their practice, and they don’t know it and that’s an important thing to know,” she said, adding that “neurologists should screen for depression and other mental health conditions and make sure those people have evidence-based treatments for those mental health conditions while they’re addressing the TBI-related symptoms.”
 

Applicable to civilians?

“The complex interplay between TBI, its potential effects on mental health, and risk of suicide remains a vexing focus of ongoing investigations and academic inquiry,” Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Network and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The study builds on earlier work, they added, and praised the study’s longitudinal design and large cohort as key to the findings. The data on increased rates of new-onset substance use disorder, which was also associated with a faster time to suicide in the TBI group, were of particular interest.

“In this work, Brenner and colleagues identified substance use disorder as a key factor in faster time to suicide for active-duty service members with a history of TBI compared with those without TBI and theorized that a multiple stress or exposure burden may enhance risk,” they wrote. “This theory is reasonable and has been postulated among individuals with medical sequelae linked to TBI.”

However, the authors caution against applying these findings in military veterans to civilians.

“While this work is critical in the military population, caution should be given to avoid direct generalization to other populations, such as athletes, for whom the linkage to suicidal ideation is less understood,” they wrote.

The study was funded by National Institute of Mental Health and Office of the Director at National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brenner has received personal fees from Wolters Kluwer, Rand, American Psychological Association, and Oxford University Press and serves as a consultant to sports leagues via her university affiliation. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving royalties from Springer/Demos; serving as a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Neurotrauma and Frontiers in Neurology and scientific advisory boards of Myomo, Nanodiagnostics, Onecare.ai, and Kisbee; and evaluating patients in the MGH Brain and Body-TRUST Program, which is funded by the National Football League Players Association.
 

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

Higher daily step counts were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with benefit beginning with any amount over about 4,000 and 2,300 steps, respectively, in a new meta-analysis.
 

More steps were better – additional benefit was seen with increasing increments of 500 or 1,000 steps.

Leonardo Patrizi/E+/Getty Images

“One of our main aims was to overcome all the inconsistencies in previous studies, where the optimal number of daily steps for health benefits was usually between 6,000 and 10,000,” Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Lodz (Poland), said in an interview.

“As a preventive cardiologist, I saw that many of my patients were discouraged and said it’s impossible when I told them that making lifestyle changes included taking at least 7,000 daily steps,” he said.

“But our study in relatively healthy individuals, not patients, showed even a lower number – for example, around 4,000 – may be associated with a significant reduction of mortality.

“I tell people to start early, be regular, and don’t worry about the initial baseline number, because it’s important to start and it’s important to improve,” he said. “Our study showed that if we increase the number of steps per day, every 500- to 1,000-step increase might still be associated with an additional mortality reduction of 7%-15%.”

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
 

Every move counts

The investigators searched the literature through June 2022 and selected 17 cohort studies with 226,889 participants and a median follow-up of 7.1 years for inclusion in the analysis: 10 studies reported all-cause mortality, 4 reported CV mortality, and 3 reported both outcomes.

The mean age of the participants was 64.4 years, and half were women. Daily step counts in the included studies were objectively measured for at least 7 consecutive days.

As noted, a 1,000-step increment was associated with a 15% decrease in risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85); a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR, 0.93).

Compared with the reference quartile (median steps/day, 3,967), quartile 1 (median steps, 5,537) was associated with a 48% lower risk of all-cause mortality; quartile 2 (median steps, 7,370), with a 55% lower risk; and quartile 3 (median steps, 11,529), with a 67% risk reduction.

Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps per day used as reference (median steps, 2,337), higher quartiles of steps per day (Q1, 3,982; Q2, 6,661; and Q3, 10,413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16%, 49%, and 77%, respectively).

In a restricted cubic splines model, a nonlinear dose-response association was observed between step count and all-cause and CV mortality, with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increase in step count.

Dose-response curves were similar for men and women. However, there was a difference by age: Among people aged 60 years or older, the size of the risk reduction was smaller. Among the older adults, there was a 42% risk reduction for those who walked between 6000 and 10,000 steps daily, compared with a 49% reduction in risk among younger adults who walked between 7,000 and 13,000 steps a day.

For both groups, daily step counts higher than 5,000 resulted in a “dramatically” lower risk of all-cause mortality.

An analysis that compared the impact of climate regions on the associations showed no significant effect on all-cause mortality. People in all climate zones benefited when the daily step count exceeded approximately 5,500.

Even given the encouraging study results, “we know very well that every kind of exercise is critically important,” Dr. Banach said. It is easier to focus on step counts because the counts can be monitored and calculated with smartwatches, pedometers, and other tools. That also makes it easier to check associations and outcomes for large groups of patients.

“But in fact, we should not be focusing on one type of exercise, such as walking or running,” he said. “We can dance, ride bicycles, and do many other different exercises that mobilize our hearts.

“We also know that in all these activities, including steps, people have different capabilities – for example, some can walk more slowly, others faster and with more intensity.”

Dr. Banach recommended following the European and U.S. physical activity guidelines that advise, in addition to muscle-strengthening activities, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic training weekly, or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity.

From the results he sees in patients, he believes the combination approach is probably best for the heart.

Furthermore, it’s important to exercise regularly, something that’s easier if individuals enjoy what they’re doing. “The type of training or whether you are completely inactive or very active at the start doesn’t matter, because any improvement, any addition to the to the baseline values will have health benefits,” he concluded.
 

Higher goals helpful

Three experts commented on the study; all noted that the results are in line with previous studies, that the observational nature of the study is a limitation, and that additional randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Evan Brittain, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., expressed some additional concerns.

Dr. Brittain was principal investigator of a recent study that found that the relationship between steps per day and incident disease was inverse and linear for obesity, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and major depressive disorder. Daily step counts above 8,200 were associated with protection from incident disease.

He noted that, in the current study, “the authors chose to make the least active quartile (25%) the reference group (only 3,967 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2,337 steps/day for CV mortality analysis), which somewhat lowers the bar for finding a significant benefit at higher step counts.

“Moreover, in the spline analyses, zero steps per day is used as the comparison, which is not a practical, real-world comparison,” he said. “As a result, those data are very hard to interpret, and I think are overstated.”

Like Dr. Banach, Dr. Brittain said he would continue to advise following guideline recommendations to get 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity. However, he added that although it is reasonable to advise patients that benefits do accrue with daily step counts of less than 10,000, “I would not want patients to misconstrue from this study that getting more than only 2,330 steps per day is a beneficial goal.”

Martin Halle, MD, a professor in the department of prevention and sports medicine at the Technical University of Munich (Germany), said: “From a clinical, medical, and health perspective, the general population should aim for 5,000 steps, which is about 3-4 kilometers [about 2 miles] of walking, and intensity counts – the faster you walk, the better.

“I recommend doing 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow and then 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow,” said Dr. Halle, who is past president of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. This approach not only motivates people, “but they improve their exercise capacity substantially and very quickly, just within weeks.”

European Society of Cardiology vice president and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology editor-in-chief Massimo Piepoli, MD, PhD, agreed that “little is better than nothing and more is even better. This applies to healthy subjects, as well as patients with chronic diseases.

“Five hundred steps is a very short distance (such as walking two blocks or walking the dog for about 10-15 minutes every day),” he said. Yet, increasing step counts in increments of 500 “is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality both in men and women, particularly in older individuals.

“We do not need to depend on expensive gym facilities,” he added. “But at the same time, we need to live in and to promote the building of neighborhoods where it is possible to walk in a safe and healthy environment.”

The research received no external funding. Dr. Banach has reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Freia Pharmaceuticals, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, NewAmsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Polfarmex, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Valeant, Viatris, and Zentiva, and is chief marketing and development officer at Longevity Group and chief marketing officer at Nomi Biotech.

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

Higher daily step counts were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with benefit beginning with any amount over about 4,000 and 2,300 steps, respectively, in a new meta-analysis.
 

More steps were better – additional benefit was seen with increasing increments of 500 or 1,000 steps.

Leonardo Patrizi/E+/Getty Images

“One of our main aims was to overcome all the inconsistencies in previous studies, where the optimal number of daily steps for health benefits was usually between 6,000 and 10,000,” Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Lodz (Poland), said in an interview.

“As a preventive cardiologist, I saw that many of my patients were discouraged and said it’s impossible when I told them that making lifestyle changes included taking at least 7,000 daily steps,” he said.

“But our study in relatively healthy individuals, not patients, showed even a lower number – for example, around 4,000 – may be associated with a significant reduction of mortality.

“I tell people to start early, be regular, and don’t worry about the initial baseline number, because it’s important to start and it’s important to improve,” he said. “Our study showed that if we increase the number of steps per day, every 500- to 1,000-step increase might still be associated with an additional mortality reduction of 7%-15%.”

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
 

Every move counts

The investigators searched the literature through June 2022 and selected 17 cohort studies with 226,889 participants and a median follow-up of 7.1 years for inclusion in the analysis: 10 studies reported all-cause mortality, 4 reported CV mortality, and 3 reported both outcomes.

The mean age of the participants was 64.4 years, and half were women. Daily step counts in the included studies were objectively measured for at least 7 consecutive days.

As noted, a 1,000-step increment was associated with a 15% decrease in risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85); a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR, 0.93).

Compared with the reference quartile (median steps/day, 3,967), quartile 1 (median steps, 5,537) was associated with a 48% lower risk of all-cause mortality; quartile 2 (median steps, 7,370), with a 55% lower risk; and quartile 3 (median steps, 11,529), with a 67% risk reduction.

Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps per day used as reference (median steps, 2,337), higher quartiles of steps per day (Q1, 3,982; Q2, 6,661; and Q3, 10,413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16%, 49%, and 77%, respectively).

In a restricted cubic splines model, a nonlinear dose-response association was observed between step count and all-cause and CV mortality, with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increase in step count.

Dose-response curves were similar for men and women. However, there was a difference by age: Among people aged 60 years or older, the size of the risk reduction was smaller. Among the older adults, there was a 42% risk reduction for those who walked between 6000 and 10,000 steps daily, compared with a 49% reduction in risk among younger adults who walked between 7,000 and 13,000 steps a day.

For both groups, daily step counts higher than 5,000 resulted in a “dramatically” lower risk of all-cause mortality.

An analysis that compared the impact of climate regions on the associations showed no significant effect on all-cause mortality. People in all climate zones benefited when the daily step count exceeded approximately 5,500.

Even given the encouraging study results, “we know very well that every kind of exercise is critically important,” Dr. Banach said. It is easier to focus on step counts because the counts can be monitored and calculated with smartwatches, pedometers, and other tools. That also makes it easier to check associations and outcomes for large groups of patients.

“But in fact, we should not be focusing on one type of exercise, such as walking or running,” he said. “We can dance, ride bicycles, and do many other different exercises that mobilize our hearts.

“We also know that in all these activities, including steps, people have different capabilities – for example, some can walk more slowly, others faster and with more intensity.”

Dr. Banach recommended following the European and U.S. physical activity guidelines that advise, in addition to muscle-strengthening activities, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic training weekly, or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity.

From the results he sees in patients, he believes the combination approach is probably best for the heart.

Furthermore, it’s important to exercise regularly, something that’s easier if individuals enjoy what they’re doing. “The type of training or whether you are completely inactive or very active at the start doesn’t matter, because any improvement, any addition to the to the baseline values will have health benefits,” he concluded.
 

Higher goals helpful

Three experts commented on the study; all noted that the results are in line with previous studies, that the observational nature of the study is a limitation, and that additional randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Evan Brittain, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., expressed some additional concerns.

Dr. Brittain was principal investigator of a recent study that found that the relationship between steps per day and incident disease was inverse and linear for obesity, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and major depressive disorder. Daily step counts above 8,200 were associated with protection from incident disease.

He noted that, in the current study, “the authors chose to make the least active quartile (25%) the reference group (only 3,967 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2,337 steps/day for CV mortality analysis), which somewhat lowers the bar for finding a significant benefit at higher step counts.

“Moreover, in the spline analyses, zero steps per day is used as the comparison, which is not a practical, real-world comparison,” he said. “As a result, those data are very hard to interpret, and I think are overstated.”

Like Dr. Banach, Dr. Brittain said he would continue to advise following guideline recommendations to get 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity. However, he added that although it is reasonable to advise patients that benefits do accrue with daily step counts of less than 10,000, “I would not want patients to misconstrue from this study that getting more than only 2,330 steps per day is a beneficial goal.”

Martin Halle, MD, a professor in the department of prevention and sports medicine at the Technical University of Munich (Germany), said: “From a clinical, medical, and health perspective, the general population should aim for 5,000 steps, which is about 3-4 kilometers [about 2 miles] of walking, and intensity counts – the faster you walk, the better.

“I recommend doing 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow and then 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow,” said Dr. Halle, who is past president of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. This approach not only motivates people, “but they improve their exercise capacity substantially and very quickly, just within weeks.”

European Society of Cardiology vice president and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology editor-in-chief Massimo Piepoli, MD, PhD, agreed that “little is better than nothing and more is even better. This applies to healthy subjects, as well as patients with chronic diseases.

“Five hundred steps is a very short distance (such as walking two blocks or walking the dog for about 10-15 minutes every day),” he said. Yet, increasing step counts in increments of 500 “is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality both in men and women, particularly in older individuals.

“We do not need to depend on expensive gym facilities,” he added. “But at the same time, we need to live in and to promote the building of neighborhoods where it is possible to walk in a safe and healthy environment.”

The research received no external funding. Dr. Banach has reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Freia Pharmaceuticals, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, NewAmsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Polfarmex, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Valeant, Viatris, and Zentiva, and is chief marketing and development officer at Longevity Group and chief marketing officer at Nomi Biotech.

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

Higher daily step counts were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, with benefit beginning with any amount over about 4,000 and 2,300 steps, respectively, in a new meta-analysis.
 

More steps were better – additional benefit was seen with increasing increments of 500 or 1,000 steps.

Leonardo Patrizi/E+/Getty Images

“One of our main aims was to overcome all the inconsistencies in previous studies, where the optimal number of daily steps for health benefits was usually between 6,000 and 10,000,” Maciej Banach, MD, PhD, of the Medical University of Lodz (Poland), said in an interview.

“As a preventive cardiologist, I saw that many of my patients were discouraged and said it’s impossible when I told them that making lifestyle changes included taking at least 7,000 daily steps,” he said.

“But our study in relatively healthy individuals, not patients, showed even a lower number – for example, around 4,000 – may be associated with a significant reduction of mortality.

“I tell people to start early, be regular, and don’t worry about the initial baseline number, because it’s important to start and it’s important to improve,” he said. “Our study showed that if we increase the number of steps per day, every 500- to 1,000-step increase might still be associated with an additional mortality reduction of 7%-15%.”

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
 

Every move counts

The investigators searched the literature through June 2022 and selected 17 cohort studies with 226,889 participants and a median follow-up of 7.1 years for inclusion in the analysis: 10 studies reported all-cause mortality, 4 reported CV mortality, and 3 reported both outcomes.

The mean age of the participants was 64.4 years, and half were women. Daily step counts in the included studies were objectively measured for at least 7 consecutive days.

As noted, a 1,000-step increment was associated with a 15% decrease in risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.85); a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR, 0.93).

Compared with the reference quartile (median steps/day, 3,967), quartile 1 (median steps, 5,537) was associated with a 48% lower risk of all-cause mortality; quartile 2 (median steps, 7,370), with a 55% lower risk; and quartile 3 (median steps, 11,529), with a 67% risk reduction.

Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps per day used as reference (median steps, 2,337), higher quartiles of steps per day (Q1, 3,982; Q2, 6,661; and Q3, 10,413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16%, 49%, and 77%, respectively).

In a restricted cubic splines model, a nonlinear dose-response association was observed between step count and all-cause and CV mortality, with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increase in step count.

Dose-response curves were similar for men and women. However, there was a difference by age: Among people aged 60 years or older, the size of the risk reduction was smaller. Among the older adults, there was a 42% risk reduction for those who walked between 6000 and 10,000 steps daily, compared with a 49% reduction in risk among younger adults who walked between 7,000 and 13,000 steps a day.

For both groups, daily step counts higher than 5,000 resulted in a “dramatically” lower risk of all-cause mortality.

An analysis that compared the impact of climate regions on the associations showed no significant effect on all-cause mortality. People in all climate zones benefited when the daily step count exceeded approximately 5,500.

Even given the encouraging study results, “we know very well that every kind of exercise is critically important,” Dr. Banach said. It is easier to focus on step counts because the counts can be monitored and calculated with smartwatches, pedometers, and other tools. That also makes it easier to check associations and outcomes for large groups of patients.

“But in fact, we should not be focusing on one type of exercise, such as walking or running,” he said. “We can dance, ride bicycles, and do many other different exercises that mobilize our hearts.

“We also know that in all these activities, including steps, people have different capabilities – for example, some can walk more slowly, others faster and with more intensity.”

Dr. Banach recommended following the European and U.S. physical activity guidelines that advise, in addition to muscle-strengthening activities, 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic training weekly, or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity.

From the results he sees in patients, he believes the combination approach is probably best for the heart.

Furthermore, it’s important to exercise regularly, something that’s easier if individuals enjoy what they’re doing. “The type of training or whether you are completely inactive or very active at the start doesn’t matter, because any improvement, any addition to the to the baseline values will have health benefits,” he concluded.
 

Higher goals helpful

Three experts commented on the study; all noted that the results are in line with previous studies, that the observational nature of the study is a limitation, and that additional randomized, controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Evan Brittain, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., expressed some additional concerns.

Dr. Brittain was principal investigator of a recent study that found that the relationship between steps per day and incident disease was inverse and linear for obesity, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and major depressive disorder. Daily step counts above 8,200 were associated with protection from incident disease.

He noted that, in the current study, “the authors chose to make the least active quartile (25%) the reference group (only 3,967 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2,337 steps/day for CV mortality analysis), which somewhat lowers the bar for finding a significant benefit at higher step counts.

“Moreover, in the spline analyses, zero steps per day is used as the comparison, which is not a practical, real-world comparison,” he said. “As a result, those data are very hard to interpret, and I think are overstated.”

Like Dr. Banach, Dr. Brittain said he would continue to advise following guideline recommendations to get 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity. However, he added that although it is reasonable to advise patients that benefits do accrue with daily step counts of less than 10,000, “I would not want patients to misconstrue from this study that getting more than only 2,330 steps per day is a beneficial goal.”

Martin Halle, MD, a professor in the department of prevention and sports medicine at the Technical University of Munich (Germany), said: “From a clinical, medical, and health perspective, the general population should aim for 5,000 steps, which is about 3-4 kilometers [about 2 miles] of walking, and intensity counts – the faster you walk, the better.

“I recommend doing 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow and then 100 steps fast and 100 steps slow,” said Dr. Halle, who is past president of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology. This approach not only motivates people, “but they improve their exercise capacity substantially and very quickly, just within weeks.”

European Society of Cardiology vice president and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology editor-in-chief Massimo Piepoli, MD, PhD, agreed that “little is better than nothing and more is even better. This applies to healthy subjects, as well as patients with chronic diseases.

“Five hundred steps is a very short distance (such as walking two blocks or walking the dog for about 10-15 minutes every day),” he said. Yet, increasing step counts in increments of 500 “is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality both in men and women, particularly in older individuals.

“We do not need to depend on expensive gym facilities,” he added. “But at the same time, we need to live in and to promote the building of neighborhoods where it is possible to walk in a safe and healthy environment.”

The research received no external funding. Dr. Banach has reported financial relationships with Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion, Freia Pharmaceuticals, Kogen, KRKA, Polpharma, NewAmsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Polfarmex, Sanofi Aventis, Teva, Valeant, Viatris, and Zentiva, and is chief marketing and development officer at Longevity Group and chief marketing officer at Nomi Biotech.

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

Datascope/Maquet/Getinge has announced a recall of the Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because they may shut down unexpectedly due to electrical failures in the power management board or solenoid board (power source path).

“Using an affected pump may cause serious adverse health events, including unstable blood pressure, injury (e.g., inadequate blood supply or a vital organ injury), and death,” the Food and Drug Administration said in the recall notice.

The FDA has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, Datascope/Maquet/Getinge received 26 complaints, but no reports of injuries or death.

The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.

The recall includes a total of 4,586 Cardiosave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed from March 2, 2012, to May 19, 2023. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.

On June 5, Datascope/Maquet/Getinge sent an “important medical device advisory” to all affected customers. The letter advises customers to be sure there is an alternative IABP available to continue therapy and provide alternative hemodynamic support if there is no other means to continue counterpulsation therapy.

Customers with questions about this recall should contact their company representative or call technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET.

Last March, Datascope/Getinge recalled 2,300 Cardiosave Hybrid or Rescue IABPs because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.

The Cardiosave IABPs have also been previously flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Datascope/Maquet/Getinge has announced a recall of the Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because they may shut down unexpectedly due to electrical failures in the power management board or solenoid board (power source path).

“Using an affected pump may cause serious adverse health events, including unstable blood pressure, injury (e.g., inadequate blood supply or a vital organ injury), and death,” the Food and Drug Administration said in the recall notice.

The FDA has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, Datascope/Maquet/Getinge received 26 complaints, but no reports of injuries or death.

The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.

The recall includes a total of 4,586 Cardiosave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed from March 2, 2012, to May 19, 2023. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.

On June 5, Datascope/Maquet/Getinge sent an “important medical device advisory” to all affected customers. The letter advises customers to be sure there is an alternative IABP available to continue therapy and provide alternative hemodynamic support if there is no other means to continue counterpulsation therapy.

Customers with questions about this recall should contact their company representative or call technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET.

Last March, Datascope/Getinge recalled 2,300 Cardiosave Hybrid or Rescue IABPs because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.

The Cardiosave IABPs have also been previously flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Datascope/Maquet/Getinge has announced a recall of the Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because they may shut down unexpectedly due to electrical failures in the power management board or solenoid board (power source path).

“Using an affected pump may cause serious adverse health events, including unstable blood pressure, injury (e.g., inadequate blood supply or a vital organ injury), and death,” the Food and Drug Administration said in the recall notice.

The FDA has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall due to the risk for serious injury or death. To date, Datascope/Maquet/Getinge received 26 complaints, but no reports of injuries or death.

The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.

The recall includes a total of 4,586 Cardiosave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed from March 2, 2012, to May 19, 2023. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.

On June 5, Datascope/Maquet/Getinge sent an “important medical device advisory” to all affected customers. The letter advises customers to be sure there is an alternative IABP available to continue therapy and provide alternative hemodynamic support if there is no other means to continue counterpulsation therapy.

Customers with questions about this recall should contact their company representative or call technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET.

Last March, Datascope/Getinge recalled 2,300 Cardiosave Hybrid or Rescue IABPs because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.

The Cardiosave IABPs have also been previously flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to talquetamab-tgvs (Talvey, Janssen Biotech, Inc), a first-in-class bispecific antibody targeting the GPRC5D receptor, for heavily pretreated adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients must have received at least four prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

The agent, which also received breakthrough and orphan drug designation, is available only through the Tecvayli-Talvey Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) because of a boxed warning for life-threatening or fatal cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), the FDA announced.

Talquetamab-tgvs was evaluated in the single-arm, open-label MonumenTAL-1 study of 187 patients who had previously been treated with at least four prior systemic therapies.

The overall response rate in 100 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.4 mg/kg weekly was 73% and median duration of response was 9.5 months. The overall response rate in 87 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.8 mg/kg biweekly was 73.6%, with about 85% of responders maintaining their response for at least 9 months. In this group, the median duration of response was not estimable.

Patients in the 0.4 mg/kg weekly dose group were treated following two step-up doses in the first week of therapy, and those in the 0.8 mg/kg biweekly group were treated following three step-up doses, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of the 339 patients in the safety population included CRS, dysgeusia (foul, metallic taste sensation), nail disorder, musculoskeletal pain, skin disorder, rash, fatigue, decreased weight, dry mouth, pyrexia, xerosis, dysphagia, upper respiratory tract infection, and diarrhea.

Both the weekly 0.4 mg/kg and biweekly 0.8 mg/kg doses are recommended. The full dosing schedule is included in the prescribing information.

The approval follows a series of market withdrawals for other multiple myeloma drugs that initially received accelerated FDA approval. For instance, the FDA recently requested withdrawal of melphalan flufenamide (Pepaxto) after 2021 confirmatory trial results showed an increased risk of death. This agent had received accelerated approval in 2021. GlaxoSmithKline’s blood cancer drugs panobinostat (Farydak) and belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep) were also withdrawn based on confirmatory trial results.

Continued approval of talquetemab-tgvs for this indication is also contingent on verifying efficacy in confirmatory trials.

The new treatment approach represents a “welcome addition to the myeloma community,” Michael Andreini, president and chief executive officer of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation stated in a Janssen press release. “Although options for the treatment of multiple myeloma have expanded significantly in recent years, the disease remains incurable, and therefore, patients are in need of new treatment options.”

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device to FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to talquetamab-tgvs (Talvey, Janssen Biotech, Inc), a first-in-class bispecific antibody targeting the GPRC5D receptor, for heavily pretreated adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients must have received at least four prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

The agent, which also received breakthrough and orphan drug designation, is available only through the Tecvayli-Talvey Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) because of a boxed warning for life-threatening or fatal cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), the FDA announced.

Talquetamab-tgvs was evaluated in the single-arm, open-label MonumenTAL-1 study of 187 patients who had previously been treated with at least four prior systemic therapies.

The overall response rate in 100 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.4 mg/kg weekly was 73% and median duration of response was 9.5 months. The overall response rate in 87 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.8 mg/kg biweekly was 73.6%, with about 85% of responders maintaining their response for at least 9 months. In this group, the median duration of response was not estimable.

Patients in the 0.4 mg/kg weekly dose group were treated following two step-up doses in the first week of therapy, and those in the 0.8 mg/kg biweekly group were treated following three step-up doses, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of the 339 patients in the safety population included CRS, dysgeusia (foul, metallic taste sensation), nail disorder, musculoskeletal pain, skin disorder, rash, fatigue, decreased weight, dry mouth, pyrexia, xerosis, dysphagia, upper respiratory tract infection, and diarrhea.

Both the weekly 0.4 mg/kg and biweekly 0.8 mg/kg doses are recommended. The full dosing schedule is included in the prescribing information.

The approval follows a series of market withdrawals for other multiple myeloma drugs that initially received accelerated FDA approval. For instance, the FDA recently requested withdrawal of melphalan flufenamide (Pepaxto) after 2021 confirmatory trial results showed an increased risk of death. This agent had received accelerated approval in 2021. GlaxoSmithKline’s blood cancer drugs panobinostat (Farydak) and belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep) were also withdrawn based on confirmatory trial results.

Continued approval of talquetemab-tgvs for this indication is also contingent on verifying efficacy in confirmatory trials.

The new treatment approach represents a “welcome addition to the myeloma community,” Michael Andreini, president and chief executive officer of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation stated in a Janssen press release. “Although options for the treatment of multiple myeloma have expanded significantly in recent years, the disease remains incurable, and therefore, patients are in need of new treatment options.”

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device to FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to talquetamab-tgvs (Talvey, Janssen Biotech, Inc), a first-in-class bispecific antibody targeting the GPRC5D receptor, for heavily pretreated adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Patients must have received at least four prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

The agent, which also received breakthrough and orphan drug designation, is available only through the Tecvayli-Talvey Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) because of a boxed warning for life-threatening or fatal cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological toxicity, including immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), the FDA announced.

Talquetamab-tgvs was evaluated in the single-arm, open-label MonumenTAL-1 study of 187 patients who had previously been treated with at least four prior systemic therapies.

The overall response rate in 100 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.4 mg/kg weekly was 73% and median duration of response was 9.5 months. The overall response rate in 87 patients who received a subcutaneous dose of 0.8 mg/kg biweekly was 73.6%, with about 85% of responders maintaining their response for at least 9 months. In this group, the median duration of response was not estimable.

Patients in the 0.4 mg/kg weekly dose group were treated following two step-up doses in the first week of therapy, and those in the 0.8 mg/kg biweekly group were treated following three step-up doses, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Adverse reactions occurring in at least 20% of the 339 patients in the safety population included CRS, dysgeusia (foul, metallic taste sensation), nail disorder, musculoskeletal pain, skin disorder, rash, fatigue, decreased weight, dry mouth, pyrexia, xerosis, dysphagia, upper respiratory tract infection, and diarrhea.

Both the weekly 0.4 mg/kg and biweekly 0.8 mg/kg doses are recommended. The full dosing schedule is included in the prescribing information.

The approval follows a series of market withdrawals for other multiple myeloma drugs that initially received accelerated FDA approval. For instance, the FDA recently requested withdrawal of melphalan flufenamide (Pepaxto) after 2021 confirmatory trial results showed an increased risk of death. This agent had received accelerated approval in 2021. GlaxoSmithKline’s blood cancer drugs panobinostat (Farydak) and belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep) were also withdrawn based on confirmatory trial results.

Continued approval of talquetemab-tgvs for this indication is also contingent on verifying efficacy in confirmatory trials.

The new treatment approach represents a “welcome addition to the myeloma community,” Michael Andreini, president and chief executive officer of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation stated in a Janssen press release. “Although options for the treatment of multiple myeloma have expanded significantly in recent years, the disease remains incurable, and therefore, patients are in need of new treatment options.”

Health care professionals should report all serious adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of any medicine and device to FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

After catching COVID-19 for the second time in July 2022, Daniel Lewis suffered persistent headaches, chest pain, and a dangerously high heart rate. He recalls that he was also so exhausted packing for a family wedding that he had to take a break to rest each time he put something into his suitcase.

Instead of attending the wedding, the 30-year-old Washington data analyst visited his doctor, who diagnosed “some postviral thing” and prescribed rest. Mr. Lewis found a new doctor, went to a long COVID clinic, and saw multiple specialists, but a year later, he’s still sick – and disabled. He meets the federal criteria for long COVID (symptoms that last more than 4 weeks).

He now uses an electric wheelchair whenever he leaves his apartment, a far cry from his pre-COVID life, when he was training for a half marathon.

“Some doctors have genuinely tried to help,” he said. “Most don’t really know what long COVID is, and ... since there’s no official guidance on what to do with long COVID patients, they just throw up their hands and say there’s nothing to do.”

That could be changing – at least the part about official guidance. New findings published in JAMA indicate we’re getting closer to unraveling what long COVID is all about and may help refine how it is defined and diagnosed. The study identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, an important step toward better understanding and treatment of the condition, which affects an estimated 65 million people worldwide.

Although the study provides a way to systematically identify the condition, the authors were clear that this is significant but that it is only a first step. Naming symptoms is very different from understanding what causes them, and understanding them is critical for developing effective treatments, said pulmonologist Bruce Levy, MD, a study coauthor who is interim chair of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Researchers relied on self-reported symptoms from the 9,764 participants, all adults who are part of the ongoing Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a longitudinal study run by the National Institutes of Health. Some patients had long COVID when they signed up for the study, some developed it afterward, and some had never had it, or if they had, they were unaware.

Other studies, most of them involving smaller groups of patients, have examined long COVID biomarkers, risk factors, and specific symptoms. Dr. Levy said it’s important to have a symptom-based definition of long COVID that draws from a large cohort of patients who reported on their experiences with symptoms during the aftermath of infection. However, he pointed out that because participants volunteered for the study and were not chosen on the basis of specific criteria, they may not be representative of the more general population of patients with long COVID.

“We need this kind of evidence – it’s important to have self-reported symptoms, because clearly, the patients know what they’re feeling,” Dr. Levy said. “But it’s only part of the picture.”

Dr. Levy said the definition of long COVID needs to be further refined by ongoing research, including objective assessments of clinical findings, laboratory testing, imaging, and biomarkers.

One of the notable findings in the JAMA study is that certain symptoms tend to occur in clusters. The biostatisticians and analysts who processed the data identified four subgroups of very common symptoms that appeared together in more than 80% of the long COVID patients: loss of or change in smell and taste; postexertional malaise and fatigue; brain fog, postexertional malaise, and fatigue; and fatigue, postexertional malaise, dizziness, brain fog, gastrointestinal issues, and palpitations.

Many of those symptoms are also associated with underlying conditions not related to long COVID, which makes an accurate diagnosis a challenge.

“Just the fact that they would cluster into four groups suggests that underlying all this is not just one unifying pathobiology,” Dr. Levy said. He stressed that clinicians need to understand what’s causing the symptoms before they can properly treat patients.

He pointed out that two of the possible disease-driving mechanisms are persistence of the virus and prolonged inflammation that is slow to resolve. For patients experiencing inflammation after the virus is gone, an anti-inflammatory therapy would be most appropriate.

But if they have persistent virus, “you would want to treat with an antiviral antibiotic and not quiet down the body’s antiviral inflammatory response,” he said. “How you treat the two potential underlying causes of long COVID could thus be almost diametrically opposed, so that’s part of the importance of figuring out what is the underlying cause of those symptoms, not just identifying the symptoms themselves.”

More studies are needed to determine whether long COVID is a syndrome or is related to a singular pathobiology, experts said.

That’s consistent with the impression of long COVID researcher Harlan Krumholz, MD, the Harold H. Hines Jr. professor of medicine (cardiology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Krumholz worries that some clinicians might use the JAMA findings to dismiss patients whose symptoms meet the criteria in the scoring system developed for the study.

“It’s important for people who read this paper to know that this is preliminary,” said Dr. Krumholz, a principal investigator of another patient-focused study designed to understand long COVID – the Yale Listen to Immune, Symptom, and Treatment Experiences Now (LISTEN) Study. “It’s a condition we don’t understand yet.”

Dr. Krumholz said he has lost track of the number of patients he knows who, like Daniel Lewis, are ill and are unable to get answers. “There is an intense sense of inadequacy on the clinical side and the research side,” he said. “Every day people ask me, ‘Are there any evidence-based strategies?’ And so far I have to say, every day, ‘No.’ I hate to say it, but it’s kind of like every patient is on their own. They’re trying different things because they can’t wait. There is an imperative to help them.”

At the end of July, the National Institutes of Health launched phase 2 clinical trials to evaluate at least four new treatments for long COVID, all part of the RECOVER initiative. By then, Mr. Lewis, who believes his myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome was triggered by the virus, had made plans to try an alternative, experimental therapy.

“My hope is that it will fix me,” he said. “I’m excited about those kinds of hard-hitting infusion, immunological treatment.”

As for the JAMA study, he didn’t allow himself to get excited when it was released, a function of his experience as a data analyst and long COVID patient.

“I don’t think it moves the needle much yet,” he said. “It’s the first study, and we shouldn’t expect much from the first pieces of data to come out of that. If they keep following that cohort and go deeper and deeper, they’re going to find some interesting stuff that will lead to treatments.”

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

After catching COVID-19 for the second time in July 2022, Daniel Lewis suffered persistent headaches, chest pain, and a dangerously high heart rate. He recalls that he was also so exhausted packing for a family wedding that he had to take a break to rest each time he put something into his suitcase.

Instead of attending the wedding, the 30-year-old Washington data analyst visited his doctor, who diagnosed “some postviral thing” and prescribed rest. Mr. Lewis found a new doctor, went to a long COVID clinic, and saw multiple specialists, but a year later, he’s still sick – and disabled. He meets the federal criteria for long COVID (symptoms that last more than 4 weeks).

He now uses an electric wheelchair whenever he leaves his apartment, a far cry from his pre-COVID life, when he was training for a half marathon.

“Some doctors have genuinely tried to help,” he said. “Most don’t really know what long COVID is, and ... since there’s no official guidance on what to do with long COVID patients, they just throw up their hands and say there’s nothing to do.”

That could be changing – at least the part about official guidance. New findings published in JAMA indicate we’re getting closer to unraveling what long COVID is all about and may help refine how it is defined and diagnosed. The study identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, an important step toward better understanding and treatment of the condition, which affects an estimated 65 million people worldwide.

Although the study provides a way to systematically identify the condition, the authors were clear that this is significant but that it is only a first step. Naming symptoms is very different from understanding what causes them, and understanding them is critical for developing effective treatments, said pulmonologist Bruce Levy, MD, a study coauthor who is interim chair of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Researchers relied on self-reported symptoms from the 9,764 participants, all adults who are part of the ongoing Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a longitudinal study run by the National Institutes of Health. Some patients had long COVID when they signed up for the study, some developed it afterward, and some had never had it, or if they had, they were unaware.

Other studies, most of them involving smaller groups of patients, have examined long COVID biomarkers, risk factors, and specific symptoms. Dr. Levy said it’s important to have a symptom-based definition of long COVID that draws from a large cohort of patients who reported on their experiences with symptoms during the aftermath of infection. However, he pointed out that because participants volunteered for the study and were not chosen on the basis of specific criteria, they may not be representative of the more general population of patients with long COVID.

“We need this kind of evidence – it’s important to have self-reported symptoms, because clearly, the patients know what they’re feeling,” Dr. Levy said. “But it’s only part of the picture.”

Dr. Levy said the definition of long COVID needs to be further refined by ongoing research, including objective assessments of clinical findings, laboratory testing, imaging, and biomarkers.

One of the notable findings in the JAMA study is that certain symptoms tend to occur in clusters. The biostatisticians and analysts who processed the data identified four subgroups of very common symptoms that appeared together in more than 80% of the long COVID patients: loss of or change in smell and taste; postexertional malaise and fatigue; brain fog, postexertional malaise, and fatigue; and fatigue, postexertional malaise, dizziness, brain fog, gastrointestinal issues, and palpitations.

Many of those symptoms are also associated with underlying conditions not related to long COVID, which makes an accurate diagnosis a challenge.

“Just the fact that they would cluster into four groups suggests that underlying all this is not just one unifying pathobiology,” Dr. Levy said. He stressed that clinicians need to understand what’s causing the symptoms before they can properly treat patients.

He pointed out that two of the possible disease-driving mechanisms are persistence of the virus and prolonged inflammation that is slow to resolve. For patients experiencing inflammation after the virus is gone, an anti-inflammatory therapy would be most appropriate.

But if they have persistent virus, “you would want to treat with an antiviral antibiotic and not quiet down the body’s antiviral inflammatory response,” he said. “How you treat the two potential underlying causes of long COVID could thus be almost diametrically opposed, so that’s part of the importance of figuring out what is the underlying cause of those symptoms, not just identifying the symptoms themselves.”

More studies are needed to determine whether long COVID is a syndrome or is related to a singular pathobiology, experts said.

That’s consistent with the impression of long COVID researcher Harlan Krumholz, MD, the Harold H. Hines Jr. professor of medicine (cardiology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Krumholz worries that some clinicians might use the JAMA findings to dismiss patients whose symptoms meet the criteria in the scoring system developed for the study.

“It’s important for people who read this paper to know that this is preliminary,” said Dr. Krumholz, a principal investigator of another patient-focused study designed to understand long COVID – the Yale Listen to Immune, Symptom, and Treatment Experiences Now (LISTEN) Study. “It’s a condition we don’t understand yet.”

Dr. Krumholz said he has lost track of the number of patients he knows who, like Daniel Lewis, are ill and are unable to get answers. “There is an intense sense of inadequacy on the clinical side and the research side,” he said. “Every day people ask me, ‘Are there any evidence-based strategies?’ And so far I have to say, every day, ‘No.’ I hate to say it, but it’s kind of like every patient is on their own. They’re trying different things because they can’t wait. There is an imperative to help them.”

At the end of July, the National Institutes of Health launched phase 2 clinical trials to evaluate at least four new treatments for long COVID, all part of the RECOVER initiative. By then, Mr. Lewis, who believes his myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome was triggered by the virus, had made plans to try an alternative, experimental therapy.

“My hope is that it will fix me,” he said. “I’m excited about those kinds of hard-hitting infusion, immunological treatment.”

As for the JAMA study, he didn’t allow himself to get excited when it was released, a function of his experience as a data analyst and long COVID patient.

“I don’t think it moves the needle much yet,” he said. “It’s the first study, and we shouldn’t expect much from the first pieces of data to come out of that. If they keep following that cohort and go deeper and deeper, they’re going to find some interesting stuff that will lead to treatments.”

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

After catching COVID-19 for the second time in July 2022, Daniel Lewis suffered persistent headaches, chest pain, and a dangerously high heart rate. He recalls that he was also so exhausted packing for a family wedding that he had to take a break to rest each time he put something into his suitcase.

Instead of attending the wedding, the 30-year-old Washington data analyst visited his doctor, who diagnosed “some postviral thing” and prescribed rest. Mr. Lewis found a new doctor, went to a long COVID clinic, and saw multiple specialists, but a year later, he’s still sick – and disabled. He meets the federal criteria for long COVID (symptoms that last more than 4 weeks).

He now uses an electric wheelchair whenever he leaves his apartment, a far cry from his pre-COVID life, when he was training for a half marathon.

“Some doctors have genuinely tried to help,” he said. “Most don’t really know what long COVID is, and ... since there’s no official guidance on what to do with long COVID patients, they just throw up their hands and say there’s nothing to do.”

That could be changing – at least the part about official guidance. New findings published in JAMA indicate we’re getting closer to unraveling what long COVID is all about and may help refine how it is defined and diagnosed. The study identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, an important step toward better understanding and treatment of the condition, which affects an estimated 65 million people worldwide.

Although the study provides a way to systematically identify the condition, the authors were clear that this is significant but that it is only a first step. Naming symptoms is very different from understanding what causes them, and understanding them is critical for developing effective treatments, said pulmonologist Bruce Levy, MD, a study coauthor who is interim chair of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Researchers relied on self-reported symptoms from the 9,764 participants, all adults who are part of the ongoing Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a longitudinal study run by the National Institutes of Health. Some patients had long COVID when they signed up for the study, some developed it afterward, and some had never had it, or if they had, they were unaware.

Other studies, most of them involving smaller groups of patients, have examined long COVID biomarkers, risk factors, and specific symptoms. Dr. Levy said it’s important to have a symptom-based definition of long COVID that draws from a large cohort of patients who reported on their experiences with symptoms during the aftermath of infection. However, he pointed out that because participants volunteered for the study and were not chosen on the basis of specific criteria, they may not be representative of the more general population of patients with long COVID.

“We need this kind of evidence – it’s important to have self-reported symptoms, because clearly, the patients know what they’re feeling,” Dr. Levy said. “But it’s only part of the picture.”

Dr. Levy said the definition of long COVID needs to be further refined by ongoing research, including objective assessments of clinical findings, laboratory testing, imaging, and biomarkers.

One of the notable findings in the JAMA study is that certain symptoms tend to occur in clusters. The biostatisticians and analysts who processed the data identified four subgroups of very common symptoms that appeared together in more than 80% of the long COVID patients: loss of or change in smell and taste; postexertional malaise and fatigue; brain fog, postexertional malaise, and fatigue; and fatigue, postexertional malaise, dizziness, brain fog, gastrointestinal issues, and palpitations.

Many of those symptoms are also associated with underlying conditions not related to long COVID, which makes an accurate diagnosis a challenge.

“Just the fact that they would cluster into four groups suggests that underlying all this is not just one unifying pathobiology,” Dr. Levy said. He stressed that clinicians need to understand what’s causing the symptoms before they can properly treat patients.

He pointed out that two of the possible disease-driving mechanisms are persistence of the virus and prolonged inflammation that is slow to resolve. For patients experiencing inflammation after the virus is gone, an anti-inflammatory therapy would be most appropriate.

But if they have persistent virus, “you would want to treat with an antiviral antibiotic and not quiet down the body’s antiviral inflammatory response,” he said. “How you treat the two potential underlying causes of long COVID could thus be almost diametrically opposed, so that’s part of the importance of figuring out what is the underlying cause of those symptoms, not just identifying the symptoms themselves.”

More studies are needed to determine whether long COVID is a syndrome or is related to a singular pathobiology, experts said.

That’s consistent with the impression of long COVID researcher Harlan Krumholz, MD, the Harold H. Hines Jr. professor of medicine (cardiology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Krumholz worries that some clinicians might use the JAMA findings to dismiss patients whose symptoms meet the criteria in the scoring system developed for the study.

“It’s important for people who read this paper to know that this is preliminary,” said Dr. Krumholz, a principal investigator of another patient-focused study designed to understand long COVID – the Yale Listen to Immune, Symptom, and Treatment Experiences Now (LISTEN) Study. “It’s a condition we don’t understand yet.”

Dr. Krumholz said he has lost track of the number of patients he knows who, like Daniel Lewis, are ill and are unable to get answers. “There is an intense sense of inadequacy on the clinical side and the research side,” he said. “Every day people ask me, ‘Are there any evidence-based strategies?’ And so far I have to say, every day, ‘No.’ I hate to say it, but it’s kind of like every patient is on their own. They’re trying different things because they can’t wait. There is an imperative to help them.”

At the end of July, the National Institutes of Health launched phase 2 clinical trials to evaluate at least four new treatments for long COVID, all part of the RECOVER initiative. By then, Mr. Lewis, who believes his myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome was triggered by the virus, had made plans to try an alternative, experimental therapy.

“My hope is that it will fix me,” he said. “I’m excited about those kinds of hard-hitting infusion, immunological treatment.”

As for the JAMA study, he didn’t allow himself to get excited when it was released, a function of his experience as a data analyst and long COVID patient.

“I don’t think it moves the needle much yet,” he said. “It’s the first study, and we shouldn’t expect much from the first pieces of data to come out of that. If they keep following that cohort and go deeper and deeper, they’re going to find some interesting stuff that will lead to treatments.”

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