User login
ICI combinations show survival benefit in advanced renal cancer
The combination treatment should be made readily available worldwide to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the authors said.
Until recently, first-line therapy for RCC has primarily been TKIs that target vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other receptors, including sunitinib and pazopanib. Explorations of novel therapeutic regimens focused on the use of multiple TKIs in combination with monoclonal antibodies that directly inhibit VEGF and inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), such as everolimus.
Some ICIs have already become the preferred first-line treatment for RCC. VEGF and VEGF receptors inhibitors are believed to have immunomodulatory effects, including boosting immune cell infiltration as a result of their effect on tumor vasculature. That idea has spurred recent clinical trials have examined ICIs in combination with VEGF-directed therapies.
In a review published online in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, researchers examined six phase 3 clinical trials. Each compared ICI combinations versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic RCC. Four of the studies tested TKI/ICI combinations, and 1 each tested an ICI/anti-VEGF antibody and dual ICIs.
After median follow-ups of 20-30 months, there was no benefit to PD-L1 inhibitor combinations (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or avelumab plus axitinib) compared to sunitinib. Final survival analyses from one of the trials have not been reported yet.
PD-1 inhibitor combinations fared better. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a 32% reduced risk of death in intermediate poor-risk patients compared to sunitinib, but the combination led to more frequent discontinuation due to toxicity (21.8% versus 12.3%). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib produced a 34% reduction in risk of death (P = .003) and a 48% reduction in risk of progression (P < .0001). Rates of discontinuation due to toxicity were similar to sunitinib.
Pembrolizumab combined with TKIs led to a 32% reduced risk of death (P = .003) and a 29% reduced risk of progression (P < .001). Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib reduced risk of death by 28% (P value not reported) and the risk of progression by 61% (P < .001). Both combinations had a higher frequency of discontinuation due to toxicity (25.9% versus 10.1% and 37.2% versus 14.4%, respectively).
Given that there are no head-to-head comparisons between dual ICI or PD-1/TKI combinations, the researchers suggest that response outcomes may assist in selection between the two approaches. Overall, PD-1/TKI combinations had better overall response rates. The highest was seen in pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, where frequency of progressive disease ranged from 5.4% to 11.3%. Complete response rate ranged from 8% to 10%.
The authors suggest that upfront treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor and a TKI could be appropriate for patients with a high tumor burden or aggressive disease, in whom stopping tumor growth is urgent and progression could be particularly worrisome.
Safety concerns associated with dual ICI combination therapy were similar to those seen in RCC and other cancers. Dose delays, rapid diagnostic workups, appropriate timing, and the use of glucocorticoids were among strategies used to manage treatment-related adverse events.
The authors noted that five combinations are approved by either the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for first-line treatment of metastatic RCC. Factors to consider for treatment selection include patient and disease characteristics, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk status, treatment history during earlier disease stage, and eligibility for immunotherapy. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab may be a good choice for patients with an intermediate or poor IMDC risk since it provides a strong and durable overall survival benefit. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, and nivolumab plus cabozantinib all have good overall response rates and can prolong life, though extended TKI use can lead to chronic toxicity. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not approved for those with a favorable IMDC risk in many regions.
The combination treatment should be made readily available worldwide to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the authors said.
Until recently, first-line therapy for RCC has primarily been TKIs that target vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other receptors, including sunitinib and pazopanib. Explorations of novel therapeutic regimens focused on the use of multiple TKIs in combination with monoclonal antibodies that directly inhibit VEGF and inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), such as everolimus.
Some ICIs have already become the preferred first-line treatment for RCC. VEGF and VEGF receptors inhibitors are believed to have immunomodulatory effects, including boosting immune cell infiltration as a result of their effect on tumor vasculature. That idea has spurred recent clinical trials have examined ICIs in combination with VEGF-directed therapies.
In a review published online in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, researchers examined six phase 3 clinical trials. Each compared ICI combinations versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic RCC. Four of the studies tested TKI/ICI combinations, and 1 each tested an ICI/anti-VEGF antibody and dual ICIs.
After median follow-ups of 20-30 months, there was no benefit to PD-L1 inhibitor combinations (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or avelumab plus axitinib) compared to sunitinib. Final survival analyses from one of the trials have not been reported yet.
PD-1 inhibitor combinations fared better. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a 32% reduced risk of death in intermediate poor-risk patients compared to sunitinib, but the combination led to more frequent discontinuation due to toxicity (21.8% versus 12.3%). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib produced a 34% reduction in risk of death (P = .003) and a 48% reduction in risk of progression (P < .0001). Rates of discontinuation due to toxicity were similar to sunitinib.
Pembrolizumab combined with TKIs led to a 32% reduced risk of death (P = .003) and a 29% reduced risk of progression (P < .001). Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib reduced risk of death by 28% (P value not reported) and the risk of progression by 61% (P < .001). Both combinations had a higher frequency of discontinuation due to toxicity (25.9% versus 10.1% and 37.2% versus 14.4%, respectively).
Given that there are no head-to-head comparisons between dual ICI or PD-1/TKI combinations, the researchers suggest that response outcomes may assist in selection between the two approaches. Overall, PD-1/TKI combinations had better overall response rates. The highest was seen in pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, where frequency of progressive disease ranged from 5.4% to 11.3%. Complete response rate ranged from 8% to 10%.
The authors suggest that upfront treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor and a TKI could be appropriate for patients with a high tumor burden or aggressive disease, in whom stopping tumor growth is urgent and progression could be particularly worrisome.
Safety concerns associated with dual ICI combination therapy were similar to those seen in RCC and other cancers. Dose delays, rapid diagnostic workups, appropriate timing, and the use of glucocorticoids were among strategies used to manage treatment-related adverse events.
The authors noted that five combinations are approved by either the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for first-line treatment of metastatic RCC. Factors to consider for treatment selection include patient and disease characteristics, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk status, treatment history during earlier disease stage, and eligibility for immunotherapy. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab may be a good choice for patients with an intermediate or poor IMDC risk since it provides a strong and durable overall survival benefit. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, and nivolumab plus cabozantinib all have good overall response rates and can prolong life, though extended TKI use can lead to chronic toxicity. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not approved for those with a favorable IMDC risk in many regions.
The combination treatment should be made readily available worldwide to patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the authors said.
Until recently, first-line therapy for RCC has primarily been TKIs that target vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and other receptors, including sunitinib and pazopanib. Explorations of novel therapeutic regimens focused on the use of multiple TKIs in combination with monoclonal antibodies that directly inhibit VEGF and inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), such as everolimus.
Some ICIs have already become the preferred first-line treatment for RCC. VEGF and VEGF receptors inhibitors are believed to have immunomodulatory effects, including boosting immune cell infiltration as a result of their effect on tumor vasculature. That idea has spurred recent clinical trials have examined ICIs in combination with VEGF-directed therapies.
In a review published online in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology, researchers examined six phase 3 clinical trials. Each compared ICI combinations versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic RCC. Four of the studies tested TKI/ICI combinations, and 1 each tested an ICI/anti-VEGF antibody and dual ICIs.
After median follow-ups of 20-30 months, there was no benefit to PD-L1 inhibitor combinations (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or avelumab plus axitinib) compared to sunitinib. Final survival analyses from one of the trials have not been reported yet.
PD-1 inhibitor combinations fared better. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a 32% reduced risk of death in intermediate poor-risk patients compared to sunitinib, but the combination led to more frequent discontinuation due to toxicity (21.8% versus 12.3%). Nivolumab plus cabozantinib produced a 34% reduction in risk of death (P = .003) and a 48% reduction in risk of progression (P < .0001). Rates of discontinuation due to toxicity were similar to sunitinib.
Pembrolizumab combined with TKIs led to a 32% reduced risk of death (P = .003) and a 29% reduced risk of progression (P < .001). Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib reduced risk of death by 28% (P value not reported) and the risk of progression by 61% (P < .001). Both combinations had a higher frequency of discontinuation due to toxicity (25.9% versus 10.1% and 37.2% versus 14.4%, respectively).
Given that there are no head-to-head comparisons between dual ICI or PD-1/TKI combinations, the researchers suggest that response outcomes may assist in selection between the two approaches. Overall, PD-1/TKI combinations had better overall response rates. The highest was seen in pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, where frequency of progressive disease ranged from 5.4% to 11.3%. Complete response rate ranged from 8% to 10%.
The authors suggest that upfront treatment with a PD-1 inhibitor and a TKI could be appropriate for patients with a high tumor burden or aggressive disease, in whom stopping tumor growth is urgent and progression could be particularly worrisome.
Safety concerns associated with dual ICI combination therapy were similar to those seen in RCC and other cancers. Dose delays, rapid diagnostic workups, appropriate timing, and the use of glucocorticoids were among strategies used to manage treatment-related adverse events.
The authors noted that five combinations are approved by either the Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for first-line treatment of metastatic RCC. Factors to consider for treatment selection include patient and disease characteristics, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk status, treatment history during earlier disease stage, and eligibility for immunotherapy. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab may be a good choice for patients with an intermediate or poor IMDC risk since it provides a strong and durable overall survival benefit. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, and nivolumab plus cabozantinib all have good overall response rates and can prolong life, though extended TKI use can lead to chronic toxicity. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not approved for those with a favorable IMDC risk in many regions.
FROM THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN MEDICAL ONCOLOGY
Retention rates high after biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch for inflammatory arthritis
PHILADELPHIA – When patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases were switched from one biosimilar agent to another, treatment retention rates were high, investigators in Denmark reported.
The findings suggest patient-related factors rather than drug-related factors appear to determine whether patients will stay on the new drug, the researchers said.
One year after a Danish government-mandated switch from one infliximab (Remicade) biosimilar to another equally efficacious but less costly biosimilar, 83% of patients who had started therapy on a biosimilar (so-called “originator-naive” patients) stayed on the newly assigned therapy. And so did 92% of patients who had started on the original infliximab (“originator experienced”) before they were switched to one biosimilar and then another.
“In regards to potential baseline predictors, we found that treatment withdrawal was more frequent among originator-naive switchers and patients with higher baseline disease activity, especially [in] patient-reported outcomes, which may indicate that treatment-related outcomes may be more affected by patient-related rather than drug-related factors,” said lead author Hafsah Nabi, MD from the Danish biosimilar registry DANBIO and a PhD candidate at the Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research.
Dr. Nabi reported the results in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Annual review of biologic agents
In Denmark, health authorities issue annual recommendations for the use of biologic agents. “And since patients receive this treatment free from the hospital, based on the tax system, the switches are made due to these cost considerations,” Dr. Nabi said in an interview.
To get the nod from Danish pharmaceutical regulators, pharmaceutical manufacturers submit drugs that have already been approved by the European Medicines Agency for consideration for treatment of specific indications, explained coauthor Merete Lund Hetland, MD, PhD, DMSc, from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.
“Those drugs that are then considered equally safe and effective are invited to this process where they will give their bid, and then the cheapest one will win,” she said.
The winning formulation will be able to capture about 80% of prescriptions for that indication for the coming year.
Awake at the switch
Dr. Nabi, Dr. Hetland, and colleagues studied how one such recent government-mandated switch from one biosimilar to another affected efficacy and patterns of care among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
To identify prior comorbidities, they drew data from the DANBIO registry, which is linked to patient specific but anonymous data from other comprehensive birth-to-death patient registries in Denmark.
They looked at all patients with RA, PsA, or axSpA who were switched from CT-P13 (Remsira, Inflectra) to GP1111 (Zessly) from April 1, 2019, to Feb. 1, 2020.
They identified a total of 1,605 patients, including 685 with RA, 314 with PsA, and 606 with axSpa. The median disease duration was 9 years, and 37% of all patients were in remission according to Clinical Disease Activity Index or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scale.
Of this group, 1,171 had started therapy on a biosimilar.
As noted above, 83% of patients who had never received original infliximab, and 92% of those who were originator experienced were still on the new biosimilar 1 year after the switch.
In a multivariate analysis controlling for demographic and clinical factors at baseline, the variables significantly associated with treatment withdrawal from the new biosimilar (GP11110) included previous Remicade exposure (hazard ratio, 0.36), methotrexate use (HR, 0.60), and patient-reported global visual analog scale (HR, 1.02).
Among all patients, disease activity was stable 6 months before and after the switch, Dr. Nabi said, although she did not show data to support it.
Patient education benefit
During the session, Jonathan Kay, MD, professor of rheumatology and chair of the division of rheumatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, who was not involved the study, asked Dr. Nabi whether patients were educated about equivalent efficacy and safety of biosimilars prior to the switch. He noted that education prior to switching led to a much lower patient withdrawal rate in a similar switching study conducted in The Netherlands.
“In this study, we haven’t looked more specifically into the education and which strategies have been used prior to switching, and we also conclude in the study that there may be the presence of a nocebo effect, which can be handled by better educating the patients,” she replied.
The nocebo effect refers to the phenomenon in which a patient’s belief that a specific intervention may cause harm actually can lead to negative outcomes – in other words, the opposite of the placebo effect.
In an interview, Dr. Kay said that he is confident about the efficacy, safety, and equivalency of approved biosimilar agents.
“A biosimilar that has been reviewed and approved by a regulatory agency such as the [Food and Drug Administration or the [European Medicines Agency] should be equivalent in efficacy and comparable in safety and immunogenicity. I would be fully confident in switching from the reference product to the biosimilar,” he said.
Dr. Nabi reported that the study was partly funded by a research grant from Sandoz, the maker of GP1111. Dr. Hetland has disclosed grants from various companies, not including Sandoz. Dr. Kay disclosed consulting fees from various companies, not including Sandoz.
PHILADELPHIA – When patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases were switched from one biosimilar agent to another, treatment retention rates were high, investigators in Denmark reported.
The findings suggest patient-related factors rather than drug-related factors appear to determine whether patients will stay on the new drug, the researchers said.
One year after a Danish government-mandated switch from one infliximab (Remicade) biosimilar to another equally efficacious but less costly biosimilar, 83% of patients who had started therapy on a biosimilar (so-called “originator-naive” patients) stayed on the newly assigned therapy. And so did 92% of patients who had started on the original infliximab (“originator experienced”) before they were switched to one biosimilar and then another.
“In regards to potential baseline predictors, we found that treatment withdrawal was more frequent among originator-naive switchers and patients with higher baseline disease activity, especially [in] patient-reported outcomes, which may indicate that treatment-related outcomes may be more affected by patient-related rather than drug-related factors,” said lead author Hafsah Nabi, MD from the Danish biosimilar registry DANBIO and a PhD candidate at the Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research.
Dr. Nabi reported the results in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Annual review of biologic agents
In Denmark, health authorities issue annual recommendations for the use of biologic agents. “And since patients receive this treatment free from the hospital, based on the tax system, the switches are made due to these cost considerations,” Dr. Nabi said in an interview.
To get the nod from Danish pharmaceutical regulators, pharmaceutical manufacturers submit drugs that have already been approved by the European Medicines Agency for consideration for treatment of specific indications, explained coauthor Merete Lund Hetland, MD, PhD, DMSc, from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.
“Those drugs that are then considered equally safe and effective are invited to this process where they will give their bid, and then the cheapest one will win,” she said.
The winning formulation will be able to capture about 80% of prescriptions for that indication for the coming year.
Awake at the switch
Dr. Nabi, Dr. Hetland, and colleagues studied how one such recent government-mandated switch from one biosimilar to another affected efficacy and patterns of care among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
To identify prior comorbidities, they drew data from the DANBIO registry, which is linked to patient specific but anonymous data from other comprehensive birth-to-death patient registries in Denmark.
They looked at all patients with RA, PsA, or axSpA who were switched from CT-P13 (Remsira, Inflectra) to GP1111 (Zessly) from April 1, 2019, to Feb. 1, 2020.
They identified a total of 1,605 patients, including 685 with RA, 314 with PsA, and 606 with axSpa. The median disease duration was 9 years, and 37% of all patients were in remission according to Clinical Disease Activity Index or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scale.
Of this group, 1,171 had started therapy on a biosimilar.
As noted above, 83% of patients who had never received original infliximab, and 92% of those who were originator experienced were still on the new biosimilar 1 year after the switch.
In a multivariate analysis controlling for demographic and clinical factors at baseline, the variables significantly associated with treatment withdrawal from the new biosimilar (GP11110) included previous Remicade exposure (hazard ratio, 0.36), methotrexate use (HR, 0.60), and patient-reported global visual analog scale (HR, 1.02).
Among all patients, disease activity was stable 6 months before and after the switch, Dr. Nabi said, although she did not show data to support it.
Patient education benefit
During the session, Jonathan Kay, MD, professor of rheumatology and chair of the division of rheumatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, who was not involved the study, asked Dr. Nabi whether patients were educated about equivalent efficacy and safety of biosimilars prior to the switch. He noted that education prior to switching led to a much lower patient withdrawal rate in a similar switching study conducted in The Netherlands.
“In this study, we haven’t looked more specifically into the education and which strategies have been used prior to switching, and we also conclude in the study that there may be the presence of a nocebo effect, which can be handled by better educating the patients,” she replied.
The nocebo effect refers to the phenomenon in which a patient’s belief that a specific intervention may cause harm actually can lead to negative outcomes – in other words, the opposite of the placebo effect.
In an interview, Dr. Kay said that he is confident about the efficacy, safety, and equivalency of approved biosimilar agents.
“A biosimilar that has been reviewed and approved by a regulatory agency such as the [Food and Drug Administration or the [European Medicines Agency] should be equivalent in efficacy and comparable in safety and immunogenicity. I would be fully confident in switching from the reference product to the biosimilar,” he said.
Dr. Nabi reported that the study was partly funded by a research grant from Sandoz, the maker of GP1111. Dr. Hetland has disclosed grants from various companies, not including Sandoz. Dr. Kay disclosed consulting fees from various companies, not including Sandoz.
PHILADELPHIA – When patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases were switched from one biosimilar agent to another, treatment retention rates were high, investigators in Denmark reported.
The findings suggest patient-related factors rather than drug-related factors appear to determine whether patients will stay on the new drug, the researchers said.
One year after a Danish government-mandated switch from one infliximab (Remicade) biosimilar to another equally efficacious but less costly biosimilar, 83% of patients who had started therapy on a biosimilar (so-called “originator-naive” patients) stayed on the newly assigned therapy. And so did 92% of patients who had started on the original infliximab (“originator experienced”) before they were switched to one biosimilar and then another.
“In regards to potential baseline predictors, we found that treatment withdrawal was more frequent among originator-naive switchers and patients with higher baseline disease activity, especially [in] patient-reported outcomes, which may indicate that treatment-related outcomes may be more affected by patient-related rather than drug-related factors,” said lead author Hafsah Nabi, MD from the Danish biosimilar registry DANBIO and a PhD candidate at the Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research.
Dr. Nabi reported the results in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Annual review of biologic agents
In Denmark, health authorities issue annual recommendations for the use of biologic agents. “And since patients receive this treatment free from the hospital, based on the tax system, the switches are made due to these cost considerations,” Dr. Nabi said in an interview.
To get the nod from Danish pharmaceutical regulators, pharmaceutical manufacturers submit drugs that have already been approved by the European Medicines Agency for consideration for treatment of specific indications, explained coauthor Merete Lund Hetland, MD, PhD, DMSc, from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.
“Those drugs that are then considered equally safe and effective are invited to this process where they will give their bid, and then the cheapest one will win,” she said.
The winning formulation will be able to capture about 80% of prescriptions for that indication for the coming year.
Awake at the switch
Dr. Nabi, Dr. Hetland, and colleagues studied how one such recent government-mandated switch from one biosimilar to another affected efficacy and patterns of care among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
To identify prior comorbidities, they drew data from the DANBIO registry, which is linked to patient specific but anonymous data from other comprehensive birth-to-death patient registries in Denmark.
They looked at all patients with RA, PsA, or axSpA who were switched from CT-P13 (Remsira, Inflectra) to GP1111 (Zessly) from April 1, 2019, to Feb. 1, 2020.
They identified a total of 1,605 patients, including 685 with RA, 314 with PsA, and 606 with axSpa. The median disease duration was 9 years, and 37% of all patients were in remission according to Clinical Disease Activity Index or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scale.
Of this group, 1,171 had started therapy on a biosimilar.
As noted above, 83% of patients who had never received original infliximab, and 92% of those who were originator experienced were still on the new biosimilar 1 year after the switch.
In a multivariate analysis controlling for demographic and clinical factors at baseline, the variables significantly associated with treatment withdrawal from the new biosimilar (GP11110) included previous Remicade exposure (hazard ratio, 0.36), methotrexate use (HR, 0.60), and patient-reported global visual analog scale (HR, 1.02).
Among all patients, disease activity was stable 6 months before and after the switch, Dr. Nabi said, although she did not show data to support it.
Patient education benefit
During the session, Jonathan Kay, MD, professor of rheumatology and chair of the division of rheumatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, who was not involved the study, asked Dr. Nabi whether patients were educated about equivalent efficacy and safety of biosimilars prior to the switch. He noted that education prior to switching led to a much lower patient withdrawal rate in a similar switching study conducted in The Netherlands.
“In this study, we haven’t looked more specifically into the education and which strategies have been used prior to switching, and we also conclude in the study that there may be the presence of a nocebo effect, which can be handled by better educating the patients,” she replied.
The nocebo effect refers to the phenomenon in which a patient’s belief that a specific intervention may cause harm actually can lead to negative outcomes – in other words, the opposite of the placebo effect.
In an interview, Dr. Kay said that he is confident about the efficacy, safety, and equivalency of approved biosimilar agents.
“A biosimilar that has been reviewed and approved by a regulatory agency such as the [Food and Drug Administration or the [European Medicines Agency] should be equivalent in efficacy and comparable in safety and immunogenicity. I would be fully confident in switching from the reference product to the biosimilar,” he said.
Dr. Nabi reported that the study was partly funded by a research grant from Sandoz, the maker of GP1111. Dr. Hetland has disclosed grants from various companies, not including Sandoz. Dr. Kay disclosed consulting fees from various companies, not including Sandoz.
AT ACR 2022
Use 2022’s advocacy successes and frustrations as a catalyst for the new year
As we come to a close on 2022, let’s take a look at the celebrations and frustrations of the past year’s health policies so that they may act as a catalyst, encouraging us to engage with our representatives. Some of these policies include actions by major companies that rule our health care system, as well as the regulations and legislation passed (or not passed) by our governmental entities. And of course, we must consider how profits and politics influence these policies and often rule the roost!
Insurance
Once again, we are facing increased nonmedical switching of stable patients to different medications through ever-increasing formulary exclusions and higher tiering of less profitable drugs. There are some reports of patients being whipsawed back and forth yearly between reference infliximab and various biosimilars, depending on which is the most profitable to the health plan at the time. And now it’s not just the copay accumulator or maximizer programs that are abusing patient assistance programs, there are new “alternative funding companies” that are carving out expensive and specialty drugs from coverage of employers’ funded health plans. These alternative funding companies then obtain medications – sometimes from other countries – and other forms of assistance from manufacturers and foundations. There have been reports that they make the patient assign power of attorney to them and even pretend to be the patient to obtain the drug, assistance, and copay cards and then bill the employer for getting the free drug or assistance. This abuse of the system, along with copay maximizers, are causing drug manufacturers to rethink their assistance policies, with middlemen reaping the advantages of the assistance plans and not the truly needy patient.
Legislation and regulation
Substantive progress continues to be made on access issues in the states. A total of 5 states signed step-therapy legislation into law, 3 states have new copay accumulator program bans, 13 states began to debate the issue of white bagging, and 16 states began to consider the next stage of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform with rebate-pass-through legislation.
At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; H.R. 5376) was enacted in August and, like all major pieces of legislation, there are pros and cons. On the positive side, the legislation reforms Medicare Part D cost-sharing, including – for the first time – the creation of an annual cap on cost-sharing by beneficiaries. That will especially help patients with high, ongoing prescription drug needs. On the negative side, despite its extensive drug-pricing provisions, the IRA did not include any reform of PBM practices. In fact, Congress has delayed implementation of the so-called “rebate rule” for 10 years. That rule would have essentially ended payments from drug companies to PBMs in exchange for formulary placement by removing safe harbor protection from antikickback law for these payments, allowing patients to benefit from these payments.
Finally, the IRA included extensive provisions applicable to drug manufacturers, including a mechanism for Medicare to set prices directly for medications that have been on the market for a certain number of years but are still without a biosimilar or generic. This will apply fully to selected Part B drugs as of 2028. The key for rheumatologists and our patients in the next few years will be to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as it implements this provision to ensure that rheumatologists are not underwater financially on the acquisition of medications subject to the new pricing mechanism.
With regard to utilization management reform at the federal level, the Ensuring Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173) would reform prior authorization in Medicare Advantage, but after passing in the House on Sept. 14, the bill has slowed down in the Senate. In some part, that may be because of a surprising score from the Congressional Budget Office, which projected that the bill would cost $16 billion. However, this is not insurmountable: The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and its sponsors remain committed to enactment before the end of the year. Additionally, the Safe Step Act (S. 464) would reform step therapy practices in employer-based coverage, but that legislation has not passed either chamber of Congress despite bipartisan support and is unlikely to be enacted before the end of this congressional session.
As noted above, PBMs escaped meaningful scrutiny or reform in the IRA, but the Federal Trade Commission took a different approach when it announced earlier in 2022 that it would conduct an investigation into the business practices of several major PBMs. That study is ongoing and, when finished, will likely result in some additional ideas for meaningful legislative reform.
Finally, there’s the frustration of the egregious Medicare Physician Fee Schedule that has decreased physicians’ reimbursement in a time of accelerated inflation in the cost of running a practice. At the same time, Medicare Advantage plans and everyone else in the government-reimbursed health system are getting at least an inflationary raise. This has created an ire among all physicians that we have not seen in quite a while and which we are leveraging into grassroots outreach.
The problems in the Fee Schedule result from a combination of factors, but one overarching issue is the concept of “budget neutrality,” which essentially requires CMS to make up for any new spending over a certain amount by a commensurate reduction across the whole Fee Schedule. This has the effect of turning the Fee Schedule into a fixed pie: If someone’s slice gets bigger, someone else’s slice must get smaller, but the pie itself never gets bigger. To make matters worse, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has not resulted in advancing value-driven care as the Congress had envisioned when it enacted that legislation. The good news is that there is widespread recognition in Congress that a system built on temporary legislative “patches” to avoid deep payment reductions is unsustainable and must be fixed. The Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022 (H.R. 8800) that’s currently pending in the House to offset the looming 2023 Fee Schedule cuts also includes a Sense of the Congress, or nonbinding resolution, establishing the need for administrative and legislative actions for long-term, meaningful reform of Medicare physician payment, along three principles: ensuring financial stability and predictability, promoting and rewarding value-based care innovation, and safeguarding timely access to high-quality care by advancing health equity and reducing disparities.
Turning frustration into action
Much of the frustration for those of us who take care of patients is that many actions and policies are based on profits and politics and not on patient care.
It is unfortunate that money plays such an important role in politics. We are all aware of the power of the well-heeled lobbyist and how money can lead to legislation that is more beneficial to one for-profit company versus another in the health care sector. But then there is the party politics of health care legislation. We see examples of great legislation offered by one party being buried because it might be beneficial to the “other side” in the next election, in spite of the fact that both sides agree on the issue. Here is where we must fight our cynicism and remember our patients. Building and maintaining a relationship with our representatives, whether we agree with them are not, is a very important part of advocacy.
As we come off the recent elections, it is important that we acquaint ourselves with our newly elected representatives and reacquaint ourselves with our re-elected officials. Recently, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had an advocacy day asking rheumatologists to invite their legislator (city, state, or federal) to their office to witness first-hand the practice of rheumatology. The importance of asking your representative to visit your office cannot be overemphasized. First, you get to know the staffer who arranges these visits. Having a good relationship with your representative’s staff is important in maintaining future communications. Having your legislator tour your office, while you share the daily challenges of getting the right medication for patients, is invaluable to their understanding of how the delay in care that utilization management tools such as prior authorizations and step therapy can cause. It is also helpful for you or your office manager to highlight how independent practices are small businesses that must be run efficiently to ensure they can stay open. Building a relationship with and educating your representatives on issues they may not be familiar with will encourage them to use you as a resource in the future.
CSRO has a legislator invitation template, and we can provide talking points if the invitation is accepted. Many state legislative sessions begin in January, so now is the time to get to know your legislator.
Let’s celebrate the wins of 2022 and not let the frustrations with the system diminish our passion – that’s the hard part! Onward to 2023 as “Rheums for Action!”
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.
As we come to a close on 2022, let’s take a look at the celebrations and frustrations of the past year’s health policies so that they may act as a catalyst, encouraging us to engage with our representatives. Some of these policies include actions by major companies that rule our health care system, as well as the regulations and legislation passed (or not passed) by our governmental entities. And of course, we must consider how profits and politics influence these policies and often rule the roost!
Insurance
Once again, we are facing increased nonmedical switching of stable patients to different medications through ever-increasing formulary exclusions and higher tiering of less profitable drugs. There are some reports of patients being whipsawed back and forth yearly between reference infliximab and various biosimilars, depending on which is the most profitable to the health plan at the time. And now it’s not just the copay accumulator or maximizer programs that are abusing patient assistance programs, there are new “alternative funding companies” that are carving out expensive and specialty drugs from coverage of employers’ funded health plans. These alternative funding companies then obtain medications – sometimes from other countries – and other forms of assistance from manufacturers and foundations. There have been reports that they make the patient assign power of attorney to them and even pretend to be the patient to obtain the drug, assistance, and copay cards and then bill the employer for getting the free drug or assistance. This abuse of the system, along with copay maximizers, are causing drug manufacturers to rethink their assistance policies, with middlemen reaping the advantages of the assistance plans and not the truly needy patient.
Legislation and regulation
Substantive progress continues to be made on access issues in the states. A total of 5 states signed step-therapy legislation into law, 3 states have new copay accumulator program bans, 13 states began to debate the issue of white bagging, and 16 states began to consider the next stage of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform with rebate-pass-through legislation.
At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; H.R. 5376) was enacted in August and, like all major pieces of legislation, there are pros and cons. On the positive side, the legislation reforms Medicare Part D cost-sharing, including – for the first time – the creation of an annual cap on cost-sharing by beneficiaries. That will especially help patients with high, ongoing prescription drug needs. On the negative side, despite its extensive drug-pricing provisions, the IRA did not include any reform of PBM practices. In fact, Congress has delayed implementation of the so-called “rebate rule” for 10 years. That rule would have essentially ended payments from drug companies to PBMs in exchange for formulary placement by removing safe harbor protection from antikickback law for these payments, allowing patients to benefit from these payments.
Finally, the IRA included extensive provisions applicable to drug manufacturers, including a mechanism for Medicare to set prices directly for medications that have been on the market for a certain number of years but are still without a biosimilar or generic. This will apply fully to selected Part B drugs as of 2028. The key for rheumatologists and our patients in the next few years will be to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as it implements this provision to ensure that rheumatologists are not underwater financially on the acquisition of medications subject to the new pricing mechanism.
With regard to utilization management reform at the federal level, the Ensuring Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173) would reform prior authorization in Medicare Advantage, but after passing in the House on Sept. 14, the bill has slowed down in the Senate. In some part, that may be because of a surprising score from the Congressional Budget Office, which projected that the bill would cost $16 billion. However, this is not insurmountable: The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and its sponsors remain committed to enactment before the end of the year. Additionally, the Safe Step Act (S. 464) would reform step therapy practices in employer-based coverage, but that legislation has not passed either chamber of Congress despite bipartisan support and is unlikely to be enacted before the end of this congressional session.
As noted above, PBMs escaped meaningful scrutiny or reform in the IRA, but the Federal Trade Commission took a different approach when it announced earlier in 2022 that it would conduct an investigation into the business practices of several major PBMs. That study is ongoing and, when finished, will likely result in some additional ideas for meaningful legislative reform.
Finally, there’s the frustration of the egregious Medicare Physician Fee Schedule that has decreased physicians’ reimbursement in a time of accelerated inflation in the cost of running a practice. At the same time, Medicare Advantage plans and everyone else in the government-reimbursed health system are getting at least an inflationary raise. This has created an ire among all physicians that we have not seen in quite a while and which we are leveraging into grassroots outreach.
The problems in the Fee Schedule result from a combination of factors, but one overarching issue is the concept of “budget neutrality,” which essentially requires CMS to make up for any new spending over a certain amount by a commensurate reduction across the whole Fee Schedule. This has the effect of turning the Fee Schedule into a fixed pie: If someone’s slice gets bigger, someone else’s slice must get smaller, but the pie itself never gets bigger. To make matters worse, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has not resulted in advancing value-driven care as the Congress had envisioned when it enacted that legislation. The good news is that there is widespread recognition in Congress that a system built on temporary legislative “patches” to avoid deep payment reductions is unsustainable and must be fixed. The Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022 (H.R. 8800) that’s currently pending in the House to offset the looming 2023 Fee Schedule cuts also includes a Sense of the Congress, or nonbinding resolution, establishing the need for administrative and legislative actions for long-term, meaningful reform of Medicare physician payment, along three principles: ensuring financial stability and predictability, promoting and rewarding value-based care innovation, and safeguarding timely access to high-quality care by advancing health equity and reducing disparities.
Turning frustration into action
Much of the frustration for those of us who take care of patients is that many actions and policies are based on profits and politics and not on patient care.
It is unfortunate that money plays such an important role in politics. We are all aware of the power of the well-heeled lobbyist and how money can lead to legislation that is more beneficial to one for-profit company versus another in the health care sector. But then there is the party politics of health care legislation. We see examples of great legislation offered by one party being buried because it might be beneficial to the “other side” in the next election, in spite of the fact that both sides agree on the issue. Here is where we must fight our cynicism and remember our patients. Building and maintaining a relationship with our representatives, whether we agree with them are not, is a very important part of advocacy.
As we come off the recent elections, it is important that we acquaint ourselves with our newly elected representatives and reacquaint ourselves with our re-elected officials. Recently, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had an advocacy day asking rheumatologists to invite their legislator (city, state, or federal) to their office to witness first-hand the practice of rheumatology. The importance of asking your representative to visit your office cannot be overemphasized. First, you get to know the staffer who arranges these visits. Having a good relationship with your representative’s staff is important in maintaining future communications. Having your legislator tour your office, while you share the daily challenges of getting the right medication for patients, is invaluable to their understanding of how the delay in care that utilization management tools such as prior authorizations and step therapy can cause. It is also helpful for you or your office manager to highlight how independent practices are small businesses that must be run efficiently to ensure they can stay open. Building a relationship with and educating your representatives on issues they may not be familiar with will encourage them to use you as a resource in the future.
CSRO has a legislator invitation template, and we can provide talking points if the invitation is accepted. Many state legislative sessions begin in January, so now is the time to get to know your legislator.
Let’s celebrate the wins of 2022 and not let the frustrations with the system diminish our passion – that’s the hard part! Onward to 2023 as “Rheums for Action!”
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.
As we come to a close on 2022, let’s take a look at the celebrations and frustrations of the past year’s health policies so that they may act as a catalyst, encouraging us to engage with our representatives. Some of these policies include actions by major companies that rule our health care system, as well as the regulations and legislation passed (or not passed) by our governmental entities. And of course, we must consider how profits and politics influence these policies and often rule the roost!
Insurance
Once again, we are facing increased nonmedical switching of stable patients to different medications through ever-increasing formulary exclusions and higher tiering of less profitable drugs. There are some reports of patients being whipsawed back and forth yearly between reference infliximab and various biosimilars, depending on which is the most profitable to the health plan at the time. And now it’s not just the copay accumulator or maximizer programs that are abusing patient assistance programs, there are new “alternative funding companies” that are carving out expensive and specialty drugs from coverage of employers’ funded health plans. These alternative funding companies then obtain medications – sometimes from other countries – and other forms of assistance from manufacturers and foundations. There have been reports that they make the patient assign power of attorney to them and even pretend to be the patient to obtain the drug, assistance, and copay cards and then bill the employer for getting the free drug or assistance. This abuse of the system, along with copay maximizers, are causing drug manufacturers to rethink their assistance policies, with middlemen reaping the advantages of the assistance plans and not the truly needy patient.
Legislation and regulation
Substantive progress continues to be made on access issues in the states. A total of 5 states signed step-therapy legislation into law, 3 states have new copay accumulator program bans, 13 states began to debate the issue of white bagging, and 16 states began to consider the next stage of pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform with rebate-pass-through legislation.
At the federal level, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; H.R. 5376) was enacted in August and, like all major pieces of legislation, there are pros and cons. On the positive side, the legislation reforms Medicare Part D cost-sharing, including – for the first time – the creation of an annual cap on cost-sharing by beneficiaries. That will especially help patients with high, ongoing prescription drug needs. On the negative side, despite its extensive drug-pricing provisions, the IRA did not include any reform of PBM practices. In fact, Congress has delayed implementation of the so-called “rebate rule” for 10 years. That rule would have essentially ended payments from drug companies to PBMs in exchange for formulary placement by removing safe harbor protection from antikickback law for these payments, allowing patients to benefit from these payments.
Finally, the IRA included extensive provisions applicable to drug manufacturers, including a mechanism for Medicare to set prices directly for medications that have been on the market for a certain number of years but are still without a biosimilar or generic. This will apply fully to selected Part B drugs as of 2028. The key for rheumatologists and our patients in the next few years will be to engage with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as it implements this provision to ensure that rheumatologists are not underwater financially on the acquisition of medications subject to the new pricing mechanism.
With regard to utilization management reform at the federal level, the Ensuring Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act (H.R. 3173) would reform prior authorization in Medicare Advantage, but after passing in the House on Sept. 14, the bill has slowed down in the Senate. In some part, that may be because of a surprising score from the Congressional Budget Office, which projected that the bill would cost $16 billion. However, this is not insurmountable: The legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and its sponsors remain committed to enactment before the end of the year. Additionally, the Safe Step Act (S. 464) would reform step therapy practices in employer-based coverage, but that legislation has not passed either chamber of Congress despite bipartisan support and is unlikely to be enacted before the end of this congressional session.
As noted above, PBMs escaped meaningful scrutiny or reform in the IRA, but the Federal Trade Commission took a different approach when it announced earlier in 2022 that it would conduct an investigation into the business practices of several major PBMs. That study is ongoing and, when finished, will likely result in some additional ideas for meaningful legislative reform.
Finally, there’s the frustration of the egregious Medicare Physician Fee Schedule that has decreased physicians’ reimbursement in a time of accelerated inflation in the cost of running a practice. At the same time, Medicare Advantage plans and everyone else in the government-reimbursed health system are getting at least an inflationary raise. This has created an ire among all physicians that we have not seen in quite a while and which we are leveraging into grassroots outreach.
The problems in the Fee Schedule result from a combination of factors, but one overarching issue is the concept of “budget neutrality,” which essentially requires CMS to make up for any new spending over a certain amount by a commensurate reduction across the whole Fee Schedule. This has the effect of turning the Fee Schedule into a fixed pie: If someone’s slice gets bigger, someone else’s slice must get smaller, but the pie itself never gets bigger. To make matters worse, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has not resulted in advancing value-driven care as the Congress had envisioned when it enacted that legislation. The good news is that there is widespread recognition in Congress that a system built on temporary legislative “patches” to avoid deep payment reductions is unsustainable and must be fixed. The Supporting Medicare Providers Act of 2022 (H.R. 8800) that’s currently pending in the House to offset the looming 2023 Fee Schedule cuts also includes a Sense of the Congress, or nonbinding resolution, establishing the need for administrative and legislative actions for long-term, meaningful reform of Medicare physician payment, along three principles: ensuring financial stability and predictability, promoting and rewarding value-based care innovation, and safeguarding timely access to high-quality care by advancing health equity and reducing disparities.
Turning frustration into action
Much of the frustration for those of us who take care of patients is that many actions and policies are based on profits and politics and not on patient care.
It is unfortunate that money plays such an important role in politics. We are all aware of the power of the well-heeled lobbyist and how money can lead to legislation that is more beneficial to one for-profit company versus another in the health care sector. But then there is the party politics of health care legislation. We see examples of great legislation offered by one party being buried because it might be beneficial to the “other side” in the next election, in spite of the fact that both sides agree on the issue. Here is where we must fight our cynicism and remember our patients. Building and maintaining a relationship with our representatives, whether we agree with them are not, is a very important part of advocacy.
As we come off the recent elections, it is important that we acquaint ourselves with our newly elected representatives and reacquaint ourselves with our re-elected officials. Recently, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations had an advocacy day asking rheumatologists to invite their legislator (city, state, or federal) to their office to witness first-hand the practice of rheumatology. The importance of asking your representative to visit your office cannot be overemphasized. First, you get to know the staffer who arranges these visits. Having a good relationship with your representative’s staff is important in maintaining future communications. Having your legislator tour your office, while you share the daily challenges of getting the right medication for patients, is invaluable to their understanding of how the delay in care that utilization management tools such as prior authorizations and step therapy can cause. It is also helpful for you or your office manager to highlight how independent practices are small businesses that must be run efficiently to ensure they can stay open. Building a relationship with and educating your representatives on issues they may not be familiar with will encourage them to use you as a resource in the future.
CSRO has a legislator invitation template, and we can provide talking points if the invitation is accepted. Many state legislative sessions begin in January, so now is the time to get to know your legislator.
Let’s celebrate the wins of 2022 and not let the frustrations with the system diminish our passion – that’s the hard part! Onward to 2023 as “Rheums for Action!”
Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs and its immediate Past President, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.
Rituximab ‘a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide’ to improve ILD-CTD
PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.
“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
Double-blind, double-dummy
RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.
The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.
Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m2 of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.
“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
Improved lung function
While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.
“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.
But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).
“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”
Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.
“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”
The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.
Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.
Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”
Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.
“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
Double-blind, double-dummy
RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.
The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.
Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m2 of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.
“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
Improved lung function
While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.
“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.
But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).
“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”
Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.
“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”
The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.
Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.
Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”
Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.
“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
Double-blind, double-dummy
RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.
The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.
Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m2 of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.
“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
Improved lung function
While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.
“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.
But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).
“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”
Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.
“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”
The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.
Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.
Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”
Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
AT ACR 2022
How AI is, or will soon be, relevant in radiation oncology
Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that
In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.
Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.
He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.
He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.
Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
AI in pathology and treatment selection
In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.
The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.
That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.
Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.
No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.
Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.
This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”
Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”
Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.
* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that
In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.
Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.
He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.
He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.
Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
AI in pathology and treatment selection
In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.
The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.
That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.
Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.
No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.
Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.
This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”
Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”
Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.
* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting many aspects of health care, and radiation oncology is no exception. It has the potential to cut costs and streamline work flows ranging from image analysis to treatment plan formulation, but its specific place in clinical practice is still being debated.
In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, researchers discussed some of the ways that AI is or will soon be relevant to the clinic. The general consensus was that
In his talk, Sanjay Aneja, MD focused on practical applications of AI that are in the clinic or close to being ready. One example is image classification. “There has been recent evidence that suggests in a variety of different kind of scenarios, deep-learning models can be very good at image classification in automated ways,” said Dr. Aneja, who is a professor of radiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He described one study that used AI to classify 14 different pathologies on chest x-ray images.
Dr. Aneja described the open-source nnU-net tool, which automatically configures itself and segments biomedical images for research or clinical purposes, including therapy planning support, intraoperative support, and tumor growth monitoring. The researchers who developed it also created a “recipe” to systematize configuration of nnU-net, making it useful as an out-of-the-box tool for image segmentation.
He predicted that AI will improve radiology oncology by assisting in the determination of disease extent, including microscopic areas of disease. It could also help plan treatment volume and monitor treatment response. “I think that these are the types of things that will be moving toward the clinic in the future; very specific applications and models trained on very specific scenarios that will help us answer a very important clinical question,” Dr. Aneja said.
He expects AI to contribute to auto-segmenting and clinical contouring, “but I will caution everyone that these algorithms have not been proven to be better than physician contours. They very frequently fail in the specific use cases when anatomy is distorted by, I don’t know, say a tumor. And so a lot of times, we don’t actually have the ability to just make it an automated process. I think it’ll be something that physicians will use to help them but not necessarily replace their contouring ability,” Dr. Aneja said.
Another, potentially more useful application, is in adaptive radiation planning. “I think that AI auto-contouring will be very helpful in establishing contours in a situation in which a physician doing them would not be feasible. We need to have nimble and computationally efficient auto segmentation algorithms that will be able to be easily deployed at the linear accelerator,” he said.
AI in pathology and treatment selection
In another talk, Osama Mohamad, MD talked about AI in pathology, and specifically treatment selection. He described research from his group that digitized pathology data from 5,500 patients drawn from five randomized, clinical trials. They used AI on data from four of the clinical trials to identify a prognostic biomarker for distant metastasis, then validated it on data from the remaining clinical trial, which compared radiation versus radiation plus short-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer.
The results suggested that most patients should receive hormone therapy, but the AI suggested a more nuanced answer. “Patients who had AI biomarker negative do not see any benefit from adding 4 months of hormone therapy ... whereas patients who have biomarker positive have significant difference and improvement in distant metastasis at 10 years and 15 years. This means that we can save a significant proportion of patients from getting [androgen deprivation therapy], which is hormonal therapy and has very well-known side effects, because they simply they will not benefit,” said Dr. Mohamad, who is an assistant professor of radiation oncology at University of California, San Francisco.
That study relied on the ArteraAI prostate cancer test, which is available through a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment–certified laboratory in Florida.
Another example of AI used to plan treatment is On-line Real-time Benchmarking Informatics Technology for Radiotherapy (ORBIT-RT), developed at the University of California, San Diego. It focuses on radiotherapy treatment plan quality control, and has two main components: creating clinically validated plan routines and a free radiotherapy plan quality control system.
No matter how impressive the technical advances may be, AI contributions won’t impact clinical practice if radiation oncologists, physicians, and patients don’t accept AI. Dr. Aneja’s group surveyed patients about which health field they would feel more comfortable with AI having an important role. Most said they were extremely uncomfortable when it came to cancer. “Now, does that mean that we can’t use AI in oncology? No, I think it just means that we have to be a little bit more nuanced in our approach and how we develop AI solutions for cancer patients,” Dr. Aneja said.
Physicians also show reluctance, according to Alejandro Berlin, MD, who is an affiliate scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. He discussed some research looking at physician acceptance of machine learning. His group looked at physician acceptance of treatment plans for prostate cancer that were generated by physicians and in parallel by machine learning. In a theoretical phase, physicians generally agreed that the machine learning plans were better, but when it came to a phase of the study in which physicians chose which plan to implement in a real patient, the acceptance of machine learning-generated plans dropped by 20%.
This tendency to trust humans over machines is what Dr. Berlin called “automation bias,” and he called for a more collaborative approach to implement AI. “In some cases, [machine learning] is going to be good and sufficient. And in some cases, you will need the expertise of a human.”
Dr. Aneja, who also moderated the session, expressed a similar sentiment when summing up the day’s talks: “I do feel like it’s a disruptive technology ... but I think there will still be a need for us to have people who are trained in order to evaluate and make sure that these algorithms are working correctly and efficiently.”
Dr. Aneja, Dr. Mohamad, and Dr. Berlin have no relevant financial disclosures.
* This article was updated on Nov. 15, 2022.
FROM ASTRO 2022
Clinical signs differ between children and adults with vasculitis
Researchers have found a link between age of diagnosis and various clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV).
The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, may have implications for research and treatment, especially in children.
AAV is a group of conditions characterized by the development of autoantibodies to the neutrophil proteins proteinase 3 (PR3-ANCA) or myeloperoxidase (MPO-ANCA).
The rare autoimmune condition can cause systemic inflammation and damage, sometimes permanent, to small- and medium-sized arteries. Clinical presentations vary and can include several organs, including skin, stomach, intestines, lung, and kidney, as well as airways in ear, nose, and throat.
Data limited on child vs. adult characteristics
AAV can be diagnosed in any decade of life, but clinical characteristics and outcomes often differ between children and adults, and data are limited. Studies often exclude children.
Lead author Jessica Bloom, MD, MSCS, a pediatric rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues performed an analysis of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) who were enrolled in the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium Longitudinal Studies from 2013 to 2021.
Patients with eosinophilic GPA (EGPA) were analyzed separately. Children and young adults with EGPA were combined because of the small sample size (n = 87).
The groups were sorted by the age they were diagnosed: under 18 years old, 18-40, 40-65, and older than 65.
More than 1,000 patients included
Dr. Bloom’s team analyzed data from 1,020 patients: 61 diagnosed as children, 240 as young adults, 560 as middle-aged adults, and 159 diagnosed as older adults. At all ages, about nine out of 10 patients were White.
They found 852 (84%) had GPA and 165 (16%) had MPA. The analysis also showed 893 (92%) of patients with ANCA results were ANCA positive: 637 (65%) with PR3-ANCA, 247 (25%) with MPO-ANCA, and 9 (1%) with both.
Differences between age groups included:
- Children experienced more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults with the condition.
- About half of patients diagnosed in childhood received both cyclophosphamide and rituximab. That rate decreased with increasing age of diagnosis to as low as 14% for those diagnosed in older adulthood.
- More females than males in all age groups were diagnosed with AAV, but the difference was most pronounced when diagnosed in childhood, and female predominance declined as age increased.
- Older adults experienced more neurologic disease and less musculoskeletal and sinus involvement.
Additionally, for those diagnosed after age 65, after adjusting for disease length and whether they were taking cyclophosphamide and/or rituximab, the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) and ANCA Vasculitis Index of Damage (AVID) scores were higher than for those diagnosed in childhood.
“However, these differences are no longer significant when medication toxicity and comorbidity-related items are excluded. Thus, differences in the VDI and AVID scores are driven by non–disease-specific damage,” Dr. Bloom said.
Bringing children into the clinical discussion
Dr. Bloom said in an interview that
For example, the findings that children have more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults “may warrant more aggressive therapy,” she said. Children also have different growth and psychosocial risk factors during their disease course and may live longer with the disease than those in older age groups.
“Our study helps to point out these differences and bring children into the discussion,” Dr. Bloom said. “It also recognizes that damage scores used in studies and care may not adequately assess disease across the lifespan, as they are largely influenced by items not specific to the disease but rather medication toxicity and comorbidities, such as osteoporosis, cataracts, and malignancy.”
Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview that the work highlights interesting information about the fact that disease features are skewed differently in children – “in particular the higher likelihood of upper airway [subglottic] disease, and potentially severe lower airway disease [alveolar hemorrhage].”
However, from a practical standpoint, Dr. Spiera said, “I am not sure that this will change our clinical approach to different patients, but the differences in disease features and even the sex differences in terms of who are afflicted with GPA [more often children and more likely to be female] may offer insights into disease pathogenesis.”
Dr. Bloom received funding from the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium and Vasculitis Foundation to conduct this work as a VCRC-VF fellow. Several coauthors reported various conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers have found a link between age of diagnosis and various clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV).
The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, may have implications for research and treatment, especially in children.
AAV is a group of conditions characterized by the development of autoantibodies to the neutrophil proteins proteinase 3 (PR3-ANCA) or myeloperoxidase (MPO-ANCA).
The rare autoimmune condition can cause systemic inflammation and damage, sometimes permanent, to small- and medium-sized arteries. Clinical presentations vary and can include several organs, including skin, stomach, intestines, lung, and kidney, as well as airways in ear, nose, and throat.
Data limited on child vs. adult characteristics
AAV can be diagnosed in any decade of life, but clinical characteristics and outcomes often differ between children and adults, and data are limited. Studies often exclude children.
Lead author Jessica Bloom, MD, MSCS, a pediatric rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues performed an analysis of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) who were enrolled in the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium Longitudinal Studies from 2013 to 2021.
Patients with eosinophilic GPA (EGPA) were analyzed separately. Children and young adults with EGPA were combined because of the small sample size (n = 87).
The groups were sorted by the age they were diagnosed: under 18 years old, 18-40, 40-65, and older than 65.
More than 1,000 patients included
Dr. Bloom’s team analyzed data from 1,020 patients: 61 diagnosed as children, 240 as young adults, 560 as middle-aged adults, and 159 diagnosed as older adults. At all ages, about nine out of 10 patients were White.
They found 852 (84%) had GPA and 165 (16%) had MPA. The analysis also showed 893 (92%) of patients with ANCA results were ANCA positive: 637 (65%) with PR3-ANCA, 247 (25%) with MPO-ANCA, and 9 (1%) with both.
Differences between age groups included:
- Children experienced more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults with the condition.
- About half of patients diagnosed in childhood received both cyclophosphamide and rituximab. That rate decreased with increasing age of diagnosis to as low as 14% for those diagnosed in older adulthood.
- More females than males in all age groups were diagnosed with AAV, but the difference was most pronounced when diagnosed in childhood, and female predominance declined as age increased.
- Older adults experienced more neurologic disease and less musculoskeletal and sinus involvement.
Additionally, for those diagnosed after age 65, after adjusting for disease length and whether they were taking cyclophosphamide and/or rituximab, the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) and ANCA Vasculitis Index of Damage (AVID) scores were higher than for those diagnosed in childhood.
“However, these differences are no longer significant when medication toxicity and comorbidity-related items are excluded. Thus, differences in the VDI and AVID scores are driven by non–disease-specific damage,” Dr. Bloom said.
Bringing children into the clinical discussion
Dr. Bloom said in an interview that
For example, the findings that children have more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults “may warrant more aggressive therapy,” she said. Children also have different growth and psychosocial risk factors during their disease course and may live longer with the disease than those in older age groups.
“Our study helps to point out these differences and bring children into the discussion,” Dr. Bloom said. “It also recognizes that damage scores used in studies and care may not adequately assess disease across the lifespan, as they are largely influenced by items not specific to the disease but rather medication toxicity and comorbidities, such as osteoporosis, cataracts, and malignancy.”
Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview that the work highlights interesting information about the fact that disease features are skewed differently in children – “in particular the higher likelihood of upper airway [subglottic] disease, and potentially severe lower airway disease [alveolar hemorrhage].”
However, from a practical standpoint, Dr. Spiera said, “I am not sure that this will change our clinical approach to different patients, but the differences in disease features and even the sex differences in terms of who are afflicted with GPA [more often children and more likely to be female] may offer insights into disease pathogenesis.”
Dr. Bloom received funding from the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium and Vasculitis Foundation to conduct this work as a VCRC-VF fellow. Several coauthors reported various conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers have found a link between age of diagnosis and various clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV).
The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, may have implications for research and treatment, especially in children.
AAV is a group of conditions characterized by the development of autoantibodies to the neutrophil proteins proteinase 3 (PR3-ANCA) or myeloperoxidase (MPO-ANCA).
The rare autoimmune condition can cause systemic inflammation and damage, sometimes permanent, to small- and medium-sized arteries. Clinical presentations vary and can include several organs, including skin, stomach, intestines, lung, and kidney, as well as airways in ear, nose, and throat.
Data limited on child vs. adult characteristics
AAV can be diagnosed in any decade of life, but clinical characteristics and outcomes often differ between children and adults, and data are limited. Studies often exclude children.
Lead author Jessica Bloom, MD, MSCS, a pediatric rheumatologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues performed an analysis of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) who were enrolled in the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium Longitudinal Studies from 2013 to 2021.
Patients with eosinophilic GPA (EGPA) were analyzed separately. Children and young adults with EGPA were combined because of the small sample size (n = 87).
The groups were sorted by the age they were diagnosed: under 18 years old, 18-40, 40-65, and older than 65.
More than 1,000 patients included
Dr. Bloom’s team analyzed data from 1,020 patients: 61 diagnosed as children, 240 as young adults, 560 as middle-aged adults, and 159 diagnosed as older adults. At all ages, about nine out of 10 patients were White.
They found 852 (84%) had GPA and 165 (16%) had MPA. The analysis also showed 893 (92%) of patients with ANCA results were ANCA positive: 637 (65%) with PR3-ANCA, 247 (25%) with MPO-ANCA, and 9 (1%) with both.
Differences between age groups included:
- Children experienced more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults with the condition.
- About half of patients diagnosed in childhood received both cyclophosphamide and rituximab. That rate decreased with increasing age of diagnosis to as low as 14% for those diagnosed in older adulthood.
- More females than males in all age groups were diagnosed with AAV, but the difference was most pronounced when diagnosed in childhood, and female predominance declined as age increased.
- Older adults experienced more neurologic disease and less musculoskeletal and sinus involvement.
Additionally, for those diagnosed after age 65, after adjusting for disease length and whether they were taking cyclophosphamide and/or rituximab, the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) and ANCA Vasculitis Index of Damage (AVID) scores were higher than for those diagnosed in childhood.
“However, these differences are no longer significant when medication toxicity and comorbidity-related items are excluded. Thus, differences in the VDI and AVID scores are driven by non–disease-specific damage,” Dr. Bloom said.
Bringing children into the clinical discussion
Dr. Bloom said in an interview that
For example, the findings that children have more subglottic stenosis and alveolar hemorrhage than adults “may warrant more aggressive therapy,” she said. Children also have different growth and psychosocial risk factors during their disease course and may live longer with the disease than those in older age groups.
“Our study helps to point out these differences and bring children into the discussion,” Dr. Bloom said. “It also recognizes that damage scores used in studies and care may not adequately assess disease across the lifespan, as they are largely influenced by items not specific to the disease but rather medication toxicity and comorbidities, such as osteoporosis, cataracts, and malignancy.”
Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, said in an interview that the work highlights interesting information about the fact that disease features are skewed differently in children – “in particular the higher likelihood of upper airway [subglottic] disease, and potentially severe lower airway disease [alveolar hemorrhage].”
However, from a practical standpoint, Dr. Spiera said, “I am not sure that this will change our clinical approach to different patients, but the differences in disease features and even the sex differences in terms of who are afflicted with GPA [more often children and more likely to be female] may offer insights into disease pathogenesis.”
Dr. Bloom received funding from the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium and Vasculitis Foundation to conduct this work as a VCRC-VF fellow. Several coauthors reported various conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Spiera declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACR 2022
Chronic stress, especially race related, may hasten cancer death
The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.
It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.
Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.
To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.
Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”
In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.
In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.
After adjustment, the (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.
Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.
The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.
It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.
Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.
To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.
Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”
In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.
In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.
After adjustment, the (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.
Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.
The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.
It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.
Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.
To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.
Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”
In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.
In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.
After adjustment, the (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.
Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM SSM–POPULATION HEALTH
First recommendations for cancer screening in myositis issued
AT ACR 2022
PHILADELPHIA – The first consensus screening guidelines for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) provide recommendations on risk stratification for individuals, basic and enhanced screening protocols, and screening frequency.
The recommendations, issued by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS), stratify cancer risk for individual patients into low, intermediate, or high categories based on the IIM disease subtype, autoantibody status, and clinical features, reported Alexander Oldroyd, PhD, MSc, MBChB of the University of Manchester, England.
“There’s a big unmet need for cancer screening. One in four adults with myositis has cancer, either 3 years before or after a diagnosis of myositis. It’s one of the leading causes of death in these patients, and they’re overwhelmingly diagnosed at a late stage, so we need standardized approaches to get early diagnosis,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the guideline is a welcome development for rheumatologists. Dr. Kolasinski moderated the session where Dr. Oldroyd described the guideline, but she was not involved in its formulation.
“I think that we all have wondered for a very long time: What is the optimal cancer screening for myositis patients? We all worry that the onset of their diseases is associated with a coincident cancer, or that they will develop it soon,” she said.
Dr. Oldroyd emphasized that all patients with myositis have elevated risk for cancer compared with the general population and that the guideline categories of low, intermediate, and high are relative only to patients with IIM.
International consensus
The data on which the recommendations are based come from a systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr. Oldroyd and colleagues of 69 studies on cancer risk factors and 9 on IIM-specific cancer screening.
The authors of that paper found that the dermatomyositis subtype, older age, male sex, dysphagia, cutaneous ulceration and antitranscriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma (anti-TIF1-gamma) positivity were associated with significantly increased risk of cancer.
In contrast, polymyositis and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes, Raynaud’s phenomenon, interstitial lung disease, very high serum creatine kinase or lactate dehydrogenase levels, and positivity for anti-Jo1 or anti-EJ antibodies were associated with significantly reduced risk of cancer.
The consensus recommendations were developed with anonymous contributions from 75 expert participants in 22 countries, with additional input from 3 patient partners.
Do this
The guideline lists 18 recommendations, of which 13 are strong and 5 are conditional.
An example of a strong recommendation is number 3, based on a moderate level of evidences:
“All adult IIM patients, irrespective of cancer risk, should continue to participate in country/region-specific age and sex appropriate cancer screening programs,” the guideline recommends.
Patients with verified inclusion body myositis or juvenile-onset IIM do not, however, require routine screening for myositis-associated cancer, the guideline says (recommendations 1 and 2).
There are also recommendations that all adults with new-onset IIM be tested for myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies to assist in stratifying patients by risk category.
The guideline divides screening recommendations into basic and enhanced. The basic screening should include a comprehensive history and physical exam, complete blood count, liver functions tests, erythrocyte sedimentation rates/plasma viscosity, serum protein electrophoresis, urinalysis, and chest x-ray.
Adults with IIM who are determined to be at low risk for IIM-related cancer should have basic cancer screening at the time of IIM diagnosis. Adults with intermediate risk should undergo both basic and enhanced screening at the time of IIM diagnosis, and those with high risk should undergo enhanced screening at the time of myositis diagnosis, with basic screening annually for 3 years, the recommendations say.
Consider doing this
Conditional recommendations (“clinicians should consider ...”) include the use of PET/CT for adults at high risk for cancer when an underlying cancer has not been detected at the time of IIM diagnosis. They also include a single screening test for anti-TIF1-gamma positive dermatomyositis patients whose disease onset was after age 40 and who have at least one additional risk factor.
Also conditionally recommended are upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients at high risk when an underlying cancer is not found at the time of IIM diagnosis, nasoendoscopy in geographical regions with elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancers, and screening for all IIM patients with red-flag symptoms or clinical features of cancer, including unexplained weight loss, family history of cancer, smoking, unexplained fever, or night sweats.
Guided steps
“I think clinicians have a lot of questions such as, ‘well, what should I do, when should I do it?’ These are important clinical questions, and we need guidance about this. We need to balance comprehensiveness with cost-effectiveness, and we need expert opinion about what steps we should take now and which should we take later,” Dr. Kolasinski said.
The guideline development process was supported by the University of Manchester, IMACS, National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), National Institutes of Health, National Health Service Northern Care Alliance, The Myositis Association, Myositis UK, University of Pittsburgh, Versus Arthritis, and the Center for Musculoskeletal Research. Dr. Oldroyd and Dr. Kolasinski reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT ACR 2022
PHILADELPHIA – The first consensus screening guidelines for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) provide recommendations on risk stratification for individuals, basic and enhanced screening protocols, and screening frequency.
The recommendations, issued by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS), stratify cancer risk for individual patients into low, intermediate, or high categories based on the IIM disease subtype, autoantibody status, and clinical features, reported Alexander Oldroyd, PhD, MSc, MBChB of the University of Manchester, England.
“There’s a big unmet need for cancer screening. One in four adults with myositis has cancer, either 3 years before or after a diagnosis of myositis. It’s one of the leading causes of death in these patients, and they’re overwhelmingly diagnosed at a late stage, so we need standardized approaches to get early diagnosis,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the guideline is a welcome development for rheumatologists. Dr. Kolasinski moderated the session where Dr. Oldroyd described the guideline, but she was not involved in its formulation.
“I think that we all have wondered for a very long time: What is the optimal cancer screening for myositis patients? We all worry that the onset of their diseases is associated with a coincident cancer, or that they will develop it soon,” she said.
Dr. Oldroyd emphasized that all patients with myositis have elevated risk for cancer compared with the general population and that the guideline categories of low, intermediate, and high are relative only to patients with IIM.
International consensus
The data on which the recommendations are based come from a systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr. Oldroyd and colleagues of 69 studies on cancer risk factors and 9 on IIM-specific cancer screening.
The authors of that paper found that the dermatomyositis subtype, older age, male sex, dysphagia, cutaneous ulceration and antitranscriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma (anti-TIF1-gamma) positivity were associated with significantly increased risk of cancer.
In contrast, polymyositis and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes, Raynaud’s phenomenon, interstitial lung disease, very high serum creatine kinase or lactate dehydrogenase levels, and positivity for anti-Jo1 or anti-EJ antibodies were associated with significantly reduced risk of cancer.
The consensus recommendations were developed with anonymous contributions from 75 expert participants in 22 countries, with additional input from 3 patient partners.
Do this
The guideline lists 18 recommendations, of which 13 are strong and 5 are conditional.
An example of a strong recommendation is number 3, based on a moderate level of evidences:
“All adult IIM patients, irrespective of cancer risk, should continue to participate in country/region-specific age and sex appropriate cancer screening programs,” the guideline recommends.
Patients with verified inclusion body myositis or juvenile-onset IIM do not, however, require routine screening for myositis-associated cancer, the guideline says (recommendations 1 and 2).
There are also recommendations that all adults with new-onset IIM be tested for myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies to assist in stratifying patients by risk category.
The guideline divides screening recommendations into basic and enhanced. The basic screening should include a comprehensive history and physical exam, complete blood count, liver functions tests, erythrocyte sedimentation rates/plasma viscosity, serum protein electrophoresis, urinalysis, and chest x-ray.
Adults with IIM who are determined to be at low risk for IIM-related cancer should have basic cancer screening at the time of IIM diagnosis. Adults with intermediate risk should undergo both basic and enhanced screening at the time of IIM diagnosis, and those with high risk should undergo enhanced screening at the time of myositis diagnosis, with basic screening annually for 3 years, the recommendations say.
Consider doing this
Conditional recommendations (“clinicians should consider ...”) include the use of PET/CT for adults at high risk for cancer when an underlying cancer has not been detected at the time of IIM diagnosis. They also include a single screening test for anti-TIF1-gamma positive dermatomyositis patients whose disease onset was after age 40 and who have at least one additional risk factor.
Also conditionally recommended are upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients at high risk when an underlying cancer is not found at the time of IIM diagnosis, nasoendoscopy in geographical regions with elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancers, and screening for all IIM patients with red-flag symptoms or clinical features of cancer, including unexplained weight loss, family history of cancer, smoking, unexplained fever, or night sweats.
Guided steps
“I think clinicians have a lot of questions such as, ‘well, what should I do, when should I do it?’ These are important clinical questions, and we need guidance about this. We need to balance comprehensiveness with cost-effectiveness, and we need expert opinion about what steps we should take now and which should we take later,” Dr. Kolasinski said.
The guideline development process was supported by the University of Manchester, IMACS, National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), National Institutes of Health, National Health Service Northern Care Alliance, The Myositis Association, Myositis UK, University of Pittsburgh, Versus Arthritis, and the Center for Musculoskeletal Research. Dr. Oldroyd and Dr. Kolasinski reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT ACR 2022
PHILADELPHIA – The first consensus screening guidelines for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) provide recommendations on risk stratification for individuals, basic and enhanced screening protocols, and screening frequency.
The recommendations, issued by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS), stratify cancer risk for individual patients into low, intermediate, or high categories based on the IIM disease subtype, autoantibody status, and clinical features, reported Alexander Oldroyd, PhD, MSc, MBChB of the University of Manchester, England.
“There’s a big unmet need for cancer screening. One in four adults with myositis has cancer, either 3 years before or after a diagnosis of myositis. It’s one of the leading causes of death in these patients, and they’re overwhelmingly diagnosed at a late stage, so we need standardized approaches to get early diagnosis,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the guideline is a welcome development for rheumatologists. Dr. Kolasinski moderated the session where Dr. Oldroyd described the guideline, but she was not involved in its formulation.
“I think that we all have wondered for a very long time: What is the optimal cancer screening for myositis patients? We all worry that the onset of their diseases is associated with a coincident cancer, or that they will develop it soon,” she said.
Dr. Oldroyd emphasized that all patients with myositis have elevated risk for cancer compared with the general population and that the guideline categories of low, intermediate, and high are relative only to patients with IIM.
International consensus
The data on which the recommendations are based come from a systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr. Oldroyd and colleagues of 69 studies on cancer risk factors and 9 on IIM-specific cancer screening.
The authors of that paper found that the dermatomyositis subtype, older age, male sex, dysphagia, cutaneous ulceration and antitranscriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma (anti-TIF1-gamma) positivity were associated with significantly increased risk of cancer.
In contrast, polymyositis and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes, Raynaud’s phenomenon, interstitial lung disease, very high serum creatine kinase or lactate dehydrogenase levels, and positivity for anti-Jo1 or anti-EJ antibodies were associated with significantly reduced risk of cancer.
The consensus recommendations were developed with anonymous contributions from 75 expert participants in 22 countries, with additional input from 3 patient partners.
Do this
The guideline lists 18 recommendations, of which 13 are strong and 5 are conditional.
An example of a strong recommendation is number 3, based on a moderate level of evidences:
“All adult IIM patients, irrespective of cancer risk, should continue to participate in country/region-specific age and sex appropriate cancer screening programs,” the guideline recommends.
Patients with verified inclusion body myositis or juvenile-onset IIM do not, however, require routine screening for myositis-associated cancer, the guideline says (recommendations 1 and 2).
There are also recommendations that all adults with new-onset IIM be tested for myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies to assist in stratifying patients by risk category.
The guideline divides screening recommendations into basic and enhanced. The basic screening should include a comprehensive history and physical exam, complete blood count, liver functions tests, erythrocyte sedimentation rates/plasma viscosity, serum protein electrophoresis, urinalysis, and chest x-ray.
Adults with IIM who are determined to be at low risk for IIM-related cancer should have basic cancer screening at the time of IIM diagnosis. Adults with intermediate risk should undergo both basic and enhanced screening at the time of IIM diagnosis, and those with high risk should undergo enhanced screening at the time of myositis diagnosis, with basic screening annually for 3 years, the recommendations say.
Consider doing this
Conditional recommendations (“clinicians should consider ...”) include the use of PET/CT for adults at high risk for cancer when an underlying cancer has not been detected at the time of IIM diagnosis. They also include a single screening test for anti-TIF1-gamma positive dermatomyositis patients whose disease onset was after age 40 and who have at least one additional risk factor.
Also conditionally recommended are upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients at high risk when an underlying cancer is not found at the time of IIM diagnosis, nasoendoscopy in geographical regions with elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancers, and screening for all IIM patients with red-flag symptoms or clinical features of cancer, including unexplained weight loss, family history of cancer, smoking, unexplained fever, or night sweats.
Guided steps
“I think clinicians have a lot of questions such as, ‘well, what should I do, when should I do it?’ These are important clinical questions, and we need guidance about this. We need to balance comprehensiveness with cost-effectiveness, and we need expert opinion about what steps we should take now and which should we take later,” Dr. Kolasinski said.
The guideline development process was supported by the University of Manchester, IMACS, National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), National Institutes of Health, National Health Service Northern Care Alliance, The Myositis Association, Myositis UK, University of Pittsburgh, Versus Arthritis, and the Center for Musculoskeletal Research. Dr. Oldroyd and Dr. Kolasinski reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
Third COVID booster benefits cancer patients
though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.
People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.
The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.
Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.
Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.
The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.
“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.
Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.
The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.
The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).
Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).
Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).
Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.
though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.
People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.
The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.
Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.
Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.
The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.
“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.
Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.
The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.
The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).
Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).
Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).
Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.
though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.
People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.
The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.
Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.
Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.
The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.
“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.
Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.
The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.
The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).
Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).
Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).
Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
Telepsychiatry tips: Etiquette and ethics
From providing virtual therapy sessions to patients in the front seats of their cars, to sessions with patients who turn out to be in another state,
But key practice tips are emerging for the optimization of virtual sessions, said Sanjay Gupta, MD, chief medical officer of the BryLin Behavioral Health System in Buffalo, N.Y., during a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dr. Gupta noted that while “many pitfalls [may] occur,” an overriding rule that should be emphasized with telepsychiatry is that “[virtual visits] are held to the same standard of care as an in-person visit.” This “rule” needs to be followed diligently, he said, as the key difference in virtual visits is a reduced sense of the formality of a psychotherapy session.
With virtual sessions, the therapeutic experience “can feel kind of trivialized,” said Dr. Gupta, who is also a clinical professor in the department of psychiatry, State University of New York at Buffalo. He noted that it is crucial that “the sacredness of a private setting should not be diluted.”
Challenges in finding that privacy for some, however, lead to the issue of the “patients in cars” scenario, Dr. Gupta said. Still, he added, while psychiatric sessions should never be conducted when a patient is driving, the front seat of a parked car may, for some, be the most private setting available.
“For many patients, their car may be the only private place from which they can take a video call,” Dr. Gupta noted. “Perhaps they are at work and the only way they could fit in the appointment is by going out to their car on their break. Or patients may even be at home, but they’re not alone and need to go out to their car for privacy.”
If the car isn’t being driven, sitting inside it should be fine for virtual therapy, but even there, clinicians should retain a focus on the consistency of care regardless of the setting.
Meanwhile, psychiatrists can take key measures to keep things professional, at least on their end of the session.
Before starting, for instance, keep in mind the patient’s viewing experience, Dr. Gupta suggested. Tips he offered include:
- Keep the background of your video image subtle, with no distractions, such as windows looking out to an ocean or other distracting background elements.
- The camera should be above eye level to suggest a face-to-face conversation more effectively.
- Try not to have other browser windows open and look directly into the camera lens so that the patient knows they have your full attention.
- Try not to take notes or document in the electronic health record during the session, which also can give the impression of being distracted and not listening to the patient.
Psychiatrists should remember that older patients – who may be uncomfortable with email, much less video conferencing – may still struggle with video-calling technology. In such cases, consider:
- Sending the patient instructions in advance of the appointment.
- Have your office hold a “tech check” prior to the appointment to ensure the patient is ready.
- Be prepared to provide troubleshooting.
Whether the patient is tech savvy or not, make sure communication is clear:
- Speak in short sentences on teleconferencing sessions.
- Speak slowly and use a lower frequency.
- Recognize that non-native English speakers may struggle with comprehension, and explore interpreter options.
Dr. Gupta noted that the first minute of the virtual therapy session is crucial in setting the tone.
“The patient wants to hear a professional, confident tone on the other end at the beginning of the session,” he said. “Be warm and respectful throughout the visit, and make sure to explain to the patient how the session will be reconnected if the call is interrupted.”
Clinicians should also make sure to identify the patient’s physical location during the session in case of an emergency, such as the patient becoming suicidal.
Impending ‘telehealth cliff’
Many laws and licensing requirements for telehealth are still relatively loose, falling under the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) policies. These policies allow practitioners who are eligible to bill Medicare for telehealth services regardless of where the patient or provider is located, and providers can also deliver telehealth services across state lines, depending on state and federal rules.
However, Dr. Gupta warns that practitioners should be prepared for the potential “telehealth cliff” that is anticipated when those PHE policies are lifted, as barriers in licensing, billing, and other factors, such as HIPAA, are reinstated.
“HIPAA is [flexible] now as long as the public emergency policies exist,” Dr. Gupta said. “However, in noncrisis times, technology will be required to be HIPAA compliant. If you are a solo provider, for instance, you really need to choose a telepsychiatry platform that is HIPAA compliant before that happens.”
While the timing of the “telehealth cliff” is still uncertain, providers have been promised a 60-day advance notice of the PHE end, and at that time, there will be an additional 151-day grace period before the waivers lift.
A key federal measure that could protect more favorable telemedicine policies across state lines, the Temporary Reciprocity to Ensure Access to Treatment Act, currently remains stalled in Congress.
Regardless of those developments, Dr. Gupta underscored that “telepsychiatry is here to stay because the patients and their families like it, and they will be the driving factors.”
He noted that “the future is likely going to be a hybrid model of in-person and virtual visits,” to accommodate the various scenarios in which in-person visits may be preferred or necessary, but many will still likely choose the convenience and greater flexibility of virtual sessions.
Dr. Gupta serves or has served as a speaker or member of a speaker’s bureau for AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Neurocrine, and Otsuka, and serves as a consultant/on an advisory board for Intra-Cellular Therapies.
The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
From providing virtual therapy sessions to patients in the front seats of their cars, to sessions with patients who turn out to be in another state,
But key practice tips are emerging for the optimization of virtual sessions, said Sanjay Gupta, MD, chief medical officer of the BryLin Behavioral Health System in Buffalo, N.Y., during a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dr. Gupta noted that while “many pitfalls [may] occur,” an overriding rule that should be emphasized with telepsychiatry is that “[virtual visits] are held to the same standard of care as an in-person visit.” This “rule” needs to be followed diligently, he said, as the key difference in virtual visits is a reduced sense of the formality of a psychotherapy session.
With virtual sessions, the therapeutic experience “can feel kind of trivialized,” said Dr. Gupta, who is also a clinical professor in the department of psychiatry, State University of New York at Buffalo. He noted that it is crucial that “the sacredness of a private setting should not be diluted.”
Challenges in finding that privacy for some, however, lead to the issue of the “patients in cars” scenario, Dr. Gupta said. Still, he added, while psychiatric sessions should never be conducted when a patient is driving, the front seat of a parked car may, for some, be the most private setting available.
“For many patients, their car may be the only private place from which they can take a video call,” Dr. Gupta noted. “Perhaps they are at work and the only way they could fit in the appointment is by going out to their car on their break. Or patients may even be at home, but they’re not alone and need to go out to their car for privacy.”
If the car isn’t being driven, sitting inside it should be fine for virtual therapy, but even there, clinicians should retain a focus on the consistency of care regardless of the setting.
Meanwhile, psychiatrists can take key measures to keep things professional, at least on their end of the session.
Before starting, for instance, keep in mind the patient’s viewing experience, Dr. Gupta suggested. Tips he offered include:
- Keep the background of your video image subtle, with no distractions, such as windows looking out to an ocean or other distracting background elements.
- The camera should be above eye level to suggest a face-to-face conversation more effectively.
- Try not to have other browser windows open and look directly into the camera lens so that the patient knows they have your full attention.
- Try not to take notes or document in the electronic health record during the session, which also can give the impression of being distracted and not listening to the patient.
Psychiatrists should remember that older patients – who may be uncomfortable with email, much less video conferencing – may still struggle with video-calling technology. In such cases, consider:
- Sending the patient instructions in advance of the appointment.
- Have your office hold a “tech check” prior to the appointment to ensure the patient is ready.
- Be prepared to provide troubleshooting.
Whether the patient is tech savvy or not, make sure communication is clear:
- Speak in short sentences on teleconferencing sessions.
- Speak slowly and use a lower frequency.
- Recognize that non-native English speakers may struggle with comprehension, and explore interpreter options.
Dr. Gupta noted that the first minute of the virtual therapy session is crucial in setting the tone.
“The patient wants to hear a professional, confident tone on the other end at the beginning of the session,” he said. “Be warm and respectful throughout the visit, and make sure to explain to the patient how the session will be reconnected if the call is interrupted.”
Clinicians should also make sure to identify the patient’s physical location during the session in case of an emergency, such as the patient becoming suicidal.
Impending ‘telehealth cliff’
Many laws and licensing requirements for telehealth are still relatively loose, falling under the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) policies. These policies allow practitioners who are eligible to bill Medicare for telehealth services regardless of where the patient or provider is located, and providers can also deliver telehealth services across state lines, depending on state and federal rules.
However, Dr. Gupta warns that practitioners should be prepared for the potential “telehealth cliff” that is anticipated when those PHE policies are lifted, as barriers in licensing, billing, and other factors, such as HIPAA, are reinstated.
“HIPAA is [flexible] now as long as the public emergency policies exist,” Dr. Gupta said. “However, in noncrisis times, technology will be required to be HIPAA compliant. If you are a solo provider, for instance, you really need to choose a telepsychiatry platform that is HIPAA compliant before that happens.”
While the timing of the “telehealth cliff” is still uncertain, providers have been promised a 60-day advance notice of the PHE end, and at that time, there will be an additional 151-day grace period before the waivers lift.
A key federal measure that could protect more favorable telemedicine policies across state lines, the Temporary Reciprocity to Ensure Access to Treatment Act, currently remains stalled in Congress.
Regardless of those developments, Dr. Gupta underscored that “telepsychiatry is here to stay because the patients and their families like it, and they will be the driving factors.”
He noted that “the future is likely going to be a hybrid model of in-person and virtual visits,” to accommodate the various scenarios in which in-person visits may be preferred or necessary, but many will still likely choose the convenience and greater flexibility of virtual sessions.
Dr. Gupta serves or has served as a speaker or member of a speaker’s bureau for AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Neurocrine, and Otsuka, and serves as a consultant/on an advisory board for Intra-Cellular Therapies.
The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
From providing virtual therapy sessions to patients in the front seats of their cars, to sessions with patients who turn out to be in another state,
But key practice tips are emerging for the optimization of virtual sessions, said Sanjay Gupta, MD, chief medical officer of the BryLin Behavioral Health System in Buffalo, N.Y., during a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dr. Gupta noted that while “many pitfalls [may] occur,” an overriding rule that should be emphasized with telepsychiatry is that “[virtual visits] are held to the same standard of care as an in-person visit.” This “rule” needs to be followed diligently, he said, as the key difference in virtual visits is a reduced sense of the formality of a psychotherapy session.
With virtual sessions, the therapeutic experience “can feel kind of trivialized,” said Dr. Gupta, who is also a clinical professor in the department of psychiatry, State University of New York at Buffalo. He noted that it is crucial that “the sacredness of a private setting should not be diluted.”
Challenges in finding that privacy for some, however, lead to the issue of the “patients in cars” scenario, Dr. Gupta said. Still, he added, while psychiatric sessions should never be conducted when a patient is driving, the front seat of a parked car may, for some, be the most private setting available.
“For many patients, their car may be the only private place from which they can take a video call,” Dr. Gupta noted. “Perhaps they are at work and the only way they could fit in the appointment is by going out to their car on their break. Or patients may even be at home, but they’re not alone and need to go out to their car for privacy.”
If the car isn’t being driven, sitting inside it should be fine for virtual therapy, but even there, clinicians should retain a focus on the consistency of care regardless of the setting.
Meanwhile, psychiatrists can take key measures to keep things professional, at least on their end of the session.
Before starting, for instance, keep in mind the patient’s viewing experience, Dr. Gupta suggested. Tips he offered include:
- Keep the background of your video image subtle, with no distractions, such as windows looking out to an ocean or other distracting background elements.
- The camera should be above eye level to suggest a face-to-face conversation more effectively.
- Try not to have other browser windows open and look directly into the camera lens so that the patient knows they have your full attention.
- Try not to take notes or document in the electronic health record during the session, which also can give the impression of being distracted and not listening to the patient.
Psychiatrists should remember that older patients – who may be uncomfortable with email, much less video conferencing – may still struggle with video-calling technology. In such cases, consider:
- Sending the patient instructions in advance of the appointment.
- Have your office hold a “tech check” prior to the appointment to ensure the patient is ready.
- Be prepared to provide troubleshooting.
Whether the patient is tech savvy or not, make sure communication is clear:
- Speak in short sentences on teleconferencing sessions.
- Speak slowly and use a lower frequency.
- Recognize that non-native English speakers may struggle with comprehension, and explore interpreter options.
Dr. Gupta noted that the first minute of the virtual therapy session is crucial in setting the tone.
“The patient wants to hear a professional, confident tone on the other end at the beginning of the session,” he said. “Be warm and respectful throughout the visit, and make sure to explain to the patient how the session will be reconnected if the call is interrupted.”
Clinicians should also make sure to identify the patient’s physical location during the session in case of an emergency, such as the patient becoming suicidal.
Impending ‘telehealth cliff’
Many laws and licensing requirements for telehealth are still relatively loose, falling under the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) policies. These policies allow practitioners who are eligible to bill Medicare for telehealth services regardless of where the patient or provider is located, and providers can also deliver telehealth services across state lines, depending on state and federal rules.
However, Dr. Gupta warns that practitioners should be prepared for the potential “telehealth cliff” that is anticipated when those PHE policies are lifted, as barriers in licensing, billing, and other factors, such as HIPAA, are reinstated.
“HIPAA is [flexible] now as long as the public emergency policies exist,” Dr. Gupta said. “However, in noncrisis times, technology will be required to be HIPAA compliant. If you are a solo provider, for instance, you really need to choose a telepsychiatry platform that is HIPAA compliant before that happens.”
While the timing of the “telehealth cliff” is still uncertain, providers have been promised a 60-day advance notice of the PHE end, and at that time, there will be an additional 151-day grace period before the waivers lift.
A key federal measure that could protect more favorable telemedicine policies across state lines, the Temporary Reciprocity to Ensure Access to Treatment Act, currently remains stalled in Congress.
Regardless of those developments, Dr. Gupta underscored that “telepsychiatry is here to stay because the patients and their families like it, and they will be the driving factors.”
He noted that “the future is likely going to be a hybrid model of in-person and virtual visits,” to accommodate the various scenarios in which in-person visits may be preferred or necessary, but many will still likely choose the convenience and greater flexibility of virtual sessions.
Dr. Gupta serves or has served as a speaker or member of a speaker’s bureau for AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Neurocrine, and Otsuka, and serves as a consultant/on an advisory board for Intra-Cellular Therapies.
The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY UPDATE