Introduction

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is one of the most concerning complications associated with chemotherapy treatment, often leading to hospitalizations and delays in chemotherapy. The NCCN Guideline recommends primary prophylaxis with G-CSFs for patients receiving chemotherapy regimens that have an intermediate risk for FN if the patients have risk factors. A common intermediate risk for FN regimen is CHOP plus an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb) for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). At VASDHCS, an evaluation of the appropriate use of prophylactic GCSFs in this risk group would allow better optimization of patient care.

Objective

To evaluate the incidence of FN in correlation with the appropriate use of G-CSFs in patients who received CHOP plus an anti-CD20 mAb for the treatment of NHL

Methods

This is a retrospective study at VA San Diego of adult veterans with a confirmed diagnosis of NHL who received the first cycle of CHOP plus an anti- CD20 mAb between January 1, 2006, to October 1, 2021. Patients were categorized based on whether they received prophylactic G-CSF during the first cycle. The primary outcome measured was the incidence of FN in veterans with risk factor(s) who received CHOP plus an anti-CD20 mAb. The secondary outcome was the percentage of patients with risk factors who received G-CSF regardless of FN incidence. Primary outcome was analyzed using 2-tailed Fisher exact test.

Results

57 patients were included in the final analysis. In patients with at least one risk factor for FN, 26 (60%) received prophylactic G-CSF and 17 (40%) did not. There is 1 case of FN in the group that received G-CSF and 2 cases of FN in the group without G-CSF (RR, 0.33; P = .55; 95% CI, 0.03-3.33).

Conculsions

In patients receiving treatment for NHL with CHOP plus an anti-CD20 mAb, most of the patients with at least 1 risk factor for FN were initiated on G-CSF. Based on the results of the study, our veteran population does not appear to have an increased risk for FN without G-CSF. A larger study is warranted to further evaluate the significance of FN in correlation with prophylactic G-CSF.

Introduction

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is one of the most concerning complications associated with chemotherapy treatment, often leading to hospitalizations and delays in chemotherapy. The NCCN Guideline recommends primary prophylaxis with G-CSFs for patients receiving chemotherapy regimens that have an intermediate risk for FN if the patients have risk factors. A common intermediate risk for FN regimen is CHOP plus an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb) for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). At VASDHCS, an evaluation of the appropriate use of prophylactic GCSFs in this risk group would allow better optimization of patient care.

Objective

To evaluate the incidence of FN in correlation with the appropriate use of G-CSFs in patients who received CHOP plus an anti-CD20 mAb for the treatment of NHL

Methods

This is a retrospective study at VA San Diego of adult veterans with a confirmed diagnosis of NHL who received the first cycle of CHOP plus an anti- CD20 mAb between January 1, 2006, to October 1, 2021. Patients were categorized based on whether they received prophylactic G-CSF during the first cycle. The primary outcome measured was the incidence of FN in veterans with risk factor(s) who received CHOP plus an anti-CD20 mAb. The secondary outcome was the percentage of patients with risk factors who received G-CSF regardless of FN incidence. Primary outcome was analyzed using 2-tailed Fisher exact test.

Results

57 patients were included in the final analysis. In patients with at least one risk factor for FN, 26 (60%) received prophylactic G-CSF and 17 (40%) did not. There is 1 case of FN in the group that received G-CSF and 2 cases of FN in the group without G-CSF (RR, 0.33; P = .55; 95% CI, 0.03-3.33).

Conculsions

In patients receiving treatment for NHL with CHOP plus an anti-CD20 mAb, most of the patients with at least 1 risk factor for FN were initiated on G-CSF. Based on the results of the study, our veteran population does not appear to have an increased risk for FN without G-CSF. A larger study is warranted to further evaluate the significance of FN in correlation with prophylactic G-CSF.

Introduction

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is one of the most concerning complications associated with chemotherapy treatment, often leading to hospitalizations and delays in chemotherapy. The NCCN Guideline recommends primary prophylaxis with G-CSFs for patients receiving chemotherapy regimens that have an intermediate risk for FN if the patients have risk factors. A common intermediate risk for FN regimen is CHOP plus an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb) for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). At VASDHCS, an evaluation of the appropriate use of prophylactic GCSFs in this risk group would allow better optimization of patient care.

Objective

To evaluate the incidence of FN in correlation with the appropriate use of G-CSFs in patients who received CHOP plus an anti-CD20 mAb for the treatment of NHL

Methods

This is a retrospective study at VA San Diego of adult veterans with a confirmed diagnosis of NHL who received the first cycle of CHOP plus an anti- CD20 mAb between January 1, 2006, to October 1, 2021. Patients were categorized based on whether they received prophylactic G-CSF during the first cycle. The primary outcome measured was the incidence of FN in veterans with risk factor(s) who received CHOP plus an anti-CD20 mAb. The secondary outcome was the percentage of patients with risk factors who received G-CSF regardless of FN incidence. Primary outcome was analyzed using 2-tailed Fisher exact test.

Results

57 patients were included in the final analysis. In patients with at least one risk factor for FN, 26 (60%) received prophylactic G-CSF and 17 (40%) did not. There is 1 case of FN in the group that received G-CSF and 2 cases of FN in the group without G-CSF (RR, 0.33; P = .55; 95% CI, 0.03-3.33).

Conculsions

In patients receiving treatment for NHL with CHOP plus an anti-CD20 mAb, most of the patients with at least 1 risk factor for FN were initiated on G-CSF. Based on the results of the study, our veteran population does not appear to have an increased risk for FN without G-CSF. A larger study is warranted to further evaluate the significance of FN in correlation with prophylactic G-CSF.

Purpose

Ensuring that patients/families are engaged as partners in their health care is an effective way to measure the quality of patient care. Self-reported patient data, such as symptom burden, provides an accurate and effective way to measure patient-reported outcomes. Our team reviewed 20 patient charts, randomly, to assess for documentation of at least 3 or more domains of toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors. The baseline comprehensive documentation rate was 50%. Our goal is to improve the documentation rate to 80% for our first process improvement cycle.

Aim Statement

Increase documentation of 3 or more toxicities immune checkpoint inhibitors to a goal rate of 80%.

Methods

A free online patient monitoring checklist tool was printed and provided to patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (on their infusion day) during the check-in process. The patients were instructed to complete the tool prior to the provider clinic visit, while in the waiting area. The completed tool was given to the provider on the day of their visit. Prior to the start of this Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, all providers were “reminded”/ instructed to ensure documentation of 3 or more toxicities immune checkpoint inhibitors. The cycle lasted for 3 weeks. At the end of the 3 weeks, our team reviewed the charts of those patients.

Results

Documentation rate of 3 or more toxicities increased from 50% to 90%.

Conclusions

When completed patient monitoring tools were provided to the providers during the clinic visit, the providers increased their documentation rate of the toxicities. There is literature supporting improving patient satisfaction using self-reported symptoms monitoring tools. Also, given the burden of documentation and shorter visit times, providers found this to be an easy way to address patient symptoms. While electronic patient-reported outcome (e-PRO) tools are ideal for ongoing symptom monitoring, this is a simple way to address the same in low-resourced communities. For our next cycle, we plan on using patient feedback to improve the documentation form incorporating larger fonts for patients with low vision.

Purpose

Ensuring that patients/families are engaged as partners in their health care is an effective way to measure the quality of patient care. Self-reported patient data, such as symptom burden, provides an accurate and effective way to measure patient-reported outcomes. Our team reviewed 20 patient charts, randomly, to assess for documentation of at least 3 or more domains of toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors. The baseline comprehensive documentation rate was 50%. Our goal is to improve the documentation rate to 80% for our first process improvement cycle.

Aim Statement

Increase documentation of 3 or more toxicities immune checkpoint inhibitors to a goal rate of 80%.

Methods

A free online patient monitoring checklist tool was printed and provided to patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (on their infusion day) during the check-in process. The patients were instructed to complete the tool prior to the provider clinic visit, while in the waiting area. The completed tool was given to the provider on the day of their visit. Prior to the start of this Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, all providers were “reminded”/ instructed to ensure documentation of 3 or more toxicities immune checkpoint inhibitors. The cycle lasted for 3 weeks. At the end of the 3 weeks, our team reviewed the charts of those patients.

Results

Documentation rate of 3 or more toxicities increased from 50% to 90%.

Conclusions

When completed patient monitoring tools were provided to the providers during the clinic visit, the providers increased their documentation rate of the toxicities. There is literature supporting improving patient satisfaction using self-reported symptoms monitoring tools. Also, given the burden of documentation and shorter visit times, providers found this to be an easy way to address patient symptoms. While electronic patient-reported outcome (e-PRO) tools are ideal for ongoing symptom monitoring, this is a simple way to address the same in low-resourced communities. For our next cycle, we plan on using patient feedback to improve the documentation form incorporating larger fonts for patients with low vision.

Purpose

Ensuring that patients/families are engaged as partners in their health care is an effective way to measure the quality of patient care. Self-reported patient data, such as symptom burden, provides an accurate and effective way to measure patient-reported outcomes. Our team reviewed 20 patient charts, randomly, to assess for documentation of at least 3 or more domains of toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors. The baseline comprehensive documentation rate was 50%. Our goal is to improve the documentation rate to 80% for our first process improvement cycle.

Aim Statement

Increase documentation of 3 or more toxicities immune checkpoint inhibitors to a goal rate of 80%.

Methods

A free online patient monitoring checklist tool was printed and provided to patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (on their infusion day) during the check-in process. The patients were instructed to complete the tool prior to the provider clinic visit, while in the waiting area. The completed tool was given to the provider on the day of their visit. Prior to the start of this Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, all providers were “reminded”/ instructed to ensure documentation of 3 or more toxicities immune checkpoint inhibitors. The cycle lasted for 3 weeks. At the end of the 3 weeks, our team reviewed the charts of those patients.

Results

Documentation rate of 3 or more toxicities increased from 50% to 90%.

Conclusions

When completed patient monitoring tools were provided to the providers during the clinic visit, the providers increased their documentation rate of the toxicities. There is literature supporting improving patient satisfaction using self-reported symptoms monitoring tools. Also, given the burden of documentation and shorter visit times, providers found this to be an easy way to address patient symptoms. While electronic patient-reported outcome (e-PRO) tools are ideal for ongoing symptom monitoring, this is a simple way to address the same in low-resourced communities. For our next cycle, we plan on using patient feedback to improve the documentation form incorporating larger fonts for patients with low vision.

Background/Purpose

Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is caused by the release of intracellular products into the blood following rapid lysis of malignant cells resulting in hyperuricemia, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and hypocalcemia. Complications of TLS include acute renal failure, cardiac arrhythmias, seizure, and sudden death. Allopurinol is commonly initiated as prophylaxis for patients at risk for TLS to prevent buildup of uric acid and decrease the incidence of obstructive uropathy caused by uric acid precipitation. Allopurinol takes several days to reduce uric acid levels, therefore it is recommended to initiate allopurinol 1 to 2 days prior to the start of chemotherapy and continue until the risk of TLS has ceased, usually within 7 days of chemotherapy initiation. Unnecessarily continuing allopurinol beyond 10 days increases the risk of adverse events, including allergic skin rashes and myelosuppression. A report of allopurinol orders for TLS from March 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021 was generated. Of these orders, there were 44 unique patients and 56 total allopurinol courses. The median duration of allopurinol for TLS was 39 days, with a duration of allopurinol of 10 days or less in 10 (18.2%) cases.

Methods

On September 16, 2021, inpatient prescribing of new allopurinol orders was restricted to an inpatient order menu with quick orders designating an indication of gout or TLS in the comment section. The TLS quick order was defaulted to a dose of 300 mg for 10 days. Education was also provided to the medical staff. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results

Since implementation of the allopurinol order menu, 17 patients with cancer have initiated allopurinol for TLS. The menu was used in 14 (82.4%) patients. The median duration of allopurinol was 8 days and 11 (64.7%) allopurinol courses were 10 days or less. The main reasons for not using the allopurinol menu were due to dose reduction of allopurinol due to renal dysfunction or the primary hematologist/oncologist ordering outpatient allopurinol prior to admission for chemotherapy.

Implications

The introduction of an inpatient allopurinol order menu has decreased excessive allopurinol therapy when utilized for TLS. This has resulted in decreased pill burden, adverse events, and cost.

Background/Purpose

Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is caused by the release of intracellular products into the blood following rapid lysis of malignant cells resulting in hyperuricemia, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and hypocalcemia. Complications of TLS include acute renal failure, cardiac arrhythmias, seizure, and sudden death. Allopurinol is commonly initiated as prophylaxis for patients at risk for TLS to prevent buildup of uric acid and decrease the incidence of obstructive uropathy caused by uric acid precipitation. Allopurinol takes several days to reduce uric acid levels, therefore it is recommended to initiate allopurinol 1 to 2 days prior to the start of chemotherapy and continue until the risk of TLS has ceased, usually within 7 days of chemotherapy initiation. Unnecessarily continuing allopurinol beyond 10 days increases the risk of adverse events, including allergic skin rashes and myelosuppression. A report of allopurinol orders for TLS from March 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021 was generated. Of these orders, there were 44 unique patients and 56 total allopurinol courses. The median duration of allopurinol for TLS was 39 days, with a duration of allopurinol of 10 days or less in 10 (18.2%) cases.

Methods

On September 16, 2021, inpatient prescribing of new allopurinol orders was restricted to an inpatient order menu with quick orders designating an indication of gout or TLS in the comment section. The TLS quick order was defaulted to a dose of 300 mg for 10 days. Education was also provided to the medical staff. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results

Since implementation of the allopurinol order menu, 17 patients with cancer have initiated allopurinol for TLS. The menu was used in 14 (82.4%) patients. The median duration of allopurinol was 8 days and 11 (64.7%) allopurinol courses were 10 days or less. The main reasons for not using the allopurinol menu were due to dose reduction of allopurinol due to renal dysfunction or the primary hematologist/oncologist ordering outpatient allopurinol prior to admission for chemotherapy.

Implications

The introduction of an inpatient allopurinol order menu has decreased excessive allopurinol therapy when utilized for TLS. This has resulted in decreased pill burden, adverse events, and cost.

Background/Purpose

Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is caused by the release of intracellular products into the blood following rapid lysis of malignant cells resulting in hyperuricemia, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and hypocalcemia. Complications of TLS include acute renal failure, cardiac arrhythmias, seizure, and sudden death. Allopurinol is commonly initiated as prophylaxis for patients at risk for TLS to prevent buildup of uric acid and decrease the incidence of obstructive uropathy caused by uric acid precipitation. Allopurinol takes several days to reduce uric acid levels, therefore it is recommended to initiate allopurinol 1 to 2 days prior to the start of chemotherapy and continue until the risk of TLS has ceased, usually within 7 days of chemotherapy initiation. Unnecessarily continuing allopurinol beyond 10 days increases the risk of adverse events, including allergic skin rashes and myelosuppression. A report of allopurinol orders for TLS from March 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021 was generated. Of these orders, there were 44 unique patients and 56 total allopurinol courses. The median duration of allopurinol for TLS was 39 days, with a duration of allopurinol of 10 days or less in 10 (18.2%) cases.

Methods

On September 16, 2021, inpatient prescribing of new allopurinol orders was restricted to an inpatient order menu with quick orders designating an indication of gout or TLS in the comment section. The TLS quick order was defaulted to a dose of 300 mg for 10 days. Education was also provided to the medical staff. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results

Since implementation of the allopurinol order menu, 17 patients with cancer have initiated allopurinol for TLS. The menu was used in 14 (82.4%) patients. The median duration of allopurinol was 8 days and 11 (64.7%) allopurinol courses were 10 days or less. The main reasons for not using the allopurinol menu were due to dose reduction of allopurinol due to renal dysfunction or the primary hematologist/oncologist ordering outpatient allopurinol prior to admission for chemotherapy.

Implications

The introduction of an inpatient allopurinol order menu has decreased excessive allopurinol therapy when utilized for TLS. This has resulted in decreased pill burden, adverse events, and cost.

Purpose

To evaluate the impact that a pharmacistmanaged oral anticancer clinic has on patient adherence to oral anticancer therapy in regard to medication adherence and adherence to lab monitoring.

Background

Oral anticancer therapy is typically preconceived to be safer than intravenous. However, these medications have a narrow therapeutic window and significant toxicities, requiring close monitoring to ensure patient safety. Previous studies have shown that pharmacist-led oral anticancer clinics have improved adherence and decreased toxicity.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed for patients prescribed abiraterone, enzalutamide, or ibrutinib. The primary outcome assessed medication adherence by comparing the medication possession ratio (MPR) before (phase 1) and after (phase 2) the initiation of the pharmacist-led oral anticancer therapy clinic. The secondary outcome assessed lab monitoring adherence by patients and providers in phase 1 vs. phase 2. This study also examined descriptive outcomes in phase 2.

Data Analysis

Independent sample t tests were used to analyze primary and secondary endpoints. For descriptive endpoints, standard deviations and range of scores were assessed for continuous variables.

Results

A statistically significant increase in the mean MPR ratio was shown between phase 1 vs phase 2 (0.98 vs 1.05; P = .027). For patient adherence to lab monitoring, there was a statistically significant improvement for patients on abiraterone (21.9% vs. 67%; P < .001) and enzalutamide (35.7% vs 90.5%; P = .006). There was a decline in lab monitoring adherence for patient on ibrutinib but this effect was not statistically significant (56.2% vs. 51%; P = .283). Similar results were shown for provider adherence to lab monitoring. Descriptive outcomes showed that the pharmacist had on average 6.7 encounters per patient.

Conclusions/Implications

A pharmacist-led oral anticancer clinic can improve MPR ratios and patient adherence to oral anticancer regimens. Patient and provider lab monitoring adherence was improved for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Improvement in patient/ provider lab monitoring adherence for ibrutinib was not shown, possibly due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, small sample size, and retrospective nature of this study. The results of this study supports that overall, a pharmacist-led oral anticancer clinic can significantly improve patient outcomes, which aligns with previous smaller studies.

Purpose

To evaluate the impact that a pharmacistmanaged oral anticancer clinic has on patient adherence to oral anticancer therapy in regard to medication adherence and adherence to lab monitoring.

Background

Oral anticancer therapy is typically preconceived to be safer than intravenous. However, these medications have a narrow therapeutic window and significant toxicities, requiring close monitoring to ensure patient safety. Previous studies have shown that pharmacist-led oral anticancer clinics have improved adherence and decreased toxicity.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed for patients prescribed abiraterone, enzalutamide, or ibrutinib. The primary outcome assessed medication adherence by comparing the medication possession ratio (MPR) before (phase 1) and after (phase 2) the initiation of the pharmacist-led oral anticancer therapy clinic. The secondary outcome assessed lab monitoring adherence by patients and providers in phase 1 vs. phase 2. This study also examined descriptive outcomes in phase 2.

Data Analysis

Independent sample t tests were used to analyze primary and secondary endpoints. For descriptive endpoints, standard deviations and range of scores were assessed for continuous variables.

Results

A statistically significant increase in the mean MPR ratio was shown between phase 1 vs phase 2 (0.98 vs 1.05; P = .027). For patient adherence to lab monitoring, there was a statistically significant improvement for patients on abiraterone (21.9% vs. 67%; P < .001) and enzalutamide (35.7% vs 90.5%; P = .006). There was a decline in lab monitoring adherence for patient on ibrutinib but this effect was not statistically significant (56.2% vs. 51%; P = .283). Similar results were shown for provider adherence to lab monitoring. Descriptive outcomes showed that the pharmacist had on average 6.7 encounters per patient.

Conclusions/Implications

A pharmacist-led oral anticancer clinic can improve MPR ratios and patient adherence to oral anticancer regimens. Patient and provider lab monitoring adherence was improved for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Improvement in patient/ provider lab monitoring adherence for ibrutinib was not shown, possibly due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, small sample size, and retrospective nature of this study. The results of this study supports that overall, a pharmacist-led oral anticancer clinic can significantly improve patient outcomes, which aligns with previous smaller studies.

Purpose

To evaluate the impact that a pharmacistmanaged oral anticancer clinic has on patient adherence to oral anticancer therapy in regard to medication adherence and adherence to lab monitoring.

Background

Oral anticancer therapy is typically preconceived to be safer than intravenous. However, these medications have a narrow therapeutic window and significant toxicities, requiring close monitoring to ensure patient safety. Previous studies have shown that pharmacist-led oral anticancer clinics have improved adherence and decreased toxicity.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was completed for patients prescribed abiraterone, enzalutamide, or ibrutinib. The primary outcome assessed medication adherence by comparing the medication possession ratio (MPR) before (phase 1) and after (phase 2) the initiation of the pharmacist-led oral anticancer therapy clinic. The secondary outcome assessed lab monitoring adherence by patients and providers in phase 1 vs. phase 2. This study also examined descriptive outcomes in phase 2.

Data Analysis

Independent sample t tests were used to analyze primary and secondary endpoints. For descriptive endpoints, standard deviations and range of scores were assessed for continuous variables.

Results

A statistically significant increase in the mean MPR ratio was shown between phase 1 vs phase 2 (0.98 vs 1.05; P = .027). For patient adherence to lab monitoring, there was a statistically significant improvement for patients on abiraterone (21.9% vs. 67%; P < .001) and enzalutamide (35.7% vs 90.5%; P = .006). There was a decline in lab monitoring adherence for patient on ibrutinib but this effect was not statistically significant (56.2% vs. 51%; P = .283). Similar results were shown for provider adherence to lab monitoring. Descriptive outcomes showed that the pharmacist had on average 6.7 encounters per patient.

Conclusions/Implications

A pharmacist-led oral anticancer clinic can improve MPR ratios and patient adherence to oral anticancer regimens. Patient and provider lab monitoring adherence was improved for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Improvement in patient/ provider lab monitoring adherence for ibrutinib was not shown, possibly due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, small sample size, and retrospective nature of this study. The results of this study supports that overall, a pharmacist-led oral anticancer clinic can significantly improve patient outcomes, which aligns with previous smaller studies.

Background

The VA Outpatient Chemotherapy Clinic sees approximately 870 veterans each year. Of these, 5% receive home-infusion chemotherapy. COVID-19 created staffing challenges for the contracted homeinfusion company utilized by the VA for home-infusion chemotherapy. The VA developed a self-contained home-infusion program for 5-FU to ensure needed care could be delivered to veterans without delay.

Methods

After researching private sector and VA models of providing home-infusion chemotherapy services, analyzing literature, internal VA patient safety data, and financial implications of different home-infusion pump options, including both CADD pumps and elastomeric pumps, CADD pumps were determined to be the best financial option and safest option for providing home-infusion 5-FU through the VA. Patient education documents were created from CADD pump user manuals and literature. 

Results

A home-infusion program for 5-FU chemotherapy was implemented at the VA Outpatient Chemotherapy Clinic in March 2022. Veterans receive a home-infusion pump, 5-FU, education, and access to a 24-hour telephone support line staffed by an oncology registered nurse through the VA. Patient education consists of home-infusion pump training, implanted port de-accessing, chemotherapy spill management, and hazardous waste disposal.

Conclusion

Ten veterans have started their home-infusion portion of therapy through the VA, amounting to 34 completed cycles, between March 2022 and June 2022. This program is completely self-contained within the VA Outpatient Chemotherapy Clinic. It has allowed for initiation and continuation of needed chemotherapy regimens in an environment of staffing instability at the contracted home-infusion company. The home-infusion program required the acquisition of home-infusion pumps and supplies. The home-infusion pumps can be reused by another patient after completion of treatment making this program sustainable. Existing VA medical oncology staffing was utilized with the additional need for oncology nurses to take calls to provide 24-hour telephone support for any pumprelated issues that may arise during home-infusion therapy. A VA home-infusion program allows for veterans to receive seamless cancer care through one entity. This program is replicable at other VAs and can be expanded to include other forms of home-infusion therapy, such as antibiotics.

Background

The VA Outpatient Chemotherapy Clinic sees approximately 870 veterans each year. Of these, 5% receive home-infusion chemotherapy. COVID-19 created staffing challenges for the contracted homeinfusion company utilized by the VA for home-infusion chemotherapy. The VA developed a self-contained home-infusion program for 5-FU to ensure needed care could be delivered to veterans without delay.

Methods

After researching private sector and VA models of providing home-infusion chemotherapy services, analyzing literature, internal VA patient safety data, and financial implications of different home-infusion pump options, including both CADD pumps and elastomeric pumps, CADD pumps were determined to be the best financial option and safest option for providing home-infusion 5-FU through the VA. Patient education documents were created from CADD pump user manuals and literature. 

Results

A home-infusion program for 5-FU chemotherapy was implemented at the VA Outpatient Chemotherapy Clinic in March 2022. Veterans receive a home-infusion pump, 5-FU, education, and access to a 24-hour telephone support line staffed by an oncology registered nurse through the VA. Patient education consists of home-infusion pump training, implanted port de-accessing, chemotherapy spill management, and hazardous waste disposal.

Conclusion

Ten veterans have started their home-infusion portion of therapy through the VA, amounting to 34 completed cycles, between March 2022 and June 2022. This program is completely self-contained within the VA Outpatient Chemotherapy Clinic. It has allowed for initiation and continuation of needed chemotherapy regimens in an environment of staffing instability at the contracted home-infusion company. The home-infusion program required the acquisition of home-infusion pumps and supplies. The home-infusion pumps can be reused by another patient after completion of treatment making this program sustainable. Existing VA medical oncology staffing was utilized with the additional need for oncology nurses to take calls to provide 24-hour telephone support for any pumprelated issues that may arise during home-infusion therapy. A VA home-infusion program allows for veterans to receive seamless cancer care through one entity. This program is replicable at other VAs and can be expanded to include other forms of home-infusion therapy, such as antibiotics.

Background

The VA Outpatient Chemotherapy Clinic sees approximately 870 veterans each year. Of these, 5% receive home-infusion chemotherapy. COVID-19 created staffing challenges for the contracted homeinfusion company utilized by the VA for home-infusion chemotherapy. The VA developed a self-contained home-infusion program for 5-FU to ensure needed care could be delivered to veterans without delay.

Methods

After researching private sector and VA models of providing home-infusion chemotherapy services, analyzing literature, internal VA patient safety data, and financial implications of different home-infusion pump options, including both CADD pumps and elastomeric pumps, CADD pumps were determined to be the best financial option and safest option for providing home-infusion 5-FU through the VA. Patient education documents were created from CADD pump user manuals and literature. 

Results

A home-infusion program for 5-FU chemotherapy was implemented at the VA Outpatient Chemotherapy Clinic in March 2022. Veterans receive a home-infusion pump, 5-FU, education, and access to a 24-hour telephone support line staffed by an oncology registered nurse through the VA. Patient education consists of home-infusion pump training, implanted port de-accessing, chemotherapy spill management, and hazardous waste disposal.

Conclusion

Ten veterans have started their home-infusion portion of therapy through the VA, amounting to 34 completed cycles, between March 2022 and June 2022. This program is completely self-contained within the VA Outpatient Chemotherapy Clinic. It has allowed for initiation and continuation of needed chemotherapy regimens in an environment of staffing instability at the contracted home-infusion company. The home-infusion program required the acquisition of home-infusion pumps and supplies. The home-infusion pumps can be reused by another patient after completion of treatment making this program sustainable. Existing VA medical oncology staffing was utilized with the additional need for oncology nurses to take calls to provide 24-hour telephone support for any pumprelated issues that may arise during home-infusion therapy. A VA home-infusion program allows for veterans to receive seamless cancer care through one entity. This program is replicable at other VAs and can be expanded to include other forms of home-infusion therapy, such as antibiotics.

Background

Currently, within the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, anticancer therapy infusions and injections are primarily offered at VA medical centers (VAMCs) in urban areas. The time and out-of-pocket expenses related to travel present a barrier to care, often leading veterans to seek cancer care in the community. The Minneapolis VA developed a “Remote Infusion” program that deploys a chemotherapy certified RN to administer anticancer and supportive therapies at surrounding Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs). The program expanded in October 2021, and since, they have provided 259 infusions and injections to 145 veterans at 16 CBOCs. These efforts have saved at least 20,000 miles of travel for veterans in the Minneapolis/ St. Cloud catchment area. Building off the success of this program, the National Oncology Program Integrated Project Team has developed the “Close to Me” CBOC Infusion Program.

Methods

The “Close to Me” CBOC Infusion Program utilizes VAMCs to compound treatments. Then a chemotherapy certified RN is deployed to the surrounding CBOCs to administer treatments. Veterans eligible for this program must have received and tolerated their first dose of treatment at a VAMC. Medications included in this program have low risk of reaction, short infusion time, and at least 8 hours of drug stability. Treatments include immune check point inhibitors, leuprolide, octreotide, IV fluids, and iron infusions. Additional treatments continue to be evaluated and added. Telehealth modalities are utilized for patient visits with their oncology provider for treatment clearance. An implementation toolkit, including a library of standard operating procedures, note templates, and staffing models, has been developed for VAMCs interested in replicating this program.

Results

The Pittsburgh VAMC launched the first “Close to Me” CBOC Infusion Program June 8, 2022.

Conclusions

 The “Close to Me” CBOC infusion program optimizes current VA infrastructure and processes to expand access to the world class oncology care VA provides by reducing travel burden for the veterans. Additional areas of novel solutions under development to provide expanded access points to anticancer therapies include mobile infusion units, mobile compounding units, and home administration.

Background

Currently, within the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, anticancer therapy infusions and injections are primarily offered at VA medical centers (VAMCs) in urban areas. The time and out-of-pocket expenses related to travel present a barrier to care, often leading veterans to seek cancer care in the community. The Minneapolis VA developed a “Remote Infusion” program that deploys a chemotherapy certified RN to administer anticancer and supportive therapies at surrounding Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs). The program expanded in October 2021, and since, they have provided 259 infusions and injections to 145 veterans at 16 CBOCs. These efforts have saved at least 20,000 miles of travel for veterans in the Minneapolis/ St. Cloud catchment area. Building off the success of this program, the National Oncology Program Integrated Project Team has developed the “Close to Me” CBOC Infusion Program.

Methods

The “Close to Me” CBOC Infusion Program utilizes VAMCs to compound treatments. Then a chemotherapy certified RN is deployed to the surrounding CBOCs to administer treatments. Veterans eligible for this program must have received and tolerated their first dose of treatment at a VAMC. Medications included in this program have low risk of reaction, short infusion time, and at least 8 hours of drug stability. Treatments include immune check point inhibitors, leuprolide, octreotide, IV fluids, and iron infusions. Additional treatments continue to be evaluated and added. Telehealth modalities are utilized for patient visits with their oncology provider for treatment clearance. An implementation toolkit, including a library of standard operating procedures, note templates, and staffing models, has been developed for VAMCs interested in replicating this program.

Results

The Pittsburgh VAMC launched the first “Close to Me” CBOC Infusion Program June 8, 2022.

Conclusions

 The “Close to Me” CBOC infusion program optimizes current VA infrastructure and processes to expand access to the world class oncology care VA provides by reducing travel burden for the veterans. Additional areas of novel solutions under development to provide expanded access points to anticancer therapies include mobile infusion units, mobile compounding units, and home administration.

Background

Currently, within the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, anticancer therapy infusions and injections are primarily offered at VA medical centers (VAMCs) in urban areas. The time and out-of-pocket expenses related to travel present a barrier to care, often leading veterans to seek cancer care in the community. The Minneapolis VA developed a “Remote Infusion” program that deploys a chemotherapy certified RN to administer anticancer and supportive therapies at surrounding Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs). The program expanded in October 2021, and since, they have provided 259 infusions and injections to 145 veterans at 16 CBOCs. These efforts have saved at least 20,000 miles of travel for veterans in the Minneapolis/ St. Cloud catchment area. Building off the success of this program, the National Oncology Program Integrated Project Team has developed the “Close to Me” CBOC Infusion Program.

Methods

The “Close to Me” CBOC Infusion Program utilizes VAMCs to compound treatments. Then a chemotherapy certified RN is deployed to the surrounding CBOCs to administer treatments. Veterans eligible for this program must have received and tolerated their first dose of treatment at a VAMC. Medications included in this program have low risk of reaction, short infusion time, and at least 8 hours of drug stability. Treatments include immune check point inhibitors, leuprolide, octreotide, IV fluids, and iron infusions. Additional treatments continue to be evaluated and added. Telehealth modalities are utilized for patient visits with their oncology provider for treatment clearance. An implementation toolkit, including a library of standard operating procedures, note templates, and staffing models, has been developed for VAMCs interested in replicating this program.

Results

The Pittsburgh VAMC launched the first “Close to Me” CBOC Infusion Program June 8, 2022.

Conclusions

 The “Close to Me” CBOC infusion program optimizes current VA infrastructure and processes to expand access to the world class oncology care VA provides by reducing travel burden for the veterans. Additional areas of novel solutions under development to provide expanded access points to anticancer therapies include mobile infusion units, mobile compounding units, and home administration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Sept. 1 approved the use of vaccines designed to target both Omicron and the older variants of the coronavirus, a step that may aid a goal of a widespread immunization campaign before winter arrives in the United States.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 13-1 on two separate questions. One sought the panel’s backing for the use of a single dose of a new version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 12 and older. The second question dealt with a single dose of the reworked Moderna vaccine for people aged 18 and older.

The federal government wants to speed use of revamped COVID-19 shots, which the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 1 cleared for use in the United States. Hours later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, agreed with the panel’s recommendation. 

“The updated COVID-19 boosters are formulated to better protect against the most recently circulating COVID-19 variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement. “They can help restore protection that has waned since previous vaccination and were designed to provide broader protection against newer variants. This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion. If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it.”

The FDA vote on Aug. 31 expanded the emergency use authorization EUA for both Moderna and Pfizer’s original COVID-19 vaccines. The new products are also called “updated boosters.” Both contain two mRNA components of SARS-CoV-2 virus, one of the original strain  and another that is found in the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the Omicron variant, the FDA said.

Basically, the FDA cleared the way for these new boosters after it relied heavily on results of certain blood tests that suggested an immune response boost from the new formulas, plus 18 months of mostly safe use of the original versions of the shots.

What neither the FDA nor the CDC has, however, is evidence from studies in humans on how well these new vaccines work or whether they are as safe as the originals. But the FDA did consider clinical evidence for the older shots and results from studies on the new boosters that were done in mice.

ACIP Committee member Pablo Sanchez, MD, of Ohio State University was the sole “no” vote on each question.  

“It’s a new vaccine, it’s a new platform. There’s a lot of hesitancy already. We need the human data,”  Dr. Sanchez said.

Dr. Sanchez did not doubt that the newer versions of the vaccine would prove safe.

“I personally am in the age group where I’m at high risk and I’m almost sure that I will receive it,” Dr. Sanchez said. “I just feel that this was a bit premature, and I wish that we had seen that data. Having said that, I am comfortable that the vaccine will likely be safe like the others.”

Dr. Sanchez was not alone in raising concerns about backing new COVID-19 shots for which there is not direct clinical evidence from human studies.

Committee member Sarah Long, MD, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, said during the discussion she would “reluctantly” vote in favor of the updated vaccines. She said she believes they will have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and even deaths, even with questions remaining about the data.

Dr. Long joined other committee members in pointing to the approach to updating flu vaccines as a model. In an attempt to keep ahead of influenza, companies seek to defeat new strains through tweaks to their FDA-approved vaccines. There is not much clinical information available about these revised products, Dr. Long said. She compared it to remodeling an existing home.

“It is the same scaffolding, part of the same roof, we’re just putting in some dormers and windows,” with the revisions to the flu vaccine, she said.

Earlier in the day, committee member Jamie Loehr, MD,  of Cayuga Family Medicine in Ithaca, N.Y., also used changes to the annual flu shots as the model for advancing COVID-19 shots.

“So after thinking about it, I am comfortable even though we don’t have human data,” he said.

There were several questions during the meeting about why the FDA had not convened a meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (regarding these specific bivalent vaccines). Typically, the FDA committee of advisers considers new vaccines before the agency authorizes their use. In this case, however, the agency acted on its own.

The FDA said the committee considered the new, bivalent COVID-19 boosters in earlier meetings and that was enough outside feedback.

But holding a meeting of advisers on these specific products could have helped build public confidence in these medicines, Dorit Reiss, PhD, of the University of California Hastings College of Law, said during the public comment session of the CDC advisers’ meeting.

“We could wish the vaccines were more effective against infection, but they’re safe and they prevent hospitalization and death,” she said.

The Department of Health and Human Services anticipated the backing of ACIP. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response  on Aug. 31 began distributing “millions of doses of the updated booster to tens of thousands of sites nationwide,” Jason Roos, PhD,  chief operating officer for HHS Coordination Operations and Response Element, wrote in a blog.

“These boosters will be available at tens of thousands of vaccination sites ... including local pharmacies, their physicians’ offices, and vaccine centers operated by state and local health officials,”Dr. Roos wrote.

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

BARCELONA – Two noninvasive imaging methods for assessing coronary artery disease – cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and positron emission tomography using rubidium stress (RbPET) – had nearly identical accuracy for ruling-in or ruling-out coronary disease, making them for at least the time being equally appropriate to use when assessing low- or intermediate-risk patients with symptoms suggestive of possible coronary disease in a prospective, multicenter study with 372 patients.

RbPET and CMR using a 3 Tesla device showed “absolutely similar performance,” in a head-to-head comparison that used fractional flow reserve assessment via invasive coronary angiography in each patient in the study as the arbiter of the true extent of coronary disease, reported Morten Bøttcher, MD, PhD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This result is good news for practice because clinicians can feel free to use whichever of the two assessment methods is most feasible for each patient, said Dr. Bøttcher, a researcher at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. But the study was limited by its size, and he hopes to run a future study with many more patients to try to more definitively compare RbPET and CMR.

‘The techniques are probably interchangeable’

“There is a very clear result from the data: The performance of the two modalities is similar in the population studied,” commented Colin Berry, MBChB, PhD, professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), and designated discussant for the report. “The techniques are probably interchangeable,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

Dr. Bøttcher and his associates designed the Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 2 (Dan-NICAD 2) to address a knowledge gap highlighted in the 2019 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, specifically low- or intermediate-risk patients who present with symptoms of possible coronary disease who have been identified as having possibly stenotic coronary lesions using coronary CT angiography. The guidelines cite using noninvasive imaging at this point prior to invasive angiography, but note that the relative performance of the various imaging options available for this step in unknown, said Dr. Bøttcher.

The researchers enrolled 372 patients at any of four hospitals in Denmark who agreed to participate and had a positive result on a coronary CT examination performed to assess their symptoms of coronary disease. (These 372 patients came from an initial pool of people that was fourfold larger, but three-quarters had negative findings on their coronary CT examination.) Clinicians had referred all of these patients to invasive angiography with fractional flow reserve assessment, and prior to that procedure they each underwent both a RbPET and a CMR examination for the purpose of this study. The researchers used each patient’s eventual invasive angiography result as the definitive determinant of their coronary disease. These patients averaged 64 years old, and 71% were men.

This analysis showed that for all 372 patients RbPET had 63% sensitivity and 87% specificity for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary disease, with rates of 60% and 85%, respectively, for CMR. In the subgroup of 71 patients (19%) who had obstructive coronary disease when examined by invasive angiography the sensitivity and specificity of the RbPET examination was 90% and 78%, and for CMR the sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 76%, Dr. Bøttcher reported.

Negative imaging, positive FFR

He also noted that it remains unclear how to best manage patients who show no signs of ischemia when examined by RbPET or CMR, but have an apparently hemodynamically meaningful coronary lesion when assessed by invasive angiography and fractional flow reserve. “We don’t know whether we should be guided by the negative scan or by the positive FFR result,” Dr. Bøttcher said. “There is a challenge when you get different results.”

In addition, the two compared imaging methods both have logistical limitations. RbPET involved radiation exposure, and CMR performed with a 3-tesla device may not be as widely available and requires more expensive equipment.

Dr. Berry also noted that imaging methods continue to advance. For example, the CMR examinations used in the study involved qualitative assessments, but quantitative CMR is now becoming more widely available and may provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities. Dr. Berry added that patients with symptoms of coronary disease but without an identifiable coronary obstruction may have microvascular coronary disease, a disorder that he has been at the forefront of describing.

Dan-NICAD 2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Bøttcher has been an adviser to Acarix, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Berry had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Two noninvasive imaging methods for assessing coronary artery disease – cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and positron emission tomography using rubidium stress (RbPET) – had nearly identical accuracy for ruling-in or ruling-out coronary disease, making them for at least the time being equally appropriate to use when assessing low- or intermediate-risk patients with symptoms suggestive of possible coronary disease in a prospective, multicenter study with 372 patients.

RbPET and CMR using a 3 Tesla device showed “absolutely similar performance,” in a head-to-head comparison that used fractional flow reserve assessment via invasive coronary angiography in each patient in the study as the arbiter of the true extent of coronary disease, reported Morten Bøttcher, MD, PhD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This result is good news for practice because clinicians can feel free to use whichever of the two assessment methods is most feasible for each patient, said Dr. Bøttcher, a researcher at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. But the study was limited by its size, and he hopes to run a future study with many more patients to try to more definitively compare RbPET and CMR.

‘The techniques are probably interchangeable’

“There is a very clear result from the data: The performance of the two modalities is similar in the population studied,” commented Colin Berry, MBChB, PhD, professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), and designated discussant for the report. “The techniques are probably interchangeable,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

Dr. Bøttcher and his associates designed the Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 2 (Dan-NICAD 2) to address a knowledge gap highlighted in the 2019 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, specifically low- or intermediate-risk patients who present with symptoms of possible coronary disease who have been identified as having possibly stenotic coronary lesions using coronary CT angiography. The guidelines cite using noninvasive imaging at this point prior to invasive angiography, but note that the relative performance of the various imaging options available for this step in unknown, said Dr. Bøttcher.

The researchers enrolled 372 patients at any of four hospitals in Denmark who agreed to participate and had a positive result on a coronary CT examination performed to assess their symptoms of coronary disease. (These 372 patients came from an initial pool of people that was fourfold larger, but three-quarters had negative findings on their coronary CT examination.) Clinicians had referred all of these patients to invasive angiography with fractional flow reserve assessment, and prior to that procedure they each underwent both a RbPET and a CMR examination for the purpose of this study. The researchers used each patient’s eventual invasive angiography result as the definitive determinant of their coronary disease. These patients averaged 64 years old, and 71% were men.

This analysis showed that for all 372 patients RbPET had 63% sensitivity and 87% specificity for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary disease, with rates of 60% and 85%, respectively, for CMR. In the subgroup of 71 patients (19%) who had obstructive coronary disease when examined by invasive angiography the sensitivity and specificity of the RbPET examination was 90% and 78%, and for CMR the sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 76%, Dr. Bøttcher reported.

Negative imaging, positive FFR

He also noted that it remains unclear how to best manage patients who show no signs of ischemia when examined by RbPET or CMR, but have an apparently hemodynamically meaningful coronary lesion when assessed by invasive angiography and fractional flow reserve. “We don’t know whether we should be guided by the negative scan or by the positive FFR result,” Dr. Bøttcher said. “There is a challenge when you get different results.”

In addition, the two compared imaging methods both have logistical limitations. RbPET involved radiation exposure, and CMR performed with a 3-tesla device may not be as widely available and requires more expensive equipment.

Dr. Berry also noted that imaging methods continue to advance. For example, the CMR examinations used in the study involved qualitative assessments, but quantitative CMR is now becoming more widely available and may provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities. Dr. Berry added that patients with symptoms of coronary disease but without an identifiable coronary obstruction may have microvascular coronary disease, a disorder that he has been at the forefront of describing.

Dan-NICAD 2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Bøttcher has been an adviser to Acarix, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Berry had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Two noninvasive imaging methods for assessing coronary artery disease – cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and positron emission tomography using rubidium stress (RbPET) – had nearly identical accuracy for ruling-in or ruling-out coronary disease, making them for at least the time being equally appropriate to use when assessing low- or intermediate-risk patients with symptoms suggestive of possible coronary disease in a prospective, multicenter study with 372 patients.

RbPET and CMR using a 3 Tesla device showed “absolutely similar performance,” in a head-to-head comparison that used fractional flow reserve assessment via invasive coronary angiography in each patient in the study as the arbiter of the true extent of coronary disease, reported Morten Bøttcher, MD, PhD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

This result is good news for practice because clinicians can feel free to use whichever of the two assessment methods is most feasible for each patient, said Dr. Bøttcher, a researcher at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital. But the study was limited by its size, and he hopes to run a future study with many more patients to try to more definitively compare RbPET and CMR.

‘The techniques are probably interchangeable’

“There is a very clear result from the data: The performance of the two modalities is similar in the population studied,” commented Colin Berry, MBChB, PhD, professor of cardiology and imaging at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), and designated discussant for the report. “The techniques are probably interchangeable,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge

Dr. Bøttcher and his associates designed the Danish Study of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 2 (Dan-NICAD 2) to address a knowledge gap highlighted in the 2019 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the management of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, specifically low- or intermediate-risk patients who present with symptoms of possible coronary disease who have been identified as having possibly stenotic coronary lesions using coronary CT angiography. The guidelines cite using noninvasive imaging at this point prior to invasive angiography, but note that the relative performance of the various imaging options available for this step in unknown, said Dr. Bøttcher.

The researchers enrolled 372 patients at any of four hospitals in Denmark who agreed to participate and had a positive result on a coronary CT examination performed to assess their symptoms of coronary disease. (These 372 patients came from an initial pool of people that was fourfold larger, but three-quarters had negative findings on their coronary CT examination.) Clinicians had referred all of these patients to invasive angiography with fractional flow reserve assessment, and prior to that procedure they each underwent both a RbPET and a CMR examination for the purpose of this study. The researchers used each patient’s eventual invasive angiography result as the definitive determinant of their coronary disease. These patients averaged 64 years old, and 71% were men.

This analysis showed that for all 372 patients RbPET had 63% sensitivity and 87% specificity for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary disease, with rates of 60% and 85%, respectively, for CMR. In the subgroup of 71 patients (19%) who had obstructive coronary disease when examined by invasive angiography the sensitivity and specificity of the RbPET examination was 90% and 78%, and for CMR the sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 76%, Dr. Bøttcher reported.

Negative imaging, positive FFR

He also noted that it remains unclear how to best manage patients who show no signs of ischemia when examined by RbPET or CMR, but have an apparently hemodynamically meaningful coronary lesion when assessed by invasive angiography and fractional flow reserve. “We don’t know whether we should be guided by the negative scan or by the positive FFR result,” Dr. Bøttcher said. “There is a challenge when you get different results.”

In addition, the two compared imaging methods both have logistical limitations. RbPET involved radiation exposure, and CMR performed with a 3-tesla device may not be as widely available and requires more expensive equipment.

Dr. Berry also noted that imaging methods continue to advance. For example, the CMR examinations used in the study involved qualitative assessments, but quantitative CMR is now becoming more widely available and may provide enhanced diagnostic capabilities. Dr. Berry added that patients with symptoms of coronary disease but without an identifiable coronary obstruction may have microvascular coronary disease, a disorder that he has been at the forefront of describing.

Dan-NICAD 2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Bøttcher has been an adviser to Acarix, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Berry had no disclosures.

In the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 subgroup, however, no significant OS benefit was observed (median OS 17.6 months vs 16.0 months; HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.72-1.04; P = .1125). Additionally, in an exploratory analysis, the addition of pembrolizumab showed consistent OS benefit among patients whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS of 10-19 and CPS ≥ 20. The updated progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORR) were consistent with prior interim data. No new safety signals were observed after the longer follow-up.

These data confirm that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy should remain the first-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS of ≥ 10. The treatment of metastatic TNBC with low or negative PD-L1 CPS scores remains an area of unmet clinical need, and further research is needed to explore better options for these patients.

Wang and colleagues presented results from a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing first-line nab-paclitaxel plus cisplatin (AP) with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) among 254 patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC. Median PFS (mPFS) was 9.8 months with AP vs 7.4 months with GP (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.88; P  =  .004). Furthermore, AP had significantly higher ORR compared with GP (81.1% vs 56.3%; P  <  .001) and significantly improved median OS (26.3 months vs 22.9 months; HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.44-0.90; P  =  .010).

In the exploratory analyses of PFS by stratification factors, the mPFS was significantly longer in the AP group compared with the GP group in the majority of subgroups, except for those patients who presented with de novo stage IV disease or a disease-free interval of < 1 year. Regarding safety data, a significantly higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 neuropathy (19% vs 0%) and nausea and vomiting (6% vs 1%) was noted in the AP group compared with the GP group, while grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia was more common in the GP group compared with the AP group (29.4% vs 3.9%).

The AP doublet achieved superior efficacy with a manageable safety profile, compared with GP in patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC. It is not clear, however, whether the AP doublet is superior to single-agent therapy in this setting, especially given several prior studies that showed no survival benefit and increased toxicity from combination therapy compared with sequential single-agent therapy in metastatic breast cancer. More studies are needed to establish the role of the AP doublet in combination with pembrolizumab in this cohort of patients, given that first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is considered the standard of care for patients with metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1.

Rugo and colleagues presented results from a randomized phase 3 study comparing 205 mg/m²oral paclitaxel plus 15 mg encequidar (a novel P-glycoprotein pump inhibitor that allows oral absorption of paclitaxel) on 3 consecutive days per week vs 175 mg/m² intravenous paclitaxel once every 3 weeks. The study enrolled 402 postmenopausal women from Latin America with metastatic breast cancer who were at least 1 year from their last taxane therapy. Oral paclitaxel plus encequidar (oPac + E) increased the confirmed tumor response compared with intravenous paclitaxel (IVpac) (36% vs 23%; P = .01). There was a trend toward improved PFS (8.4 vs 7.4 months; HR 0.768; 95.5% CI 0.584-1.01; P = .046) and OS (22.7 vs 16.5 months; HR 0.794; 95.5% CI 0.607-1.037; P = .08) with oPac + E compared to IVpac, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events were comparable with oPac + E and IVpac (55% vs 53%), although a lower incidence of grade 3 neuropathy (2% vs 15%) and alopecia (49% vs 62%) was noted with oPac + E compared with IVpac. A higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal toxicity (nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) and grade 4 neutropenic complications was noted in the oPac + E group. Patients with elevated baseline liver enzymes were particularly susceptible to early neutropenia and serious infections.

This study demonstrates that oral paclitaxel can be a possible alternative treatment option to intravenous paclitaxel in a select group of patients with metastatic breast cancer. High-grade neutropenia appears to be a major treatment-limiting toxicity with oPac + E. Therefore, careful patient selection and close monitoring are crucial for the successful management of this adverse event.

In the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 subgroup, however, no significant OS benefit was observed (median OS 17.6 months vs 16.0 months; HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.72-1.04; P = .1125). Additionally, in an exploratory analysis, the addition of pembrolizumab showed consistent OS benefit among patients whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS of 10-19 and CPS ≥ 20. The updated progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORR) were consistent with prior interim data. No new safety signals were observed after the longer follow-up.

These data confirm that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy should remain the first-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS of ≥ 10. The treatment of metastatic TNBC with low or negative PD-L1 CPS scores remains an area of unmet clinical need, and further research is needed to explore better options for these patients.

Wang and colleagues presented results from a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing first-line nab-paclitaxel plus cisplatin (AP) with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) among 254 patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC. Median PFS (mPFS) was 9.8 months with AP vs 7.4 months with GP (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.88; P  =  .004). Furthermore, AP had significantly higher ORR compared with GP (81.1% vs 56.3%; P  <  .001) and significantly improved median OS (26.3 months vs 22.9 months; HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.44-0.90; P  =  .010).

In the exploratory analyses of PFS by stratification factors, the mPFS was significantly longer in the AP group compared with the GP group in the majority of subgroups, except for those patients who presented with de novo stage IV disease or a disease-free interval of < 1 year. Regarding safety data, a significantly higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 neuropathy (19% vs 0%) and nausea and vomiting (6% vs 1%) was noted in the AP group compared with the GP group, while grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia was more common in the GP group compared with the AP group (29.4% vs 3.9%).

The AP doublet achieved superior efficacy with a manageable safety profile, compared with GP in patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC. It is not clear, however, whether the AP doublet is superior to single-agent therapy in this setting, especially given several prior studies that showed no survival benefit and increased toxicity from combination therapy compared with sequential single-agent therapy in metastatic breast cancer. More studies are needed to establish the role of the AP doublet in combination with pembrolizumab in this cohort of patients, given that first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is considered the standard of care for patients with metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1.

Rugo and colleagues presented results from a randomized phase 3 study comparing 205 mg/m²oral paclitaxel plus 15 mg encequidar (a novel P-glycoprotein pump inhibitor that allows oral absorption of paclitaxel) on 3 consecutive days per week vs 175 mg/m² intravenous paclitaxel once every 3 weeks. The study enrolled 402 postmenopausal women from Latin America with metastatic breast cancer who were at least 1 year from their last taxane therapy. Oral paclitaxel plus encequidar (oPac + E) increased the confirmed tumor response compared with intravenous paclitaxel (IVpac) (36% vs 23%; P = .01). There was a trend toward improved PFS (8.4 vs 7.4 months; HR 0.768; 95.5% CI 0.584-1.01; P = .046) and OS (22.7 vs 16.5 months; HR 0.794; 95.5% CI 0.607-1.037; P = .08) with oPac + E compared to IVpac, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events were comparable with oPac + E and IVpac (55% vs 53%), although a lower incidence of grade 3 neuropathy (2% vs 15%) and alopecia (49% vs 62%) was noted with oPac + E compared with IVpac. A higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal toxicity (nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) and grade 4 neutropenic complications was noted in the oPac + E group. Patients with elevated baseline liver enzymes were particularly susceptible to early neutropenia and serious infections.

This study demonstrates that oral paclitaxel can be a possible alternative treatment option to intravenous paclitaxel in a select group of patients with metastatic breast cancer. High-grade neutropenia appears to be a major treatment-limiting toxicity with oPac + E. Therefore, careful patient selection and close monitoring are crucial for the successful management of this adverse event.

In the PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 subgroup, however, no significant OS benefit was observed (median OS 17.6 months vs 16.0 months; HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.72-1.04; P = .1125). Additionally, in an exploratory analysis, the addition of pembrolizumab showed consistent OS benefit among patients whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS of 10-19 and CPS ≥ 20. The updated progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORR) were consistent with prior interim data. No new safety signals were observed after the longer follow-up.

These data confirm that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy should remain the first-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS of ≥ 10. The treatment of metastatic TNBC with low or negative PD-L1 CPS scores remains an area of unmet clinical need, and further research is needed to explore better options for these patients.

Wang and colleagues presented results from a randomized, phase 3 trial comparing first-line nab-paclitaxel plus cisplatin (AP) with gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) among 254 patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC. Median PFS (mPFS) was 9.8 months with AP vs 7.4 months with GP (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.88; P  =  .004). Furthermore, AP had significantly higher ORR compared with GP (81.1% vs 56.3%; P  <  .001) and significantly improved median OS (26.3 months vs 22.9 months; HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.44-0.90; P  =  .010).

In the exploratory analyses of PFS by stratification factors, the mPFS was significantly longer in the AP group compared with the GP group in the majority of subgroups, except for those patients who presented with de novo stage IV disease or a disease-free interval of < 1 year. Regarding safety data, a significantly higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 neuropathy (19% vs 0%) and nausea and vomiting (6% vs 1%) was noted in the AP group compared with the GP group, while grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia was more common in the GP group compared with the AP group (29.4% vs 3.9%).

The AP doublet achieved superior efficacy with a manageable safety profile, compared with GP in patients with previously untreated metastatic TNBC. It is not clear, however, whether the AP doublet is superior to single-agent therapy in this setting, especially given several prior studies that showed no survival benefit and increased toxicity from combination therapy compared with sequential single-agent therapy in metastatic breast cancer. More studies are needed to establish the role of the AP doublet in combination with pembrolizumab in this cohort of patients, given that first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is considered the standard of care for patients with metastatic TNBC whose tumors express PD-L1.

Rugo and colleagues presented results from a randomized phase 3 study comparing 205 mg/m²oral paclitaxel plus 15 mg encequidar (a novel P-glycoprotein pump inhibitor that allows oral absorption of paclitaxel) on 3 consecutive days per week vs 175 mg/m² intravenous paclitaxel once every 3 weeks. The study enrolled 402 postmenopausal women from Latin America with metastatic breast cancer who were at least 1 year from their last taxane therapy. Oral paclitaxel plus encequidar (oPac + E) increased the confirmed tumor response compared with intravenous paclitaxel (IVpac) (36% vs 23%; P = .01). There was a trend toward improved PFS (8.4 vs 7.4 months; HR 0.768; 95.5% CI 0.584-1.01; P = .046) and OS (22.7 vs 16.5 months; HR 0.794; 95.5% CI 0.607-1.037; P = .08) with oPac + E compared to IVpac, respectively. Grade ≥3 adverse events were comparable with oPac + E and IVpac (55% vs 53%), although a lower incidence of grade 3 neuropathy (2% vs 15%) and alopecia (49% vs 62%) was noted with oPac + E compared with IVpac. A higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 gastrointestinal toxicity (nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) and grade 4 neutropenic complications was noted in the oPac + E group. Patients with elevated baseline liver enzymes were particularly susceptible to early neutropenia and serious infections.

This study demonstrates that oral paclitaxel can be a possible alternative treatment option to intravenous paclitaxel in a select group of patients with metastatic breast cancer. High-grade neutropenia appears to be a major treatment-limiting toxicity with oPac + E. Therefore, careful patient selection and close monitoring are crucial for the successful management of this adverse event.

Warning labels on alcoholic products need to be updated to spell out details of potential harm in order to make them more effective, two U.S. researchers have said.

The current labeling, which has not changed for 30 years, focuses on risks during pregnancy and with operating machinery and includes a vague statement that alcohol “may cause health problems.”

This is “so understated that it borders on being misleading,” the two researchers argued.

The science related to the use of alcohol has moved on, and there is now firm evidence of harm. Alcohol has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)  as a group 1 carcinogen and has been linked to an increased risk of many types of cancer. Drinking alcohol has also been linked to a wide range of other diseases, from liver disease to pancreatitis to some types of heart disease, the authors noted.

Yet the general public is mostly unaware of the most serious health risks that are associated with alcohol consumption, they pointed out.

“We believe Americans deserve the opportunity to make well-informed decisions about their alcohol consumption,” said Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Marissa G. Hall, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Designing and adopting new alcohol warning labels should therefore be a research and policy priority,” they added.

The two researchers set out their arguments in a perspective article published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Alcohol consumption and its associated harms are reaching a crisis point in the United States,” they pointed out.

It now accounts for more than 140,000 deaths per year in the United States, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The COVID-19 pandemic has made the problem even worse – there was a 25% increase in alcohol-related deaths during 2020.

New, well-designed warning labels on alcohol is a common sense strategy for providing consumers with information and reducing the burden of alcohol-related harm, the authors suggested.
 

Warning Labels Prominently Displayed

Warning labels are most effective when they are prominently displayed, when they include pictures of some type, and when the messages alternate so as to avoid any one message from becoming “stale,” the authors noted. This approach has worked well with cigarette packs. This type of warning has increased smoking quit rates in comparison with smaller, side-of-pack, text-only warning labels.

There is some evidence that this type of labeling can be effective for alcohol. When large, pictorial warnings about cancer risk were temporarily added to the front of alcohol containers in some stores in Yukon, Canada, alcohol sales declined by 6%-10%, they pointed out.

However, pressure from the alcohol industry led to changes in the Yukon project, and while a general health warning remains, the label about increased cancer risk was removed.

The alcohol industry has tried to suppress efforts to educate the public, and this has created problems in conveying health information to consumers, the authors noted. The industry spends more than $1 billion each year to market its products in the United States.

The authors caution that without government intervention, the alcohol industry has little incentive to communicate the risks.

Some companies even link their products to health campaigns, such as selling pink ribbon–themed alcoholic drinks during October to promote their efforts to raise funds for breast cancer research, despite compelling evidence linking alcohol to an increased risk of breast cancer.
 

Petition at Congress calling for new labels

This is not the first call for a change in the warning labels on alcohol.

Last year, a number of medical groups petitioned Congress for a new cancer-specific warning label to be displayed on all alcoholic beverages.

The petition was signed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in collaboration with the American Public Health Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Alcohol Justice, and the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance.

They are advocating for a label that would say: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

That petition is still pending, Melissa Maitin-Shepard, MPP, policy expert at the AICR, said in an interview.

In addition, the AICR is “working to advocate for the addition of a cancer warning label to alcoholic beverages through multiple channels,” she said. “Given the strong evidence linking alcohol use with at least six types of cancer – and low awareness of the alcohol and cancer connection – there is a tremendous need to educate the public about alcohol and cancer risk.”

Noelle K. LoConte, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who is the lead author of ASCO’s statement on alcohol and cancer risk, emphasized that there is no doubt that alcohol is a carcinogen, that it causes about 5% of cancers globally, and that its use has increased during the pandemic.

“Initiatives that raise awareness around this issue could help generate more public support for policies that limit alcohol access and thereby decrease the number of alcohol-associated cancers,” she said. “In ASCO’s statement on alcohol and cancer, we recommend several key strategies to reduce high-risk alcohol consumption, including limiting youth access to alcohol, giving municipalities more control over alcohol outlet density and points of sale, and increasing taxes on alcohol.”

However, she also had a small criticism of one point in the NEJM article. It shows a sample infographic that lists gastric cancer as being caused by alcohol. “But as of today, gastric cancer is not on the IARC list of alcohol-associated cancers,” she said. “I think this brings to mind one critical point, that these warning labels have to contain scientifically established facts.”

Dr. Grummon and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Warning labels on alcoholic products need to be updated to spell out details of potential harm in order to make them more effective, two U.S. researchers have said.

The current labeling, which has not changed for 30 years, focuses on risks during pregnancy and with operating machinery and includes a vague statement that alcohol “may cause health problems.”

This is “so understated that it borders on being misleading,” the two researchers argued.

The science related to the use of alcohol has moved on, and there is now firm evidence of harm. Alcohol has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)  as a group 1 carcinogen and has been linked to an increased risk of many types of cancer. Drinking alcohol has also been linked to a wide range of other diseases, from liver disease to pancreatitis to some types of heart disease, the authors noted.

Yet the general public is mostly unaware of the most serious health risks that are associated with alcohol consumption, they pointed out.

“We believe Americans deserve the opportunity to make well-informed decisions about their alcohol consumption,” said Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Marissa G. Hall, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Designing and adopting new alcohol warning labels should therefore be a research and policy priority,” they added.

The two researchers set out their arguments in a perspective article published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Alcohol consumption and its associated harms are reaching a crisis point in the United States,” they pointed out.

It now accounts for more than 140,000 deaths per year in the United States, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The COVID-19 pandemic has made the problem even worse – there was a 25% increase in alcohol-related deaths during 2020.

New, well-designed warning labels on alcohol is a common sense strategy for providing consumers with information and reducing the burden of alcohol-related harm, the authors suggested.
 

Warning Labels Prominently Displayed

Warning labels are most effective when they are prominently displayed, when they include pictures of some type, and when the messages alternate so as to avoid any one message from becoming “stale,” the authors noted. This approach has worked well with cigarette packs. This type of warning has increased smoking quit rates in comparison with smaller, side-of-pack, text-only warning labels.

There is some evidence that this type of labeling can be effective for alcohol. When large, pictorial warnings about cancer risk were temporarily added to the front of alcohol containers in some stores in Yukon, Canada, alcohol sales declined by 6%-10%, they pointed out.

However, pressure from the alcohol industry led to changes in the Yukon project, and while a general health warning remains, the label about increased cancer risk was removed.

The alcohol industry has tried to suppress efforts to educate the public, and this has created problems in conveying health information to consumers, the authors noted. The industry spends more than $1 billion each year to market its products in the United States.

The authors caution that without government intervention, the alcohol industry has little incentive to communicate the risks.

Some companies even link their products to health campaigns, such as selling pink ribbon–themed alcoholic drinks during October to promote their efforts to raise funds for breast cancer research, despite compelling evidence linking alcohol to an increased risk of breast cancer.
 

Petition at Congress calling for new labels

This is not the first call for a change in the warning labels on alcohol.

Last year, a number of medical groups petitioned Congress for a new cancer-specific warning label to be displayed on all alcoholic beverages.

The petition was signed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in collaboration with the American Public Health Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Alcohol Justice, and the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance.

They are advocating for a label that would say: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

That petition is still pending, Melissa Maitin-Shepard, MPP, policy expert at the AICR, said in an interview.

In addition, the AICR is “working to advocate for the addition of a cancer warning label to alcoholic beverages through multiple channels,” she said. “Given the strong evidence linking alcohol use with at least six types of cancer – and low awareness of the alcohol and cancer connection – there is a tremendous need to educate the public about alcohol and cancer risk.”

Noelle K. LoConte, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who is the lead author of ASCO’s statement on alcohol and cancer risk, emphasized that there is no doubt that alcohol is a carcinogen, that it causes about 5% of cancers globally, and that its use has increased during the pandemic.

“Initiatives that raise awareness around this issue could help generate more public support for policies that limit alcohol access and thereby decrease the number of alcohol-associated cancers,” she said. “In ASCO’s statement on alcohol and cancer, we recommend several key strategies to reduce high-risk alcohol consumption, including limiting youth access to alcohol, giving municipalities more control over alcohol outlet density and points of sale, and increasing taxes on alcohol.”

However, she also had a small criticism of one point in the NEJM article. It shows a sample infographic that lists gastric cancer as being caused by alcohol. “But as of today, gastric cancer is not on the IARC list of alcohol-associated cancers,” she said. “I think this brings to mind one critical point, that these warning labels have to contain scientifically established facts.”

Dr. Grummon and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Warning labels on alcoholic products need to be updated to spell out details of potential harm in order to make them more effective, two U.S. researchers have said.

The current labeling, which has not changed for 30 years, focuses on risks during pregnancy and with operating machinery and includes a vague statement that alcohol “may cause health problems.”

This is “so understated that it borders on being misleading,” the two researchers argued.

The science related to the use of alcohol has moved on, and there is now firm evidence of harm. Alcohol has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)  as a group 1 carcinogen and has been linked to an increased risk of many types of cancer. Drinking alcohol has also been linked to a wide range of other diseases, from liver disease to pancreatitis to some types of heart disease, the authors noted.

Yet the general public is mostly unaware of the most serious health risks that are associated with alcohol consumption, they pointed out.

“We believe Americans deserve the opportunity to make well-informed decisions about their alcohol consumption,” said Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Marissa G. Hall, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Designing and adopting new alcohol warning labels should therefore be a research and policy priority,” they added.

The two researchers set out their arguments in a perspective article published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Alcohol consumption and its associated harms are reaching a crisis point in the United States,” they pointed out.

It now accounts for more than 140,000 deaths per year in the United States, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The COVID-19 pandemic has made the problem even worse – there was a 25% increase in alcohol-related deaths during 2020.

New, well-designed warning labels on alcohol is a common sense strategy for providing consumers with information and reducing the burden of alcohol-related harm, the authors suggested.
 

Warning Labels Prominently Displayed

Warning labels are most effective when they are prominently displayed, when they include pictures of some type, and when the messages alternate so as to avoid any one message from becoming “stale,” the authors noted. This approach has worked well with cigarette packs. This type of warning has increased smoking quit rates in comparison with smaller, side-of-pack, text-only warning labels.

There is some evidence that this type of labeling can be effective for alcohol. When large, pictorial warnings about cancer risk were temporarily added to the front of alcohol containers in some stores in Yukon, Canada, alcohol sales declined by 6%-10%, they pointed out.

However, pressure from the alcohol industry led to changes in the Yukon project, and while a general health warning remains, the label about increased cancer risk was removed.

The alcohol industry has tried to suppress efforts to educate the public, and this has created problems in conveying health information to consumers, the authors noted. The industry spends more than $1 billion each year to market its products in the United States.

The authors caution that without government intervention, the alcohol industry has little incentive to communicate the risks.

Some companies even link their products to health campaigns, such as selling pink ribbon–themed alcoholic drinks during October to promote their efforts to raise funds for breast cancer research, despite compelling evidence linking alcohol to an increased risk of breast cancer.
 

Petition at Congress calling for new labels

This is not the first call for a change in the warning labels on alcohol.

Last year, a number of medical groups petitioned Congress for a new cancer-specific warning label to be displayed on all alcoholic beverages.

The petition was signed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR), and Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in collaboration with the American Public Health Association, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Alcohol Justice, and the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance.

They are advocating for a label that would say: “WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.”

That petition is still pending, Melissa Maitin-Shepard, MPP, policy expert at the AICR, said in an interview.

In addition, the AICR is “working to advocate for the addition of a cancer warning label to alcoholic beverages through multiple channels,” she said. “Given the strong evidence linking alcohol use with at least six types of cancer – and low awareness of the alcohol and cancer connection – there is a tremendous need to educate the public about alcohol and cancer risk.”

Noelle K. LoConte, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who is the lead author of ASCO’s statement on alcohol and cancer risk, emphasized that there is no doubt that alcohol is a carcinogen, that it causes about 5% of cancers globally, and that its use has increased during the pandemic.

“Initiatives that raise awareness around this issue could help generate more public support for policies that limit alcohol access and thereby decrease the number of alcohol-associated cancers,” she said. “In ASCO’s statement on alcohol and cancer, we recommend several key strategies to reduce high-risk alcohol consumption, including limiting youth access to alcohol, giving municipalities more control over alcohol outlet density and points of sale, and increasing taxes on alcohol.”

However, she also had a small criticism of one point in the NEJM article. It shows a sample infographic that lists gastric cancer as being caused by alcohol. “But as of today, gastric cancer is not on the IARC list of alcohol-associated cancers,” she said. “I think this brings to mind one critical point, that these warning labels have to contain scientifically established facts.”

Dr. Grummon and Dr. Hall have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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