Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) appears preferable to standard cath-based angiography for the initial evaluation of most stable, intermediate-risk patients with angina-like symptoms, researchers say, based on their study conducted at centers across Europe.

Clinical outcomes over several years in the randomized trial – called DISCHARGE, with an enrollment of more than 3,500 – were statistically similar whether the patients were assigned to CTA or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as their initial evaluation. Symptoms and quality-of-life measures were also similar.

But the patients assigned to the initial-CTA strategy, of whom fewer than a fourth went on to cardiac cath, showed far fewer procedure-related complications and less often went to coronary revascularization during the median follow-up of 3.5 years, the group reported March 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Based on the findings, CTA “is a safe alternative to cardiac catheterization for patients with suspected CAD [coronary artery disease] that will likely change clinical practice worldwide by replacing invasive testing in patients with stable chest pain who can be expected to benefit” those with an intermediate pretest probability for obstructive disease, principal investigator Marc Dewey, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, told this news organization.

None of the patient subgroups explored in the trial showed a significant clinical benefit from one strategy over the other, Dr. Dewey commented in an email.

The trial’s results don’t apply to patients unlike those entered, and in particular, he said, “ICA should remain the first test option in patients with high clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD.”

Dr. Dewey is senior author on the study’s publication, which was timed to coincide with his presentation of the results at ECR 2022 Overture, an all-virtual scientific session of the European Congress of Radiology.

“This is the definitive study,” Matthew Budoff, MD, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, California, said in an interview. It suggests in a large population that the initial CTA strategy “is as good and maybe safer” in stable patients at intermediate risk compared with initial ICA. “I would say close to 75% or 80% of the patients that we see would fall into that range of risk” and be suitable for the testing algorithm used in the study, said Dr. Budoff, who was not part of the trial.

Invasive angiography would generally still be the initial approach for patients at greater than intermediate risk, such as those with breakthrough angina or electrocardiographic changes, he said. “I still think there’s a huge role for invasive angiography. It’s just a bit smaller now than it used to be for the lower-risk patient.”  

The DISCHARGE trial, agreed cardiothoracic radiology specialist Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, “shows that in patients with intermediate pretest probability, CTA should be used as a gatekeeper before invasive coronary angiography, instead of directly referring for invasive coronary angiography.”

It shows that “a CT-first approach” is both safe and clinically effective and even a trend suggesting better clinical outcomes, compared with ICA. And it demonstrates that “still, many diagnostic invasive coronary angiographies are performed unnecessarily,” Dr. Vliegenthart said as the invited discussant following Dr. Dewey’s presentation.

DISCOVER is only the latest in a series of major studies to explore how CTA best fits in with ICA, stress imaging, and other tests for evaluating patients with chest pain. For example, “the PROMISE trial and the SCOT-HEART trial found that CT was as good as or even better than functional testing. DISCHARGE, I think, confirms the safety of the CT strategy” and reaffirms that it is “at least as good” as an ICA-first approach, cardiologist Klaus F. Kofoed, MD, PhD, DMSc, Rigshospitalet University of Copenhagen, said when co-presenting the trial’s results with Dr. Dewey.

“We can now say CT may be suitable in intermediate-risk patients referred for ICA, particularly those with a clinical constellation suggesting a higher event risk, with abnormal or inconclusive functional test results, or with persistent symptoms despite medical treatment,” said Dr. Kofoed, who is on the DISCOVER steering committee.

The trial’s 3,561 patients with stable chest pain – at 26 experienced centers in 16 countries – were randomly assigned to undergo CTA or ICA as their initial diagnostic imaging approach. Entry required them to be at intermediate risk, defined as an estimated 10% to 60% probability of having obstructive CAD. Of note, women made up about 56% of both groups.

Imaging was positive for obstructive disease in 26% of the 1,808 patients in the CTA group and in the same proportion of the 1,753 who were assigned to ICA. Nonobstructive CAD was identified in 36% and 22%, respectively.

Importantly, 404 (22.3%) patients in the CTA group then underwent ICA, which identified obstructive CAD in 293 (72.5%).

With a complete follow-up in about 99% of patients, the report notes, the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events, or MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) was 2.1% in the CTA group and in 3.0% in the ICA group. The adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.07; P = .10) fell short of significance.

The corresponding HR for an “expanded primary outcome” that also included transient ischemic attack or major procedure-related complications was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.85) in favor of the CTA group.

As a “pragmatic trial,” DISCHARGE relied on clinically identified events for the endpoint assessments and did not require, for example, laboratory biomarker or neurologic imaging for confirmation, the report notes.

Major procedure-related complications during the initial management phase occurred in 0.5% of the CTA group, and 1.9% of those assigned to initial ICA (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55).

Coronary revascularization was less common in the CTA group during the trial’s follow-up, 14.2% versus 18.0% for those assigned to ICA (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

But the prevalences of angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up, the group reported, were statistically similar at 8.8% and 7.5% for patients assigned to CTA and ICA, respectively.

The trial showed “no material difference” between the initial CTA versus ICA strategies for its MACE primary endpoint, observed Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., in an accompanying editorial.

“This result is probably a consequence of the lack of effect of revascularization on cardiovascular events among most patients with stable angina and the limited number of those with high-risk anatomy who would benefit from revascularization in the trial,” he writes.

That CTA was performed “significantly earlier than angiography, 3 days versus 12 days after enrollment,” may have led to earlier coronary revascularization in that group, and therefore is “a better outcome in patients whose anatomy would benefit from it.”

Dr. Loscalzo questioned several aspects of the trial design, which, for example, led to a more than 35% prevalence of patients with nonanginal chest pain among those randomized. Different criteria for classifying patients as “intermediate risk” might also have contributed to the fairly low prevalence of patients in either group ultimately identified with obstructive CAD, he proposes. That low prevalence “suggests that the overall trial population had a low risk of obstructive CAD rather than an intermediate risk.”

DISCHARGE was supported by grants from the European Union Seventh Framework Program, the Berlin Institute of Health, Rigshospitalet of the University of Copenhagen, the British Heart Foundation, and the German Research Foundation. Disclosures for the authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Budoff has disclosed receiving grant support from General Electric. Dr. Vliegenthart discloses receiving grants from Siemens Healthineers and honorarium for speaking from Siemens Healthineers and Bayer.

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

Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) appears preferable to standard cath-based angiography for the initial evaluation of most stable, intermediate-risk patients with angina-like symptoms, researchers say, based on their study conducted at centers across Europe.

Clinical outcomes over several years in the randomized trial – called DISCHARGE, with an enrollment of more than 3,500 – were statistically similar whether the patients were assigned to CTA or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as their initial evaluation. Symptoms and quality-of-life measures were also similar.

But the patients assigned to the initial-CTA strategy, of whom fewer than a fourth went on to cardiac cath, showed far fewer procedure-related complications and less often went to coronary revascularization during the median follow-up of 3.5 years, the group reported March 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Based on the findings, CTA “is a safe alternative to cardiac catheterization for patients with suspected CAD [coronary artery disease] that will likely change clinical practice worldwide by replacing invasive testing in patients with stable chest pain who can be expected to benefit” those with an intermediate pretest probability for obstructive disease, principal investigator Marc Dewey, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, told this news organization.

None of the patient subgroups explored in the trial showed a significant clinical benefit from one strategy over the other, Dr. Dewey commented in an email.

The trial’s results don’t apply to patients unlike those entered, and in particular, he said, “ICA should remain the first test option in patients with high clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD.”

Dr. Dewey is senior author on the study’s publication, which was timed to coincide with his presentation of the results at ECR 2022 Overture, an all-virtual scientific session of the European Congress of Radiology.

“This is the definitive study,” Matthew Budoff, MD, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, California, said in an interview. It suggests in a large population that the initial CTA strategy “is as good and maybe safer” in stable patients at intermediate risk compared with initial ICA. “I would say close to 75% or 80% of the patients that we see would fall into that range of risk” and be suitable for the testing algorithm used in the study, said Dr. Budoff, who was not part of the trial.

Invasive angiography would generally still be the initial approach for patients at greater than intermediate risk, such as those with breakthrough angina or electrocardiographic changes, he said. “I still think there’s a huge role for invasive angiography. It’s just a bit smaller now than it used to be for the lower-risk patient.”  

The DISCHARGE trial, agreed cardiothoracic radiology specialist Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, “shows that in patients with intermediate pretest probability, CTA should be used as a gatekeeper before invasive coronary angiography, instead of directly referring for invasive coronary angiography.”

It shows that “a CT-first approach” is both safe and clinically effective and even a trend suggesting better clinical outcomes, compared with ICA. And it demonstrates that “still, many diagnostic invasive coronary angiographies are performed unnecessarily,” Dr. Vliegenthart said as the invited discussant following Dr. Dewey’s presentation.

DISCOVER is only the latest in a series of major studies to explore how CTA best fits in with ICA, stress imaging, and other tests for evaluating patients with chest pain. For example, “the PROMISE trial and the SCOT-HEART trial found that CT was as good as or even better than functional testing. DISCHARGE, I think, confirms the safety of the CT strategy” and reaffirms that it is “at least as good” as an ICA-first approach, cardiologist Klaus F. Kofoed, MD, PhD, DMSc, Rigshospitalet University of Copenhagen, said when co-presenting the trial’s results with Dr. Dewey.

“We can now say CT may be suitable in intermediate-risk patients referred for ICA, particularly those with a clinical constellation suggesting a higher event risk, with abnormal or inconclusive functional test results, or with persistent symptoms despite medical treatment,” said Dr. Kofoed, who is on the DISCOVER steering committee.

The trial’s 3,561 patients with stable chest pain – at 26 experienced centers in 16 countries – were randomly assigned to undergo CTA or ICA as their initial diagnostic imaging approach. Entry required them to be at intermediate risk, defined as an estimated 10% to 60% probability of having obstructive CAD. Of note, women made up about 56% of both groups.

Imaging was positive for obstructive disease in 26% of the 1,808 patients in the CTA group and in the same proportion of the 1,753 who were assigned to ICA. Nonobstructive CAD was identified in 36% and 22%, respectively.

Importantly, 404 (22.3%) patients in the CTA group then underwent ICA, which identified obstructive CAD in 293 (72.5%).

With a complete follow-up in about 99% of patients, the report notes, the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events, or MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) was 2.1% in the CTA group and in 3.0% in the ICA group. The adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.07; P = .10) fell short of significance.

The corresponding HR for an “expanded primary outcome” that also included transient ischemic attack or major procedure-related complications was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.85) in favor of the CTA group.

As a “pragmatic trial,” DISCHARGE relied on clinically identified events for the endpoint assessments and did not require, for example, laboratory biomarker or neurologic imaging for confirmation, the report notes.

Major procedure-related complications during the initial management phase occurred in 0.5% of the CTA group, and 1.9% of those assigned to initial ICA (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55).

Coronary revascularization was less common in the CTA group during the trial’s follow-up, 14.2% versus 18.0% for those assigned to ICA (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

But the prevalences of angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up, the group reported, were statistically similar at 8.8% and 7.5% for patients assigned to CTA and ICA, respectively.

The trial showed “no material difference” between the initial CTA versus ICA strategies for its MACE primary endpoint, observed Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., in an accompanying editorial.

“This result is probably a consequence of the lack of effect of revascularization on cardiovascular events among most patients with stable angina and the limited number of those with high-risk anatomy who would benefit from revascularization in the trial,” he writes.

That CTA was performed “significantly earlier than angiography, 3 days versus 12 days after enrollment,” may have led to earlier coronary revascularization in that group, and therefore is “a better outcome in patients whose anatomy would benefit from it.”

Dr. Loscalzo questioned several aspects of the trial design, which, for example, led to a more than 35% prevalence of patients with nonanginal chest pain among those randomized. Different criteria for classifying patients as “intermediate risk” might also have contributed to the fairly low prevalence of patients in either group ultimately identified with obstructive CAD, he proposes. That low prevalence “suggests that the overall trial population had a low risk of obstructive CAD rather than an intermediate risk.”

DISCHARGE was supported by grants from the European Union Seventh Framework Program, the Berlin Institute of Health, Rigshospitalet of the University of Copenhagen, the British Heart Foundation, and the German Research Foundation. Disclosures for the authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Budoff has disclosed receiving grant support from General Electric. Dr. Vliegenthart discloses receiving grants from Siemens Healthineers and honorarium for speaking from Siemens Healthineers and Bayer.

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

Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) appears preferable to standard cath-based angiography for the initial evaluation of most stable, intermediate-risk patients with angina-like symptoms, researchers say, based on their study conducted at centers across Europe.

Clinical outcomes over several years in the randomized trial – called DISCHARGE, with an enrollment of more than 3,500 – were statistically similar whether the patients were assigned to CTA or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as their initial evaluation. Symptoms and quality-of-life measures were also similar.

But the patients assigned to the initial-CTA strategy, of whom fewer than a fourth went on to cardiac cath, showed far fewer procedure-related complications and less often went to coronary revascularization during the median follow-up of 3.5 years, the group reported March 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Based on the findings, CTA “is a safe alternative to cardiac catheterization for patients with suspected CAD [coronary artery disease] that will likely change clinical practice worldwide by replacing invasive testing in patients with stable chest pain who can be expected to benefit” those with an intermediate pretest probability for obstructive disease, principal investigator Marc Dewey, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, told this news organization.

None of the patient subgroups explored in the trial showed a significant clinical benefit from one strategy over the other, Dr. Dewey commented in an email.

The trial’s results don’t apply to patients unlike those entered, and in particular, he said, “ICA should remain the first test option in patients with high clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD.”

Dr. Dewey is senior author on the study’s publication, which was timed to coincide with his presentation of the results at ECR 2022 Overture, an all-virtual scientific session of the European Congress of Radiology.

“This is the definitive study,” Matthew Budoff, MD, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, California, said in an interview. It suggests in a large population that the initial CTA strategy “is as good and maybe safer” in stable patients at intermediate risk compared with initial ICA. “I would say close to 75% or 80% of the patients that we see would fall into that range of risk” and be suitable for the testing algorithm used in the study, said Dr. Budoff, who was not part of the trial.

Invasive angiography would generally still be the initial approach for patients at greater than intermediate risk, such as those with breakthrough angina or electrocardiographic changes, he said. “I still think there’s a huge role for invasive angiography. It’s just a bit smaller now than it used to be for the lower-risk patient.”  

The DISCHARGE trial, agreed cardiothoracic radiology specialist Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, “shows that in patients with intermediate pretest probability, CTA should be used as a gatekeeper before invasive coronary angiography, instead of directly referring for invasive coronary angiography.”

It shows that “a CT-first approach” is both safe and clinically effective and even a trend suggesting better clinical outcomes, compared with ICA. And it demonstrates that “still, many diagnostic invasive coronary angiographies are performed unnecessarily,” Dr. Vliegenthart said as the invited discussant following Dr. Dewey’s presentation.

DISCOVER is only the latest in a series of major studies to explore how CTA best fits in with ICA, stress imaging, and other tests for evaluating patients with chest pain. For example, “the PROMISE trial and the SCOT-HEART trial found that CT was as good as or even better than functional testing. DISCHARGE, I think, confirms the safety of the CT strategy” and reaffirms that it is “at least as good” as an ICA-first approach, cardiologist Klaus F. Kofoed, MD, PhD, DMSc, Rigshospitalet University of Copenhagen, said when co-presenting the trial’s results with Dr. Dewey.

“We can now say CT may be suitable in intermediate-risk patients referred for ICA, particularly those with a clinical constellation suggesting a higher event risk, with abnormal or inconclusive functional test results, or with persistent symptoms despite medical treatment,” said Dr. Kofoed, who is on the DISCOVER steering committee.

The trial’s 3,561 patients with stable chest pain – at 26 experienced centers in 16 countries – were randomly assigned to undergo CTA or ICA as their initial diagnostic imaging approach. Entry required them to be at intermediate risk, defined as an estimated 10% to 60% probability of having obstructive CAD. Of note, women made up about 56% of both groups.

Imaging was positive for obstructive disease in 26% of the 1,808 patients in the CTA group and in the same proportion of the 1,753 who were assigned to ICA. Nonobstructive CAD was identified in 36% and 22%, respectively.

Importantly, 404 (22.3%) patients in the CTA group then underwent ICA, which identified obstructive CAD in 293 (72.5%).

With a complete follow-up in about 99% of patients, the report notes, the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events, or MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) was 2.1% in the CTA group and in 3.0% in the ICA group. The adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.07; P = .10) fell short of significance.

The corresponding HR for an “expanded primary outcome” that also included transient ischemic attack or major procedure-related complications was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.85) in favor of the CTA group.

As a “pragmatic trial,” DISCHARGE relied on clinically identified events for the endpoint assessments and did not require, for example, laboratory biomarker or neurologic imaging for confirmation, the report notes.

Major procedure-related complications during the initial management phase occurred in 0.5% of the CTA group, and 1.9% of those assigned to initial ICA (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55).

Coronary revascularization was less common in the CTA group during the trial’s follow-up, 14.2% versus 18.0% for those assigned to ICA (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

But the prevalences of angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up, the group reported, were statistically similar at 8.8% and 7.5% for patients assigned to CTA and ICA, respectively.

The trial showed “no material difference” between the initial CTA versus ICA strategies for its MACE primary endpoint, observed Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., in an accompanying editorial.

“This result is probably a consequence of the lack of effect of revascularization on cardiovascular events among most patients with stable angina and the limited number of those with high-risk anatomy who would benefit from revascularization in the trial,” he writes.

That CTA was performed “significantly earlier than angiography, 3 days versus 12 days after enrollment,” may have led to earlier coronary revascularization in that group, and therefore is “a better outcome in patients whose anatomy would benefit from it.”

Dr. Loscalzo questioned several aspects of the trial design, which, for example, led to a more than 35% prevalence of patients with nonanginal chest pain among those randomized. Different criteria for classifying patients as “intermediate risk” might also have contributed to the fairly low prevalence of patients in either group ultimately identified with obstructive CAD, he proposes. That low prevalence “suggests that the overall trial population had a low risk of obstructive CAD rather than an intermediate risk.”

DISCHARGE was supported by grants from the European Union Seventh Framework Program, the Berlin Institute of Health, Rigshospitalet of the University of Copenhagen, the British Heart Foundation, and the German Research Foundation. Disclosures for the authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Budoff has disclosed receiving grant support from General Electric. Dr. Vliegenthart discloses receiving grants from Siemens Healthineers and honorarium for speaking from Siemens Healthineers and Bayer.

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

New cases of COVID-19 in children continued their descent toward normalcy, falling below 100,000 in a week for the first time since early August 2021, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The sixth consecutive week of declines saw just under 69,000 U.S. children test positive for COVID-19 from Feb. 25 to March 3, a drop of almost 46% from the previous week and 94% since the Omicron-fueled peak of 1.15 million during the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The total number of child cases is 12.7 million since the pandemic began, with children representing 19% of all cases.

New admissions also stayed on a downward path, as the rate dropped to 0.24 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years on March 5, a decline of nearly 81% since hitting 1.25 per 100,000 on Jan. 15. The latest 7-day average for daily admissions, 178 per day from Feb. 27 to March 5, was 29% lower than the previous week and almost 81% lower than the peak of 914 per day for Jan. 10-16, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The story is the same for emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID-19, which are reported as a percentage of all ED visits. On March 4, the 7-day average for children aged 0-11 years was 0.8%, compared with a high of 13.9% in mid-January, while 12- to 15-year-olds had dropped from 12.4% to 0.5% and 16- to 17-year-olds went from 12.6% down to 0.5%, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Florida’s surgeon general says no to the vaccine

Vaccination, in the meantime, is struggling to maintain a foothold against the current of declining cases. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo said that “the Florida Department of Health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children,” NBC News reported March 7. With such a move, “Florida would become the first state to break from the CDC on vaccines for children,” CNN said in its report.

Vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years, which hit 1.6 million in 1 week shortly after emergency use was authorized in early November, declined quickly shorty thereafter and only rose slightly during the Omicron surge. Since mid-January, the number of children receiving an initial dose has declined for seven consecutive weeks and is now lower than ever, based on CDC data compiled by the AAP.

Just over one-third of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, while 26.4% are fully vaccinated. Among children aged 12-17, just over two-thirds (67.8%) have received at least one dose, 57.8% have completed the vaccine regimen, and 21.9% have gotten a booster, the CDC reported.

As of March 2, “about 8.4 million children 12-17 have yet to receive their initial COVID-19 vaccine dose,” the AAP said. About 64,000 children aged 12-17 had received their first dose in the previous week, the group noted, which was the second-lowest weekly total since the vaccine was approved for children aged 12-15 in May of 2021.

New cases of COVID-19 in children continued their descent toward normalcy, falling below 100,000 in a week for the first time since early August 2021, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The sixth consecutive week of declines saw just under 69,000 U.S. children test positive for COVID-19 from Feb. 25 to March 3, a drop of almost 46% from the previous week and 94% since the Omicron-fueled peak of 1.15 million during the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The total number of child cases is 12.7 million since the pandemic began, with children representing 19% of all cases.

New admissions also stayed on a downward path, as the rate dropped to 0.24 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years on March 5, a decline of nearly 81% since hitting 1.25 per 100,000 on Jan. 15. The latest 7-day average for daily admissions, 178 per day from Feb. 27 to March 5, was 29% lower than the previous week and almost 81% lower than the peak of 914 per day for Jan. 10-16, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The story is the same for emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID-19, which are reported as a percentage of all ED visits. On March 4, the 7-day average for children aged 0-11 years was 0.8%, compared with a high of 13.9% in mid-January, while 12- to 15-year-olds had dropped from 12.4% to 0.5% and 16- to 17-year-olds went from 12.6% down to 0.5%, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Florida’s surgeon general says no to the vaccine

Vaccination, in the meantime, is struggling to maintain a foothold against the current of declining cases. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo said that “the Florida Department of Health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children,” NBC News reported March 7. With such a move, “Florida would become the first state to break from the CDC on vaccines for children,” CNN said in its report.

Vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years, which hit 1.6 million in 1 week shortly after emergency use was authorized in early November, declined quickly shorty thereafter and only rose slightly during the Omicron surge. Since mid-January, the number of children receiving an initial dose has declined for seven consecutive weeks and is now lower than ever, based on CDC data compiled by the AAP.

Just over one-third of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, while 26.4% are fully vaccinated. Among children aged 12-17, just over two-thirds (67.8%) have received at least one dose, 57.8% have completed the vaccine regimen, and 21.9% have gotten a booster, the CDC reported.

As of March 2, “about 8.4 million children 12-17 have yet to receive their initial COVID-19 vaccine dose,” the AAP said. About 64,000 children aged 12-17 had received their first dose in the previous week, the group noted, which was the second-lowest weekly total since the vaccine was approved for children aged 12-15 in May of 2021.

New cases of COVID-19 in children continued their descent toward normalcy, falling below 100,000 in a week for the first time since early August 2021, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The sixth consecutive week of declines saw just under 69,000 U.S. children test positive for COVID-19 from Feb. 25 to March 3, a drop of almost 46% from the previous week and 94% since the Omicron-fueled peak of 1.15 million during the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The total number of child cases is 12.7 million since the pandemic began, with children representing 19% of all cases.

New admissions also stayed on a downward path, as the rate dropped to 0.24 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years on March 5, a decline of nearly 81% since hitting 1.25 per 100,000 on Jan. 15. The latest 7-day average for daily admissions, 178 per day from Feb. 27 to March 5, was 29% lower than the previous week and almost 81% lower than the peak of 914 per day for Jan. 10-16, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The story is the same for emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID-19, which are reported as a percentage of all ED visits. On March 4, the 7-day average for children aged 0-11 years was 0.8%, compared with a high of 13.9% in mid-January, while 12- to 15-year-olds had dropped from 12.4% to 0.5% and 16- to 17-year-olds went from 12.6% down to 0.5%, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Florida’s surgeon general says no to the vaccine

Vaccination, in the meantime, is struggling to maintain a foothold against the current of declining cases. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo said that “the Florida Department of Health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children,” NBC News reported March 7. With such a move, “Florida would become the first state to break from the CDC on vaccines for children,” CNN said in its report.

Vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years, which hit 1.6 million in 1 week shortly after emergency use was authorized in early November, declined quickly shorty thereafter and only rose slightly during the Omicron surge. Since mid-January, the number of children receiving an initial dose has declined for seven consecutive weeks and is now lower than ever, based on CDC data compiled by the AAP.

Just over one-third of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, while 26.4% are fully vaccinated. Among children aged 12-17, just over two-thirds (67.8%) have received at least one dose, 57.8% have completed the vaccine regimen, and 21.9% have gotten a booster, the CDC reported.

As of March 2, “about 8.4 million children 12-17 have yet to receive their initial COVID-19 vaccine dose,” the AAP said. About 64,000 children aged 12-17 had received their first dose in the previous week, the group noted, which was the second-lowest weekly total since the vaccine was approved for children aged 12-15 in May of 2021.

Sotorasib, an approved treatment for lung cancer, has demonstrated clinically meaningful anticancer activity and tolerability in patients with heavily pretreated KRASG12C-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer.

The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“This is clinically meaningful for patients because there is not an established standard therapy for these patients once they get to a third line of treatment,” said the study’s author John H Strickler, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The study, called CodeBreaK100, is an open-label global phase 1 and 2 trial. It consists of the largest dataset evaluating efficacy and safety of a KRASG12C inhibitor in patients with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

Survival with Food and Drug Administration–approved second-line therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is 6 months with a 16% response rate. No therapies have demonstrated survival benefit after progression on first- and second-line chemotherapy. Among the 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors which harbor a KRAS mutation, 1%-2% are p.G12ac mutations. There are currently no approved treatments for KRASG12C-mutated PDAC.

The study included 38 patients (median age, 65.5 years; 76.3% male) with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic malignancies who received oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily).

The patients in the trial received one or more prior systemic therapies (79% received two; range, one to eight) or were intolerant or ineligible for available therapies. The primary endpoint was complete plus partial response by blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1).

Confirmed objective response were reported in 8 patients (21.1%; 95% confidence interval, 9.55%-37.22%) with disease control in 32 (84.2%; 95% CI, 68.75%-93.98%). The median duration of response was 5.7 months. After a median follow-up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.6), and median overall survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.0-9.1).

Once-daily sotorasib was well tolerated. The only treatment-related adverse events above grade 2 were six (15.8%) grade 3 events, with diarrhea in two and fatigue in two (each 5.3%), and single occurrences (2.6%) of abdominal pain, ALT/AST increase, pleural effusion and pulmonary embolism. Three adverse events were serious (7.9%), and no adverse events led to sotorasib discontinuation or were fatal.

Dr. Strickler described the case of a 64-year-old female with stage IV pancreatic cancer at diagnosis, who had baseline metastatic lesions in the liver, lymph nodes, lung and peritoneum. She received prior FOLFIRINOX first line until disease progression. With once-daily sotorasib, time to treatment response was 1.3 month, duration of response was 5.8 months, progression-free survival and overall were 7.1 months each.

Pointing to the centrally confirmed objective response rate of 21.1% and the disease control rate of 84.2%, Dr. Strickler observed in an interview that the CodeBreaK100 data support further exploration of sotorasib in this population with high unmet medical need and that based on these data, the CodeBreaK 100 clinical trial will be expanded to enroll more patients with pancreatic cancer and other tumor types.

The study was funded by Amgen.

Sotorasib, an approved treatment for lung cancer, has demonstrated clinically meaningful anticancer activity and tolerability in patients with heavily pretreated KRASG12C-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer.

The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“This is clinically meaningful for patients because there is not an established standard therapy for these patients once they get to a third line of treatment,” said the study’s author John H Strickler, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The study, called CodeBreaK100, is an open-label global phase 1 and 2 trial. It consists of the largest dataset evaluating efficacy and safety of a KRASG12C inhibitor in patients with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

Survival with Food and Drug Administration–approved second-line therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is 6 months with a 16% response rate. No therapies have demonstrated survival benefit after progression on first- and second-line chemotherapy. Among the 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors which harbor a KRAS mutation, 1%-2% are p.G12ac mutations. There are currently no approved treatments for KRASG12C-mutated PDAC.

The study included 38 patients (median age, 65.5 years; 76.3% male) with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic malignancies who received oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily).

The patients in the trial received one or more prior systemic therapies (79% received two; range, one to eight) or were intolerant or ineligible for available therapies. The primary endpoint was complete plus partial response by blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1).

Confirmed objective response were reported in 8 patients (21.1%; 95% confidence interval, 9.55%-37.22%) with disease control in 32 (84.2%; 95% CI, 68.75%-93.98%). The median duration of response was 5.7 months. After a median follow-up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.6), and median overall survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.0-9.1).

Once-daily sotorasib was well tolerated. The only treatment-related adverse events above grade 2 were six (15.8%) grade 3 events, with diarrhea in two and fatigue in two (each 5.3%), and single occurrences (2.6%) of abdominal pain, ALT/AST increase, pleural effusion and pulmonary embolism. Three adverse events were serious (7.9%), and no adverse events led to sotorasib discontinuation or were fatal.

Dr. Strickler described the case of a 64-year-old female with stage IV pancreatic cancer at diagnosis, who had baseline metastatic lesions in the liver, lymph nodes, lung and peritoneum. She received prior FOLFIRINOX first line until disease progression. With once-daily sotorasib, time to treatment response was 1.3 month, duration of response was 5.8 months, progression-free survival and overall were 7.1 months each.

Pointing to the centrally confirmed objective response rate of 21.1% and the disease control rate of 84.2%, Dr. Strickler observed in an interview that the CodeBreaK100 data support further exploration of sotorasib in this population with high unmet medical need and that based on these data, the CodeBreaK 100 clinical trial will be expanded to enroll more patients with pancreatic cancer and other tumor types.

The study was funded by Amgen.

Sotorasib, an approved treatment for lung cancer, has demonstrated clinically meaningful anticancer activity and tolerability in patients with heavily pretreated KRASG12C-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer.

The findings were reported at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“This is clinically meaningful for patients because there is not an established standard therapy for these patients once they get to a third line of treatment,” said the study’s author John H Strickler, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The study, called CodeBreaK100, is an open-label global phase 1 and 2 trial. It consists of the largest dataset evaluating efficacy and safety of a KRASG12C inhibitor in patients with stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

Survival with Food and Drug Administration–approved second-line therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is 6 months with a 16% response rate. No therapies have demonstrated survival benefit after progression on first- and second-line chemotherapy. Among the 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors which harbor a KRAS mutation, 1%-2% are p.G12ac mutations. There are currently no approved treatments for KRASG12C-mutated PDAC.

The study included 38 patients (median age, 65.5 years; 76.3% male) with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic malignancies who received oral sotorasib (960 mg once daily).

The patients in the trial received one or more prior systemic therapies (79% received two; range, one to eight) or were intolerant or ineligible for available therapies. The primary endpoint was complete plus partial response by blinded independent central review (RECIST 1.1).

Confirmed objective response were reported in 8 patients (21.1%; 95% confidence interval, 9.55%-37.22%) with disease control in 32 (84.2%; 95% CI, 68.75%-93.98%). The median duration of response was 5.7 months. After a median follow-up of 16.8 months, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.6), and median overall survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.0-9.1).

Once-daily sotorasib was well tolerated. The only treatment-related adverse events above grade 2 were six (15.8%) grade 3 events, with diarrhea in two and fatigue in two (each 5.3%), and single occurrences (2.6%) of abdominal pain, ALT/AST increase, pleural effusion and pulmonary embolism. Three adverse events were serious (7.9%), and no adverse events led to sotorasib discontinuation or were fatal.

Dr. Strickler described the case of a 64-year-old female with stage IV pancreatic cancer at diagnosis, who had baseline metastatic lesions in the liver, lymph nodes, lung and peritoneum. She received prior FOLFIRINOX first line until disease progression. With once-daily sotorasib, time to treatment response was 1.3 month, duration of response was 5.8 months, progression-free survival and overall were 7.1 months each.

Pointing to the centrally confirmed objective response rate of 21.1% and the disease control rate of 84.2%, Dr. Strickler observed in an interview that the CodeBreaK100 data support further exploration of sotorasib in this population with high unmet medical need and that based on these data, the CodeBreaK 100 clinical trial will be expanded to enroll more patients with pancreatic cancer and other tumor types.

The study was funded by Amgen.

A large-scale meta-analysis has verified that the gut microbiome does influence patients’s response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in advanced melanoma, but the relationship appears to be more complex than previously thought.

Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.

This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”

The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.

Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.

Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.

To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.

First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).

The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.

However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.

Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.

“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”

Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”

In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”

This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large-scale meta-analysis has verified that the gut microbiome does influence patients’s response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in advanced melanoma, but the relationship appears to be more complex than previously thought.

Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.

This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”

The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.

Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.

Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.

To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.

First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).

The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.

However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.

Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.

“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”

Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”

In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”

This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large-scale meta-analysis has verified that the gut microbiome does influence patients’s response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in advanced melanoma, but the relationship appears to be more complex than previously thought.

Overall, researchers identified a panel of species, including Roseburia spp. and Akkermansia muciniphila, associated with responses to ICI therapy. However, no single species was a “fully consistent biomarker” across the studies, the authors explain.

This “machine learning analysis confirmed the link between the microbiome and overall response rates (ORRs) and progression-free survival (PFS) with ICIs but also revealed limited reproducibility of microbiome-based signatures across cohorts,” Karla A. Lee, PhD, a clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and colleagues report. The results suggest that “the microbiome is predictive of response in some, but not all, cohorts.”

The findings were published online Feb. 28 in Nature Medicine.

Despite recent advances in targeted therapies for melanoma, less than half of the those who receive a single-agent ICI respond, and those who receive combination ICI therapy often suffer from severe drug toxicity problems. That is why finding patients more likely to respond to a single-agent ICI has become a priority.

Previous studies have identified the gut microbiome as “a potential biomarker of response, as well as a therapeutic target” in melanoma and other malignancies, but “little consensus exists on which microbiome characteristics are associated with treatment responses in the human setting,” the authors explain.

To further clarify the microbiome–immunotherapy relationship, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing of stool samples collected from 165 ICI-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma from 5 observational cohorts in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Spain. These data were integrated with 147 samples from publicly available datasets.

First, the authors highlighted the variability in findings across these observational studies. For instance, they analyzed stool samples from one UK-based observational study of patients with melanoma (PRIMM-UK) and found a small but statistically significant difference in the microbiome composition of immunotherapy responders versus nonresponders (P = .05) but did not find such an association in a parallel study in the Netherlands (PRIMM-NL, P = .61).

The investigators also explored biomarkers of response across different cohorts and found several standouts. In trials using ORR as an endpoint, two uncultivated Roseburia species (CAG:182 and CAG:471) were associated with responses to ICIs. For patients with available PFS data, Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens and Lactobacillus vaginalis were “enriched in responders” across 7 datasets and significant in 3 of the 8 meta-analysis approaches. A muciniphila and Dorea formicigenerans were also associated with ORR and PFS at 12 months in several meta-analyses.

However, “no single bacterium was a fully consistent biomarker of response across all datasets,” the authors wrote.

Still, the findings could have important implications for the more than 50% of patients with advanced melanoma who don’t respond to single-agent ICI therapy.

“Our study shows that studying the microbiome is important to improve and personalize immunotherapy treatments for melanoma,” study coauthor Nicola Segata, PhD, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Computational Metagenomics, University of Trento, Italy, said in a press release. “However, it also suggests that because of the person-to-person variability of the gut microbiome, even larger studies must be carried out to understand the specific gut microbial features that are more likely to lead to a positive response to immunotherapy.”

Coauthor Tim Spector, PhD, head of the Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, added that “the ultimate goal is to identify which specific features of the microbiome are directly influencing the clinical benefits of immunotherapy to exploit these features in new personalized approaches to support cancer immunotherapy.”

In the meantime, he said, “this study highlights the potential impact of good diet and gut health on chances of survival in patients undergoing immunotherapy.”

This study was coordinated by King’s College London, CIBIO Department of the University of Trento and European Institute of Oncology in Italy, and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and was funded by the Seerave Foundation. Dr. Lee, Dr. Segata, and Dr. Spector have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study has found that methotrexate plus leflunomide outperforms methotrexate alone as a treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

“We believe that prescribing this combination in routine practice is viable when combined with shared decision-making and strict monitoring of side effects,” write Michelle L.M. Mulder, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and her coauthors. Their findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The latest treatment guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommend conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients with active PsA, but Dr. Mulder and her colleagues note a distinct lack of information on their effectiveness, especially this particular combination.

To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate plus leflunomide, they launched a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA. The majority of the participants in this trial – dubbed COMPLETE-PsA – were men (64%), and the median age of the patients was 55 years. All had active disease at baseline; the median swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count were 4.0 in both groups.

Participants were assigned to receive either methotrexate plus leflunomide (n = 39) or methotrexate plus placebo (n = 39). After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1; standard deviation, 1.4 vs. 3.7; SD, 1.3; treatment difference, –0.6; 90% confidence interval, –1.0 to –0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than did the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019).

Other notable differences after 16 weeks included improvements in SJC for 66 joints (–3.0 in the combination therapy group vs. –2.0 in the monotherapy group) and significantly better skin and nail measures – such as active psoriasis and change in body surface area – in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

When asked who should be prescribed the combination therapy and who should be prescribed methotrexate going forward, Dr. Mulder told this news organization, “At the moment, we have insufficient knowledge on who will benefit most or who will develop clinically relevant side effects. It seems warranted to discuss with every patient which approach they would prefer. This could be a step-down or -up approach.

“We hope to be able to better predict treatment response and side effects in the future via post hoc analysis of our study and via extensive flow-cytometric phenotyping of immune blood cells taken at baseline,” she added.

Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group. No participants died, and all patients with adverse events recovered completely.

“It appears good practice to do blood draws for laboratory tests on liver enzymes at least monthly for the first 4 months and every 4 months after that once stable dosing is achieved, as well as have a telephone consultation after 6-8 weeks to talk about possible side effects a patient might experience and change or add therapy if necessary,” Dr. Mulder added.

Study turns perception of combination therapy into reality

It had already been perceived by rheumatologists that methotrexate plus leflunomide was an effective combo for PsA, and this study reinforces those beliefs, Clementina López-Medina, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Cordoba (Spain), write in an accompanying editorial.

They highlight this study’s notable strengths, one of which was defining “active disease” as two or more swollen joints, which opened the study up to a larger patient population. The editorialists also underline the confirmation that leflunomide plus methotrexate reduces both joint symptoms and skin involvement in this subset of patients, which had also been found in a previous study.

“Leflunomide is usually considered as a second-line option after methotrexate is unsuccessful,” they note, “despite the fact that methotrexate did not show superiority over placebo in previous trials.”

The editorialists were not surprised that the combination therapy was more toxic than the monotherapy. Rheumatologists could use these data to individualize treatment accordingly, they write, while keeping an eye on “gastrointestinal disturbances.”

Overall, Dr. López-Medina and colleagues say that the study results should “be considered not only in daily clinical practice but also in the development of future recommendations.”

Leflunomide: Forgotten no longer, at least for PsA

“I think we probably underutilize leflunomide,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. “Sometimes medicines get ‘old,’ for lack of a better term, and fall a little bit of out of favor, sometimes unnecessarily. Leflunomide falls into that category. Because it’s older, it doesn’t get as much buzz as what’s new and shiny.

“I was not surprised by the results on the joints,” he said, “because we know from previous studies that leflunomide works in that regard. What did surprise me is that the skin got better, especially with the combination.”

Regarding the side effects for the combination therapy, he commended the authors for limiting potential uncertainty by using such a high dose of methotrexate.

“By going with a dose of 25 mg [per week], no one can say, ‘They pulled their punches and methotrexate monotherapy would’ve been just as good if it was given at a higher dose,’ “ he said. “And they also used leflunomide at a high dose. It makes you wonder: Could you use lower doses, and do lower doses mean fewer lab test abnormalities? This positive study does lend itself to some other permutations in terms of study design.

“Even though this was a small study,” he added, “it brings us right back to: We should really consider leflunomide in the treatment of PsA.”

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in a single country and the absence of a nontreatment placebo group. They also note the higher percentage of women in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group, “which might have lowered the treatment response and increased the adverse event rate, resulting in bias.”

The study was funded by a Regional Junior Researcher Grant from Sint Maartenskliniek. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving payment, research grants, and consulting and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

A new study has found that methotrexate plus leflunomide outperforms methotrexate alone as a treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

“We believe that prescribing this combination in routine practice is viable when combined with shared decision-making and strict monitoring of side effects,” write Michelle L.M. Mulder, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and her coauthors. Their findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The latest treatment guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommend conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients with active PsA, but Dr. Mulder and her colleagues note a distinct lack of information on their effectiveness, especially this particular combination.

To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate plus leflunomide, they launched a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA. The majority of the participants in this trial – dubbed COMPLETE-PsA – were men (64%), and the median age of the patients was 55 years. All had active disease at baseline; the median swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count were 4.0 in both groups.

Participants were assigned to receive either methotrexate plus leflunomide (n = 39) or methotrexate plus placebo (n = 39). After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1; standard deviation, 1.4 vs. 3.7; SD, 1.3; treatment difference, –0.6; 90% confidence interval, –1.0 to –0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than did the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019).

Other notable differences after 16 weeks included improvements in SJC for 66 joints (–3.0 in the combination therapy group vs. –2.0 in the monotherapy group) and significantly better skin and nail measures – such as active psoriasis and change in body surface area – in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

When asked who should be prescribed the combination therapy and who should be prescribed methotrexate going forward, Dr. Mulder told this news organization, “At the moment, we have insufficient knowledge on who will benefit most or who will develop clinically relevant side effects. It seems warranted to discuss with every patient which approach they would prefer. This could be a step-down or -up approach.

“We hope to be able to better predict treatment response and side effects in the future via post hoc analysis of our study and via extensive flow-cytometric phenotyping of immune blood cells taken at baseline,” she added.

Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group. No participants died, and all patients with adverse events recovered completely.

“It appears good practice to do blood draws for laboratory tests on liver enzymes at least monthly for the first 4 months and every 4 months after that once stable dosing is achieved, as well as have a telephone consultation after 6-8 weeks to talk about possible side effects a patient might experience and change or add therapy if necessary,” Dr. Mulder added.

Study turns perception of combination therapy into reality

It had already been perceived by rheumatologists that methotrexate plus leflunomide was an effective combo for PsA, and this study reinforces those beliefs, Clementina López-Medina, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Cordoba (Spain), write in an accompanying editorial.

They highlight this study’s notable strengths, one of which was defining “active disease” as two or more swollen joints, which opened the study up to a larger patient population. The editorialists also underline the confirmation that leflunomide plus methotrexate reduces both joint symptoms and skin involvement in this subset of patients, which had also been found in a previous study.

“Leflunomide is usually considered as a second-line option after methotrexate is unsuccessful,” they note, “despite the fact that methotrexate did not show superiority over placebo in previous trials.”

The editorialists were not surprised that the combination therapy was more toxic than the monotherapy. Rheumatologists could use these data to individualize treatment accordingly, they write, while keeping an eye on “gastrointestinal disturbances.”

Overall, Dr. López-Medina and colleagues say that the study results should “be considered not only in daily clinical practice but also in the development of future recommendations.”

Leflunomide: Forgotten no longer, at least for PsA

“I think we probably underutilize leflunomide,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. “Sometimes medicines get ‘old,’ for lack of a better term, and fall a little bit of out of favor, sometimes unnecessarily. Leflunomide falls into that category. Because it’s older, it doesn’t get as much buzz as what’s new and shiny.

“I was not surprised by the results on the joints,” he said, “because we know from previous studies that leflunomide works in that regard. What did surprise me is that the skin got better, especially with the combination.”

Regarding the side effects for the combination therapy, he commended the authors for limiting potential uncertainty by using such a high dose of methotrexate.

“By going with a dose of 25 mg [per week], no one can say, ‘They pulled their punches and methotrexate monotherapy would’ve been just as good if it was given at a higher dose,’ “ he said. “And they also used leflunomide at a high dose. It makes you wonder: Could you use lower doses, and do lower doses mean fewer lab test abnormalities? This positive study does lend itself to some other permutations in terms of study design.

“Even though this was a small study,” he added, “it brings us right back to: We should really consider leflunomide in the treatment of PsA.”

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in a single country and the absence of a nontreatment placebo group. They also note the higher percentage of women in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group, “which might have lowered the treatment response and increased the adverse event rate, resulting in bias.”

The study was funded by a Regional Junior Researcher Grant from Sint Maartenskliniek. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving payment, research grants, and consulting and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

A new study has found that methotrexate plus leflunomide outperforms methotrexate alone as a treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

“We believe that prescribing this combination in routine practice is viable when combined with shared decision-making and strict monitoring of side effects,” write Michelle L.M. Mulder, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and her coauthors. Their findings were published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The latest treatment guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommend conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for patients with active PsA, but Dr. Mulder and her colleagues note a distinct lack of information on their effectiveness, especially this particular combination.

To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate plus leflunomide, they launched a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA. The majority of the participants in this trial – dubbed COMPLETE-PsA – were men (64%), and the median age of the patients was 55 years. All had active disease at baseline; the median swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count were 4.0 in both groups.

Participants were assigned to receive either methotrexate plus leflunomide (n = 39) or methotrexate plus placebo (n = 39). After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1; standard deviation, 1.4 vs. 3.7; SD, 1.3; treatment difference, –0.6; 90% confidence interval, –1.0 to –0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than did the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019).

Other notable differences after 16 weeks included improvements in SJC for 66 joints (–3.0 in the combination therapy group vs. –2.0 in the monotherapy group) and significantly better skin and nail measures – such as active psoriasis and change in body surface area – in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

When asked who should be prescribed the combination therapy and who should be prescribed methotrexate going forward, Dr. Mulder told this news organization, “At the moment, we have insufficient knowledge on who will benefit most or who will develop clinically relevant side effects. It seems warranted to discuss with every patient which approach they would prefer. This could be a step-down or -up approach.

“We hope to be able to better predict treatment response and side effects in the future via post hoc analysis of our study and via extensive flow-cytometric phenotyping of immune blood cells taken at baseline,” she added.

Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group. No participants died, and all patients with adverse events recovered completely.

“It appears good practice to do blood draws for laboratory tests on liver enzymes at least monthly for the first 4 months and every 4 months after that once stable dosing is achieved, as well as have a telephone consultation after 6-8 weeks to talk about possible side effects a patient might experience and change or add therapy if necessary,” Dr. Mulder added.

Study turns perception of combination therapy into reality

It had already been perceived by rheumatologists that methotrexate plus leflunomide was an effective combo for PsA, and this study reinforces those beliefs, Clementina López-Medina, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the University of Cordoba (Spain), write in an accompanying editorial.

They highlight this study’s notable strengths, one of which was defining “active disease” as two or more swollen joints, which opened the study up to a larger patient population. The editorialists also underline the confirmation that leflunomide plus methotrexate reduces both joint symptoms and skin involvement in this subset of patients, which had also been found in a previous study.

“Leflunomide is usually considered as a second-line option after methotrexate is unsuccessful,” they note, “despite the fact that methotrexate did not show superiority over placebo in previous trials.”

The editorialists were not surprised that the combination therapy was more toxic than the monotherapy. Rheumatologists could use these data to individualize treatment accordingly, they write, while keeping an eye on “gastrointestinal disturbances.”

Overall, Dr. López-Medina and colleagues say that the study results should “be considered not only in daily clinical practice but also in the development of future recommendations.”

Leflunomide: Forgotten no longer, at least for PsA

“I think we probably underutilize leflunomide,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization. “Sometimes medicines get ‘old,’ for lack of a better term, and fall a little bit of out of favor, sometimes unnecessarily. Leflunomide falls into that category. Because it’s older, it doesn’t get as much buzz as what’s new and shiny.

“I was not surprised by the results on the joints,” he said, “because we know from previous studies that leflunomide works in that regard. What did surprise me is that the skin got better, especially with the combination.”

Regarding the side effects for the combination therapy, he commended the authors for limiting potential uncertainty by using such a high dose of methotrexate.

“By going with a dose of 25 mg [per week], no one can say, ‘They pulled their punches and methotrexate monotherapy would’ve been just as good if it was given at a higher dose,’ “ he said. “And they also used leflunomide at a high dose. It makes you wonder: Could you use lower doses, and do lower doses mean fewer lab test abnormalities? This positive study does lend itself to some other permutations in terms of study design.

“Even though this was a small study,” he added, “it brings us right back to: We should really consider leflunomide in the treatment of PsA.”

The authors acknowledge their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in a single country and the absence of a nontreatment placebo group. They also note the higher percentage of women in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group, “which might have lowered the treatment response and increased the adverse event rate, resulting in bias.”

The study was funded by a Regional Junior Researcher Grant from Sint Maartenskliniek. The authors reported numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving payment, research grants, and consulting and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

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

Should patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who respond to first-line treatment receive maintenance therapy, or are they better off on active surveillance?

In a recent trial designed to explore this question, British investigators made a strong case for active surveillance over maintenance therapy.

The researchers found that patients with metastatic CRC randomized to maintenance therapy with oral capecitabine (Xeloda) showed improved progression-free survival (PFS), compared with those being actively monitored – 3.88 versus 1.87 months.

But that benefit came at a cost. Patients on capecitabine experienced much worse toxicity and showed no overall survival benefit – 14.8 months in the capecitabine arm versus 15.2 in the surveillance arm.

The FOCUS4-N trial supports “the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients” after induction, lead author Richard Adams, MD, an oncology professor at Cardiff University, Wales, and colleagues conclude in a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Current treatment standards either require or recommend that patients with metastatic CRC receive maintenance therapy after induction chemotherapy, at least until they progress or experience excessive toxicity.

Although maintenance strategies have typically demonstrated a PFS benefit, that advantage may come at “the expense of ongoing ... toxicity.”

Dr. Adams and colleagues wanted to explore how patients would fare on an oral maintenance therapy with capecitabine, compared with active surveillance.

In the trial, researchers randomly assigned 254 patients who had responded to first-line therapy or had stable disease to either capecitabine (n = 127) or active monitoring (n = 127). Subjects were treated at 88 hospitals in the United Kingdom from 2014-2020. Most patients had widespread synchronous metastatic disease. About half had unresected primary tumors, and the majority had received doublet chemotherapy induction, which was irinotecan-based in 57%.

The authors found that patients receiving capecitabine maintenance therapy showed significant improvements in PFS (hazard ratio, 0.40; P < .0001), but also encountered considerably more toxicity than the surveillance group – including grade 2 or higher fatigue (25% vs. 12%), diarrhea (23% vs. 13%), and hand-foot skin reactions (26% vs. 3%).

Perhaps most notably, the treatment group did not experience an overall survival benefit (HR, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.27; P = .66).

Overall, the authors noted, the main advantage of active maintenance was to delay the return of aggressive chemotherapy combinations for a few months.  

With previous trials reporting pretty much the same findings, there is now “overwhelming level-one evidence” that surveillance is an “appropriate” option with “less time on therapy, lower toxicity, and in a number of studies, better quality of life,” which are all important factors for patients, according to Dr. Adams and colleagues in a follow-up letter.   
 

A viable option

The current study pushes back on existing standards, which support maintenance therapy and can prevent patients from being offered active surveillance.

According to Dr. Adams and colleagues, “FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for [metastatic] CRC.”

In addition, the FOCUS4-N trial suggests that oral capecitabine alone – instead of alongside intravenous bevacizumab (Avastin) every 3 weeks – is probably adequate for mCRC maintenance.

“It has been shown that single-agent bevacizumab is both ineffective and highly uneconomic” in the mCRC maintenance setting, “suggesting that it may be the capecitabine element of the combination that” provides the PFS benefit, the team noted.

An editorial accompanying the study also concluded that “treatment holidays are an equally viable and more cost-effective alternative” to maintenance and one of special interest to patients looking for a break after intensive induction.

“For patients, caregivers, and oncologists alike who are hesitant to ... stop therapy completely, it is important to note that” at least in trials, patients under surveillance “continue to be vigilantly monitored, including imaging every 8-12 weeks and symptom assessment every few weeks,” Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine/NewYork-Presbyterian, Manhattan, said in his editorial. 

Interestingly, Dr. Kasi pointed out, the trial found no difference in quality-of-life scores between the study arms in the FOCUS4-N trial.

The two groups scored similarly on mobility, self-care, usual activities, anxiety, and depression, and patients in the capecitabine group reported slightly less pain and discomfort, which may have occurred because of delayed disease progression.

“Although it is somewhat reassuring that maintenance approaches do not adversely affect overall quality of life and functioning, it does not mean that these regimens are free from side effects,” Dr. Kasi writes, adding that it’s possible the surveys missed the impacts of increased toxicity with maintenance therapy.
 

Caveats to the study

A letter published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology raises questions about the generalizability of the FOCUS4-N results.

In the letter, Annika Kurreck, MD, and colleagues from Charity-University Medicine Berlin, Germany, highlighted that the trial only included patients without actionable biomarkers, which likely meant the study population had particularly aggressive disease. This possibility is supported by the “dramatically short” PFS reported in FOCUS4-N compared with prior maintenance versus surveillance investigations.

In addition, the letter writers caution that the study was underpowered to detect an overall survival benefit.

“Therefore, it might be hypothesized that FOCUS4-N comprised a cohort of patients with a rather aggressive tumor biology and/or high tumor load, leading to a quick failure of any de-escalation treatment strategy,” Dr. Kurreck and colleagues write.

In a response letter, Dr. Adams and his team countered that there’s no consistent evidence from past trials suggesting that patients with poorer prognostic features are unfit for surveillance. “We believe that it is a common misrepresentation of the evidence that all patients with worse prognostic features need to be maintained on active but toxic combination therapies for longer,” they said.

Instead of a blanket approach, maintenance versus surveillance should be “an assessment guided by the clinician listening to and guiding the patient rather than a molecular or biologically measurable parameter,” they write.

Dr. Adams and colleagues agreed that identifying subgroups of patients who are more likely to benefit from maintenance versus surveillance is required research, which “we plan to undertake.”

The work was funded by Cancer Research UK and the National Institute for Health Research. Many of the investigators had industry ties, including Dr. Adams, who reported various relationships with and payments from Merck, Amgen, and others. Dr. Kasi also had ties to several companies, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Kurreck and the other letter writers had numerous company ties as well, including relationships and payments from Roche, the maker of bevacizumab.

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

Should patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who respond to first-line treatment receive maintenance therapy, or are they better off on active surveillance?

In a recent trial designed to explore this question, British investigators made a strong case for active surveillance over maintenance therapy.

The researchers found that patients with metastatic CRC randomized to maintenance therapy with oral capecitabine (Xeloda) showed improved progression-free survival (PFS), compared with those being actively monitored – 3.88 versus 1.87 months.

But that benefit came at a cost. Patients on capecitabine experienced much worse toxicity and showed no overall survival benefit – 14.8 months in the capecitabine arm versus 15.2 in the surveillance arm.

The FOCUS4-N trial supports “the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients” after induction, lead author Richard Adams, MD, an oncology professor at Cardiff University, Wales, and colleagues conclude in a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Current treatment standards either require or recommend that patients with metastatic CRC receive maintenance therapy after induction chemotherapy, at least until they progress or experience excessive toxicity.

Although maintenance strategies have typically demonstrated a PFS benefit, that advantage may come at “the expense of ongoing ... toxicity.”

Dr. Adams and colleagues wanted to explore how patients would fare on an oral maintenance therapy with capecitabine, compared with active surveillance.

In the trial, researchers randomly assigned 254 patients who had responded to first-line therapy or had stable disease to either capecitabine (n = 127) or active monitoring (n = 127). Subjects were treated at 88 hospitals in the United Kingdom from 2014-2020. Most patients had widespread synchronous metastatic disease. About half had unresected primary tumors, and the majority had received doublet chemotherapy induction, which was irinotecan-based in 57%.

The authors found that patients receiving capecitabine maintenance therapy showed significant improvements in PFS (hazard ratio, 0.40; P < .0001), but also encountered considerably more toxicity than the surveillance group – including grade 2 or higher fatigue (25% vs. 12%), diarrhea (23% vs. 13%), and hand-foot skin reactions (26% vs. 3%).

Perhaps most notably, the treatment group did not experience an overall survival benefit (HR, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.27; P = .66).

Overall, the authors noted, the main advantage of active maintenance was to delay the return of aggressive chemotherapy combinations for a few months.  

With previous trials reporting pretty much the same findings, there is now “overwhelming level-one evidence” that surveillance is an “appropriate” option with “less time on therapy, lower toxicity, and in a number of studies, better quality of life,” which are all important factors for patients, according to Dr. Adams and colleagues in a follow-up letter.   
 

A viable option

The current study pushes back on existing standards, which support maintenance therapy and can prevent patients from being offered active surveillance.

According to Dr. Adams and colleagues, “FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for [metastatic] CRC.”

In addition, the FOCUS4-N trial suggests that oral capecitabine alone – instead of alongside intravenous bevacizumab (Avastin) every 3 weeks – is probably adequate for mCRC maintenance.

“It has been shown that single-agent bevacizumab is both ineffective and highly uneconomic” in the mCRC maintenance setting, “suggesting that it may be the capecitabine element of the combination that” provides the PFS benefit, the team noted.

An editorial accompanying the study also concluded that “treatment holidays are an equally viable and more cost-effective alternative” to maintenance and one of special interest to patients looking for a break after intensive induction.

“For patients, caregivers, and oncologists alike who are hesitant to ... stop therapy completely, it is important to note that” at least in trials, patients under surveillance “continue to be vigilantly monitored, including imaging every 8-12 weeks and symptom assessment every few weeks,” Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine/NewYork-Presbyterian, Manhattan, said in his editorial. 

Interestingly, Dr. Kasi pointed out, the trial found no difference in quality-of-life scores between the study arms in the FOCUS4-N trial.

The two groups scored similarly on mobility, self-care, usual activities, anxiety, and depression, and patients in the capecitabine group reported slightly less pain and discomfort, which may have occurred because of delayed disease progression.

“Although it is somewhat reassuring that maintenance approaches do not adversely affect overall quality of life and functioning, it does not mean that these regimens are free from side effects,” Dr. Kasi writes, adding that it’s possible the surveys missed the impacts of increased toxicity with maintenance therapy.
 

Caveats to the study

A letter published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology raises questions about the generalizability of the FOCUS4-N results.

In the letter, Annika Kurreck, MD, and colleagues from Charity-University Medicine Berlin, Germany, highlighted that the trial only included patients without actionable biomarkers, which likely meant the study population had particularly aggressive disease. This possibility is supported by the “dramatically short” PFS reported in FOCUS4-N compared with prior maintenance versus surveillance investigations.

In addition, the letter writers caution that the study was underpowered to detect an overall survival benefit.

“Therefore, it might be hypothesized that FOCUS4-N comprised a cohort of patients with a rather aggressive tumor biology and/or high tumor load, leading to a quick failure of any de-escalation treatment strategy,” Dr. Kurreck and colleagues write.

In a response letter, Dr. Adams and his team countered that there’s no consistent evidence from past trials suggesting that patients with poorer prognostic features are unfit for surveillance. “We believe that it is a common misrepresentation of the evidence that all patients with worse prognostic features need to be maintained on active but toxic combination therapies for longer,” they said.

Instead of a blanket approach, maintenance versus surveillance should be “an assessment guided by the clinician listening to and guiding the patient rather than a molecular or biologically measurable parameter,” they write.

Dr. Adams and colleagues agreed that identifying subgroups of patients who are more likely to benefit from maintenance versus surveillance is required research, which “we plan to undertake.”

The work was funded by Cancer Research UK and the National Institute for Health Research. Many of the investigators had industry ties, including Dr. Adams, who reported various relationships with and payments from Merck, Amgen, and others. Dr. Kasi also had ties to several companies, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Kurreck and the other letter writers had numerous company ties as well, including relationships and payments from Roche, the maker of bevacizumab.

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

Should patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who respond to first-line treatment receive maintenance therapy, or are they better off on active surveillance?

In a recent trial designed to explore this question, British investigators made a strong case for active surveillance over maintenance therapy.

The researchers found that patients with metastatic CRC randomized to maintenance therapy with oral capecitabine (Xeloda) showed improved progression-free survival (PFS), compared with those being actively monitored – 3.88 versus 1.87 months.

But that benefit came at a cost. Patients on capecitabine experienced much worse toxicity and showed no overall survival benefit – 14.8 months in the capecitabine arm versus 15.2 in the surveillance arm.

The FOCUS4-N trial supports “the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients” after induction, lead author Richard Adams, MD, an oncology professor at Cardiff University, Wales, and colleagues conclude in a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Current treatment standards either require or recommend that patients with metastatic CRC receive maintenance therapy after induction chemotherapy, at least until they progress or experience excessive toxicity.

Although maintenance strategies have typically demonstrated a PFS benefit, that advantage may come at “the expense of ongoing ... toxicity.”

Dr. Adams and colleagues wanted to explore how patients would fare on an oral maintenance therapy with capecitabine, compared with active surveillance.

In the trial, researchers randomly assigned 254 patients who had responded to first-line therapy or had stable disease to either capecitabine (n = 127) or active monitoring (n = 127). Subjects were treated at 88 hospitals in the United Kingdom from 2014-2020. Most patients had widespread synchronous metastatic disease. About half had unresected primary tumors, and the majority had received doublet chemotherapy induction, which was irinotecan-based in 57%.

The authors found that patients receiving capecitabine maintenance therapy showed significant improvements in PFS (hazard ratio, 0.40; P < .0001), but also encountered considerably more toxicity than the surveillance group – including grade 2 or higher fatigue (25% vs. 12%), diarrhea (23% vs. 13%), and hand-foot skin reactions (26% vs. 3%).

Perhaps most notably, the treatment group did not experience an overall survival benefit (HR, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.27; P = .66).

Overall, the authors noted, the main advantage of active maintenance was to delay the return of aggressive chemotherapy combinations for a few months.  

With previous trials reporting pretty much the same findings, there is now “overwhelming level-one evidence” that surveillance is an “appropriate” option with “less time on therapy, lower toxicity, and in a number of studies, better quality of life,” which are all important factors for patients, according to Dr. Adams and colleagues in a follow-up letter.   
 

A viable option

The current study pushes back on existing standards, which support maintenance therapy and can prevent patients from being offered active surveillance.

According to Dr. Adams and colleagues, “FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for [metastatic] CRC.”

In addition, the FOCUS4-N trial suggests that oral capecitabine alone – instead of alongside intravenous bevacizumab (Avastin) every 3 weeks – is probably adequate for mCRC maintenance.

“It has been shown that single-agent bevacizumab is both ineffective and highly uneconomic” in the mCRC maintenance setting, “suggesting that it may be the capecitabine element of the combination that” provides the PFS benefit, the team noted.

An editorial accompanying the study also concluded that “treatment holidays are an equally viable and more cost-effective alternative” to maintenance and one of special interest to patients looking for a break after intensive induction.

“For patients, caregivers, and oncologists alike who are hesitant to ... stop therapy completely, it is important to note that” at least in trials, patients under surveillance “continue to be vigilantly monitored, including imaging every 8-12 weeks and symptom assessment every few weeks,” Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine/NewYork-Presbyterian, Manhattan, said in his editorial. 

Interestingly, Dr. Kasi pointed out, the trial found no difference in quality-of-life scores between the study arms in the FOCUS4-N trial.

The two groups scored similarly on mobility, self-care, usual activities, anxiety, and depression, and patients in the capecitabine group reported slightly less pain and discomfort, which may have occurred because of delayed disease progression.

“Although it is somewhat reassuring that maintenance approaches do not adversely affect overall quality of life and functioning, it does not mean that these regimens are free from side effects,” Dr. Kasi writes, adding that it’s possible the surveys missed the impacts of increased toxicity with maintenance therapy.
 

Caveats to the study

A letter published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology raises questions about the generalizability of the FOCUS4-N results.

In the letter, Annika Kurreck, MD, and colleagues from Charity-University Medicine Berlin, Germany, highlighted that the trial only included patients without actionable biomarkers, which likely meant the study population had particularly aggressive disease. This possibility is supported by the “dramatically short” PFS reported in FOCUS4-N compared with prior maintenance versus surveillance investigations.

In addition, the letter writers caution that the study was underpowered to detect an overall survival benefit.

“Therefore, it might be hypothesized that FOCUS4-N comprised a cohort of patients with a rather aggressive tumor biology and/or high tumor load, leading to a quick failure of any de-escalation treatment strategy,” Dr. Kurreck and colleagues write.

In a response letter, Dr. Adams and his team countered that there’s no consistent evidence from past trials suggesting that patients with poorer prognostic features are unfit for surveillance. “We believe that it is a common misrepresentation of the evidence that all patients with worse prognostic features need to be maintained on active but toxic combination therapies for longer,” they said.

Instead of a blanket approach, maintenance versus surveillance should be “an assessment guided by the clinician listening to and guiding the patient rather than a molecular or biologically measurable parameter,” they write.

Dr. Adams and colleagues agreed that identifying subgroups of patients who are more likely to benefit from maintenance versus surveillance is required research, which “we plan to undertake.”

The work was funded by Cancer Research UK and the National Institute for Health Research. Many of the investigators had industry ties, including Dr. Adams, who reported various relationships with and payments from Merck, Amgen, and others. Dr. Kasi also had ties to several companies, including Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Kurreck and the other letter writers had numerous company ties as well, including relationships and payments from Roche, the maker of bevacizumab.

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

Heavier smoking significantly increased mortality in adults with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (PF-ILD), based on data from 377 individuals.

The negative impact of smoking on pulmonary diseases is well documented, but the specific impact on patients with PF-ILD has not been well studied, Mark Platenburg, MD, of St. Antonious Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote in Respiratory Medicine .

GaryPhoto/ThinkStock

“Patients with PF-ILD or IPF [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis] are prone to early mortality, indicating a need for prognostic [bio]marker studies for precision medicine,” they said.

The researchers identified adults older than 18 years with PF-ILD who were diagnosed at a single center. All study participants had at least 10% fibrosis, and showed either a decline of at least 10% in forced vital capacity, a 5.0%-9.9% relative FVC decline plus progressive respiratory symptoms and/or an increase in extent of fibrosis on subsequent high-resolution (HRCT progression), or progressive respiratory symptoms and HRCT progression over 24 months after ILD diagnosis.

Pack-years of smoking was a prognostic variable; the researchers also compared median transplant-free survival in heavy smokers and mild to moderate smokers. They also investigated the association between smoking quantity and emphysema in the study population.

Overall, the increased risk for mortality was 11%, 22%, and 44% in patients with 10, 20, and 40 pack-years of smoking, respectively.

Both the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratio for pack-years were significant (1.014, P < .001 and 1.011, P = .022, respectively).

The median transplant-free survival of ever-smokers versus never-smokers with PF-ILD was 3.3 years versus 4.8 years; median transplant-free survival was 3.0 years for heavy smokers and 3.8 years for mild to moderate smokers. Similarly, median survival was 4.2 years in never-smokers versus 3.0 years in former smokers.

Emphysema was significantly more comment in heavy smokers, compared with never smokers and mild to moderate smokers (P < .001 for both).

“We observed a gradual decrease in survival starting from never to mild-moderate and subsequent heavy smokers supporting our finding that [pack-years] is an independent predictor for mortality in PF-ILD,” the researchers wrote. “This is an important message that clinicians could convey to their ILD patients, but also to patients at-risk for ILD.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the retrospective design, incomplete data for some patients, and lack of data on comorbidities, the researchers noted. However, the results strengthen the evidence for the detrimental effect of heavy smoking in PF-ILD, they said. Consequently, “efforts to reduce pack-years in those with, and at risk for, PF-ILD may translate into a survival benefit and should have high priority in clinical practice.”

The study was supported by grants from ZonMw TopZorg Care and TZO. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Heavier smoking significantly increased mortality in adults with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (PF-ILD), based on data from 377 individuals.

The negative impact of smoking on pulmonary diseases is well documented, but the specific impact on patients with PF-ILD has not been well studied, Mark Platenburg, MD, of St. Antonious Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote in Respiratory Medicine .

GaryPhoto/ThinkStock

“Patients with PF-ILD or IPF [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis] are prone to early mortality, indicating a need for prognostic [bio]marker studies for precision medicine,” they said.

The researchers identified adults older than 18 years with PF-ILD who were diagnosed at a single center. All study participants had at least 10% fibrosis, and showed either a decline of at least 10% in forced vital capacity, a 5.0%-9.9% relative FVC decline plus progressive respiratory symptoms and/or an increase in extent of fibrosis on subsequent high-resolution (HRCT progression), or progressive respiratory symptoms and HRCT progression over 24 months after ILD diagnosis.

Pack-years of smoking was a prognostic variable; the researchers also compared median transplant-free survival in heavy smokers and mild to moderate smokers. They also investigated the association between smoking quantity and emphysema in the study population.

Overall, the increased risk for mortality was 11%, 22%, and 44% in patients with 10, 20, and 40 pack-years of smoking, respectively.

Both the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratio for pack-years were significant (1.014, P < .001 and 1.011, P = .022, respectively).

The median transplant-free survival of ever-smokers versus never-smokers with PF-ILD was 3.3 years versus 4.8 years; median transplant-free survival was 3.0 years for heavy smokers and 3.8 years for mild to moderate smokers. Similarly, median survival was 4.2 years in never-smokers versus 3.0 years in former smokers.

Emphysema was significantly more comment in heavy smokers, compared with never smokers and mild to moderate smokers (P < .001 for both).

“We observed a gradual decrease in survival starting from never to mild-moderate and subsequent heavy smokers supporting our finding that [pack-years] is an independent predictor for mortality in PF-ILD,” the researchers wrote. “This is an important message that clinicians could convey to their ILD patients, but also to patients at-risk for ILD.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the retrospective design, incomplete data for some patients, and lack of data on comorbidities, the researchers noted. However, the results strengthen the evidence for the detrimental effect of heavy smoking in PF-ILD, they said. Consequently, “efforts to reduce pack-years in those with, and at risk for, PF-ILD may translate into a survival benefit and should have high priority in clinical practice.”

The study was supported by grants from ZonMw TopZorg Care and TZO. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Heavier smoking significantly increased mortality in adults with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (PF-ILD), based on data from 377 individuals.

The negative impact of smoking on pulmonary diseases is well documented, but the specific impact on patients with PF-ILD has not been well studied, Mark Platenburg, MD, of St. Antonious Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote in Respiratory Medicine .

GaryPhoto/ThinkStock

“Patients with PF-ILD or IPF [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis] are prone to early mortality, indicating a need for prognostic [bio]marker studies for precision medicine,” they said.

The researchers identified adults older than 18 years with PF-ILD who were diagnosed at a single center. All study participants had at least 10% fibrosis, and showed either a decline of at least 10% in forced vital capacity, a 5.0%-9.9% relative FVC decline plus progressive respiratory symptoms and/or an increase in extent of fibrosis on subsequent high-resolution (HRCT progression), or progressive respiratory symptoms and HRCT progression over 24 months after ILD diagnosis.

Pack-years of smoking was a prognostic variable; the researchers also compared median transplant-free survival in heavy smokers and mild to moderate smokers. They also investigated the association between smoking quantity and emphysema in the study population.

Overall, the increased risk for mortality was 11%, 22%, and 44% in patients with 10, 20, and 40 pack-years of smoking, respectively.

Both the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratio for pack-years were significant (1.014, P < .001 and 1.011, P = .022, respectively).

The median transplant-free survival of ever-smokers versus never-smokers with PF-ILD was 3.3 years versus 4.8 years; median transplant-free survival was 3.0 years for heavy smokers and 3.8 years for mild to moderate smokers. Similarly, median survival was 4.2 years in never-smokers versus 3.0 years in former smokers.

Emphysema was significantly more comment in heavy smokers, compared with never smokers and mild to moderate smokers (P < .001 for both).

“We observed a gradual decrease in survival starting from never to mild-moderate and subsequent heavy smokers supporting our finding that [pack-years] is an independent predictor for mortality in PF-ILD,” the researchers wrote. “This is an important message that clinicians could convey to their ILD patients, but also to patients at-risk for ILD.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the retrospective design, incomplete data for some patients, and lack of data on comorbidities, the researchers noted. However, the results strengthen the evidence for the detrimental effect of heavy smoking in PF-ILD, they said. Consequently, “efforts to reduce pack-years in those with, and at risk for, PF-ILD may translate into a survival benefit and should have high priority in clinical practice.”

The study was supported by grants from ZonMw TopZorg Care and TZO. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

As many in the world react with sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, the oncology community has now stepped into the fray.

All the large cancer organizations have put out statements in support of Ukraine, but one group has gone further and cut its ties with Russia.

“The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions,” the group announced on its Twitter page, which is decorated with a blue and yellow ribbon and declares that it “stands with Ukraine.”

“The OncoAlert Network is nonpolitical but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression toward our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” the group said. “The network will be pulling out of ALL collaborations & congresses in Russia.”

Not surprisingly, the post was inundated with a barrage of inflammatory and politically laced tweets from Russian and Chinese users. Many of them repeated the same phrase about “violating the Hippocratic oath and the Geneva convention,” used foul language, and slammed the United States for past military actions in other parts of the world.

A prominent Russian oncologist also responded, posting a video in which he discussed the situation more coherently and without mudslinging or scripted phrases. Andrey Kaprin, MD, PhD, is chief oncologist of the Russian Federation as well as director general of the Federal State Budgetary Institution, NMRCC, of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. He says they continue to maintain relations with the largest and best known oncologic organizations. “We haven’t felt any deterioration in our relationship yet, and of course, we hope that this won’t happen.”

Dr. Kaprin said he believes OncoAlert will return to cooperation with Russia, and that “reason will prevail.”

“No one is protected from cancer, not even doctors, and that is why there should be no politics here,” he said.

Dr. Kaprin was speaking from Russia state-affiliated media, so it was not an independent commentary. Several of the Twitter responses to his video, primarily from non-Russians, were less than complimentary.

One user replied: “Cancer is rife in the Kremlin.”

Another post pointed out the hypocrisy of Russians being upset that OncoAlert was cutting ties with them. “What about sick Ukrainian kids, having to shelter in hospital basement, not having lifesaving surgeries because Russia decided to invade a democratic country?”

And another post was not buying the story that “reason will prevail,” in that the doctor’s talk seemed to contradict the reality of the situation. “I guess for every child #Russia murders they get cut off a little more from the civilized world?”
 

Cancer patients vulnerable

The war in Ukraine is an “unfolding humanitarian emergency,” said the World Health Organization, and it has called on top-level officials involved in the Russian invasion to ensure access for delivery of essential medical, surgical, and trauma supplies to help the Ukrainian people and refugees in neighboring countries. A shortage of oxygen, insulin, cancer therapies, and other essential supplies will continue to grow more dire in the weeks and months ahead, WHO officials predict.

One of the more heartbreaking reports described how pediatric cancer patients have been moved to hospital basements that are serving as temporary bomb shelters. Hospital staff continue to try to provide limited treatment when possible, even though essential supplies are dwindling. 

“These children suffer more because they need to stay alive to fight with the cancer – and this fight cannot wait,” Lesia Lysytsia, MD, a doctor at Okhmatdyt, the country’s largest children’s hospital in Kyiv, said in an NBC news report.

For some children, the only treatment available is a basic form of chemotherapy, and at the Kyiv Regional Oncology Center, the situation became so dire for children in need of blood transfusions that physicians began to transfuse blood from parent to child.

“Our patients, they will die,” Dr. Lysytsia said. “We will calculate how many people or soldiers have died in attacks, but we will never calculate how many patients weren’t diagnosed of disease in time, how many patients died because they didn’t receive treatment. It’s an epic amount of people.”
 

Response from oncology community

Many of the large American oncology groups have issued strong statements expressing their support for Ukraine and offering assistance.

The American Cancer Society has partnered with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health to support all Ukrainian cancer patients and their families. The groups are engaging a network of oncologists and oncology nurses to provide support through the ACS Clinician Volunteer Corps.

The ACS and ASCO are making free cancer resources available in English, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian through their patient information websites (available here and here), with additional patient education resources planned. 

The ACS noted that there are more than 179,000 newly diagnosed patients with cancer among the Ukrainian people “suffering from Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”

“Disruptions to cancer treatment pose a grave risk to the survival of Ukrainian patients with cancer,” commented Karen Knudsen, PhD, CEO at the ACS.

ASCO also issued its own statement, declaring that it stands with “our Ukrainian members, the worldwide oncology community, and health care providers around the globe in condemning Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine.”

The society notes that it represents oncology professionals in Ukraine and neighboring countries including Poland, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are now receiving thousands of refugees from the Russian invasion.

“We are hearing daily reports of cancer treatment interrupted by acts of war, including damage to medical facilities and shortages of critical supplies. Countless patients now need to find cancer care in new and unfamiliar surroundings with limited medical records and minimal resources,” the society commented.

The American Association for Cancer Research also issued a statement by President David A. Tuveson, MD, PhD, and CEO Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc). The organization has more than 50,000 members around the world, and they “stand in solidarity with the citizens of Ukraine during the Russian attack on their country.”

“This abhorrent war, which has been instigated by Russia’s leaders, is isolating and interrupting the lifesaving work of scientists and clinicians in Ukraine and Russia, threatening years of effective research collaborations and community building,” the AACR comments. “Limiting the exchange of innovative ideas, practices, and data across borders will significantly retard cancer research and have an adverse effect on public health.”

Perhaps the most subdued statement came from the European Society of Medical Oncology, in a brief release entitled: “Against Any War.” The society expressed profound sadness about the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine and the suffering of people. “We would like to confirm our solidarity and unconditioned support to all oncology professionals and cancer patients, with no geographical boundaries.”

ESMO also said that they were reviewing possibilities “to be of concrete help for our members and their patients, in collaboration with national and transnational oncology societies, as well as the International Cancer Foundation.”

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

As many in the world react with sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, the oncology community has now stepped into the fray.

All the large cancer organizations have put out statements in support of Ukraine, but one group has gone further and cut its ties with Russia.

“The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions,” the group announced on its Twitter page, which is decorated with a blue and yellow ribbon and declares that it “stands with Ukraine.”

“The OncoAlert Network is nonpolitical but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression toward our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” the group said. “The network will be pulling out of ALL collaborations & congresses in Russia.”

Not surprisingly, the post was inundated with a barrage of inflammatory and politically laced tweets from Russian and Chinese users. Many of them repeated the same phrase about “violating the Hippocratic oath and the Geneva convention,” used foul language, and slammed the United States for past military actions in other parts of the world.

A prominent Russian oncologist also responded, posting a video in which he discussed the situation more coherently and without mudslinging or scripted phrases. Andrey Kaprin, MD, PhD, is chief oncologist of the Russian Federation as well as director general of the Federal State Budgetary Institution, NMRCC, of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. He says they continue to maintain relations with the largest and best known oncologic organizations. “We haven’t felt any deterioration in our relationship yet, and of course, we hope that this won’t happen.”

Dr. Kaprin said he believes OncoAlert will return to cooperation with Russia, and that “reason will prevail.”

“No one is protected from cancer, not even doctors, and that is why there should be no politics here,” he said.

Dr. Kaprin was speaking from Russia state-affiliated media, so it was not an independent commentary. Several of the Twitter responses to his video, primarily from non-Russians, were less than complimentary.

One user replied: “Cancer is rife in the Kremlin.”

Another post pointed out the hypocrisy of Russians being upset that OncoAlert was cutting ties with them. “What about sick Ukrainian kids, having to shelter in hospital basement, not having lifesaving surgeries because Russia decided to invade a democratic country?”

And another post was not buying the story that “reason will prevail,” in that the doctor’s talk seemed to contradict the reality of the situation. “I guess for every child #Russia murders they get cut off a little more from the civilized world?”
 

Cancer patients vulnerable

The war in Ukraine is an “unfolding humanitarian emergency,” said the World Health Organization, and it has called on top-level officials involved in the Russian invasion to ensure access for delivery of essential medical, surgical, and trauma supplies to help the Ukrainian people and refugees in neighboring countries. A shortage of oxygen, insulin, cancer therapies, and other essential supplies will continue to grow more dire in the weeks and months ahead, WHO officials predict.

One of the more heartbreaking reports described how pediatric cancer patients have been moved to hospital basements that are serving as temporary bomb shelters. Hospital staff continue to try to provide limited treatment when possible, even though essential supplies are dwindling. 

“These children suffer more because they need to stay alive to fight with the cancer – and this fight cannot wait,” Lesia Lysytsia, MD, a doctor at Okhmatdyt, the country’s largest children’s hospital in Kyiv, said in an NBC news report.

For some children, the only treatment available is a basic form of chemotherapy, and at the Kyiv Regional Oncology Center, the situation became so dire for children in need of blood transfusions that physicians began to transfuse blood from parent to child.

“Our patients, they will die,” Dr. Lysytsia said. “We will calculate how many people or soldiers have died in attacks, but we will never calculate how many patients weren’t diagnosed of disease in time, how many patients died because they didn’t receive treatment. It’s an epic amount of people.”
 

Response from oncology community

Many of the large American oncology groups have issued strong statements expressing their support for Ukraine and offering assistance.

The American Cancer Society has partnered with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health to support all Ukrainian cancer patients and their families. The groups are engaging a network of oncologists and oncology nurses to provide support through the ACS Clinician Volunteer Corps.

The ACS and ASCO are making free cancer resources available in English, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian through their patient information websites (available here and here), with additional patient education resources planned. 

The ACS noted that there are more than 179,000 newly diagnosed patients with cancer among the Ukrainian people “suffering from Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”

“Disruptions to cancer treatment pose a grave risk to the survival of Ukrainian patients with cancer,” commented Karen Knudsen, PhD, CEO at the ACS.

ASCO also issued its own statement, declaring that it stands with “our Ukrainian members, the worldwide oncology community, and health care providers around the globe in condemning Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine.”

The society notes that it represents oncology professionals in Ukraine and neighboring countries including Poland, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are now receiving thousands of refugees from the Russian invasion.

“We are hearing daily reports of cancer treatment interrupted by acts of war, including damage to medical facilities and shortages of critical supplies. Countless patients now need to find cancer care in new and unfamiliar surroundings with limited medical records and minimal resources,” the society commented.

The American Association for Cancer Research also issued a statement by President David A. Tuveson, MD, PhD, and CEO Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc). The organization has more than 50,000 members around the world, and they “stand in solidarity with the citizens of Ukraine during the Russian attack on their country.”

“This abhorrent war, which has been instigated by Russia’s leaders, is isolating and interrupting the lifesaving work of scientists and clinicians in Ukraine and Russia, threatening years of effective research collaborations and community building,” the AACR comments. “Limiting the exchange of innovative ideas, practices, and data across borders will significantly retard cancer research and have an adverse effect on public health.”

Perhaps the most subdued statement came from the European Society of Medical Oncology, in a brief release entitled: “Against Any War.” The society expressed profound sadness about the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine and the suffering of people. “We would like to confirm our solidarity and unconditioned support to all oncology professionals and cancer patients, with no geographical boundaries.”

ESMO also said that they were reviewing possibilities “to be of concrete help for our members and their patients, in collaboration with national and transnational oncology societies, as well as the International Cancer Foundation.”

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

As many in the world react with sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, the oncology community has now stepped into the fray.

All the large cancer organizations have put out statements in support of Ukraine, but one group has gone further and cut its ties with Russia.

“The international cancer specialist network, OncoAlert, severed all cooperation with doctors in Russia as part of the Western sanctions,” the group announced on its Twitter page, which is decorated with a blue and yellow ribbon and declares that it “stands with Ukraine.”

“The OncoAlert Network is nonpolitical but we cannot stand idle and not take a stand against this aggression toward our Ukrainian friends & colleagues,” the group said. “The network will be pulling out of ALL collaborations & congresses in Russia.”

Not surprisingly, the post was inundated with a barrage of inflammatory and politically laced tweets from Russian and Chinese users. Many of them repeated the same phrase about “violating the Hippocratic oath and the Geneva convention,” used foul language, and slammed the United States for past military actions in other parts of the world.

A prominent Russian oncologist also responded, posting a video in which he discussed the situation more coherently and without mudslinging or scripted phrases. Andrey Kaprin, MD, PhD, is chief oncologist of the Russian Federation as well as director general of the Federal State Budgetary Institution, NMRCC, of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. He says they continue to maintain relations with the largest and best known oncologic organizations. “We haven’t felt any deterioration in our relationship yet, and of course, we hope that this won’t happen.”

Dr. Kaprin said he believes OncoAlert will return to cooperation with Russia, and that “reason will prevail.”

“No one is protected from cancer, not even doctors, and that is why there should be no politics here,” he said.

Dr. Kaprin was speaking from Russia state-affiliated media, so it was not an independent commentary. Several of the Twitter responses to his video, primarily from non-Russians, were less than complimentary.

One user replied: “Cancer is rife in the Kremlin.”

Another post pointed out the hypocrisy of Russians being upset that OncoAlert was cutting ties with them. “What about sick Ukrainian kids, having to shelter in hospital basement, not having lifesaving surgeries because Russia decided to invade a democratic country?”

And another post was not buying the story that “reason will prevail,” in that the doctor’s talk seemed to contradict the reality of the situation. “I guess for every child #Russia murders they get cut off a little more from the civilized world?”
 

Cancer patients vulnerable

The war in Ukraine is an “unfolding humanitarian emergency,” said the World Health Organization, and it has called on top-level officials involved in the Russian invasion to ensure access for delivery of essential medical, surgical, and trauma supplies to help the Ukrainian people and refugees in neighboring countries. A shortage of oxygen, insulin, cancer therapies, and other essential supplies will continue to grow more dire in the weeks and months ahead, WHO officials predict.

One of the more heartbreaking reports described how pediatric cancer patients have been moved to hospital basements that are serving as temporary bomb shelters. Hospital staff continue to try to provide limited treatment when possible, even though essential supplies are dwindling. 

“These children suffer more because they need to stay alive to fight with the cancer – and this fight cannot wait,” Lesia Lysytsia, MD, a doctor at Okhmatdyt, the country’s largest children’s hospital in Kyiv, said in an NBC news report.

For some children, the only treatment available is a basic form of chemotherapy, and at the Kyiv Regional Oncology Center, the situation became so dire for children in need of blood transfusions that physicians began to transfuse blood from parent to child.

“Our patients, they will die,” Dr. Lysytsia said. “We will calculate how many people or soldiers have died in attacks, but we will never calculate how many patients weren’t diagnosed of disease in time, how many patients died because they didn’t receive treatment. It’s an epic amount of people.”
 

Response from oncology community

Many of the large American oncology groups have issued strong statements expressing their support for Ukraine and offering assistance.

The American Cancer Society has partnered with the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center–Jefferson Health to support all Ukrainian cancer patients and their families. The groups are engaging a network of oncologists and oncology nurses to provide support through the ACS Clinician Volunteer Corps.

The ACS and ASCO are making free cancer resources available in English, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian through their patient information websites (available here and here), with additional patient education resources planned. 

The ACS noted that there are more than 179,000 newly diagnosed patients with cancer among the Ukrainian people “suffering from Russia’s unprovoked aggression.”

“Disruptions to cancer treatment pose a grave risk to the survival of Ukrainian patients with cancer,” commented Karen Knudsen, PhD, CEO at the ACS.

ASCO also issued its own statement, declaring that it stands with “our Ukrainian members, the worldwide oncology community, and health care providers around the globe in condemning Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine.”

The society notes that it represents oncology professionals in Ukraine and neighboring countries including Poland, Romania, Moldova, Slovakia, and Hungary, which are now receiving thousands of refugees from the Russian invasion.

“We are hearing daily reports of cancer treatment interrupted by acts of war, including damage to medical facilities and shortages of critical supplies. Countless patients now need to find cancer care in new and unfamiliar surroundings with limited medical records and minimal resources,” the society commented.

The American Association for Cancer Research also issued a statement by President David A. Tuveson, MD, PhD, and CEO Margaret Foti, PhD, MD (hc). The organization has more than 50,000 members around the world, and they “stand in solidarity with the citizens of Ukraine during the Russian attack on their country.”

“This abhorrent war, which has been instigated by Russia’s leaders, is isolating and interrupting the lifesaving work of scientists and clinicians in Ukraine and Russia, threatening years of effective research collaborations and community building,” the AACR comments. “Limiting the exchange of innovative ideas, practices, and data across borders will significantly retard cancer research and have an adverse effect on public health.”

Perhaps the most subdued statement came from the European Society of Medical Oncology, in a brief release entitled: “Against Any War.” The society expressed profound sadness about the unfolding tragedy in Ukraine and the suffering of people. “We would like to confirm our solidarity and unconditioned support to all oncology professionals and cancer patients, with no geographical boundaries.”

ESMO also said that they were reviewing possibilities “to be of concrete help for our members and their patients, in collaboration with national and transnational oncology societies, as well as the International Cancer Foundation.”

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

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

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

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

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

The federal government’s efforts to thwart information blocking are underway. As such, physicians would do well to be standing at the ready when the information-blocking regulations, designed to ensure that patients can access their electronic health information (EHI), shift into full gear.

Recently, the Office of the National Coordinator revealed that the Department of Health & Humans Services has received 299 reports of information blocking since inviting anyone who suspected that health care providers, IT developers, or health information networks/exchanges might have interfered with access, exchange, or use of EHI through the Report Information Blocking Portal on April 5, 2021.

The vast majority of these claims – 211 – were filed against providers, while 46 alleged incidents of information blocking were by health IT developers, and two claims point to health information networks/ exchanges. The other 25 claims did not appear to present a claim of information blocking.

Of the 274 possible claims of information blocking recently released by ONC, 176 were made by patients.

The ONC has sent all possible claims to the HHS’s Office of the Inspector General. The claims have not yet been investigated and substantiated.
 

Do the stats tell the story?

The numbers in the recent ONC report do not shed much light on how much impact the regulations are having on information sharing. Health care providers, including physicians, might not yet be complying with the rules because monetary penalties are not in place.

Indeed, HHS has yet to spell out exactly what the disincentives on providers will be, though the 21st Century Cures Act stipulates that regulators could fine up to $1 million per information-blocking incident.

“Some providers might be saying, ‘I’m not going to be penalized at this point … so I can take a little bit longer to think about how I come into compliance.’ That could be just one factor of a host of many that are affecting compliance. We also are still in the middle of a public health emergency. So it’s hard to say at this point” exactly how the regulations will affect information blocking, Lauren Riplinger, vice president of policy and public affairs at the American Health Information Management Association, Chicago, said in an interview.
 

A long time coming

The government first zeroed in on ensuring that patients have access to their information in 2016 when President Obama signed the Cures Act into law. The legislation directed ONC to implement a standardized process for the public to report claims of possible information blocking.

The initiative appears to be picking up steam. The ONC is expected to release monthly reports on the cumulative number of information-blocking claims. The announcement of associated penalties is expected sometime in the future.

Industry leaders are advising health care providers to brush up on compliance. Physicians can look to professional groups such as the American Medical Association, the Medical Group Management Association, and other specialty associations for guidance. In addition, the ONC is educating providers on the rule.

“The ONC has provided a lot of great content for the past couple months, not only in terms of putting out FAQs to help clarify some of the gray areas in the rule, but they also have produced a series of provider-specific webinars where they walk through a potential scenario and address the extent to the rules apply,” Ms. Riplinger said.
 

With education, more is better

These efforts, however, could be expanded, according to MGMA.

“There is a general awareness of the rules, but we encourage ONC to continue educating the provider community: More FAQs and educational webinars would be helpful,” Claire Ernst, director of government affairs for MGMA, said in an interview. “A June 2021 MGMA poll found that 51% of medical groups said they needed more government guidance on complying with the new information-blocking rules.”

Although ONC already has provided some “scenario-based” education, more of this type of guidance could prove valuable.

“This rule is that it is very circumstance based. … and so it’s those more nuanced cases that I think are more challenging for providers to know whether or not they are engaging in information blocking,” Ms. Riplinger noted.

For example, a physician might choose to not upload lab test results to a patient portal and prefer to wait to discuss the results directly with the patient, which could potentially be construed as information blocking under the regulations.

The MGMA is requesting that ONC take a second look at these situations – and possibly adjust the regulations.

“MGMA has heard concerns about the impact of providing immediate results to patients before medical groups have the time to thoroughly review test results and discuss them compassionately with their patients,” Ms. Ernst said. “To address this, ONC could expand the current definition of harm to account for other unintended consequences, such as emotional distress, or provide more flexibility in terms of the time frame.”

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