With nutrient-stimulated hormone therapies for obesity in phase 3 trials, and activin-receptor inhibitors the next upcoming drug class, highly effective treatments for obesity are on the horizon.

“We are at a watershed [moment] brought on by the recent introduction of highly effective antiobesity medications,” Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, said in a lecture at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

Dr. Jastreboff, of Yale University and the Yale Center for Weight Management, New Haven, Conn., provided an overview of the many nutrient-stimulated hormone-based antiobesity therapies in late phases of development – including dual and triple therapies with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonists, glucagon, and amylin.

“I’ve shown you all of these agents that clearly produce substantial weight reduction,” she said. “The fact that these nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based therapies are not all the same is a good thing,” she stressed, because “it’s not likely that everyone will respond to each of these, and they are likely to respond differently.”

She then briefly touched on activin receptor inhibitors –”the next [medication] class that I think will be up and coming,” she speculated.

“Beyond (just) weight reduction,” Dr. Jastreboff concluded, clinicians “need to focus on optimizing health as we are treating obesity.” Clinicians need to consider the patient’s severity of obesity, overall health, and metabolic profile, and match the obesity treatment to the patient. They also need to consider the rate of weight reduction, potential bone loss, vitamin deficiencies, muscle loss and function, and side effects, and be mindful of affordability, bias, and stigma.
 

Looking forward to multiple options

W. Timothy Garvey, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization that clinicians treating patients with obesity are looking forward to the decision from the Food and Drug Administration about tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected by year’s end. Tirzepatide “is really the best medicine that we have for diabetes in terms of A1c control without much hypoglycemia,” he said, “and also the best medicine for treating obesity in patients with diabetes.”

A recent study found that people with type 2 diabetes who adhered to their tirzepatide regimen achieved a 15% weight loss from their baseline after 40-42 weeks.

Dr. Garvey added that he is looking forward to drugs in development such as survodutide (a GLP-1/glucagon agonist) and orforglipron (a small oral daily nonpeptide GLP-1 RA). “Orforglipron wouldn’t have to be refrigerated,” he noted, and it “could be cheaper to manufacture, might be preferred over subcutaneous medication by some people, and it showed pretty good efficacy in early studies.”

Retatrutide, a triple agonist (GLP-1/GIP/glucagon) and CagriSema (cagrilintide plus semaglutide) showed “pretty impressive weight loss in early studies,” Dr. Garvey said. “We’re optimistic.”

Also invited to comment, Sean Wharton, MD, PharmD, Wharton Medical Clinic and York University, Toronto, said that the recent developments in antiobesity medications are “so exciting that it’s difficult to make direct comments,” since “maybe there will be something bigger, or maybe something will go wrong with these molecules and we’ll have to back-step.”

Further studies are needed, he added, to determine outcomes in patients who reduce their intake to half or three-quarters of a dose, or who transition to intermittent therapy.
 

Nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based antiobesity medications

Here’s a status overview of the nutrient-stimulated hormone-based medications already approved and on the horizon:

Semaglutide. The GLP-1 RA semaglutide (Ozempic), was approved by the FDA for type 2 diabetes in 2017. In June 2021, the FDA approved the use of semaglutide (Wegovy) for obesity.

Topline results from the Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients with Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) cardiovascular outcome trial showed that in individuals with obesity without type 2 diabetes, semaglutide led to a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, Dr. Jastreboff noted, adding that full results will be presented at the American Heart Association meeting on Nov. 11.

Tirzepatide. In May 2022, the FDA approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a GIP/GLP-1RA, for type 2 diabetes, and a decision about the use of tirzepatide for obesity is expected by year’s end.

The full results of the phase 3 SURMOUNT-3 trial were presented at ObesityWeek (just after this session), as reported by this news organization.

And the full results of the phase 3 SURMOUNT-4 trial of tirzepatide for obesity were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting, Dr. Jastreboff noted. At 88 weeks, in the continued tirzepatide group, average weight reduction was 26%, absolute weight reduction was 62 pounds (28.1 kg), and > 50% of individuals achieved ≥ 25% weight loss.

The phase 3 SURMOUNT MMO trial of morbidity and mortality with tirzepatide in obesity is estimated to be completed in 2027.

Cagrilintide. In a phase 2 trial of the amylin analog cagrilintide in patients with obesity, more than half of participants lost at least 10% of their weight at 26 weeks.

CagriSema. In a phase 1b trial of the amylin analog/GLP-1 RA combination of cagrilintide/semaglutide (CagriSema), average weight reduction at 20 weeks was 17.1%. The estimated primary completion dates of phase 3 trials of CagriSema, REDEFINE 1 (obesity), REDEFINE 2  (obesity and type 2 diabetes), and REDEFINE 3 (obesity and established cardiovascular disease), are 2025, 2024, and 2027, respectively. 

Survodutide. Findings from a phase 2 trial of the glucagon/GLP-1 RA survodutide were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) meeting in June. With 46 weeks of treatment, the average weight reduction was 18.7%, and up to 40% of participants lost at least 20% of their body weight.

Survodutide is being studied in the phase 3 SYNCHRONIZE trials.

Retatrutide. Phase 2 findings of 12-mg weekly of the GIP/GLP-1/glucagon triple hormone receptor agonist retatrutide were also presented at ADA. On average, at 48 weeks, the placebo group lost 2.1% of their weight and the retatrutide group lost 24.2% of their weight, with an average absolute reduction of 58 pounds (26.3 kg). At the highest dose (12 mg), 9 out of 10 individuals lost ≥ 10%, nearly two-thirds lost ≥ 20%, and a quarter lost ≥ 30% of their weight, at 48 weeks.

With the two highest doses of retatrutide, 100% of participants lost ≥ 5% of weight, Dr. Jastreboff reported, adding, “I’m not sure how many other times I will ever be able to say ‘100%’ in any scientific presentation.”

TRIUMPH phase 3 studies of retatrutide are ongoing.

“All the agents I’ve spoken about thus far are once-weekly injectable,” Dr. Jastreboff said, turning her attention to oral drugs.

Oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) is already FDA-approved for type 2 diabetes. The phase 2 OASIS trial results presented at ADA showed that participants with obesity who received 50 mg daily of the oral medication had an average weight reduction of 17.4% at 68 weeks, which is comparable to the 16.9% weight reduction with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 once weekly. More than a third of patients receiving the treatment lost ≥ 20% weight at 68 weeks.

The phase 3 OASIS study of oral semaglutide in obesity is ongoing.

Orforglipron. Phase 2 data of the small molecule oral GLP-1 RA orforglipron presented at ADA showed that participants with obesity had up to a 14.7% body weight reduction at 36 weeks. Nearly half of participants lost ≥ 15% of their body weight at 36 weeks.

The phase 3 ATTAIN study of orforglipron in obesity is ongoing.

AMG133. In a phase 2 trial, participants with obesity who received the monthly GIP receptor antagonist/ GLP-1 receptor agonist AMG133 (Amgen) had an average weight reduction of 14.5% at just 12 weeks.
 

Activin receptor inhibitors

Bimagrumab. This drug is a monoclonal antibody activin receptor inhibitor that binds to activin type II receptors. In a phase 2 study of 58 individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity who received monthly medication or placebo, participants receiving bimagrumab lost 20.5% of fat mass and gained 3.6% of lean mass at 48 weeks, and the most common adverse events were mild diarrhea and muscle spasm.

Bimagrumab and semaglutide for obesity are being studied in BELIEVE, an ongoing phase 2b study. Topline results are anticipated by the end of 2024.

Taldefgrobep. The fusion protein taldefgrobep binds active myostatin. A phase 2 study of taldefgrobep for obesity is planned to start in 2024.

Dr. Jastreboff is on the scientific advisory board for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and has received research support form Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Rhythm, and NIH/NIDDK.

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

With nutrient-stimulated hormone therapies for obesity in phase 3 trials, and activin-receptor inhibitors the next upcoming drug class, highly effective treatments for obesity are on the horizon.

“We are at a watershed [moment] brought on by the recent introduction of highly effective antiobesity medications,” Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, said in a lecture at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

Dr. Jastreboff, of Yale University and the Yale Center for Weight Management, New Haven, Conn., provided an overview of the many nutrient-stimulated hormone-based antiobesity therapies in late phases of development – including dual and triple therapies with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonists, glucagon, and amylin.

“I’ve shown you all of these agents that clearly produce substantial weight reduction,” she said. “The fact that these nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based therapies are not all the same is a good thing,” she stressed, because “it’s not likely that everyone will respond to each of these, and they are likely to respond differently.”

She then briefly touched on activin receptor inhibitors –”the next [medication] class that I think will be up and coming,” she speculated.

“Beyond (just) weight reduction,” Dr. Jastreboff concluded, clinicians “need to focus on optimizing health as we are treating obesity.” Clinicians need to consider the patient’s severity of obesity, overall health, and metabolic profile, and match the obesity treatment to the patient. They also need to consider the rate of weight reduction, potential bone loss, vitamin deficiencies, muscle loss and function, and side effects, and be mindful of affordability, bias, and stigma.
 

Looking forward to multiple options

W. Timothy Garvey, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization that clinicians treating patients with obesity are looking forward to the decision from the Food and Drug Administration about tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected by year’s end. Tirzepatide “is really the best medicine that we have for diabetes in terms of A1c control without much hypoglycemia,” he said, “and also the best medicine for treating obesity in patients with diabetes.”

A recent study found that people with type 2 diabetes who adhered to their tirzepatide regimen achieved a 15% weight loss from their baseline after 40-42 weeks.

Dr. Garvey added that he is looking forward to drugs in development such as survodutide (a GLP-1/glucagon agonist) and orforglipron (a small oral daily nonpeptide GLP-1 RA). “Orforglipron wouldn’t have to be refrigerated,” he noted, and it “could be cheaper to manufacture, might be preferred over subcutaneous medication by some people, and it showed pretty good efficacy in early studies.”

Retatrutide, a triple agonist (GLP-1/GIP/glucagon) and CagriSema (cagrilintide plus semaglutide) showed “pretty impressive weight loss in early studies,” Dr. Garvey said. “We’re optimistic.”

Also invited to comment, Sean Wharton, MD, PharmD, Wharton Medical Clinic and York University, Toronto, said that the recent developments in antiobesity medications are “so exciting that it’s difficult to make direct comments,” since “maybe there will be something bigger, or maybe something will go wrong with these molecules and we’ll have to back-step.”

Further studies are needed, he added, to determine outcomes in patients who reduce their intake to half or three-quarters of a dose, or who transition to intermittent therapy.
 

Nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based antiobesity medications

Here’s a status overview of the nutrient-stimulated hormone-based medications already approved and on the horizon:

Semaglutide. The GLP-1 RA semaglutide (Ozempic), was approved by the FDA for type 2 diabetes in 2017. In June 2021, the FDA approved the use of semaglutide (Wegovy) for obesity.

Topline results from the Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients with Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) cardiovascular outcome trial showed that in individuals with obesity without type 2 diabetes, semaglutide led to a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, Dr. Jastreboff noted, adding that full results will be presented at the American Heart Association meeting on Nov. 11.

Tirzepatide. In May 2022, the FDA approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a GIP/GLP-1RA, for type 2 diabetes, and a decision about the use of tirzepatide for obesity is expected by year’s end.

The full results of the phase 3 SURMOUNT-3 trial were presented at ObesityWeek (just after this session), as reported by this news organization.

And the full results of the phase 3 SURMOUNT-4 trial of tirzepatide for obesity were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting, Dr. Jastreboff noted. At 88 weeks, in the continued tirzepatide group, average weight reduction was 26%, absolute weight reduction was 62 pounds (28.1 kg), and > 50% of individuals achieved ≥ 25% weight loss.

The phase 3 SURMOUNT MMO trial of morbidity and mortality with tirzepatide in obesity is estimated to be completed in 2027.

Cagrilintide. In a phase 2 trial of the amylin analog cagrilintide in patients with obesity, more than half of participants lost at least 10% of their weight at 26 weeks.

CagriSema. In a phase 1b trial of the amylin analog/GLP-1 RA combination of cagrilintide/semaglutide (CagriSema), average weight reduction at 20 weeks was 17.1%. The estimated primary completion dates of phase 3 trials of CagriSema, REDEFINE 1 (obesity), REDEFINE 2  (obesity and type 2 diabetes), and REDEFINE 3 (obesity and established cardiovascular disease), are 2025, 2024, and 2027, respectively. 

Survodutide. Findings from a phase 2 trial of the glucagon/GLP-1 RA survodutide were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) meeting in June. With 46 weeks of treatment, the average weight reduction was 18.7%, and up to 40% of participants lost at least 20% of their body weight.

Survodutide is being studied in the phase 3 SYNCHRONIZE trials.

Retatrutide. Phase 2 findings of 12-mg weekly of the GIP/GLP-1/glucagon triple hormone receptor agonist retatrutide were also presented at ADA. On average, at 48 weeks, the placebo group lost 2.1% of their weight and the retatrutide group lost 24.2% of their weight, with an average absolute reduction of 58 pounds (26.3 kg). At the highest dose (12 mg), 9 out of 10 individuals lost ≥ 10%, nearly two-thirds lost ≥ 20%, and a quarter lost ≥ 30% of their weight, at 48 weeks.

With the two highest doses of retatrutide, 100% of participants lost ≥ 5% of weight, Dr. Jastreboff reported, adding, “I’m not sure how many other times I will ever be able to say ‘100%’ in any scientific presentation.”

TRIUMPH phase 3 studies of retatrutide are ongoing.

“All the agents I’ve spoken about thus far are once-weekly injectable,” Dr. Jastreboff said, turning her attention to oral drugs.

Oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) is already FDA-approved for type 2 diabetes. The phase 2 OASIS trial results presented at ADA showed that participants with obesity who received 50 mg daily of the oral medication had an average weight reduction of 17.4% at 68 weeks, which is comparable to the 16.9% weight reduction with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 once weekly. More than a third of patients receiving the treatment lost ≥ 20% weight at 68 weeks.

The phase 3 OASIS study of oral semaglutide in obesity is ongoing.

Orforglipron. Phase 2 data of the small molecule oral GLP-1 RA orforglipron presented at ADA showed that participants with obesity had up to a 14.7% body weight reduction at 36 weeks. Nearly half of participants lost ≥ 15% of their body weight at 36 weeks.

The phase 3 ATTAIN study of orforglipron in obesity is ongoing.

AMG133. In a phase 2 trial, participants with obesity who received the monthly GIP receptor antagonist/ GLP-1 receptor agonist AMG133 (Amgen) had an average weight reduction of 14.5% at just 12 weeks.
 

Activin receptor inhibitors

Bimagrumab. This drug is a monoclonal antibody activin receptor inhibitor that binds to activin type II receptors. In a phase 2 study of 58 individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity who received monthly medication or placebo, participants receiving bimagrumab lost 20.5% of fat mass and gained 3.6% of lean mass at 48 weeks, and the most common adverse events were mild diarrhea and muscle spasm.

Bimagrumab and semaglutide for obesity are being studied in BELIEVE, an ongoing phase 2b study. Topline results are anticipated by the end of 2024.

Taldefgrobep. The fusion protein taldefgrobep binds active myostatin. A phase 2 study of taldefgrobep for obesity is planned to start in 2024.

Dr. Jastreboff is on the scientific advisory board for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and has received research support form Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Rhythm, and NIH/NIDDK.

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

With nutrient-stimulated hormone therapies for obesity in phase 3 trials, and activin-receptor inhibitors the next upcoming drug class, highly effective treatments for obesity are on the horizon.

“We are at a watershed [moment] brought on by the recent introduction of highly effective antiobesity medications,” Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD, said in a lecture at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.

Dr. Jastreboff, of Yale University and the Yale Center for Weight Management, New Haven, Conn., provided an overview of the many nutrient-stimulated hormone-based antiobesity therapies in late phases of development – including dual and triple therapies with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonists, glucagon, and amylin.

“I’ve shown you all of these agents that clearly produce substantial weight reduction,” she said. “The fact that these nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based therapies are not all the same is a good thing,” she stressed, because “it’s not likely that everyone will respond to each of these, and they are likely to respond differently.”

She then briefly touched on activin receptor inhibitors –”the next [medication] class that I think will be up and coming,” she speculated.

“Beyond (just) weight reduction,” Dr. Jastreboff concluded, clinicians “need to focus on optimizing health as we are treating obesity.” Clinicians need to consider the patient’s severity of obesity, overall health, and metabolic profile, and match the obesity treatment to the patient. They also need to consider the rate of weight reduction, potential bone loss, vitamin deficiencies, muscle loss and function, and side effects, and be mindful of affordability, bias, and stigma.
 

Looking forward to multiple options

W. Timothy Garvey, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization that clinicians treating patients with obesity are looking forward to the decision from the Food and Drug Administration about tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected by year’s end. Tirzepatide “is really the best medicine that we have for diabetes in terms of A1c control without much hypoglycemia,” he said, “and also the best medicine for treating obesity in patients with diabetes.”

A recent study found that people with type 2 diabetes who adhered to their tirzepatide regimen achieved a 15% weight loss from their baseline after 40-42 weeks.

Dr. Garvey added that he is looking forward to drugs in development such as survodutide (a GLP-1/glucagon agonist) and orforglipron (a small oral daily nonpeptide GLP-1 RA). “Orforglipron wouldn’t have to be refrigerated,” he noted, and it “could be cheaper to manufacture, might be preferred over subcutaneous medication by some people, and it showed pretty good efficacy in early studies.”

Retatrutide, a triple agonist (GLP-1/GIP/glucagon) and CagriSema (cagrilintide plus semaglutide) showed “pretty impressive weight loss in early studies,” Dr. Garvey said. “We’re optimistic.”

Also invited to comment, Sean Wharton, MD, PharmD, Wharton Medical Clinic and York University, Toronto, said that the recent developments in antiobesity medications are “so exciting that it’s difficult to make direct comments,” since “maybe there will be something bigger, or maybe something will go wrong with these molecules and we’ll have to back-step.”

Further studies are needed, he added, to determine outcomes in patients who reduce their intake to half or three-quarters of a dose, or who transition to intermittent therapy.
 

Nutrient-stimulated, hormone-based antiobesity medications

Here’s a status overview of the nutrient-stimulated hormone-based medications already approved and on the horizon:

Semaglutide. The GLP-1 RA semaglutide (Ozempic), was approved by the FDA for type 2 diabetes in 2017. In June 2021, the FDA approved the use of semaglutide (Wegovy) for obesity.

Topline results from the Semaglutide Effects on Heart Disease and Stroke in Patients with Overweight or Obesity (SELECT) cardiovascular outcome trial showed that in individuals with obesity without type 2 diabetes, semaglutide led to a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events, Dr. Jastreboff noted, adding that full results will be presented at the American Heart Association meeting on Nov. 11.

Tirzepatide. In May 2022, the FDA approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro), a GIP/GLP-1RA, for type 2 diabetes, and a decision about the use of tirzepatide for obesity is expected by year’s end.

The full results of the phase 3 SURMOUNT-3 trial were presented at ObesityWeek (just after this session), as reported by this news organization.

And the full results of the phase 3 SURMOUNT-4 trial of tirzepatide for obesity were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting, Dr. Jastreboff noted. At 88 weeks, in the continued tirzepatide group, average weight reduction was 26%, absolute weight reduction was 62 pounds (28.1 kg), and > 50% of individuals achieved ≥ 25% weight loss.

The phase 3 SURMOUNT MMO trial of morbidity and mortality with tirzepatide in obesity is estimated to be completed in 2027.

Cagrilintide. In a phase 2 trial of the amylin analog cagrilintide in patients with obesity, more than half of participants lost at least 10% of their weight at 26 weeks.

CagriSema. In a phase 1b trial of the amylin analog/GLP-1 RA combination of cagrilintide/semaglutide (CagriSema), average weight reduction at 20 weeks was 17.1%. The estimated primary completion dates of phase 3 trials of CagriSema, REDEFINE 1 (obesity), REDEFINE 2  (obesity and type 2 diabetes), and REDEFINE 3 (obesity and established cardiovascular disease), are 2025, 2024, and 2027, respectively. 

Survodutide. Findings from a phase 2 trial of the glucagon/GLP-1 RA survodutide were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) meeting in June. With 46 weeks of treatment, the average weight reduction was 18.7%, and up to 40% of participants lost at least 20% of their body weight.

Survodutide is being studied in the phase 3 SYNCHRONIZE trials.

Retatrutide. Phase 2 findings of 12-mg weekly of the GIP/GLP-1/glucagon triple hormone receptor agonist retatrutide were also presented at ADA. On average, at 48 weeks, the placebo group lost 2.1% of their weight and the retatrutide group lost 24.2% of their weight, with an average absolute reduction of 58 pounds (26.3 kg). At the highest dose (12 mg), 9 out of 10 individuals lost ≥ 10%, nearly two-thirds lost ≥ 20%, and a quarter lost ≥ 30% of their weight, at 48 weeks.

With the two highest doses of retatrutide, 100% of participants lost ≥ 5% of weight, Dr. Jastreboff reported, adding, “I’m not sure how many other times I will ever be able to say ‘100%’ in any scientific presentation.”

TRIUMPH phase 3 studies of retatrutide are ongoing.

“All the agents I’ve spoken about thus far are once-weekly injectable,” Dr. Jastreboff said, turning her attention to oral drugs.

Oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) is already FDA-approved for type 2 diabetes. The phase 2 OASIS trial results presented at ADA showed that participants with obesity who received 50 mg daily of the oral medication had an average weight reduction of 17.4% at 68 weeks, which is comparable to the 16.9% weight reduction with subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 once weekly. More than a third of patients receiving the treatment lost ≥ 20% weight at 68 weeks.

The phase 3 OASIS study of oral semaglutide in obesity is ongoing.

Orforglipron. Phase 2 data of the small molecule oral GLP-1 RA orforglipron presented at ADA showed that participants with obesity had up to a 14.7% body weight reduction at 36 weeks. Nearly half of participants lost ≥ 15% of their body weight at 36 weeks.

The phase 3 ATTAIN study of orforglipron in obesity is ongoing.

AMG133. In a phase 2 trial, participants with obesity who received the monthly GIP receptor antagonist/ GLP-1 receptor agonist AMG133 (Amgen) had an average weight reduction of 14.5% at just 12 weeks.
 

Activin receptor inhibitors

Bimagrumab. This drug is a monoclonal antibody activin receptor inhibitor that binds to activin type II receptors. In a phase 2 study of 58 individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity who received monthly medication or placebo, participants receiving bimagrumab lost 20.5% of fat mass and gained 3.6% of lean mass at 48 weeks, and the most common adverse events were mild diarrhea and muscle spasm.

Bimagrumab and semaglutide for obesity are being studied in BELIEVE, an ongoing phase 2b study. Topline results are anticipated by the end of 2024.

Taldefgrobep. The fusion protein taldefgrobep binds active myostatin. A phase 2 study of taldefgrobep for obesity is planned to start in 2024.

Dr. Jastreboff is on the scientific advisory board for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and has received research support form Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Rhythm, and NIH/NIDDK.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab for adults with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

The development, which was announced Oct. 31, makes secukinumab the first and only interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor approved by the FDA for HS, which affects an estimated 1% of the worldwide population. It joins the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab as the only FDA-approved treatment options for HS.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx) was previously approved by the FDA for treatment of  moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in adults, and several other indications including psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Approval for HS was based on the pivotal phase 3 SUNSHINE and SUNRISE trials, which had a combined enrollment of more than 1,000 patients with HS in 40 countries. The studies evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of two dose regimens of the drug in adults with moderate to severe HS at 16 weeks and up to 52 weeks.

According to a press release from Novartis announcing the approval, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, compared with placebo: 44.5% vs. 29.4%, respectively, in the SUNSHINE trial and 38.3.% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

Similarly, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved an HiSCR when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks, compared with placebo: 41.3% vs. 29.4% in the SUNSHINE trial and 42.5% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

In addition, in an exploratory analysis out to 52 weeks, HiSCR values observed at week 16 following either dose regimen of secukinumab were improved over time up to week 52. In SUNSHINE, the values improved by 56.4% in patients treated with secukinumab every 3 weeks and by 56.3% in those treated with secukinumab every 4 weeks. In SUNRISE, the values improved by 65% in patients who were treated with secukinumab every 2 weeks and by 62.2% in those who were treated with the drug every 4 weeks.

In an interview, Haley Naik, MD, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa program at the University of California, San Francisco, characterized the approval as a win for HS patients. “Patients now not only have a second option for approved therapy for HS, but also an option that raises the bar for what we can expect from therapeutic response,” she told this news organization. “I am excited to see a novel therapy that improves HS and quality of life for patients make it through the regulatory pipeline.”

Dr. Naik disclosed that she has received grant support from AbbVie; consulting fees from 23andme, AbbVie, Aristea Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Medscape, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, DAVA Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Union Chimique Belge, and Novartis; investigator fees from Pfizer; and holds shares in Radera. She is also an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology and a board member of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab for adults with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

The development, which was announced Oct. 31, makes secukinumab the first and only interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor approved by the FDA for HS, which affects an estimated 1% of the worldwide population. It joins the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab as the only FDA-approved treatment options for HS.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx) was previously approved by the FDA for treatment of  moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in adults, and several other indications including psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Approval for HS was based on the pivotal phase 3 SUNSHINE and SUNRISE trials, which had a combined enrollment of more than 1,000 patients with HS in 40 countries. The studies evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of two dose regimens of the drug in adults with moderate to severe HS at 16 weeks and up to 52 weeks.

According to a press release from Novartis announcing the approval, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, compared with placebo: 44.5% vs. 29.4%, respectively, in the SUNSHINE trial and 38.3.% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

Similarly, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved an HiSCR when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks, compared with placebo: 41.3% vs. 29.4% in the SUNSHINE trial and 42.5% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

In addition, in an exploratory analysis out to 52 weeks, HiSCR values observed at week 16 following either dose regimen of secukinumab were improved over time up to week 52. In SUNSHINE, the values improved by 56.4% in patients treated with secukinumab every 3 weeks and by 56.3% in those treated with secukinumab every 4 weeks. In SUNRISE, the values improved by 65% in patients who were treated with secukinumab every 2 weeks and by 62.2% in those who were treated with the drug every 4 weeks.

In an interview, Haley Naik, MD, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa program at the University of California, San Francisco, characterized the approval as a win for HS patients. “Patients now not only have a second option for approved therapy for HS, but also an option that raises the bar for what we can expect from therapeutic response,” she told this news organization. “I am excited to see a novel therapy that improves HS and quality of life for patients make it through the regulatory pipeline.”

Dr. Naik disclosed that she has received grant support from AbbVie; consulting fees from 23andme, AbbVie, Aristea Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Medscape, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, DAVA Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Union Chimique Belge, and Novartis; investigator fees from Pfizer; and holds shares in Radera. She is also an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology and a board member of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab for adults with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

The development, which was announced Oct. 31, makes secukinumab the first and only interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor approved by the FDA for HS, which affects an estimated 1% of the worldwide population. It joins the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab as the only FDA-approved treatment options for HS.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx) was previously approved by the FDA for treatment of  moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in adults, and several other indications including psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Approval for HS was based on the pivotal phase 3 SUNSHINE and SUNRISE trials, which had a combined enrollment of more than 1,000 patients with HS in 40 countries. The studies evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of two dose regimens of the drug in adults with moderate to severe HS at 16 weeks and up to 52 weeks.

According to a press release from Novartis announcing the approval, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, compared with placebo: 44.5% vs. 29.4%, respectively, in the SUNSHINE trial and 38.3.% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

Similarly, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved an HiSCR when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks, compared with placebo: 41.3% vs. 29.4% in the SUNSHINE trial and 42.5% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

In addition, in an exploratory analysis out to 52 weeks, HiSCR values observed at week 16 following either dose regimen of secukinumab were improved over time up to week 52. In SUNSHINE, the values improved by 56.4% in patients treated with secukinumab every 3 weeks and by 56.3% in those treated with secukinumab every 4 weeks. In SUNRISE, the values improved by 65% in patients who were treated with secukinumab every 2 weeks and by 62.2% in those who were treated with the drug every 4 weeks.

In an interview, Haley Naik, MD, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa program at the University of California, San Francisco, characterized the approval as a win for HS patients. “Patients now not only have a second option for approved therapy for HS, but also an option that raises the bar for what we can expect from therapeutic response,” she told this news organization. “I am excited to see a novel therapy that improves HS and quality of life for patients make it through the regulatory pipeline.”

Dr. Naik disclosed that she has received grant support from AbbVie; consulting fees from 23andme, AbbVie, Aristea Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Medscape, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, DAVA Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Union Chimique Belge, and Novartis; investigator fees from Pfizer; and holds shares in Radera. She is also an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology and a board member of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an expanded indication for abatacept (Orencia) for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in pediatric patients aged 2 years and older.

Juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA) is a form of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). It is a rare condition, and it is estimated that as many as 5% of children with JIA have JPsA.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“The FDA’s approval of expanding Orencia’s indication adds a much-needed treatment option for children with JPsA, a rare, potentially serious condition characterized by chronic inflammation and joint damage,” said Carlos Dortrait, senior vice president of U.S. immunology at Bristol-Myers Squibb in a statement. BMS is the manufacturer of abatacept.

Abatacept was first approved in 2005 for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis and was approved for treating active PsA in adults in 2017. In 2008, the drug was the first intravenous biologic approved for patients 6 years old and older to treat moderately to severely active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA). In 2017, a subcutaneous administration option was approved for children 2 years old and older with pJIA, according to a BMS press release.

This expanded approval was based on controlled studies of abatacept in adults with PsA; pharmacokinetic data from adults with RA, adults with PsA, and children with pJIA; and safety data from clinical studies in patients aged 2-17 years with pJIA.

“Children living with psoriatic arthritis can experience a number of challenging symptoms including swollen and painful joints,” Steven Taylor, president and CEO of the Arthritis Foundation, said in a BMS statement. “The FDA’s approval of Orencia for JPsA in patients 2 years of age and older means another treatment option is available to manage this rare chronic disease, which is exciting news for the arthritis community of young patients, their caregivers, and health care professionals.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an expanded indication for abatacept (Orencia) for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in pediatric patients aged 2 years and older.

Juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA) is a form of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). It is a rare condition, and it is estimated that as many as 5% of children with JIA have JPsA.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“The FDA’s approval of expanding Orencia’s indication adds a much-needed treatment option for children with JPsA, a rare, potentially serious condition characterized by chronic inflammation and joint damage,” said Carlos Dortrait, senior vice president of U.S. immunology at Bristol-Myers Squibb in a statement. BMS is the manufacturer of abatacept.

Abatacept was first approved in 2005 for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis and was approved for treating active PsA in adults in 2017. In 2008, the drug was the first intravenous biologic approved for patients 6 years old and older to treat moderately to severely active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA). In 2017, a subcutaneous administration option was approved for children 2 years old and older with pJIA, according to a BMS press release.

This expanded approval was based on controlled studies of abatacept in adults with PsA; pharmacokinetic data from adults with RA, adults with PsA, and children with pJIA; and safety data from clinical studies in patients aged 2-17 years with pJIA.

“Children living with psoriatic arthritis can experience a number of challenging symptoms including swollen and painful joints,” Steven Taylor, president and CEO of the Arthritis Foundation, said in a BMS statement. “The FDA’s approval of Orencia for JPsA in patients 2 years of age and older means another treatment option is available to manage this rare chronic disease, which is exciting news for the arthritis community of young patients, their caregivers, and health care professionals.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an expanded indication for abatacept (Orencia) for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in pediatric patients aged 2 years and older.

Juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA) is a form of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). It is a rare condition, and it is estimated that as many as 5% of children with JIA have JPsA.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“The FDA’s approval of expanding Orencia’s indication adds a much-needed treatment option for children with JPsA, a rare, potentially serious condition characterized by chronic inflammation and joint damage,” said Carlos Dortrait, senior vice president of U.S. immunology at Bristol-Myers Squibb in a statement. BMS is the manufacturer of abatacept.

Abatacept was first approved in 2005 for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis and was approved for treating active PsA in adults in 2017. In 2008, the drug was the first intravenous biologic approved for patients 6 years old and older to treat moderately to severely active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA). In 2017, a subcutaneous administration option was approved for children 2 years old and older with pJIA, according to a BMS press release.

This expanded approval was based on controlled studies of abatacept in adults with PsA; pharmacokinetic data from adults with RA, adults with PsA, and children with pJIA; and safety data from clinical studies in patients aged 2-17 years with pJIA.

“Children living with psoriatic arthritis can experience a number of challenging symptoms including swollen and painful joints,” Steven Taylor, president and CEO of the Arthritis Foundation, said in a BMS statement. “The FDA’s approval of Orencia for JPsA in patients 2 years of age and older means another treatment option is available to manage this rare chronic disease, which is exciting news for the arthritis community of young patients, their caregivers, and health care professionals.”

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

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.

Key data on lung cancer presented at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2023 meeting focused on eligibility for lung cancer screening, nonadherence to follow-up scans, and race-neutral interpretations of pulmonary function tests in preparation for lobectomy, as reported by Dr Lynn Tanoue of the Yale School of Medicine. Dr Tanoue discusses a study of 1 million people screened for lung cancer using low-dose CT imaging. The study found that 38% of those who did not meet the 2013 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) criteria for screening would now be eligible under the updated 2021 USPTF recommendations.  

The study also showed a lack of adherence to follow-up screening, indicating that only 22% of screened persons returned after 1 year for a subsequent scan. Nonadherence was more common in Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals without insurance. Dr Tanoue highlights the importance of adherence for return screening, noting that two thirds of cancers detected in the National Lung Screening Trial were diagnosed after the initial scan. 

Dr Tanoue also reviews a study examining the implications of adopting a race-neutral interpretation of pulmonary function tests for patients being considered for thoracic surgery. The study looked at data for 3,000 patients who underwent lobectomy at MD Anderson Cancer Center over 20 years and found that 85% were White individuals. Of importance, no difference was found between race-neutral or race-specific models in the association of lung function with risk for pulmonary complications. 

--

Lynn T. Tanoue, MD, FCCP, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 

Lynn T. Tanoue, MD, FCCP, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Key data on lung cancer presented at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2023 meeting focused on eligibility for lung cancer screening, nonadherence to follow-up scans, and race-neutral interpretations of pulmonary function tests in preparation for lobectomy, as reported by Dr Lynn Tanoue of the Yale School of Medicine. Dr Tanoue discusses a study of 1 million people screened for lung cancer using low-dose CT imaging. The study found that 38% of those who did not meet the 2013 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) criteria for screening would now be eligible under the updated 2021 USPTF recommendations.  

The study also showed a lack of adherence to follow-up screening, indicating that only 22% of screened persons returned after 1 year for a subsequent scan. Nonadherence was more common in Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals without insurance. Dr Tanoue highlights the importance of adherence for return screening, noting that two thirds of cancers detected in the National Lung Screening Trial were diagnosed after the initial scan. 

Dr Tanoue also reviews a study examining the implications of adopting a race-neutral interpretation of pulmonary function tests for patients being considered for thoracic surgery. The study looked at data for 3,000 patients who underwent lobectomy at MD Anderson Cancer Center over 20 years and found that 85% were White individuals. Of importance, no difference was found between race-neutral or race-specific models in the association of lung function with risk for pulmonary complications. 

--

Lynn T. Tanoue, MD, FCCP, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 

Lynn T. Tanoue, MD, FCCP, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Key data on lung cancer presented at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2023 meeting focused on eligibility for lung cancer screening, nonadherence to follow-up scans, and race-neutral interpretations of pulmonary function tests in preparation for lobectomy, as reported by Dr Lynn Tanoue of the Yale School of Medicine. Dr Tanoue discusses a study of 1 million people screened for lung cancer using low-dose CT imaging. The study found that 38% of those who did not meet the 2013 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) criteria for screening would now be eligible under the updated 2021 USPTF recommendations.  

The study also showed a lack of adherence to follow-up screening, indicating that only 22% of screened persons returned after 1 year for a subsequent scan. Nonadherence was more common in Black individuals, Hispanic individuals, and individuals without insurance. Dr Tanoue highlights the importance of adherence for return screening, noting that two thirds of cancers detected in the National Lung Screening Trial were diagnosed after the initial scan. 

Dr Tanoue also reviews a study examining the implications of adopting a race-neutral interpretation of pulmonary function tests for patients being considered for thoracic surgery. The study looked at data for 3,000 patients who underwent lobectomy at MD Anderson Cancer Center over 20 years and found that 85% were White individuals. Of importance, no difference was found between race-neutral or race-specific models in the association of lung function with risk for pulmonary complications. 

--

Lynn T. Tanoue, MD, FCCP, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 

Lynn T. Tanoue, MD, FCCP, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

In patients with node-positive and locally advanced breast cancer (BC), postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) decreases risk for recurrence and improves survival (Mutter et al). Proton therapy is an attractive newer way to deliver PMRT compared with photon-based methods and allows improved sparing of cardiopulmonary and other normal tissue. The phase 2 MC1631 trial included 82 patients with BC who underwent mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction and who were randomly assigned to receive either conventional fractionated (50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy) or hypofractionated (40.05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2.67 Gy) proton PMRT. At a median follow-up of 39.3 months, both conventional fractionated and hypofractionated proton PMRT had similar complication rates (15% vs 20%; absolute difference 4.9%; one-sided 95% CI 18.5; P = .27), with most complications occurring in patients with immediate expander or implant-based reconstruction. Noninferiority of the hypofractionation group could not be determined after a median follow-up of 39 months. However, no isolated local regional recurrences in either treatment arm were seen. This study provides the first prospective, randomized data of hypofractionated proton PMRT. Further data are awaited to support this approach. 

In patients with metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, PIK3CA-mutant BC, the combination of fulvestrant with alpelisib improves progression-free survival per the SOLAR-1 study.1 Higher rates of hyperglycemia observed among patients treated with alpelisib have led to alpelisib dose reductions, treatment delays, and discontinuation of the drug. In a retrospective cohort study of 247 patients with metastatic BC who received alpelisib either as standard care (n = 147) or in a clinical trial setting (n = 100), 61.5% of patients developed any-grade hyperglycemia (Shen et al). The rate of hyperglycemia was considerably higher in patients who received alpelisib as part of standard care vs clinical trial (80.3% vs 34.0%). Baseline body mass index ≥ 25 (P = .036) and A1c levels in the prediabetes and diabetes range were significantly associated with the development of any-grade hyperglycemia (P = .036 and P < .001, respectively) and grade 3-4 hyperglycemia (P < .001 for both). A total of 4.5% of patients discontinued alpelisib owing to hyperglycemia, 17% of patients required dose reductions, and in 27% of patients alpelisib was held until resolution of hyperglycemia. This study highlights the importance of the management of comorbidities before alpelisib treatment to ensure lower rates of adverse events. 

Patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) is a novel HER3-targeted antibody-drug conjugate that is being evaluated in HER3-expressing metastatic BC. The U31402-A-J101 study is a phase 1/2 trial including 182 heavily pretreated patients (median of five prior therapies) with HER3-expressing advanced BC who received HER3-DXd (Krop et al). The objective response rate was 30.1% (95% CI 21.8%-39.4%) in HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative BC, 22.6% (95% CI 12.3%-36.2%) in triple-negative BC, and 42.9% (95% CI 17.1%-71.1%) in HER2-positive BC. Although 71.4% of patients reported grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE), the overall rate of treatment discontinuation due to TEAE was low (9.9%). These findings demonstrate an encouraging efficacy and a manageable safety profile for patritumab deruxtecan in previously treated patients with BC across all subtypes. Further studies are awaited to confirm these findings and whether prior treatment with antibody-drug conjugate will affect the activity of this drug.

A retrospective analysis of a cohort including 149 patients with metastatic BC looked at predictors of prognosis in patients who had brain metastases and underwent stereotactic radiosurgery (Depner et al). The median overall survival was 14.8 months for the entire cohort. Receptor profiles and the presence of extracranial visceral metastases were significant predictors of prognosis. Overall survival outcomes worsened in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)–negative, HER2-negative BC (hazard ratio 2.00; 95% CI 1.09-3.67) but were better in those with ER-positive, HER2-positive BC (hazard ratio 0.43; 95% CI 0.19-0.96). Furthermore, the presence of extracranial visceral metastases was associated with poor survival outcomes (hazard ratio 2.90; 95% CI 1.53-5.50)

Additional Reference
1.    André F et al, for the SOLAR-1 Study Group. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1929-1940. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1813904
 

In patients with node-positive and locally advanced breast cancer (BC), postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) decreases risk for recurrence and improves survival (Mutter et al). Proton therapy is an attractive newer way to deliver PMRT compared with photon-based methods and allows improved sparing of cardiopulmonary and other normal tissue. The phase 2 MC1631 trial included 82 patients with BC who underwent mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction and who were randomly assigned to receive either conventional fractionated (50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy) or hypofractionated (40.05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2.67 Gy) proton PMRT. At a median follow-up of 39.3 months, both conventional fractionated and hypofractionated proton PMRT had similar complication rates (15% vs 20%; absolute difference 4.9%; one-sided 95% CI 18.5; P = .27), with most complications occurring in patients with immediate expander or implant-based reconstruction. Noninferiority of the hypofractionation group could not be determined after a median follow-up of 39 months. However, no isolated local regional recurrences in either treatment arm were seen. This study provides the first prospective, randomized data of hypofractionated proton PMRT. Further data are awaited to support this approach. 

In patients with metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, PIK3CA-mutant BC, the combination of fulvestrant with alpelisib improves progression-free survival per the SOLAR-1 study.1 Higher rates of hyperglycemia observed among patients treated with alpelisib have led to alpelisib dose reductions, treatment delays, and discontinuation of the drug. In a retrospective cohort study of 247 patients with metastatic BC who received alpelisib either as standard care (n = 147) or in a clinical trial setting (n = 100), 61.5% of patients developed any-grade hyperglycemia (Shen et al). The rate of hyperglycemia was considerably higher in patients who received alpelisib as part of standard care vs clinical trial (80.3% vs 34.0%). Baseline body mass index ≥ 25 (P = .036) and A1c levels in the prediabetes and diabetes range were significantly associated with the development of any-grade hyperglycemia (P = .036 and P < .001, respectively) and grade 3-4 hyperglycemia (P < .001 for both). A total of 4.5% of patients discontinued alpelisib owing to hyperglycemia, 17% of patients required dose reductions, and in 27% of patients alpelisib was held until resolution of hyperglycemia. This study highlights the importance of the management of comorbidities before alpelisib treatment to ensure lower rates of adverse events. 

Patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) is a novel HER3-targeted antibody-drug conjugate that is being evaluated in HER3-expressing metastatic BC. The U31402-A-J101 study is a phase 1/2 trial including 182 heavily pretreated patients (median of five prior therapies) with HER3-expressing advanced BC who received HER3-DXd (Krop et al). The objective response rate was 30.1% (95% CI 21.8%-39.4%) in HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative BC, 22.6% (95% CI 12.3%-36.2%) in triple-negative BC, and 42.9% (95% CI 17.1%-71.1%) in HER2-positive BC. Although 71.4% of patients reported grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE), the overall rate of treatment discontinuation due to TEAE was low (9.9%). These findings demonstrate an encouraging efficacy and a manageable safety profile for patritumab deruxtecan in previously treated patients with BC across all subtypes. Further studies are awaited to confirm these findings and whether prior treatment with antibody-drug conjugate will affect the activity of this drug.

A retrospective analysis of a cohort including 149 patients with metastatic BC looked at predictors of prognosis in patients who had brain metastases and underwent stereotactic radiosurgery (Depner et al). The median overall survival was 14.8 months for the entire cohort. Receptor profiles and the presence of extracranial visceral metastases were significant predictors of prognosis. Overall survival outcomes worsened in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)–negative, HER2-negative BC (hazard ratio 2.00; 95% CI 1.09-3.67) but were better in those with ER-positive, HER2-positive BC (hazard ratio 0.43; 95% CI 0.19-0.96). Furthermore, the presence of extracranial visceral metastases was associated with poor survival outcomes (hazard ratio 2.90; 95% CI 1.53-5.50)

Additional Reference
1.    André F et al, for the SOLAR-1 Study Group. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1929-1940. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1813904
 

In patients with node-positive and locally advanced breast cancer (BC), postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) decreases risk for recurrence and improves survival (Mutter et al). Proton therapy is an attractive newer way to deliver PMRT compared with photon-based methods and allows improved sparing of cardiopulmonary and other normal tissue. The phase 2 MC1631 trial included 82 patients with BC who underwent mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction and who were randomly assigned to receive either conventional fractionated (50 Gy in 25 fractions of 2 Gy) or hypofractionated (40.05 Gy in 15 fractions of 2.67 Gy) proton PMRT. At a median follow-up of 39.3 months, both conventional fractionated and hypofractionated proton PMRT had similar complication rates (15% vs 20%; absolute difference 4.9%; one-sided 95% CI 18.5; P = .27), with most complications occurring in patients with immediate expander or implant-based reconstruction. Noninferiority of the hypofractionation group could not be determined after a median follow-up of 39 months. However, no isolated local regional recurrences in either treatment arm were seen. This study provides the first prospective, randomized data of hypofractionated proton PMRT. Further data are awaited to support this approach. 

In patients with metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, PIK3CA-mutant BC, the combination of fulvestrant with alpelisib improves progression-free survival per the SOLAR-1 study.1 Higher rates of hyperglycemia observed among patients treated with alpelisib have led to alpelisib dose reductions, treatment delays, and discontinuation of the drug. In a retrospective cohort study of 247 patients with metastatic BC who received alpelisib either as standard care (n = 147) or in a clinical trial setting (n = 100), 61.5% of patients developed any-grade hyperglycemia (Shen et al). The rate of hyperglycemia was considerably higher in patients who received alpelisib as part of standard care vs clinical trial (80.3% vs 34.0%). Baseline body mass index ≥ 25 (P = .036) and A1c levels in the prediabetes and diabetes range were significantly associated with the development of any-grade hyperglycemia (P = .036 and P < .001, respectively) and grade 3-4 hyperglycemia (P < .001 for both). A total of 4.5% of patients discontinued alpelisib owing to hyperglycemia, 17% of patients required dose reductions, and in 27% of patients alpelisib was held until resolution of hyperglycemia. This study highlights the importance of the management of comorbidities before alpelisib treatment to ensure lower rates of adverse events. 

Patritumab deruxtecan (HER3-DXd) is a novel HER3-targeted antibody-drug conjugate that is being evaluated in HER3-expressing metastatic BC. The U31402-A-J101 study is a phase 1/2 trial including 182 heavily pretreated patients (median of five prior therapies) with HER3-expressing advanced BC who received HER3-DXd (Krop et al). The objective response rate was 30.1% (95% CI 21.8%-39.4%) in HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative BC, 22.6% (95% CI 12.3%-36.2%) in triple-negative BC, and 42.9% (95% CI 17.1%-71.1%) in HER2-positive BC. Although 71.4% of patients reported grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE), the overall rate of treatment discontinuation due to TEAE was low (9.9%). These findings demonstrate an encouraging efficacy and a manageable safety profile for patritumab deruxtecan in previously treated patients with BC across all subtypes. Further studies are awaited to confirm these findings and whether prior treatment with antibody-drug conjugate will affect the activity of this drug.

A retrospective analysis of a cohort including 149 patients with metastatic BC looked at predictors of prognosis in patients who had brain metastases and underwent stereotactic radiosurgery (Depner et al). The median overall survival was 14.8 months for the entire cohort. Receptor profiles and the presence of extracranial visceral metastases were significant predictors of prognosis. Overall survival outcomes worsened in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)–negative, HER2-negative BC (hazard ratio 2.00; 95% CI 1.09-3.67) but were better in those with ER-positive, HER2-positive BC (hazard ratio 0.43; 95% CI 0.19-0.96). Furthermore, the presence of extracranial visceral metastases was associated with poor survival outcomes (hazard ratio 2.90; 95% CI 1.53-5.50)

Additional Reference
1.    André F et al, for the SOLAR-1 Study Group. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1929-1940. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1813904
 

HONOLULU – Old habits die hard, especially when it comes to pulmonary function testing in a diverse population of patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Specifically, pulmonary care clinicians may be habitually relying on outdated and inaccurate race-specific reference values when evaluating respiratory impairment in persons of African and Hispanic/Latino ancestry, which can result in underrecognition, underdiagnosis, and undertreatment, reported Ayodeji Adegunsoye, MD, from the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“Our results make a compelling case for re-evaluating the use of race as a physiological variable, and highlight the need to offer equitable and optimal care for all patients, regardless of their race or ethnicity,” Dr. Adegunsoye said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

Flawed assumptions

In an interview, Dr. Adegunsoye noted that race-specific notions, such as the automatic assumption that Black people have less lung capacity than White people, are baked into clinical practice and passed on as clinical wisdom from one generation of clinicians to the next.

Pulmonary function reference values that are used to make a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Black or Hispanic/Latino patients “appear flawed when we use race-specific values. And beyond the diagnosis, it also appears to impact eligibility for key interventional strategies for managing the disease itself,” he said.

The use of race-specific equations can falsely inflate percent-predicted pulmonary function values in non-White patients, and make it seem as if a patient has normal lung function when in fact he may be have impaired function.

For example, using race-based reference values a Black patient and a White patient may appear to have the same absolute forced vital capacity readings, but different FVC percent predicted (FVCpp), which can mean a missed diagnosis.

Investigators who studied the association between self-identified race and visually identified emphysema among 2,674 participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study found that using standard equations to adjust for racial differences in lung-function measures appeared to miss emphysema in a significant proportion of Black patients.
 

PF registry study

In the current study, to see whether the use of race-neutral equations for evaluating FVCpp could change access to health care in patients with ILD, Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues used both race-specific and race-neutral equations to calculate FVCpp values among separate cohorts of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White patients enrolled in the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry who had pulmonary functions test within about 90 days of enrollment.

The race-specific equations used to calculate FVCpp was that published in 1999 by Hankinson and colleagues in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The race-neutral Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) equations by Bowerman and colleagues were developed in 2022 and published in March 2023 in the same journal.

The investigators defined access to care as enrollment in ILD clinical trials for patients with FVCpp greater than 45% but less than 90%, and US payer access to antifibrotic therapy for patients with FVCpp of greater than 55% but less than 82%.

They found that 22% of Black patients were misclassified in their eligibility for clinical trials in each of two scenarios – those who would be excluded from trials using the 1999 criteria but included using the 2022 criteria, and vice versa, that is included with 1999 criteria but excluded by the 2022 GLI criteria. In contrast, 14% of Hispanic Latino patients and 12% of White patients were misclassified.

Using the 1999 criteria to exclude patients because their values were ostensibly higher than the upper cutoff meant that 10.3% of Black patients who might benefit would be ineligible for clinical trial, compared with 0% of Hispanic/Latinos and 0.1% of Whites.

Similarly, 11.5% of Black patients but no Hispanic/Latino or White patients would be considered eligible for clinical trials using the old criteria but ineligible under the new criteria.

Regarding antifibrotic therapy eligibility, the respective misclassification rates were 21%, 17%, and 19%.­

“Our study showed that use of race-specific equations may confound lung function tests, potentially leading to misclassification, delayed diagnosis, and inadequate treatment provision. While our study suggests potential disparities in access to health care for patients with interstitial lung disease facilitated by race-specific equations, further research is required to fully comprehend the implications,” the investigators wrote.
 

ATS statement

In an interview, Juan Wisnievsky, MD, DrPh, from Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, who also chairs the Health Equity and Diversity Committee for the American Thoracic Society, pointed to a recent ATS statement he coauthored citing evidence for replacing race and ethnicity-specific equations with race-neutral average reference equations.

“This use of race and ethnicity may contribute to health disparities by norming differences in pulmonary function. In the United States and globally, race serves as a social construct that is based on appearance and reflects social values, structures, and practices. Classification of people into racial and ethnic groups differs geographically and temporally. These considerations challenge the notion that racial and ethnic categories have biological meaning and question the use of race in PFT interpretation,” the statement authors wrote.

“There is some agreement that race-based equations shouldn’t be used, but all the potential consequences of doing that and which equations would be the best ones to use to replace them is a bit unclear,” Dr. Wisnievsky said.

He was not involved in the study by Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues.

Data used in the study were derived from research sponsored by F. Hoffman–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Adegunsoye disclosed consultancy fees from AbbVie, Inogen, F. Hoffman–La Roche, Medscape, and PatientMpower; speaking/advisory fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and grants/award from the CHEST Foundation, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wisnievsky had no relevant disclosures.

HONOLULU – Old habits die hard, especially when it comes to pulmonary function testing in a diverse population of patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Specifically, pulmonary care clinicians may be habitually relying on outdated and inaccurate race-specific reference values when evaluating respiratory impairment in persons of African and Hispanic/Latino ancestry, which can result in underrecognition, underdiagnosis, and undertreatment, reported Ayodeji Adegunsoye, MD, from the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“Our results make a compelling case for re-evaluating the use of race as a physiological variable, and highlight the need to offer equitable and optimal care for all patients, regardless of their race or ethnicity,” Dr. Adegunsoye said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

Flawed assumptions

In an interview, Dr. Adegunsoye noted that race-specific notions, such as the automatic assumption that Black people have less lung capacity than White people, are baked into clinical practice and passed on as clinical wisdom from one generation of clinicians to the next.

Pulmonary function reference values that are used to make a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Black or Hispanic/Latino patients “appear flawed when we use race-specific values. And beyond the diagnosis, it also appears to impact eligibility for key interventional strategies for managing the disease itself,” he said.

The use of race-specific equations can falsely inflate percent-predicted pulmonary function values in non-White patients, and make it seem as if a patient has normal lung function when in fact he may be have impaired function.

For example, using race-based reference values a Black patient and a White patient may appear to have the same absolute forced vital capacity readings, but different FVC percent predicted (FVCpp), which can mean a missed diagnosis.

Investigators who studied the association between self-identified race and visually identified emphysema among 2,674 participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study found that using standard equations to adjust for racial differences in lung-function measures appeared to miss emphysema in a significant proportion of Black patients.
 

PF registry study

In the current study, to see whether the use of race-neutral equations for evaluating FVCpp could change access to health care in patients with ILD, Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues used both race-specific and race-neutral equations to calculate FVCpp values among separate cohorts of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White patients enrolled in the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry who had pulmonary functions test within about 90 days of enrollment.

The race-specific equations used to calculate FVCpp was that published in 1999 by Hankinson and colleagues in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The race-neutral Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) equations by Bowerman and colleagues were developed in 2022 and published in March 2023 in the same journal.

The investigators defined access to care as enrollment in ILD clinical trials for patients with FVCpp greater than 45% but less than 90%, and US payer access to antifibrotic therapy for patients with FVCpp of greater than 55% but less than 82%.

They found that 22% of Black patients were misclassified in their eligibility for clinical trials in each of two scenarios – those who would be excluded from trials using the 1999 criteria but included using the 2022 criteria, and vice versa, that is included with 1999 criteria but excluded by the 2022 GLI criteria. In contrast, 14% of Hispanic Latino patients and 12% of White patients were misclassified.

Using the 1999 criteria to exclude patients because their values were ostensibly higher than the upper cutoff meant that 10.3% of Black patients who might benefit would be ineligible for clinical trial, compared with 0% of Hispanic/Latinos and 0.1% of Whites.

Similarly, 11.5% of Black patients but no Hispanic/Latino or White patients would be considered eligible for clinical trials using the old criteria but ineligible under the new criteria.

Regarding antifibrotic therapy eligibility, the respective misclassification rates were 21%, 17%, and 19%.­

“Our study showed that use of race-specific equations may confound lung function tests, potentially leading to misclassification, delayed diagnosis, and inadequate treatment provision. While our study suggests potential disparities in access to health care for patients with interstitial lung disease facilitated by race-specific equations, further research is required to fully comprehend the implications,” the investigators wrote.
 

ATS statement

In an interview, Juan Wisnievsky, MD, DrPh, from Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, who also chairs the Health Equity and Diversity Committee for the American Thoracic Society, pointed to a recent ATS statement he coauthored citing evidence for replacing race and ethnicity-specific equations with race-neutral average reference equations.

“This use of race and ethnicity may contribute to health disparities by norming differences in pulmonary function. In the United States and globally, race serves as a social construct that is based on appearance and reflects social values, structures, and practices. Classification of people into racial and ethnic groups differs geographically and temporally. These considerations challenge the notion that racial and ethnic categories have biological meaning and question the use of race in PFT interpretation,” the statement authors wrote.

“There is some agreement that race-based equations shouldn’t be used, but all the potential consequences of doing that and which equations would be the best ones to use to replace them is a bit unclear,” Dr. Wisnievsky said.

He was not involved in the study by Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues.

Data used in the study were derived from research sponsored by F. Hoffman–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Adegunsoye disclosed consultancy fees from AbbVie, Inogen, F. Hoffman–La Roche, Medscape, and PatientMpower; speaking/advisory fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and grants/award from the CHEST Foundation, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wisnievsky had no relevant disclosures.

HONOLULU – Old habits die hard, especially when it comes to pulmonary function testing in a diverse population of patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Specifically, pulmonary care clinicians may be habitually relying on outdated and inaccurate race-specific reference values when evaluating respiratory impairment in persons of African and Hispanic/Latino ancestry, which can result in underrecognition, underdiagnosis, and undertreatment, reported Ayodeji Adegunsoye, MD, from the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“Our results make a compelling case for re-evaluating the use of race as a physiological variable, and highlight the need to offer equitable and optimal care for all patients, regardless of their race or ethnicity,” Dr. Adegunsoye said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).
 

Flawed assumptions

In an interview, Dr. Adegunsoye noted that race-specific notions, such as the automatic assumption that Black people have less lung capacity than White people, are baked into clinical practice and passed on as clinical wisdom from one generation of clinicians to the next.

Pulmonary function reference values that are used to make a diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Black or Hispanic/Latino patients “appear flawed when we use race-specific values. And beyond the diagnosis, it also appears to impact eligibility for key interventional strategies for managing the disease itself,” he said.

The use of race-specific equations can falsely inflate percent-predicted pulmonary function values in non-White patients, and make it seem as if a patient has normal lung function when in fact he may be have impaired function.

For example, using race-based reference values a Black patient and a White patient may appear to have the same absolute forced vital capacity readings, but different FVC percent predicted (FVCpp), which can mean a missed diagnosis.

Investigators who studied the association between self-identified race and visually identified emphysema among 2,674 participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study found that using standard equations to adjust for racial differences in lung-function measures appeared to miss emphysema in a significant proportion of Black patients.
 

PF registry study

In the current study, to see whether the use of race-neutral equations for evaluating FVCpp could change access to health care in patients with ILD, Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues used both race-specific and race-neutral equations to calculate FVCpp values among separate cohorts of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White patients enrolled in the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry who had pulmonary functions test within about 90 days of enrollment.

The race-specific equations used to calculate FVCpp was that published in 1999 by Hankinson and colleagues in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The race-neutral Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) equations by Bowerman and colleagues were developed in 2022 and published in March 2023 in the same journal.

The investigators defined access to care as enrollment in ILD clinical trials for patients with FVCpp greater than 45% but less than 90%, and US payer access to antifibrotic therapy for patients with FVCpp of greater than 55% but less than 82%.

They found that 22% of Black patients were misclassified in their eligibility for clinical trials in each of two scenarios – those who would be excluded from trials using the 1999 criteria but included using the 2022 criteria, and vice versa, that is included with 1999 criteria but excluded by the 2022 GLI criteria. In contrast, 14% of Hispanic Latino patients and 12% of White patients were misclassified.

Using the 1999 criteria to exclude patients because their values were ostensibly higher than the upper cutoff meant that 10.3% of Black patients who might benefit would be ineligible for clinical trial, compared with 0% of Hispanic/Latinos and 0.1% of Whites.

Similarly, 11.5% of Black patients but no Hispanic/Latino or White patients would be considered eligible for clinical trials using the old criteria but ineligible under the new criteria.

Regarding antifibrotic therapy eligibility, the respective misclassification rates were 21%, 17%, and 19%.­

“Our study showed that use of race-specific equations may confound lung function tests, potentially leading to misclassification, delayed diagnosis, and inadequate treatment provision. While our study suggests potential disparities in access to health care for patients with interstitial lung disease facilitated by race-specific equations, further research is required to fully comprehend the implications,” the investigators wrote.
 

ATS statement

In an interview, Juan Wisnievsky, MD, DrPh, from Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, who also chairs the Health Equity and Diversity Committee for the American Thoracic Society, pointed to a recent ATS statement he coauthored citing evidence for replacing race and ethnicity-specific equations with race-neutral average reference equations.

“This use of race and ethnicity may contribute to health disparities by norming differences in pulmonary function. In the United States and globally, race serves as a social construct that is based on appearance and reflects social values, structures, and practices. Classification of people into racial and ethnic groups differs geographically and temporally. These considerations challenge the notion that racial and ethnic categories have biological meaning and question the use of race in PFT interpretation,” the statement authors wrote.

“There is some agreement that race-based equations shouldn’t be used, but all the potential consequences of doing that and which equations would be the best ones to use to replace them is a bit unclear,” Dr. Wisnievsky said.

He was not involved in the study by Dr. Adegunsoye and colleagues.

Data used in the study were derived from research sponsored by F. Hoffman–La Roche and Genentech. Dr. Adegunsoye disclosed consultancy fees from AbbVie, Inogen, F. Hoffman–La Roche, Medscape, and PatientMpower; speaking/advisory fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and grants/award from the CHEST Foundation, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wisnievsky had no relevant disclosures.

Treatment with PD-1 inhibitor toripalimab along with radiation therapy improves outcomes in patients with stage I/II extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma who don’t achieve a complete response to initial chemotherapy, while pretreatment mutational profiles offer clues as to which patients may respond to such anti-PD-1 treatments, according to studies presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.

“We found that toripalimab combined with radiotherapy is safe and has promising efficacy for stage I/II extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma [patients] who have poor response after previous standard chemotherapy,” said first author Ming Jiang, MD, of the department of medical oncology, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

“This combined strategy can not only improve patient efficacy but also avoid unnecessary medication, and is worth further exploration,” she said in a presentation at ESMO on Oct. 27 in Madrid. The current standard of care for extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is L-asparaginase or pegaspargase-based multi-agent chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy.

However, for patients who fail to respond to first-line treatment, the prognosis is poor: The median progression-free survival of those patients is approximately 4.5 months, with a median overall survival of about 6.4 months, Dr. Jiang explained.

“There is a need to establish a better first-line treatment for this group of patients,” she said.

In the prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 study, Dr. Jiang and her colleagues enrolled patients with stage 1 and 2 extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma who had failed to achieve a complete response following 2-3 cycles of multi-agent chemotherapy.

Of the patients, eight (36.4%) had partial response, eight (36.2%) had stable disease, and six (27.2%) had progressive disease after the chemotherapy.

The patients were treated with toripalimab at 240 mg, once every 3 weeks, plus radiotherapy at a dose of 56 Gy, sequentially with or without two to four cycles of chemotherapy.

Patients who did not have disease progression were then continued with toripalimab for 1 year or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

The 22 patients had a median age of 45 (range 26-64) and 14 were male. Most were stage 1 (77.3%; 17) and the remaining were stage 2, while 81% had primary tumor invasion.

For the primary endpoint, at 3 months following radiotherapy, the overall response rate was 90.9%, with 17 patients (77.3%) having a complete response, 3 (13.6%) a partial response, and 2 (9.1%) having progressive disease.

Eight who had responded to previous chemotherapy received two additional chemotherapy cycles after completion of radiotherapy, while the others were treated with toripalimab alone.

With a median follow-up of 23 months (range 3-78), the 2-year progression-free survival was 81.6%, and overall survival was 95.0%.

Two of three patients with a partial response had a recurrence after radiotherapy at 5 and 10 months; one of the complete-response patients had a recurrence at 60 months, and two patients with progressive disease died at 9 months after radiotherapy.

In terms of safety, the most common adverse events during and after radiotherapy included oral mucositis and hypothyroidism. No adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported.

Dr. Jiang speculated that “radiotherapy could synergize PD-1 inhibitors,” and she urged that “optimal radiotherapy and PD-1 inhibitor administration plans should be further explored.”
 

Genetic factors

Additional research presented in that ESMO session offered insights into the genetic factors that may play key roles in either response or resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL), of which extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is a subtype.

The findings are from a genetic analysis of a phase 2 trial that demonstrated benefits the PD-1 inhibitor geptanolimab in patients with PTCL who failed initial chemotherapy.

Specifically, geptanolimab treatment was associated with an objective response rate of 40.4%, a complete response rate of 14.6%, and partial response rate of 25.8%.

Of 44 patients who had been treated with geptanolimab and had next-generation sequencing genetic data available, PD-L1 expression was found to be significantly elevated among those who had a complete or partial response, whereas PD-L1 expression was lower among those who had disease progression, which is consistent with previous research suggesting that low PD-L1 expression is linked to poorer response to anti-PD-1 therapies.

Tumor mutation burden did not exhibit significant prognostic value. However, the authors noted that this may be confounded by variation across PTCL subtypes.

Among other key findings were that JAK3 and EZH2 mutations, which are among the top genes frequently mutated in PTCL and extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, were consistently associated with low PD-L1 expression (P < .05) and shorter progression-free survival (HR 5.97; P = .027, JAK3, and HR 4.76; P = .027 EZH2).

“Notably, we found JAK3 mutations, which are vital and prevalent in PTCL, reduced PD-L1 levels in vivo and in vitro, which are of great clinical and biological sense,” said the study’s first author, Ning Lou, MD, of the Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.

Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand in Dijon, France, said that the findings are especially notable in relation to extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma.

“The clinical relevance of anti PD1 is mainly observed in relapsing/recurrent extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, and much less in other T-cell lymphoma subtypes,” he told this news organization.

“So identifying molecular events associated with the chance of response to a PD1 blocker in relapsing extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is important as PD1-blockers are recommended to treat [those] patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.

Furthermore, “the interest of next-generation sequencing to identify JAK3 mutations associated with low level of PDL1 expression and weak response to anti PD1 blockers is important as JAK3 mutated tumors are potentially targetable by JAK inhibitors such as tofacitinib,” he said.

“Obviously this assumption has to be tested in clinical trials but it’s an interesting lead.”

The research on toripalimab additionally shows that “the combination of radiotherapy and PD1 blockers provides a high response rate in patients who are nonresponders to asparaginase-based chemotherapy on the basis of PET evaluation and could be a new option for optimizing the first line treatment of extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.

The authors and Dr. Casasnovas had no disclosures to report.

Treatment with PD-1 inhibitor toripalimab along with radiation therapy improves outcomes in patients with stage I/II extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma who don’t achieve a complete response to initial chemotherapy, while pretreatment mutational profiles offer clues as to which patients may respond to such anti-PD-1 treatments, according to studies presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.

“We found that toripalimab combined with radiotherapy is safe and has promising efficacy for stage I/II extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma [patients] who have poor response after previous standard chemotherapy,” said first author Ming Jiang, MD, of the department of medical oncology, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

“This combined strategy can not only improve patient efficacy but also avoid unnecessary medication, and is worth further exploration,” she said in a presentation at ESMO on Oct. 27 in Madrid. The current standard of care for extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is L-asparaginase or pegaspargase-based multi-agent chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy.

However, for patients who fail to respond to first-line treatment, the prognosis is poor: The median progression-free survival of those patients is approximately 4.5 months, with a median overall survival of about 6.4 months, Dr. Jiang explained.

“There is a need to establish a better first-line treatment for this group of patients,” she said.

In the prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 study, Dr. Jiang and her colleagues enrolled patients with stage 1 and 2 extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma who had failed to achieve a complete response following 2-3 cycles of multi-agent chemotherapy.

Of the patients, eight (36.4%) had partial response, eight (36.2%) had stable disease, and six (27.2%) had progressive disease after the chemotherapy.

The patients were treated with toripalimab at 240 mg, once every 3 weeks, plus radiotherapy at a dose of 56 Gy, sequentially with or without two to four cycles of chemotherapy.

Patients who did not have disease progression were then continued with toripalimab for 1 year or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

The 22 patients had a median age of 45 (range 26-64) and 14 were male. Most were stage 1 (77.3%; 17) and the remaining were stage 2, while 81% had primary tumor invasion.

For the primary endpoint, at 3 months following radiotherapy, the overall response rate was 90.9%, with 17 patients (77.3%) having a complete response, 3 (13.6%) a partial response, and 2 (9.1%) having progressive disease.

Eight who had responded to previous chemotherapy received two additional chemotherapy cycles after completion of radiotherapy, while the others were treated with toripalimab alone.

With a median follow-up of 23 months (range 3-78), the 2-year progression-free survival was 81.6%, and overall survival was 95.0%.

Two of three patients with a partial response had a recurrence after radiotherapy at 5 and 10 months; one of the complete-response patients had a recurrence at 60 months, and two patients with progressive disease died at 9 months after radiotherapy.

In terms of safety, the most common adverse events during and after radiotherapy included oral mucositis and hypothyroidism. No adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported.

Dr. Jiang speculated that “radiotherapy could synergize PD-1 inhibitors,” and she urged that “optimal radiotherapy and PD-1 inhibitor administration plans should be further explored.”
 

Genetic factors

Additional research presented in that ESMO session offered insights into the genetic factors that may play key roles in either response or resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL), of which extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is a subtype.

The findings are from a genetic analysis of a phase 2 trial that demonstrated benefits the PD-1 inhibitor geptanolimab in patients with PTCL who failed initial chemotherapy.

Specifically, geptanolimab treatment was associated with an objective response rate of 40.4%, a complete response rate of 14.6%, and partial response rate of 25.8%.

Of 44 patients who had been treated with geptanolimab and had next-generation sequencing genetic data available, PD-L1 expression was found to be significantly elevated among those who had a complete or partial response, whereas PD-L1 expression was lower among those who had disease progression, which is consistent with previous research suggesting that low PD-L1 expression is linked to poorer response to anti-PD-1 therapies.

Tumor mutation burden did not exhibit significant prognostic value. However, the authors noted that this may be confounded by variation across PTCL subtypes.

Among other key findings were that JAK3 and EZH2 mutations, which are among the top genes frequently mutated in PTCL and extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, were consistently associated with low PD-L1 expression (P < .05) and shorter progression-free survival (HR 5.97; P = .027, JAK3, and HR 4.76; P = .027 EZH2).

“Notably, we found JAK3 mutations, which are vital and prevalent in PTCL, reduced PD-L1 levels in vivo and in vitro, which are of great clinical and biological sense,” said the study’s first author, Ning Lou, MD, of the Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.

Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand in Dijon, France, said that the findings are especially notable in relation to extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma.

“The clinical relevance of anti PD1 is mainly observed in relapsing/recurrent extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, and much less in other T-cell lymphoma subtypes,” he told this news organization.

“So identifying molecular events associated with the chance of response to a PD1 blocker in relapsing extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is important as PD1-blockers are recommended to treat [those] patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.

Furthermore, “the interest of next-generation sequencing to identify JAK3 mutations associated with low level of PDL1 expression and weak response to anti PD1 blockers is important as JAK3 mutated tumors are potentially targetable by JAK inhibitors such as tofacitinib,” he said.

“Obviously this assumption has to be tested in clinical trials but it’s an interesting lead.”

The research on toripalimab additionally shows that “the combination of radiotherapy and PD1 blockers provides a high response rate in patients who are nonresponders to asparaginase-based chemotherapy on the basis of PET evaluation and could be a new option for optimizing the first line treatment of extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.

The authors and Dr. Casasnovas had no disclosures to report.

Treatment with PD-1 inhibitor toripalimab along with radiation therapy improves outcomes in patients with stage I/II extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma who don’t achieve a complete response to initial chemotherapy, while pretreatment mutational profiles offer clues as to which patients may respond to such anti-PD-1 treatments, according to studies presented at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2023.

“We found that toripalimab combined with radiotherapy is safe and has promising efficacy for stage I/II extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma [patients] who have poor response after previous standard chemotherapy,” said first author Ming Jiang, MD, of the department of medical oncology, Cancer Center, West China School of Medicine/West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

“This combined strategy can not only improve patient efficacy but also avoid unnecessary medication, and is worth further exploration,” she said in a presentation at ESMO on Oct. 27 in Madrid. The current standard of care for extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is L-asparaginase or pegaspargase-based multi-agent chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy.

However, for patients who fail to respond to first-line treatment, the prognosis is poor: The median progression-free survival of those patients is approximately 4.5 months, with a median overall survival of about 6.4 months, Dr. Jiang explained.

“There is a need to establish a better first-line treatment for this group of patients,” she said.

In the prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 study, Dr. Jiang and her colleagues enrolled patients with stage 1 and 2 extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma who had failed to achieve a complete response following 2-3 cycles of multi-agent chemotherapy.

Of the patients, eight (36.4%) had partial response, eight (36.2%) had stable disease, and six (27.2%) had progressive disease after the chemotherapy.

The patients were treated with toripalimab at 240 mg, once every 3 weeks, plus radiotherapy at a dose of 56 Gy, sequentially with or without two to four cycles of chemotherapy.

Patients who did not have disease progression were then continued with toripalimab for 1 year or until disease progression or intolerable toxicity.

The 22 patients had a median age of 45 (range 26-64) and 14 were male. Most were stage 1 (77.3%; 17) and the remaining were stage 2, while 81% had primary tumor invasion.

For the primary endpoint, at 3 months following radiotherapy, the overall response rate was 90.9%, with 17 patients (77.3%) having a complete response, 3 (13.6%) a partial response, and 2 (9.1%) having progressive disease.

Eight who had responded to previous chemotherapy received two additional chemotherapy cycles after completion of radiotherapy, while the others were treated with toripalimab alone.

With a median follow-up of 23 months (range 3-78), the 2-year progression-free survival was 81.6%, and overall survival was 95.0%.

Two of three patients with a partial response had a recurrence after radiotherapy at 5 and 10 months; one of the complete-response patients had a recurrence at 60 months, and two patients with progressive disease died at 9 months after radiotherapy.

In terms of safety, the most common adverse events during and after radiotherapy included oral mucositis and hypothyroidism. No adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported.

Dr. Jiang speculated that “radiotherapy could synergize PD-1 inhibitors,” and she urged that “optimal radiotherapy and PD-1 inhibitor administration plans should be further explored.”
 

Genetic factors

Additional research presented in that ESMO session offered insights into the genetic factors that may play key roles in either response or resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL), of which extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is a subtype.

The findings are from a genetic analysis of a phase 2 trial that demonstrated benefits the PD-1 inhibitor geptanolimab in patients with PTCL who failed initial chemotherapy.

Specifically, geptanolimab treatment was associated with an objective response rate of 40.4%, a complete response rate of 14.6%, and partial response rate of 25.8%.

Of 44 patients who had been treated with geptanolimab and had next-generation sequencing genetic data available, PD-L1 expression was found to be significantly elevated among those who had a complete or partial response, whereas PD-L1 expression was lower among those who had disease progression, which is consistent with previous research suggesting that low PD-L1 expression is linked to poorer response to anti-PD-1 therapies.

Tumor mutation burden did not exhibit significant prognostic value. However, the authors noted that this may be confounded by variation across PTCL subtypes.

Among other key findings were that JAK3 and EZH2 mutations, which are among the top genes frequently mutated in PTCL and extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, were consistently associated with low PD-L1 expression (P < .05) and shorter progression-free survival (HR 5.97; P = .027, JAK3, and HR 4.76; P = .027 EZH2).

“Notably, we found JAK3 mutations, which are vital and prevalent in PTCL, reduced PD-L1 levels in vivo and in vitro, which are of great clinical and biological sense,” said the study’s first author, Ning Lou, MD, of the Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing.

Commenting on the study, discussant Olivier Casasnovas, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology, University Hospital Francois Mitterrand in Dijon, France, said that the findings are especially notable in relation to extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma.

“The clinical relevance of anti PD1 is mainly observed in relapsing/recurrent extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, and much less in other T-cell lymphoma subtypes,” he told this news organization.

“So identifying molecular events associated with the chance of response to a PD1 blocker in relapsing extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma is important as PD1-blockers are recommended to treat [those] patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.

Furthermore, “the interest of next-generation sequencing to identify JAK3 mutations associated with low level of PDL1 expression and weak response to anti PD1 blockers is important as JAK3 mutated tumors are potentially targetable by JAK inhibitors such as tofacitinib,” he said.

“Obviously this assumption has to be tested in clinical trials but it’s an interesting lead.”

The research on toripalimab additionally shows that “the combination of radiotherapy and PD1 blockers provides a high response rate in patients who are nonresponders to asparaginase-based chemotherapy on the basis of PET evaluation and could be a new option for optimizing the first line treatment of extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Casasnovas added.

The authors and Dr. Casasnovas had no disclosures to report.

Mr. B, age 23, is admitted to an inpatient psychiatric unit for depression. During his hospitalization, Mr. B becomes fixated on obtaining specific medications, including controlled substances. He is treated by Dr. M, a psychiatrist early in her training. In a difficult conversation, Dr. M tells Mr. B he will not be prescribed the medications he is requesting and explains why. Mr. B responds by jumping across a table and repeatedly punching Dr. M. Unit staff restrains Mr. B, and Dr. M leaves to seek medical care.

Assaults perpetrated against employees on inpatient psychiatric units are common.¹ Assaults on physicians can occur at any level of training, including during residency.² This is not a new phenomenon: concerns about patients assaulting psychiatrists and other inpatient staff have been reported for decades.^3-5 Most research surrounding this topic has focused on risk factors for violence and prevention.⁶ Research regarding the aftermath of a patient assault and what services an employee requires have primarily centered on nurses.^7,8

Practical guidance for a psychiatrist who has been assaulted and wants to return to work is difficult to find. This article provides strategies to help psychiatrists (and their colleagues) transition back to work after being the victim of a patient assault. While the recommendations we provide can be applied to trainees as well as attending physicians, there are some considerations specific to residents who have been assaulted (Box^9,10).

Box

Having a plan for after an assault

The aftereffects of a patient assault can take a significant toll on the individual who is assaulted. A 2021 article about psychiatric mental health nurses by Dean et al⁸ identified multiple potential repercussions of unaddressed workplace violence, including role confusion, job dissatisfaction, decreased resiliency traits, poor coping methods, increased attrition rate, and increased expenditures related to assault injuries. Providing appropriate services and having a plan for how best to support an assaulted psychiatrist are likely to mitigate these effects. This can be grouped into 4 categories: 1) seeking immediate care, 2) removing the patient from your care, 3) easing back into the environment, and 4) finding long-term support.

1. Seeking immediate care

“Round or be rounded on” is a phrase that encapsulates many physicians’ attitude regarding their own health care and may contribute to their refusal of medical care following acute trauma such as an assault. Feelings of shock, guilt, and shame may also lead to a psychiatrist’s initial hesitation to seek treatment. However, it is important for the victim of an assault to be promptly evaluated and treated.

Elevated adrenaline in the aftermath of a physical engagement may mask the perception of injuries, and there is a risk for exposure to blood-borne pathogens. Regardless of the severity of injuries, seeking medical care establishes documentation of any injuries that can later serve as a record for workers’ compensation claims or if legal action is taken.

In addition to medical needs, immediate psychological support should be considered. Compulsory participation in crisis intervention stress debriefing, particularly when performed by untrained individuals, is not recommended due to questions about its demonstrated efficacy and potential to increase the risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the long term.^11,12 However, research has established the need for immediate support that does not necessarily involve a discussion of the traumatic event. One option is psychological first aid (PFA), an intervention supported by the World Health Organization. Originally developed for victims of mass crisis events, PFA easily translates to the hospital setting.^12,13 PFA focuses on the immediate, basic needs of the victim to reduce distress and anxiety and encourage adaptive coping. Table 1^12,13 summarizes key components of PFA.

Continue to: PFA can be compared...

PFA can be compared to medical first aid in the field prior to reaching the hospital. In the case of Dr. M, other residents collaborated to transport her to the hospital, keep attendings and program directors apprised of the situation, and bring her snacks and comfort items to the hospital. Dr. M also received support from attending physicians at a neighboring hospital who helped coordinate her care. Essentially, she received a de facto version of PFA. However, given the evidence behind PFA and the unfortunate rate of violence against health care staff, institutions and organizations may offer training in PFA to ensure this level of support for all victims.

Multiple groups may take the lead to support a physician following an injury, including human resources, employee health, or other offices within the institution. The principles of PFA can be used to guide these employees in assisting the victim. Even if such employees are not trained in PFA, they can align with these principles by ensuring access to counseling and medical care, assisting with time off and accommodations, and helping the victim of an assault navigate the legal and administrative processes. Workers’ compensation can be a challenging process, and an institution’s human resources department should be available to assist the assaulted individual in navigating resources both within and outside of what they are able to offer.

2. Removing the patient from the psychiatrist’s care

During her recovery, Dr. M heard from a few peers that what happened was an occupational hazard. On some level, they were correct. While the public does not perceive a career in medicine to be physically dangerous, violence is a rampant problem in health care. Research shows that health care professionals are up to 16 times more likely to experience violence than other occupations; the odds for nurses are even higher.⁸

The frequency and pervasiveness of violence against health care professionals create an environment in which it can become an expected, and even accepted, phenomenon. However, violence cannot and should not be viewed as a normal part of workplace culture. A 2016 study by Moylan et al⁷ found that many nurses believe violence is part of their role, and therefore do not recognize the need to report such incidents or seek the necessary support. In other studies, only 30% of nurses reported violence, and the rate of reporting by physicians was 26%.¹⁴ This underreporting likely represents the role confusion surrounding whether caring for self or caring for the patient takes precedent, as well as normative expectations surrounding violence in the workplace.

It must be made clear to the victim that their safety is a priority and violence will not be tolerated. An institution’s administration can achieve this by immediately removing the patient from the victim’s care. In many cases, discharge of the patient from the clinic or facility may be warranted. A psychiatrist should not be expected to continue as the primary physician for a patient who has assaulted them; transfer to another psychiatrist is necessary if discharge is not an appropriate option. In a scenario in which a psychiatrist must maintain the treating relationship with a patient who assaulted them until the patient can be placed with another clinician (eg, as might occur on a unit with severely limited resources), staff chaperones can be considered when interacting with the patient.

Continue to: An institution's adminstration... 

An institution’s administration should provide support if the psychiatrist chooses to press charges. At the core of our ethos as physicians is “do no harm,” and for some, the prospect of filing charges may be a difficult decision. However, health care professionals do not have an ethical obligation to put themselves in danger of serious bodily harm.¹⁵ While there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of whether or not to press charges against a patient who has committed an assault, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration considers the perception that violence is tolerated and victims are unable to report to law enforcement an organizational risk factor for workplace violence.¹⁶

As leaders in the workplace, physicians should set the precedent that violence will not be tolerated by reporting incidents to police and filing charges when appropriate. In the case of Dr. M, she received full support from her institution’s administration in filing charges against Mr. B due to the specific details of the assault.

3. Easing back into the environment

Despite assurances from her superiors that she could take time off, Dr. M wanted to return to work as soon as possible. She considered the balance between her physical injuries and desire to return to work and ultimately returned to work 5 days after the assault. She did well with supportive measures from administration and other staff, including the use of technician escorts on the unit, peer support, and frequent communication with and check-ins from management.

The decision on how quickly to return to work should always lie with the individual who was assaulted. The administration should offer time off without hesitation. Victims of an assault may feel overwhelmed by 2 diverging paths on how to return to a traumatic environment: avoid the location at all costs, or try to “face their fears” and return as quickly as possible. Research from outside medicine indicates that the timing of returning to work after a traumatic injury may not be nearly as important as the method of returning, and who makes this decision.¹⁷ Predictors of return to work after an assault include not only the severity of the trauma and amount of distress symptoms, but also any actual or perceived injustice on the part of the victim.¹⁷ Although this study was not specific to health care employees, it suggests that overall, an employee who does not feel a sense of control over their choice to return to work could perceive that as an injustice on the part of administration, leading to decreased job satisfaction.¹⁷

A study by Lamothe et al¹⁸ that was specific to health care professionals found that despite the importance of self-efficacy for the assault victim, perceived organizational support had an even greater protective effect following patient violence. Additionally, monitoring for signs of distress among victims after an episode of violence could prevent further violence by reducing the risk for subsequent victimization.¹⁸ This highlights the need for leadership of an inpatient unit to be keenly aware of how an assault on a psychiatrist or other health care professional may change the work environment and create a need to help staff navigate the new normal they may face on the unit.

Continue to: Finding long-term support

 

 

4. Finding long-term support

Longitudinal support is key in the initial transition back to work, as well as in the following weeks and months. Studies assessing the impacts of patient assault on mental health nurses indicate that while most individuals exposed to a traumatic event do not develop PTSD, many reported continued somatic symptoms, and more still reported ongoing psychological effects such as recurring thoughts of the assault, fear, generalized anger, and feeling a loss of control.⁸ Peer support is a common method employed by physicians and nurses alike, but administrative support is also essential.⁸

Regardless which form of psychotherapy, medication treatment, or peer support is utilized, access to the tools the psychiatrist finds most helpful is crucial to making them feel safe and comfortable returning to their role. Table 2 details practical steps administrators and peers can take to facilitate longitudinal support in these situations. In the case of Dr. M, administration was not only supportive in encouraging time off, but also in allowing protected time for therapy when she endorsed distress over the event. The combination of immediate responses and more long-term support greatly helped Dr. M continue her role as a psychiatrist and remain satisfied with her work.

Bottom Line

Being assaulted by a patient can make a psychiatrist reluctant to return to work. Strategies to ease this transition include seeking immediate care, removing the patient from the care of the psychiatrist who was assaulted, easing back into the environment, and finding long-term support.

Related Resources

• Lapic S, Joshi KG. What to do after a patient assaults you. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(10):53-54.
• Joshi KG. Workplace violence: enhance your safety in outpatient settings. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(8):37-38. doi:10.12788/cp.0163
• Su D. Harassment of health care workers: a survey. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(6):48-50. doi:10.12788/cp.0135
• Rozel JS, Wiles C, Amin P. Too close for comfort: when the psychiatrist is stalked. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(1): 23-28. doi:10.12788/cp.0209

Mr. B, age 23, is admitted to an inpatient psychiatric unit for depression. During his hospitalization, Mr. B becomes fixated on obtaining specific medications, including controlled substances. He is treated by Dr. M, a psychiatrist early in her training. In a difficult conversation, Dr. M tells Mr. B he will not be prescribed the medications he is requesting and explains why. Mr. B responds by jumping across a table and repeatedly punching Dr. M. Unit staff restrains Mr. B, and Dr. M leaves to seek medical care.

Assaults perpetrated against employees on inpatient psychiatric units are common.¹ Assaults on physicians can occur at any level of training, including during residency.² This is not a new phenomenon: concerns about patients assaulting psychiatrists and other inpatient staff have been reported for decades.^3-5 Most research surrounding this topic has focused on risk factors for violence and prevention.⁶ Research regarding the aftermath of a patient assault and what services an employee requires have primarily centered on nurses.^7,8

Practical guidance for a psychiatrist who has been assaulted and wants to return to work is difficult to find. This article provides strategies to help psychiatrists (and their colleagues) transition back to work after being the victim of a patient assault. While the recommendations we provide can be applied to trainees as well as attending physicians, there are some considerations specific to residents who have been assaulted (Box^9,10).

Box

Having a plan for after an assault

The aftereffects of a patient assault can take a significant toll on the individual who is assaulted. A 2021 article about psychiatric mental health nurses by Dean et al⁸ identified multiple potential repercussions of unaddressed workplace violence, including role confusion, job dissatisfaction, decreased resiliency traits, poor coping methods, increased attrition rate, and increased expenditures related to assault injuries. Providing appropriate services and having a plan for how best to support an assaulted psychiatrist are likely to mitigate these effects. This can be grouped into 4 categories: 1) seeking immediate care, 2) removing the patient from your care, 3) easing back into the environment, and 4) finding long-term support.

1. Seeking immediate care

“Round or be rounded on” is a phrase that encapsulates many physicians’ attitude regarding their own health care and may contribute to their refusal of medical care following acute trauma such as an assault. Feelings of shock, guilt, and shame may also lead to a psychiatrist’s initial hesitation to seek treatment. However, it is important for the victim of an assault to be promptly evaluated and treated.

Elevated adrenaline in the aftermath of a physical engagement may mask the perception of injuries, and there is a risk for exposure to blood-borne pathogens. Regardless of the severity of injuries, seeking medical care establishes documentation of any injuries that can later serve as a record for workers’ compensation claims or if legal action is taken.

In addition to medical needs, immediate psychological support should be considered. Compulsory participation in crisis intervention stress debriefing, particularly when performed by untrained individuals, is not recommended due to questions about its demonstrated efficacy and potential to increase the risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the long term.^11,12 However, research has established the need for immediate support that does not necessarily involve a discussion of the traumatic event. One option is psychological first aid (PFA), an intervention supported by the World Health Organization. Originally developed for victims of mass crisis events, PFA easily translates to the hospital setting.^12,13 PFA focuses on the immediate, basic needs of the victim to reduce distress and anxiety and encourage adaptive coping. Table 1^12,13 summarizes key components of PFA.

Continue to: PFA can be compared...

PFA can be compared to medical first aid in the field prior to reaching the hospital. In the case of Dr. M, other residents collaborated to transport her to the hospital, keep attendings and program directors apprised of the situation, and bring her snacks and comfort items to the hospital. Dr. M also received support from attending physicians at a neighboring hospital who helped coordinate her care. Essentially, she received a de facto version of PFA. However, given the evidence behind PFA and the unfortunate rate of violence against health care staff, institutions and organizations may offer training in PFA to ensure this level of support for all victims.

Multiple groups may take the lead to support a physician following an injury, including human resources, employee health, or other offices within the institution. The principles of PFA can be used to guide these employees in assisting the victim. Even if such employees are not trained in PFA, they can align with these principles by ensuring access to counseling and medical care, assisting with time off and accommodations, and helping the victim of an assault navigate the legal and administrative processes. Workers’ compensation can be a challenging process, and an institution’s human resources department should be available to assist the assaulted individual in navigating resources both within and outside of what they are able to offer.

2. Removing the patient from the psychiatrist’s care

During her recovery, Dr. M heard from a few peers that what happened was an occupational hazard. On some level, they were correct. While the public does not perceive a career in medicine to be physically dangerous, violence is a rampant problem in health care. Research shows that health care professionals are up to 16 times more likely to experience violence than other occupations; the odds for nurses are even higher.⁸

The frequency and pervasiveness of violence against health care professionals create an environment in which it can become an expected, and even accepted, phenomenon. However, violence cannot and should not be viewed as a normal part of workplace culture. A 2016 study by Moylan et al⁷ found that many nurses believe violence is part of their role, and therefore do not recognize the need to report such incidents or seek the necessary support. In other studies, only 30% of nurses reported violence, and the rate of reporting by physicians was 26%.¹⁴ This underreporting likely represents the role confusion surrounding whether caring for self or caring for the patient takes precedent, as well as normative expectations surrounding violence in the workplace.

It must be made clear to the victim that their safety is a priority and violence will not be tolerated. An institution’s administration can achieve this by immediately removing the patient from the victim’s care. In many cases, discharge of the patient from the clinic or facility may be warranted. A psychiatrist should not be expected to continue as the primary physician for a patient who has assaulted them; transfer to another psychiatrist is necessary if discharge is not an appropriate option. In a scenario in which a psychiatrist must maintain the treating relationship with a patient who assaulted them until the patient can be placed with another clinician (eg, as might occur on a unit with severely limited resources), staff chaperones can be considered when interacting with the patient.

Continue to: An institution's adminstration... 

An institution’s administration should provide support if the psychiatrist chooses to press charges. At the core of our ethos as physicians is “do no harm,” and for some, the prospect of filing charges may be a difficult decision. However, health care professionals do not have an ethical obligation to put themselves in danger of serious bodily harm.¹⁵ While there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of whether or not to press charges against a patient who has committed an assault, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration considers the perception that violence is tolerated and victims are unable to report to law enforcement an organizational risk factor for workplace violence.¹⁶

As leaders in the workplace, physicians should set the precedent that violence will not be tolerated by reporting incidents to police and filing charges when appropriate. In the case of Dr. M, she received full support from her institution’s administration in filing charges against Mr. B due to the specific details of the assault.

3. Easing back into the environment

Despite assurances from her superiors that she could take time off, Dr. M wanted to return to work as soon as possible. She considered the balance between her physical injuries and desire to return to work and ultimately returned to work 5 days after the assault. She did well with supportive measures from administration and other staff, including the use of technician escorts on the unit, peer support, and frequent communication with and check-ins from management.

The decision on how quickly to return to work should always lie with the individual who was assaulted. The administration should offer time off without hesitation. Victims of an assault may feel overwhelmed by 2 diverging paths on how to return to a traumatic environment: avoid the location at all costs, or try to “face their fears” and return as quickly as possible. Research from outside medicine indicates that the timing of returning to work after a traumatic injury may not be nearly as important as the method of returning, and who makes this decision.¹⁷ Predictors of return to work after an assault include not only the severity of the trauma and amount of distress symptoms, but also any actual or perceived injustice on the part of the victim.¹⁷ Although this study was not specific to health care employees, it suggests that overall, an employee who does not feel a sense of control over their choice to return to work could perceive that as an injustice on the part of administration, leading to decreased job satisfaction.¹⁷

A study by Lamothe et al¹⁸ that was specific to health care professionals found that despite the importance of self-efficacy for the assault victim, perceived organizational support had an even greater protective effect following patient violence. Additionally, monitoring for signs of distress among victims after an episode of violence could prevent further violence by reducing the risk for subsequent victimization.¹⁸ This highlights the need for leadership of an inpatient unit to be keenly aware of how an assault on a psychiatrist or other health care professional may change the work environment and create a need to help staff navigate the new normal they may face on the unit.

Continue to: Finding long-term support

 

 

4. Finding long-term support

Longitudinal support is key in the initial transition back to work, as well as in the following weeks and months. Studies assessing the impacts of patient assault on mental health nurses indicate that while most individuals exposed to a traumatic event do not develop PTSD, many reported continued somatic symptoms, and more still reported ongoing psychological effects such as recurring thoughts of the assault, fear, generalized anger, and feeling a loss of control.⁸ Peer support is a common method employed by physicians and nurses alike, but administrative support is also essential.⁸

Regardless which form of psychotherapy, medication treatment, or peer support is utilized, access to the tools the psychiatrist finds most helpful is crucial to making them feel safe and comfortable returning to their role. Table 2 details practical steps administrators and peers can take to facilitate longitudinal support in these situations. In the case of Dr. M, administration was not only supportive in encouraging time off, but also in allowing protected time for therapy when she endorsed distress over the event. The combination of immediate responses and more long-term support greatly helped Dr. M continue her role as a psychiatrist and remain satisfied with her work.

Bottom Line

Being assaulted by a patient can make a psychiatrist reluctant to return to work. Strategies to ease this transition include seeking immediate care, removing the patient from the care of the psychiatrist who was assaulted, easing back into the environment, and finding long-term support.

Related Resources

• Lapic S, Joshi KG. What to do after a patient assaults you. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(10):53-54.
• Joshi KG. Workplace violence: enhance your safety in outpatient settings. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(8):37-38. doi:10.12788/cp.0163
• Su D. Harassment of health care workers: a survey. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(6):48-50. doi:10.12788/cp.0135
• Rozel JS, Wiles C, Amin P. Too close for comfort: when the psychiatrist is stalked. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(1): 23-28. doi:10.12788/cp.0209

Mr. B, age 23, is admitted to an inpatient psychiatric unit for depression. During his hospitalization, Mr. B becomes fixated on obtaining specific medications, including controlled substances. He is treated by Dr. M, a psychiatrist early in her training. In a difficult conversation, Dr. M tells Mr. B he will not be prescribed the medications he is requesting and explains why. Mr. B responds by jumping across a table and repeatedly punching Dr. M. Unit staff restrains Mr. B, and Dr. M leaves to seek medical care.

Assaults perpetrated against employees on inpatient psychiatric units are common.¹ Assaults on physicians can occur at any level of training, including during residency.² This is not a new phenomenon: concerns about patients assaulting psychiatrists and other inpatient staff have been reported for decades.^3-5 Most research surrounding this topic has focused on risk factors for violence and prevention.⁶ Research regarding the aftermath of a patient assault and what services an employee requires have primarily centered on nurses.^7,8

Practical guidance for a psychiatrist who has been assaulted and wants to return to work is difficult to find. This article provides strategies to help psychiatrists (and their colleagues) transition back to work after being the victim of a patient assault. While the recommendations we provide can be applied to trainees as well as attending physicians, there are some considerations specific to residents who have been assaulted (Box^9,10).

Box

Having a plan for after an assault

The aftereffects of a patient assault can take a significant toll on the individual who is assaulted. A 2021 article about psychiatric mental health nurses by Dean et al⁸ identified multiple potential repercussions of unaddressed workplace violence, including role confusion, job dissatisfaction, decreased resiliency traits, poor coping methods, increased attrition rate, and increased expenditures related to assault injuries. Providing appropriate services and having a plan for how best to support an assaulted psychiatrist are likely to mitigate these effects. This can be grouped into 4 categories: 1) seeking immediate care, 2) removing the patient from your care, 3) easing back into the environment, and 4) finding long-term support.

1. Seeking immediate care

“Round or be rounded on” is a phrase that encapsulates many physicians’ attitude regarding their own health care and may contribute to their refusal of medical care following acute trauma such as an assault. Feelings of shock, guilt, and shame may also lead to a psychiatrist’s initial hesitation to seek treatment. However, it is important for the victim of an assault to be promptly evaluated and treated.

Elevated adrenaline in the aftermath of a physical engagement may mask the perception of injuries, and there is a risk for exposure to blood-borne pathogens. Regardless of the severity of injuries, seeking medical care establishes documentation of any injuries that can later serve as a record for workers’ compensation claims or if legal action is taken.

In addition to medical needs, immediate psychological support should be considered. Compulsory participation in crisis intervention stress debriefing, particularly when performed by untrained individuals, is not recommended due to questions about its demonstrated efficacy and potential to increase the risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the long term.^11,12 However, research has established the need for immediate support that does not necessarily involve a discussion of the traumatic event. One option is psychological first aid (PFA), an intervention supported by the World Health Organization. Originally developed for victims of mass crisis events, PFA easily translates to the hospital setting.^12,13 PFA focuses on the immediate, basic needs of the victim to reduce distress and anxiety and encourage adaptive coping. Table 1^12,13 summarizes key components of PFA.

Continue to: PFA can be compared...

PFA can be compared to medical first aid in the field prior to reaching the hospital. In the case of Dr. M, other residents collaborated to transport her to the hospital, keep attendings and program directors apprised of the situation, and bring her snacks and comfort items to the hospital. Dr. M also received support from attending physicians at a neighboring hospital who helped coordinate her care. Essentially, she received a de facto version of PFA. However, given the evidence behind PFA and the unfortunate rate of violence against health care staff, institutions and organizations may offer training in PFA to ensure this level of support for all victims.

Multiple groups may take the lead to support a physician following an injury, including human resources, employee health, or other offices within the institution. The principles of PFA can be used to guide these employees in assisting the victim. Even if such employees are not trained in PFA, they can align with these principles by ensuring access to counseling and medical care, assisting with time off and accommodations, and helping the victim of an assault navigate the legal and administrative processes. Workers’ compensation can be a challenging process, and an institution’s human resources department should be available to assist the assaulted individual in navigating resources both within and outside of what they are able to offer.

2. Removing the patient from the psychiatrist’s care

During her recovery, Dr. M heard from a few peers that what happened was an occupational hazard. On some level, they were correct. While the public does not perceive a career in medicine to be physically dangerous, violence is a rampant problem in health care. Research shows that health care professionals are up to 16 times more likely to experience violence than other occupations; the odds for nurses are even higher.⁸

The frequency and pervasiveness of violence against health care professionals create an environment in which it can become an expected, and even accepted, phenomenon. However, violence cannot and should not be viewed as a normal part of workplace culture. A 2016 study by Moylan et al⁷ found that many nurses believe violence is part of their role, and therefore do not recognize the need to report such incidents or seek the necessary support. In other studies, only 30% of nurses reported violence, and the rate of reporting by physicians was 26%.¹⁴ This underreporting likely represents the role confusion surrounding whether caring for self or caring for the patient takes precedent, as well as normative expectations surrounding violence in the workplace.

It must be made clear to the victim that their safety is a priority and violence will not be tolerated. An institution’s administration can achieve this by immediately removing the patient from the victim’s care. In many cases, discharge of the patient from the clinic or facility may be warranted. A psychiatrist should not be expected to continue as the primary physician for a patient who has assaulted them; transfer to another psychiatrist is necessary if discharge is not an appropriate option. In a scenario in which a psychiatrist must maintain the treating relationship with a patient who assaulted them until the patient can be placed with another clinician (eg, as might occur on a unit with severely limited resources), staff chaperones can be considered when interacting with the patient.

Continue to: An institution's adminstration... 

An institution’s administration should provide support if the psychiatrist chooses to press charges. At the core of our ethos as physicians is “do no harm,” and for some, the prospect of filing charges may be a difficult decision. However, health care professionals do not have an ethical obligation to put themselves in danger of serious bodily harm.¹⁵ While there is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of whether or not to press charges against a patient who has committed an assault, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration considers the perception that violence is tolerated and victims are unable to report to law enforcement an organizational risk factor for workplace violence.¹⁶

As leaders in the workplace, physicians should set the precedent that violence will not be tolerated by reporting incidents to police and filing charges when appropriate. In the case of Dr. M, she received full support from her institution’s administration in filing charges against Mr. B due to the specific details of the assault.

3. Easing back into the environment

Despite assurances from her superiors that she could take time off, Dr. M wanted to return to work as soon as possible. She considered the balance between her physical injuries and desire to return to work and ultimately returned to work 5 days after the assault. She did well with supportive measures from administration and other staff, including the use of technician escorts on the unit, peer support, and frequent communication with and check-ins from management.

The decision on how quickly to return to work should always lie with the individual who was assaulted. The administration should offer time off without hesitation. Victims of an assault may feel overwhelmed by 2 diverging paths on how to return to a traumatic environment: avoid the location at all costs, or try to “face their fears” and return as quickly as possible. Research from outside medicine indicates that the timing of returning to work after a traumatic injury may not be nearly as important as the method of returning, and who makes this decision.¹⁷ Predictors of return to work after an assault include not only the severity of the trauma and amount of distress symptoms, but also any actual or perceived injustice on the part of the victim.¹⁷ Although this study was not specific to health care employees, it suggests that overall, an employee who does not feel a sense of control over their choice to return to work could perceive that as an injustice on the part of administration, leading to decreased job satisfaction.¹⁷

A study by Lamothe et al¹⁸ that was specific to health care professionals found that despite the importance of self-efficacy for the assault victim, perceived organizational support had an even greater protective effect following patient violence. Additionally, monitoring for signs of distress among victims after an episode of violence could prevent further violence by reducing the risk for subsequent victimization.¹⁸ This highlights the need for leadership of an inpatient unit to be keenly aware of how an assault on a psychiatrist or other health care professional may change the work environment and create a need to help staff navigate the new normal they may face on the unit.

Continue to: Finding long-term support

 

 

4. Finding long-term support

Longitudinal support is key in the initial transition back to work, as well as in the following weeks and months. Studies assessing the impacts of patient assault on mental health nurses indicate that while most individuals exposed to a traumatic event do not develop PTSD, many reported continued somatic symptoms, and more still reported ongoing psychological effects such as recurring thoughts of the assault, fear, generalized anger, and feeling a loss of control.⁸ Peer support is a common method employed by physicians and nurses alike, but administrative support is also essential.⁸

Regardless which form of psychotherapy, medication treatment, or peer support is utilized, access to the tools the psychiatrist finds most helpful is crucial to making them feel safe and comfortable returning to their role. Table 2 details practical steps administrators and peers can take to facilitate longitudinal support in these situations. In the case of Dr. M, administration was not only supportive in encouraging time off, but also in allowing protected time for therapy when she endorsed distress over the event. The combination of immediate responses and more long-term support greatly helped Dr. M continue her role as a psychiatrist and remain satisfied with her work.

Bottom Line

Being assaulted by a patient can make a psychiatrist reluctant to return to work. Strategies to ease this transition include seeking immediate care, removing the patient from the care of the psychiatrist who was assaulted, easing back into the environment, and finding long-term support.

Related Resources

• Lapic S, Joshi KG. What to do after a patient assaults you. Current Psychiatry. 2017;16(10):53-54.
• Joshi KG. Workplace violence: enhance your safety in outpatient settings. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(8):37-38. doi:10.12788/cp.0163
• Su D. Harassment of health care workers: a survey. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(6):48-50. doi:10.12788/cp.0135
• Rozel JS, Wiles C, Amin P. Too close for comfort: when the psychiatrist is stalked. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(1): 23-28. doi:10.12788/cp.0209

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is common, with an estimated worldwide prevalence of 5.29% among children and adolescents and 2.5% among adults.¹ DSM-5-TR classifies ADHD as a neurodevelop­mental disorder, “a group of conditions with onset in the developmental period [that] typically manifest early in development, often before the child enters school.”² Because of the expectation that ADHD symptoms emerge early in development, the diagnostic criteria specify that symptoms must have been present prior to age 12 to qualify as ADHD. However, recent years have shown a significant increase in the number of patients being diagnosed with ADHD for the first time in adulthood. One study found that the diagnosis of ADHD among adults in the United States doubled between 2007 and 2016.³

First-line treatment for ADHD is the stimulants methylphenidate and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine. In the United States, these medications are classified as Schedule II controlled substances, indicating a high risk for abuse. However, just as ADHD diagnoses among adults have increased, so have prescriptions for stimulants. For example, Olfson et al⁴ found that stimulant prescriptions among young adults increased by a factor of 10 between 1994 and 2009.

The increased prevalence of adult patients diagnosed with ADHD and taking stimulants frequently places clinicians in a position to consider the validity of existing diagnoses and evaluate new patients with ADHD-related concerns. In this article, we review some of the challenges associated with diagnosing ADHD in adults, discuss the risks of stimulant treatment, and present a practical approach to the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in adults.

Challenges in diagnosis

DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for ADHD are summarized in Table 1. Establishing a diagnosis of adult ADHD can be challenging. As with many psychiatric conditions, symptoms of ADHD are highly subjective. Retrospectively diagnosing a developmental condition in adults is often biased by the patient’s current functioning.⁵ ADHD has a high heritability and adults may inquire about the diagnosis if their children are diagnosed with ADHD.⁶ Some experts have cautioned that clinicians must be careful in diagnosing ADHD in adults.⁷ Just as there are risks associated with underdiagnosing ADHD, there are risks associated with overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis may medicalize normal variants in the population and lead to unnecessary treatment and a misappropriation of limited medical resources.⁸ Many false positive cases of late-onset ADHD may be attributable to nonimpairing cognitive fluctuations.⁹

Poor diagnostic practices can impede accuracy in establishing the presence or absence of ADHD. Unfortunately, methods of diagnosing adult ADHD have been shown to vary widely in terms of information sources, diagnostic instruments used, symptom threshold, and whether functional impairment is a requirement for diagnosis.¹⁰ A common practice in diagnosing adult ADHD involves asking patients to complete self-report questionnaires that list symptoms of ADHD, such as the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale developed by the World Health Organization.¹¹ However, self-reports of ADHD in adults are less reliable than informant reports, and some young adults without ADHD overreport symptoms.^12,13 Symptom checklists are particularly susceptible to faking, which lessens their diagnostic value.¹⁴

The possibility of malingered symptoms of ADHD further increases the diagnostic difficulty. College students may be particularly susceptible to overreporting ADHD symptoms in order to obtain academic accommodations or stimulants in the hopes of improving school performance.¹⁵ One study found that 25% to 48% of college students self-referred for ADHD evaluations exaggerated their symptoms.¹⁶ In another study, 31% of adults failed the Word Memory Test, which suggests noncredible performance in their ADHD evaluation.¹⁷ College students can successfully feign ADHD symptoms in both self-reported symptoms and computer-based tests of attention.¹⁸ Harrison et al¹⁹ summarized many of these concerns in their 2007 study of ADHD malingering, noting the “almost perfect ability of the Faking group to choose items … that correspond to the DSM-IV symptoms, and to report these at levels even higher than persons with diagnosed ADHD.” They suggested “Clinicians should be suspicious of students or young adults presenting for a first-time diagnosis who rate themselves as being significantly symptomatic, yet have managed to achieve well in school and other life activities.”¹⁹

Another challenge in correctly diagnosing adult ADHD is identifying other conditions that may impair attention.²⁰ Psychiatric conditions that may impair concentration include anxiety disorders, chronic stress, posttraumatic stress disorder, recent trauma, major depressive disorder (MDD), and bipolar disorder (BD). Undiagnosed learning disorders may present like ADHD. Focus can be negatively affected by sleep disorders such as sleep apnea, restless leg syndrome, or delayed sleep phase-onset disorder. Marijuana, cocaine, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA; “ecstasy”), caffeine, or prescription medications such as anticholinergics can also impair attention. Medical conditions that can present with attentional or executive functioning deficits include seizures, Lyme disease, HIV, encephalopathy, hypothyroidism, and “chemo brain.”²¹ Environmental factors such as age-related cognitive decline, sleep deprivation, inflammation, obesity, air pollution, chemical exposure, and excessive use of digital media may also produce symptoms similar to ADHD. Two studies of adult-onset ADHD concluded that 93% to 95% of cases were better explained by other conditions such as sleep disorders, substance use disorders, or another psychiatric disorder.²²

Continue to: Risks associated with treatment

Risks associated with treatment

With or without an accurate ADHD diagnosis, prescribing stimulants presents certain risks (Table 2^23-40). One of the more well-known risks of stimulants is addiction or misuse.²³ An estimated 5 million American adults misused prescription stimulants in 2016.²⁴ Despite stimulants’ status as controlled substances, long-term concurrent use of stimulants with opioids is common among adults with ADHD.²⁵ College students are particularly susceptible to misusing or diverting stimulants, often to improve their academic performance.²⁶ At 1 university, 22% of students had misused stimulants in the past year.²⁷ Prescribing short-acting stimulants (rather than extended-release formulations) increases the likelihood of misuse.²⁸ Patients prescribed stimulants begin to receive requests to divert their medications to others as early as elementary school, and by college more than one-third of those taking stimulants have been asked to give, sell, or trade their medications.²⁹ Diversion of stimulants by students with ADHD is prevalent, with 62% of patients engaging in diversion during their lifetime.¹⁵ Diverted stimulants can come from family members, black market sources, or deceived clinicians.³⁰ Although students’ stimulant misuse/diversion often is academically motivated, nonmedical use of psychostimulants does not appear to have a statistically significant effect on improving grade point average.³¹ Despite a negligible impact on grades, most students who take stimulants identify their effect as strongly positive, producing a situation in which misusers of stimulants have little motivation to stop.³² While some patients might ask for a stimulant prescription with the rationale that liking the effects proves they have ADHD, this is inappropriate because most individuals like the effects of stimulant medications.³³

The use of stimulants increases the risk for several adverse psychiatric outcomes. Stimulants increase the risk of anxiety, so exercise caution when prescribing to patients with a comorbid anxiety disorder.³⁴ Stimulants can also worsen irritability and insomnia, 2 issues common among patients with ADHD.³² Use of stimulant medications can trigger manic episodes. Viktorin et al³⁵ found a >6-fold increase in manic episodes among patients with BD receiving methylphenidate monotherapy compared to those receiving a combination of methyl­phenidate and a mood stabilizer.³⁵ The use of methylphenidate and amphetamine can lead to new-onset psychosis (or exacerbation of pre-existing psychotic illness); amphetamine use is associated with a higher risk of psychosis than methylphenidate.³⁶

General medical adverse effects are also possible with stimulant use. Stimulants’ adverse effect profiles include appetite suppression, dry mouth, and nausea. Long-term use poses a risk for stunting growth in children.¹ Using stimulants during pregnancy is associated with higher risk for neonatal morbidity, including preterm birth, CNS-related disorders, and seizures.³⁷ Stimulants can raise blood pressure and increase heart rate. Serious cardiovascular events associated with stimulant use include ventricular arrhythmias, strokes, and transient ischemic attacks.³⁸

Nonstimulant ADHD treatments are less risky than stimulants but still require monitoring for common adverse effects. Atomoxetine has been associated with sedation, growth retardation (in children), and in severe cases, liver injury or suicidal ideation.³⁹ Bupropion (commonly used off-label for ADHD) can lower the seizure threshold and cause irritability, anorexia, and insomnia.³⁹ Viloxazine, a newer agent, can cause hypertension, increased heart rate, nausea, drowsiness, headache, and insomnia.⁴⁰

Sensible diagnosing

Given the challenges in accurately diagnosing ADHD in adults, we present a sensible approach to making the diagnosis (Table 3). The first step is to rule out other conditions that might better explain the patient’s symptoms. A thorough clinical interview (including a psychiatric review of symptoms) is the cornerstone of an initial diagnostic assessment. The use of validated screening questionnaires such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and General Anxiety Disorder-7 may also provide information regarding psychiatric conditions that require additional evaluation.

Continue to: Some of the most common conditions...

Some of the most common conditions we see mistaken for ADHD are MDD, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and BD. In DSM-5-TR, 1 of the diagnostic criteria for MDD is “diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either by subjective account or as observed by others).”⁴¹ Similarly, criteria for GAD include “difficulty concentrating.”⁴² DSM-5-TR also includes distractibility as one of the criteria for mania/hypomania. Table 4^20-22,41,42 lists other psychiatric, substance-related, medical, and environmental conditions that can produce ADHD-like symptoms. Referring to some medical and environmental explanations for inattention, Aiken²² pointed out, “Patients who suffer from these problems might ask their doctor for a stimulant, but none of those syndromes require a psychopharmacologic approach.” ADHD can be comorbid with other psychiatric conditions, so the presence of another psychiatric illness does not automatically rule out ADHD. If alternative psychiatric diagnoses have been identified, these can be discussed with the patient and treatment offered that targets the specified condition.

Once alternative explanations have been ruled out, focus on the patient’s developmental history. DSM-5-TR conceptualizes ADHD as a neurodevelopmental disorder, meaning it is expected to emerge early in life. Whereas previous editions of DSM specified that ADHD symptoms must be present before age 7, DSM-5 modified this age threshold to before age 12.¹ This necessitates taking a careful life history in order to understand the presence or absence of symptoms at earlier developmental stages.⁵ ADHD should be verified by symptoms apparent in childhood and present across the lifespan.¹⁵

While this retrospective history is necessary, histories that rely on self-report alone are often unreliable. Collateral sources of information are generally more reliable when assessing for ADHD symptoms.¹³ Third-party sources can help confirm that any impairment is best attributed to ADHD rather than to another condition.¹⁵ Unfortunately, the difficulty of obtaining collateral information means it is often neglected, even in the literature.¹⁰ A parent is the ideal informant for gathering collateral information regarding a patient’s functioning in childhood.⁵ Suggested best practices also include obtaining collateral information from interviews with significant others, behavioral questionnaires completed by parents (for current and childhood symptoms), review of school records, and consideration of intellectual and achievement testing.⁴³ If psychological testing is pursued, include validity testing to detect feigned symptoms.^18,44

When evaluating for ADHD, assess not only for the presence of symptoms, but also if these symptoms produce significant functional impairment.^13,15 Impairments in daily functioning can include impaired school participation, social participation, quality of relationships, family conflict, family activities, family functioning, and emotional functioning.⁴⁵ Some symptoms may affect functioning in an adult’s life differently than they did during childhood, from missed work appointments to being late picking up kids from school. Research has shown that the correlation between the number of symptoms and functional impairment is weak, which means someone could experience all of the symptoms of ADHD without experiencing functional impairment.⁴⁵ To make an accurate diagnosis, it is therefore important to clearly establish both the number of symptoms the patient is experiencing and whether these symptoms are clearly linked to functional impairments.¹⁰

Sensible treatment

Once a diagnosis of ADHD has been clearly established, clinicians need to consider how best to treat the condition (Table 5). Stimulants are generally considered first-line treatment for ADHD. In randomized clinical trials, they showed significant efficacy; for example, one study of 146 adults with ADHD found a 76% improvement with methylphenidate compared to 19% for the placebo group.⁴⁶ Before starting a stimulant, certain comorbidities should be ruled out. If a patient has glaucoma or pheochromocytoma, they may first need treatment from or clearance by other specialists. Stimulants should likely be held in patients with hypertension, angina, or cardiovascular defects until receiving medical clearance. The risks of stimulants need to be discussed with female patients of childbearing age, weighing the benefits of treatment against the risks of medication use should the patient get pregnant. Patients with comorbid psychosis or uncontrolled bipolar illness should not receive stimulants due to the risk of exacerbation. Patients with active substance use disorders (SUDs) are generally not good candidates for stimulants because of the risk of misusing or diverting stimulants and the possibility that substance abuse may be causing their inattentive symptoms. Patients whose SUDs are in remission may cautiously be considered as candidates for stimulants. If patients misuse their prescribed stimulants, they should be switched to a nonstimulant medication such as atomoxetine, bupropion, guanfacine, or clonidine.⁴⁷

Continue to: Once a patient is deemed...

Once a patient is deemed to be a candidate for stimulants, clinicians need to choose between methylphenidate or amphetamine/dextroamphetamine formulations. Table 6 lists medications that are commonly prescribed to treat ADHD; unless otherwise noted, these are FDA-approved for this indication. As a general rule, for adults, long-acting stimulant formulations are preferred over short-acting formulations.²⁸ Immediate-release stimulants are more prone to misuse or diversion compared to extended-release medications.²⁹ Longer-acting formulations may also provide better full-day symptom control.⁴⁸

In contrast to many other psychiatric medications, it may be beneficial to encourage periodically taking breaks or “medication holidays” from stimulants. Planned medication holidays for adults can involve intentionally not taking the medication over the weekend when the patient is not involved in work or school responsibilities. Such breaks have been shown to reduce adverse effects of stimulants (such as appetite suppression and insomnia) without significantly increasing ADHD symptoms.⁴⁹ Short breaks can also help prevent medication tolerance and the subsequent need to increase doses.⁵⁰ Medication holidays provide an opportunity to verify the ongoing benefits of the medication. It is advisable to periodically assess whether there is a continued need for stimulant treatment.⁵¹ If patients do not tolerate stimulants or have other contraindications, nonstimulants should be considered.

Lastly, no psychiatric patient should be treated with medication alone, and nonpharmacologic approaches should be incorporated as needed. Clear instructions, visual aids, nonverbal cues, frequent breaks to stand and stretch, schedules, normalizing failure as part of growth, and identifying triggers for emotional reactivity may help patients with ADHD.⁵² In a study of the academic performance of 92 college students taking medication for ADHD and 146 control students, treatment with stimulants alone did not eliminate the academic achievement deficit of those individuals with ADHD.⁵³ Good study habits (even without stimulants) appeared more important in overcoming the achievement disparity of students with ADHD.⁵³ Providing psychoeducation and training in concrete organization and planning skills have shown benefit.⁵⁴ Practice of skills on a daily basis appears to be especially beneficial.⁵⁵

Bottom Line

A sensible approach to diagnosing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults includes ruling out other disorders that may present similar to ADHD, taking an appropriate developmental history, obtaining collateral information, and assessing for functional impairment. Sensible treatment involves ruling out comorbidities that stimulants could worsen, selecting extended-release stimulants, incorporating medication holidays, and using nonpharmacologic interventions.

Related Resources

• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: diagnosis and management. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng87
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Advisory: Prescription Stimulant Misuse Among Youth and Young Adults. https://store.samhsa.gov/product/prescription-stimulant-misuse-among-youth-young-adults/PEP21-06-01-003

Drug Brand Names

Amphetamine • Adzenys, Dyanavel, others
Atomoxetine • Strattera
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Forfivo
Clonidine • Catapres, Kapvay
Dexmethylphenidate • Focalin
Dextroamphetamine • Dexedrine
Dextroamphetamine and amphetamine • Adderall, Mydayis
Guanfacine • Intuniv, Tenex
Lisdexamfetamine • Vyvanse
Methylphenidate • Concerta, Methylin, others
Viloxazine • Qelbree

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is common, with an estimated worldwide prevalence of 5.29% among children and adolescents and 2.5% among adults.¹ DSM-5-TR classifies ADHD as a neurodevelop­mental disorder, “a group of conditions with onset in the developmental period [that] typically manifest early in development, often before the child enters school.”² Because of the expectation that ADHD symptoms emerge early in development, the diagnostic criteria specify that symptoms must have been present prior to age 12 to qualify as ADHD. However, recent years have shown a significant increase in the number of patients being diagnosed with ADHD for the first time in adulthood. One study found that the diagnosis of ADHD among adults in the United States doubled between 2007 and 2016.³

First-line treatment for ADHD is the stimulants methylphenidate and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine. In the United States, these medications are classified as Schedule II controlled substances, indicating a high risk for abuse. However, just as ADHD diagnoses among adults have increased, so have prescriptions for stimulants. For example, Olfson et al⁴ found that stimulant prescriptions among young adults increased by a factor of 10 between 1994 and 2009.

The increased prevalence of adult patients diagnosed with ADHD and taking stimulants frequently places clinicians in a position to consider the validity of existing diagnoses and evaluate new patients with ADHD-related concerns. In this article, we review some of the challenges associated with diagnosing ADHD in adults, discuss the risks of stimulant treatment, and present a practical approach to the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in adults.

Challenges in diagnosis

DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for ADHD are summarized in Table 1. Establishing a diagnosis of adult ADHD can be challenging. As with many psychiatric conditions, symptoms of ADHD are highly subjective. Retrospectively diagnosing a developmental condition in adults is often biased by the patient’s current functioning.⁵ ADHD has a high heritability and adults may inquire about the diagnosis if their children are diagnosed with ADHD.⁶ Some experts have cautioned that clinicians must be careful in diagnosing ADHD in adults.⁷ Just as there are risks associated with underdiagnosing ADHD, there are risks associated with overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis may medicalize normal variants in the population and lead to unnecessary treatment and a misappropriation of limited medical resources.⁸ Many false positive cases of late-onset ADHD may be attributable to nonimpairing cognitive fluctuations.⁹

Poor diagnostic practices can impede accuracy in establishing the presence or absence of ADHD. Unfortunately, methods of diagnosing adult ADHD have been shown to vary widely in terms of information sources, diagnostic instruments used, symptom threshold, and whether functional impairment is a requirement for diagnosis.¹⁰ A common practice in diagnosing adult ADHD involves asking patients to complete self-report questionnaires that list symptoms of ADHD, such as the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale developed by the World Health Organization.¹¹ However, self-reports of ADHD in adults are less reliable than informant reports, and some young adults without ADHD overreport symptoms.^12,13 Symptom checklists are particularly susceptible to faking, which lessens their diagnostic value.¹⁴

The possibility of malingered symptoms of ADHD further increases the diagnostic difficulty. College students may be particularly susceptible to overreporting ADHD symptoms in order to obtain academic accommodations or stimulants in the hopes of improving school performance.¹⁵ One study found that 25% to 48% of college students self-referred for ADHD evaluations exaggerated their symptoms.¹⁶ In another study, 31% of adults failed the Word Memory Test, which suggests noncredible performance in their ADHD evaluation.¹⁷ College students can successfully feign ADHD symptoms in both self-reported symptoms and computer-based tests of attention.¹⁸ Harrison et al¹⁹ summarized many of these concerns in their 2007 study of ADHD malingering, noting the “almost perfect ability of the Faking group to choose items … that correspond to the DSM-IV symptoms, and to report these at levels even higher than persons with diagnosed ADHD.” They suggested “Clinicians should be suspicious of students or young adults presenting for a first-time diagnosis who rate themselves as being significantly symptomatic, yet have managed to achieve well in school and other life activities.”¹⁹

Another challenge in correctly diagnosing adult ADHD is identifying other conditions that may impair attention.²⁰ Psychiatric conditions that may impair concentration include anxiety disorders, chronic stress, posttraumatic stress disorder, recent trauma, major depressive disorder (MDD), and bipolar disorder (BD). Undiagnosed learning disorders may present like ADHD. Focus can be negatively affected by sleep disorders such as sleep apnea, restless leg syndrome, or delayed sleep phase-onset disorder. Marijuana, cocaine, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA; “ecstasy”), caffeine, or prescription medications such as anticholinergics can also impair attention. Medical conditions that can present with attentional or executive functioning deficits include seizures, Lyme disease, HIV, encephalopathy, hypothyroidism, and “chemo brain.”²¹ Environmental factors such as age-related cognitive decline, sleep deprivation, inflammation, obesity, air pollution, chemical exposure, and excessive use of digital media may also produce symptoms similar to ADHD. Two studies of adult-onset ADHD concluded that 93% to 95% of cases were better explained by other conditions such as sleep disorders, substance use disorders, or another psychiatric disorder.²²

Continue to: Risks associated with treatment

Risks associated with treatment

With or without an accurate ADHD diagnosis, prescribing stimulants presents certain risks (Table 2^23-40). One of the more well-known risks of stimulants is addiction or misuse.²³ An estimated 5 million American adults misused prescription stimulants in 2016.²⁴ Despite stimulants’ status as controlled substances, long-term concurrent use of stimulants with opioids is common among adults with ADHD.²⁵ College students are particularly susceptible to misusing or diverting stimulants, often to improve their academic performance.²⁶ At 1 university, 22% of students had misused stimulants in the past year.²⁷ Prescribing short-acting stimulants (rather than extended-release formulations) increases the likelihood of misuse.²⁸ Patients prescribed stimulants begin to receive requests to divert their medications to others as early as elementary school, and by college more than one-third of those taking stimulants have been asked to give, sell, or trade their medications.²⁹ Diversion of stimulants by students with ADHD is prevalent, with 62% of patients engaging in diversion during their lifetime.¹⁵ Diverted stimulants can come from family members, black market sources, or deceived clinicians.³⁰ Although students’ stimulant misuse/diversion often is academically motivated, nonmedical use of psychostimulants does not appear to have a statistically significant effect on improving grade point average.³¹ Despite a negligible impact on grades, most students who take stimulants identify their effect as strongly positive, producing a situation in which misusers of stimulants have little motivation to stop.³² While some patients might ask for a stimulant prescription with the rationale that liking the effects proves they have ADHD, this is inappropriate because most individuals like the effects of stimulant medications.³³

The use of stimulants increases the risk for several adverse psychiatric outcomes. Stimulants increase the risk of anxiety, so exercise caution when prescribing to patients with a comorbid anxiety disorder.³⁴ Stimulants can also worsen irritability and insomnia, 2 issues common among patients with ADHD.³² Use of stimulant medications can trigger manic episodes. Viktorin et al³⁵ found a >6-fold increase in manic episodes among patients with BD receiving methylphenidate monotherapy compared to those receiving a combination of methyl­phenidate and a mood stabilizer.³⁵ The use of methylphenidate and amphetamine can lead to new-onset psychosis (or exacerbation of pre-existing psychotic illness); amphetamine use is associated with a higher risk of psychosis than methylphenidate.³⁶

General medical adverse effects are also possible with stimulant use. Stimulants’ adverse effect profiles include appetite suppression, dry mouth, and nausea. Long-term use poses a risk for stunting growth in children.¹ Using stimulants during pregnancy is associated with higher risk for neonatal morbidity, including preterm birth, CNS-related disorders, and seizures.³⁷ Stimulants can raise blood pressure and increase heart rate. Serious cardiovascular events associated with stimulant use include ventricular arrhythmias, strokes, and transient ischemic attacks.³⁸

Nonstimulant ADHD treatments are less risky than stimulants but still require monitoring for common adverse effects. Atomoxetine has been associated with sedation, growth retardation (in children), and in severe cases, liver injury or suicidal ideation.³⁹ Bupropion (commonly used off-label for ADHD) can lower the seizure threshold and cause irritability, anorexia, and insomnia.³⁹ Viloxazine, a newer agent, can cause hypertension, increased heart rate, nausea, drowsiness, headache, and insomnia.⁴⁰

Sensible diagnosing

Given the challenges in accurately diagnosing ADHD in adults, we present a sensible approach to making the diagnosis (Table 3). The first step is to rule out other conditions that might better explain the patient’s symptoms. A thorough clinical interview (including a psychiatric review of symptoms) is the cornerstone of an initial diagnostic assessment. The use of validated screening questionnaires such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and General Anxiety Disorder-7 may also provide information regarding psychiatric conditions that require additional evaluation.

Continue to: Some of the most common conditions...

Some of the most common conditions we see mistaken for ADHD are MDD, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and BD. In DSM-5-TR, 1 of the diagnostic criteria for MDD is “diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either by subjective account or as observed by others).”⁴¹ Similarly, criteria for GAD include “difficulty concentrating.”⁴² DSM-5-TR also includes distractibility as one of the criteria for mania/hypomania. Table 4^20-22,41,42 lists other psychiatric, substance-related, medical, and environmental conditions that can produce ADHD-like symptoms. Referring to some medical and environmental explanations for inattention, Aiken²² pointed out, “Patients who suffer from these problems might ask their doctor for a stimulant, but none of those syndromes require a psychopharmacologic approach.” ADHD can be comorbid with other psychiatric conditions, so the presence of another psychiatric illness does not automatically rule out ADHD. If alternative psychiatric diagnoses have been identified, these can be discussed with the patient and treatment offered that targets the specified condition.

Once alternative explanations have been ruled out, focus on the patient’s developmental history. DSM-5-TR conceptualizes ADHD as a neurodevelopmental disorder, meaning it is expected to emerge early in life. Whereas previous editions of DSM specified that ADHD symptoms must be present before age 7, DSM-5 modified this age threshold to before age 12.¹ This necessitates taking a careful life history in order to understand the presence or absence of symptoms at earlier developmental stages.⁵ ADHD should be verified by symptoms apparent in childhood and present across the lifespan.¹⁵

While this retrospective history is necessary, histories that rely on self-report alone are often unreliable. Collateral sources of information are generally more reliable when assessing for ADHD symptoms.¹³ Third-party sources can help confirm that any impairment is best attributed to ADHD rather than to another condition.¹⁵ Unfortunately, the difficulty of obtaining collateral information means it is often neglected, even in the literature.¹⁰ A parent is the ideal informant for gathering collateral information regarding a patient’s functioning in childhood.⁵ Suggested best practices also include obtaining collateral information from interviews with significant others, behavioral questionnaires completed by parents (for current and childhood symptoms), review of school records, and consideration of intellectual and achievement testing.⁴³ If psychological testing is pursued, include validity testing to detect feigned symptoms.^18,44

When evaluating for ADHD, assess not only for the presence of symptoms, but also if these symptoms produce significant functional impairment.^13,15 Impairments in daily functioning can include impaired school participation, social participation, quality of relationships, family conflict, family activities, family functioning, and emotional functioning.⁴⁵ Some symptoms may affect functioning in an adult’s life differently than they did during childhood, from missed work appointments to being late picking up kids from school. Research has shown that the correlation between the number of symptoms and functional impairment is weak, which means someone could experience all of the symptoms of ADHD without experiencing functional impairment.⁴⁵ To make an accurate diagnosis, it is therefore important to clearly establish both the number of symptoms the patient is experiencing and whether these symptoms are clearly linked to functional impairments.¹⁰

Sensible treatment

Once a diagnosis of ADHD has been clearly established, clinicians need to consider how best to treat the condition (Table 5). Stimulants are generally considered first-line treatment for ADHD. In randomized clinical trials, they showed significant efficacy; for example, one study of 146 adults with ADHD found a 76% improvement with methylphenidate compared to 19% for the placebo group.⁴⁶ Before starting a stimulant, certain comorbidities should be ruled out. If a patient has glaucoma or pheochromocytoma, they may first need treatment from or clearance by other specialists. Stimulants should likely be held in patients with hypertension, angina, or cardiovascular defects until receiving medical clearance. The risks of stimulants need to be discussed with female patients of childbearing age, weighing the benefits of treatment against the risks of medication use should the patient get pregnant. Patients with comorbid psychosis or uncontrolled bipolar illness should not receive stimulants due to the risk of exacerbation. Patients with active substance use disorders (SUDs) are generally not good candidates for stimulants because of the risk of misusing or diverting stimulants and the possibility that substance abuse may be causing their inattentive symptoms. Patients whose SUDs are in remission may cautiously be considered as candidates for stimulants. If patients misuse their prescribed stimulants, they should be switched to a nonstimulant medication such as atomoxetine, bupropion, guanfacine, or clonidine.⁴⁷

Continue to: Once a patient is deemed...

Once a patient is deemed to be a candidate for stimulants, clinicians need to choose between methylphenidate or amphetamine/dextroamphetamine formulations. Table 6 lists medications that are commonly prescribed to treat ADHD; unless otherwise noted, these are FDA-approved for this indication. As a general rule, for adults, long-acting stimulant formulations are preferred over short-acting formulations.²⁸ Immediate-release stimulants are more prone to misuse or diversion compared to extended-release medications.²⁹ Longer-acting formulations may also provide better full-day symptom control.⁴⁸

In contrast to many other psychiatric medications, it may be beneficial to encourage periodically taking breaks or “medication holidays” from stimulants. Planned medication holidays for adults can involve intentionally not taking the medication over the weekend when the patient is not involved in work or school responsibilities. Such breaks have been shown to reduce adverse effects of stimulants (such as appetite suppression and insomnia) without significantly increasing ADHD symptoms.⁴⁹ Short breaks can also help prevent medication tolerance and the subsequent need to increase doses.⁵⁰ Medication holidays provide an opportunity to verify the ongoing benefits of the medication. It is advisable to periodically assess whether there is a continued need for stimulant treatment.⁵¹ If patients do not tolerate stimulants or have other contraindications, nonstimulants should be considered.

Lastly, no psychiatric patient should be treated with medication alone, and nonpharmacologic approaches should be incorporated as needed. Clear instructions, visual aids, nonverbal cues, frequent breaks to stand and stretch, schedules, normalizing failure as part of growth, and identifying triggers for emotional reactivity may help patients with ADHD.⁵² In a study of the academic performance of 92 college students taking medication for ADHD and 146 control students, treatment with stimulants alone did not eliminate the academic achievement deficit of those individuals with ADHD.⁵³ Good study habits (even without stimulants) appeared more important in overcoming the achievement disparity of students with ADHD.⁵³ Providing psychoeducation and training in concrete organization and planning skills have shown benefit.⁵⁴ Practice of skills on a daily basis appears to be especially beneficial.⁵⁵

Bottom Line

A sensible approach to diagnosing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults includes ruling out other disorders that may present similar to ADHD, taking an appropriate developmental history, obtaining collateral information, and assessing for functional impairment. Sensible treatment involves ruling out comorbidities that stimulants could worsen, selecting extended-release stimulants, incorporating medication holidays, and using nonpharmacologic interventions.

Related Resources

• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: diagnosis and management. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng87
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Advisory: Prescription Stimulant Misuse Among Youth and Young Adults. https://store.samhsa.gov/product/prescription-stimulant-misuse-among-youth-young-adults/PEP21-06-01-003

Drug Brand Names

Amphetamine • Adzenys, Dyanavel, others
Atomoxetine • Strattera
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Forfivo
Clonidine • Catapres, Kapvay
Dexmethylphenidate • Focalin
Dextroamphetamine • Dexedrine
Dextroamphetamine and amphetamine • Adderall, Mydayis
Guanfacine • Intuniv, Tenex
Lisdexamfetamine • Vyvanse
Methylphenidate • Concerta, Methylin, others
Viloxazine • Qelbree

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is common, with an estimated worldwide prevalence of 5.29% among children and adolescents and 2.5% among adults.¹ DSM-5-TR classifies ADHD as a neurodevelop­mental disorder, “a group of conditions with onset in the developmental period [that] typically manifest early in development, often before the child enters school.”² Because of the expectation that ADHD symptoms emerge early in development, the diagnostic criteria specify that symptoms must have been present prior to age 12 to qualify as ADHD. However, recent years have shown a significant increase in the number of patients being diagnosed with ADHD for the first time in adulthood. One study found that the diagnosis of ADHD among adults in the United States doubled between 2007 and 2016.³

First-line treatment for ADHD is the stimulants methylphenidate and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine. In the United States, these medications are classified as Schedule II controlled substances, indicating a high risk for abuse. However, just as ADHD diagnoses among adults have increased, so have prescriptions for stimulants. For example, Olfson et al⁴ found that stimulant prescriptions among young adults increased by a factor of 10 between 1994 and 2009.

The increased prevalence of adult patients diagnosed with ADHD and taking stimulants frequently places clinicians in a position to consider the validity of existing diagnoses and evaluate new patients with ADHD-related concerns. In this article, we review some of the challenges associated with diagnosing ADHD in adults, discuss the risks of stimulant treatment, and present a practical approach to the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in adults.

Challenges in diagnosis

DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for ADHD are summarized in Table 1. Establishing a diagnosis of adult ADHD can be challenging. As with many psychiatric conditions, symptoms of ADHD are highly subjective. Retrospectively diagnosing a developmental condition in adults is often biased by the patient’s current functioning.⁵ ADHD has a high heritability and adults may inquire about the diagnosis if their children are diagnosed with ADHD.⁶ Some experts have cautioned that clinicians must be careful in diagnosing ADHD in adults.⁷ Just as there are risks associated with underdiagnosing ADHD, there are risks associated with overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis may medicalize normal variants in the population and lead to unnecessary treatment and a misappropriation of limited medical resources.⁸ Many false positive cases of late-onset ADHD may be attributable to nonimpairing cognitive fluctuations.⁹

Poor diagnostic practices can impede accuracy in establishing the presence or absence of ADHD. Unfortunately, methods of diagnosing adult ADHD have been shown to vary widely in terms of information sources, diagnostic instruments used, symptom threshold, and whether functional impairment is a requirement for diagnosis.¹⁰ A common practice in diagnosing adult ADHD involves asking patients to complete self-report questionnaires that list symptoms of ADHD, such as the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale developed by the World Health Organization.¹¹ However, self-reports of ADHD in adults are less reliable than informant reports, and some young adults without ADHD overreport symptoms.^12,13 Symptom checklists are particularly susceptible to faking, which lessens their diagnostic value.¹⁴

The possibility of malingered symptoms of ADHD further increases the diagnostic difficulty. College students may be particularly susceptible to overreporting ADHD symptoms in order to obtain academic accommodations or stimulants in the hopes of improving school performance.¹⁵ One study found that 25% to 48% of college students self-referred for ADHD evaluations exaggerated their symptoms.¹⁶ In another study, 31% of adults failed the Word Memory Test, which suggests noncredible performance in their ADHD evaluation.¹⁷ College students can successfully feign ADHD symptoms in both self-reported symptoms and computer-based tests of attention.¹⁸ Harrison et al¹⁹ summarized many of these concerns in their 2007 study of ADHD malingering, noting the “almost perfect ability of the Faking group to choose items … that correspond to the DSM-IV symptoms, and to report these at levels even higher than persons with diagnosed ADHD.” They suggested “Clinicians should be suspicious of students or young adults presenting for a first-time diagnosis who rate themselves as being significantly symptomatic, yet have managed to achieve well in school and other life activities.”¹⁹

Another challenge in correctly diagnosing adult ADHD is identifying other conditions that may impair attention.²⁰ Psychiatric conditions that may impair concentration include anxiety disorders, chronic stress, posttraumatic stress disorder, recent trauma, major depressive disorder (MDD), and bipolar disorder (BD). Undiagnosed learning disorders may present like ADHD. Focus can be negatively affected by sleep disorders such as sleep apnea, restless leg syndrome, or delayed sleep phase-onset disorder. Marijuana, cocaine, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA; “ecstasy”), caffeine, or prescription medications such as anticholinergics can also impair attention. Medical conditions that can present with attentional or executive functioning deficits include seizures, Lyme disease, HIV, encephalopathy, hypothyroidism, and “chemo brain.”²¹ Environmental factors such as age-related cognitive decline, sleep deprivation, inflammation, obesity, air pollution, chemical exposure, and excessive use of digital media may also produce symptoms similar to ADHD. Two studies of adult-onset ADHD concluded that 93% to 95% of cases were better explained by other conditions such as sleep disorders, substance use disorders, or another psychiatric disorder.²²

Continue to: Risks associated with treatment

Risks associated with treatment

With or without an accurate ADHD diagnosis, prescribing stimulants presents certain risks (Table 2^23-40). One of the more well-known risks of stimulants is addiction or misuse.²³ An estimated 5 million American adults misused prescription stimulants in 2016.²⁴ Despite stimulants’ status as controlled substances, long-term concurrent use of stimulants with opioids is common among adults with ADHD.²⁵ College students are particularly susceptible to misusing or diverting stimulants, often to improve their academic performance.²⁶ At 1 university, 22% of students had misused stimulants in the past year.²⁷ Prescribing short-acting stimulants (rather than extended-release formulations) increases the likelihood of misuse.²⁸ Patients prescribed stimulants begin to receive requests to divert their medications to others as early as elementary school, and by college more than one-third of those taking stimulants have been asked to give, sell, or trade their medications.²⁹ Diversion of stimulants by students with ADHD is prevalent, with 62% of patients engaging in diversion during their lifetime.¹⁵ Diverted stimulants can come from family members, black market sources, or deceived clinicians.³⁰ Although students’ stimulant misuse/diversion often is academically motivated, nonmedical use of psychostimulants does not appear to have a statistically significant effect on improving grade point average.³¹ Despite a negligible impact on grades, most students who take stimulants identify their effect as strongly positive, producing a situation in which misusers of stimulants have little motivation to stop.³² While some patients might ask for a stimulant prescription with the rationale that liking the effects proves they have ADHD, this is inappropriate because most individuals like the effects of stimulant medications.³³

The use of stimulants increases the risk for several adverse psychiatric outcomes. Stimulants increase the risk of anxiety, so exercise caution when prescribing to patients with a comorbid anxiety disorder.³⁴ Stimulants can also worsen irritability and insomnia, 2 issues common among patients with ADHD.³² Use of stimulant medications can trigger manic episodes. Viktorin et al³⁵ found a >6-fold increase in manic episodes among patients with BD receiving methylphenidate monotherapy compared to those receiving a combination of methyl­phenidate and a mood stabilizer.³⁵ The use of methylphenidate and amphetamine can lead to new-onset psychosis (or exacerbation of pre-existing psychotic illness); amphetamine use is associated with a higher risk of psychosis than methylphenidate.³⁶

General medical adverse effects are also possible with stimulant use. Stimulants’ adverse effect profiles include appetite suppression, dry mouth, and nausea. Long-term use poses a risk for stunting growth in children.¹ Using stimulants during pregnancy is associated with higher risk for neonatal morbidity, including preterm birth, CNS-related disorders, and seizures.³⁷ Stimulants can raise blood pressure and increase heart rate. Serious cardiovascular events associated with stimulant use include ventricular arrhythmias, strokes, and transient ischemic attacks.³⁸

Nonstimulant ADHD treatments are less risky than stimulants but still require monitoring for common adverse effects. Atomoxetine has been associated with sedation, growth retardation (in children), and in severe cases, liver injury or suicidal ideation.³⁹ Bupropion (commonly used off-label for ADHD) can lower the seizure threshold and cause irritability, anorexia, and insomnia.³⁹ Viloxazine, a newer agent, can cause hypertension, increased heart rate, nausea, drowsiness, headache, and insomnia.⁴⁰

Sensible diagnosing

Given the challenges in accurately diagnosing ADHD in adults, we present a sensible approach to making the diagnosis (Table 3). The first step is to rule out other conditions that might better explain the patient’s symptoms. A thorough clinical interview (including a psychiatric review of symptoms) is the cornerstone of an initial diagnostic assessment. The use of validated screening questionnaires such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and General Anxiety Disorder-7 may also provide information regarding psychiatric conditions that require additional evaluation.

Continue to: Some of the most common conditions...

Some of the most common conditions we see mistaken for ADHD are MDD, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and BD. In DSM-5-TR, 1 of the diagnostic criteria for MDD is “diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either by subjective account or as observed by others).”⁴¹ Similarly, criteria for GAD include “difficulty concentrating.”⁴² DSM-5-TR also includes distractibility as one of the criteria for mania/hypomania. Table 4^20-22,41,42 lists other psychiatric, substance-related, medical, and environmental conditions that can produce ADHD-like symptoms. Referring to some medical and environmental explanations for inattention, Aiken²² pointed out, “Patients who suffer from these problems might ask their doctor for a stimulant, but none of those syndromes require a psychopharmacologic approach.” ADHD can be comorbid with other psychiatric conditions, so the presence of another psychiatric illness does not automatically rule out ADHD. If alternative psychiatric diagnoses have been identified, these can be discussed with the patient and treatment offered that targets the specified condition.

Once alternative explanations have been ruled out, focus on the patient’s developmental history. DSM-5-TR conceptualizes ADHD as a neurodevelopmental disorder, meaning it is expected to emerge early in life. Whereas previous editions of DSM specified that ADHD symptoms must be present before age 7, DSM-5 modified this age threshold to before age 12.¹ This necessitates taking a careful life history in order to understand the presence or absence of symptoms at earlier developmental stages.⁵ ADHD should be verified by symptoms apparent in childhood and present across the lifespan.¹⁵

While this retrospective history is necessary, histories that rely on self-report alone are often unreliable. Collateral sources of information are generally more reliable when assessing for ADHD symptoms.¹³ Third-party sources can help confirm that any impairment is best attributed to ADHD rather than to another condition.¹⁵ Unfortunately, the difficulty of obtaining collateral information means it is often neglected, even in the literature.¹⁰ A parent is the ideal informant for gathering collateral information regarding a patient’s functioning in childhood.⁵ Suggested best practices also include obtaining collateral information from interviews with significant others, behavioral questionnaires completed by parents (for current and childhood symptoms), review of school records, and consideration of intellectual and achievement testing.⁴³ If psychological testing is pursued, include validity testing to detect feigned symptoms.^18,44

When evaluating for ADHD, assess not only for the presence of symptoms, but also if these symptoms produce significant functional impairment.^13,15 Impairments in daily functioning can include impaired school participation, social participation, quality of relationships, family conflict, family activities, family functioning, and emotional functioning.⁴⁵ Some symptoms may affect functioning in an adult’s life differently than they did during childhood, from missed work appointments to being late picking up kids from school. Research has shown that the correlation between the number of symptoms and functional impairment is weak, which means someone could experience all of the symptoms of ADHD without experiencing functional impairment.⁴⁵ To make an accurate diagnosis, it is therefore important to clearly establish both the number of symptoms the patient is experiencing and whether these symptoms are clearly linked to functional impairments.¹⁰

Sensible treatment

Once a diagnosis of ADHD has been clearly established, clinicians need to consider how best to treat the condition (Table 5). Stimulants are generally considered first-line treatment for ADHD. In randomized clinical trials, they showed significant efficacy; for example, one study of 146 adults with ADHD found a 76% improvement with methylphenidate compared to 19% for the placebo group.⁴⁶ Before starting a stimulant, certain comorbidities should be ruled out. If a patient has glaucoma or pheochromocytoma, they may first need treatment from or clearance by other specialists. Stimulants should likely be held in patients with hypertension, angina, or cardiovascular defects until receiving medical clearance. The risks of stimulants need to be discussed with female patients of childbearing age, weighing the benefits of treatment against the risks of medication use should the patient get pregnant. Patients with comorbid psychosis or uncontrolled bipolar illness should not receive stimulants due to the risk of exacerbation. Patients with active substance use disorders (SUDs) are generally not good candidates for stimulants because of the risk of misusing or diverting stimulants and the possibility that substance abuse may be causing their inattentive symptoms. Patients whose SUDs are in remission may cautiously be considered as candidates for stimulants. If patients misuse their prescribed stimulants, they should be switched to a nonstimulant medication such as atomoxetine, bupropion, guanfacine, or clonidine.⁴⁷

Continue to: Once a patient is deemed...

Once a patient is deemed to be a candidate for stimulants, clinicians need to choose between methylphenidate or amphetamine/dextroamphetamine formulations. Table 6 lists medications that are commonly prescribed to treat ADHD; unless otherwise noted, these are FDA-approved for this indication. As a general rule, for adults, long-acting stimulant formulations are preferred over short-acting formulations.²⁸ Immediate-release stimulants are more prone to misuse or diversion compared to extended-release medications.²⁹ Longer-acting formulations may also provide better full-day symptom control.⁴⁸

In contrast to many other psychiatric medications, it may be beneficial to encourage periodically taking breaks or “medication holidays” from stimulants. Planned medication holidays for adults can involve intentionally not taking the medication over the weekend when the patient is not involved in work or school responsibilities. Such breaks have been shown to reduce adverse effects of stimulants (such as appetite suppression and insomnia) without significantly increasing ADHD symptoms.⁴⁹ Short breaks can also help prevent medication tolerance and the subsequent need to increase doses.⁵⁰ Medication holidays provide an opportunity to verify the ongoing benefits of the medication. It is advisable to periodically assess whether there is a continued need for stimulant treatment.⁵¹ If patients do not tolerate stimulants or have other contraindications, nonstimulants should be considered.

Lastly, no psychiatric patient should be treated with medication alone, and nonpharmacologic approaches should be incorporated as needed. Clear instructions, visual aids, nonverbal cues, frequent breaks to stand and stretch, schedules, normalizing failure as part of growth, and identifying triggers for emotional reactivity may help patients with ADHD.⁵² In a study of the academic performance of 92 college students taking medication for ADHD and 146 control students, treatment with stimulants alone did not eliminate the academic achievement deficit of those individuals with ADHD.⁵³ Good study habits (even without stimulants) appeared more important in overcoming the achievement disparity of students with ADHD.⁵³ Providing psychoeducation and training in concrete organization and planning skills have shown benefit.⁵⁴ Practice of skills on a daily basis appears to be especially beneficial.⁵⁵

Bottom Line

A sensible approach to diagnosing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults includes ruling out other disorders that may present similar to ADHD, taking an appropriate developmental history, obtaining collateral information, and assessing for functional impairment. Sensible treatment involves ruling out comorbidities that stimulants could worsen, selecting extended-release stimulants, incorporating medication holidays, and using nonpharmacologic interventions.

Related Resources

• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: diagnosis and management. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng87
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Advisory: Prescription Stimulant Misuse Among Youth and Young Adults. https://store.samhsa.gov/product/prescription-stimulant-misuse-among-youth-young-adults/PEP21-06-01-003

Drug Brand Names

Amphetamine • Adzenys, Dyanavel, others
Atomoxetine • Strattera
Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Forfivo
Clonidine • Catapres, Kapvay
Dexmethylphenidate • Focalin
Dextroamphetamine • Dexedrine
Dextroamphetamine and amphetamine • Adderall, Mydayis
Guanfacine • Intuniv, Tenex
Lisdexamfetamine • Vyvanse
Methylphenidate • Concerta, Methylin, others
Viloxazine • Qelbree