Conference Coverage

Confirming the importance of sleep health, new research shows that short and disrupted sleep increases the risk of fall-related and motor vehicle–related injury among U.S. adults.

Among the study’s key findings – adults who get 4 hours or less nightly and those who have trouble staying asleep are significantly more likely to be injured than peers who sleep the recommended 7-8 hours and those who never have trouble staying asleep.

The findings were presented at SLEEP 2023: 37th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

‘Stark differences’

In 2020, 55.4 million (roughly 1 in 6) Americans sought medical attention for nonfatal, preventable injuries.

“Poor sleep has been identified as a risk factor for preventable injuries,” study investigator Clarence Locklear, MA, who is a PhD student with the Center for Translational Sleep and Circadian Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this news organization.

For the study, the researchers examined associations between different types of sleep problems and different types of injuries utilizing data on 31,568 adults who participated in the 2020 National Health Interview Survey.

They investigated three types of injuries (fall-related, sports-related, and motor vehicle–related) and four domains of past-month sleep health: (1) sleep quantity: very short (≤ 4 hours), short (5-6 hours), healthy (7-8 hours), or long (≥ 9 hours); (2) sleep quality: trouble falling asleep and trouble staying asleep; (3) feeling well rested upon waking up; and (4) sleep medications.

Overall, 9% of adults suffered an injury in the prior 3 months. Among injured adults, 47% had a fall-related injury, 29% had a sports-related injury, and 6% had a motor vehicle–related injury.

Adults with very short sleep, those with short sleep, and those with long sleep were 37%, 15%, and 22% more likely to be injured, respectively, than adults with healthy sleep (P < .05), the researchers found.

Those who had trouble staying asleep were 36% more likely to be injured than peers who never had trouble staying asleep (P < .01).

Adults who never woke up feeling rested and those who woke up feeling rested only on some days were 49% and 36% more likely to be injured (P < .01), respectively, than peers who always felt rested on waking.

Individuals who on some days took medication for sleep were 24% (P < .05) more likely to suffer an injury and those who took sleep medication every day were 36% (P < .001) more likely to get injured than those who never took sleep medication.

“These are pretty stark differences,” said Mr. Locklear.

Regarding injury type, those who had trouble staying asleep some days were 22% (P < .05) more likely to have a fall-related injury and were 3.5 times (P < .01) more likely to experience a motor vehicle–related injury than peers who didn’t have trouble staying asleep.

People who took sleep medication most days were 2.4 times more likely to suffer a fall than those who never took sleep medication. In addition, adults who reported long sleep (9+ hours nightly) were 43% less likely to have sports-related injuries (P < .05) than healthy sleepers (7-8 hours).
 

Quantity and quality matter

Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, said the results are “not particularly surprising but are consistent with other data.”

Dr. Breus said, “Many people don’t realize it’s not just sleep deprivation, in terms of minutes, that’s a problem. Our quality of sleep also matters. You can get 8 hours of crappy sleep and still injure yourself playing sports or get into a car accident due to poor reaction time.”

As previously reported by this news organization, the American Heart Association recently added healthy sleep as an essential component of heart health. “It’s nice to see them recognize that sleep is a big deal, and we’ve got the data to back it up,” said Dr. Breus.

He noted that people often ask him what’s the one thing they can do to improve sleep.

“The answer is always, wake up at the same time every single day, including the weekend, because your circadian system realigns every single morning.

“I solve maybe 50%-60% of people’s problems by just telling them to just wake up at the same time 7 days a week. I personally have been doing it for a very long time,” said Dr. Breus.

The study was supported by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Mr. Locklear and Dr. Breus have no relevant disclosures.

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

Confirming the importance of sleep health, new research shows that short and disrupted sleep increases the risk of fall-related and motor vehicle–related injury among U.S. adults.

Among the study’s key findings – adults who get 4 hours or less nightly and those who have trouble staying asleep are significantly more likely to be injured than peers who sleep the recommended 7-8 hours and those who never have trouble staying asleep.

The findings were presented at SLEEP 2023: 37th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

‘Stark differences’

In 2020, 55.4 million (roughly 1 in 6) Americans sought medical attention for nonfatal, preventable injuries.

“Poor sleep has been identified as a risk factor for preventable injuries,” study investigator Clarence Locklear, MA, who is a PhD student with the Center for Translational Sleep and Circadian Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this news organization.

For the study, the researchers examined associations between different types of sleep problems and different types of injuries utilizing data on 31,568 adults who participated in the 2020 National Health Interview Survey.

They investigated three types of injuries (fall-related, sports-related, and motor vehicle–related) and four domains of past-month sleep health: (1) sleep quantity: very short (≤ 4 hours), short (5-6 hours), healthy (7-8 hours), or long (≥ 9 hours); (2) sleep quality: trouble falling asleep and trouble staying asleep; (3) feeling well rested upon waking up; and (4) sleep medications.

Overall, 9% of adults suffered an injury in the prior 3 months. Among injured adults, 47% had a fall-related injury, 29% had a sports-related injury, and 6% had a motor vehicle–related injury.

Adults with very short sleep, those with short sleep, and those with long sleep were 37%, 15%, and 22% more likely to be injured, respectively, than adults with healthy sleep (P < .05), the researchers found.

Those who had trouble staying asleep were 36% more likely to be injured than peers who never had trouble staying asleep (P < .01).

Adults who never woke up feeling rested and those who woke up feeling rested only on some days were 49% and 36% more likely to be injured (P < .01), respectively, than peers who always felt rested on waking.

Individuals who on some days took medication for sleep were 24% (P < .05) more likely to suffer an injury and those who took sleep medication every day were 36% (P < .001) more likely to get injured than those who never took sleep medication.

“These are pretty stark differences,” said Mr. Locklear.

Regarding injury type, those who had trouble staying asleep some days were 22% (P < .05) more likely to have a fall-related injury and were 3.5 times (P < .01) more likely to experience a motor vehicle–related injury than peers who didn’t have trouble staying asleep.

People who took sleep medication most days were 2.4 times more likely to suffer a fall than those who never took sleep medication. In addition, adults who reported long sleep (9+ hours nightly) were 43% less likely to have sports-related injuries (P < .05) than healthy sleepers (7-8 hours).
 

Quantity and quality matter

Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, said the results are “not particularly surprising but are consistent with other data.”

Dr. Breus said, “Many people don’t realize it’s not just sleep deprivation, in terms of minutes, that’s a problem. Our quality of sleep also matters. You can get 8 hours of crappy sleep and still injure yourself playing sports or get into a car accident due to poor reaction time.”

As previously reported by this news organization, the American Heart Association recently added healthy sleep as an essential component of heart health. “It’s nice to see them recognize that sleep is a big deal, and we’ve got the data to back it up,” said Dr. Breus.

He noted that people often ask him what’s the one thing they can do to improve sleep.

“The answer is always, wake up at the same time every single day, including the weekend, because your circadian system realigns every single morning.

“I solve maybe 50%-60% of people’s problems by just telling them to just wake up at the same time 7 days a week. I personally have been doing it for a very long time,” said Dr. Breus.

The study was supported by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Mr. Locklear and Dr. Breus have no relevant disclosures.

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

Confirming the importance of sleep health, new research shows that short and disrupted sleep increases the risk of fall-related and motor vehicle–related injury among U.S. adults.

Among the study’s key findings – adults who get 4 hours or less nightly and those who have trouble staying asleep are significantly more likely to be injured than peers who sleep the recommended 7-8 hours and those who never have trouble staying asleep.

The findings were presented at SLEEP 2023: 37th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

‘Stark differences’

In 2020, 55.4 million (roughly 1 in 6) Americans sought medical attention for nonfatal, preventable injuries.

“Poor sleep has been identified as a risk factor for preventable injuries,” study investigator Clarence Locklear, MA, who is a PhD student with the Center for Translational Sleep and Circadian Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this news organization.

For the study, the researchers examined associations between different types of sleep problems and different types of injuries utilizing data on 31,568 adults who participated in the 2020 National Health Interview Survey.

They investigated three types of injuries (fall-related, sports-related, and motor vehicle–related) and four domains of past-month sleep health: (1) sleep quantity: very short (≤ 4 hours), short (5-6 hours), healthy (7-8 hours), or long (≥ 9 hours); (2) sleep quality: trouble falling asleep and trouble staying asleep; (3) feeling well rested upon waking up; and (4) sleep medications.

Overall, 9% of adults suffered an injury in the prior 3 months. Among injured adults, 47% had a fall-related injury, 29% had a sports-related injury, and 6% had a motor vehicle–related injury.

Adults with very short sleep, those with short sleep, and those with long sleep were 37%, 15%, and 22% more likely to be injured, respectively, than adults with healthy sleep (P < .05), the researchers found.

Those who had trouble staying asleep were 36% more likely to be injured than peers who never had trouble staying asleep (P < .01).

Adults who never woke up feeling rested and those who woke up feeling rested only on some days were 49% and 36% more likely to be injured (P < .01), respectively, than peers who always felt rested on waking.

Individuals who on some days took medication for sleep were 24% (P < .05) more likely to suffer an injury and those who took sleep medication every day were 36% (P < .001) more likely to get injured than those who never took sleep medication.

“These are pretty stark differences,” said Mr. Locklear.

Regarding injury type, those who had trouble staying asleep some days were 22% (P < .05) more likely to have a fall-related injury and were 3.5 times (P < .01) more likely to experience a motor vehicle–related injury than peers who didn’t have trouble staying asleep.

People who took sleep medication most days were 2.4 times more likely to suffer a fall than those who never took sleep medication. In addition, adults who reported long sleep (9+ hours nightly) were 43% less likely to have sports-related injuries (P < .05) than healthy sleepers (7-8 hours).
 

Quantity and quality matter

Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of TheSleepDoctor.com, said the results are “not particularly surprising but are consistent with other data.”

Dr. Breus said, “Many people don’t realize it’s not just sleep deprivation, in terms of minutes, that’s a problem. Our quality of sleep also matters. You can get 8 hours of crappy sleep and still injure yourself playing sports or get into a car accident due to poor reaction time.”

As previously reported by this news organization, the American Heart Association recently added healthy sleep as an essential component of heart health. “It’s nice to see them recognize that sleep is a big deal, and we’ve got the data to back it up,” said Dr. Breus.

He noted that people often ask him what’s the one thing they can do to improve sleep.

“The answer is always, wake up at the same time every single day, including the weekend, because your circadian system realigns every single morning.

“I solve maybe 50%-60% of people’s problems by just telling them to just wake up at the same time 7 days a week. I personally have been doing it for a very long time,” said Dr. Breus.

The study was supported by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Mr. Locklear and Dr. Breus have no relevant disclosures.

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

CHICAGO – Testosterone replacement therapy does not appear to raise the risk for adverse cardiac events among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism at high risk for heart disease, long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.

Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.

In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.

And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.

The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.

The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.

Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.

“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
 

Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.

Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation

TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.

Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.

Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).

There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).

“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.

Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
 

Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’

Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”

He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series,  had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.

Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”

At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.

“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
 

‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk

The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.

“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.

The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.

Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.

“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.

Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”

Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.

“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 6/19/23.

CHICAGO – Testosterone replacement therapy does not appear to raise the risk for adverse cardiac events among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism at high risk for heart disease, long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.

Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.

In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.

And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.

The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.

The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.

Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.

“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
 

Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.

Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation

TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.

Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.

Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).

There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).

“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.

Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
 

Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’

Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”

He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series,  had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.

Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”

At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.

“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
 

‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk

The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.

“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.

The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.

Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.

“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.

Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”

Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.

“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 6/19/23.

CHICAGO – Testosterone replacement therapy does not appear to raise the risk for adverse cardiac events among middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism at high risk for heart disease, long-awaited results from a major clinical trial show.

Among over 5,000 men aged 45-80 years randomized to daily transdermal testosterone gel or matching placebo gel for an average of 22 months, no increased risk was seen for a first occurrence of any component of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

There was also no increased risk for prostate cancer over the 33-month follow-up period. However, there were increases in rates of atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and pulmonary embolism in the testosterone group.

In terms of efficacy, testosterone therapy was associated with improved sexual function over two years of treatment and correction, or prevention, of anemia, but had no effect on progression to diabetes or glycemic parameters.

And, an unexpected finding was a significant and unexplained 43% increase in fractures with testosterone therapy.

The TRAVERSE study was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 in response to concerns and conflicting data regarding the cardiovascular safety of testosterone replacement therapy in men. It was conducted by a consortium of five manufacturers of testosterone replacement products, led by AbbVie.

The results were presented during a symposium at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society. The mandated safety data were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. The efficacy outcomes, undertaken opportunistically due to the trial’s large sample size and relatively long followup time, will be published later this year.

Taken together, the TRAVERSE findings are expected to transform the risk–benefit discussions with patients about the use of testosterone therapy for hypogonadism, study coauthor Shalender Bhasin, MD, told this news organization.

“Testosterone deficiency doesn’t kill people as far as we know but it is really an important symptomatic condition that affects quality of life. Many middle-aged and older men seek assistance for these symptoms, so it’s an important condition and the treatment decisions are complicated,” said Dr. Bhasin, director of the research program in Men’s Health: Aging and Metabolism, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

These new data will be incorporated into future guidelines on testosterone therapy in men with hypoandrogenism, noted Dr. Bhasin, a coauthor of The Endocrine Society’s 2018 guidelines.
 

Findings apply only to men with bona fide testosterone deficiency

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, told this news organization that “the community of physicians who prescribe testosterone to men was waiting with bated breath” for the TRAVERSE results.

Safety reassuring, but some concerns will require more investigation

TRAVERSE was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial that enrolled 5246 men aged 45-80 years. Participants had pre-existing or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease, reported symptoms of hypogonadism, and had two fasting testosterone levels < 300 ng/dL. They were randomly assigned to receive daily transdermal 1.62% testosterone gel or placebo gel.

The primary safety endpoint event (first adjudicated major adverse cardiac event) occurred in 182 patients (7.0%) in the testosterone group and in 190 patients (7.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.96; P < .001 for noninferiority). Similar results were seen in sensitivity analyses.

Pulmonary embolism occurred in 0.9% of the testosterone group versus 0.5% of the placebo group, supporting current guidelines that testosterone should be used with caution in men who have had previous thromboembolic events, the authors note.

Prostate cancer occurred in 0.5% (n = 12) of patients in the testosterone group and 0.4% (n = 11) of patients in the placebo group, not a significant difference (P = .87).

There were, however, significant differences between the testosterone and placebo groups in terms of nonfatal arrhythmias warranting intervention (5.2% vs. 3.3%; P = .001), atrial fibrillation (3.5% vs. 2.4%; P = .02), and acute kidney injury (2.3% vs. 1.5%; P = .04).

“These adverse events were not expected,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Bhasin said that the team plans to investigate those cases further to look for possible risk factors, including whether COVID-19 played a role in these outcomes because the trial took place during the pandemic and some participants in both study groups contracted the virus.

Regarding acute kidney injury, Dr. Anawalt said: “I don’t know that I believe that ... It’s probably a statistical abnormality. It barely made ... significance.”
 

Finally, ‘real data on something we’ve been prescribing for decades’

Both Dr. Bhasin and Dr. Anawalt pointed out the deficiencies in the prior literature in terms of what has been known about testosterone’s effects. According to Dr. Bhasin, “In spite of all the folklore, there isn’t very much known about the efficacy of treatment beyond sexual function, and even there, the data are really limited. Most trials have been open-label and very small.”

He added that even among the few previous randomized clinical trials, only one, the TTrials series,  had an adequate number of participants and used robust measures to assess sexual function, but that study only lasted a year.

Indeed, Dr. Anawalt noted, “[TRAVERSE] and its father study, the TTrials, were the first systematic studies to look at large groups of men getting testosterone versus placebo. We’re now starting to get real data on something that we’ve been prescribing for decades.”

At the ENDO symposium, Dr. Bhasin presented data showing significant improvements with testosterone compared to placebo in overall sexual activity (P = .011), sexual symptoms (P < .001), and sexual desire over one year, and maintained over two years in TRAVERSE. All were assessed by validated questionnaires.

“They confirmed that there’s an improvement in sexual function and that it’s sustained. That’s important because there had been doubt about that ... and it sounds like it’s clinically significant,” Dr. Anawalt said.

Testosterone therapy was also associated with lower rates of anemia among men who were not anemic at baseline, and lower incidence of anemia in those who were anemic to begin with. However, the rate of progression from prediabetes to diabetes didn’t differ significantly, nor did testosterone therapy improve glycemic control or remission in men who had diabetes at baseline, Dr. Bhasin reported.
 

‘Big surprise’ and a mystery: Testosterone increased fracture risk

The fracture data were presented by Peter J. Snyder, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the session had received an Endocrine Society award for his work in the testosterone field.

“No prior trial of testosterone treatment of hypogonadal men has been large enough or long enough to assess its effect on fractures ... until the TRAVERSE trial,” he said.

The hypothesis going in was that testosterone would decrease the fracture incidence, since prior data had suggested it improves many parameters of bone quality in elderly men and in those with severe hypogonadism.

Instead, there were 91 confirmed and adjudicated clinical fractures in the testosterone group versus 64 in the placebo group, giving a hazard ratio of 1.43 (P = .03). The risk was seen across fracture types, increasing the likelihood that this finding was, in fact, real, Dr. Snyder said.

“We could speculate about a possible mechanism, but because we did not expect these results, we did not design the trial to evaluate a possible mechanism,” Dr. Snyder noted.

Dr. Anawalt told this news organization that the fracture finding “was a big surprise. None of us would have expected that there would be an increase in fractures.”

Clinically, Dr. Anawalt said it suggests consideration of expanding the use of anti-osteoporotic medication such as bisphosphonates to men with low testosterone and elevated fracture risk for whom clinicians may have assumed that just giving them testosterone replacement might also protect their bones.

“This begs the question should we reorient the way we’re thinking about these men.”

The study was funded by AbbVie, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Aytu Biosciences, Allergan Sales, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Dr. Bhasin has disclosed grants to his institution from Function Promoting Therapies and Metro International Biotech, and owns stock in XYone. Dr. Anawalt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This article was updated 6/19/23.

Oncologists commonly suffer “professional grief” when a patient dies – in fact, it is a “familiar, daily reality for the oncology clinician,” says one – but when it is also accompanied by a sense of emotional isolation, it can lead to reduced well-being and burnout.

The issue was discussed at a special session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and several speakers offered solutions.  

Laurie Jean Lyckholm, MD, professor, Hematology/Oncology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, polled the audience to ask how they deal with patient-related loss and grief.

The responses showed that 44.4% said they talk with their colleagues, 16.7% said they talk about it with family and friends, but 22.2% said that they simply move on to the next patient.

Dr. Lyckholm noted that there are positive and negative ways of dealing with grief.

One example of a positive way comes from an oncologist who attended one of her talks and shared with her how his practice deals with the issue.

“At the end of every fourth Friday, he closes his community practice office early and all the oncologists, everyone, stays for a while, and they have a list of the people who have died,” Dr. Lyckholm explained. As a group, they go through the list and reminisce about the patients who died, recalling funny incidents or things that person had said.

“I love this idea,” she said. “The most important thing is to commemorate that person.”
 

Amplified during pandemic

Like many other issues, the problem of how to deal with “professional grief” was amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many people were unable to see their dying relatives because of the restricted access to sealed-off, dedicated COVID-19 units. One oncologist who had developed a friendly relationship with a patient while treating them for cancer over several years was unable to visit the patient once they were ill with the disease and was left to communicate via an iPad. “It was the only way I could say ‘goodbye’ before she died. ... It still haunts me today, 2 years later,” the clinician recalled.

This anecdote illustrates “disenfranchised grief,” which occurs when an individual experiences a “significant loss and the resultant grief is not openly acknowledged, socially validated, or publicly mourned,” Dr. Lyckholm explained.

If this goes unrecognized, it can lead to shame, guilt, and organizational mistrust, resulting in reduced well-being and clinician burnout, she warned.

The pandemic also had an impact on clinicians directly. Dr. Lyckholm quoted one nurse practitioner who talked about coming back to a new “lonely normal” when returning to a Veterans Affairs hospital.

“I am still getting used to calling colleagues, and paging colleagues, and realizing that they just aren’t there,” the nurse practitioner said. “They aren’t there because they either left or died. I just didn’t expect that.”

Dr. Lyckholm said, “I don’t think we can ever stop acknowledging COVID, because it just had such a terrible impact on all of us.”
 

Teamwork intervention

The next speaker also polled the audience. Christopher Ryan Friese, PhD, RN, AOCN, Elizabeth Tone Hosmer Professor of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, asked the audience what strategy they would prioritize to reduce burnout, from the perspective of the entire cancer care team.

The response indicated that many (43.6%) would like to see team-based grief and bereavement sessions, while 31.1% thought it best to tackle low-value administrative work.

Dr. Friese drew on a teamwork intervention that researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, with support from the National Cancer Institute, implemented to help identify opportunities to improve cancer care delivery services.

It began with a focus group of nurses who were invited to identify practice pain points, then six 2-hour sessions with all members of the clinical team to identify and develop service expectations and commitments across the various roles.

After these sessions, the researchers saw a decrease in missing orders from 30% to 2%, while patient satisfaction increased from 93% to 97% as a result. Interestingly, there was also a reported rise in efficiency, practice quality and safety, and respectful professional behaviors.

The pilot was then rolled out across the whole institution, and Dr. Friese and colleagues also implemented a version of the program at their community medical oncology practice.

They had a huge response from patients and clinicians alike (with participation rates of 90% and 78%, respectively), and the survey results led to changes in workflow and the standardization of communications.

Importantly for Dr. Friese, the clinicians who took part wanted to repeat the survey to evaluate any practice changes, which was not part of the study protocol and had not been envisaged by the researchers.

So they developed a survey for clinicians, using as an inspiration the Choosing Wisely campaign by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation to identify the best treatments to improve patient outcomes and those to deprioritize.

They used the survey on 373 clinicians at the University of Michigan Health System and found that “the number one thing was getting rid of the administrative work” – that it doesn’t have to be done specifically by physicians or other providers and that other people can do it.

The second was time-consuming electronic health record tasks.

Both of these have since been the focus of an elimination and reduction process to give clinicians more time to do what matters most to them and their patients.

“We have the opportunity to do this in a different way,” Dr. Friese said, “and I think it’s a really powerful opportunity.”

“We can retrofit the solution, which is the pizza parties, and the yoga apps, and the T-shirts ... [or] we could actually redesign the work that we’re asking clinicians to do on a daily basis,” he commented.

“We could make the work easier to do so that you have more time with patients and less time with administrative work and have more time to process grief or to celebrate successes,” he concluded.
 

Tackling burnout

The final speaker, Vicki A. Jackson, MD, MPH, chief of palliative care, Massachusetts General Hospital, emphasized that the recognition of grief by a cancer care provider is “imperative” for physician well-being and pointed out that that interventions to help “do exist,” including ASCO’s SafeHaven collection of physician well-being resources.

Oncology inherently carries with it “threats” to well-being, including uncertainty and doubt, isolation, fears over one’s usefulness, exhaustion, the witnessing of suffering, and moral distress, she noted.

Things that are necessary for well-being, in contrast, include a sense of connection and community, having boundaries between work and personal life, self-awareness, compassion, and empowerment, among others.

Dr. Jackson believes that in the current era community building within oncology must be “intentional” and not just based around “water cooler moments,” as the sense of isolation experienced by clinicians is “not fluff; this is critical.”

Initiatives such as virtual happy hours and game nights may be helpful, she suggested.

A colleague of hers likes to send out the dad joke of the day, “which made everybody groan, but let me tell you, it changed the affective tone before they started seeing all these really hard, sad patients.”

Setting boundaries, which was the topic of another session at ASCO 2023, is also an important way to address the “emotionally powerful” work of oncology, Dr. Jackson commented.

She underlined the need to channel or be “fully present when you are in the room” but emphasized the need to detach at the end of the day, commenting that “when you leave, you leave.”

No funding was declared. Dr. Friese reported relationships with Merck, NCCN/Pfizer, National Cancer Institute, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Simms/Mann Foundation. No other speakers reported relevant financial relationships.

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

Oncologists commonly suffer “professional grief” when a patient dies – in fact, it is a “familiar, daily reality for the oncology clinician,” says one – but when it is also accompanied by a sense of emotional isolation, it can lead to reduced well-being and burnout.

The issue was discussed at a special session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and several speakers offered solutions.  

Laurie Jean Lyckholm, MD, professor, Hematology/Oncology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, polled the audience to ask how they deal with patient-related loss and grief.

The responses showed that 44.4% said they talk with their colleagues, 16.7% said they talk about it with family and friends, but 22.2% said that they simply move on to the next patient.

Dr. Lyckholm noted that there are positive and negative ways of dealing with grief.

One example of a positive way comes from an oncologist who attended one of her talks and shared with her how his practice deals with the issue.

“At the end of every fourth Friday, he closes his community practice office early and all the oncologists, everyone, stays for a while, and they have a list of the people who have died,” Dr. Lyckholm explained. As a group, they go through the list and reminisce about the patients who died, recalling funny incidents or things that person had said.

“I love this idea,” she said. “The most important thing is to commemorate that person.”
 

Amplified during pandemic

Like many other issues, the problem of how to deal with “professional grief” was amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many people were unable to see their dying relatives because of the restricted access to sealed-off, dedicated COVID-19 units. One oncologist who had developed a friendly relationship with a patient while treating them for cancer over several years was unable to visit the patient once they were ill with the disease and was left to communicate via an iPad. “It was the only way I could say ‘goodbye’ before she died. ... It still haunts me today, 2 years later,” the clinician recalled.

This anecdote illustrates “disenfranchised grief,” which occurs when an individual experiences a “significant loss and the resultant grief is not openly acknowledged, socially validated, or publicly mourned,” Dr. Lyckholm explained.

If this goes unrecognized, it can lead to shame, guilt, and organizational mistrust, resulting in reduced well-being and clinician burnout, she warned.

The pandemic also had an impact on clinicians directly. Dr. Lyckholm quoted one nurse practitioner who talked about coming back to a new “lonely normal” when returning to a Veterans Affairs hospital.

“I am still getting used to calling colleagues, and paging colleagues, and realizing that they just aren’t there,” the nurse practitioner said. “They aren’t there because they either left or died. I just didn’t expect that.”

Dr. Lyckholm said, “I don’t think we can ever stop acknowledging COVID, because it just had such a terrible impact on all of us.”
 

Teamwork intervention

The next speaker also polled the audience. Christopher Ryan Friese, PhD, RN, AOCN, Elizabeth Tone Hosmer Professor of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, asked the audience what strategy they would prioritize to reduce burnout, from the perspective of the entire cancer care team.

The response indicated that many (43.6%) would like to see team-based grief and bereavement sessions, while 31.1% thought it best to tackle low-value administrative work.

Dr. Friese drew on a teamwork intervention that researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, with support from the National Cancer Institute, implemented to help identify opportunities to improve cancer care delivery services.

It began with a focus group of nurses who were invited to identify practice pain points, then six 2-hour sessions with all members of the clinical team to identify and develop service expectations and commitments across the various roles.

After these sessions, the researchers saw a decrease in missing orders from 30% to 2%, while patient satisfaction increased from 93% to 97% as a result. Interestingly, there was also a reported rise in efficiency, practice quality and safety, and respectful professional behaviors.

The pilot was then rolled out across the whole institution, and Dr. Friese and colleagues also implemented a version of the program at their community medical oncology practice.

They had a huge response from patients and clinicians alike (with participation rates of 90% and 78%, respectively), and the survey results led to changes in workflow and the standardization of communications.

Importantly for Dr. Friese, the clinicians who took part wanted to repeat the survey to evaluate any practice changes, which was not part of the study protocol and had not been envisaged by the researchers.

So they developed a survey for clinicians, using as an inspiration the Choosing Wisely campaign by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation to identify the best treatments to improve patient outcomes and those to deprioritize.

They used the survey on 373 clinicians at the University of Michigan Health System and found that “the number one thing was getting rid of the administrative work” – that it doesn’t have to be done specifically by physicians or other providers and that other people can do it.

The second was time-consuming electronic health record tasks.

Both of these have since been the focus of an elimination and reduction process to give clinicians more time to do what matters most to them and their patients.

“We have the opportunity to do this in a different way,” Dr. Friese said, “and I think it’s a really powerful opportunity.”

“We can retrofit the solution, which is the pizza parties, and the yoga apps, and the T-shirts ... [or] we could actually redesign the work that we’re asking clinicians to do on a daily basis,” he commented.

“We could make the work easier to do so that you have more time with patients and less time with administrative work and have more time to process grief or to celebrate successes,” he concluded.
 

Tackling burnout

The final speaker, Vicki A. Jackson, MD, MPH, chief of palliative care, Massachusetts General Hospital, emphasized that the recognition of grief by a cancer care provider is “imperative” for physician well-being and pointed out that that interventions to help “do exist,” including ASCO’s SafeHaven collection of physician well-being resources.

Oncology inherently carries with it “threats” to well-being, including uncertainty and doubt, isolation, fears over one’s usefulness, exhaustion, the witnessing of suffering, and moral distress, she noted.

Things that are necessary for well-being, in contrast, include a sense of connection and community, having boundaries between work and personal life, self-awareness, compassion, and empowerment, among others.

Dr. Jackson believes that in the current era community building within oncology must be “intentional” and not just based around “water cooler moments,” as the sense of isolation experienced by clinicians is “not fluff; this is critical.”

Initiatives such as virtual happy hours and game nights may be helpful, she suggested.

A colleague of hers likes to send out the dad joke of the day, “which made everybody groan, but let me tell you, it changed the affective tone before they started seeing all these really hard, sad patients.”

Setting boundaries, which was the topic of another session at ASCO 2023, is also an important way to address the “emotionally powerful” work of oncology, Dr. Jackson commented.

She underlined the need to channel or be “fully present when you are in the room” but emphasized the need to detach at the end of the day, commenting that “when you leave, you leave.”

No funding was declared. Dr. Friese reported relationships with Merck, NCCN/Pfizer, National Cancer Institute, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Simms/Mann Foundation. No other speakers reported relevant financial relationships.

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

Oncologists commonly suffer “professional grief” when a patient dies – in fact, it is a “familiar, daily reality for the oncology clinician,” says one – but when it is also accompanied by a sense of emotional isolation, it can lead to reduced well-being and burnout.

The issue was discussed at a special session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and several speakers offered solutions.  

Laurie Jean Lyckholm, MD, professor, Hematology/Oncology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, polled the audience to ask how they deal with patient-related loss and grief.

The responses showed that 44.4% said they talk with their colleagues, 16.7% said they talk about it with family and friends, but 22.2% said that they simply move on to the next patient.

Dr. Lyckholm noted that there are positive and negative ways of dealing with grief.

One example of a positive way comes from an oncologist who attended one of her talks and shared with her how his practice deals with the issue.

“At the end of every fourth Friday, he closes his community practice office early and all the oncologists, everyone, stays for a while, and they have a list of the people who have died,” Dr. Lyckholm explained. As a group, they go through the list and reminisce about the patients who died, recalling funny incidents or things that person had said.

“I love this idea,” she said. “The most important thing is to commemorate that person.”
 

Amplified during pandemic

Like many other issues, the problem of how to deal with “professional grief” was amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many people were unable to see their dying relatives because of the restricted access to sealed-off, dedicated COVID-19 units. One oncologist who had developed a friendly relationship with a patient while treating them for cancer over several years was unable to visit the patient once they were ill with the disease and was left to communicate via an iPad. “It was the only way I could say ‘goodbye’ before she died. ... It still haunts me today, 2 years later,” the clinician recalled.

This anecdote illustrates “disenfranchised grief,” which occurs when an individual experiences a “significant loss and the resultant grief is not openly acknowledged, socially validated, or publicly mourned,” Dr. Lyckholm explained.

If this goes unrecognized, it can lead to shame, guilt, and organizational mistrust, resulting in reduced well-being and clinician burnout, she warned.

The pandemic also had an impact on clinicians directly. Dr. Lyckholm quoted one nurse practitioner who talked about coming back to a new “lonely normal” when returning to a Veterans Affairs hospital.

“I am still getting used to calling colleagues, and paging colleagues, and realizing that they just aren’t there,” the nurse practitioner said. “They aren’t there because they either left or died. I just didn’t expect that.”

Dr. Lyckholm said, “I don’t think we can ever stop acknowledging COVID, because it just had such a terrible impact on all of us.”
 

Teamwork intervention

The next speaker also polled the audience. Christopher Ryan Friese, PhD, RN, AOCN, Elizabeth Tone Hosmer Professor of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, asked the audience what strategy they would prioritize to reduce burnout, from the perspective of the entire cancer care team.

The response indicated that many (43.6%) would like to see team-based grief and bereavement sessions, while 31.1% thought it best to tackle low-value administrative work.

Dr. Friese drew on a teamwork intervention that researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, with support from the National Cancer Institute, implemented to help identify opportunities to improve cancer care delivery services.

It began with a focus group of nurses who were invited to identify practice pain points, then six 2-hour sessions with all members of the clinical team to identify and develop service expectations and commitments across the various roles.

After these sessions, the researchers saw a decrease in missing orders from 30% to 2%, while patient satisfaction increased from 93% to 97% as a result. Interestingly, there was also a reported rise in efficiency, practice quality and safety, and respectful professional behaviors.

The pilot was then rolled out across the whole institution, and Dr. Friese and colleagues also implemented a version of the program at their community medical oncology practice.

They had a huge response from patients and clinicians alike (with participation rates of 90% and 78%, respectively), and the survey results led to changes in workflow and the standardization of communications.

Importantly for Dr. Friese, the clinicians who took part wanted to repeat the survey to evaluate any practice changes, which was not part of the study protocol and had not been envisaged by the researchers.

So they developed a survey for clinicians, using as an inspiration the Choosing Wisely campaign by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation to identify the best treatments to improve patient outcomes and those to deprioritize.

They used the survey on 373 clinicians at the University of Michigan Health System and found that “the number one thing was getting rid of the administrative work” – that it doesn’t have to be done specifically by physicians or other providers and that other people can do it.

The second was time-consuming electronic health record tasks.

Both of these have since been the focus of an elimination and reduction process to give clinicians more time to do what matters most to them and their patients.

“We have the opportunity to do this in a different way,” Dr. Friese said, “and I think it’s a really powerful opportunity.”

“We can retrofit the solution, which is the pizza parties, and the yoga apps, and the T-shirts ... [or] we could actually redesign the work that we’re asking clinicians to do on a daily basis,” he commented.

“We could make the work easier to do so that you have more time with patients and less time with administrative work and have more time to process grief or to celebrate successes,” he concluded.
 

Tackling burnout

The final speaker, Vicki A. Jackson, MD, MPH, chief of palliative care, Massachusetts General Hospital, emphasized that the recognition of grief by a cancer care provider is “imperative” for physician well-being and pointed out that that interventions to help “do exist,” including ASCO’s SafeHaven collection of physician well-being resources.

Oncology inherently carries with it “threats” to well-being, including uncertainty and doubt, isolation, fears over one’s usefulness, exhaustion, the witnessing of suffering, and moral distress, she noted.

Things that are necessary for well-being, in contrast, include a sense of connection and community, having boundaries between work and personal life, self-awareness, compassion, and empowerment, among others.

Dr. Jackson believes that in the current era community building within oncology must be “intentional” and not just based around “water cooler moments,” as the sense of isolation experienced by clinicians is “not fluff; this is critical.”

Initiatives such as virtual happy hours and game nights may be helpful, she suggested.

A colleague of hers likes to send out the dad joke of the day, “which made everybody groan, but let me tell you, it changed the affective tone before they started seeing all these really hard, sad patients.”

Setting boundaries, which was the topic of another session at ASCO 2023, is also an important way to address the “emotionally powerful” work of oncology, Dr. Jackson commented.

She underlined the need to channel or be “fully present when you are in the room” but emphasized the need to detach at the end of the day, commenting that “when you leave, you leave.”

No funding was declared. Dr. Friese reported relationships with Merck, NCCN/Pfizer, National Cancer Institute, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the Simms/Mann Foundation. No other speakers reported relevant financial relationships.

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

Specific sun protection tips may vary by climate, but in San Diego, where the UV Index hovers in the moderate to high range on most days, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, favors an aggressive approach.

“I basically say, ‘sun protection means clothing, shade, [considering the] time of day of exposure, and sunscreen if you are going to be otherwise exposed,’ ” Dr. Eichenfield, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady’s Children’s Hospital, San Diego, said during a panel discussion about sunscreen use at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! He recommends photoprotective gear such as rash guards for surfers and other water sport enthusiasts. When patients ask him if they should use sunscreen, he often replies with a question of his own.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Do you brush your teeth?” he’ll ask.

“Yes, I do.”

“Well, you should put sunscreen on every day.”

Another panelist, Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she advises new parents to start sun protection efforts early. “Most sunscreens are not approved for use in children under the age of 6 months because testing has not been done in this age group, but I do recommend protective clothing. I also recommend wrap-around sunglasses, which offer 5% more protection from the sun than regular sunglasses.”

In her opinion, stick sunscreens are “a good add-on,” especially for under the eyes and the backs of the hands, but she is not a fan of spray sunscreens, which can leave large areas of skin unprotected if not applied properly.

Fellow panelist Jennifer Huang, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, who has a special interest in taking care of dermatologic conditions of children with cancer, generally recommends mineral-based sunscreens. “There is data to suggest that nonmineral sunscreens are less safe than mineral sunscreens for humans, and mineral sunscreens are considered to be better for the environment,” Dr. Huang said. “Plus, there are more elegant versions of mineral sunscreens that don’t make your skin pasty white.” However, for patients with darker skin tones, “it can be hard to apply a pasty white sunscreen, so I lean on some recommendations for tinted sunscreens, too, so there are options. I specifically recommend sunscreens that have iron oxides in them so that it can block physical rays and help with the cosmetic appearance.”

Moise Levy, MD, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin, said that his approach to imparting sunscreen advice to children and their parents involves a mix of spoken information, printed information, and sunscreen samples for children to try in the office, in the presence of a parent. To help patients choose among different samples, be they ointments, gels, or lotions, he will often ask the child: “‘What do you like the feel of better?’ If the child says, ‘I like this one,’ I make sure the parent hears that,” Dr. Levy said.

Vesna Andjic/iStockphoto

Next, Dr. Eichenfield, who moderated the discussion, asked his fellow panelists how they would counsel someone who comes to their practice for evaluation of moles and has a family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer. “I think this is one of the easier counseling sessions, because there are enough kids who are asked about the moles on their skin when they’re at school,” Dr. Hebert said. “I think they’re very ready to wear sun protective clothing and I certainly don’t want any sun exposure that would pose an increased risk for their child.”

In addition to routine sun protection, Dr. Huang recommends annual mole checks for children who have a first-degree relative with a history of malignant melanoma. Other high-risk groups that should undergo annual skin exams include anyone who has received high doses of radiation, bone marrow transplants, prolonged use of voriconazole, or prolonged systemic immunosuppression. Without a known genetic predisposition syndrome, a family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer would not raise concern for melanoma in an otherwise healthy child.

Dr. Eichenfield added that freckling used to be the secondary risk factor for melanoma, “but it’s flipped over to a primary risk factor. A history of immunosuppression or prior cancer is a major risk factor in childhood and teenage years.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant or adviser for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has also received research funding from AbbVie, Bausch & Lomb, Galderma Laboratories, and Pfizer. Dr. Hebert disclosed that she is a consultant or adviser for AbbVie, Almirall, Amryt Pharma, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Beiersdorf, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma Laboratories, L’Oreal, Novan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and Verrica. Dr. Levy disclosed that he is consultant or adviser for Abeona, Castle Creek, Dusa Pharma, Krystal Bio, Novan, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Huang disclosed that she is an adviser for EllaOla.

MedscapeLive! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

Specific sun protection tips may vary by climate, but in San Diego, where the UV Index hovers in the moderate to high range on most days, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, favors an aggressive approach.

“I basically say, ‘sun protection means clothing, shade, [considering the] time of day of exposure, and sunscreen if you are going to be otherwise exposed,’ ” Dr. Eichenfield, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady’s Children’s Hospital, San Diego, said during a panel discussion about sunscreen use at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! He recommends photoprotective gear such as rash guards for surfers and other water sport enthusiasts. When patients ask him if they should use sunscreen, he often replies with a question of his own.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Do you brush your teeth?” he’ll ask.

“Yes, I do.”

“Well, you should put sunscreen on every day.”

Another panelist, Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she advises new parents to start sun protection efforts early. “Most sunscreens are not approved for use in children under the age of 6 months because testing has not been done in this age group, but I do recommend protective clothing. I also recommend wrap-around sunglasses, which offer 5% more protection from the sun than regular sunglasses.”

In her opinion, stick sunscreens are “a good add-on,” especially for under the eyes and the backs of the hands, but she is not a fan of spray sunscreens, which can leave large areas of skin unprotected if not applied properly.

Fellow panelist Jennifer Huang, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, who has a special interest in taking care of dermatologic conditions of children with cancer, generally recommends mineral-based sunscreens. “There is data to suggest that nonmineral sunscreens are less safe than mineral sunscreens for humans, and mineral sunscreens are considered to be better for the environment,” Dr. Huang said. “Plus, there are more elegant versions of mineral sunscreens that don’t make your skin pasty white.” However, for patients with darker skin tones, “it can be hard to apply a pasty white sunscreen, so I lean on some recommendations for tinted sunscreens, too, so there are options. I specifically recommend sunscreens that have iron oxides in them so that it can block physical rays and help with the cosmetic appearance.”

Moise Levy, MD, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin, said that his approach to imparting sunscreen advice to children and their parents involves a mix of spoken information, printed information, and sunscreen samples for children to try in the office, in the presence of a parent. To help patients choose among different samples, be they ointments, gels, or lotions, he will often ask the child: “‘What do you like the feel of better?’ If the child says, ‘I like this one,’ I make sure the parent hears that,” Dr. Levy said.

Vesna Andjic/iStockphoto

Next, Dr. Eichenfield, who moderated the discussion, asked his fellow panelists how they would counsel someone who comes to their practice for evaluation of moles and has a family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer. “I think this is one of the easier counseling sessions, because there are enough kids who are asked about the moles on their skin when they’re at school,” Dr. Hebert said. “I think they’re very ready to wear sun protective clothing and I certainly don’t want any sun exposure that would pose an increased risk for their child.”

In addition to routine sun protection, Dr. Huang recommends annual mole checks for children who have a first-degree relative with a history of malignant melanoma. Other high-risk groups that should undergo annual skin exams include anyone who has received high doses of radiation, bone marrow transplants, prolonged use of voriconazole, or prolonged systemic immunosuppression. Without a known genetic predisposition syndrome, a family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer would not raise concern for melanoma in an otherwise healthy child.

Dr. Eichenfield added that freckling used to be the secondary risk factor for melanoma, “but it’s flipped over to a primary risk factor. A history of immunosuppression or prior cancer is a major risk factor in childhood and teenage years.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant or adviser for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has also received research funding from AbbVie, Bausch & Lomb, Galderma Laboratories, and Pfizer. Dr. Hebert disclosed that she is a consultant or adviser for AbbVie, Almirall, Amryt Pharma, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Beiersdorf, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma Laboratories, L’Oreal, Novan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and Verrica. Dr. Levy disclosed that he is consultant or adviser for Abeona, Castle Creek, Dusa Pharma, Krystal Bio, Novan, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Huang disclosed that she is an adviser for EllaOla.

MedscapeLive! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

Specific sun protection tips may vary by climate, but in San Diego, where the UV Index hovers in the moderate to high range on most days, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, favors an aggressive approach.

“I basically say, ‘sun protection means clothing, shade, [considering the] time of day of exposure, and sunscreen if you are going to be otherwise exposed,’ ” Dr. Eichenfield, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady’s Children’s Hospital, San Diego, said during a panel discussion about sunscreen use at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! He recommends photoprotective gear such as rash guards for surfers and other water sport enthusiasts. When patients ask him if they should use sunscreen, he often replies with a question of his own.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Do you brush your teeth?” he’ll ask.

“Yes, I do.”

“Well, you should put sunscreen on every day.”

Another panelist, Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she advises new parents to start sun protection efforts early. “Most sunscreens are not approved for use in children under the age of 6 months because testing has not been done in this age group, but I do recommend protective clothing. I also recommend wrap-around sunglasses, which offer 5% more protection from the sun than regular sunglasses.”

In her opinion, stick sunscreens are “a good add-on,” especially for under the eyes and the backs of the hands, but she is not a fan of spray sunscreens, which can leave large areas of skin unprotected if not applied properly.

Fellow panelist Jennifer Huang, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, who has a special interest in taking care of dermatologic conditions of children with cancer, generally recommends mineral-based sunscreens. “There is data to suggest that nonmineral sunscreens are less safe than mineral sunscreens for humans, and mineral sunscreens are considered to be better for the environment,” Dr. Huang said. “Plus, there are more elegant versions of mineral sunscreens that don’t make your skin pasty white.” However, for patients with darker skin tones, “it can be hard to apply a pasty white sunscreen, so I lean on some recommendations for tinted sunscreens, too, so there are options. I specifically recommend sunscreens that have iron oxides in them so that it can block physical rays and help with the cosmetic appearance.”

Moise Levy, MD, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin, said that his approach to imparting sunscreen advice to children and their parents involves a mix of spoken information, printed information, and sunscreen samples for children to try in the office, in the presence of a parent. To help patients choose among different samples, be they ointments, gels, or lotions, he will often ask the child: “‘What do you like the feel of better?’ If the child says, ‘I like this one,’ I make sure the parent hears that,” Dr. Levy said.

Vesna Andjic/iStockphoto

Next, Dr. Eichenfield, who moderated the discussion, asked his fellow panelists how they would counsel someone who comes to their practice for evaluation of moles and has a family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer. “I think this is one of the easier counseling sessions, because there are enough kids who are asked about the moles on their skin when they’re at school,” Dr. Hebert said. “I think they’re very ready to wear sun protective clothing and I certainly don’t want any sun exposure that would pose an increased risk for their child.”

In addition to routine sun protection, Dr. Huang recommends annual mole checks for children who have a first-degree relative with a history of malignant melanoma. Other high-risk groups that should undergo annual skin exams include anyone who has received high doses of radiation, bone marrow transplants, prolonged use of voriconazole, or prolonged systemic immunosuppression. Without a known genetic predisposition syndrome, a family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer would not raise concern for melanoma in an otherwise healthy child.

Dr. Eichenfield added that freckling used to be the secondary risk factor for melanoma, “but it’s flipped over to a primary risk factor. A history of immunosuppression or prior cancer is a major risk factor in childhood and teenage years.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he is a consultant or adviser for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has also received research funding from AbbVie, Bausch & Lomb, Galderma Laboratories, and Pfizer. Dr. Hebert disclosed that she is a consultant or adviser for AbbVie, Almirall, Amryt Pharma, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Beiersdorf, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma Laboratories, L’Oreal, Novan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and Verrica. Dr. Levy disclosed that he is consultant or adviser for Abeona, Castle Creek, Dusa Pharma, Krystal Bio, Novan, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Huang disclosed that she is an adviser for EllaOla.

MedscapeLive! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

CHICAGO – Oncologist Denise Yardley, MD, isn’t used to expressing uncertainty when she tells patients about what’s in store for them in terms of drug treatment. But things are dramatically different now amid a severe national shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin, two common and crucial cancer drugs.

“There’s a regimen I’m thinking about,” Dr. Yardley told a new patient recently, “but we’ll have to wait until you finish your staging evaluation to see whether I can deliver this. Another regimen that’s a little more toxic is my second choice.” And, she added, the alternative chemotherapy treatment – anthracycline instead of carboplatin – requires a longer treatment period.

This ambiguity is hardly ideal, said Dr. Yardley, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville. “It’s another factor in being overwhelmed in a first-time visit and wanting to know the details about what your treatment is going to look like. You’re not walking out knowing exactly what you’re going to take or the exact timing so you can start mapping out your calendar and work schedule.”

This kind of scenario is becoming all too familiar this spring, according to oncologists who gathered at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). In interviews, these physicians said the limited supply of multiple cancer drugs – including the chemotherapies carboplatin and cisplatin – is having an unprecedented negative effect since their use is so widespread in cancer care.

“Every patient could get impacted. That’s why we need to address this sooner rather than later,” said oncologist Aditya Baria, MBBS, MPH, director of the Breast Cancer Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Shortages of cancer drugs are not unusual. Three-quarters of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations surveyed from 2019 to 2020 said shortages prompted treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens. But the current shortages are having a much wider impact.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recently reported that 93% of 27 member institutions surveyed in late May are short on carboplatin, and 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin. Plus, 20% of 19 centers said they weren’t able to continue carboplatin regimens for all patients. 

The drugs are mainstays of multiple types of treatment for a long list of cancer types including lung, breast, gynecologic, and many others.

Several scenarios are possible when the drugs are in short supply, said Dr. Yardley, who noted that the shortage is more severe than any she’s seen in her medical career of more than 3 decades. Patients may need to be switched to regimens with more side effects, even when they’re in the middle of a treatment, she said. Or patients might have to go longer between treatments.

In some cases, Dr. Yardley said, the shortage is forcing patients to go without an important component of a larger combination therapy regimen. “The Keynote 522 neoadjuvant regimen for triple-negative breast cancer has carboplatin given with Taxol [paclitaxel] and Keytruda [pembrolizumab]. We are just deleting the carboplatin.”

She added that carboplatin is part of the following so-called TCHP regimen for HER2+ early-stage breast cancer: Taxotere (docetaxel), carboplatin, Herceptin (trastuzumab), and Perjeta (pertuzumab).

“You can delete [carboplatin] or consider substituting cyclophosphamide for carboplatin,” she said. But she cautioned the Keynote 522 and TCHP regimens haven’t been tested without carboplatin in curative-intent trials.

At Duke University in Durham, N.C., doses of carboplatin for many patients are being lowered by a third to the level that’s commonly used for older and frail patients, said oncologist Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who works at the academic center and is the chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society.

“We don’t know if [the lower doses will negatively affect cancer patients’ outcomes]. What’s amazing is how many patients [are understanding about having to take smaller amounts of the chemotherapy],” he said.

Medical organizations are offering guidance. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology, for example, in late April recommended that oncologists increase intervals between chemotherapy treatments when appropriate, round down vial sizes to ensure “efficient use,” and eliminate or minimize use of cisplatin and carboplatin in certain platinum-resistant cancers.

In early June, ASCO published guidance regarding alternatives to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, which is also in short supply, in gastrointestinal cancer. As the guidance notes, some alternatives are more untested or more toxic than ideal treatments.

In addition, ASCO has a webpage devoted to news and resources about shortages of cancer drugs. It offers drug availability updates, general guidance, and breast cancer guidance. ASCO also offers ethical guidance about handling drug shortages.

Patients in clinical trials and those who hope to join them are especially vulnerable to the drug shortage, oncologists interviewed for this story said. Cisplatin and carboplatin are the backbones of many clinical trials, Dr. Yardley said. “When you can’t supply a drug in one of the [trial] arms, that puts the whole trial on pause.”

Even clinics that have managed to find adequate supplies of the drugs are planning for when they run out.

“Our institution and other institutions are trying to come up with a rationing protocol, deciding which patients are going to get access, and which ones have reasonable alternatives,” radiation oncologist Corey Speers MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. “In some settings, there really isn’t an effective alternative. Or the alternatives are tens of thousands of dollars more expensive.”

Oncologists also noted that cisplatin and carboplatin aren’t the only cancer drugs in short supply.

“Methotrexate is critically low, and 5FU [fluorouracil] is critically low,” Dr. Yardley said, referring to drugs that each treat several types of cancer. According to the May NCNN survey, 67% of respondents reported low supplies of methotrexate, and 26% said they were low on 5FU.

“Viscous lidocaine is a component of many supportive care mouth rinses for the stomatitis caused by our drugs but is not available at all,” Dr. Yardley said. 

She added that there are also low supplies of fludarabine, which is used to treat chronic lymphocytic lymphom; clofarabine, which is used to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia; and rasburicase, which is used to treat high levels of uric acid in patients on chemotherapy.

Dr. Speers said his institution is facing a shortage of capecitabine, which is used to treat several types of cancer.

“Numerous trials have demonstrated the improved, safety, efficacy, and convenience of oral capecitabine. With the shortage we’re having to use infusional 5FU, which not only is less convenient but also ends up being more costly and requires infusion room space or continuous infusion pumps. This impacts our ability to treat cancer patients,” he said. “Our capacity is becoming more limited to accommodate these added patients, and we have to use infusional formulations of a drug that previously was readily available via an oral formulation. Patients and caregivers now have to come to the cancer center for appointments and infusions that previously weren’t needed as they could take an oral pill.”

Dr. Speers added that his institution is rationing methotrexate. “We are now prioritizing patients being treated with curative intent and adjusting protocols to use the lowest allowable doses to conserve supply,” he said.

The roots of the platinum chemotherapy drug shortage link back to the India-based Intas Pharmaceuticals company, a major manufacturer of cisplatin and carboplatin. According to Kellyann Zuzulo, spokeperson for Accord Healthcare, an Instas U.S. subsidiary, a facility inspection in December 2022 prompted a decision to temporarily stop making the drugs. The inspection identified multiple problems.

“Intas and Accord are working with the FDA on a plan to return to manufacturing,” Ms. Zuzulo said in an interview. “This will allow for continued production of products that will be prioritized based on medical necessity. A date has not yet been confirmed in which the facility will return to manufacturing for cisplatin, carboplatin or any other products.”

Ms. Zuzulo said the company is not a health care provider and cannot offer advice to patients about alternatives.

Other companies that make cisplatin and carboplatin have also reported shortages. In interviews, representatives for Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said the companies have limited supplies because of increased demand – not because of manufacturing problems.

On June 12, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) reported that carboplatin remains in short supply, with all five companies that sell the drug listed as having limited or back-ordered supplies. Cisplatin is also in short supply, the organization reported in a June 9 update, although some is available.

In a June 12 update on methotrexate, ASHP said manufacturing delays at Accord have caused a shortage, and other companies are running low due to increased demand.

As for the future, Congress and the Biden administration, according to a report by Bloomberg, are trying to figure out what to do regarding shortages of cheap generic drugs such as cisplatin and carboplatin. The FDA is exploring a partnership with a Chinese drugmaker to make cisplatin, NBC News reported.

However, fixes will be challenging, according to former FDA commissioner and Pfizer board member, Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“This generic business, particularly for these complex drugs, these complex formulations, is not a healthy business right now. Yet it’s a vital business from a public standpoint,” he told CBS News.

In an interview, Dr. Kamal said that there is even talk about boosting the prices of cheap generic drugs “to ensure that there’s enough incentive for multiple manufacturers to be involved.”

Dr. Kamal said he is crossing his fingers that cutting chemotherapy doses at his clinic doesn’t result in worse outcomes for his patients.

“Right now, I think dropping someone by 25% or 30% is okay. And for some patients, particularly in a curative setting, we try to keep them at as much as 100% as possible. But there’s just a lot of unknowns,” he said.

CHICAGO – Oncologist Denise Yardley, MD, isn’t used to expressing uncertainty when she tells patients about what’s in store for them in terms of drug treatment. But things are dramatically different now amid a severe national shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin, two common and crucial cancer drugs.

“There’s a regimen I’m thinking about,” Dr. Yardley told a new patient recently, “but we’ll have to wait until you finish your staging evaluation to see whether I can deliver this. Another regimen that’s a little more toxic is my second choice.” And, she added, the alternative chemotherapy treatment – anthracycline instead of carboplatin – requires a longer treatment period.

This ambiguity is hardly ideal, said Dr. Yardley, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville. “It’s another factor in being overwhelmed in a first-time visit and wanting to know the details about what your treatment is going to look like. You’re not walking out knowing exactly what you’re going to take or the exact timing so you can start mapping out your calendar and work schedule.”

This kind of scenario is becoming all too familiar this spring, according to oncologists who gathered at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). In interviews, these physicians said the limited supply of multiple cancer drugs – including the chemotherapies carboplatin and cisplatin – is having an unprecedented negative effect since their use is so widespread in cancer care.

“Every patient could get impacted. That’s why we need to address this sooner rather than later,” said oncologist Aditya Baria, MBBS, MPH, director of the Breast Cancer Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Shortages of cancer drugs are not unusual. Three-quarters of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations surveyed from 2019 to 2020 said shortages prompted treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens. But the current shortages are having a much wider impact.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recently reported that 93% of 27 member institutions surveyed in late May are short on carboplatin, and 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin. Plus, 20% of 19 centers said they weren’t able to continue carboplatin regimens for all patients. 

The drugs are mainstays of multiple types of treatment for a long list of cancer types including lung, breast, gynecologic, and many others.

Several scenarios are possible when the drugs are in short supply, said Dr. Yardley, who noted that the shortage is more severe than any she’s seen in her medical career of more than 3 decades. Patients may need to be switched to regimens with more side effects, even when they’re in the middle of a treatment, she said. Or patients might have to go longer between treatments.

In some cases, Dr. Yardley said, the shortage is forcing patients to go without an important component of a larger combination therapy regimen. “The Keynote 522 neoadjuvant regimen for triple-negative breast cancer has carboplatin given with Taxol [paclitaxel] and Keytruda [pembrolizumab]. We are just deleting the carboplatin.”

She added that carboplatin is part of the following so-called TCHP regimen for HER2+ early-stage breast cancer: Taxotere (docetaxel), carboplatin, Herceptin (trastuzumab), and Perjeta (pertuzumab).

“You can delete [carboplatin] or consider substituting cyclophosphamide for carboplatin,” she said. But she cautioned the Keynote 522 and TCHP regimens haven’t been tested without carboplatin in curative-intent trials.

At Duke University in Durham, N.C., doses of carboplatin for many patients are being lowered by a third to the level that’s commonly used for older and frail patients, said oncologist Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who works at the academic center and is the chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society.

“We don’t know if [the lower doses will negatively affect cancer patients’ outcomes]. What’s amazing is how many patients [are understanding about having to take smaller amounts of the chemotherapy],” he said.

Medical organizations are offering guidance. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology, for example, in late April recommended that oncologists increase intervals between chemotherapy treatments when appropriate, round down vial sizes to ensure “efficient use,” and eliminate or minimize use of cisplatin and carboplatin in certain platinum-resistant cancers.

In early June, ASCO published guidance regarding alternatives to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, which is also in short supply, in gastrointestinal cancer. As the guidance notes, some alternatives are more untested or more toxic than ideal treatments.

In addition, ASCO has a webpage devoted to news and resources about shortages of cancer drugs. It offers drug availability updates, general guidance, and breast cancer guidance. ASCO also offers ethical guidance about handling drug shortages.

Patients in clinical trials and those who hope to join them are especially vulnerable to the drug shortage, oncologists interviewed for this story said. Cisplatin and carboplatin are the backbones of many clinical trials, Dr. Yardley said. “When you can’t supply a drug in one of the [trial] arms, that puts the whole trial on pause.”

Even clinics that have managed to find adequate supplies of the drugs are planning for when they run out.

“Our institution and other institutions are trying to come up with a rationing protocol, deciding which patients are going to get access, and which ones have reasonable alternatives,” radiation oncologist Corey Speers MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. “In some settings, there really isn’t an effective alternative. Or the alternatives are tens of thousands of dollars more expensive.”

Oncologists also noted that cisplatin and carboplatin aren’t the only cancer drugs in short supply.

“Methotrexate is critically low, and 5FU [fluorouracil] is critically low,” Dr. Yardley said, referring to drugs that each treat several types of cancer. According to the May NCNN survey, 67% of respondents reported low supplies of methotrexate, and 26% said they were low on 5FU.

“Viscous lidocaine is a component of many supportive care mouth rinses for the stomatitis caused by our drugs but is not available at all,” Dr. Yardley said. 

She added that there are also low supplies of fludarabine, which is used to treat chronic lymphocytic lymphom; clofarabine, which is used to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia; and rasburicase, which is used to treat high levels of uric acid in patients on chemotherapy.

Dr. Speers said his institution is facing a shortage of capecitabine, which is used to treat several types of cancer.

“Numerous trials have demonstrated the improved, safety, efficacy, and convenience of oral capecitabine. With the shortage we’re having to use infusional 5FU, which not only is less convenient but also ends up being more costly and requires infusion room space or continuous infusion pumps. This impacts our ability to treat cancer patients,” he said. “Our capacity is becoming more limited to accommodate these added patients, and we have to use infusional formulations of a drug that previously was readily available via an oral formulation. Patients and caregivers now have to come to the cancer center for appointments and infusions that previously weren’t needed as they could take an oral pill.”

Dr. Speers added that his institution is rationing methotrexate. “We are now prioritizing patients being treated with curative intent and adjusting protocols to use the lowest allowable doses to conserve supply,” he said.

The roots of the platinum chemotherapy drug shortage link back to the India-based Intas Pharmaceuticals company, a major manufacturer of cisplatin and carboplatin. According to Kellyann Zuzulo, spokeperson for Accord Healthcare, an Instas U.S. subsidiary, a facility inspection in December 2022 prompted a decision to temporarily stop making the drugs. The inspection identified multiple problems.

“Intas and Accord are working with the FDA on a plan to return to manufacturing,” Ms. Zuzulo said in an interview. “This will allow for continued production of products that will be prioritized based on medical necessity. A date has not yet been confirmed in which the facility will return to manufacturing for cisplatin, carboplatin or any other products.”

Ms. Zuzulo said the company is not a health care provider and cannot offer advice to patients about alternatives.

Other companies that make cisplatin and carboplatin have also reported shortages. In interviews, representatives for Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said the companies have limited supplies because of increased demand – not because of manufacturing problems.

On June 12, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) reported that carboplatin remains in short supply, with all five companies that sell the drug listed as having limited or back-ordered supplies. Cisplatin is also in short supply, the organization reported in a June 9 update, although some is available.

In a June 12 update on methotrexate, ASHP said manufacturing delays at Accord have caused a shortage, and other companies are running low due to increased demand.

As for the future, Congress and the Biden administration, according to a report by Bloomberg, are trying to figure out what to do regarding shortages of cheap generic drugs such as cisplatin and carboplatin. The FDA is exploring a partnership with a Chinese drugmaker to make cisplatin, NBC News reported.

However, fixes will be challenging, according to former FDA commissioner and Pfizer board member, Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“This generic business, particularly for these complex drugs, these complex formulations, is not a healthy business right now. Yet it’s a vital business from a public standpoint,” he told CBS News.

In an interview, Dr. Kamal said that there is even talk about boosting the prices of cheap generic drugs “to ensure that there’s enough incentive for multiple manufacturers to be involved.”

Dr. Kamal said he is crossing his fingers that cutting chemotherapy doses at his clinic doesn’t result in worse outcomes for his patients.

“Right now, I think dropping someone by 25% or 30% is okay. And for some patients, particularly in a curative setting, we try to keep them at as much as 100% as possible. But there’s just a lot of unknowns,” he said.

CHICAGO – Oncologist Denise Yardley, MD, isn’t used to expressing uncertainty when she tells patients about what’s in store for them in terms of drug treatment. But things are dramatically different now amid a severe national shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin, two common and crucial cancer drugs.

“There’s a regimen I’m thinking about,” Dr. Yardley told a new patient recently, “but we’ll have to wait until you finish your staging evaluation to see whether I can deliver this. Another regimen that’s a little more toxic is my second choice.” And, she added, the alternative chemotherapy treatment – anthracycline instead of carboplatin – requires a longer treatment period.

This ambiguity is hardly ideal, said Dr. Yardley, of Tennessee Oncology and Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville. “It’s another factor in being overwhelmed in a first-time visit and wanting to know the details about what your treatment is going to look like. You’re not walking out knowing exactly what you’re going to take or the exact timing so you can start mapping out your calendar and work schedule.”

This kind of scenario is becoming all too familiar this spring, according to oncologists who gathered at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). In interviews, these physicians said the limited supply of multiple cancer drugs – including the chemotherapies carboplatin and cisplatin – is having an unprecedented negative effect since their use is so widespread in cancer care.

“Every patient could get impacted. That’s why we need to address this sooner rather than later,” said oncologist Aditya Baria, MBBS, MPH, director of the Breast Cancer Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Shortages of cancer drugs are not unusual. Three-quarters of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations surveyed from 2019 to 2020 said shortages prompted treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens. But the current shortages are having a much wider impact.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recently reported that 93% of 27 member institutions surveyed in late May are short on carboplatin, and 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin. Plus, 20% of 19 centers said they weren’t able to continue carboplatin regimens for all patients. 

The drugs are mainstays of multiple types of treatment for a long list of cancer types including lung, breast, gynecologic, and many others.

Several scenarios are possible when the drugs are in short supply, said Dr. Yardley, who noted that the shortage is more severe than any she’s seen in her medical career of more than 3 decades. Patients may need to be switched to regimens with more side effects, even when they’re in the middle of a treatment, she said. Or patients might have to go longer between treatments.

In some cases, Dr. Yardley said, the shortage is forcing patients to go without an important component of a larger combination therapy regimen. “The Keynote 522 neoadjuvant regimen for triple-negative breast cancer has carboplatin given with Taxol [paclitaxel] and Keytruda [pembrolizumab]. We are just deleting the carboplatin.”

She added that carboplatin is part of the following so-called TCHP regimen for HER2+ early-stage breast cancer: Taxotere (docetaxel), carboplatin, Herceptin (trastuzumab), and Perjeta (pertuzumab).

“You can delete [carboplatin] or consider substituting cyclophosphamide for carboplatin,” she said. But she cautioned the Keynote 522 and TCHP regimens haven’t been tested without carboplatin in curative-intent trials.

At Duke University in Durham, N.C., doses of carboplatin for many patients are being lowered by a third to the level that’s commonly used for older and frail patients, said oncologist Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who works at the academic center and is the chief patient officer at the American Cancer Society.

“We don’t know if [the lower doses will negatively affect cancer patients’ outcomes]. What’s amazing is how many patients [are understanding about having to take smaller amounts of the chemotherapy],” he said.

Medical organizations are offering guidance. The Society of Gynecologic Oncology, for example, in late April recommended that oncologists increase intervals between chemotherapy treatments when appropriate, round down vial sizes to ensure “efficient use,” and eliminate or minimize use of cisplatin and carboplatin in certain platinum-resistant cancers.

In early June, ASCO published guidance regarding alternatives to cisplatin, carboplatin, and 5-fluorouracil, which is also in short supply, in gastrointestinal cancer. As the guidance notes, some alternatives are more untested or more toxic than ideal treatments.

In addition, ASCO has a webpage devoted to news and resources about shortages of cancer drugs. It offers drug availability updates, general guidance, and breast cancer guidance. ASCO also offers ethical guidance about handling drug shortages.

Patients in clinical trials and those who hope to join them are especially vulnerable to the drug shortage, oncologists interviewed for this story said. Cisplatin and carboplatin are the backbones of many clinical trials, Dr. Yardley said. “When you can’t supply a drug in one of the [trial] arms, that puts the whole trial on pause.”

Even clinics that have managed to find adequate supplies of the drugs are planning for when they run out.

“Our institution and other institutions are trying to come up with a rationing protocol, deciding which patients are going to get access, and which ones have reasonable alternatives,” radiation oncologist Corey Speers MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said in an interview. “In some settings, there really isn’t an effective alternative. Or the alternatives are tens of thousands of dollars more expensive.”

Oncologists also noted that cisplatin and carboplatin aren’t the only cancer drugs in short supply.

“Methotrexate is critically low, and 5FU [fluorouracil] is critically low,” Dr. Yardley said, referring to drugs that each treat several types of cancer. According to the May NCNN survey, 67% of respondents reported low supplies of methotrexate, and 26% said they were low on 5FU.

“Viscous lidocaine is a component of many supportive care mouth rinses for the stomatitis caused by our drugs but is not available at all,” Dr. Yardley said. 

She added that there are also low supplies of fludarabine, which is used to treat chronic lymphocytic lymphom; clofarabine, which is used to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia; and rasburicase, which is used to treat high levels of uric acid in patients on chemotherapy.

Dr. Speers said his institution is facing a shortage of capecitabine, which is used to treat several types of cancer.

“Numerous trials have demonstrated the improved, safety, efficacy, and convenience of oral capecitabine. With the shortage we’re having to use infusional 5FU, which not only is less convenient but also ends up being more costly and requires infusion room space or continuous infusion pumps. This impacts our ability to treat cancer patients,” he said. “Our capacity is becoming more limited to accommodate these added patients, and we have to use infusional formulations of a drug that previously was readily available via an oral formulation. Patients and caregivers now have to come to the cancer center for appointments and infusions that previously weren’t needed as they could take an oral pill.”

Dr. Speers added that his institution is rationing methotrexate. “We are now prioritizing patients being treated with curative intent and adjusting protocols to use the lowest allowable doses to conserve supply,” he said.

The roots of the platinum chemotherapy drug shortage link back to the India-based Intas Pharmaceuticals company, a major manufacturer of cisplatin and carboplatin. According to Kellyann Zuzulo, spokeperson for Accord Healthcare, an Instas U.S. subsidiary, a facility inspection in December 2022 prompted a decision to temporarily stop making the drugs. The inspection identified multiple problems.

“Intas and Accord are working with the FDA on a plan to return to manufacturing,” Ms. Zuzulo said in an interview. “This will allow for continued production of products that will be prioritized based on medical necessity. A date has not yet been confirmed in which the facility will return to manufacturing for cisplatin, carboplatin or any other products.”

Ms. Zuzulo said the company is not a health care provider and cannot offer advice to patients about alternatives.

Other companies that make cisplatin and carboplatin have also reported shortages. In interviews, representatives for Fresenius Kabi and Pfizer said the companies have limited supplies because of increased demand – not because of manufacturing problems.

On June 12, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) reported that carboplatin remains in short supply, with all five companies that sell the drug listed as having limited or back-ordered supplies. Cisplatin is also in short supply, the organization reported in a June 9 update, although some is available.

In a June 12 update on methotrexate, ASHP said manufacturing delays at Accord have caused a shortage, and other companies are running low due to increased demand.

As for the future, Congress and the Biden administration, according to a report by Bloomberg, are trying to figure out what to do regarding shortages of cheap generic drugs such as cisplatin and carboplatin. The FDA is exploring a partnership with a Chinese drugmaker to make cisplatin, NBC News reported.

However, fixes will be challenging, according to former FDA commissioner and Pfizer board member, Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“This generic business, particularly for these complex drugs, these complex formulations, is not a healthy business right now. Yet it’s a vital business from a public standpoint,” he told CBS News.

In an interview, Dr. Kamal said that there is even talk about boosting the prices of cheap generic drugs “to ensure that there’s enough incentive for multiple manufacturers to be involved.”

Dr. Kamal said he is crossing his fingers that cutting chemotherapy doses at his clinic doesn’t result in worse outcomes for his patients.

“Right now, I think dropping someone by 25% or 30% is okay. And for some patients, particularly in a curative setting, we try to keep them at as much as 100% as possible. But there’s just a lot of unknowns,” he said.

DENVER – In the ongoing absence of a reliable biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS), misdiagnosis is a common and persistent problem that potentially puts patients at prolonged and unnecessary risk. Experts warn that false-negative diagnoses cause treatment delays, while false-positive diagnoses run the risk for potential harm from needless treatment.

“MS has a misdiagnosis problem,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and vice chair (academic affairs), department of neurology, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, in presenting on the issue at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“We currently lack a diagnostic biomarker test, yet diagnosis is key. If you get it wrong – that really can be a problem,” Dr. Coyle said. Recent research indicates that MS misdiagnosis is a widespread problem, she added.

For instance, one research paper reported that nearly 20% of patients were misdiagnosed with MS and that more than 50% carried the misdiagnosis for at least 3 years, while 5% were misdiagnosed for 20 years or more.

The misdiagnosis problem is also reflected at large MS referral centers, where 30%-67% of patients turn out not to have the disease, Dr. Coyle noted.

A study from Argentina further highlights some of the key characteristics of misdiagnosis. In this study, examination of a cohort of 572 patients diagnosed with MS revealed that 16% were incorrectly diagnosed with MS and that women were at an 83% greater risk for misdiagnosis than men. Furthermore, the study showed that MS misdiagnosis increased by 8% per year of older age. The most frequent confirmed diagnoses among those who had been initially misdiagnosed as having MS were cerebrovascular disease, radiologically isolated syndrome, and headache.

The majority (83%) of patients incorrectly diagnosed with MS had an atypical presentation that did not indicate demyelination, 70% had an atypical brain magnetic resonance imaging, and 61% received a prescription for a disease-modifying treatment (DMT), despite not having confirmed MS.
 

The dangers of misdiagnosis

Misdiagnosis and incorrect treatment can be particularly dangerous if patients are diagnosed with MS when, in fact, they have neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), commonly mistaken for MS, Dr. Coyle noted.

“Several MS DMTs make NMOSD worse. You are also basically giving an unnecessary and inappropriate drug with potential side effects to the misdiagnosed patient,” she said.

There have been some advances in MS diagnosis on MRI. However, there are many caveats, Dr. Coyle noted.

For instance, leptomeningeal enhancement has been considered as an MS diagnostic indicator, but it is not unique to MS, Dr. Coyle noted. In addition, subpial demyelination is MS specific, but it is hard to see and is often missed, she added.

Central vein sign has received significant attention as an important MRI marker for MS, but, Dr. Coyle said, it is “not ready for prime time. It’s somewhat tedious and you need to use special protocols to identify it,” she said.

In the future, artificial intelligence and deep learning may be key to improving some of these technologies, Dr. Coyle noted.
 

Best hope for an accurate diagnosis

In the meantime, Dr. Coyle said she believes spinal fluid evaluation offers the best chance for a reliable MS diagnosis and is her preference. “I personally find spinal fluid to be extremely helpful to support MS diagnosis. Spinal fluid oligoclonal bands are positive in the vast majority of people with MS, and it is an independent finding from MRI to support an MS diagnosis. Added to MRI, it makes you much more comfortable,” she said.

Dr. Coyle said that a comprehensive workup should include:

• A thorough neurologic history and exam.
• MRI of the brain and spinal cord ensuring use of the MS protocol, and personally reading the studies with a neuroradiologist.
• Adding spinal fluid evaluation, especially in any atypical cases.
• Ruling out myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody disease and NMOSD, diseases that mimic relapsing MS, via blood IgG to aquaporin 4.

“You want to be as certain as possible. Everything starts with a thorough workup,” Dr. Coyle said.

Dr. Coyle’s disclosures include consulting, nonbranded speaker fees, and/or research support with Actelion, Alkermes, Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, MedDay, Labcorp, Eli Lilly, Mylan, NINDS, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TG Therapeutics.

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

DENVER – In the ongoing absence of a reliable biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS), misdiagnosis is a common and persistent problem that potentially puts patients at prolonged and unnecessary risk. Experts warn that false-negative diagnoses cause treatment delays, while false-positive diagnoses run the risk for potential harm from needless treatment.

“MS has a misdiagnosis problem,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and vice chair (academic affairs), department of neurology, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, in presenting on the issue at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“We currently lack a diagnostic biomarker test, yet diagnosis is key. If you get it wrong – that really can be a problem,” Dr. Coyle said. Recent research indicates that MS misdiagnosis is a widespread problem, she added.

For instance, one research paper reported that nearly 20% of patients were misdiagnosed with MS and that more than 50% carried the misdiagnosis for at least 3 years, while 5% were misdiagnosed for 20 years or more.

The misdiagnosis problem is also reflected at large MS referral centers, where 30%-67% of patients turn out not to have the disease, Dr. Coyle noted.

A study from Argentina further highlights some of the key characteristics of misdiagnosis. In this study, examination of a cohort of 572 patients diagnosed with MS revealed that 16% were incorrectly diagnosed with MS and that women were at an 83% greater risk for misdiagnosis than men. Furthermore, the study showed that MS misdiagnosis increased by 8% per year of older age. The most frequent confirmed diagnoses among those who had been initially misdiagnosed as having MS were cerebrovascular disease, radiologically isolated syndrome, and headache.

The majority (83%) of patients incorrectly diagnosed with MS had an atypical presentation that did not indicate demyelination, 70% had an atypical brain magnetic resonance imaging, and 61% received a prescription for a disease-modifying treatment (DMT), despite not having confirmed MS.
 

The dangers of misdiagnosis

Misdiagnosis and incorrect treatment can be particularly dangerous if patients are diagnosed with MS when, in fact, they have neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), commonly mistaken for MS, Dr. Coyle noted.

“Several MS DMTs make NMOSD worse. You are also basically giving an unnecessary and inappropriate drug with potential side effects to the misdiagnosed patient,” she said.

There have been some advances in MS diagnosis on MRI. However, there are many caveats, Dr. Coyle noted.

For instance, leptomeningeal enhancement has been considered as an MS diagnostic indicator, but it is not unique to MS, Dr. Coyle noted. In addition, subpial demyelination is MS specific, but it is hard to see and is often missed, she added.

Central vein sign has received significant attention as an important MRI marker for MS, but, Dr. Coyle said, it is “not ready for prime time. It’s somewhat tedious and you need to use special protocols to identify it,” she said.

In the future, artificial intelligence and deep learning may be key to improving some of these technologies, Dr. Coyle noted.
 

Best hope for an accurate diagnosis

In the meantime, Dr. Coyle said she believes spinal fluid evaluation offers the best chance for a reliable MS diagnosis and is her preference. “I personally find spinal fluid to be extremely helpful to support MS diagnosis. Spinal fluid oligoclonal bands are positive in the vast majority of people with MS, and it is an independent finding from MRI to support an MS diagnosis. Added to MRI, it makes you much more comfortable,” she said.

Dr. Coyle said that a comprehensive workup should include:

• A thorough neurologic history and exam.
• MRI of the brain and spinal cord ensuring use of the MS protocol, and personally reading the studies with a neuroradiologist.
• Adding spinal fluid evaluation, especially in any atypical cases.
• Ruling out myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody disease and NMOSD, diseases that mimic relapsing MS, via blood IgG to aquaporin 4.

“You want to be as certain as possible. Everything starts with a thorough workup,” Dr. Coyle said.

Dr. Coyle’s disclosures include consulting, nonbranded speaker fees, and/or research support with Actelion, Alkermes, Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, MedDay, Labcorp, Eli Lilly, Mylan, NINDS, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TG Therapeutics.

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

DENVER – In the ongoing absence of a reliable biomarker for multiple sclerosis (MS), misdiagnosis is a common and persistent problem that potentially puts patients at prolonged and unnecessary risk. Experts warn that false-negative diagnoses cause treatment delays, while false-positive diagnoses run the risk for potential harm from needless treatment.

“MS has a misdiagnosis problem,” said Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and vice chair (academic affairs), department of neurology, Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, in presenting on the issue at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“We currently lack a diagnostic biomarker test, yet diagnosis is key. If you get it wrong – that really can be a problem,” Dr. Coyle said. Recent research indicates that MS misdiagnosis is a widespread problem, she added.

For instance, one research paper reported that nearly 20% of patients were misdiagnosed with MS and that more than 50% carried the misdiagnosis for at least 3 years, while 5% were misdiagnosed for 20 years or more.

The misdiagnosis problem is also reflected at large MS referral centers, where 30%-67% of patients turn out not to have the disease, Dr. Coyle noted.

A study from Argentina further highlights some of the key characteristics of misdiagnosis. In this study, examination of a cohort of 572 patients diagnosed with MS revealed that 16% were incorrectly diagnosed with MS and that women were at an 83% greater risk for misdiagnosis than men. Furthermore, the study showed that MS misdiagnosis increased by 8% per year of older age. The most frequent confirmed diagnoses among those who had been initially misdiagnosed as having MS were cerebrovascular disease, radiologically isolated syndrome, and headache.

The majority (83%) of patients incorrectly diagnosed with MS had an atypical presentation that did not indicate demyelination, 70% had an atypical brain magnetic resonance imaging, and 61% received a prescription for a disease-modifying treatment (DMT), despite not having confirmed MS.
 

The dangers of misdiagnosis

Misdiagnosis and incorrect treatment can be particularly dangerous if patients are diagnosed with MS when, in fact, they have neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), commonly mistaken for MS, Dr. Coyle noted.

“Several MS DMTs make NMOSD worse. You are also basically giving an unnecessary and inappropriate drug with potential side effects to the misdiagnosed patient,” she said.

There have been some advances in MS diagnosis on MRI. However, there are many caveats, Dr. Coyle noted.

For instance, leptomeningeal enhancement has been considered as an MS diagnostic indicator, but it is not unique to MS, Dr. Coyle noted. In addition, subpial demyelination is MS specific, but it is hard to see and is often missed, she added.

Central vein sign has received significant attention as an important MRI marker for MS, but, Dr. Coyle said, it is “not ready for prime time. It’s somewhat tedious and you need to use special protocols to identify it,” she said.

In the future, artificial intelligence and deep learning may be key to improving some of these technologies, Dr. Coyle noted.
 

Best hope for an accurate diagnosis

In the meantime, Dr. Coyle said she believes spinal fluid evaluation offers the best chance for a reliable MS diagnosis and is her preference. “I personally find spinal fluid to be extremely helpful to support MS diagnosis. Spinal fluid oligoclonal bands are positive in the vast majority of people with MS, and it is an independent finding from MRI to support an MS diagnosis. Added to MRI, it makes you much more comfortable,” she said.

Dr. Coyle said that a comprehensive workup should include:

• A thorough neurologic history and exam.
• MRI of the brain and spinal cord ensuring use of the MS protocol, and personally reading the studies with a neuroradiologist.
• Adding spinal fluid evaluation, especially in any atypical cases.
• Ruling out myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody disease and NMOSD, diseases that mimic relapsing MS, via blood IgG to aquaporin 4.

“You want to be as certain as possible. Everything starts with a thorough workup,” Dr. Coyle said.

Dr. Coyle’s disclosures include consulting, nonbranded speaker fees, and/or research support with Actelion, Alkermes, Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, MedDay, Labcorp, Eli Lilly, Mylan, NINDS, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and TG Therapeutics.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

MILAN – The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with rheumatic and nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases is ongoing and not yet fully comprehended. New data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, primarily derived from the global COVID-19 in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) survey but not limited to it, provide reassurance regarding the protection and safety of COVID-19 vaccines for older and younger adults, as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These data also explore the influence of underlying diseases and medications on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections and infection outcomes.

Safety of vaccines in patients with autoimmune or immune-mediated diseases

Following vaccination, even with low levels of antibodies, the risk of severe COVID-19 remains relatively low for patients who receive immunosuppressive therapy for various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This encouraging finding comes from the Nor-vaC study, presented by Hilde Ørbo, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo.

During the presentation, Dr. Ørbo stated: “We did not find any specific diagnosis or medication associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization.” Receiving booster doses of the vaccine, having high levels of anti-spike antibodies after vaccination, and achieving hybrid immunity are correlated with further reductions in the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Dr. Hilde Ørbo

Between Feb. 15, 2021, and Feb. 15, 2023, COVID-19 affected a similar proportion among the 729 patients and 350 healthy control persons (67% and 68%, respectively). Among the patients, 22 reported severe COVID-19, whereas none of the healthy control persons did. However, there were no fatalities among the patients. The study cohort consisted of patients with various IMIDs; 70% had an inflammatory joint disease. The use of immunosuppressive medications also varied, with 63% of patients using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other treatments, and other patients taking medications such as methotrexate, interleukin inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, vedolizumab (Entyvio), and others.

While being older than 70 years and the presence of comorbidities were identified as risk factors for severe COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in risk with each additional vaccine dose. These results support the protective role of repeated COVID-19 vaccination for patients with IMIDs who are receiving immunosuppressive therapies; they yield a favorable prognosis even with the Omicron variant.

The study further compared the risk of severe COVID-19 between a group with hybrid immunity (having received three vaccine doses and experiencing breakthrough infection with the Omicron variant) and a group that received a fourth vaccine dose within the same time frame. The difference was striking: Hybrid immunity was associated with a 5.8-fold decrease in risk, compared with four-dose vaccination (P < .0001).

The level of antibodies, measured 2-4 weeks after the last vaccination, was predictive of the risk of breakthrough COVID-19. An antibody level above 6000 binding antibody units/mL after vaccination was significantly associated with a reduction in risk. “We can conclude that patients who receive multiple vaccine doses have a lower risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Ørbo said. “In patients who recently experienced breakthrough infections, the administration of a booster vaccine dose might be delayed.”

EULAR

“The virus has undergone changes throughout the pandemic, while the vaccines have remained relatively stable. Are we anticipating more infections over time?” asked Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, PhD, of Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich (Germany), the session moderator. In response, Dr. Ørbo stated that 85% of the recorded infections in the study occurred after the emergence of the Omicron variant, and time was considered a covariable in the analysis.

These data shed light on a topic discussed by Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, professor and consultant in rheumatology and neuromuscular diseases at University College London, during his scientific session talk entitled, “Unsolved Issues of COVID Vaccination and Re-vaccination.” Dr. Machado referred to the VROOM study published in 2022, which examined the interruption of methotrexate for 2 weeks following booster administration. Both groups demonstrated a significant antibody response, but the group that stopped taking methotrexate showed double the antibody titers.

However, he emphasized, “what remains unknown is the clinical relevance of these differences in terms of severe infection, hospitalization, or even death. The potential benefit of increased immunogenicity by interrupting conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs] such as methotrexate before or after vaccination needs to be balanced against the potential risk of disease flare. Ultimately, decision-making should be individualized based on factors such as comorbidities, disease activity, and other considerations.” The results presented by Dr. Ørbo suggest that, while there may be a clinical difference in terms of severe infection, the overall prognosis for vaccinated patients is reasonably good.

Regarding other DMARDs, such as biologics, the approach may differ. Dr. Machado suggested: “In patients using rituximab or other B cell–depleting therapies, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be scheduled in a way that optimizes vaccine immunogenicity. A minimum of 10 B cells/mcL of blood is likely a relevant threshold above which a sufficient cellular and immune response is established.”
 

COVID vaccines are safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women

According to data from the COVAD study, which comprised two global cross-sectional surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022, the COVID-19 vaccine appeared safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID).

Presenter Laura Andreoli, MD, PhD, of the University of Brescia (Italy), said that, although pregnant patients with AID reported more adverse events related to vaccination, these rates were not significantly higher than those among pregnant, healthy control persons who were without AID. No difference in adverse events was observed between breastfeeding women and healthy control persons, and the incidence of disease flares did not significantly differ among all groups.

“In summary, this study provides initial insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during the gestational and postpartum periods in women with autoimmune diseases. These reassuring observations will hopefully improve clinician-patient communication and address hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, as the benefits for the mother and fetus through passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks,” Dr. Andreoli said in an interview.

“The large number of participants and the global geographical spread of the COVAD survey were very beneficial in gaining access to this important subset of patients,” added Dr. Andreoli. However, she acknowledged that patients with low socioeconomic status and/or high disability were likely underrepresented. While no data on pregnancy outcomes have been collected thus far, Dr. Andreoli expressed the desire to include them in the study’s follow-up.

The COVAD survey data also indicate that, in general, vaccine hesitancy among patients with AID is decreasing; from 2021 to 2022, it declined from 16.5% to 5.1%, as Dr. Machado indicated in his presentation.
 

Multiple factors contribute to breakthrough infections

The risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination varies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic or nonrheumatic autoimmune diseases, primarily depending on the underlying condition rather than the immunosuppressive medication. Environmental factors also appear to play a role. This complex landscape emerges from a further analysis of the COVAD survey dataset.

Alessia Alunno, MD, PhD, of the University of L’Aquila (Italy), presented a detailed and occasionally counterintuitive picture of similarities and differences among young adult patients (aged 18-35 years), mostly women, with various rheumatic and nonrheumatic diseases in relation to COVID-19. Most notably, the type of disease seemed to have more significance than the immunosuppression resulting from the treatment regimen. This held true for vaccine safety as well as for the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 and symptom profiles.

Patients with rheumatic disease (RMD) and nonrheumatic autoimmune disease (nr-AD) had significantly different therapeutic profiles on average. Before vaccination, 45% of patients with RMD used glucocorticoids (GC), and 91% used immunosuppressants (IS). In contrast, only 9.5% of nr-AD patients used GC, and 21% were taking IS.

Interestingly, the overall prevalence of reported SARS-CoV-2 infections was not influenced by medication and was practically identical (25% to 28%) across all groups. However, there were intriguing differences in the occurrence of infections before and after vaccination between disease groups. Prevaccine infections were less frequent among patients with RMD compared with healthy control persons (adjusted odds ratio, 0.6), while the rates were similar among patients with nr-AD and healthy control persons. On the other hand, breakthrough infections were more frequent in patients with RMD (aOR, 2.7), whereas the rate was similar between healthy control persons and patients with nr-AD.

Despite a much lower rate of GC/IS use, patients with nr-AD experienced repeated infections more frequently. In contrast, patients with RMD were less prone to multiple infections, even compared with healthy control persons (aOR, 0.5).

Regarding the disease profile, fewer than 5% of all infected patients required advanced therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, all SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with nr-AD were symptomatic, whereas among patients with RMD and healthy control persons, the incidence of asymptomatic infections was 3%. The rate of hospital admissions was 4% for patients with RMD, compared with 2% for patients with nr-AD and 1% for control persons. The RMD group exhibited some differences between prevaccine infections and breakthrough infections, including a significantly lower frequency of loss of smell and taste during breakthrough infections. Overall, patients with RMD and COVID-19 experienced cough, runny nose, throat pain, nausea, and vomiting more frequently. In contrast, patients with nr-AD had a much higher risk of skin rashes during breakthrough infections (aOR, 8.7).

Vaccine adverse events (AEs) were also influenced by the underlying disease. Patients with RMD and those with nr-AD were more likely to experience mild AEs after the first or second dose, compared with healthy control persons (adjusted OR, 2.4 and 2.0, respectively). The most common early, mild AEs across all groups were injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue, but they occurred more frequently in the nr-AD group than in the RMD or healthy control group. Additionally, fever and chills occurred more frequently among the nr-AD group. Late, mild AEs and severe AEs were rare and affected all groups equally.

“The overall incidence of AEs was very low. Our results certainly do not undermine the safety of vaccines,” Dr. Alunno said.

Disease flares were more common after vaccination (10% with RMD and 7% with nr-AD) than after infection (5% with RMD and 1.5% with nr-AD). Furthermore, in many cases, after vaccination, flares required a change of medications, particularly for patients with RMD.

Dr. Naveen Ravichandran

Additional results from the COVAD survey from January to July 2022, presented by Naveen Ravichandran, MD, DM, of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India, revealed a higher prevalence (OR, 1.2; P = .001) of breakthrough infections among patients with RA. A total of 22.6% of patients with RA experienced breakthrough infections, compared with 20.6% for patients with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases and 18.4% of healthy control persons. Hospitalizations and the need for advanced treatment were also more common among patients with RA (30.9%) than among healthy control persons (13.9%). Patients with RA who had breakthrough infections tended to be older (closer to 50 years of age on average) and female, and they were more likely to have comorbidities and mental disorders. The human development index of the patient’s country of residence also played a role. Further research is necessary to understand how breakthrough infection outcomes are affected by a patient’s socioeconomic situation.

According to Dr. Ravichandran, medication was not a significant factor, except for the use of steroids and rituximab, which were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 and hospitalization. Patients using rituximab, in particular, faced significantly increased odds for hospitalization (OR, 3.4) and severe breakthrough COVID-19 (OR, 3.0).

Session moderator Kim Lauper, MD, of the University of Geneva, cautioned: “The roles of disease and medication are challenging to separate. Some diseases require a more aggressive immunosuppressive regimen. It’s possible that different diseases affect the immune system differently, but it is not easy to demonstrate.”

The complications observed in the data warrant further study, as mentioned by Dr. Schulze-Koops: “We have a problem tied to the time line of the pandemic, where we had different viruses, different population behaviors, different treatments, and different standards of care over time. We also have differences between ethnic communities and regions of the world. But most importantly, we have different viruses: From the original strain to Delta to Omicron, we know they have very different clinical outcomes. I believe we need more scientific research to unravel these factors.”

Dr. Ørbo, Dr. Ravichandran, Dr. Andreoli, and Dr. Alunno reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Machado has received grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

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

CHICAGO – For the chief patient officer of the American Cancer Society, this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology was a gem. And it didn’t just sparkle because of the sequined Taylor Swift fans clogging the nearby streets during the meeting.

Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who is also an oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said he was impressed by a pair of landmark studies released at the meeting that show hidden cancer can be targeted with “really remarkable outcomes.” He also highlighted sessions that examined the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology, during an interview.

Below are lightly edited excerpts from a conversation with Dr. Kamal:



Question: What are some of most groundbreaking studies released at ASCO?

Answer: One is an interim analysis of the NATALEE trial, which involved patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast tumors. This phase 3 randomized trial compared maintenance therapy with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali) plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone in patients with node-positive or node-negative and stage II or III HR+/HER– breast cancer.

For a long time, the standard care in these patients has been to use endocrine therapy alone. This is the first big trial to show that upstream usage of additional therapy in early stages is also beneficial for disease-free survival. The 3-year invasive disease-free survival rate was 90.4% in the rebociclib-endocrine therapy group vs. 87.1% for patients who received only endocrine therapy (P = .0014).



Q: How do these findings add to current knowledge?

A: Typically, we let people get metastatic disease before we use CDK4/6 inhibitors. These findings show that systemic treatment beyond endocrine therapy will be helpful in cases where you’ve got smaller disease that has not spread yet.

Even in patients with node-negative breast cancer, micrometastatic disease is clearly there, because the medication killed the negative lymph nodes.



Q: What else struck you as especially important research?

A: The NATALEE findings match what we saw in another study – the ADAURA trial, which looked at adjuvant osimertinib in non–small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR-mutated, stage IB to IIIA disease – cancer that has not spread to the lymph nodes.

This is another example where you have a treatment being used in earlier-stage disease that’s showing really remarkable outcomes. The study found that 5-year overall survival was 88% in an osimertinib group vs. 78% in a placebo group (P < .001). This is a disease where, in stage IB, we wouldn’t even necessarily give these patients treatment at all, other than surgical resection of the tumor and maybe give them a little bit of chemotherapy.

Even in these smaller, early tumors, osimertinib makes a difference.



Q: As a whole, what are these studies telling us about cancer cells that can’t be easily detected?

A: To find a disease-free survival benefit with adding ribociclib in a stage II, stage III setting, particularly in node-negative disease, is remarkable because it says that the cells in hiding are bad actors, and they are going to cause trouble. The study shows that medications can find these cells and reverse that risk of bad outcomes.

If you think about the paradigm of cancer, that’s pretty remarkable because the ADAURA trial does the same thing: You do surgery for [early-stage] lung cancers that have not spread to the lymph nodes and you figure, “Well, I’ve got it all, right? The margins are real big, healthy, clean.” And yet, people still have recurrences, and you ask the same question: “Can any medicine find those few cells, the hundreds of cells that are still left somewhere in hiding?” And the answer is again, yes. It’s changing the paradigm of our understanding of minimal residual disease.

That’s why there’s so much interest in liquid biopsies. Let’s say that after treatment we don’t see any cancer radiologically, but there’s a signal from a liquid biopsy [detecting residual cancer]. These two trials demonstrate that there’s something we can do about it.



Q: There were quite a few studies about artificial intelligence released at ASCO. Where do we stand on that front?

A: We’re just at the beginning of people thinking about the use of generative AI for clinical decision support, clinical trial matching, and pathology review. But AI, at least for now, still has the issue of making up things that aren’t true. That’s not something patients are going to be okay with.



Q: How can AI be helpful to medical providers considering its limitations?

A: AI is going to be very good at the data-to-information transition. You’ll start seeing people use AI to start clinical notes for them and to match patients to the best clinical trials for them. But fundamentally, the clinician’s role will continue to be to check facts and offer wisdom.



Q: Will AI threaten the careers of oncologists?

A: The body of knowledge about oncology is growing exponentially, and no one can actually keep up. There’s so much data that’s out there that needs to be turned into usable information amid a shortage of oncologists. At the same time, the prevalence of cancer is going up, even though mortality is going down.

Synthesis of data is what oncologists are waiting for from AI. They’ll welcome it as opposed to being worried. That’s the sentiment I heard from my colleagues.

Dr. Kamal has no disclosures.

CHICAGO – For the chief patient officer of the American Cancer Society, this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology was a gem. And it didn’t just sparkle because of the sequined Taylor Swift fans clogging the nearby streets during the meeting.

Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who is also an oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said he was impressed by a pair of landmark studies released at the meeting that show hidden cancer can be targeted with “really remarkable outcomes.” He also highlighted sessions that examined the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology, during an interview.

Below are lightly edited excerpts from a conversation with Dr. Kamal:



Question: What are some of most groundbreaking studies released at ASCO?

Answer: One is an interim analysis of the NATALEE trial, which involved patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast tumors. This phase 3 randomized trial compared maintenance therapy with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali) plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone in patients with node-positive or node-negative and stage II or III HR+/HER– breast cancer.

For a long time, the standard care in these patients has been to use endocrine therapy alone. This is the first big trial to show that upstream usage of additional therapy in early stages is also beneficial for disease-free survival. The 3-year invasive disease-free survival rate was 90.4% in the rebociclib-endocrine therapy group vs. 87.1% for patients who received only endocrine therapy (P = .0014).



Q: How do these findings add to current knowledge?

A: Typically, we let people get metastatic disease before we use CDK4/6 inhibitors. These findings show that systemic treatment beyond endocrine therapy will be helpful in cases where you’ve got smaller disease that has not spread yet.

Even in patients with node-negative breast cancer, micrometastatic disease is clearly there, because the medication killed the negative lymph nodes.



Q: What else struck you as especially important research?

A: The NATALEE findings match what we saw in another study – the ADAURA trial, which looked at adjuvant osimertinib in non–small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR-mutated, stage IB to IIIA disease – cancer that has not spread to the lymph nodes.

This is another example where you have a treatment being used in earlier-stage disease that’s showing really remarkable outcomes. The study found that 5-year overall survival was 88% in an osimertinib group vs. 78% in a placebo group (P < .001). This is a disease where, in stage IB, we wouldn’t even necessarily give these patients treatment at all, other than surgical resection of the tumor and maybe give them a little bit of chemotherapy.

Even in these smaller, early tumors, osimertinib makes a difference.



Q: As a whole, what are these studies telling us about cancer cells that can’t be easily detected?

A: To find a disease-free survival benefit with adding ribociclib in a stage II, stage III setting, particularly in node-negative disease, is remarkable because it says that the cells in hiding are bad actors, and they are going to cause trouble. The study shows that medications can find these cells and reverse that risk of bad outcomes.

If you think about the paradigm of cancer, that’s pretty remarkable because the ADAURA trial does the same thing: You do surgery for [early-stage] lung cancers that have not spread to the lymph nodes and you figure, “Well, I’ve got it all, right? The margins are real big, healthy, clean.” And yet, people still have recurrences, and you ask the same question: “Can any medicine find those few cells, the hundreds of cells that are still left somewhere in hiding?” And the answer is again, yes. It’s changing the paradigm of our understanding of minimal residual disease.

That’s why there’s so much interest in liquid biopsies. Let’s say that after treatment we don’t see any cancer radiologically, but there’s a signal from a liquid biopsy [detecting residual cancer]. These two trials demonstrate that there’s something we can do about it.



Q: There were quite a few studies about artificial intelligence released at ASCO. Where do we stand on that front?

A: We’re just at the beginning of people thinking about the use of generative AI for clinical decision support, clinical trial matching, and pathology review. But AI, at least for now, still has the issue of making up things that aren’t true. That’s not something patients are going to be okay with.



Q: How can AI be helpful to medical providers considering its limitations?

A: AI is going to be very good at the data-to-information transition. You’ll start seeing people use AI to start clinical notes for them and to match patients to the best clinical trials for them. But fundamentally, the clinician’s role will continue to be to check facts and offer wisdom.



Q: Will AI threaten the careers of oncologists?

A: The body of knowledge about oncology is growing exponentially, and no one can actually keep up. There’s so much data that’s out there that needs to be turned into usable information amid a shortage of oncologists. At the same time, the prevalence of cancer is going up, even though mortality is going down.

Synthesis of data is what oncologists are waiting for from AI. They’ll welcome it as opposed to being worried. That’s the sentiment I heard from my colleagues.

Dr. Kamal has no disclosures.

CHICAGO – For the chief patient officer of the American Cancer Society, this year’s annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology was a gem. And it didn’t just sparkle because of the sequined Taylor Swift fans clogging the nearby streets during the meeting.

Arif Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who is also an oncologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said he was impressed by a pair of landmark studies released at the meeting that show hidden cancer can be targeted with “really remarkable outcomes.” He also highlighted sessions that examined the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology, during an interview.

Below are lightly edited excerpts from a conversation with Dr. Kamal:



Question: What are some of most groundbreaking studies released at ASCO?

Answer: One is an interim analysis of the NATALEE trial, which involved patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) breast tumors. This phase 3 randomized trial compared maintenance therapy with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor ribociclib (Kisqali) plus endocrine therapy with an aromatase inhibitor to endocrine therapy alone in patients with node-positive or node-negative and stage II or III HR+/HER– breast cancer.

For a long time, the standard care in these patients has been to use endocrine therapy alone. This is the first big trial to show that upstream usage of additional therapy in early stages is also beneficial for disease-free survival. The 3-year invasive disease-free survival rate was 90.4% in the rebociclib-endocrine therapy group vs. 87.1% for patients who received only endocrine therapy (P = .0014).



Q: How do these findings add to current knowledge?

A: Typically, we let people get metastatic disease before we use CDK4/6 inhibitors. These findings show that systemic treatment beyond endocrine therapy will be helpful in cases where you’ve got smaller disease that has not spread yet.

Even in patients with node-negative breast cancer, micrometastatic disease is clearly there, because the medication killed the negative lymph nodes.



Q: What else struck you as especially important research?

A: The NATALEE findings match what we saw in another study – the ADAURA trial, which looked at adjuvant osimertinib in non–small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR-mutated, stage IB to IIIA disease – cancer that has not spread to the lymph nodes.

This is another example where you have a treatment being used in earlier-stage disease that’s showing really remarkable outcomes. The study found that 5-year overall survival was 88% in an osimertinib group vs. 78% in a placebo group (P < .001). This is a disease where, in stage IB, we wouldn’t even necessarily give these patients treatment at all, other than surgical resection of the tumor and maybe give them a little bit of chemotherapy.

Even in these smaller, early tumors, osimertinib makes a difference.



Q: As a whole, what are these studies telling us about cancer cells that can’t be easily detected?

A: To find a disease-free survival benefit with adding ribociclib in a stage II, stage III setting, particularly in node-negative disease, is remarkable because it says that the cells in hiding are bad actors, and they are going to cause trouble. The study shows that medications can find these cells and reverse that risk of bad outcomes.

If you think about the paradigm of cancer, that’s pretty remarkable because the ADAURA trial does the same thing: You do surgery for [early-stage] lung cancers that have not spread to the lymph nodes and you figure, “Well, I’ve got it all, right? The margins are real big, healthy, clean.” And yet, people still have recurrences, and you ask the same question: “Can any medicine find those few cells, the hundreds of cells that are still left somewhere in hiding?” And the answer is again, yes. It’s changing the paradigm of our understanding of minimal residual disease.

That’s why there’s so much interest in liquid biopsies. Let’s say that after treatment we don’t see any cancer radiologically, but there’s a signal from a liquid biopsy [detecting residual cancer]. These two trials demonstrate that there’s something we can do about it.



Q: There were quite a few studies about artificial intelligence released at ASCO. Where do we stand on that front?

A: We’re just at the beginning of people thinking about the use of generative AI for clinical decision support, clinical trial matching, and pathology review. But AI, at least for now, still has the issue of making up things that aren’t true. That’s not something patients are going to be okay with.



Q: How can AI be helpful to medical providers considering its limitations?

A: AI is going to be very good at the data-to-information transition. You’ll start seeing people use AI to start clinical notes for them and to match patients to the best clinical trials for them. But fundamentally, the clinician’s role will continue to be to check facts and offer wisdom.



Q: Will AI threaten the careers of oncologists?

A: The body of knowledge about oncology is growing exponentially, and no one can actually keep up. There’s so much data that’s out there that needs to be turned into usable information amid a shortage of oncologists. At the same time, the prevalence of cancer is going up, even though mortality is going down.

Synthesis of data is what oncologists are waiting for from AI. They’ll welcome it as opposed to being worried. That’s the sentiment I heard from my colleagues.

Dr. Kamal has no disclosures.

CHICAGO – Use of a ratio of vitamin D metabolites to assess vitamin D status rather than total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level may provide a better index of individual susceptibility to bone damage due to deficiency, new research suggests.

The study supports previous data suggesting that a ratio cut-off of greater than 100 is associated with the development of secondary hyperparathyroidism and the need for correction with supplementation, while a level greater than 50 suggests mild to moderate deficiency, Zhinous Shahidzadeh Yazdi, MD, noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society

Current Endocrine Society guidelines published in 2011 advise measurement of plasma circulating 25(OH)D levels to evaluate vitamin D status in patients at risk for deficiency, defined as < 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L). Revised guidelines are due out in early 2024.

“We don’t think measuring 25 hydroxy D is optimal because of the impact of vitamin D binding protein,” Dr. Yazdi said in an interview.

“Over 99% of all metabolites are bound to vitamin D binding protein, but only the free fraction is biologically active. By measuring total plasma 25(OH)D – as we do right now in clinic – we cannot account for the impact of vitamin D binding proteins, which vary by threefold across the population,” she added.

Thus, the total 25(OH)D deficiency cut-off of < 20 mg/mL currently recommended by the Endocrine Society may signal clinically significant vitamin D deficiency in one person but not another, noted Dr. Yazdi, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.   

Directly measuring binding protein or the free fraction would be ideal, but “there aren’t good commercial assays for those, and it’s more difficult to do. So, as an alternative, the vitamin D metabolite ratios implicitly adjust for individual differences in vitamin D binding protein,” she explained.

The ratio that Dr. Yazdi and colleagues propose to measure is that of the vitamin D metabolites 1,25(OH)2D/24,25 (OH)2D (shortened to 1,25D/24,25D), which they say reflect the body’s homeostatic response to vitamin D levels, and which rises in the setting of deficiency. It is a measurement > 100 in this ratio that they believe means the patient should receive vitamin D supplementation.
 

Controversial topic, ratio proposal is “very early in the game”

The issue of vitamin D deficiency has long generated controversy, particularly since publication of findings from the VITAL study in 2022, which showed vitamin D supplements did not significantly reduce the risk of fracture among adults in midlife and older compared with placebo.

According to the senior author of the new study, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, what still remains controversial after VITAL is the question: “How can you identify people who have sufficiently bad vitamin D deficiency that it’s adversely impacting their bones?”

He added that there is a suggestion that small subpopulations in VITAL really did benefit from vitamin D supplementation, but the study “wasn’t designed to look at that.”

Indeed, the authors of an editorial accompanying the publication of the VITAL study said the findings mean there is no justification for measuring 25(OH)D in the general population or for treating to a target level.

Asked to comment on Dr. Yazdi and colleagues’ ratio proposal for diagnosing vitamin D deficiency, the coauthor of the VITAL study editorial, Clifford J. Rosen, MD, said in an interview: “I do think it’s important to point out that changes in the vitamin D binding protein can have a significant impact on the level of 25 [OH] D ... People should recognize that.”

And, Dr. Rosen noted, “I like the idea that the ... [ratio] is a measure of what’s happening in the body in response to vitamin D stores. So, when you supplement, it comes back up ... In certain individuals at high risk for fractures, for example, you might want to consider a more extensive workup like they’re suggesting.”

However, Dr. Rosen, of the Rosen Musculoskeletal Laboratory at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, added: “If the 25[OH]D level is below 20 [ng/mL] you’re going to treat regardless. When we think about sensitivity, a 25[OH]D level less than 20 [ng/mL] is a good screen ... Those individuals need to be treated, especially if they have low bone mass or fractures.”

To validate the ratio for clinical use, Dr. Rosen said, larger numbers of individuals would need to be evaluated. Moreover, “you’d need to run a standard of vitamin D binding protein by mass spectrometry versus their assumed method using ratios. Ratios are always a little tricky to interpret. So, I think this is very early in the game.”

And measuring the ratio of 1,25D/24,25D “is quite expensive,” he added.

He also pointed out that “calcium intake is really critical. You can have a [25(OH)D] level of 18 ng/mL and not have any of those secondary changes because [you’re] taking adequate calcium ... So, that always is a consideration that has to be worked into the evaluation.”
 

Same 25(OH)D, different risk level

In their poster, Dr. Yazdi and colleagues explain that to assess vitamin D status “one needs to understand regulation of vitamin D metabolism.” 25(OH)D undergoes two alternative fates: 1α-hydroxylation in the kidney, generating 1,25D (the biologically active form) or 24-hydroxylation leading to 24,25D (a biologically inactive metabolite).

For their study, they analyzed pilot data from 11 otherwise healthy individuals who had total baseline plasma 25(OH)D levels < 20 ng/mL, and compared 25(OH)D, 1,25D, 24,25D, and parathyroid hormone before versus after treating them with vitamin D3 supplementation of 50,000 IU per week for 4-6 weeks, aiming for a total 25D level above 30 ng/mL.

They then modeled how the body maintains 1,25D in a normal range and calculated/compared two vitamin D metabolite ratios in vitamin D deficient versus sufficient states: 25(OH)D/1,25D and 1,25D/24,25D. They then evaluated the applicability of these ratios for assessment of vitamin D status.

They explained that suppression of 24-hydroxylase is the first line of defense to maintain 1,25D levels. Secondary hyperparathyroidism is the second line of defense and occurs in severe vitamin D deficiency when the first line is maximally deployed.

Overall, there was poor correlation between 25[OH]D and 1,25D, “consistent with previous evidence that in mild to moderate vitamin D deficiency, 1,25D is maintained in the normal range, and therefore not a useful index for assessing vitamin D status,” the researchers said in their poster.

Hence, they said, the need to add the ratio of 1,25D/24,25D.

They presented a comparison of two study participants: one with a baseline 25[OH]D of 12.3 ng/mL, the other of 11.7 ng/mL. Although both would therefore be classified as deficient according to current guidelines, their 1,25D/24,25D ratios were 20 and 110, respectively.

In the first participant, the parathyroid hormone response to vitamin D supplementation was negligible, at +5%, compared with a dramatic 34% drop in the second participant.

“We think only the one with very high 1,25D/24,25D [ratio of 110] and a significant drop in parathyroid hormone after vitamin D supplementation [-34%] was vitamin D deficient,” the researchers said.

However, Dr. Taylor noted: “The diagnostic cut-offs we describe should be viewed as tentative for the time being. Additional research will be required to fully validate the optimal diagnostic criteria.”

Dr. Yazdi and Dr. Rosen have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor has reported being a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.  
 

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

CHICAGO – Use of a ratio of vitamin D metabolites to assess vitamin D status rather than total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level may provide a better index of individual susceptibility to bone damage due to deficiency, new research suggests.

The study supports previous data suggesting that a ratio cut-off of greater than 100 is associated with the development of secondary hyperparathyroidism and the need for correction with supplementation, while a level greater than 50 suggests mild to moderate deficiency, Zhinous Shahidzadeh Yazdi, MD, noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society

Current Endocrine Society guidelines published in 2011 advise measurement of plasma circulating 25(OH)D levels to evaluate vitamin D status in patients at risk for deficiency, defined as < 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L). Revised guidelines are due out in early 2024.

“We don’t think measuring 25 hydroxy D is optimal because of the impact of vitamin D binding protein,” Dr. Yazdi said in an interview.

“Over 99% of all metabolites are bound to vitamin D binding protein, but only the free fraction is biologically active. By measuring total plasma 25(OH)D – as we do right now in clinic – we cannot account for the impact of vitamin D binding proteins, which vary by threefold across the population,” she added.

Thus, the total 25(OH)D deficiency cut-off of < 20 mg/mL currently recommended by the Endocrine Society may signal clinically significant vitamin D deficiency in one person but not another, noted Dr. Yazdi, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.   

Directly measuring binding protein or the free fraction would be ideal, but “there aren’t good commercial assays for those, and it’s more difficult to do. So, as an alternative, the vitamin D metabolite ratios implicitly adjust for individual differences in vitamin D binding protein,” she explained.

The ratio that Dr. Yazdi and colleagues propose to measure is that of the vitamin D metabolites 1,25(OH)2D/24,25 (OH)2D (shortened to 1,25D/24,25D), which they say reflect the body’s homeostatic response to vitamin D levels, and which rises in the setting of deficiency. It is a measurement > 100 in this ratio that they believe means the patient should receive vitamin D supplementation.
 

Controversial topic, ratio proposal is “very early in the game”

The issue of vitamin D deficiency has long generated controversy, particularly since publication of findings from the VITAL study in 2022, which showed vitamin D supplements did not significantly reduce the risk of fracture among adults in midlife and older compared with placebo.

According to the senior author of the new study, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, what still remains controversial after VITAL is the question: “How can you identify people who have sufficiently bad vitamin D deficiency that it’s adversely impacting their bones?”

He added that there is a suggestion that small subpopulations in VITAL really did benefit from vitamin D supplementation, but the study “wasn’t designed to look at that.”

Indeed, the authors of an editorial accompanying the publication of the VITAL study said the findings mean there is no justification for measuring 25(OH)D in the general population or for treating to a target level.

Asked to comment on Dr. Yazdi and colleagues’ ratio proposal for diagnosing vitamin D deficiency, the coauthor of the VITAL study editorial, Clifford J. Rosen, MD, said in an interview: “I do think it’s important to point out that changes in the vitamin D binding protein can have a significant impact on the level of 25 [OH] D ... People should recognize that.”

And, Dr. Rosen noted, “I like the idea that the ... [ratio] is a measure of what’s happening in the body in response to vitamin D stores. So, when you supplement, it comes back up ... In certain individuals at high risk for fractures, for example, you might want to consider a more extensive workup like they’re suggesting.”

However, Dr. Rosen, of the Rosen Musculoskeletal Laboratory at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, added: “If the 25[OH]D level is below 20 [ng/mL] you’re going to treat regardless. When we think about sensitivity, a 25[OH]D level less than 20 [ng/mL] is a good screen ... Those individuals need to be treated, especially if they have low bone mass or fractures.”

To validate the ratio for clinical use, Dr. Rosen said, larger numbers of individuals would need to be evaluated. Moreover, “you’d need to run a standard of vitamin D binding protein by mass spectrometry versus their assumed method using ratios. Ratios are always a little tricky to interpret. So, I think this is very early in the game.”

And measuring the ratio of 1,25D/24,25D “is quite expensive,” he added.

He also pointed out that “calcium intake is really critical. You can have a [25(OH)D] level of 18 ng/mL and not have any of those secondary changes because [you’re] taking adequate calcium ... So, that always is a consideration that has to be worked into the evaluation.”
 

Same 25(OH)D, different risk level

In their poster, Dr. Yazdi and colleagues explain that to assess vitamin D status “one needs to understand regulation of vitamin D metabolism.” 25(OH)D undergoes two alternative fates: 1α-hydroxylation in the kidney, generating 1,25D (the biologically active form) or 24-hydroxylation leading to 24,25D (a biologically inactive metabolite).

For their study, they analyzed pilot data from 11 otherwise healthy individuals who had total baseline plasma 25(OH)D levels < 20 ng/mL, and compared 25(OH)D, 1,25D, 24,25D, and parathyroid hormone before versus after treating them with vitamin D3 supplementation of 50,000 IU per week for 4-6 weeks, aiming for a total 25D level above 30 ng/mL.

They then modeled how the body maintains 1,25D in a normal range and calculated/compared two vitamin D metabolite ratios in vitamin D deficient versus sufficient states: 25(OH)D/1,25D and 1,25D/24,25D. They then evaluated the applicability of these ratios for assessment of vitamin D status.

They explained that suppression of 24-hydroxylase is the first line of defense to maintain 1,25D levels. Secondary hyperparathyroidism is the second line of defense and occurs in severe vitamin D deficiency when the first line is maximally deployed.

Overall, there was poor correlation between 25[OH]D and 1,25D, “consistent with previous evidence that in mild to moderate vitamin D deficiency, 1,25D is maintained in the normal range, and therefore not a useful index for assessing vitamin D status,” the researchers said in their poster.

Hence, they said, the need to add the ratio of 1,25D/24,25D.

They presented a comparison of two study participants: one with a baseline 25[OH]D of 12.3 ng/mL, the other of 11.7 ng/mL. Although both would therefore be classified as deficient according to current guidelines, their 1,25D/24,25D ratios were 20 and 110, respectively.

In the first participant, the parathyroid hormone response to vitamin D supplementation was negligible, at +5%, compared with a dramatic 34% drop in the second participant.

“We think only the one with very high 1,25D/24,25D [ratio of 110] and a significant drop in parathyroid hormone after vitamin D supplementation [-34%] was vitamin D deficient,” the researchers said.

However, Dr. Taylor noted: “The diagnostic cut-offs we describe should be viewed as tentative for the time being. Additional research will be required to fully validate the optimal diagnostic criteria.”

Dr. Yazdi and Dr. Rosen have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor has reported being a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.  
 

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

CHICAGO – Use of a ratio of vitamin D metabolites to assess vitamin D status rather than total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level may provide a better index of individual susceptibility to bone damage due to deficiency, new research suggests.

The study supports previous data suggesting that a ratio cut-off of greater than 100 is associated with the development of secondary hyperparathyroidism and the need for correction with supplementation, while a level greater than 50 suggests mild to moderate deficiency, Zhinous Shahidzadeh Yazdi, MD, noted in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society

Current Endocrine Society guidelines published in 2011 advise measurement of plasma circulating 25(OH)D levels to evaluate vitamin D status in patients at risk for deficiency, defined as < 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L). Revised guidelines are due out in early 2024.

“We don’t think measuring 25 hydroxy D is optimal because of the impact of vitamin D binding protein,” Dr. Yazdi said in an interview.

“Over 99% of all metabolites are bound to vitamin D binding protein, but only the free fraction is biologically active. By measuring total plasma 25(OH)D – as we do right now in clinic – we cannot account for the impact of vitamin D binding proteins, which vary by threefold across the population,” she added.

Thus, the total 25(OH)D deficiency cut-off of < 20 mg/mL currently recommended by the Endocrine Society may signal clinically significant vitamin D deficiency in one person but not another, noted Dr. Yazdi, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.   

Directly measuring binding protein or the free fraction would be ideal, but “there aren’t good commercial assays for those, and it’s more difficult to do. So, as an alternative, the vitamin D metabolite ratios implicitly adjust for individual differences in vitamin D binding protein,” she explained.

The ratio that Dr. Yazdi and colleagues propose to measure is that of the vitamin D metabolites 1,25(OH)2D/24,25 (OH)2D (shortened to 1,25D/24,25D), which they say reflect the body’s homeostatic response to vitamin D levels, and which rises in the setting of deficiency. It is a measurement > 100 in this ratio that they believe means the patient should receive vitamin D supplementation.
 

Controversial topic, ratio proposal is “very early in the game”

The issue of vitamin D deficiency has long generated controversy, particularly since publication of findings from the VITAL study in 2022, which showed vitamin D supplements did not significantly reduce the risk of fracture among adults in midlife and older compared with placebo.

According to the senior author of the new study, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, what still remains controversial after VITAL is the question: “How can you identify people who have sufficiently bad vitamin D deficiency that it’s adversely impacting their bones?”

He added that there is a suggestion that small subpopulations in VITAL really did benefit from vitamin D supplementation, but the study “wasn’t designed to look at that.”

Indeed, the authors of an editorial accompanying the publication of the VITAL study said the findings mean there is no justification for measuring 25(OH)D in the general population or for treating to a target level.

Asked to comment on Dr. Yazdi and colleagues’ ratio proposal for diagnosing vitamin D deficiency, the coauthor of the VITAL study editorial, Clifford J. Rosen, MD, said in an interview: “I do think it’s important to point out that changes in the vitamin D binding protein can have a significant impact on the level of 25 [OH] D ... People should recognize that.”

And, Dr. Rosen noted, “I like the idea that the ... [ratio] is a measure of what’s happening in the body in response to vitamin D stores. So, when you supplement, it comes back up ... In certain individuals at high risk for fractures, for example, you might want to consider a more extensive workup like they’re suggesting.”

However, Dr. Rosen, of the Rosen Musculoskeletal Laboratory at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, added: “If the 25[OH]D level is below 20 [ng/mL] you’re going to treat regardless. When we think about sensitivity, a 25[OH]D level less than 20 [ng/mL] is a good screen ... Those individuals need to be treated, especially if they have low bone mass or fractures.”

To validate the ratio for clinical use, Dr. Rosen said, larger numbers of individuals would need to be evaluated. Moreover, “you’d need to run a standard of vitamin D binding protein by mass spectrometry versus their assumed method using ratios. Ratios are always a little tricky to interpret. So, I think this is very early in the game.”

And measuring the ratio of 1,25D/24,25D “is quite expensive,” he added.

He also pointed out that “calcium intake is really critical. You can have a [25(OH)D] level of 18 ng/mL and not have any of those secondary changes because [you’re] taking adequate calcium ... So, that always is a consideration that has to be worked into the evaluation.”
 

Same 25(OH)D, different risk level

In their poster, Dr. Yazdi and colleagues explain that to assess vitamin D status “one needs to understand regulation of vitamin D metabolism.” 25(OH)D undergoes two alternative fates: 1α-hydroxylation in the kidney, generating 1,25D (the biologically active form) or 24-hydroxylation leading to 24,25D (a biologically inactive metabolite).

For their study, they analyzed pilot data from 11 otherwise healthy individuals who had total baseline plasma 25(OH)D levels < 20 ng/mL, and compared 25(OH)D, 1,25D, 24,25D, and parathyroid hormone before versus after treating them with vitamin D3 supplementation of 50,000 IU per week for 4-6 weeks, aiming for a total 25D level above 30 ng/mL.

They then modeled how the body maintains 1,25D in a normal range and calculated/compared two vitamin D metabolite ratios in vitamin D deficient versus sufficient states: 25(OH)D/1,25D and 1,25D/24,25D. They then evaluated the applicability of these ratios for assessment of vitamin D status.

They explained that suppression of 24-hydroxylase is the first line of defense to maintain 1,25D levels. Secondary hyperparathyroidism is the second line of defense and occurs in severe vitamin D deficiency when the first line is maximally deployed.

Overall, there was poor correlation between 25[OH]D and 1,25D, “consistent with previous evidence that in mild to moderate vitamin D deficiency, 1,25D is maintained in the normal range, and therefore not a useful index for assessing vitamin D status,” the researchers said in their poster.

Hence, they said, the need to add the ratio of 1,25D/24,25D.

They presented a comparison of two study participants: one with a baseline 25[OH]D of 12.3 ng/mL, the other of 11.7 ng/mL. Although both would therefore be classified as deficient according to current guidelines, their 1,25D/24,25D ratios were 20 and 110, respectively.

In the first participant, the parathyroid hormone response to vitamin D supplementation was negligible, at +5%, compared with a dramatic 34% drop in the second participant.

“We think only the one with very high 1,25D/24,25D [ratio of 110] and a significant drop in parathyroid hormone after vitamin D supplementation [-34%] was vitamin D deficient,” the researchers said.

However, Dr. Taylor noted: “The diagnostic cut-offs we describe should be viewed as tentative for the time being. Additional research will be required to fully validate the optimal diagnostic criteria.”

Dr. Yazdi and Dr. Rosen have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor has reported being a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.  
 

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

The common side effect of hand-foot syndrome seen in patients taking capecitabine can be prevented with a cheap and safe topical gel containing 1% diclofenac, researchers reported in a study that has been hailed by experts as “practice changing.”

Hand-foot syndrome causes painful, bleeding blisters and ulcers on the palms and soles. It often leads to dose reductions and sometimes even discontinuations, both of which limit the effectiveness of capecitabine, a standard oral chemotherapy drug widely used for colorectal and breast  cancers.

In a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Indian researchers reported that a cheap, safe, and widely available over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory gel containing 1% diclofenac reduced the incidence of hand-foot syndrome by 75% among patients with cancer being treated with capecitabine.

Up until now, the oral anti-inflammatory celecoxib (Celebrex) was the only agent proven to prevent the problem, but it’s rarely used because of the risk for strokes, gastric bleeding, and other issues, none of which are a concern with topical diclofenac, which osteoarthritis patients have used safely for years.

The Indian trial, dubbed D-Torch, establishes “1% topical diclofenac gel as the new standard of care to prevent capecitabine-associated hand-foot syndrome,” said investigator and study presenter Atul Batra, MD, a medical oncologist at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.

Dr. Batra told ASCO Daily News that there is no need for a second trial. “We don’t feel there’s a need to replicate these results” in a larger study “because this was adequately powered, and the results speak for themselves. There’s no confusion about these results. Diclofenac is clearly effective.”

Dr. Batra also commented that his clinic now uses topical diclofenac routinely during capecitabine treatment and that he hopes oncology practices elsewhere will do the same.   

Diclofenac gel is sold under the brand name Voltaren and is also available as a generic; in the United States, a 150-gram tube costs about $18 at Walmart.
 

‘The most practice-changing study’ at ASCO 2023

Audience members at ASCO’s annual meeting immediately saw the importance of the study.

Tarah Ballinger, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said on Twitter that “this might be the most practice changing study I heard at ASCO23.” Topical diclofenac is “widely available, affordable, [and] addresses [a] major” quality of life issue.

The study discussant at the meeting, gastrointestinal cancer specialist Pallavi Kumar, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, concurred: “For me as a GI oncologist, topical diclofenac for prevention of HFS for patients on capecitabine is practice changing,” she said.

The takeaway is “that topical diclofenac significantly reduces the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS in patients receiving capecitabine.” The results are “very impressive,” Dr. Kumar said.

Study details

The idea for the new study came after Batra and colleagues realized that celecoxib, a COX-2 enzyme inhibitor, helps prevent capecitabine hand-foot syndrome (HFS) by blocking a key process that leads to it, the up-regulation of COX-2 and subsequent release of proinflammatory prostaglandins.

They turned to diclofenac gel hoping to get the same effect but more safely; diclofenac is also a COX-2 blocker, and its topical formulation has a strong safety record. 

To test the approach, the team randomly assigned 130 patients to topical diclofenac and 133 to placebo – the gel vehicle without the medication – while they were being treated with capecitabine for 12 weeks; 56% were being treated for breast cancer and the rest for gastrointestinal cancers.

Subjects rubbed one fingertip’s worth of gel – about half a gram – on each palm and the back of each hand twice a day. The dose was about 4 grams/day, which is well below maximal dosages for osteoarthritis (up to 32 g/day over all affected joints). Adherence to treatment was about 95% in both arms.

By the end of 12 weeks, the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS was 3.8% in the diclofenac arm (5 patients) versus 15% (n = 20) with placebo (P = .003), a 75% risk reduction.

The incidence of any grade HFS was 6.1% in the treatment group versus 18.1% with placebo (P = .003).

Hand-foot syndrome led to dose reductions of capecitabine in 13.5% of placebo but only 3.8% of those in the diclofenac group (P = .002). 

The findings held regardless of whether patients were being treated for breast or GI cancer or if they were men or women. 

Other capecitabine-induced adverse events, including diarrhea, mucositis, and myelosuppression, were not significantly different between the groups.

The treatment arms were well balanced, with a median age of 47 years in both groups and women making up about 70% of each. About 40% of subjects in each group were on capecitabine monotherapy with the rest on combination treatments. The mean dose of capecitabine was just over 1,880 mg/m² in both groups.

At the meeting, Dr. Batra was asked if topical diclofenac would also work for another common problem in oncology: hand-food syndrome occurring as a side-effect with VEGF–tyrosine kinase inhibitors. He didn’t think so because it probably has a different cause than capecitabine HFS, one not strongly related to COX-2 up-regulation.

The study was partly funded by the Indian Supportive Care of Cancer Association. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The common side effect of hand-foot syndrome seen in patients taking capecitabine can be prevented with a cheap and safe topical gel containing 1% diclofenac, researchers reported in a study that has been hailed by experts as “practice changing.”

Hand-foot syndrome causes painful, bleeding blisters and ulcers on the palms and soles. It often leads to dose reductions and sometimes even discontinuations, both of which limit the effectiveness of capecitabine, a standard oral chemotherapy drug widely used for colorectal and breast  cancers.

In a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Indian researchers reported that a cheap, safe, and widely available over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory gel containing 1% diclofenac reduced the incidence of hand-foot syndrome by 75% among patients with cancer being treated with capecitabine.

Up until now, the oral anti-inflammatory celecoxib (Celebrex) was the only agent proven to prevent the problem, but it’s rarely used because of the risk for strokes, gastric bleeding, and other issues, none of which are a concern with topical diclofenac, which osteoarthritis patients have used safely for years.

The Indian trial, dubbed D-Torch, establishes “1% topical diclofenac gel as the new standard of care to prevent capecitabine-associated hand-foot syndrome,” said investigator and study presenter Atul Batra, MD, a medical oncologist at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.

Dr. Batra told ASCO Daily News that there is no need for a second trial. “We don’t feel there’s a need to replicate these results” in a larger study “because this was adequately powered, and the results speak for themselves. There’s no confusion about these results. Diclofenac is clearly effective.”

Dr. Batra also commented that his clinic now uses topical diclofenac routinely during capecitabine treatment and that he hopes oncology practices elsewhere will do the same.   

Diclofenac gel is sold under the brand name Voltaren and is also available as a generic; in the United States, a 150-gram tube costs about $18 at Walmart.
 

‘The most practice-changing study’ at ASCO 2023

Audience members at ASCO’s annual meeting immediately saw the importance of the study.

Tarah Ballinger, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said on Twitter that “this might be the most practice changing study I heard at ASCO23.” Topical diclofenac is “widely available, affordable, [and] addresses [a] major” quality of life issue.

The study discussant at the meeting, gastrointestinal cancer specialist Pallavi Kumar, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, concurred: “For me as a GI oncologist, topical diclofenac for prevention of HFS for patients on capecitabine is practice changing,” she said.

The takeaway is “that topical diclofenac significantly reduces the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS in patients receiving capecitabine.” The results are “very impressive,” Dr. Kumar said.

Study details

The idea for the new study came after Batra and colleagues realized that celecoxib, a COX-2 enzyme inhibitor, helps prevent capecitabine hand-foot syndrome (HFS) by blocking a key process that leads to it, the up-regulation of COX-2 and subsequent release of proinflammatory prostaglandins.

They turned to diclofenac gel hoping to get the same effect but more safely; diclofenac is also a COX-2 blocker, and its topical formulation has a strong safety record. 

To test the approach, the team randomly assigned 130 patients to topical diclofenac and 133 to placebo – the gel vehicle without the medication – while they were being treated with capecitabine for 12 weeks; 56% were being treated for breast cancer and the rest for gastrointestinal cancers.

Subjects rubbed one fingertip’s worth of gel – about half a gram – on each palm and the back of each hand twice a day. The dose was about 4 grams/day, which is well below maximal dosages for osteoarthritis (up to 32 g/day over all affected joints). Adherence to treatment was about 95% in both arms.

By the end of 12 weeks, the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS was 3.8% in the diclofenac arm (5 patients) versus 15% (n = 20) with placebo (P = .003), a 75% risk reduction.

The incidence of any grade HFS was 6.1% in the treatment group versus 18.1% with placebo (P = .003).

Hand-foot syndrome led to dose reductions of capecitabine in 13.5% of placebo but only 3.8% of those in the diclofenac group (P = .002). 

The findings held regardless of whether patients were being treated for breast or GI cancer or if they were men or women. 

Other capecitabine-induced adverse events, including diarrhea, mucositis, and myelosuppression, were not significantly different between the groups.

The treatment arms were well balanced, with a median age of 47 years in both groups and women making up about 70% of each. About 40% of subjects in each group were on capecitabine monotherapy with the rest on combination treatments. The mean dose of capecitabine was just over 1,880 mg/m² in both groups.

At the meeting, Dr. Batra was asked if topical diclofenac would also work for another common problem in oncology: hand-food syndrome occurring as a side-effect with VEGF–tyrosine kinase inhibitors. He didn’t think so because it probably has a different cause than capecitabine HFS, one not strongly related to COX-2 up-regulation.

The study was partly funded by the Indian Supportive Care of Cancer Association. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The common side effect of hand-foot syndrome seen in patients taking capecitabine can be prevented with a cheap and safe topical gel containing 1% diclofenac, researchers reported in a study that has been hailed by experts as “practice changing.”

Hand-foot syndrome causes painful, bleeding blisters and ulcers on the palms and soles. It often leads to dose reductions and sometimes even discontinuations, both of which limit the effectiveness of capecitabine, a standard oral chemotherapy drug widely used for colorectal and breast  cancers.

In a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Indian researchers reported that a cheap, safe, and widely available over-the-counter nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory gel containing 1% diclofenac reduced the incidence of hand-foot syndrome by 75% among patients with cancer being treated with capecitabine.

Up until now, the oral anti-inflammatory celecoxib (Celebrex) was the only agent proven to prevent the problem, but it’s rarely used because of the risk for strokes, gastric bleeding, and other issues, none of which are a concern with topical diclofenac, which osteoarthritis patients have used safely for years.

The Indian trial, dubbed D-Torch, establishes “1% topical diclofenac gel as the new standard of care to prevent capecitabine-associated hand-foot syndrome,” said investigator and study presenter Atul Batra, MD, a medical oncologist at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.

Dr. Batra told ASCO Daily News that there is no need for a second trial. “We don’t feel there’s a need to replicate these results” in a larger study “because this was adequately powered, and the results speak for themselves. There’s no confusion about these results. Diclofenac is clearly effective.”

Dr. Batra also commented that his clinic now uses topical diclofenac routinely during capecitabine treatment and that he hopes oncology practices elsewhere will do the same.   

Diclofenac gel is sold under the brand name Voltaren and is also available as a generic; in the United States, a 150-gram tube costs about $18 at Walmart.
 

‘The most practice-changing study’ at ASCO 2023

Audience members at ASCO’s annual meeting immediately saw the importance of the study.

Tarah Ballinger, MD, a breast cancer specialist at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said on Twitter that “this might be the most practice changing study I heard at ASCO23.” Topical diclofenac is “widely available, affordable, [and] addresses [a] major” quality of life issue.

The study discussant at the meeting, gastrointestinal cancer specialist Pallavi Kumar, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, concurred: “For me as a GI oncologist, topical diclofenac for prevention of HFS for patients on capecitabine is practice changing,” she said.

The takeaway is “that topical diclofenac significantly reduces the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS in patients receiving capecitabine.” The results are “very impressive,” Dr. Kumar said.

Study details

The idea for the new study came after Batra and colleagues realized that celecoxib, a COX-2 enzyme inhibitor, helps prevent capecitabine hand-foot syndrome (HFS) by blocking a key process that leads to it, the up-regulation of COX-2 and subsequent release of proinflammatory prostaglandins.

They turned to diclofenac gel hoping to get the same effect but more safely; diclofenac is also a COX-2 blocker, and its topical formulation has a strong safety record. 

To test the approach, the team randomly assigned 130 patients to topical diclofenac and 133 to placebo – the gel vehicle without the medication – while they were being treated with capecitabine for 12 weeks; 56% were being treated for breast cancer and the rest for gastrointestinal cancers.

Subjects rubbed one fingertip’s worth of gel – about half a gram – on each palm and the back of each hand twice a day. The dose was about 4 grams/day, which is well below maximal dosages for osteoarthritis (up to 32 g/day over all affected joints). Adherence to treatment was about 95% in both arms.

By the end of 12 weeks, the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS was 3.8% in the diclofenac arm (5 patients) versus 15% (n = 20) with placebo (P = .003), a 75% risk reduction.

The incidence of any grade HFS was 6.1% in the treatment group versus 18.1% with placebo (P = .003).

Hand-foot syndrome led to dose reductions of capecitabine in 13.5% of placebo but only 3.8% of those in the diclofenac group (P = .002). 

The findings held regardless of whether patients were being treated for breast or GI cancer or if they were men or women. 

Other capecitabine-induced adverse events, including diarrhea, mucositis, and myelosuppression, were not significantly different between the groups.

The treatment arms were well balanced, with a median age of 47 years in both groups and women making up about 70% of each. About 40% of subjects in each group were on capecitabine monotherapy with the rest on combination treatments. The mean dose of capecitabine was just over 1,880 mg/m² in both groups.

At the meeting, Dr. Batra was asked if topical diclofenac would also work for another common problem in oncology: hand-food syndrome occurring as a side-effect with VEGF–tyrosine kinase inhibitors. He didn’t think so because it probably has a different cause than capecitabine HFS, one not strongly related to COX-2 up-regulation.

The study was partly funded by the Indian Supportive Care of Cancer Association. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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