Randy Dotinga

NEW ORLEANS – In yet another indication of health disparities facing ethnic minorities, new research found that non-White patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) were less likely to get advanced therapies. Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders, meanwhile, had higher death rates than Whites.

According to the research, released at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, the biggest disparities affected Asian/Pacific Islander patients with PE. While they were the least likely among ethnic groups to be hospitalized for PE, the odds were 53% higher that they’d die in the hospital (adjusted odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.78), and 24% lower that they would get advanced therapies (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98, P values not provided in this study).

“The findings really raise the importance of this research area and call for vigorous future research to try to better identify why we see these patterns and then come up with solutions to solve them,” said hematologist and study coauthor Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, at an ASH news briefing.

As Dr. Cushman noted, details about disparities in PE care are limited. It’s known that “Black people have a twofold greater mortality from pulmonary embolism compared to other groups, and this is a persistently observed disparity over many years,” she said. However, “little is known about the relationships of social determinants with treatment and course of pulmonary embolism,” she added.

The researchers used data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to track 1.1 million U.S. hospitalized patients with PE from 2016 to 2018. PE was the primary diagnosis in 615,570 patients (54.8%), and 66,570 (5.9%) had high-risk PE.

Among ethnic groups, hospitalization rates “differed pretty dramatically,” Dr. Cushman said. The researchers found that Blacks had the highest rate of PE hospitalization (20.1 per 10,000 person-years; 95% CI, 20.0-20.2), followed by Whites (13.1 per 10,000 person-years; 95% CI, 13.1-13.2), Hispanics (6.0 per 10,000 person-years; 95% CI, 5.9-6.1), Native Americans (5.6 per 10,000 person-years, 95% CI, 5.4-5.7) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (3.0 per 10,000 person-years; 95% CI, 2.9-3.1). Overall, the rate was 14.9/10,000 person-years.

With regard to treatment, therapies defined by the researchers as advanced – systemic thrombolysis, catheter-directed therapy, surgical embolectomy, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation – were also less commonly used in treating ethnic minorities.

These treatments were used in 5.5% of all patients, and 19% of those with high-risk PE. After adjusting for nearly 20 factors such as age, sex, and place of residence, researchers found that the odds that a patient would receive advanced treatment were lower in Blacks (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) compared with Whites. The differences in Hispanics and Native Americans were not statistically significant.

As for insurance, those with Medicare and Medicaid were less likely to get advanced treatment vs. those with private insurance (aOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.77 and aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.63-0.74, respectively). Differences among income levels were not statistically significant.

In the hospital, 6.4% of patients with PE died, as did 50% of those with high-risk PE. There was no statistically significant difference in death rates overall between Whites and Blacks or Native Americans. However, Asians/Pacific Islanders had a much higher death rate (aOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.32-1.78), as did Hispanics (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.22).

Why are Asians/Pacific Islanders at such high risk of death? Dr. Cushman noted that, while their hospitalization rate is low, they are especially likely to present with high-risk PE.

The difference in death rates between patients with Medicare/Medicaid insurance and those with private insurance was not statistically significant. Neither was the difference in death rates among income groups vs. the highest quartile with one exception: The lowest quartile (aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17).

As for the reasons for the higher risks among various groups, Dr. Cushman said there are several possible theories. “It could be due to differences in awareness of PE symptoms: They don’t know how ill they are, so they present later in the course. Or they might have less trust in the system, which might lead to delayed care. Or it could be that they have misdiagnosis of PE symptoms when they present initially.”

Alternatively, she noted, the differences “could be rooted in structural racism and other social determinants of health that weren’t measured, such as education level and quality of education.”

In an interview, Dr. Cushman expressed the hope that “clinicians will think about these findings in terms of how they take care of patients and try their best to recognize any unconscious biases that might creep into their approach. In addition, as a society we need more education of the general public about PE. Some of our findings might be caused by delayed care due to lack of recognition of a need to seek care.”

In an interview, University of Pittsburgh vascular surgeon Rabih Chaer, MD, MSc, who didn’t take part in the study, said it relies on a "large dataset which offers valuable information but with limited granularity and follow-up. This limits the accurate categorization of PE severity, as well as comorbidities, all of which impact outcomes and survival.”

For example, Dr. Chaer said, PE treatments can be limited in some patients due to their comorbidities that cause bleeding risk. Still, Dr. Chaer said the findings mesh with his own research that has shown racial disparities in PE treatment and outcomes, including a 2021 study. "While we did not see a difference by race in in-hospital mortality, Black patients hospitalized with PE are younger with a higher severity of disease compared with White patients,” he said. "Although Black patients are less likely to receive an intervention overall, this differed depending on PE severity with higher risk of intervention only for life-threatening PE." And a 2022 study found that “patients with PE from deprived neighborhoods have worse survival beyond the index [first] admission and were more likely to suffer from cardiovascular or PE-related causes of death in the first year after the index pulmonary embolism,” he said. 

Dr. Chaer noted that his research team “is actively working on the next steps beyond identifying the fact that there are racial disparities in PE treatment and outcomes. We are fortunate to have access to a large granular database with long-term follow up and are currently reviewing the medical record details to identify causes for disparities and potential solutions.”

Dr. Cushman received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Other study authors report various disclosures. Dr. Chaer has no disclosures.

NEW ORLEANS – In yet another indication of health disparities facing ethnic minorities, new research found that non-White patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) were less likely to get advanced therapies. Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders, meanwhile, had higher death rates than Whites.

According to the research, released at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, the biggest disparities affected Asian/Pacific Islander patients with PE. While they were the least likely among ethnic groups to be hospitalized for PE, the odds were 53% higher that they’d die in the hospital (adjusted odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.78), and 24% lower that they would get advanced therapies (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98, P values not provided in this study).

“The findings really raise the importance of this research area and call for vigorous future research to try to better identify why we see these patterns and then come up with solutions to solve them,” said hematologist and study coauthor Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, at an ASH news briefing.

As Dr. Cushman noted, details about disparities in PE care are limited. It’s known that “Black people have a twofold greater mortality from pulmonary embolism compared to other groups, and this is a persistently observed disparity over many years,” she said. However, “little is known about the relationships of social determinants with treatment and course of pulmonary embolism,” she added.

The researchers used data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to track 1.1 million U.S. hospitalized patients with PE from 2016 to 2018. PE was the primary diagnosis in 615,570 patients (54.8%), and 66,570 (5.9%) had high-risk PE.

Among ethnic groups, hospitalization rates “differed pretty dramatically,” Dr. Cushman said. The researchers found that Blacks had the highest rate of PE hospitalization (20.1 per 10,000 person-years; 95% CI, 20.0-20.2), followed by Whites (13.1 per 10,000 person-years; 95% CI, 13.1-13.2), Hispanics (6.0 per 10,000 person-years; 95% CI, 5.9-6.1), Native Americans (5.6 per 10,000 person-years, 95% CI, 5.4-5.7) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (3.0 per 10,000 person-years; 95% CI, 2.9-3.1). Overall, the rate was 14.9/10,000 person-years.

With regard to treatment, therapies defined by the researchers as advanced – systemic thrombolysis, catheter-directed therapy, surgical embolectomy, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation – were also less commonly used in treating ethnic minorities.

These treatments were used in 5.5% of all patients, and 19% of those with high-risk PE. After adjusting for nearly 20 factors such as age, sex, and place of residence, researchers found that the odds that a patient would receive advanced treatment were lower in Blacks (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) compared with Whites. The differences in Hispanics and Native Americans were not statistically significant.

As for insurance, those with Medicare and Medicaid were less likely to get advanced treatment vs. those with private insurance (aOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.77 and aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.63-0.74, respectively). Differences among income levels were not statistically significant.

In the hospital, 6.4% of patients with PE died, as did 50% of those with high-risk PE. There was no statistically significant difference in death rates overall between Whites and Blacks or Native Americans. However, Asians/Pacific Islanders had a much higher death rate (aOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.32-1.78), as did Hispanics (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.22).

Why are Asians/Pacific Islanders at such high risk of death? Dr. Cushman noted that, while their hospitalization rate is low, they are especially likely to present with high-risk PE.

The difference in death rates between patients with Medicare/Medicaid insurance and those with private insurance was not statistically significant. Neither was the difference in death rates among income groups vs. the highest quartile with one exception: The lowest quartile (aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17).

As for the reasons for the higher risks among various groups, Dr. Cushman said there are several possible theories. “It could be due to differences in awareness of PE symptoms: They don’t know how ill they are, so they present later in the course. Or they might have less trust in the system, which might lead to delayed care. Or it could be that they have misdiagnosis of PE symptoms when they present initially.”

Alternatively, she noted, the differences “could be rooted in structural racism and other social determinants of health that weren’t measured, such as education level and quality of education.”

In an interview, Dr. Cushman expressed the hope that “clinicians will think about these findings in terms of how they take care of patients and try their best to recognize any unconscious biases that might creep into their approach. In addition, as a society we need more education of the general public about PE. Some of our findings might be caused by delayed care due to lack of recognition of a need to seek care.”

In an interview, University of Pittsburgh vascular surgeon Rabih Chaer, MD, MSc, who didn’t take part in the study, said it relies on a "large dataset which offers valuable information but with limited granularity and follow-up. This limits the accurate categorization of PE severity, as well as comorbidities, all of which impact outcomes and survival.”

For example, Dr. Chaer said, PE treatments can be limited in some patients due to their comorbidities that cause bleeding risk. Still, Dr. Chaer said the findings mesh with his own research that has shown racial disparities in PE treatment and outcomes, including a 2021 study. "While we did not see a difference by race in in-hospital mortality, Black patients hospitalized with PE are younger with a higher severity of disease compared with White patients,” he said. "Although Black patients are less likely to receive an intervention overall, this differed depending on PE severity with higher risk of intervention only for life-threatening PE." And a 2022 study found that “patients with PE from deprived neighborhoods have worse survival beyond the index [first] admission and were more likely to suffer from cardiovascular or PE-related causes of death in the first year after the index pulmonary embolism,” he said. 

Dr. Chaer noted that his research team “is actively working on the next steps beyond identifying the fact that there are racial disparities in PE treatment and outcomes. We are fortunate to have access to a large granular database with long-term follow up and are currently reviewing the medical record details to identify causes for disparities and potential solutions.”

Dr. Cushman received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Other study authors report various disclosures. Dr. Chaer has no disclosures.

NEW ORLEANS – In yet another indication of health disparities facing ethnic minorities, new research found that non-White patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) were less likely to get advanced therapies. Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders, meanwhile, had higher death rates than Whites.

According to the research, released at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, the biggest disparities affected Asian/Pacific Islander patients with PE. While they were the least likely among ethnic groups to be hospitalized for PE, the odds were 53% higher that they’d die in the hospital (adjusted odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.78), and 24% lower that they would get advanced therapies (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98, P values not provided in this study).

“The findings really raise the importance of this research area and call for vigorous future research to try to better identify why we see these patterns and then come up with solutions to solve them,” said hematologist and study coauthor Mary Cushman, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, at an ASH news briefing.

As Dr. Cushman noted, details about disparities in PE care are limited. It’s known that “Black people have a twofold greater mortality from pulmonary embolism compared to other groups, and this is a persistently observed disparity over many years,” she said. However, “little is known about the relationships of social determinants with treatment and course of pulmonary embolism,” she added.

The researchers used data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to track 1.1 million U.S. hospitalized patients with PE from 2016 to 2018. PE was the primary diagnosis in 615,570 patients (54.8%), and 66,570 (5.9%) had high-risk PE.

Among ethnic groups, hospitalization rates “differed pretty dramatically,” Dr. Cushman said. The researchers found that Blacks had the highest rate of PE hospitalization (20.1 per 10,000 person-years; 95% CI, 20.0-20.2), followed by Whites (13.1 per 10,000 person-years; 95% CI, 13.1-13.2), Hispanics (6.0 per 10,000 person-years; 95% CI, 5.9-6.1), Native Americans (5.6 per 10,000 person-years, 95% CI, 5.4-5.7) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (3.0 per 10,000 person-years; 95% CI, 2.9-3.1). Overall, the rate was 14.9/10,000 person-years.

With regard to treatment, therapies defined by the researchers as advanced – systemic thrombolysis, catheter-directed therapy, surgical embolectomy, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation – were also less commonly used in treating ethnic minorities.

These treatments were used in 5.5% of all patients, and 19% of those with high-risk PE. After adjusting for nearly 20 factors such as age, sex, and place of residence, researchers found that the odds that a patient would receive advanced treatment were lower in Blacks (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) compared with Whites. The differences in Hispanics and Native Americans were not statistically significant.

As for insurance, those with Medicare and Medicaid were less likely to get advanced treatment vs. those with private insurance (aOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.77 and aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.63-0.74, respectively). Differences among income levels were not statistically significant.

In the hospital, 6.4% of patients with PE died, as did 50% of those with high-risk PE. There was no statistically significant difference in death rates overall between Whites and Blacks or Native Americans. However, Asians/Pacific Islanders had a much higher death rate (aOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.32-1.78), as did Hispanics (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00-1.22).

Why are Asians/Pacific Islanders at such high risk of death? Dr. Cushman noted that, while their hospitalization rate is low, they are especially likely to present with high-risk PE.

The difference in death rates between patients with Medicare/Medicaid insurance and those with private insurance was not statistically significant. Neither was the difference in death rates among income groups vs. the highest quartile with one exception: The lowest quartile (aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17).

As for the reasons for the higher risks among various groups, Dr. Cushman said there are several possible theories. “It could be due to differences in awareness of PE symptoms: They don’t know how ill they are, so they present later in the course. Or they might have less trust in the system, which might lead to delayed care. Or it could be that they have misdiagnosis of PE symptoms when they present initially.”

Alternatively, she noted, the differences “could be rooted in structural racism and other social determinants of health that weren’t measured, such as education level and quality of education.”

In an interview, Dr. Cushman expressed the hope that “clinicians will think about these findings in terms of how they take care of patients and try their best to recognize any unconscious biases that might creep into their approach. In addition, as a society we need more education of the general public about PE. Some of our findings might be caused by delayed care due to lack of recognition of a need to seek care.”

In an interview, University of Pittsburgh vascular surgeon Rabih Chaer, MD, MSc, who didn’t take part in the study, said it relies on a "large dataset which offers valuable information but with limited granularity and follow-up. This limits the accurate categorization of PE severity, as well as comorbidities, all of which impact outcomes and survival.”

For example, Dr. Chaer said, PE treatments can be limited in some patients due to their comorbidities that cause bleeding risk. Still, Dr. Chaer said the findings mesh with his own research that has shown racial disparities in PE treatment and outcomes, including a 2021 study. "While we did not see a difference by race in in-hospital mortality, Black patients hospitalized with PE are younger with a higher severity of disease compared with White patients,” he said. "Although Black patients are less likely to receive an intervention overall, this differed depending on PE severity with higher risk of intervention only for life-threatening PE." And a 2022 study found that “patients with PE from deprived neighborhoods have worse survival beyond the index [first] admission and were more likely to suffer from cardiovascular or PE-related causes of death in the first year after the index pulmonary embolism,” he said. 

Dr. Chaer noted that his research team “is actively working on the next steps beyond identifying the fact that there are racial disparities in PE treatment and outcomes. We are fortunate to have access to a large granular database with long-term follow up and are currently reviewing the medical record details to identify causes for disparities and potential solutions.”

Dr. Cushman received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Other study authors report various disclosures. Dr. Chaer has no disclosures.

As a severe shortage drags on and prices soar, transplant centers have been struggling to cope with the paucity and price of fludarabine, a chemotherapy drug that has become an essential component of stem-cell transplants for some blood cancers.

At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.

Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.

“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”

In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
 

In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial

In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.

Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.

But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.

Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
 

As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit

The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.

Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.

In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”

“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.

In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.

Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”

The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
 

Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?

There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.

Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.

The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”

In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”

If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”

Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”

Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.

As a severe shortage drags on and prices soar, transplant centers have been struggling to cope with the paucity and price of fludarabine, a chemotherapy drug that has become an essential component of stem-cell transplants for some blood cancers.

At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.

Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.

“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”

In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
 

In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial

In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.

Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.

But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.

Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
 

As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit

The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.

Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.

In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”

“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.

In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.

Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”

The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
 

Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?

There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.

Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.

The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”

In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”

If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”

Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”

Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.

As a severe shortage drags on and prices soar, transplant centers have been struggling to cope with the paucity and price of fludarabine, a chemotherapy drug that has become an essential component of stem-cell transplants for some blood cancers.

At Oregon Health and Science University, for example, an extensive algorithm now offers guidance through a thicket of alternative options, from adjusting doses and using substitutes to delaying treatment. Meanwhile, some institutions have enlisted ethicists and attorneys to guide their decisions on which patients will have to wait for potentially life-saving treatment.

Even as surgeons turn to alternatives, advocates for transplantation in hematology have warned about the potential for harm.

“This continued fludarabine shortage is forcing centers to use non–[Food and Drug Administration] approved lymphodepleting regimens that may negatively impact the success of a possibly lifesaving CAR-T therapy,” Brenda Sandmaier, MD, president of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy American Society, and Jeffery Auletta, MD, a senior vice president with the National Marrow Donor, said in a June 30 letter to the FDA. The physicians added that they “request the FDA to take immediate action on this critical shortage. Many centers currently have no ability to purchase fludarabine through their suppliers and have no estimated time frame for return of availability. Other centers are limited to mere weeks of supply, with continued uncertainty of future availability.”

In October, less than 4 months after that letter was sent, one of the manufacturers of fludarabine – Areva Pharmaceuticals – marked up the price of fludarabine to $2,736 per vial, 10-20 times that of two other makers of the drug.
 

In new treatment era, fludarabine remains crucial

In 2015, ASH Clinical News – a publication of the American Society of Hematology – invited a pair of hematologists to discuss whether fludarabine is “dead” as a front-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). “Fludarabine is not dead yet, but the data from those and other long-term trials may be the final nail in its coffin,” said Mitchell Smith, MD, PhD, who was then with Cleveland Clinic and now works for George Washington University.

Seven years later, the role of fludarabine as a long-term chemotherapeutic agent in blood cancer has definitely evolved. Just as oncologists predicted back in 2015, “the use of fludarabine declined for the primary management of CLL and other B cell malignancies, due to the development of targeted therapies such as BTK inhibitors, venetoclax, and other agents,” Memorial Sloan Kettering hematologic oncologist Anthony Mato, MD, said in an interview.

But the drug “remains a critical agent for conditioning the immune system for cellular therapies such as allogeneic stem cell transplantation and CAR-T cells,” Dr. Mato said.

Nirav Shah, MD, a hematologic oncologist at the Medical College of Wisconsin, explained in an interview that “conditioning” in the stem-cell transplant context refers to “wiping out” the immune system, allowing the donor’s stem cells to avoid rejection. “It’s a commonly used drug,” he said, “and shortage was not really a concern that people faced until this year.”
 

As shortage continues, price hike brings yet another hit

The first reports of fludarabine being in short supply surfaced about a year ago. According to a Nov. 2 update from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, five companies now manufacture fludarabine, and all of them report shortages. Areva, which dramatically raised its price, is accepting direct orders. Leucadia and Teva don’t know when the drug will be available; and Fresenius Kabi and Sagent expect availability in early 2023.

Areva, Leucadia, and Teva didn’t provide reasons for their shortages. Fresenius Kabi blamed increased demand, and Sagent pointed to manufacturing delays. Pfizer, another manufacturer, had a tiny market share and stopped making fludarabine in 2020, according to the pharmacist society.

In a May 12 press release, a company called Lannett announced it would take over U.S. distribution of fludarabine for Areva and suggested that the supply shortage would be lucrative: “While total U.S. sales for the 12 months ended March 2022 of Fludarabine Phosphate for injection, USP, 50 mg/2mL were approximately $4.9 million, according to IQVIA, the current market value is believed to be higher due to the recent market disruptions.”

“We were all shocked and outraged when Areva came out with the new, dramatically higher prices,” Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, said in a recent interview.

In a prior interview, conducted during the summer of 2022, Dr. Greene addressed the topic of hematologic drug shortages. Back then he noted that he was seeking emergency supplies of fludarabine, since all five manufacturers reported having no stock available.

Interviewed again in November 2022, Dr. Greene noted that the hospital “had been able to stay ahead of the need and meet the needs of our patients” through arrangements with Teva and Fresenius Kabi. “In cases of patient need, we certainly are willing to pay a higher product price if that’s what it takes to get it – assuming the product is a quality product.”

The Medical College of Wisconsin’s Dr. Shah said insurers may refuse to cover the higher price, sticking medical institutions with the bill.
 

Alternatives abound, but do they suffice?

There is some good news on the fludarabine shortage front. Areva recently alerted providers that it was releasing fludarabine from non-FDA-approved suppliers with the agency’s permission, and Accord Healthcare said it received permission to sell fludarabine that was marketed in Canada.

Another option – oral fludarabine instead of the standard IV version – remains unavailable in the United States. According to the June letter to the FDA from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and National Marrow Donor Program, it “might be an appropriate alternative” and is available in Europe, Canada and Australia.

The letter warns that “transplant centers have also been forced to move away from fludarabine-based regimens and use alternative drugs such as cladribine or clofarabine, which are both significantly less studied and rely on single-center experience or limited phase II data. ... The limited availability of fludarabine is leading to the use of alternative regimens that are known to be more toxic or understudied alternatives with unknown long-term clinical effects or harms to patients.”

In a November 2022 report published in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Dr. Shah and colleagues noted that institutions are adopting strategies such as “(1) pharmacy dose banding and rounding down to save vials, even if a >5% reduction was required; (2) administering all dosing of fludarabine based not on actual body weight but on adjusted body weight; and (3) switching the billing of fludarabine from single-dose vials to billing by dose delivery.”

If the shortage continues, “it becomes necessary for centers to establish algorithms for management now,” they wrote. “Substitution of such agents as bendamustine and cladribine can be considered ... [and] another acceptable solution could be the substitution of clofarabine for fludarabine.”

Still, there are many unanswered questions. “The challenge is that these alternative regimens have not been extensively studied in a large population,” Dr. Shah said. “You have to be more mindful of potential side effects and risks, and the biggest concern is efficacy. Is changing the drug going to be detrimental to a patient’s outcome? To be honest, we don’t know the answer to that.”

Dr. Mato disclosed ties with TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Acerta, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioPharma, BMS, Curio, Dava, DTRM, Genentech, Genmab, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LOXO, Medscape, Nurix, Octapharma, PER, PerView, and Pfizer. Dr. Greene and Dr. Shah have no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Widely anticipated data from a phase 3 trial of the monoclonal antibody lecanemab suggest the drug “modestly” relieved cognitive impairment in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) – but at a cost.

In the CLARITY AD trial, adverse events (AEs) were common compared with placebo, including amyloid-related edema and effusions; and a recent news report linked a second death to the drug.

Moving forward, “longer trials are warranted to determine the efficacy and safety of lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote Christopher H. van Dyck, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.

The full trial findings were presented at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference, with simultaneous publication on Nov. 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complications in the field

The phase 3 trial of lecanemab has been closely watched in AD circles, especially considering positive early data released in September and reported by this news organization at that time.

The Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision about possible approval of the drug in January 2023. Only one other antiamyloid treatment, the highly controversial and expensive aducanumab (Aduhelm), is currently approved by the FDA.

For the new 18-month, randomized, double-blind CLARITY AD trial, researchers enrolled 1,795 patients aged 50-90 years (average age, 71 years) with early AD. All were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo (n = 898) or intravenous lecanemab, a humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that selectively targets amyloid beta (A-beta) protofibrils, at 10 mg/kg of body weight every 2 weeks (n = 897).

The study ran from 2019 to 2021. The participants (52% women, 20% non-White) were recruited in North America, Europe, and Asia. Safety data included all participants, and the modified intention-to-treat group included 1,734 participants, with 859 receiving lecanemab and 875 receiving placebo.

The primary endpoint was the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). Scores from 0.5 to 6 are signs of early AD, according to the study. The mean baseline score for both groups was 3.2. The adjusted mean change at 18 months was 1.21 for lecanemab versus 1.66 for placebo (difference, –0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.67 to –0.23; P < .001).

As Dr. van Dyck noted in his presentation at the CTAD meting, this represents a 27% slowing of the decline in the lecanemab group.

The published findings do not speculate about how this difference would affect the day-to-day life of participants who took the drug, although it does refer to “modestly less decline” of cognition/function in the lecanemab group.

Other measurements that suggest cognitive improvements in the lecanemab group versus placebo include the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale score (mean difference, –1.44; 95% CI, –2.27 to –0.61), the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (mean difference, –0.05; 95% CI, –.074 to –.027,), and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment score (mean difference, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-2.8; all, P < .001).

Overall, Dr. van Dyck said, “Lecanemab met the primary and secondary endpoints versus placebo at 18 months, with highly significant differences starting at 6 months.”

In a substudy of 698 participants, results showed that amyloid burden fell at a higher rate in the lecanemab group than in the placebo group (difference, –59.1 centiloids; 95% CI, –62.6 to –55.6).

“Lecanemab has high selectivity for soluble aggregated species of A-beta as compared with monomeric amyloid, with moderate selectivity for fibrillar amyloid; this profile is considered to target the most toxic pathologic amyloid species,” the researchers wrote.
 

Concerning AE data

With respect to AEs, deaths occurred in both groups (0.7% in those who took lecanemab and 0.8% in those who took the placebo). The researchers did not attribute any deaths to the drug. However, according to a report in the journal Science published Nov. 27, a 65-year-old woman who was taking the drug as part of a clinical trial “recently died from a massive brain hemorrhage that some researchers link to the drug.”

The woman, the second person “whose death was linked to lecanemab,” died after suffering a stroke. Researchers summarized a case report as saying that the drug “contributed to her brain hemorrhage after biweekly infusions of lecanemab inflamed and weakened the blood vessels.”

Eisai, which sponsored the new trial, told Science that “all the available safety information indicates that lecanemab therapy is not associated with an increased risk of death overall or from any specific cause.”

In a CTAD presentation, study coauthor Marwan Sabbagh, MD, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, said two hemorrhage-related deaths occurred in an open-label extension. One was in the context of a tissue plasminogen activator treatment for a stroke, which fits with the description of the case in the Science report. “Causality with lecanemab is a little difficult ...,” he said. “Patients on anticoagulation might need further consideration.”

In the CLARITY AD Trial, serious AEs occurred in 14% of the lecanemab group, leading to discontinuation 6.9% of the time, and in 11.3% of the placebo group, leading to discontinuation 2.9% of the time, the investigators reported.

They added that, in the lecanemab group, the most common AEs, defined as affecting more than 10% of participants, were infusion-related reactions (26.4% vs. 7.4% for placebo); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with cerebral microhemorrhages, cerebral macrohemorrhages, or superficial siderosis (17.3% vs. 9%, respectively); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema or effusions (12.6% vs. 1.7%); headache (11.1% vs. 8.1%); and falls (10.4% vs. 9.6%).

In addition, macrohemorrhage was reported in 0.6% of the lecanemab group and 0.1% of the placebo group.
 

Cautious optimism

In separate interviews, two Alzheimer’s specialists who weren’t involved in the study praised the trial and described the findings as “exciting.” But they also highlighted its limitations.

Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and chief medical officer of Linus Health, said the study represents impressive progress after 60-plus trials examining anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies. “This is the first trial that shows a clinical benefit that can be measured,” he said.

However, it’s unclear whether the changes “are really going to make a difference in people’s lives,” he said. The drug is likely to be expensive, owing to the large investment needed for research, he added, and patients will have to undergo costly testing, such as PET scans and spinal taps.

Still, “this could be a valuable adjunct to the armamentarium we have,” which includes interventions such as lifestyle changes, he said.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that the trial reached its primary and secondary endpoints and that the drug had what he called a “modest” effect on cognition.

However, the drugmaker will need to explore the adverse effects, he said, especially among patients with atrial fibrillation who take anticoagulants. And, he said, medicine is still far from the ultimate goal – fully reversing cognitive decline.

Michael Weiner, MD, president of the CTAD22 Scientific Committee, noted in a press release that there is “growing evidence” that some antiamyloid therapies, “especially lecanemab and donanemab” have shown promising results.

“Unfortunately, these treatments are also associated with abnormal differences seen in imaging, including brain swelling and bleeding in the brain,” said Dr. Weiner, professor of radiology, medicine, and neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“There is considerable controversy concerning the significance and impact of these findings, including whether or not governments and medical insurance will provide financial coverage for such treatments,” he added.
 

Rave reviews from the Alzheimer’s Association

In a statement, the Alzheimer’s Association raved about lecanemab and declared that the FDA should approve lecanemab on an accelerated basis. The study “confirms this treatment can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease ...” the association said, adding that “it could mean many months more of recognizing their spouse, children and grandchildren.”

The association, which is a staunch supporter of aducanumab, called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover the drug if the FDA approves it. The association’s statement did not address the drug’s potential high cost, the adverse effects, or the two reported deaths.

The trial was supported by Eisai (regulatory sponsor) with partial funding from Biogen. Dr. van Dyck reports having received research grants from Biogen, Eisai, Biohaven, Cerevel Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB. He has been a consultant to Cerevel, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Roche. Relevant financial relationships for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Widely anticipated data from a phase 3 trial of the monoclonal antibody lecanemab suggest the drug “modestly” relieved cognitive impairment in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) – but at a cost.

In the CLARITY AD trial, adverse events (AEs) were common compared with placebo, including amyloid-related edema and effusions; and a recent news report linked a second death to the drug.

Moving forward, “longer trials are warranted to determine the efficacy and safety of lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote Christopher H. van Dyck, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.

The full trial findings were presented at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference, with simultaneous publication on Nov. 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complications in the field

The phase 3 trial of lecanemab has been closely watched in AD circles, especially considering positive early data released in September and reported by this news organization at that time.

The Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision about possible approval of the drug in January 2023. Only one other antiamyloid treatment, the highly controversial and expensive aducanumab (Aduhelm), is currently approved by the FDA.

For the new 18-month, randomized, double-blind CLARITY AD trial, researchers enrolled 1,795 patients aged 50-90 years (average age, 71 years) with early AD. All were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo (n = 898) or intravenous lecanemab, a humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that selectively targets amyloid beta (A-beta) protofibrils, at 10 mg/kg of body weight every 2 weeks (n = 897).

The study ran from 2019 to 2021. The participants (52% women, 20% non-White) were recruited in North America, Europe, and Asia. Safety data included all participants, and the modified intention-to-treat group included 1,734 participants, with 859 receiving lecanemab and 875 receiving placebo.

The primary endpoint was the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). Scores from 0.5 to 6 are signs of early AD, according to the study. The mean baseline score for both groups was 3.2. The adjusted mean change at 18 months was 1.21 for lecanemab versus 1.66 for placebo (difference, –0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.67 to –0.23; P < .001).

As Dr. van Dyck noted in his presentation at the CTAD meting, this represents a 27% slowing of the decline in the lecanemab group.

The published findings do not speculate about how this difference would affect the day-to-day life of participants who took the drug, although it does refer to “modestly less decline” of cognition/function in the lecanemab group.

Other measurements that suggest cognitive improvements in the lecanemab group versus placebo include the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale score (mean difference, –1.44; 95% CI, –2.27 to –0.61), the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (mean difference, –0.05; 95% CI, –.074 to –.027,), and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment score (mean difference, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-2.8; all, P < .001).

Overall, Dr. van Dyck said, “Lecanemab met the primary and secondary endpoints versus placebo at 18 months, with highly significant differences starting at 6 months.”

In a substudy of 698 participants, results showed that amyloid burden fell at a higher rate in the lecanemab group than in the placebo group (difference, –59.1 centiloids; 95% CI, –62.6 to –55.6).

“Lecanemab has high selectivity for soluble aggregated species of A-beta as compared with monomeric amyloid, with moderate selectivity for fibrillar amyloid; this profile is considered to target the most toxic pathologic amyloid species,” the researchers wrote.
 

Concerning AE data

With respect to AEs, deaths occurred in both groups (0.7% in those who took lecanemab and 0.8% in those who took the placebo). The researchers did not attribute any deaths to the drug. However, according to a report in the journal Science published Nov. 27, a 65-year-old woman who was taking the drug as part of a clinical trial “recently died from a massive brain hemorrhage that some researchers link to the drug.”

The woman, the second person “whose death was linked to lecanemab,” died after suffering a stroke. Researchers summarized a case report as saying that the drug “contributed to her brain hemorrhage after biweekly infusions of lecanemab inflamed and weakened the blood vessels.”

Eisai, which sponsored the new trial, told Science that “all the available safety information indicates that lecanemab therapy is not associated with an increased risk of death overall or from any specific cause.”

In a CTAD presentation, study coauthor Marwan Sabbagh, MD, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, said two hemorrhage-related deaths occurred in an open-label extension. One was in the context of a tissue plasminogen activator treatment for a stroke, which fits with the description of the case in the Science report. “Causality with lecanemab is a little difficult ...,” he said. “Patients on anticoagulation might need further consideration.”

In the CLARITY AD Trial, serious AEs occurred in 14% of the lecanemab group, leading to discontinuation 6.9% of the time, and in 11.3% of the placebo group, leading to discontinuation 2.9% of the time, the investigators reported.

They added that, in the lecanemab group, the most common AEs, defined as affecting more than 10% of participants, were infusion-related reactions (26.4% vs. 7.4% for placebo); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with cerebral microhemorrhages, cerebral macrohemorrhages, or superficial siderosis (17.3% vs. 9%, respectively); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema or effusions (12.6% vs. 1.7%); headache (11.1% vs. 8.1%); and falls (10.4% vs. 9.6%).

In addition, macrohemorrhage was reported in 0.6% of the lecanemab group and 0.1% of the placebo group.
 

Cautious optimism

In separate interviews, two Alzheimer’s specialists who weren’t involved in the study praised the trial and described the findings as “exciting.” But they also highlighted its limitations.

Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and chief medical officer of Linus Health, said the study represents impressive progress after 60-plus trials examining anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies. “This is the first trial that shows a clinical benefit that can be measured,” he said.

However, it’s unclear whether the changes “are really going to make a difference in people’s lives,” he said. The drug is likely to be expensive, owing to the large investment needed for research, he added, and patients will have to undergo costly testing, such as PET scans and spinal taps.

Still, “this could be a valuable adjunct to the armamentarium we have,” which includes interventions such as lifestyle changes, he said.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that the trial reached its primary and secondary endpoints and that the drug had what he called a “modest” effect on cognition.

However, the drugmaker will need to explore the adverse effects, he said, especially among patients with atrial fibrillation who take anticoagulants. And, he said, medicine is still far from the ultimate goal – fully reversing cognitive decline.

Michael Weiner, MD, president of the CTAD22 Scientific Committee, noted in a press release that there is “growing evidence” that some antiamyloid therapies, “especially lecanemab and donanemab” have shown promising results.

“Unfortunately, these treatments are also associated with abnormal differences seen in imaging, including brain swelling and bleeding in the brain,” said Dr. Weiner, professor of radiology, medicine, and neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“There is considerable controversy concerning the significance and impact of these findings, including whether or not governments and medical insurance will provide financial coverage for such treatments,” he added.
 

Rave reviews from the Alzheimer’s Association

In a statement, the Alzheimer’s Association raved about lecanemab and declared that the FDA should approve lecanemab on an accelerated basis. The study “confirms this treatment can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease ...” the association said, adding that “it could mean many months more of recognizing their spouse, children and grandchildren.”

The association, which is a staunch supporter of aducanumab, called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover the drug if the FDA approves it. The association’s statement did not address the drug’s potential high cost, the adverse effects, or the two reported deaths.

The trial was supported by Eisai (regulatory sponsor) with partial funding from Biogen. Dr. van Dyck reports having received research grants from Biogen, Eisai, Biohaven, Cerevel Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB. He has been a consultant to Cerevel, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Roche. Relevant financial relationships for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Widely anticipated data from a phase 3 trial of the monoclonal antibody lecanemab suggest the drug “modestly” relieved cognitive impairment in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) – but at a cost.

In the CLARITY AD trial, adverse events (AEs) were common compared with placebo, including amyloid-related edema and effusions; and a recent news report linked a second death to the drug.

Moving forward, “longer trials are warranted to determine the efficacy and safety of lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote Christopher H. van Dyck, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.

The full trial findings were presented at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference, with simultaneous publication on Nov. 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complications in the field

The phase 3 trial of lecanemab has been closely watched in AD circles, especially considering positive early data released in September and reported by this news organization at that time.

The Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision about possible approval of the drug in January 2023. Only one other antiamyloid treatment, the highly controversial and expensive aducanumab (Aduhelm), is currently approved by the FDA.

For the new 18-month, randomized, double-blind CLARITY AD trial, researchers enrolled 1,795 patients aged 50-90 years (average age, 71 years) with early AD. All were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo (n = 898) or intravenous lecanemab, a humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that selectively targets amyloid beta (A-beta) protofibrils, at 10 mg/kg of body weight every 2 weeks (n = 897).

The study ran from 2019 to 2021. The participants (52% women, 20% non-White) were recruited in North America, Europe, and Asia. Safety data included all participants, and the modified intention-to-treat group included 1,734 participants, with 859 receiving lecanemab and 875 receiving placebo.

The primary endpoint was the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). Scores from 0.5 to 6 are signs of early AD, according to the study. The mean baseline score for both groups was 3.2. The adjusted mean change at 18 months was 1.21 for lecanemab versus 1.66 for placebo (difference, –0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.67 to –0.23; P < .001).

As Dr. van Dyck noted in his presentation at the CTAD meting, this represents a 27% slowing of the decline in the lecanemab group.

The published findings do not speculate about how this difference would affect the day-to-day life of participants who took the drug, although it does refer to “modestly less decline” of cognition/function in the lecanemab group.

Other measurements that suggest cognitive improvements in the lecanemab group versus placebo include the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale score (mean difference, –1.44; 95% CI, –2.27 to –0.61), the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (mean difference, –0.05; 95% CI, –.074 to –.027,), and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment score (mean difference, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-2.8; all, P < .001).

Overall, Dr. van Dyck said, “Lecanemab met the primary and secondary endpoints versus placebo at 18 months, with highly significant differences starting at 6 months.”

In a substudy of 698 participants, results showed that amyloid burden fell at a higher rate in the lecanemab group than in the placebo group (difference, –59.1 centiloids; 95% CI, –62.6 to –55.6).

“Lecanemab has high selectivity for soluble aggregated species of A-beta as compared with monomeric amyloid, with moderate selectivity for fibrillar amyloid; this profile is considered to target the most toxic pathologic amyloid species,” the researchers wrote.
 

Concerning AE data

With respect to AEs, deaths occurred in both groups (0.7% in those who took lecanemab and 0.8% in those who took the placebo). The researchers did not attribute any deaths to the drug. However, according to a report in the journal Science published Nov. 27, a 65-year-old woman who was taking the drug as part of a clinical trial “recently died from a massive brain hemorrhage that some researchers link to the drug.”

The woman, the second person “whose death was linked to lecanemab,” died after suffering a stroke. Researchers summarized a case report as saying that the drug “contributed to her brain hemorrhage after biweekly infusions of lecanemab inflamed and weakened the blood vessels.”

Eisai, which sponsored the new trial, told Science that “all the available safety information indicates that lecanemab therapy is not associated with an increased risk of death overall or from any specific cause.”

In a CTAD presentation, study coauthor Marwan Sabbagh, MD, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, said two hemorrhage-related deaths occurred in an open-label extension. One was in the context of a tissue plasminogen activator treatment for a stroke, which fits with the description of the case in the Science report. “Causality with lecanemab is a little difficult ...,” he said. “Patients on anticoagulation might need further consideration.”

In the CLARITY AD Trial, serious AEs occurred in 14% of the lecanemab group, leading to discontinuation 6.9% of the time, and in 11.3% of the placebo group, leading to discontinuation 2.9% of the time, the investigators reported.

They added that, in the lecanemab group, the most common AEs, defined as affecting more than 10% of participants, were infusion-related reactions (26.4% vs. 7.4% for placebo); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with cerebral microhemorrhages, cerebral macrohemorrhages, or superficial siderosis (17.3% vs. 9%, respectively); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema or effusions (12.6% vs. 1.7%); headache (11.1% vs. 8.1%); and falls (10.4% vs. 9.6%).

In addition, macrohemorrhage was reported in 0.6% of the lecanemab group and 0.1% of the placebo group.
 

Cautious optimism

In separate interviews, two Alzheimer’s specialists who weren’t involved in the study praised the trial and described the findings as “exciting.” But they also highlighted its limitations.

Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and chief medical officer of Linus Health, said the study represents impressive progress after 60-plus trials examining anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies. “This is the first trial that shows a clinical benefit that can be measured,” he said.

However, it’s unclear whether the changes “are really going to make a difference in people’s lives,” he said. The drug is likely to be expensive, owing to the large investment needed for research, he added, and patients will have to undergo costly testing, such as PET scans and spinal taps.

Still, “this could be a valuable adjunct to the armamentarium we have,” which includes interventions such as lifestyle changes, he said.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that the trial reached its primary and secondary endpoints and that the drug had what he called a “modest” effect on cognition.

However, the drugmaker will need to explore the adverse effects, he said, especially among patients with atrial fibrillation who take anticoagulants. And, he said, medicine is still far from the ultimate goal – fully reversing cognitive decline.

Michael Weiner, MD, president of the CTAD22 Scientific Committee, noted in a press release that there is “growing evidence” that some antiamyloid therapies, “especially lecanemab and donanemab” have shown promising results.

“Unfortunately, these treatments are also associated with abnormal differences seen in imaging, including brain swelling and bleeding in the brain,” said Dr. Weiner, professor of radiology, medicine, and neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“There is considerable controversy concerning the significance and impact of these findings, including whether or not governments and medical insurance will provide financial coverage for such treatments,” he added.
 

Rave reviews from the Alzheimer’s Association

In a statement, the Alzheimer’s Association raved about lecanemab and declared that the FDA should approve lecanemab on an accelerated basis. The study “confirms this treatment can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease ...” the association said, adding that “it could mean many months more of recognizing their spouse, children and grandchildren.”

The association, which is a staunch supporter of aducanumab, called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover the drug if the FDA approves it. The association’s statement did not address the drug’s potential high cost, the adverse effects, or the two reported deaths.

The trial was supported by Eisai (regulatory sponsor) with partial funding from Biogen. Dr. van Dyck reports having received research grants from Biogen, Eisai, Biohaven, Cerevel Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB. He has been a consultant to Cerevel, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Roche. Relevant financial relationships for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.

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

Adjuvant immunotherapy with atezolizumab for patients with renal cell carcinoma who have had a nephrectomy with or without a metastasectomy, failed to improve clinical outcomes in a group of patients who are at high risk of recurrence, finds a new international study conducted across 28 countries.

The study, called IMmotion010 and published in The Lancet, was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 trial of 778 adult patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component. The study failed to meet its primary endpoint which was defined as a statistically significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo.

“Our results add to an emerging body of literature around the role of adjuvant immunotherapy for renal cell carcinoma. With the longest duration of follow-up to date to our knowledge. We observed no evidence of clinical benefit in disease-free survival or overall survival with adjuvant atezolizumab in patients with high-risk localized or fully resected renal cell carcinoma,” wrote the authors who were led by Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif. “Given a growing list of trials that have not shown benefit with adjuvant immunotherapy, the results call for greater attention to patient selection with this approach.”

Dr. Pal and associates conducted the study to gain more insight into the potential role of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have undergone the standard treatment of nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy. Previous studies of anti-VEGF treatments have produced mixed results, including the large phase 3 ASSURE trial, the authors wrote. “Given these mixed results, use of adjuvant targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma remains infrequent,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote.

However, pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) a programmed death receptor-1–blocking antibody, is an immunotherapy which, in combination with axitinib, is approved as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced RCC.

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech) is approved for treatment in urothelial carcinoma, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and melanoma. There are currently a number of ongoing studies that are exploring the use of atezolizumab as a treatment for renal cell carcinoma.

The study details

This new study was conducted between 2017 and 2019. It included 778 patients from 215 clinics in 28 countries who were assigned to the treatment arm (1,200 mg of IV atezolizumab (n = 390, 50%) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year, which ever came first – or, they were assigned to the placebo group (n = 388, 50%). The two groups were similar: average age 60-61, 72%-74% male, 78%-83% white, and 36%-37% based in North America. Most patients, (92%-93%) had clear cell cancer, and 64%-65% were at pathological disease stage T2 or T3a.

The 3-year disease-free survival rate at 36 months was 65.0% (95% confidence interval, 59.9-70.2) in the treatment group and 62.7% (95% CI, 57.5-67.9) in the placebo group. At follow-up at 44.7 months, there was no statistically significant difference in median disease-free survival between atezolizumab (57.2 months; 95% CI, 44.6 to not evaluable) and placebo (49.5 months; 95% CI, 47.4 to not evaluable).

While there were no deaths attributable to treatment, 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo experienced a serious adverse event.

“The results of IMmotion010 do not support the use of adjuvant atezolizumab for fully resected renal cell carcinoma. Future work will include exploration of clinical-based or biomarker-based subsets that might derive benefit from this approach,” the authors wrote.

The researchers acknowledge their findings contrast with those of the KEYNOTE-564 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab after nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma. KEYNOTE-564 reported a disease-free survival benefit of over 24 months and in an analysis done at 30 months. But in KEYNOTE-564, the study comprised only 6% of patients with M1 no evidence of disease. And, it included only patients with synchronous metastases or metastases resected within 1 year of nephrectomy. In the new study, 14% of patients had M1 no evidence of disease, and it included both synchronous and metachronous disease with recurrence within 1year of surgery.

Adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is considered optional for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk operable clear cell renal cell carcinoma per European Society for Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology guidelines because of the lack of confirmed overall survival benefit and toxicity-related considerations associated with immunotherapy.

“These factors must be considered in the adjuvant setting as, following nephrectomy, patients are cancer free and might be cured by surgery alone. As such, additional trials are needed to clarify the role of adjuvant immunotherapy in this disease space,” the authors wrote.

What’s next? “Biomarker work is underway to determine whether tumor genomic characteristics or circulating biomarkers can identify patient populations who derive benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote. “There is precedent for tissue-based adjuvant therapy selection in other diseases, such as HER2-based and endocrine receptor–based approaches in breast cancer and EGFR mutation–directed therapy in lung cancer.”

The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. The academic authors of the study collaborated with F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech on all facets of the trial.

Adjuvant immunotherapy with atezolizumab for patients with renal cell carcinoma who have had a nephrectomy with or without a metastasectomy, failed to improve clinical outcomes in a group of patients who are at high risk of recurrence, finds a new international study conducted across 28 countries.

The study, called IMmotion010 and published in The Lancet, was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 trial of 778 adult patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component. The study failed to meet its primary endpoint which was defined as a statistically significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo.

“Our results add to an emerging body of literature around the role of adjuvant immunotherapy for renal cell carcinoma. With the longest duration of follow-up to date to our knowledge. We observed no evidence of clinical benefit in disease-free survival or overall survival with adjuvant atezolizumab in patients with high-risk localized or fully resected renal cell carcinoma,” wrote the authors who were led by Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif. “Given a growing list of trials that have not shown benefit with adjuvant immunotherapy, the results call for greater attention to patient selection with this approach.”

Dr. Pal and associates conducted the study to gain more insight into the potential role of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have undergone the standard treatment of nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy. Previous studies of anti-VEGF treatments have produced mixed results, including the large phase 3 ASSURE trial, the authors wrote. “Given these mixed results, use of adjuvant targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma remains infrequent,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote.

However, pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) a programmed death receptor-1–blocking antibody, is an immunotherapy which, in combination with axitinib, is approved as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced RCC.

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech) is approved for treatment in urothelial carcinoma, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and melanoma. There are currently a number of ongoing studies that are exploring the use of atezolizumab as a treatment for renal cell carcinoma.

The study details

This new study was conducted between 2017 and 2019. It included 778 patients from 215 clinics in 28 countries who were assigned to the treatment arm (1,200 mg of IV atezolizumab (n = 390, 50%) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year, which ever came first – or, they were assigned to the placebo group (n = 388, 50%). The two groups were similar: average age 60-61, 72%-74% male, 78%-83% white, and 36%-37% based in North America. Most patients, (92%-93%) had clear cell cancer, and 64%-65% were at pathological disease stage T2 or T3a.

The 3-year disease-free survival rate at 36 months was 65.0% (95% confidence interval, 59.9-70.2) in the treatment group and 62.7% (95% CI, 57.5-67.9) in the placebo group. At follow-up at 44.7 months, there was no statistically significant difference in median disease-free survival between atezolizumab (57.2 months; 95% CI, 44.6 to not evaluable) and placebo (49.5 months; 95% CI, 47.4 to not evaluable).

While there were no deaths attributable to treatment, 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo experienced a serious adverse event.

“The results of IMmotion010 do not support the use of adjuvant atezolizumab for fully resected renal cell carcinoma. Future work will include exploration of clinical-based or biomarker-based subsets that might derive benefit from this approach,” the authors wrote.

The researchers acknowledge their findings contrast with those of the KEYNOTE-564 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab after nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma. KEYNOTE-564 reported a disease-free survival benefit of over 24 months and in an analysis done at 30 months. But in KEYNOTE-564, the study comprised only 6% of patients with M1 no evidence of disease. And, it included only patients with synchronous metastases or metastases resected within 1 year of nephrectomy. In the new study, 14% of patients had M1 no evidence of disease, and it included both synchronous and metachronous disease with recurrence within 1year of surgery.

Adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is considered optional for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk operable clear cell renal cell carcinoma per European Society for Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology guidelines because of the lack of confirmed overall survival benefit and toxicity-related considerations associated with immunotherapy.

“These factors must be considered in the adjuvant setting as, following nephrectomy, patients are cancer free and might be cured by surgery alone. As such, additional trials are needed to clarify the role of adjuvant immunotherapy in this disease space,” the authors wrote.

What’s next? “Biomarker work is underway to determine whether tumor genomic characteristics or circulating biomarkers can identify patient populations who derive benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote. “There is precedent for tissue-based adjuvant therapy selection in other diseases, such as HER2-based and endocrine receptor–based approaches in breast cancer and EGFR mutation–directed therapy in lung cancer.”

The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. The academic authors of the study collaborated with F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech on all facets of the trial.

Adjuvant immunotherapy with atezolizumab for patients with renal cell carcinoma who have had a nephrectomy with or without a metastasectomy, failed to improve clinical outcomes in a group of patients who are at high risk of recurrence, finds a new international study conducted across 28 countries.

The study, called IMmotion010 and published in The Lancet, was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 trial of 778 adult patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear cell or sarcomatoid component. The study failed to meet its primary endpoint which was defined as a statistically significant improvement in disease-free survival as compared with placebo.

“Our results add to an emerging body of literature around the role of adjuvant immunotherapy for renal cell carcinoma. With the longest duration of follow-up to date to our knowledge. We observed no evidence of clinical benefit in disease-free survival or overall survival with adjuvant atezolizumab in patients with high-risk localized or fully resected renal cell carcinoma,” wrote the authors who were led by Sumanta Kumar Pal, MD, of City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif. “Given a growing list of trials that have not shown benefit with adjuvant immunotherapy, the results call for greater attention to patient selection with this approach.”

Dr. Pal and associates conducted the study to gain more insight into the potential role of adjuvant immunotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma who have undergone the standard treatment of nephrectomy with or without metastasectomy. Previous studies of anti-VEGF treatments have produced mixed results, including the large phase 3 ASSURE trial, the authors wrote. “Given these mixed results, use of adjuvant targeted therapy in renal cell carcinoma remains infrequent,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote.

However, pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck) a programmed death receptor-1–blocking antibody, is an immunotherapy which, in combination with axitinib, is approved as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced RCC.

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq, Genentech) is approved for treatment in urothelial carcinoma, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer (SCLC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and melanoma. There are currently a number of ongoing studies that are exploring the use of atezolizumab as a treatment for renal cell carcinoma.

The study details

This new study was conducted between 2017 and 2019. It included 778 patients from 215 clinics in 28 countries who were assigned to the treatment arm (1,200 mg of IV atezolizumab (n = 390, 50%) once every 3 weeks for 16 cycles or 1 year, which ever came first – or, they were assigned to the placebo group (n = 388, 50%). The two groups were similar: average age 60-61, 72%-74% male, 78%-83% white, and 36%-37% based in North America. Most patients, (92%-93%) had clear cell cancer, and 64%-65% were at pathological disease stage T2 or T3a.

The 3-year disease-free survival rate at 36 months was 65.0% (95% confidence interval, 59.9-70.2) in the treatment group and 62.7% (95% CI, 57.5-67.9) in the placebo group. At follow-up at 44.7 months, there was no statistically significant difference in median disease-free survival between atezolizumab (57.2 months; 95% CI, 44.6 to not evaluable) and placebo (49.5 months; 95% CI, 47.4 to not evaluable).

While there were no deaths attributable to treatment, 69 (18%) patients who received atezolizumab and 46 (12%) patients who received placebo experienced a serious adverse event.

“The results of IMmotion010 do not support the use of adjuvant atezolizumab for fully resected renal cell carcinoma. Future work will include exploration of clinical-based or biomarker-based subsets that might derive benefit from this approach,” the authors wrote.

The researchers acknowledge their findings contrast with those of the KEYNOTE-564 trial of adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab after nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma. KEYNOTE-564 reported a disease-free survival benefit of over 24 months and in an analysis done at 30 months. But in KEYNOTE-564, the study comprised only 6% of patients with M1 no evidence of disease. And, it included only patients with synchronous metastases or metastases resected within 1 year of nephrectomy. In the new study, 14% of patients had M1 no evidence of disease, and it included both synchronous and metachronous disease with recurrence within 1year of surgery.

Adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab is considered optional for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk operable clear cell renal cell carcinoma per European Society for Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology guidelines because of the lack of confirmed overall survival benefit and toxicity-related considerations associated with immunotherapy.

“These factors must be considered in the adjuvant setting as, following nephrectomy, patients are cancer free and might be cured by surgery alone. As such, additional trials are needed to clarify the role of adjuvant immunotherapy in this disease space,” the authors wrote.

What’s next? “Biomarker work is underway to determine whether tumor genomic characteristics or circulating biomarkers can identify patient populations who derive benefit from adjuvant atezolizumab,” Dr. Pal and associates wrote. “There is precedent for tissue-based adjuvant therapy selection in other diseases, such as HER2-based and endocrine receptor–based approaches in breast cancer and EGFR mutation–directed therapy in lung cancer.”

The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. The academic authors of the study collaborated with F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech on all facets of the trial.

Untreated chronic hepatitis B infections are associated with increased risks of most major extrahepatic cancer types, shows a new study conducted in South Korea.

In this study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, researchers found that long-term treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) for patients with chronic hepatitis B lowered their risk of developing extrahepatic cancer types.

In addition to lowering the risk of liver cancers, treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues, including tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, entecavir, lamivudine, telbivudine, adefovir, and clevudine, lowered the risk of developing cancer of the pancreas and prostate, but increased the risk of breast cancer.

By controlling chronic hepatitis B infections (CHB), NAs have been known to reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. About half of the 700,000 people who die each year from chronic hepatitis B infections also have an intrahepatic malignancy.

But extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, in which tumors grow outside of the liver in the bile ducts, is exceedingly rare, affecting only 8,000 people each year in the United States.

The study was led by Jeong-Hoon Lee, MD, PhD, Seoul National University, South Korea.
 

The study details

Researchers sought to understand whether CHB treatment with NA drugs could reduce the risk of extrahepatic cancer. The study is based on an analysis of South Korean medical insurance claims data that included 90,944 patients (6,539 treated with NAs) with a newly diagnosed chronic hepatitis B infection, and 685,436 controls. The median age of the groups ranged from 47 to 51, and the percentage of men ranged from 51.3% to 62.5%.

Over the median 47.4-month study period, 3.9% (30,413) of subjects developed cancer outside the liver. Patients with CHB who weren’t treated with NAs had a higher overall risk vs. the NA-treatment group (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.45; P < .001) and vs. controls (aSHR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.26; P < .001).

The researchers write that “the direction of the original result was maintained” even after adjustment for cancer risk factors such as smoking and alcohol consumption. “Randomized controlled trials might be warranted to explore whether NA treatment will reduce the risk of extrahepatic malignancy in patients with CHB outside the current treatment indication,” they wrote.

In an accompanying commentary, Lewis R. Roberts, MBChB, PhD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that what is perhaps “the most controversial result ... one that is not the direct subject of their study, the observation that NA treatment was not associated with a decrease in risk of primary intrahepatic malignancy – hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The observed decrease in risk of intrahepatic malignancy was 12%, with an adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .08).”

As Dr. Roberts wrote, the authors suggested this could be related to the low prevalence of cirrhosis in the study group. “This explanation is plausible, as it has previously been shown that the major impact of NA treatment in reducing HCC incidence is in those with CHB-induced cirrhosis,” he wrote.

Dr. Roberts added that randomized trials of NA in CHB would be difficult because the drugs are so effective. “The most important implication of this study may be the observation that CHB is associated with a higher risk of a range of extrahepatic malignancies, and the opportunity to advise patients with CHB to adhere to current recommendations for screening for the major cancer types.”

The study was publicly funded, but several study authors report numerous disclosures including relationships with Yuhan Corporation, Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, and others. Dr. Roberts reports numerous personal and institutional disclosures including relationships with Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Medscape, Roche, and others plus a patent and royalties.

Untreated chronic hepatitis B infections are associated with increased risks of most major extrahepatic cancer types, shows a new study conducted in South Korea.

In this study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, researchers found that long-term treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) for patients with chronic hepatitis B lowered their risk of developing extrahepatic cancer types.

In addition to lowering the risk of liver cancers, treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues, including tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, entecavir, lamivudine, telbivudine, adefovir, and clevudine, lowered the risk of developing cancer of the pancreas and prostate, but increased the risk of breast cancer.

By controlling chronic hepatitis B infections (CHB), NAs have been known to reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. About half of the 700,000 people who die each year from chronic hepatitis B infections also have an intrahepatic malignancy.

But extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, in which tumors grow outside of the liver in the bile ducts, is exceedingly rare, affecting only 8,000 people each year in the United States.

The study was led by Jeong-Hoon Lee, MD, PhD, Seoul National University, South Korea.
 

The study details

Researchers sought to understand whether CHB treatment with NA drugs could reduce the risk of extrahepatic cancer. The study is based on an analysis of South Korean medical insurance claims data that included 90,944 patients (6,539 treated with NAs) with a newly diagnosed chronic hepatitis B infection, and 685,436 controls. The median age of the groups ranged from 47 to 51, and the percentage of men ranged from 51.3% to 62.5%.

Over the median 47.4-month study period, 3.9% (30,413) of subjects developed cancer outside the liver. Patients with CHB who weren’t treated with NAs had a higher overall risk vs. the NA-treatment group (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.45; P < .001) and vs. controls (aSHR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.26; P < .001).

The researchers write that “the direction of the original result was maintained” even after adjustment for cancer risk factors such as smoking and alcohol consumption. “Randomized controlled trials might be warranted to explore whether NA treatment will reduce the risk of extrahepatic malignancy in patients with CHB outside the current treatment indication,” they wrote.

In an accompanying commentary, Lewis R. Roberts, MBChB, PhD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that what is perhaps “the most controversial result ... one that is not the direct subject of their study, the observation that NA treatment was not associated with a decrease in risk of primary intrahepatic malignancy – hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The observed decrease in risk of intrahepatic malignancy was 12%, with an adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .08).”

As Dr. Roberts wrote, the authors suggested this could be related to the low prevalence of cirrhosis in the study group. “This explanation is plausible, as it has previously been shown that the major impact of NA treatment in reducing HCC incidence is in those with CHB-induced cirrhosis,” he wrote.

Dr. Roberts added that randomized trials of NA in CHB would be difficult because the drugs are so effective. “The most important implication of this study may be the observation that CHB is associated with a higher risk of a range of extrahepatic malignancies, and the opportunity to advise patients with CHB to adhere to current recommendations for screening for the major cancer types.”

The study was publicly funded, but several study authors report numerous disclosures including relationships with Yuhan Corporation, Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, and others. Dr. Roberts reports numerous personal and institutional disclosures including relationships with Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Medscape, Roche, and others plus a patent and royalties.

Untreated chronic hepatitis B infections are associated with increased risks of most major extrahepatic cancer types, shows a new study conducted in South Korea.

In this study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, researchers found that long-term treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) for patients with chronic hepatitis B lowered their risk of developing extrahepatic cancer types.

In addition to lowering the risk of liver cancers, treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues, including tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, entecavir, lamivudine, telbivudine, adefovir, and clevudine, lowered the risk of developing cancer of the pancreas and prostate, but increased the risk of breast cancer.

By controlling chronic hepatitis B infections (CHB), NAs have been known to reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. About half of the 700,000 people who die each year from chronic hepatitis B infections also have an intrahepatic malignancy.

But extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, in which tumors grow outside of the liver in the bile ducts, is exceedingly rare, affecting only 8,000 people each year in the United States.

The study was led by Jeong-Hoon Lee, MD, PhD, Seoul National University, South Korea.
 

The study details

Researchers sought to understand whether CHB treatment with NA drugs could reduce the risk of extrahepatic cancer. The study is based on an analysis of South Korean medical insurance claims data that included 90,944 patients (6,539 treated with NAs) with a newly diagnosed chronic hepatitis B infection, and 685,436 controls. The median age of the groups ranged from 47 to 51, and the percentage of men ranged from 51.3% to 62.5%.

Over the median 47.4-month study period, 3.9% (30,413) of subjects developed cancer outside the liver. Patients with CHB who weren’t treated with NAs had a higher overall risk vs. the NA-treatment group (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.45; P < .001) and vs. controls (aSHR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.26; P < .001).

The researchers write that “the direction of the original result was maintained” even after adjustment for cancer risk factors such as smoking and alcohol consumption. “Randomized controlled trials might be warranted to explore whether NA treatment will reduce the risk of extrahepatic malignancy in patients with CHB outside the current treatment indication,” they wrote.

In an accompanying commentary, Lewis R. Roberts, MBChB, PhD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said that what is perhaps “the most controversial result ... one that is not the direct subject of their study, the observation that NA treatment was not associated with a decrease in risk of primary intrahepatic malignancy – hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The observed decrease in risk of intrahepatic malignancy was 12%, with an adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .08).”

As Dr. Roberts wrote, the authors suggested this could be related to the low prevalence of cirrhosis in the study group. “This explanation is plausible, as it has previously been shown that the major impact of NA treatment in reducing HCC incidence is in those with CHB-induced cirrhosis,” he wrote.

Dr. Roberts added that randomized trials of NA in CHB would be difficult because the drugs are so effective. “The most important implication of this study may be the observation that CHB is associated with a higher risk of a range of extrahepatic malignancies, and the opportunity to advise patients with CHB to adhere to current recommendations for screening for the major cancer types.”

The study was publicly funded, but several study authors report numerous disclosures including relationships with Yuhan Corporation, Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, and others. Dr. Roberts reports numerous personal and institutional disclosures including relationships with Bayer, Gilead Sciences, Medscape, Roche, and others plus a patent and royalties.

A new retrospective study provides more evidence that previous breast cancer diagnoses don’t disrupt the health of mothers and newborns in pregnancy: Women who became pregnant at least 12 months after breast cancer diagnosis weren’t more likely than a control group to have preterm births or suffer maternal/neonatal morbidity – even though they were more likely to undergo cesarean section.

“For patients who are more than 1 year out from the diagnosis of breast cancer, it may be safe and reasonable to consider pregnancy without significantly increased odds of maternal or neonatal complications,” said study lead author Kirsten Jorgensen, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at the University of Texas Houston School of Public Health, in an interview. “This study does not suggest there is no risk, but it does place the risk that exists in context with the risk that is associated with any pregnancy.”

The study appears in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers launched the analysis because “there is relatively little data to help guide patients, their oncologists, and their obstetricians as they navigate the potential for pregnancy after a cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “There have been prior studies looking at birth outcomes, but they often include people who become pregnant very shortly after diagnosis, which may skew results.”

Researchers used databases to track 30,021 women in California aged 18-45 who were diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2012. Of those, only 553 met the study criteria and conceived at least 1 year after a stage I-III breast cancer diagnosis (median age at delivery = 36; 50.6% non-Hispanic White, 23.9% Hispanic, 6.0% Black; 83.2% private insurance).

Study authors compared these women to a matched control group of 1,659 women without breast cancer.

After adjustment for various factors, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of maternal outcomes – preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation (12.5% in the breast cancer group vs. 10.0% in the control group; odds ratio = 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.74) or preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation (1.3% vs. 1.6%, respectively, OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.79).

Researchers didn’t find a significant difference in neonatal outcomes either – small for gestational age (less than the 5th percentile, 3.1% vs. 5.0%, respectively; OR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.35-1.03; less than the 10th percentile: 9.4% vs. 10%, respectively; OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.30), or neonatal morbidity (8.7% vs. 7.7%, respectively; OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.62).

“It is possible that breast cancer may have little impact because some breast cancer is treated only with surgery or radiation to the chest,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “These treatments likely do not impact fertility and may not impact a developing pregnancy.”

There were neonatal deaths: one in the breast cancer group and four in the control group. The researchers said the small number of deaths limited their ability to interpret the data.

Researchers found no evidence that treatment with chemotherapy affected outcomes. They did turn up a difference between the groups: those who’d had breast cancer were more likely to undergo cesarean delivery (45.6% in the breast cancer group, and 40.1% in the control group; OR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53), However, offspring of women in the cesarean group weren’t more likely to have neonatal morbidity (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.81-1.62).

It’s hard to explain the higher rate of cesarean deliveries in the breast cancer group, Dr. Jorgensen said. “Overall, among our study population and the matched controls there was a high rate of cesarean section. It is possible there was bias on the provider side. Perhaps they intervened with cesarean section earlier among those with a history of breast cancer – a type of bias due to knowing the history of the patient. We attempted to match for other comorbidities that impact obstetric outcomes, but it is possible that we did not account for all of them.”

In an interview, Patricia A. Ganz, MD, director of cancer prevention and control research at University of California, Los Angeles, praised the new research.

It’s “a well-conducted study with state-of-the-art analysis and interpretation,” she said. “Based on my experience with patients I have cared for with breast cancer, there were no surprises here. Most have had uncomplicated pregnancies. This should be reassuring for women who wish to have children after treatment for breast cancer and clinicians should support this decision.”

As for the higher rate of cesarean delivery in breast-cancer survivors, she said “there may be a tendency to think of these as ‘high risk’ pregnancies, and C-sections may be selected at a more frequent rate as a result.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Jorgensen has no disclosures. Other authors disclosed advisory board service (Delfina Care) and payments from the NIH, Guidepoint, the Schlesinger Group, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Ganz has no disclosures.

A new retrospective study provides more evidence that previous breast cancer diagnoses don’t disrupt the health of mothers and newborns in pregnancy: Women who became pregnant at least 12 months after breast cancer diagnosis weren’t more likely than a control group to have preterm births or suffer maternal/neonatal morbidity – even though they were more likely to undergo cesarean section.

“For patients who are more than 1 year out from the diagnosis of breast cancer, it may be safe and reasonable to consider pregnancy without significantly increased odds of maternal or neonatal complications,” said study lead author Kirsten Jorgensen, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at the University of Texas Houston School of Public Health, in an interview. “This study does not suggest there is no risk, but it does place the risk that exists in context with the risk that is associated with any pregnancy.”

The study appears in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers launched the analysis because “there is relatively little data to help guide patients, their oncologists, and their obstetricians as they navigate the potential for pregnancy after a cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “There have been prior studies looking at birth outcomes, but they often include people who become pregnant very shortly after diagnosis, which may skew results.”

Researchers used databases to track 30,021 women in California aged 18-45 who were diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2012. Of those, only 553 met the study criteria and conceived at least 1 year after a stage I-III breast cancer diagnosis (median age at delivery = 36; 50.6% non-Hispanic White, 23.9% Hispanic, 6.0% Black; 83.2% private insurance).

Study authors compared these women to a matched control group of 1,659 women without breast cancer.

After adjustment for various factors, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of maternal outcomes – preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation (12.5% in the breast cancer group vs. 10.0% in the control group; odds ratio = 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.74) or preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation (1.3% vs. 1.6%, respectively, OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.79).

Researchers didn’t find a significant difference in neonatal outcomes either – small for gestational age (less than the 5th percentile, 3.1% vs. 5.0%, respectively; OR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.35-1.03; less than the 10th percentile: 9.4% vs. 10%, respectively; OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.30), or neonatal morbidity (8.7% vs. 7.7%, respectively; OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.62).

“It is possible that breast cancer may have little impact because some breast cancer is treated only with surgery or radiation to the chest,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “These treatments likely do not impact fertility and may not impact a developing pregnancy.”

There were neonatal deaths: one in the breast cancer group and four in the control group. The researchers said the small number of deaths limited their ability to interpret the data.

Researchers found no evidence that treatment with chemotherapy affected outcomes. They did turn up a difference between the groups: those who’d had breast cancer were more likely to undergo cesarean delivery (45.6% in the breast cancer group, and 40.1% in the control group; OR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53), However, offspring of women in the cesarean group weren’t more likely to have neonatal morbidity (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.81-1.62).

It’s hard to explain the higher rate of cesarean deliveries in the breast cancer group, Dr. Jorgensen said. “Overall, among our study population and the matched controls there was a high rate of cesarean section. It is possible there was bias on the provider side. Perhaps they intervened with cesarean section earlier among those with a history of breast cancer – a type of bias due to knowing the history of the patient. We attempted to match for other comorbidities that impact obstetric outcomes, but it is possible that we did not account for all of them.”

In an interview, Patricia A. Ganz, MD, director of cancer prevention and control research at University of California, Los Angeles, praised the new research.

It’s “a well-conducted study with state-of-the-art analysis and interpretation,” she said. “Based on my experience with patients I have cared for with breast cancer, there were no surprises here. Most have had uncomplicated pregnancies. This should be reassuring for women who wish to have children after treatment for breast cancer and clinicians should support this decision.”

As for the higher rate of cesarean delivery in breast-cancer survivors, she said “there may be a tendency to think of these as ‘high risk’ pregnancies, and C-sections may be selected at a more frequent rate as a result.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Jorgensen has no disclosures. Other authors disclosed advisory board service (Delfina Care) and payments from the NIH, Guidepoint, the Schlesinger Group, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Ganz has no disclosures.

A new retrospective study provides more evidence that previous breast cancer diagnoses don’t disrupt the health of mothers and newborns in pregnancy: Women who became pregnant at least 12 months after breast cancer diagnosis weren’t more likely than a control group to have preterm births or suffer maternal/neonatal morbidity – even though they were more likely to undergo cesarean section.

“For patients who are more than 1 year out from the diagnosis of breast cancer, it may be safe and reasonable to consider pregnancy without significantly increased odds of maternal or neonatal complications,” said study lead author Kirsten Jorgensen, MD, a gynecologic oncology fellow at the University of Texas Houston School of Public Health, in an interview. “This study does not suggest there is no risk, but it does place the risk that exists in context with the risk that is associated with any pregnancy.”

The study appears in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The researchers launched the analysis because “there is relatively little data to help guide patients, their oncologists, and their obstetricians as they navigate the potential for pregnancy after a cancer diagnosis,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “There have been prior studies looking at birth outcomes, but they often include people who become pregnant very shortly after diagnosis, which may skew results.”

Researchers used databases to track 30,021 women in California aged 18-45 who were diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2012. Of those, only 553 met the study criteria and conceived at least 1 year after a stage I-III breast cancer diagnosis (median age at delivery = 36; 50.6% non-Hispanic White, 23.9% Hispanic, 6.0% Black; 83.2% private insurance).

Study authors compared these women to a matched control group of 1,659 women without breast cancer.

After adjustment for various factors, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of maternal outcomes – preterm birth at less than 37 weeks of gestation (12.5% in the breast cancer group vs. 10.0% in the control group; odds ratio = 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.74) or preterm birth at less than 32 weeks of gestation (1.3% vs. 1.6%, respectively, OR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.34-1.79).

Researchers didn’t find a significant difference in neonatal outcomes either – small for gestational age (less than the 5th percentile, 3.1% vs. 5.0%, respectively; OR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.35-1.03; less than the 10th percentile: 9.4% vs. 10%, respectively; OR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.68-1.30), or neonatal morbidity (8.7% vs. 7.7%, respectively; OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.62).

“It is possible that breast cancer may have little impact because some breast cancer is treated only with surgery or radiation to the chest,” Dr. Jorgensen said. “These treatments likely do not impact fertility and may not impact a developing pregnancy.”

There were neonatal deaths: one in the breast cancer group and four in the control group. The researchers said the small number of deaths limited their ability to interpret the data.

Researchers found no evidence that treatment with chemotherapy affected outcomes. They did turn up a difference between the groups: those who’d had breast cancer were more likely to undergo cesarean delivery (45.6% in the breast cancer group, and 40.1% in the control group; OR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53), However, offspring of women in the cesarean group weren’t more likely to have neonatal morbidity (OR = 1.15; 95% CI 0.81-1.62).

It’s hard to explain the higher rate of cesarean deliveries in the breast cancer group, Dr. Jorgensen said. “Overall, among our study population and the matched controls there was a high rate of cesarean section. It is possible there was bias on the provider side. Perhaps they intervened with cesarean section earlier among those with a history of breast cancer – a type of bias due to knowing the history of the patient. We attempted to match for other comorbidities that impact obstetric outcomes, but it is possible that we did not account for all of them.”

In an interview, Patricia A. Ganz, MD, director of cancer prevention and control research at University of California, Los Angeles, praised the new research.

It’s “a well-conducted study with state-of-the-art analysis and interpretation,” she said. “Based on my experience with patients I have cared for with breast cancer, there were no surprises here. Most have had uncomplicated pregnancies. This should be reassuring for women who wish to have children after treatment for breast cancer and clinicians should support this decision.”

As for the higher rate of cesarean delivery in breast-cancer survivors, she said “there may be a tendency to think of these as ‘high risk’ pregnancies, and C-sections may be selected at a more frequent rate as a result.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, including grants from the National Cancer Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Jorgensen has no disclosures. Other authors disclosed advisory board service (Delfina Care) and payments from the NIH, Guidepoint, the Schlesinger Group, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Ganz has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.

Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).

As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.

Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”

One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.

At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”

Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”

As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”

What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.

But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”

What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”

One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”

SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.

Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).

As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.

Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”

One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.

At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”

Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”

As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”

What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.

But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”

What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”

One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”

SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.

Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).

As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.

Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”

One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.

At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”

Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”

As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”

What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.

But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”

What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”

One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”

An analysis of more than 800,000 women in Denmark offers more insight into the murky links between female hormones and midlife mental illness in women: It hints that hormone therapy (HT) may boost the risk of depression, have no effect, or lower it – all depending on how it’s administered and when.

Women who took systemic HT had a higher risk of depression from age 48 to 50 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.81), researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. However, there was no overall link between depression and locally administered HT (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70-1.87) – except when HT was begun between ages 54 and 60, when there were signs of a protective effect (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91).

“Women in menopause who initiate systemically administered HT should be aware of depression as a potential adverse effect,” epidemiologist and study corresponding author Merete Osler, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg (Denmark) Hospitals and the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview. ”Further, women and clinicians alike should be aware of any misinterpretation of symptoms of depression as menopausal disturbances.”

Dr. Osler said the researchers launched the study to better understand potential hormone-depression links in light of suspicions that lower levels of estrogen in menopause may contribute to depression.

Several randomized clinical trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies have explored whether systemic HT affects depression during menopause, Dr. Osler said, “but the results from these studies have been inconsistent, and few have explored the role of the route of administration.”

For the new registry-based study, researchers retrospectively tracked all women in Denmark who were aged 45 between 1995 and 2017 without prior oophorectomy, certain kinds of cancer, prior use of HT, or ongoing depression.

During follow-up to a mean age of 56, 23% of the women began HT (at a median age of 55), and 1.6% were hospitalized for depression. Of those on HT, 65.8% received locally administered HT.

Researchers adjusted hazard ratios for a long list of factors such as educational level, marital status, number of still births or live births, prior use of hormonal contraceptives, several medical conditions, and prior depression.

“We were surprised by our findings, which to some degree contradicted our prior hypothesis that systemic HT with estrogen would not be associated with first-time depression diagnosis in women aged 45 and above, while HT with progesterone would be associated with a slightly increased risk,” Dr. Osler said. “In our study, systemically administered HT was associated with an increased risk of depression with no difference between estrogen alone or in combination with progestin. As findings from previous studies have been inconsistent, our findings fit with some but not all previous studies.”

Why might the mode of administration make a difference? It’s possible that local administration may contribute less to the systemic circulation, Dr. Osler said, “or that menopausal symptoms including depression are more likely to be treated with systemic HT.”

As for age differences, Dr. Osler said “it is possible that women are more sensitive to the influence of HT on mood around menopause than at later ages. However, it should be noted that in the present study it was not possible to calculate precise risk estimates for use of systemic HT in menopausal women above age 54 because less than 1% initiated treatment with systemic HT after age 54 years.”

In an interview, psychiatrist Natalie Rasgon, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who’s studied hormones and depression, said the study is “remarkably large and consistently executed.”

She cautioned, however, that the findings don’t prove any causality. “Saying that estrogen therapy or hormone therapy causes depression is patently incorrect.”

How can the findings be useful for medical professionals? “Women and physicians alike need to be very mindful of pre-existing mood disorders,” Dr. Rasgon said. “Women who in the past had anxiety disorders, mood swings, PTSD, or prior episodes of depression might have a differential response to hormone therapy in menopause.”

Also keep in mind, she said, that the transition from menopause to post menopause is “very volatile,” and depression may break through even in women undergoing treatment for the condition.

For her part, Dr. Osler said this study and others “emphasize the need for clinical guidelines to further consider the psychological side effects of systemic HT.”

Funding information was not provided. The study authors and Dr. Rasgon have no disclosures.

An analysis of more than 800,000 women in Denmark offers more insight into the murky links between female hormones and midlife mental illness in women: It hints that hormone therapy (HT) may boost the risk of depression, have no effect, or lower it – all depending on how it’s administered and when.

Women who took systemic HT had a higher risk of depression from age 48 to 50 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.81), researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. However, there was no overall link between depression and locally administered HT (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70-1.87) – except when HT was begun between ages 54 and 60, when there were signs of a protective effect (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91).

“Women in menopause who initiate systemically administered HT should be aware of depression as a potential adverse effect,” epidemiologist and study corresponding author Merete Osler, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg (Denmark) Hospitals and the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview. ”Further, women and clinicians alike should be aware of any misinterpretation of symptoms of depression as menopausal disturbances.”

Dr. Osler said the researchers launched the study to better understand potential hormone-depression links in light of suspicions that lower levels of estrogen in menopause may contribute to depression.

Several randomized clinical trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies have explored whether systemic HT affects depression during menopause, Dr. Osler said, “but the results from these studies have been inconsistent, and few have explored the role of the route of administration.”

For the new registry-based study, researchers retrospectively tracked all women in Denmark who were aged 45 between 1995 and 2017 without prior oophorectomy, certain kinds of cancer, prior use of HT, or ongoing depression.

During follow-up to a mean age of 56, 23% of the women began HT (at a median age of 55), and 1.6% were hospitalized for depression. Of those on HT, 65.8% received locally administered HT.

Researchers adjusted hazard ratios for a long list of factors such as educational level, marital status, number of still births or live births, prior use of hormonal contraceptives, several medical conditions, and prior depression.

“We were surprised by our findings, which to some degree contradicted our prior hypothesis that systemic HT with estrogen would not be associated with first-time depression diagnosis in women aged 45 and above, while HT with progesterone would be associated with a slightly increased risk,” Dr. Osler said. “In our study, systemically administered HT was associated with an increased risk of depression with no difference between estrogen alone or in combination with progestin. As findings from previous studies have been inconsistent, our findings fit with some but not all previous studies.”

Why might the mode of administration make a difference? It’s possible that local administration may contribute less to the systemic circulation, Dr. Osler said, “or that menopausal symptoms including depression are more likely to be treated with systemic HT.”

As for age differences, Dr. Osler said “it is possible that women are more sensitive to the influence of HT on mood around menopause than at later ages. However, it should be noted that in the present study it was not possible to calculate precise risk estimates for use of systemic HT in menopausal women above age 54 because less than 1% initiated treatment with systemic HT after age 54 years.”

In an interview, psychiatrist Natalie Rasgon, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who’s studied hormones and depression, said the study is “remarkably large and consistently executed.”

She cautioned, however, that the findings don’t prove any causality. “Saying that estrogen therapy or hormone therapy causes depression is patently incorrect.”

How can the findings be useful for medical professionals? “Women and physicians alike need to be very mindful of pre-existing mood disorders,” Dr. Rasgon said. “Women who in the past had anxiety disorders, mood swings, PTSD, or prior episodes of depression might have a differential response to hormone therapy in menopause.”

Also keep in mind, she said, that the transition from menopause to post menopause is “very volatile,” and depression may break through even in women undergoing treatment for the condition.

For her part, Dr. Osler said this study and others “emphasize the need for clinical guidelines to further consider the psychological side effects of systemic HT.”

Funding information was not provided. The study authors and Dr. Rasgon have no disclosures.

An analysis of more than 800,000 women in Denmark offers more insight into the murky links between female hormones and midlife mental illness in women: It hints that hormone therapy (HT) may boost the risk of depression, have no effect, or lower it – all depending on how it’s administered and when.

Women who took systemic HT had a higher risk of depression from age 48 to 50 (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.81), researchers reported in JAMA Network Open. However, there was no overall link between depression and locally administered HT (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.70-1.87) – except when HT was begun between ages 54 and 60, when there were signs of a protective effect (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91).

“Women in menopause who initiate systemically administered HT should be aware of depression as a potential adverse effect,” epidemiologist and study corresponding author Merete Osler, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg (Denmark) Hospitals and the University of Copenhagen, said in an interview. ”Further, women and clinicians alike should be aware of any misinterpretation of symptoms of depression as menopausal disturbances.”

Dr. Osler said the researchers launched the study to better understand potential hormone-depression links in light of suspicions that lower levels of estrogen in menopause may contribute to depression.

Several randomized clinical trials and cohort and cross-sectional studies have explored whether systemic HT affects depression during menopause, Dr. Osler said, “but the results from these studies have been inconsistent, and few have explored the role of the route of administration.”

For the new registry-based study, researchers retrospectively tracked all women in Denmark who were aged 45 between 1995 and 2017 without prior oophorectomy, certain kinds of cancer, prior use of HT, or ongoing depression.

During follow-up to a mean age of 56, 23% of the women began HT (at a median age of 55), and 1.6% were hospitalized for depression. Of those on HT, 65.8% received locally administered HT.

Researchers adjusted hazard ratios for a long list of factors such as educational level, marital status, number of still births or live births, prior use of hormonal contraceptives, several medical conditions, and prior depression.

“We were surprised by our findings, which to some degree contradicted our prior hypothesis that systemic HT with estrogen would not be associated with first-time depression diagnosis in women aged 45 and above, while HT with progesterone would be associated with a slightly increased risk,” Dr. Osler said. “In our study, systemically administered HT was associated with an increased risk of depression with no difference between estrogen alone or in combination with progestin. As findings from previous studies have been inconsistent, our findings fit with some but not all previous studies.”

Why might the mode of administration make a difference? It’s possible that local administration may contribute less to the systemic circulation, Dr. Osler said, “or that menopausal symptoms including depression are more likely to be treated with systemic HT.”

As for age differences, Dr. Osler said “it is possible that women are more sensitive to the influence of HT on mood around menopause than at later ages. However, it should be noted that in the present study it was not possible to calculate precise risk estimates for use of systemic HT in menopausal women above age 54 because less than 1% initiated treatment with systemic HT after age 54 years.”

In an interview, psychiatrist Natalie Rasgon, MD, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who’s studied hormones and depression, said the study is “remarkably large and consistently executed.”

She cautioned, however, that the findings don’t prove any causality. “Saying that estrogen therapy or hormone therapy causes depression is patently incorrect.”

How can the findings be useful for medical professionals? “Women and physicians alike need to be very mindful of pre-existing mood disorders,” Dr. Rasgon said. “Women who in the past had anxiety disorders, mood swings, PTSD, or prior episodes of depression might have a differential response to hormone therapy in menopause.”

Also keep in mind, she said, that the transition from menopause to post menopause is “very volatile,” and depression may break through even in women undergoing treatment for the condition.

For her part, Dr. Osler said this study and others “emphasize the need for clinical guidelines to further consider the psychological side effects of systemic HT.”

Funding information was not provided. The study authors and Dr. Rasgon have no disclosures.

When maternal-fetal medicine specialist Andra James, MD, MPH, trained as a midwife decades ago, women with sickle cell disease (SCD) were urged to never get pregnant. If they did, termination was considered the best option.

“If they did carry a pregnancy, the baby would not survive to the point of viability,” Dr. James, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recalled in an interview.

The fates of women with SCD have transformed dramatically since those grim days. In general, this blood disorder no longer robs patients of decades of life, and many women with SCD bear healthy children. But their pregnancies are still considered high risk with significant potential for health crises and death. Now, there’s a new complication: The overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Many states imposed tighter restrictions on abortions in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs ruling, sparking worry among physicians that women with SCD won’t be able to get proper maternal care in some parts of the United States.

For example, women with SCD may be unable able to seek elective abortions in some states even if their pregnancies pose a danger to their lives. And abortion restrictions are imperiling access to a medication that’s used to treat miscarriages, which are more common in women with SCD.

“The situation with Dobbs is dire, and maternal health care is being compromised,” Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist Lydia Pecker, MD, who treats young people with SCD and studies its impact on pregnancy, said in an interview. “Women with sickle cell disease who are pregnant constitute an underserved and understudied population with special health care needs, and the Dobbs decision will only make providing their care even more difficult in many parts of the country.”

For her part, Dr. James described the risk to pregnant women with SCD this way: In the wake of the court ruling, “we increase the opportunity for them to lose their lives and for their babies to die.”
 

SCD’s impact on pregnancy

While physicians no longer advise women with SCD to avoid motherhood, pregnancy is still uniquely dangerous for them. “Most of them have babies and children who are thriving, but it’s not easy for them,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and SCD specialist Jane Little, MD, said in an interview. And in some cases, she said, pregnancies “do not end well.”

For a 2022 report, Dr. Pecker and colleagues analyzed 2012-2018 data for 6,610 U.S. hospital admissions among women with SCD (87% of whom were Black). These women were more likely than were unaffected women to suffer severe maternal morbidity (odds ratio[OR], 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-5.16, P < .001). Cerebrovascular event were especially more common in SCD (OR, 13.94, P < .001).

According to a 2019 report, pregnant women with SCD “are more likely to develop a host of complications, particularly hypertensive syndromes (such as preeclampsia), venous thromboembolism (VTE), preterm labor, and fetal loss. Newborns are more likely to have growth problems and prematurity.”

Although data are sparse, experts say it’s also clear that women with SCD face significantly higher risk of death in pregnancy compared to other women. In fact, the maternal mortality rate for females with SCD “is higher than for Black females without SCD, who already suffer from a higher mortality rate than White females during pregnancy and childbirth,” Andrea Roe, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Women with SCD also are more likely to have premature and stillborn births.

Some of the health challenges in pregnant women with SCD stem from the body’s inability to boost blood production in order to supply the placenta, said Dr. James, the Duke University emeritus professor. “Her bone marrow is already turning out red blood cells as fast as it can.”

In addition, she said, these women are more susceptible to infection, blood clots, and damage to the kidneys and lungs.

Still, in most cases of SCD in pregnancy, “we counsel a woman that we can get you safely through it,” Dr. James said. “But there is a subset of patients that will have organ damage from their sickle cell disease and should not become pregnant or stay pregnant if they become pregnant.”
 

Court ruling limits options in some states

The Dobbs ruling affects pregnant women with SCD in two ways: It allows states to restrict or ban abortion to greater extents than were possible over the last 50 years, and it has spawned further limitations on access to mifepristone, which is commonly used to treat early miscarriages.

In some cases, Dr. James said, abortions in this population are elective. “People with sickle cell disease are frequently in pain, they are frequently hospitalized. They may have suffered strokes or subclinical strokes or have some cognitive impairment, and they don’t have the mental and physical fortitude [to tolerate pregnancy and birth].”

In other cases, abortions are medically necessary to preserve the mother’s life. The American Society of Hematology highlighted the risks posed by SCD to maternal health in a June 24 statement that criticized the Dobbs ruling. “In some cases, denying women their right to terminate a pregnancy puts them at risk of serious illness or death,” wrote Jane N. Winter, MD, president of ASH and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

There do not appear to be any statistics about abortion rates among women with SCD in the United States or whether the rates are higher than in other groups.

As for miscarriages in SCD, an analysis of first pregnancies in California women with SCD from 1991 to 2016 found that about 16% were “incomplete,” mainly (59.3%) from miscarriage.

The Dobbs ruling allows states to further restrict the drug combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, which is used to trigger abortions and to treat early pregnancy loss. Access to mifepristone was already limited prior to the ruling due to tight regulation, and advocates say it’s now even harder to get.
 

What now? Physicians urge focus on contraception

As the ramifications of the Dobbs ruling sink in, SCD specialists are emphasizing the importance of providing gynecological and contraceptive care to help women with the condition avoid unwanted pregnancies. At the University of North Carolina, “we’re pretty aggressive about trying to give women the option to see a gynecologist to get the best care they can,” Dr. Little said. “We have a shared gynecology and sickle cell clinic because we really want women to be making the choice [to become pregnant] when they are ready because it’s a strain on their health and their lives.”

Dr. Pecker, the Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist, urged colleagues to partner with maternal-fetal medicine specialists so they can quickly get help for pregnant patients when needed. “That way they can get high-quality pregnancy care and help to end pregnancies that need to be ended.”

She recommended “highly effective” progesterone-based birth control as the best first-line contraceptive for women with SCD. And, she said, every woman of child-bearing age with SCD should be assessed annually for their intentions regarding pregnancy. As she put it, “there’s so much that we can do to reduce harms.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health, American Society of Hematology, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, Global Blood Therapeutics, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Little disclosed financial relationships with Global Blood Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and Forma Therapeutics. Dr. Roe has no disclosures.

When maternal-fetal medicine specialist Andra James, MD, MPH, trained as a midwife decades ago, women with sickle cell disease (SCD) were urged to never get pregnant. If they did, termination was considered the best option.

“If they did carry a pregnancy, the baby would not survive to the point of viability,” Dr. James, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recalled in an interview.

The fates of women with SCD have transformed dramatically since those grim days. In general, this blood disorder no longer robs patients of decades of life, and many women with SCD bear healthy children. But their pregnancies are still considered high risk with significant potential for health crises and death. Now, there’s a new complication: The overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Many states imposed tighter restrictions on abortions in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs ruling, sparking worry among physicians that women with SCD won’t be able to get proper maternal care in some parts of the United States.

For example, women with SCD may be unable able to seek elective abortions in some states even if their pregnancies pose a danger to their lives. And abortion restrictions are imperiling access to a medication that’s used to treat miscarriages, which are more common in women with SCD.

“The situation with Dobbs is dire, and maternal health care is being compromised,” Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist Lydia Pecker, MD, who treats young people with SCD and studies its impact on pregnancy, said in an interview. “Women with sickle cell disease who are pregnant constitute an underserved and understudied population with special health care needs, and the Dobbs decision will only make providing their care even more difficult in many parts of the country.”

For her part, Dr. James described the risk to pregnant women with SCD this way: In the wake of the court ruling, “we increase the opportunity for them to lose their lives and for their babies to die.”
 

SCD’s impact on pregnancy

While physicians no longer advise women with SCD to avoid motherhood, pregnancy is still uniquely dangerous for them. “Most of them have babies and children who are thriving, but it’s not easy for them,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and SCD specialist Jane Little, MD, said in an interview. And in some cases, she said, pregnancies “do not end well.”

For a 2022 report, Dr. Pecker and colleagues analyzed 2012-2018 data for 6,610 U.S. hospital admissions among women with SCD (87% of whom were Black). These women were more likely than were unaffected women to suffer severe maternal morbidity (odds ratio[OR], 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-5.16, P < .001). Cerebrovascular event were especially more common in SCD (OR, 13.94, P < .001).

According to a 2019 report, pregnant women with SCD “are more likely to develop a host of complications, particularly hypertensive syndromes (such as preeclampsia), venous thromboembolism (VTE), preterm labor, and fetal loss. Newborns are more likely to have growth problems and prematurity.”

Although data are sparse, experts say it’s also clear that women with SCD face significantly higher risk of death in pregnancy compared to other women. In fact, the maternal mortality rate for females with SCD “is higher than for Black females without SCD, who already suffer from a higher mortality rate than White females during pregnancy and childbirth,” Andrea Roe, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Women with SCD also are more likely to have premature and stillborn births.

Some of the health challenges in pregnant women with SCD stem from the body’s inability to boost blood production in order to supply the placenta, said Dr. James, the Duke University emeritus professor. “Her bone marrow is already turning out red blood cells as fast as it can.”

In addition, she said, these women are more susceptible to infection, blood clots, and damage to the kidneys and lungs.

Still, in most cases of SCD in pregnancy, “we counsel a woman that we can get you safely through it,” Dr. James said. “But there is a subset of patients that will have organ damage from their sickle cell disease and should not become pregnant or stay pregnant if they become pregnant.”
 

Court ruling limits options in some states

The Dobbs ruling affects pregnant women with SCD in two ways: It allows states to restrict or ban abortion to greater extents than were possible over the last 50 years, and it has spawned further limitations on access to mifepristone, which is commonly used to treat early miscarriages.

In some cases, Dr. James said, abortions in this population are elective. “People with sickle cell disease are frequently in pain, they are frequently hospitalized. They may have suffered strokes or subclinical strokes or have some cognitive impairment, and they don’t have the mental and physical fortitude [to tolerate pregnancy and birth].”

In other cases, abortions are medically necessary to preserve the mother’s life. The American Society of Hematology highlighted the risks posed by SCD to maternal health in a June 24 statement that criticized the Dobbs ruling. “In some cases, denying women their right to terminate a pregnancy puts them at risk of serious illness or death,” wrote Jane N. Winter, MD, president of ASH and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

There do not appear to be any statistics about abortion rates among women with SCD in the United States or whether the rates are higher than in other groups.

As for miscarriages in SCD, an analysis of first pregnancies in California women with SCD from 1991 to 2016 found that about 16% were “incomplete,” mainly (59.3%) from miscarriage.

The Dobbs ruling allows states to further restrict the drug combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, which is used to trigger abortions and to treat early pregnancy loss. Access to mifepristone was already limited prior to the ruling due to tight regulation, and advocates say it’s now even harder to get.
 

What now? Physicians urge focus on contraception

As the ramifications of the Dobbs ruling sink in, SCD specialists are emphasizing the importance of providing gynecological and contraceptive care to help women with the condition avoid unwanted pregnancies. At the University of North Carolina, “we’re pretty aggressive about trying to give women the option to see a gynecologist to get the best care they can,” Dr. Little said. “We have a shared gynecology and sickle cell clinic because we really want women to be making the choice [to become pregnant] when they are ready because it’s a strain on their health and their lives.”

Dr. Pecker, the Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist, urged colleagues to partner with maternal-fetal medicine specialists so they can quickly get help for pregnant patients when needed. “That way they can get high-quality pregnancy care and help to end pregnancies that need to be ended.”

She recommended “highly effective” progesterone-based birth control as the best first-line contraceptive for women with SCD. And, she said, every woman of child-bearing age with SCD should be assessed annually for their intentions regarding pregnancy. As she put it, “there’s so much that we can do to reduce harms.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health, American Society of Hematology, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, Global Blood Therapeutics, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Little disclosed financial relationships with Global Blood Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and Forma Therapeutics. Dr. Roe has no disclosures.

When maternal-fetal medicine specialist Andra James, MD, MPH, trained as a midwife decades ago, women with sickle cell disease (SCD) were urged to never get pregnant. If they did, termination was considered the best option.

“If they did carry a pregnancy, the baby would not survive to the point of viability,” Dr. James, emeritus professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., recalled in an interview.

The fates of women with SCD have transformed dramatically since those grim days. In general, this blood disorder no longer robs patients of decades of life, and many women with SCD bear healthy children. But their pregnancies are still considered high risk with significant potential for health crises and death. Now, there’s a new complication: The overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Many states imposed tighter restrictions on abortions in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Dobbs ruling, sparking worry among physicians that women with SCD won’t be able to get proper maternal care in some parts of the United States.

For example, women with SCD may be unable able to seek elective abortions in some states even if their pregnancies pose a danger to their lives. And abortion restrictions are imperiling access to a medication that’s used to treat miscarriages, which are more common in women with SCD.

“The situation with Dobbs is dire, and maternal health care is being compromised,” Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist Lydia Pecker, MD, who treats young people with SCD and studies its impact on pregnancy, said in an interview. “Women with sickle cell disease who are pregnant constitute an underserved and understudied population with special health care needs, and the Dobbs decision will only make providing their care even more difficult in many parts of the country.”

For her part, Dr. James described the risk to pregnant women with SCD this way: In the wake of the court ruling, “we increase the opportunity for them to lose their lives and for their babies to die.”
 

SCD’s impact on pregnancy

While physicians no longer advise women with SCD to avoid motherhood, pregnancy is still uniquely dangerous for them. “Most of them have babies and children who are thriving, but it’s not easy for them,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill hematologist and SCD specialist Jane Little, MD, said in an interview. And in some cases, she said, pregnancies “do not end well.”

For a 2022 report, Dr. Pecker and colleagues analyzed 2012-2018 data for 6,610 U.S. hospital admissions among women with SCD (87% of whom were Black). These women were more likely than were unaffected women to suffer severe maternal morbidity (odds ratio[OR], 4.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.16-5.16, P < .001). Cerebrovascular event were especially more common in SCD (OR, 13.94, P < .001).

According to a 2019 report, pregnant women with SCD “are more likely to develop a host of complications, particularly hypertensive syndromes (such as preeclampsia), venous thromboembolism (VTE), preterm labor, and fetal loss. Newborns are more likely to have growth problems and prematurity.”

Although data are sparse, experts say it’s also clear that women with SCD face significantly higher risk of death in pregnancy compared to other women. In fact, the maternal mortality rate for females with SCD “is higher than for Black females without SCD, who already suffer from a higher mortality rate than White females during pregnancy and childbirth,” Andrea Roe, MD, MPH, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Women with SCD also are more likely to have premature and stillborn births.

Some of the health challenges in pregnant women with SCD stem from the body’s inability to boost blood production in order to supply the placenta, said Dr. James, the Duke University emeritus professor. “Her bone marrow is already turning out red blood cells as fast as it can.”

In addition, she said, these women are more susceptible to infection, blood clots, and damage to the kidneys and lungs.

Still, in most cases of SCD in pregnancy, “we counsel a woman that we can get you safely through it,” Dr. James said. “But there is a subset of patients that will have organ damage from their sickle cell disease and should not become pregnant or stay pregnant if they become pregnant.”
 

Court ruling limits options in some states

The Dobbs ruling affects pregnant women with SCD in two ways: It allows states to restrict or ban abortion to greater extents than were possible over the last 50 years, and it has spawned further limitations on access to mifepristone, which is commonly used to treat early miscarriages.

In some cases, Dr. James said, abortions in this population are elective. “People with sickle cell disease are frequently in pain, they are frequently hospitalized. They may have suffered strokes or subclinical strokes or have some cognitive impairment, and they don’t have the mental and physical fortitude [to tolerate pregnancy and birth].”

In other cases, abortions are medically necessary to preserve the mother’s life. The American Society of Hematology highlighted the risks posed by SCD to maternal health in a June 24 statement that criticized the Dobbs ruling. “In some cases, denying women their right to terminate a pregnancy puts them at risk of serious illness or death,” wrote Jane N. Winter, MD, president of ASH and professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

There do not appear to be any statistics about abortion rates among women with SCD in the United States or whether the rates are higher than in other groups.

As for miscarriages in SCD, an analysis of first pregnancies in California women with SCD from 1991 to 2016 found that about 16% were “incomplete,” mainly (59.3%) from miscarriage.

The Dobbs ruling allows states to further restrict the drug combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, which is used to trigger abortions and to treat early pregnancy loss. Access to mifepristone was already limited prior to the ruling due to tight regulation, and advocates say it’s now even harder to get.
 

What now? Physicians urge focus on contraception

As the ramifications of the Dobbs ruling sink in, SCD specialists are emphasizing the importance of providing gynecological and contraceptive care to help women with the condition avoid unwanted pregnancies. At the University of North Carolina, “we’re pretty aggressive about trying to give women the option to see a gynecologist to get the best care they can,” Dr. Little said. “We have a shared gynecology and sickle cell clinic because we really want women to be making the choice [to become pregnant] when they are ready because it’s a strain on their health and their lives.”

Dr. Pecker, the Johns Hopkins University pediatric hematologist, urged colleagues to partner with maternal-fetal medicine specialists so they can quickly get help for pregnant patients when needed. “That way they can get high-quality pregnancy care and help to end pregnancies that need to be ended.”

She recommended “highly effective” progesterone-based birth control as the best first-line contraceptive for women with SCD. And, she said, every woman of child-bearing age with SCD should be assessed annually for their intentions regarding pregnancy. As she put it, “there’s so much that we can do to reduce harms.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health, American Society of Hematology, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, Global Blood Therapeutics, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Little disclosed financial relationships with Global Blood Therapeutics, Bluebird Bio, and Forma Therapeutics. Dr. Roe has no disclosures.

In a survey taken before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling regarding abortion rights, two-thirds of assisted reproduction technology (ART) physicians who don’t offer mifepristone/misoprostol to patients with early pregnancy loss (EPL) reported that they lack access to the drugs.

The numbers are likely higher now. In the wake of the court ruling, some physicians in states with new abortion restrictions fear they won’t be able to properly treat women with miscarriages. Access to mifepristone, a component of medication abortions along with misoprostol, is at the center of their concerns.

“These restrictions that were put in place to restrict abortion care have far-reaching implications regarding miscarriages and early pregnancy loss and the assisted reproduction community is not immune,” obstetrics and gynecology specialist Zachary Anderson, MD, a resident physician at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. He presented the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting.

Early pregnancy loss – defined as a miscarriage within 12 weeks and 6 days of conception – is common in all pregnancies and affects an estimated 15% of those who rely on in vitro fertilization (IVF). In women who conceive through intrauterine insemination or IVF, “an abnormal karyotype embryo/fetus is the cause of miscarriage in more than two-thirds of cases,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “The options of management are observation – with no ability to determine when passage of the products of conception will occur – vs. mifepristone/misoprostol or suction D&C.”

Dr. Trolice added that “most woman select the medical treatment protocol, which is 200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally 24 hours later. If no signs of heavy bleeding occur after 3 hours following misoprostol, the patient should repeat the dose of 800 micrograms vaginally.”

According to the Reuters news service, some abortion bans target mifepristone. In October 2022, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve mifepristone for use in miscarriage management; such use is now off label, although it is approved to end early pregnancies in conjunction with misoprostol.

For the new study, researchers sent anonymous surveys to 826 members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and received 101 responses (12% response rate, 51% women, 86% non-Hispanic White, average age 52, 52% urban, and 51% in private practice).

More than two-thirds (70%) said they diagnosed early pregnancy loss at least once a week; 47% prefer treatment with misoprostol alone, 18% surgery in an operating room, 15% expectant management (monitoring a miscarriage as it occurs without medical intervention), 10% surgery in the office, and 3% mifepristone-misoprostol.

Of those who don’t offer mifepristone-misoprostol, 68% said they lack access, and 26% said they lack familiarity with the treatment.

Study coauthor Brian T. Nguyen, MD, MSc, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at USC, said in an interview that mifepristone, a highly effective drug, is treated differently from other medications “for no good reason.”

Dr. Anderson, who led the study, urged colleagues to get the appropriate certification to prescribe mifepristone. “Providers overestimate how difficult it is to become certified to prescribe it,” he said.

Dr. Trolice, who is familiar with the study findings, said the response rate is low, and the results might be biased because those with preconceived opinions may be more likely to respond.

However, he said, “The results are not surprising in that medication is more commonly preferred (nearly 50%) given the devastation of a miscarriage and the desire to expedite resolution. Approximately one-third prefer surgical management, which would allow for genetic testing of the embryo/fetus to potentially determine a cause of the pregnancy loss.”

As for the medications used to treat early pregnancy loss, many ART physicians “treat pregnancy loss with misoprostol both pre- and post Dobbs,” he said. “The difficulty in obtaining mifepristone remains.”

The study authors and Dr. Trolice report no disclosures.

In a survey taken before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling regarding abortion rights, two-thirds of assisted reproduction technology (ART) physicians who don’t offer mifepristone/misoprostol to patients with early pregnancy loss (EPL) reported that they lack access to the drugs.

The numbers are likely higher now. In the wake of the court ruling, some physicians in states with new abortion restrictions fear they won’t be able to properly treat women with miscarriages. Access to mifepristone, a component of medication abortions along with misoprostol, is at the center of their concerns.

“These restrictions that were put in place to restrict abortion care have far-reaching implications regarding miscarriages and early pregnancy loss and the assisted reproduction community is not immune,” obstetrics and gynecology specialist Zachary Anderson, MD, a resident physician at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. He presented the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting.

Early pregnancy loss – defined as a miscarriage within 12 weeks and 6 days of conception – is common in all pregnancies and affects an estimated 15% of those who rely on in vitro fertilization (IVF). In women who conceive through intrauterine insemination or IVF, “an abnormal karyotype embryo/fetus is the cause of miscarriage in more than two-thirds of cases,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “The options of management are observation – with no ability to determine when passage of the products of conception will occur – vs. mifepristone/misoprostol or suction D&C.”

Dr. Trolice added that “most woman select the medical treatment protocol, which is 200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally 24 hours later. If no signs of heavy bleeding occur after 3 hours following misoprostol, the patient should repeat the dose of 800 micrograms vaginally.”

According to the Reuters news service, some abortion bans target mifepristone. In October 2022, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve mifepristone for use in miscarriage management; such use is now off label, although it is approved to end early pregnancies in conjunction with misoprostol.

For the new study, researchers sent anonymous surveys to 826 members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and received 101 responses (12% response rate, 51% women, 86% non-Hispanic White, average age 52, 52% urban, and 51% in private practice).

More than two-thirds (70%) said they diagnosed early pregnancy loss at least once a week; 47% prefer treatment with misoprostol alone, 18% surgery in an operating room, 15% expectant management (monitoring a miscarriage as it occurs without medical intervention), 10% surgery in the office, and 3% mifepristone-misoprostol.

Of those who don’t offer mifepristone-misoprostol, 68% said they lack access, and 26% said they lack familiarity with the treatment.

Study coauthor Brian T. Nguyen, MD, MSc, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at USC, said in an interview that mifepristone, a highly effective drug, is treated differently from other medications “for no good reason.”

Dr. Anderson, who led the study, urged colleagues to get the appropriate certification to prescribe mifepristone. “Providers overestimate how difficult it is to become certified to prescribe it,” he said.

Dr. Trolice, who is familiar with the study findings, said the response rate is low, and the results might be biased because those with preconceived opinions may be more likely to respond.

However, he said, “The results are not surprising in that medication is more commonly preferred (nearly 50%) given the devastation of a miscarriage and the desire to expedite resolution. Approximately one-third prefer surgical management, which would allow for genetic testing of the embryo/fetus to potentially determine a cause of the pregnancy loss.”

As for the medications used to treat early pregnancy loss, many ART physicians “treat pregnancy loss with misoprostol both pre- and post Dobbs,” he said. “The difficulty in obtaining mifepristone remains.”

The study authors and Dr. Trolice report no disclosures.

In a survey taken before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling regarding abortion rights, two-thirds of assisted reproduction technology (ART) physicians who don’t offer mifepristone/misoprostol to patients with early pregnancy loss (EPL) reported that they lack access to the drugs.

The numbers are likely higher now. In the wake of the court ruling, some physicians in states with new abortion restrictions fear they won’t be able to properly treat women with miscarriages. Access to mifepristone, a component of medication abortions along with misoprostol, is at the center of their concerns.

“These restrictions that were put in place to restrict abortion care have far-reaching implications regarding miscarriages and early pregnancy loss and the assisted reproduction community is not immune,” obstetrics and gynecology specialist Zachary Anderson, MD, a resident physician at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. He presented the findings at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2022 meeting.

Early pregnancy loss – defined as a miscarriage within 12 weeks and 6 days of conception – is common in all pregnancies and affects an estimated 15% of those who rely on in vitro fertilization (IVF). In women who conceive through intrauterine insemination or IVF, “an abnormal karyotype embryo/fetus is the cause of miscarriage in more than two-thirds of cases,” Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said in an interview. “The options of management are observation – with no ability to determine when passage of the products of conception will occur – vs. mifepristone/misoprostol or suction D&C.”

Dr. Trolice added that “most woman select the medical treatment protocol, which is 200 mg mifepristone orally followed by 800 mcg misoprostol vaginally 24 hours later. If no signs of heavy bleeding occur after 3 hours following misoprostol, the patient should repeat the dose of 800 micrograms vaginally.”

According to the Reuters news service, some abortion bans target mifepristone. In October 2022, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve mifepristone for use in miscarriage management; such use is now off label, although it is approved to end early pregnancies in conjunction with misoprostol.

For the new study, researchers sent anonymous surveys to 826 members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and received 101 responses (12% response rate, 51% women, 86% non-Hispanic White, average age 52, 52% urban, and 51% in private practice).

More than two-thirds (70%) said they diagnosed early pregnancy loss at least once a week; 47% prefer treatment with misoprostol alone, 18% surgery in an operating room, 15% expectant management (monitoring a miscarriage as it occurs without medical intervention), 10% surgery in the office, and 3% mifepristone-misoprostol.

Of those who don’t offer mifepristone-misoprostol, 68% said they lack access, and 26% said they lack familiarity with the treatment.

Study coauthor Brian T. Nguyen, MD, MSc, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at USC, said in an interview that mifepristone, a highly effective drug, is treated differently from other medications “for no good reason.”

Dr. Anderson, who led the study, urged colleagues to get the appropriate certification to prescribe mifepristone. “Providers overestimate how difficult it is to become certified to prescribe it,” he said.

Dr. Trolice, who is familiar with the study findings, said the response rate is low, and the results might be biased because those with preconceived opinions may be more likely to respond.

However, he said, “The results are not surprising in that medication is more commonly preferred (nearly 50%) given the devastation of a miscarriage and the desire to expedite resolution. Approximately one-third prefer surgical management, which would allow for genetic testing of the embryo/fetus to potentially determine a cause of the pregnancy loss.”

As for the medications used to treat early pregnancy loss, many ART physicians “treat pregnancy loss with misoprostol both pre- and post Dobbs,” he said. “The difficulty in obtaining mifepristone remains.”

The study authors and Dr. Trolice report no disclosures.