B-Cell Lymphoma ICYMI

A COVID-19 booster shot may be beneficial for patients with cancer who are undergoing treatment, according to new findings from an Israeli case-control study.

The seropositivity rate among the patients with cancer remained high (87%) about 4 months after the patients had received the second BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. However, the median IgG titer in the patients and the control persons who were without cancer decreased over time. Notably, in a previous analysis that the authors conducted and in the current one, the IgG titers were statistically significantly lower in the patients with cancer as compared to control persons.

The correlation between antibody levels following vaccination and clinical protection has yet to be proven, but the accumulating evidence supports antibody response as a possible correlate of disease protection.

“Our data can’t predict if a third booster dose is necessary,” said study author Salomon M. Stemmer, MD, professor at the Institute of Oncology of Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. “It does seem quite logical that a booster dose will cause an increase in IgG levels.”

The findings were published Aug. 11, 2021, in a research letter in JAMA Oncology.

In their previous study, Dr. Stemmer and colleagues compared the rates of anti–spike antibody response to the initial shot of the BNT162b2 vaccine among 102 adults with solid-tumor cancers who were undergoing treatment with that of 78 healthy control persons. They found that a high percentage of patients undergoing treatment for cancer (90%) achieved a sufficient antibody response to the BNT162b2 vaccine.
 

Booster endorsed

Responses to COVID-19 vaccination have varied among patients with cancer. For patients with solid tumors, responses have been good even while the patients were receiving systemic therapy. However, among patients with blood cancers, particularly those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, responses have been poor. Studies have identified factors associated with a poor response, but it has been unclear whether to recommend booster shots.

In August the Food and Drug Administration authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for all individuals with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid-organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.
 

IgG titers lower in cancer patients

In the current analysis, the authors evaluated the anti-S response in the patients with cancer approximately 4 months after they had received the second vaccine dose. They compared the responses in those patients with the responses in a control group.

The cohort included 95 patients from the prior study and 66 control persons. The most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (26%), lung (25%), and breast (18%).

All patients were receiving systemic therapy. Chemotherapy was the most common (28%), followed by immunotherapy (21%) and combination chemotherapy/biological therapy (20%).

At a median of 123 days after the second vaccination, 83 patients with cancer (87%) and all of the control patients (100%) were seropositive for anti-S IgG antibodies. The median titer levels were significantly lower among case patients as compared with control patients (417 AU/mL [interquartile range, 136-895] vs. 1,220 AU/mL [IQR, 588-1,987]; P < .001)

There was a 3.6-fold range in median titer values across tumor types and an even wider range (8.8-fold) across the different types of treatment. The lowest titers were observed among patients who had received immunotherapy plus chemotherapy/biological therapy (median [IQR], 94.4 [49.4-191] AU/mL vs. 147 [62.8-339] AU/mL).

In an exploratory multivariable analysis, treatments with chemotherapy plus immunotherapy and immunotherapy plus biological therapy were significantly associated with lower IgG titers.
 

No downside for cancer patients

The Biden administration announced a plan to begin booster COVID-19 vaccinations for all American adults in September, with recommendations that the third vaccine be given at least 8 months after the second mRNA vaccine dose.

Jeremy M. Levin, DPhil, the chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics, explained that, concerning boosters, “it is inconceivable that we will have all data at this stage.

“Knowledge about how boosters work and don’t work and when you should ideally have them is imperfect,” he told this news organization. “However, we can have a lot of confidence in the fact that hundreds of millions of people have received the vaccine, so we know a lot about the safety and efficacy.”

Immunocompromised adults represent less than 5% of the total population, and most of the available data on vaccination are from patients who have undergone solid-organ transplant, Dr. Levin explained. Studies have shown that their response is less robust to vaccination in comparison with adults in the general population.

“Although it is still preliminary, the strongest data come from Israel,” he said, “where they found that the booster was highly effective and doubled the number of transplant patients who developed antibodies.”

But data are not yet available in the setting of cancer. “But even though we don’t have the data yet, the answer is that no matter, the booster process is essential,” he said. “The evidence we have is that boosters raise the immune response, and it is the best data we have now.”

Martin J. Edelman, MD, chair, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the current recommendation is that patients who are immunocompromised receive a booster immediately.

At his health system, this is interpreted to include patients who have undergone the following treatments: Transplant (solid-organ and bone marrow transplant), hemodialysis, hematologic malignancy treatment, active immunosuppressive (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, and nonhormonal or single-agent immunotherapy) treatment, rheumatology treatments, and high-dose steroids.

“As for cancer patients, we are making arrangements to vaccinate patients who meet the above criteria now,” he said. “There is no known downside to receiving booster immediately. While there may be less of a response than waiting for completion of treatment, we know that patients on active therapy are frequently able to mount a response, and any response is better than none.”

Dr. Edelman added that this area is changing very rapidly. “We will modify our approach as information and guidance from appropriate organizations, such as the FDA and CDC, become available.”

Dr. Stemmer has received institutional research grants from CAN-FITE, AstraZeneca, Bioline RX, BMS, Halozyme, Clovis Oncology, CTG Pharma, Exelixis, Geicam, Incyte, Lilly, Moderna, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Roche, and owns stocks and options in CTG Pharma, DocBoxMD, Tyrnovo, VYPE, Cytora, and CAN-FITE. Dr. Edelman has received personal fees and other compensation from Windmil, Biomarker Strategies, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Apexigen, Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Armo, Bergen Bio, and Apexigen outside the submitted work. He has submitted a patent for epigenetic modifications to increase susceptibility to radiopharmaceuticals and is a paid adviser for Kanaph and Flame. Dr. Levin is chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics.

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

A COVID-19 booster shot may be beneficial for patients with cancer who are undergoing treatment, according to new findings from an Israeli case-control study.

The seropositivity rate among the patients with cancer remained high (87%) about 4 months after the patients had received the second BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. However, the median IgG titer in the patients and the control persons who were without cancer decreased over time. Notably, in a previous analysis that the authors conducted and in the current one, the IgG titers were statistically significantly lower in the patients with cancer as compared to control persons.

The correlation between antibody levels following vaccination and clinical protection has yet to be proven, but the accumulating evidence supports antibody response as a possible correlate of disease protection.

“Our data can’t predict if a third booster dose is necessary,” said study author Salomon M. Stemmer, MD, professor at the Institute of Oncology of Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. “It does seem quite logical that a booster dose will cause an increase in IgG levels.”

The findings were published Aug. 11, 2021, in a research letter in JAMA Oncology.

In their previous study, Dr. Stemmer and colleagues compared the rates of anti–spike antibody response to the initial shot of the BNT162b2 vaccine among 102 adults with solid-tumor cancers who were undergoing treatment with that of 78 healthy control persons. They found that a high percentage of patients undergoing treatment for cancer (90%) achieved a sufficient antibody response to the BNT162b2 vaccine.
 

Booster endorsed

Responses to COVID-19 vaccination have varied among patients with cancer. For patients with solid tumors, responses have been good even while the patients were receiving systemic therapy. However, among patients with blood cancers, particularly those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, responses have been poor. Studies have identified factors associated with a poor response, but it has been unclear whether to recommend booster shots.

In August the Food and Drug Administration authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for all individuals with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid-organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.
 

IgG titers lower in cancer patients

In the current analysis, the authors evaluated the anti-S response in the patients with cancer approximately 4 months after they had received the second vaccine dose. They compared the responses in those patients with the responses in a control group.

The cohort included 95 patients from the prior study and 66 control persons. The most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (26%), lung (25%), and breast (18%).

All patients were receiving systemic therapy. Chemotherapy was the most common (28%), followed by immunotherapy (21%) and combination chemotherapy/biological therapy (20%).

At a median of 123 days after the second vaccination, 83 patients with cancer (87%) and all of the control patients (100%) were seropositive for anti-S IgG antibodies. The median titer levels were significantly lower among case patients as compared with control patients (417 AU/mL [interquartile range, 136-895] vs. 1,220 AU/mL [IQR, 588-1,987]; P < .001)

There was a 3.6-fold range in median titer values across tumor types and an even wider range (8.8-fold) across the different types of treatment. The lowest titers were observed among patients who had received immunotherapy plus chemotherapy/biological therapy (median [IQR], 94.4 [49.4-191] AU/mL vs. 147 [62.8-339] AU/mL).

In an exploratory multivariable analysis, treatments with chemotherapy plus immunotherapy and immunotherapy plus biological therapy were significantly associated with lower IgG titers.
 

No downside for cancer patients

The Biden administration announced a plan to begin booster COVID-19 vaccinations for all American adults in September, with recommendations that the third vaccine be given at least 8 months after the second mRNA vaccine dose.

Jeremy M. Levin, DPhil, the chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics, explained that, concerning boosters, “it is inconceivable that we will have all data at this stage.

“Knowledge about how boosters work and don’t work and when you should ideally have them is imperfect,” he told this news organization. “However, we can have a lot of confidence in the fact that hundreds of millions of people have received the vaccine, so we know a lot about the safety and efficacy.”

Immunocompromised adults represent less than 5% of the total population, and most of the available data on vaccination are from patients who have undergone solid-organ transplant, Dr. Levin explained. Studies have shown that their response is less robust to vaccination in comparison with adults in the general population.

“Although it is still preliminary, the strongest data come from Israel,” he said, “where they found that the booster was highly effective and doubled the number of transplant patients who developed antibodies.”

But data are not yet available in the setting of cancer. “But even though we don’t have the data yet, the answer is that no matter, the booster process is essential,” he said. “The evidence we have is that boosters raise the immune response, and it is the best data we have now.”

Martin J. Edelman, MD, chair, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the current recommendation is that patients who are immunocompromised receive a booster immediately.

At his health system, this is interpreted to include patients who have undergone the following treatments: Transplant (solid-organ and bone marrow transplant), hemodialysis, hematologic malignancy treatment, active immunosuppressive (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, and nonhormonal or single-agent immunotherapy) treatment, rheumatology treatments, and high-dose steroids.

“As for cancer patients, we are making arrangements to vaccinate patients who meet the above criteria now,” he said. “There is no known downside to receiving booster immediately. While there may be less of a response than waiting for completion of treatment, we know that patients on active therapy are frequently able to mount a response, and any response is better than none.”

Dr. Edelman added that this area is changing very rapidly. “We will modify our approach as information and guidance from appropriate organizations, such as the FDA and CDC, become available.”

Dr. Stemmer has received institutional research grants from CAN-FITE, AstraZeneca, Bioline RX, BMS, Halozyme, Clovis Oncology, CTG Pharma, Exelixis, Geicam, Incyte, Lilly, Moderna, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Roche, and owns stocks and options in CTG Pharma, DocBoxMD, Tyrnovo, VYPE, Cytora, and CAN-FITE. Dr. Edelman has received personal fees and other compensation from Windmil, Biomarker Strategies, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Apexigen, Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Armo, Bergen Bio, and Apexigen outside the submitted work. He has submitted a patent for epigenetic modifications to increase susceptibility to radiopharmaceuticals and is a paid adviser for Kanaph and Flame. Dr. Levin is chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics.

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

A COVID-19 booster shot may be beneficial for patients with cancer who are undergoing treatment, according to new findings from an Israeli case-control study.

The seropositivity rate among the patients with cancer remained high (87%) about 4 months after the patients had received the second BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. However, the median IgG titer in the patients and the control persons who were without cancer decreased over time. Notably, in a previous analysis that the authors conducted and in the current one, the IgG titers were statistically significantly lower in the patients with cancer as compared to control persons.

The correlation between antibody levels following vaccination and clinical protection has yet to be proven, but the accumulating evidence supports antibody response as a possible correlate of disease protection.

“Our data can’t predict if a third booster dose is necessary,” said study author Salomon M. Stemmer, MD, professor at the Institute of Oncology of Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. “It does seem quite logical that a booster dose will cause an increase in IgG levels.”

The findings were published Aug. 11, 2021, in a research letter in JAMA Oncology.

In their previous study, Dr. Stemmer and colleagues compared the rates of anti–spike antibody response to the initial shot of the BNT162b2 vaccine among 102 adults with solid-tumor cancers who were undergoing treatment with that of 78 healthy control persons. They found that a high percentage of patients undergoing treatment for cancer (90%) achieved a sufficient antibody response to the BNT162b2 vaccine.
 

Booster endorsed

Responses to COVID-19 vaccination have varied among patients with cancer. For patients with solid tumors, responses have been good even while the patients were receiving systemic therapy. However, among patients with blood cancers, particularly those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, responses have been poor. Studies have identified factors associated with a poor response, but it has been unclear whether to recommend booster shots.

In August the Food and Drug Administration authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for all individuals with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid-organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.
 

IgG titers lower in cancer patients

In the current analysis, the authors evaluated the anti-S response in the patients with cancer approximately 4 months after they had received the second vaccine dose. They compared the responses in those patients with the responses in a control group.

The cohort included 95 patients from the prior study and 66 control persons. The most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (26%), lung (25%), and breast (18%).

All patients were receiving systemic therapy. Chemotherapy was the most common (28%), followed by immunotherapy (21%) and combination chemotherapy/biological therapy (20%).

At a median of 123 days after the second vaccination, 83 patients with cancer (87%) and all of the control patients (100%) were seropositive for anti-S IgG antibodies. The median titer levels were significantly lower among case patients as compared with control patients (417 AU/mL [interquartile range, 136-895] vs. 1,220 AU/mL [IQR, 588-1,987]; P < .001)

There was a 3.6-fold range in median titer values across tumor types and an even wider range (8.8-fold) across the different types of treatment. The lowest titers were observed among patients who had received immunotherapy plus chemotherapy/biological therapy (median [IQR], 94.4 [49.4-191] AU/mL vs. 147 [62.8-339] AU/mL).

In an exploratory multivariable analysis, treatments with chemotherapy plus immunotherapy and immunotherapy plus biological therapy were significantly associated with lower IgG titers.
 

No downside for cancer patients

The Biden administration announced a plan to begin booster COVID-19 vaccinations for all American adults in September, with recommendations that the third vaccine be given at least 8 months after the second mRNA vaccine dose.

Jeremy M. Levin, DPhil, the chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics, explained that, concerning boosters, “it is inconceivable that we will have all data at this stage.

“Knowledge about how boosters work and don’t work and when you should ideally have them is imperfect,” he told this news organization. “However, we can have a lot of confidence in the fact that hundreds of millions of people have received the vaccine, so we know a lot about the safety and efficacy.”

Immunocompromised adults represent less than 5% of the total population, and most of the available data on vaccination are from patients who have undergone solid-organ transplant, Dr. Levin explained. Studies have shown that their response is less robust to vaccination in comparison with adults in the general population.

“Although it is still preliminary, the strongest data come from Israel,” he said, “where they found that the booster was highly effective and doubled the number of transplant patients who developed antibodies.”

But data are not yet available in the setting of cancer. “But even though we don’t have the data yet, the answer is that no matter, the booster process is essential,” he said. “The evidence we have is that boosters raise the immune response, and it is the best data we have now.”

Martin J. Edelman, MD, chair, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the current recommendation is that patients who are immunocompromised receive a booster immediately.

At his health system, this is interpreted to include patients who have undergone the following treatments: Transplant (solid-organ and bone marrow transplant), hemodialysis, hematologic malignancy treatment, active immunosuppressive (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, and nonhormonal or single-agent immunotherapy) treatment, rheumatology treatments, and high-dose steroids.

“As for cancer patients, we are making arrangements to vaccinate patients who meet the above criteria now,” he said. “There is no known downside to receiving booster immediately. While there may be less of a response than waiting for completion of treatment, we know that patients on active therapy are frequently able to mount a response, and any response is better than none.”

Dr. Edelman added that this area is changing very rapidly. “We will modify our approach as information and guidance from appropriate organizations, such as the FDA and CDC, become available.”

Dr. Stemmer has received institutional research grants from CAN-FITE, AstraZeneca, Bioline RX, BMS, Halozyme, Clovis Oncology, CTG Pharma, Exelixis, Geicam, Incyte, Lilly, Moderna, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Roche, and owns stocks and options in CTG Pharma, DocBoxMD, Tyrnovo, VYPE, Cytora, and CAN-FITE. Dr. Edelman has received personal fees and other compensation from Windmil, Biomarker Strategies, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Apexigen, Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Armo, Bergen Bio, and Apexigen outside the submitted work. He has submitted a patent for epigenetic modifications to increase susceptibility to radiopharmaceuticals and is a paid adviser for Kanaph and Flame. Dr. Levin is chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics.

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

Pregnant women who experience migraine with aura – and also the far more common tension-type headache – are at increased risk for giving birth to small-for-gestational-age babies, according to results from an observational study.

Migraine during pregnancy has been associated in previous studies with hypertensive pregnancy complications including preeclampsia; however, little is known about other headache types and their effects on pregnancy and birth outcomes.

For their research, published online July 20 in Cephalalgia, Isabella Neri, MD, PhD, and colleagues at Hospital Policlinico of Modena, Italy, looked at headache status for 515 consecutive pregnant women evaluated during their first trimester and followed through childbirth. 

Altogether 224 women, or 43.5% of the cohort, were diagnosed with migraine without aura (n = 72), migraine with aura (n = 27), or tension-type headache (n = 125). The authors did not report on the severity or frequency of headaches.

Women with migraine with aura and tension-type headache saw higher rates of small-for-gestational-age infants (25.9% and 10.4% of births, respectively) compared with 5.5% for women without headache. Women presenting with tension-type headache saw elevated risk for small-for-gestational-age infants (odds ratio [OR] 4.19, P = .004) as did women with migraine with aura (OR 5.37, P = .02).

Admission to neonatal intensive care was significantly higher in all the headache groups. However, the authors found no statistically significant associations between headaches and any other perinatal outcome investigated in the study, including gestational diabetes, placental abruption, gestational hypertension, and preterm delivery.

A previous study conducted by the same research group had reported a relationship between migraine and gestational hypertension. The authors cited the small sample size of the migraine groups in the current study, “the diverse features of the population,” and the popularity of low-dose aspirin administration as potentially affecting that outcome.
 

Interpret findings with caution

Asked by this news organization to comment on the research, two headache neurologists praised Dr. Neri and colleagues’ research for focusing on an understudied topic – but also said that the results would not change their practice unless replicated in larger studies.

Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH, chief emeritus of the division of headache at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, urged caution in interpreting the findings, particularly with regard to tension-type headache. “This study adds to information suggesting that pregnancy complications probably are higher in women who have migraine with aura, and there’s biological plausibility for that,” Dr. Loder said. “Having aura means you may have some vascular abnormalities and things that logically might be associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational age infants.” But the small size of the migraine-with-aura group in this study – 27 women – and the fact that other perinatal outcomes measured in the study did not reach significance, allows for the possibility that the small-for-gestational-age findings were due to chance, Dr. Loder noted.

With tension-type headache, a biological rationale for small-for-gestational-age risk is more elusive, Dr. Loder said. “I would want to see that association replicated in another study before I thought that I needed to warn women with tension-type headache about this potential outcome. There’s lot of uncertainty here about the magnitude of the risk.”

While Dr. Neri and colleagues described the instruments used in their study to diagnose migraine and migraine with aura, they did not explain how tension-type headache was diagnosed. 

Tension-type headache, while common, is still not well characterized, Dr. Loder noted, and may represent a heterogeneous condition or the milder end of a biological continuum that includes migraine with aura. Also, the group in the study had a higher prevalence of smoking, and though the authors made statistical adjustments for smoking status, “smokers are systematically different than people who aren’t in other ways that could be associated with these outcomes,” Dr. Loder said.

While the authors of the study suggested that interventions might be indicated for women with tension-type headache in pregnancy, “showing an association doesn’t necessarily mean that intervening would make a difference” on pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Loder said.

Amaal J. Starling, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., said in an interview that she, too, appreciated that this study looked at pregnancy outcomes in the setting of headache disorders. “Unfortunately even though headache disorders and especially migraine affect women so much, we still know very little about migraine in pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Starling noted that many women with migraine are discouraged by their health care providers from becoming pregnant, because of the false belief that migraine cannot be managed in pregnancy. In her own practice, she said, she treats many patients with severe headache who become pregnant and who require pharmacological intervention during pregnancy.

This does not mean she regards headache in pregnancy as innocent. “I want patients to be on high alert for changes in headache symptoms in pregnancy. If someone has worsening of headache or migraine or aura in the setting of pregnancy, we consider that a red flag,” potentially indicating complications such as high blood pressure, gestational hypertension, or a blood clot.

Like Dr. Loder, Dr. Starling said she was not surprised by Dr. Neri and colleagues’ finding that migraine with aura might impact pregnancy outcomes. “We know that migraine with aura has a lot of vascular abnormalities that underlie the pathogenesis,” she said.

Dr. Starling found the findings related to tension-type headache less convincing, not least because the diagnostic criteria for tension-type headache was not made clear in the study. “I view this as an exploratory study that says maybe there’s a signal here. A larger epidemiological study would need to be done to confirm or refute this data,” Dr. Starling said. Until the findings can be replicated, “this study would not affect my clinical practice in any way.”

Dr. Neri and colleagues described no outside funding for their research or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Starling has received consulting fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers but reported no disclosures relevant to the study discussed. Dr. Loder reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who experience migraine with aura – and also the far more common tension-type headache – are at increased risk for giving birth to small-for-gestational-age babies, according to results from an observational study.

Migraine during pregnancy has been associated in previous studies with hypertensive pregnancy complications including preeclampsia; however, little is known about other headache types and their effects on pregnancy and birth outcomes.

For their research, published online July 20 in Cephalalgia, Isabella Neri, MD, PhD, and colleagues at Hospital Policlinico of Modena, Italy, looked at headache status for 515 consecutive pregnant women evaluated during their first trimester and followed through childbirth. 

Altogether 224 women, or 43.5% of the cohort, were diagnosed with migraine without aura (n = 72), migraine with aura (n = 27), or tension-type headache (n = 125). The authors did not report on the severity or frequency of headaches.

Women with migraine with aura and tension-type headache saw higher rates of small-for-gestational-age infants (25.9% and 10.4% of births, respectively) compared with 5.5% for women without headache. Women presenting with tension-type headache saw elevated risk for small-for-gestational-age infants (odds ratio [OR] 4.19, P = .004) as did women with migraine with aura (OR 5.37, P = .02).

Admission to neonatal intensive care was significantly higher in all the headache groups. However, the authors found no statistically significant associations between headaches and any other perinatal outcome investigated in the study, including gestational diabetes, placental abruption, gestational hypertension, and preterm delivery.

A previous study conducted by the same research group had reported a relationship between migraine and gestational hypertension. The authors cited the small sample size of the migraine groups in the current study, “the diverse features of the population,” and the popularity of low-dose aspirin administration as potentially affecting that outcome.
 

Interpret findings with caution

Asked by this news organization to comment on the research, two headache neurologists praised Dr. Neri and colleagues’ research for focusing on an understudied topic – but also said that the results would not change their practice unless replicated in larger studies.

Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH, chief emeritus of the division of headache at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, urged caution in interpreting the findings, particularly with regard to tension-type headache. “This study adds to information suggesting that pregnancy complications probably are higher in women who have migraine with aura, and there’s biological plausibility for that,” Dr. Loder said. “Having aura means you may have some vascular abnormalities and things that logically might be associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational age infants.” But the small size of the migraine-with-aura group in this study – 27 women – and the fact that other perinatal outcomes measured in the study did not reach significance, allows for the possibility that the small-for-gestational-age findings were due to chance, Dr. Loder noted.

With tension-type headache, a biological rationale for small-for-gestational-age risk is more elusive, Dr. Loder said. “I would want to see that association replicated in another study before I thought that I needed to warn women with tension-type headache about this potential outcome. There’s lot of uncertainty here about the magnitude of the risk.”

While Dr. Neri and colleagues described the instruments used in their study to diagnose migraine and migraine with aura, they did not explain how tension-type headache was diagnosed. 

Tension-type headache, while common, is still not well characterized, Dr. Loder noted, and may represent a heterogeneous condition or the milder end of a biological continuum that includes migraine with aura. Also, the group in the study had a higher prevalence of smoking, and though the authors made statistical adjustments for smoking status, “smokers are systematically different than people who aren’t in other ways that could be associated with these outcomes,” Dr. Loder said.

While the authors of the study suggested that interventions might be indicated for women with tension-type headache in pregnancy, “showing an association doesn’t necessarily mean that intervening would make a difference” on pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Loder said.

Amaal J. Starling, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., said in an interview that she, too, appreciated that this study looked at pregnancy outcomes in the setting of headache disorders. “Unfortunately even though headache disorders and especially migraine affect women so much, we still know very little about migraine in pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Starling noted that many women with migraine are discouraged by their health care providers from becoming pregnant, because of the false belief that migraine cannot be managed in pregnancy. In her own practice, she said, she treats many patients with severe headache who become pregnant and who require pharmacological intervention during pregnancy.

This does not mean she regards headache in pregnancy as innocent. “I want patients to be on high alert for changes in headache symptoms in pregnancy. If someone has worsening of headache or migraine or aura in the setting of pregnancy, we consider that a red flag,” potentially indicating complications such as high blood pressure, gestational hypertension, or a blood clot.

Like Dr. Loder, Dr. Starling said she was not surprised by Dr. Neri and colleagues’ finding that migraine with aura might impact pregnancy outcomes. “We know that migraine with aura has a lot of vascular abnormalities that underlie the pathogenesis,” she said.

Dr. Starling found the findings related to tension-type headache less convincing, not least because the diagnostic criteria for tension-type headache was not made clear in the study. “I view this as an exploratory study that says maybe there’s a signal here. A larger epidemiological study would need to be done to confirm or refute this data,” Dr. Starling said. Until the findings can be replicated, “this study would not affect my clinical practice in any way.”

Dr. Neri and colleagues described no outside funding for their research or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Starling has received consulting fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers but reported no disclosures relevant to the study discussed. Dr. Loder reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Pregnant women who experience migraine with aura – and also the far more common tension-type headache – are at increased risk for giving birth to small-for-gestational-age babies, according to results from an observational study.

Migraine during pregnancy has been associated in previous studies with hypertensive pregnancy complications including preeclampsia; however, little is known about other headache types and their effects on pregnancy and birth outcomes.

For their research, published online July 20 in Cephalalgia, Isabella Neri, MD, PhD, and colleagues at Hospital Policlinico of Modena, Italy, looked at headache status for 515 consecutive pregnant women evaluated during their first trimester and followed through childbirth. 

Altogether 224 women, or 43.5% of the cohort, were diagnosed with migraine without aura (n = 72), migraine with aura (n = 27), or tension-type headache (n = 125). The authors did not report on the severity or frequency of headaches.

Women with migraine with aura and tension-type headache saw higher rates of small-for-gestational-age infants (25.9% and 10.4% of births, respectively) compared with 5.5% for women without headache. Women presenting with tension-type headache saw elevated risk for small-for-gestational-age infants (odds ratio [OR] 4.19, P = .004) as did women with migraine with aura (OR 5.37, P = .02).

Admission to neonatal intensive care was significantly higher in all the headache groups. However, the authors found no statistically significant associations between headaches and any other perinatal outcome investigated in the study, including gestational diabetes, placental abruption, gestational hypertension, and preterm delivery.

A previous study conducted by the same research group had reported a relationship between migraine and gestational hypertension. The authors cited the small sample size of the migraine groups in the current study, “the diverse features of the population,” and the popularity of low-dose aspirin administration as potentially affecting that outcome.
 

Interpret findings with caution

Asked by this news organization to comment on the research, two headache neurologists praised Dr. Neri and colleagues’ research for focusing on an understudied topic – but also said that the results would not change their practice unless replicated in larger studies.

Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, MPH, chief emeritus of the division of headache at Brigham and Women’s Faulkner Hospital in Boston, urged caution in interpreting the findings, particularly with regard to tension-type headache. “This study adds to information suggesting that pregnancy complications probably are higher in women who have migraine with aura, and there’s biological plausibility for that,” Dr. Loder said. “Having aura means you may have some vascular abnormalities and things that logically might be associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational age infants.” But the small size of the migraine-with-aura group in this study – 27 women – and the fact that other perinatal outcomes measured in the study did not reach significance, allows for the possibility that the small-for-gestational-age findings were due to chance, Dr. Loder noted.

With tension-type headache, a biological rationale for small-for-gestational-age risk is more elusive, Dr. Loder said. “I would want to see that association replicated in another study before I thought that I needed to warn women with tension-type headache about this potential outcome. There’s lot of uncertainty here about the magnitude of the risk.”

While Dr. Neri and colleagues described the instruments used in their study to diagnose migraine and migraine with aura, they did not explain how tension-type headache was diagnosed. 

Tension-type headache, while common, is still not well characterized, Dr. Loder noted, and may represent a heterogeneous condition or the milder end of a biological continuum that includes migraine with aura. Also, the group in the study had a higher prevalence of smoking, and though the authors made statistical adjustments for smoking status, “smokers are systematically different than people who aren’t in other ways that could be associated with these outcomes,” Dr. Loder said.

While the authors of the study suggested that interventions might be indicated for women with tension-type headache in pregnancy, “showing an association doesn’t necessarily mean that intervening would make a difference” on pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Loder said.

Amaal J. Starling, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Ariz., said in an interview that she, too, appreciated that this study looked at pregnancy outcomes in the setting of headache disorders. “Unfortunately even though headache disorders and especially migraine affect women so much, we still know very little about migraine in pregnancy,” she said.

Dr. Starling noted that many women with migraine are discouraged by their health care providers from becoming pregnant, because of the false belief that migraine cannot be managed in pregnancy. In her own practice, she said, she treats many patients with severe headache who become pregnant and who require pharmacological intervention during pregnancy.

This does not mean she regards headache in pregnancy as innocent. “I want patients to be on high alert for changes in headache symptoms in pregnancy. If someone has worsening of headache or migraine or aura in the setting of pregnancy, we consider that a red flag,” potentially indicating complications such as high blood pressure, gestational hypertension, or a blood clot.

Like Dr. Loder, Dr. Starling said she was not surprised by Dr. Neri and colleagues’ finding that migraine with aura might impact pregnancy outcomes. “We know that migraine with aura has a lot of vascular abnormalities that underlie the pathogenesis,” she said.

Dr. Starling found the findings related to tension-type headache less convincing, not least because the diagnostic criteria for tension-type headache was not made clear in the study. “I view this as an exploratory study that says maybe there’s a signal here. A larger epidemiological study would need to be done to confirm or refute this data,” Dr. Starling said. Until the findings can be replicated, “this study would not affect my clinical practice in any way.”

Dr. Neri and colleagues described no outside funding for their research or financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Starling has received consulting fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers but reported no disclosures relevant to the study discussed. Dr. Loder reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Remote upper arm neuromodulation and combined occipital and trigeminal neuromodulation lead the way as the newest entries to the field, followed by 8 other devices that are now available or are expected to be soon.

The increasing array of prescription medications for the treatment of migraine are welcome additions for patients who suffer from this life-altering condition and the clinicians who treat it; but not all individuals tolerate oral and injectable therapies, and others face the risk of adverse events and medication overuse headache.¹ Fortunately, there are a number of devices available to consider, and still others are awaiting approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Two of the most promising devices are remote upper arm neuromodulation (REN) and combined occipital and trigeminal neuromodulation. Here we highlight data from pivotal trials evaluating these 2 treatment options and provide information about other devices worth consideration.

Remote Upper Arm Neuromodulation (REN)

Nerivio was initially authorized by the FDA for the acute treatment of episodic migraine. Available by prescription, the device is administered by the patient at home.² It stimulates upper arm peripheral nerves, which induces conditioned pain modulation (CPM) that inhibits pain in remote parts of the body. In other words, a descending, endogenous analgesic “pain inhibits pain” mechanism is used.

The initial authorization was based on the results of a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, multicenter study involving 252 individuals who were experiencing 2 to 8 migraine headaches per month. Participants were assigned to either a treatment group (n=126), where the device was applied for 30 to 45 minutes within an hour of a migraine attack, or to a sham treatment group (n=126). Investigators looked at migraine pain levels at baseline and at 2 and 48 hours post-treatment, as well as patient-reported most bothersome symptoms. They found that REN provided superior, clinically meaningful relief from migraine pain and the most bothersome symptoms, as follows³:

• 67% of patients in the active treatment group achieved a response at 2 hours vs 39% of individuals in the sham-treatment group
• Pain-free rates at 2 hours in each group were 37% and 18%, respectively
• Most bothersome symptom relief rates at 2 hours were 46% and 22%, respectively

Additionally, pain relief and pain-free responses were sustained at 48 hours. Nearly 40% of active treatment participants still reported pain relief at 48 hours, with pain-free rates at 48 hours in each group of 21% and 8%, respectively. The adverse event rate was low. The most commonly reported adverse event in the active-treatment group was a sensation of warmth (2.4%). Arm pain (1.6%), redness (1.6%), and numbness (0.8%) were also reported in those receiving active treatment.³

In 2020, REN received authorization for the acute treatment of chronic migraine in adults, and the following year authorization was expanded to include adolescent migraine. This development offered a nonpharmacologic treatment approach for migraine sufferers who experience 15 or more headache days per month, which is significant because it reduces the likelihood of medication overuse headache.

Approval for chronic migraine was based on results of an open-label, single-arm, dual-center study involving 38 individuals with chronic migraine. Participants used the device over 4 weeks within 1 hour of a migraine attack. Investigators assessed pain levels at 2 and 24 hours after use; they defined consistency of response as response to at least half of the treatments. The study demonstrated the following⁴:

• 74% of patients attained pain relief at 2 hours
• 26% were pain free at 2 hours
• 84% achieved sustained pain relief at 24 hours
• 45% achieved sustained pain relief at 24 hours in at least half of their treated attacks
• <2% of participants experienced device-related adverse events

The authors concluded that REN could be used for a series of migraine attacks and is a safe and effective nonpharmacologic approach for individuals who suffer from chronic migraine.⁴

The findings from these trials are supported by a subsequent trial published earlier this year. This open-label, single-arm study evaluated 91 individuals with chronic migraine who were treated with REN for 4 weeks. Investigators assessed pain levels, associated pain symptoms, and functional disability at baseline as well as at 2 and 24 hours post-treatment. Of the patients in this study⁵:

• At 2 hours, 59% achieved pain relief, and 21% reported that their pain disappeared
• 73% noted sustained pain relief at 24 hours
• REN was shown to impact nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia favorably, and patients’ functional ability also improved after use

Results from 2 additional trials were also recently released. One study involving 35 adolescents treated with either REN or standard-of-care medications showed REN to be superior with regard to pain freedom (37% vs 9%), consistency of pain freedom (40% vs 9%), pain relief (71% vs 57%), and consistency of pain relief (80% vs 57%).⁶ The other study included 91 women with a history of menstrual migraine and at least 4 REN treatments. Nearly 75% of patients reported Nerivio to be at least moderately effective, 45% said they were satisfied with the treatment, and all participants noted that it was at least moderately tolerable.⁷

Combined Occipital and Trigeminal Neuromodulation

In March 2021, the FDA authorized combined occipital and trigeminal neuromodulation (Relivion) for self-treatment of acute migraine.⁸ It is not yet commercially available, but it will require a prescription. The headset-like device stimulates the occipital and trigeminal nerves by delivering precise modulated pulses simultaneously to 6 branches of the occipital and trigeminal nerves via 3 adaptive output channels. The occipital and trigeminal nerves conduct the signals directly to the brainstem, which maximizes the synergistic effect.⁹

The results of 2 clinical trials led to FDA approval. These studies have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The first study, presented at the 61st Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society in 2019, was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, sham-controlled clinical study involving 55 individuals with chronic or episodic migraine. Participants administered the device for 1 hour soon after migraine onset or administered a sham treatment. Researchers looked at pain score change from baseline to 1 hour post-treatment, as well as pain intensity at baseline and at 1, 2, and 24 hours post-treatment. The study showed that 76% of participants in the active-treatment group experienced headache relief at 2 hours vs 32% in the sham-treatment contingent. No serious adverse events were reported.¹⁰ The investigators hypothesized that the positive results observed were a result of the synergistic neuromodulatory effect elicited by concurrent activation of the occipital and trigeminal neural pathways.

Following this study, there was a multi-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial involving 131 individuals with migraine with or without aura. Participants were assigned to either active treatment or placebo. Investigators assessed reported migraine pain reduction at 2 hours, as well as improvement in most bothersome symptoms after 2 hours, reported pain reduction at 1 hour, and being pain-free at 2 hours. At 2 hours post-treatment¹¹:

• 46% of individuals who were actively treated reached complete freedom from pain vs 12% in the control group
• 75% of active-treatment participants reported being completely free of their most bothersome symptom vs 47% of control patients
• The rates of complete freedom from migraine symptoms were 47% and 11%, respectively
• The rates of pain relief after 2 hours were 60% and 37%, respectively
• No serious adverse events were noted

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 221 individuals published earlier this year looked at changes in pain scores and response rates to implantable peripheral nerve stimulation for trigeminal neuropathic pain. The response rate to neuromodulation therapy was 61%, the reduction in overall pain scores (2.363) was significant, and a subgroup assessment revealed that the stimulation target (peripheral branch, trigeminal ganglion, or trigeminal nerve root) was responsible for heterogeneity across the studies analyzed. Furthermore, stimulating the trigeminal peripheral branch resulted in better clinical outcomes. The authors noted that their findings reinforce the promise of implantable therapy, particularly for individuals who do not tolerate traditional therapies.¹²

Looking forward, new data are scheduled to be presented at the International Headache Virtual Congress in September 2021 showing that neuromodulation therapy is highly effective in reducing monthly headache days in individuals who suffer from difficult-to-treat migraine. A larger-scale, double-blind, sham-controlled study is planned to further establish these findings.

Other FDA-Approved Therapies
A number of other devices are available for treatment of migraine headache, including:

• Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). In a randomized trial involving 164 individuals with migraine, 39% of the individuals receiving treatment were pain-free at 2 hours vs 22% of those given sham treatment¹³
• Noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS). This is performed using a handheld device that is controlled by the patient, which preferentially activates afferent A and large B fibers. In a randomized trial involving 243 individuals, pain-free rates at 30, 60, and 120 minutes for patients receiving active treatment were 13%, 21%, and 30%, respectively. Rates for those receiving sham treatment were 4%, 10%, and 20%, respectively.¹⁴
• Sumatriptan nasal spray (10 mg) with a permeation enhancer. A randomized phase 2 trial involving 107 individuals found that 44% of participants in the treatment group achieved pain freedom at 2 hours vs 23% who received placebo. The spray appears to work quickly and with fewer adverse events than generic sumatriptan 20 mg nasal spray.¹⁵
• Transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation (tSNS). Available without a prescription, there are 3 devices that can treat acute migraine; prevent acute migraine; or both.

Therapies Awaiting FDA Approval

There are several therapeutic options in the pipeline that have not yet been authorized by the FDA.

• Zavegepant (formerly known as vazegepant) nasal spray.¹⁶ This third-generation small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist has been demonstrated to work as a nasal spray in individuals with migraine. In a phase 1 study, the spray was shown to reach maximal concentration earlier than with other CGRP receptor antagonists.¹⁷ A phase 2/3 placebo-controlled trial demonstrated sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 hours with 5-mg, 10-mg, and 20-mg dosages. The 10-mg and 20-mg doses were statistically superior to placebo on the co-primary endpoints of pain freedom and freedom from most bothersome symptom at 2 hours using a single dose. Sustained pain relief from 2 to 48 hours was seen with the 5-mg and 10-mg dosages¹⁸
• Sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation. This is a microstimulator that is inserted orally, designed to fit the face, and directly targets SPG. Stimulation is active and controlled by the patient. A randomized, sham-controlled trial evaluated acute pain relief as well as pain freedom and found that those receiving treatment were more than twice as likely to experience pain relief and pain freedom¹⁹
• Adhesive dermally applied microneedle system (ADAM). This is a transdermal patch containing microprojections, which can be coated with both large and small molecules. In a randomized trial, 42% of treated participants reported being pain free at 2 hours vs 14% of placebo-treated patients. Rates of freedom from most bothersome symptom were 68% and 43%, respectively²⁰
• Dihydroergotamine (DHE) nasal powder spray and intranasal liquid. Both therapies are awaiting FDA approval. The mucoadhesive powder formulation facilitates rapid drug absorption and is offered in a single-use nasal delivery device. In clinical trials, the spray demonstrated the device’s simplicity, reliability, and ease of use.²¹ The intranasal liquid is designed to deliver the drug into the vascular-rich upper nasal space. In the phase 3 trial that included 354 patients, 66.3% of patients reported pain relief, 38% of patients reported pain freedom, and 52% had freedom from their most bothersome migraine symptom at 2 hours following their first dose.²²

Remote upper arm neuromodulation and combined occipital and trigeminal neuromodulation lead the way as the newest entries to the field, followed by 8 other devices that are now available or are expected to be soon.

The increasing array of prescription medications for the treatment of migraine are welcome additions for patients who suffer from this life-altering condition and the clinicians who treat it; but not all individuals tolerate oral and injectable therapies, and others face the risk of adverse events and medication overuse headache.¹ Fortunately, there are a number of devices available to consider, and still others are awaiting approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Two of the most promising devices are remote upper arm neuromodulation (REN) and combined occipital and trigeminal neuromodulation. Here we highlight data from pivotal trials evaluating these 2 treatment options and provide information about other devices worth consideration.

Remote Upper Arm Neuromodulation (REN)

Nerivio was initially authorized by the FDA for the acute treatment of episodic migraine. Available by prescription, the device is administered by the patient at home.² It stimulates upper arm peripheral nerves, which induces conditioned pain modulation (CPM) that inhibits pain in remote parts of the body. In other words, a descending, endogenous analgesic “pain inhibits pain” mechanism is used.

The initial authorization was based on the results of a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, multicenter study involving 252 individuals who were experiencing 2 to 8 migraine headaches per month. Participants were assigned to either a treatment group (n=126), where the device was applied for 30 to 45 minutes within an hour of a migraine attack, or to a sham treatment group (n=126). Investigators looked at migraine pain levels at baseline and at 2 and 48 hours post-treatment, as well as patient-reported most bothersome symptoms. They found that REN provided superior, clinically meaningful relief from migraine pain and the most bothersome symptoms, as follows³:

• 67% of patients in the active treatment group achieved a response at 2 hours vs 39% of individuals in the sham-treatment group
• Pain-free rates at 2 hours in each group were 37% and 18%, respectively
• Most bothersome symptom relief rates at 2 hours were 46% and 22%, respectively

Additionally, pain relief and pain-free responses were sustained at 48 hours. Nearly 40% of active treatment participants still reported pain relief at 48 hours, with pain-free rates at 48 hours in each group of 21% and 8%, respectively. The adverse event rate was low. The most commonly reported adverse event in the active-treatment group was a sensation of warmth (2.4%). Arm pain (1.6%), redness (1.6%), and numbness (0.8%) were also reported in those receiving active treatment.³

In 2020, REN received authorization for the acute treatment of chronic migraine in adults, and the following year authorization was expanded to include adolescent migraine. This development offered a nonpharmacologic treatment approach for migraine sufferers who experience 15 or more headache days per month, which is significant because it reduces the likelihood of medication overuse headache.

Approval for chronic migraine was based on results of an open-label, single-arm, dual-center study involving 38 individuals with chronic migraine. Participants used the device over 4 weeks within 1 hour of a migraine attack. Investigators assessed pain levels at 2 and 24 hours after use; they defined consistency of response as response to at least half of the treatments. The study demonstrated the following⁴:

• 74% of patients attained pain relief at 2 hours
• 26% were pain free at 2 hours
• 84% achieved sustained pain relief at 24 hours
• 45% achieved sustained pain relief at 24 hours in at least half of their treated attacks
• <2% of participants experienced device-related adverse events

The authors concluded that REN could be used for a series of migraine attacks and is a safe and effective nonpharmacologic approach for individuals who suffer from chronic migraine.⁴

The findings from these trials are supported by a subsequent trial published earlier this year. This open-label, single-arm study evaluated 91 individuals with chronic migraine who were treated with REN for 4 weeks. Investigators assessed pain levels, associated pain symptoms, and functional disability at baseline as well as at 2 and 24 hours post-treatment. Of the patients in this study⁵:

• At 2 hours, 59% achieved pain relief, and 21% reported that their pain disappeared
• 73% noted sustained pain relief at 24 hours
• REN was shown to impact nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia favorably, and patients’ functional ability also improved after use

Results from 2 additional trials were also recently released. One study involving 35 adolescents treated with either REN or standard-of-care medications showed REN to be superior with regard to pain freedom (37% vs 9%), consistency of pain freedom (40% vs 9%), pain relief (71% vs 57%), and consistency of pain relief (80% vs 57%).⁶ The other study included 91 women with a history of menstrual migraine and at least 4 REN treatments. Nearly 75% of patients reported Nerivio to be at least moderately effective, 45% said they were satisfied with the treatment, and all participants noted that it was at least moderately tolerable.⁷

Combined Occipital and Trigeminal Neuromodulation

In March 2021, the FDA authorized combined occipital and trigeminal neuromodulation (Relivion) for self-treatment of acute migraine.⁸ It is not yet commercially available, but it will require a prescription. The headset-like device stimulates the occipital and trigeminal nerves by delivering precise modulated pulses simultaneously to 6 branches of the occipital and trigeminal nerves via 3 adaptive output channels. The occipital and trigeminal nerves conduct the signals directly to the brainstem, which maximizes the synergistic effect.⁹

The results of 2 clinical trials led to FDA approval. These studies have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The first study, presented at the 61st Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society in 2019, was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, sham-controlled clinical study involving 55 individuals with chronic or episodic migraine. Participants administered the device for 1 hour soon after migraine onset or administered a sham treatment. Researchers looked at pain score change from baseline to 1 hour post-treatment, as well as pain intensity at baseline and at 1, 2, and 24 hours post-treatment. The study showed that 76% of participants in the active-treatment group experienced headache relief at 2 hours vs 32% in the sham-treatment contingent. No serious adverse events were reported.¹⁰ The investigators hypothesized that the positive results observed were a result of the synergistic neuromodulatory effect elicited by concurrent activation of the occipital and trigeminal neural pathways.

Following this study, there was a multi-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial involving 131 individuals with migraine with or without aura. Participants were assigned to either active treatment or placebo. Investigators assessed reported migraine pain reduction at 2 hours, as well as improvement in most bothersome symptoms after 2 hours, reported pain reduction at 1 hour, and being pain-free at 2 hours. At 2 hours post-treatment¹¹:

• 46% of individuals who were actively treated reached complete freedom from pain vs 12% in the control group
• 75% of active-treatment participants reported being completely free of their most bothersome symptom vs 47% of control patients
• The rates of complete freedom from migraine symptoms were 47% and 11%, respectively
• The rates of pain relief after 2 hours were 60% and 37%, respectively
• No serious adverse events were noted

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 221 individuals published earlier this year looked at changes in pain scores and response rates to implantable peripheral nerve stimulation for trigeminal neuropathic pain. The response rate to neuromodulation therapy was 61%, the reduction in overall pain scores (2.363) was significant, and a subgroup assessment revealed that the stimulation target (peripheral branch, trigeminal ganglion, or trigeminal nerve root) was responsible for heterogeneity across the studies analyzed. Furthermore, stimulating the trigeminal peripheral branch resulted in better clinical outcomes. The authors noted that their findings reinforce the promise of implantable therapy, particularly for individuals who do not tolerate traditional therapies.¹²

Looking forward, new data are scheduled to be presented at the International Headache Virtual Congress in September 2021 showing that neuromodulation therapy is highly effective in reducing monthly headache days in individuals who suffer from difficult-to-treat migraine. A larger-scale, double-blind, sham-controlled study is planned to further establish these findings.

Other FDA-Approved Therapies
A number of other devices are available for treatment of migraine headache, including:

• Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). In a randomized trial involving 164 individuals with migraine, 39% of the individuals receiving treatment were pain-free at 2 hours vs 22% of those given sham treatment¹³
• Noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS). This is performed using a handheld device that is controlled by the patient, which preferentially activates afferent A and large B fibers. In a randomized trial involving 243 individuals, pain-free rates at 30, 60, and 120 minutes for patients receiving active treatment were 13%, 21%, and 30%, respectively. Rates for those receiving sham treatment were 4%, 10%, and 20%, respectively.¹⁴
• Sumatriptan nasal spray (10 mg) with a permeation enhancer. A randomized phase 2 trial involving 107 individuals found that 44% of participants in the treatment group achieved pain freedom at 2 hours vs 23% who received placebo. The spray appears to work quickly and with fewer adverse events than generic sumatriptan 20 mg nasal spray.¹⁵
• Transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation (tSNS). Available without a prescription, there are 3 devices that can treat acute migraine; prevent acute migraine; or both.

Therapies Awaiting FDA Approval

There are several therapeutic options in the pipeline that have not yet been authorized by the FDA.

• Zavegepant (formerly known as vazegepant) nasal spray.¹⁶ This third-generation small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist has been demonstrated to work as a nasal spray in individuals with migraine. In a phase 1 study, the spray was shown to reach maximal concentration earlier than with other CGRP receptor antagonists.¹⁷ A phase 2/3 placebo-controlled trial demonstrated sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 hours with 5-mg, 10-mg, and 20-mg dosages. The 10-mg and 20-mg doses were statistically superior to placebo on the co-primary endpoints of pain freedom and freedom from most bothersome symptom at 2 hours using a single dose. Sustained pain relief from 2 to 48 hours was seen with the 5-mg and 10-mg dosages¹⁸
• Sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation. This is a microstimulator that is inserted orally, designed to fit the face, and directly targets SPG. Stimulation is active and controlled by the patient. A randomized, sham-controlled trial evaluated acute pain relief as well as pain freedom and found that those receiving treatment were more than twice as likely to experience pain relief and pain freedom¹⁹
• Adhesive dermally applied microneedle system (ADAM). This is a transdermal patch containing microprojections, which can be coated with both large and small molecules. In a randomized trial, 42% of treated participants reported being pain free at 2 hours vs 14% of placebo-treated patients. Rates of freedom from most bothersome symptom were 68% and 43%, respectively²⁰
• Dihydroergotamine (DHE) nasal powder spray and intranasal liquid. Both therapies are awaiting FDA approval. The mucoadhesive powder formulation facilitates rapid drug absorption and is offered in a single-use nasal delivery device. In clinical trials, the spray demonstrated the device’s simplicity, reliability, and ease of use.²¹ The intranasal liquid is designed to deliver the drug into the vascular-rich upper nasal space. In the phase 3 trial that included 354 patients, 66.3% of patients reported pain relief, 38% of patients reported pain freedom, and 52% had freedom from their most bothersome migraine symptom at 2 hours following their first dose.²²

Remote upper arm neuromodulation and combined occipital and trigeminal neuromodulation lead the way as the newest entries to the field, followed by 8 other devices that are now available or are expected to be soon.

The increasing array of prescription medications for the treatment of migraine are welcome additions for patients who suffer from this life-altering condition and the clinicians who treat it; but not all individuals tolerate oral and injectable therapies, and others face the risk of adverse events and medication overuse headache.¹ Fortunately, there are a number of devices available to consider, and still others are awaiting approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Two of the most promising devices are remote upper arm neuromodulation (REN) and combined occipital and trigeminal neuromodulation. Here we highlight data from pivotal trials evaluating these 2 treatment options and provide information about other devices worth consideration.

Remote Upper Arm Neuromodulation (REN)

Nerivio was initially authorized by the FDA for the acute treatment of episodic migraine. Available by prescription, the device is administered by the patient at home.² It stimulates upper arm peripheral nerves, which induces conditioned pain modulation (CPM) that inhibits pain in remote parts of the body. In other words, a descending, endogenous analgesic “pain inhibits pain” mechanism is used.

The initial authorization was based on the results of a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, multicenter study involving 252 individuals who were experiencing 2 to 8 migraine headaches per month. Participants were assigned to either a treatment group (n=126), where the device was applied for 30 to 45 minutes within an hour of a migraine attack, or to a sham treatment group (n=126). Investigators looked at migraine pain levels at baseline and at 2 and 48 hours post-treatment, as well as patient-reported most bothersome symptoms. They found that REN provided superior, clinically meaningful relief from migraine pain and the most bothersome symptoms, as follows³:

• 67% of patients in the active treatment group achieved a response at 2 hours vs 39% of individuals in the sham-treatment group
• Pain-free rates at 2 hours in each group were 37% and 18%, respectively
• Most bothersome symptom relief rates at 2 hours were 46% and 22%, respectively

Additionally, pain relief and pain-free responses were sustained at 48 hours. Nearly 40% of active treatment participants still reported pain relief at 48 hours, with pain-free rates at 48 hours in each group of 21% and 8%, respectively. The adverse event rate was low. The most commonly reported adverse event in the active-treatment group was a sensation of warmth (2.4%). Arm pain (1.6%), redness (1.6%), and numbness (0.8%) were also reported in those receiving active treatment.³

In 2020, REN received authorization for the acute treatment of chronic migraine in adults, and the following year authorization was expanded to include adolescent migraine. This development offered a nonpharmacologic treatment approach for migraine sufferers who experience 15 or more headache days per month, which is significant because it reduces the likelihood of medication overuse headache.

Approval for chronic migraine was based on results of an open-label, single-arm, dual-center study involving 38 individuals with chronic migraine. Participants used the device over 4 weeks within 1 hour of a migraine attack. Investigators assessed pain levels at 2 and 24 hours after use; they defined consistency of response as response to at least half of the treatments. The study demonstrated the following⁴:

• 74% of patients attained pain relief at 2 hours
• 26% were pain free at 2 hours
• 84% achieved sustained pain relief at 24 hours
• 45% achieved sustained pain relief at 24 hours in at least half of their treated attacks
• <2% of participants experienced device-related adverse events

The authors concluded that REN could be used for a series of migraine attacks and is a safe and effective nonpharmacologic approach for individuals who suffer from chronic migraine.⁴

The findings from these trials are supported by a subsequent trial published earlier this year. This open-label, single-arm study evaluated 91 individuals with chronic migraine who were treated with REN for 4 weeks. Investigators assessed pain levels, associated pain symptoms, and functional disability at baseline as well as at 2 and 24 hours post-treatment. Of the patients in this study⁵:

• At 2 hours, 59% achieved pain relief, and 21% reported that their pain disappeared
• 73% noted sustained pain relief at 24 hours
• REN was shown to impact nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia favorably, and patients’ functional ability also improved after use

Results from 2 additional trials were also recently released. One study involving 35 adolescents treated with either REN or standard-of-care medications showed REN to be superior with regard to pain freedom (37% vs 9%), consistency of pain freedom (40% vs 9%), pain relief (71% vs 57%), and consistency of pain relief (80% vs 57%).⁶ The other study included 91 women with a history of menstrual migraine and at least 4 REN treatments. Nearly 75% of patients reported Nerivio to be at least moderately effective, 45% said they were satisfied with the treatment, and all participants noted that it was at least moderately tolerable.⁷

Combined Occipital and Trigeminal Neuromodulation

In March 2021, the FDA authorized combined occipital and trigeminal neuromodulation (Relivion) for self-treatment of acute migraine.⁸ It is not yet commercially available, but it will require a prescription. The headset-like device stimulates the occipital and trigeminal nerves by delivering precise modulated pulses simultaneously to 6 branches of the occipital and trigeminal nerves via 3 adaptive output channels. The occipital and trigeminal nerves conduct the signals directly to the brainstem, which maximizes the synergistic effect.⁹

The results of 2 clinical trials led to FDA approval. These studies have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The first study, presented at the 61st Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society in 2019, was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, sham-controlled clinical study involving 55 individuals with chronic or episodic migraine. Participants administered the device for 1 hour soon after migraine onset or administered a sham treatment. Researchers looked at pain score change from baseline to 1 hour post-treatment, as well as pain intensity at baseline and at 1, 2, and 24 hours post-treatment. The study showed that 76% of participants in the active-treatment group experienced headache relief at 2 hours vs 32% in the sham-treatment contingent. No serious adverse events were reported.¹⁰ The investigators hypothesized that the positive results observed were a result of the synergistic neuromodulatory effect elicited by concurrent activation of the occipital and trigeminal neural pathways.

Following this study, there was a multi-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial involving 131 individuals with migraine with or without aura. Participants were assigned to either active treatment or placebo. Investigators assessed reported migraine pain reduction at 2 hours, as well as improvement in most bothersome symptoms after 2 hours, reported pain reduction at 1 hour, and being pain-free at 2 hours. At 2 hours post-treatment¹¹:

• 46% of individuals who were actively treated reached complete freedom from pain vs 12% in the control group
• 75% of active-treatment participants reported being completely free of their most bothersome symptom vs 47% of control patients
• The rates of complete freedom from migraine symptoms were 47% and 11%, respectively
• The rates of pain relief after 2 hours were 60% and 37%, respectively
• No serious adverse events were noted

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 221 individuals published earlier this year looked at changes in pain scores and response rates to implantable peripheral nerve stimulation for trigeminal neuropathic pain. The response rate to neuromodulation therapy was 61%, the reduction in overall pain scores (2.363) was significant, and a subgroup assessment revealed that the stimulation target (peripheral branch, trigeminal ganglion, or trigeminal nerve root) was responsible for heterogeneity across the studies analyzed. Furthermore, stimulating the trigeminal peripheral branch resulted in better clinical outcomes. The authors noted that their findings reinforce the promise of implantable therapy, particularly for individuals who do not tolerate traditional therapies.¹²

Looking forward, new data are scheduled to be presented at the International Headache Virtual Congress in September 2021 showing that neuromodulation therapy is highly effective in reducing monthly headache days in individuals who suffer from difficult-to-treat migraine. A larger-scale, double-blind, sham-controlled study is planned to further establish these findings.

Other FDA-Approved Therapies
A number of other devices are available for treatment of migraine headache, including:

• Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). In a randomized trial involving 164 individuals with migraine, 39% of the individuals receiving treatment were pain-free at 2 hours vs 22% of those given sham treatment¹³
• Noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS). This is performed using a handheld device that is controlled by the patient, which preferentially activates afferent A and large B fibers. In a randomized trial involving 243 individuals, pain-free rates at 30, 60, and 120 minutes for patients receiving active treatment were 13%, 21%, and 30%, respectively. Rates for those receiving sham treatment were 4%, 10%, and 20%, respectively.¹⁴
• Sumatriptan nasal spray (10 mg) with a permeation enhancer. A randomized phase 2 trial involving 107 individuals found that 44% of participants in the treatment group achieved pain freedom at 2 hours vs 23% who received placebo. The spray appears to work quickly and with fewer adverse events than generic sumatriptan 20 mg nasal spray.¹⁵
• Transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation (tSNS). Available without a prescription, there are 3 devices that can treat acute migraine; prevent acute migraine; or both.

Therapies Awaiting FDA Approval

There are several therapeutic options in the pipeline that have not yet been authorized by the FDA.

• Zavegepant (formerly known as vazegepant) nasal spray.¹⁶ This third-generation small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist has been demonstrated to work as a nasal spray in individuals with migraine. In a phase 1 study, the spray was shown to reach maximal concentration earlier than with other CGRP receptor antagonists.¹⁷ A phase 2/3 placebo-controlled trial demonstrated sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 hours with 5-mg, 10-mg, and 20-mg dosages. The 10-mg and 20-mg doses were statistically superior to placebo on the co-primary endpoints of pain freedom and freedom from most bothersome symptom at 2 hours using a single dose. Sustained pain relief from 2 to 48 hours was seen with the 5-mg and 10-mg dosages¹⁸
• Sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation. This is a microstimulator that is inserted orally, designed to fit the face, and directly targets SPG. Stimulation is active and controlled by the patient. A randomized, sham-controlled trial evaluated acute pain relief as well as pain freedom and found that those receiving treatment were more than twice as likely to experience pain relief and pain freedom¹⁹
• Adhesive dermally applied microneedle system (ADAM). This is a transdermal patch containing microprojections, which can be coated with both large and small molecules. In a randomized trial, 42% of treated participants reported being pain free at 2 hours vs 14% of placebo-treated patients. Rates of freedom from most bothersome symptom were 68% and 43%, respectively²⁰
• Dihydroergotamine (DHE) nasal powder spray and intranasal liquid. Both therapies are awaiting FDA approval. The mucoadhesive powder formulation facilitates rapid drug absorption and is offered in a single-use nasal delivery device. In clinical trials, the spray demonstrated the device’s simplicity, reliability, and ease of use.²¹ The intranasal liquid is designed to deliver the drug into the vascular-rich upper nasal space. In the phase 3 trial that included 354 patients, 66.3% of patients reported pain relief, 38% of patients reported pain freedom, and 52% had freedom from their most bothersome migraine symptom at 2 hours following their first dose.²²

Patients aged 12 years and older with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are fully immunized against COVID-19 with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccine may be eligible to receive an additional dose now, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has announced.

New guidance, which is “based on available data from studies and expert consensus opinion” by a panel of MS neurologists and experts, was published Aug. 19 on the organization’s website.

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized an additional dose of the coronavirus vaccine for patients who are expected to not have a normal or adequate immune response to the first two doses. Patients with MS who use certain treatments have a reduced or absent antibody response to the vaccine, according to recent data.

“We want people living with MS to be aware of this additional dose and discuss when they need an additional dose or booster dose with their health care provider,” Julie Fiol, RN, MSW, associate vice president of health care access, National MS Society, said in an interview.

Those who may benefit from an additional dose include patients with MS who use sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, or alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), the National MS Society noted. These particular disease modifying therapies (DMTs) have a stronger effect on the immune system than do other treatments.
 

Protecting ‘the most vulnerable’

Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators include fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), ozanimod (Zeposia), and ponesimod (Ponvory).

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), ofatumumab (Kesimpta), rituximab (Rituxan), and corresponding biosimilars.

Current data do not support an additional dose for immunocompromised patients who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are developing recommendations for these patients, and the National MS Society will update its guidance as needed, the organization noted in its statement.

“Like other medical decisions, the decision to get an additional dose is best made in partnership with your health care provider,” said Ms. Fiol. “Talk to your MS health care provider to determine what is best for you.”

MS itself does not compromise the immune system, but some MS therapies alter the immune system and reduce the body’s response to vaccination. Patients with MS who use B cell-depleting therapies have a better antibody response when they receive the vaccine 3 months or more after the last dose of MS therapy, according to the National MS Society.  

Data suggest that patients with MS are not more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, severe illness, or death than are patients without MS. However, certain groups of patients with MS, such as those who receive B cell-depleting treatments, are more susceptible to having a severe case of COVID-19.

That said, “everyone will need a booster at some point. Those who take DMTs that have greater impact on the immune system are the most urgent need now,” the organization noted.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 is critical for public safety and, especially, the safety of the most vulnerable among us,” said Ms. Fiol. “We encourage everyone with MS get vaccinated.”

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

Patients aged 12 years and older with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are fully immunized against COVID-19 with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccine may be eligible to receive an additional dose now, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has announced.

New guidance, which is “based on available data from studies and expert consensus opinion” by a panel of MS neurologists and experts, was published Aug. 19 on the organization’s website.

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized an additional dose of the coronavirus vaccine for patients who are expected to not have a normal or adequate immune response to the first two doses. Patients with MS who use certain treatments have a reduced or absent antibody response to the vaccine, according to recent data.

“We want people living with MS to be aware of this additional dose and discuss when they need an additional dose or booster dose with their health care provider,” Julie Fiol, RN, MSW, associate vice president of health care access, National MS Society, said in an interview.

Those who may benefit from an additional dose include patients with MS who use sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, or alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), the National MS Society noted. These particular disease modifying therapies (DMTs) have a stronger effect on the immune system than do other treatments.
 

Protecting ‘the most vulnerable’

Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators include fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), ozanimod (Zeposia), and ponesimod (Ponvory).

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), ofatumumab (Kesimpta), rituximab (Rituxan), and corresponding biosimilars.

Current data do not support an additional dose for immunocompromised patients who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are developing recommendations for these patients, and the National MS Society will update its guidance as needed, the organization noted in its statement.

“Like other medical decisions, the decision to get an additional dose is best made in partnership with your health care provider,” said Ms. Fiol. “Talk to your MS health care provider to determine what is best for you.”

MS itself does not compromise the immune system, but some MS therapies alter the immune system and reduce the body’s response to vaccination. Patients with MS who use B cell-depleting therapies have a better antibody response when they receive the vaccine 3 months or more after the last dose of MS therapy, according to the National MS Society.  

Data suggest that patients with MS are not more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, severe illness, or death than are patients without MS. However, certain groups of patients with MS, such as those who receive B cell-depleting treatments, are more susceptible to having a severe case of COVID-19.

That said, “everyone will need a booster at some point. Those who take DMTs that have greater impact on the immune system are the most urgent need now,” the organization noted.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 is critical for public safety and, especially, the safety of the most vulnerable among us,” said Ms. Fiol. “We encourage everyone with MS get vaccinated.”

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

Patients aged 12 years and older with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are fully immunized against COVID-19 with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccine may be eligible to receive an additional dose now, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has announced.

New guidance, which is “based on available data from studies and expert consensus opinion” by a panel of MS neurologists and experts, was published Aug. 19 on the organization’s website.

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized an additional dose of the coronavirus vaccine for patients who are expected to not have a normal or adequate immune response to the first two doses. Patients with MS who use certain treatments have a reduced or absent antibody response to the vaccine, according to recent data.

“We want people living with MS to be aware of this additional dose and discuss when they need an additional dose or booster dose with their health care provider,” Julie Fiol, RN, MSW, associate vice president of health care access, National MS Society, said in an interview.

Those who may benefit from an additional dose include patients with MS who use sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, or alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), the National MS Society noted. These particular disease modifying therapies (DMTs) have a stronger effect on the immune system than do other treatments.
 

Protecting ‘the most vulnerable’

Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators include fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), ozanimod (Zeposia), and ponesimod (Ponvory).

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), ofatumumab (Kesimpta), rituximab (Rituxan), and corresponding biosimilars.

Current data do not support an additional dose for immunocompromised patients who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are developing recommendations for these patients, and the National MS Society will update its guidance as needed, the organization noted in its statement.

“Like other medical decisions, the decision to get an additional dose is best made in partnership with your health care provider,” said Ms. Fiol. “Talk to your MS health care provider to determine what is best for you.”

MS itself does not compromise the immune system, but some MS therapies alter the immune system and reduce the body’s response to vaccination. Patients with MS who use B cell-depleting therapies have a better antibody response when they receive the vaccine 3 months or more after the last dose of MS therapy, according to the National MS Society.  

Data suggest that patients with MS are not more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, severe illness, or death than are patients without MS. However, certain groups of patients with MS, such as those who receive B cell-depleting treatments, are more susceptible to having a severe case of COVID-19.

That said, “everyone will need a booster at some point. Those who take DMTs that have greater impact on the immune system are the most urgent need now,” the organization noted.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 is critical for public safety and, especially, the safety of the most vulnerable among us,” said Ms. Fiol. “We encourage everyone with MS get vaccinated.”

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

Pimavanserin, a novel antipsychotic drug used to manage hallucinations and delusions in Parkinson’s disease, may lead to increased hospitalizations and deaths, according to a new study.

A retrospective cohort study of elderly patients with Parkinson’s disease who were in long-term care facilities found that the use of pimavanserin (Nuplazid) was associated with an increased risk of 30-day hospitalization and mortality for up to a year.

“Given that a previous study showed typical and atypical antipsychotics more than doubled mortality risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease, we aimed to assess the risk of hospitalization and death associated with pimavanserin,” wrote lead author Y. Joseph Hwang, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues in the paper. “These findings, in a large real-world cohort within long-term care facilities, may help to inform decisions regarding its risk-benefit balance among patients with Parkinson’s disease.”

The findings were published online Aug. 13 in Neurology.

The researchers enrolled 2,186 patients with Parkinson’s disease aged 65 years and older in Medicare-certified long-term care facilities who also had a pimavanserin prescription and 18,212 nonusers of pimavanserin between Nov. 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Patients in the pimavanserin group used the drug over the course of the entire study period. Hospitalization and mortality were calculated from the date of pimavanserin prescription. Propensity score–based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the two groups on 24 baseline characteristics such as age, sex, and comorbidities.

Pimavanserin use was associated with a 24% higher risk of 30-day hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.43). However, “the association did not reach statistical significance in a smaller subcohort of propensity score-matched users and nonusers,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues wrote.

Pimavanserin use was also linked to higher mortality at:

• 90 days (aHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41).
• 180 days (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45).
• 365 days (aHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.42-1.72).

No associations were found between pimavanserin use and 90-day hospitalization (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.99-1.24) nor with 30-day mortality (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56-1.03).
 

Important considerations

“This study raises three important points to consider for any practicing neurology provider: 1) how to address and interpret risks associated with pimavanserin use in this patient population 2) utility of pimavanserin 3) interpretation of data showing increased mortality in patients being treated for Parkinson’s disease psychosis,” wrote Farwa Ali, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., in an accompanying editorial published in Neurology.

Hallucinations and delusions are highly prevalent in Parkinson’s disease; as many as 60% of patients will develop psychosis over the course of their illness. Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist which targets 5-HT_2A serotonin receptors in the brain, decreasing their activity in order to attenuate hallucinations and delusions.

“Pimavanserin has been approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] for Parkinson’s disease psychosis, but its safety has been called into question based on previous reports of increased mortality risk, compared with a rather modest benefit seen in a 6-week clinical trial, the duration of which limits determination of long-term safety,” wrote Dr. Ali.

Pimavanserin carries a boxed warning that elderly patients with dementia may be at an increased risk of death. After its approval in 2016, the U.S. FDA later reviewed 893 deaths in association with pimavanserin during the postmarketing surveillance period – “an unexpected number in a new drug,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues noted. “It [the FDA] noted that most reports occurred in a population with high underlying death rates and did not signal any additional risk beyond the current warning for all antipsychotics, which could have resulted in annual mortality rates of up to 60%.”

As the first cohort study to examine hospitalization and death between pimavanserin users and nonusers, “the study confirms previous concerns regarding safety of pimavanserin and more importantly brings to attention the importance of carefully considering risks and benefits of pharmacotherapy in Parkinson’s disease psychosis, clear communication with patients and families, and close observation to ensure safety,” wrote Dr. Ali.

The study limitations include its observational design, which subjected the findings to residual confounding.

“While we developed models to maximize the strength of causal inference, our comparison group was pimavanserin nonusers and the very reason for prescription of pimavanserin could have predisposed its users to the outcomes of hospitalization and death, introducing confounding by indication,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues wrote in the paper.

Additionally, “while robust analyses were conducted to ensure pimavanserin users and nonusers were comparable, Dr. Hwang et al. did find that pimavanserin users were more likely to concomitantly use other antipsychotic drugs which has been demonstrated as increasing the mortality risk,” Dr. Ali pointed out.

Since patients living in long-term care facilities may have a higher risk of mortality because of more severe or later-stage Parkinson’s disease, the study results “may not be generalizable to community-dwelling PD patients,” Dr. Ali wrote. “These factors are important to consider while making individual management decisions.”

Dr. Hwang and Dr. Ali disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study authors reported no targeted funding.

Pimavanserin, a novel antipsychotic drug used to manage hallucinations and delusions in Parkinson’s disease, may lead to increased hospitalizations and deaths, according to a new study.

A retrospective cohort study of elderly patients with Parkinson’s disease who were in long-term care facilities found that the use of pimavanserin (Nuplazid) was associated with an increased risk of 30-day hospitalization and mortality for up to a year.

“Given that a previous study showed typical and atypical antipsychotics more than doubled mortality risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease, we aimed to assess the risk of hospitalization and death associated with pimavanserin,” wrote lead author Y. Joseph Hwang, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues in the paper. “These findings, in a large real-world cohort within long-term care facilities, may help to inform decisions regarding its risk-benefit balance among patients with Parkinson’s disease.”

The findings were published online Aug. 13 in Neurology.

The researchers enrolled 2,186 patients with Parkinson’s disease aged 65 years and older in Medicare-certified long-term care facilities who also had a pimavanserin prescription and 18,212 nonusers of pimavanserin between Nov. 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Patients in the pimavanserin group used the drug over the course of the entire study period. Hospitalization and mortality were calculated from the date of pimavanserin prescription. Propensity score–based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the two groups on 24 baseline characteristics such as age, sex, and comorbidities.

Pimavanserin use was associated with a 24% higher risk of 30-day hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.43). However, “the association did not reach statistical significance in a smaller subcohort of propensity score-matched users and nonusers,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues wrote.

Pimavanserin use was also linked to higher mortality at:

• 90 days (aHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41).
• 180 days (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45).
• 365 days (aHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.42-1.72).

No associations were found between pimavanserin use and 90-day hospitalization (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.99-1.24) nor with 30-day mortality (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56-1.03).
 

Important considerations

“This study raises three important points to consider for any practicing neurology provider: 1) how to address and interpret risks associated with pimavanserin use in this patient population 2) utility of pimavanserin 3) interpretation of data showing increased mortality in patients being treated for Parkinson’s disease psychosis,” wrote Farwa Ali, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., in an accompanying editorial published in Neurology.

Hallucinations and delusions are highly prevalent in Parkinson’s disease; as many as 60% of patients will develop psychosis over the course of their illness. Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist which targets 5-HT_2A serotonin receptors in the brain, decreasing their activity in order to attenuate hallucinations and delusions.

“Pimavanserin has been approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] for Parkinson’s disease psychosis, but its safety has been called into question based on previous reports of increased mortality risk, compared with a rather modest benefit seen in a 6-week clinical trial, the duration of which limits determination of long-term safety,” wrote Dr. Ali.

Pimavanserin carries a boxed warning that elderly patients with dementia may be at an increased risk of death. After its approval in 2016, the U.S. FDA later reviewed 893 deaths in association with pimavanserin during the postmarketing surveillance period – “an unexpected number in a new drug,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues noted. “It [the FDA] noted that most reports occurred in a population with high underlying death rates and did not signal any additional risk beyond the current warning for all antipsychotics, which could have resulted in annual mortality rates of up to 60%.”

As the first cohort study to examine hospitalization and death between pimavanserin users and nonusers, “the study confirms previous concerns regarding safety of pimavanserin and more importantly brings to attention the importance of carefully considering risks and benefits of pharmacotherapy in Parkinson’s disease psychosis, clear communication with patients and families, and close observation to ensure safety,” wrote Dr. Ali.

The study limitations include its observational design, which subjected the findings to residual confounding.

“While we developed models to maximize the strength of causal inference, our comparison group was pimavanserin nonusers and the very reason for prescription of pimavanserin could have predisposed its users to the outcomes of hospitalization and death, introducing confounding by indication,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues wrote in the paper.

Additionally, “while robust analyses were conducted to ensure pimavanserin users and nonusers were comparable, Dr. Hwang et al. did find that pimavanserin users were more likely to concomitantly use other antipsychotic drugs which has been demonstrated as increasing the mortality risk,” Dr. Ali pointed out.

Since patients living in long-term care facilities may have a higher risk of mortality because of more severe or later-stage Parkinson’s disease, the study results “may not be generalizable to community-dwelling PD patients,” Dr. Ali wrote. “These factors are important to consider while making individual management decisions.”

Dr. Hwang and Dr. Ali disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study authors reported no targeted funding.

Pimavanserin, a novel antipsychotic drug used to manage hallucinations and delusions in Parkinson’s disease, may lead to increased hospitalizations and deaths, according to a new study.

A retrospective cohort study of elderly patients with Parkinson’s disease who were in long-term care facilities found that the use of pimavanserin (Nuplazid) was associated with an increased risk of 30-day hospitalization and mortality for up to a year.

“Given that a previous study showed typical and atypical antipsychotics more than doubled mortality risk in patients with Parkinson’s disease, we aimed to assess the risk of hospitalization and death associated with pimavanserin,” wrote lead author Y. Joseph Hwang, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues in the paper. “These findings, in a large real-world cohort within long-term care facilities, may help to inform decisions regarding its risk-benefit balance among patients with Parkinson’s disease.”

The findings were published online Aug. 13 in Neurology.

The researchers enrolled 2,186 patients with Parkinson’s disease aged 65 years and older in Medicare-certified long-term care facilities who also had a pimavanserin prescription and 18,212 nonusers of pimavanserin between Nov. 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Patients in the pimavanserin group used the drug over the course of the entire study period. Hospitalization and mortality were calculated from the date of pimavanserin prescription. Propensity score–based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the two groups on 24 baseline characteristics such as age, sex, and comorbidities.

Pimavanserin use was associated with a 24% higher risk of 30-day hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.43). However, “the association did not reach statistical significance in a smaller subcohort of propensity score-matched users and nonusers,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues wrote.

Pimavanserin use was also linked to higher mortality at:

• 90 days (aHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41).
• 180 days (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45).
• 365 days (aHR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.42-1.72).

No associations were found between pimavanserin use and 90-day hospitalization (aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.99-1.24) nor with 30-day mortality (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56-1.03).
 

Important considerations

“This study raises three important points to consider for any practicing neurology provider: 1) how to address and interpret risks associated with pimavanserin use in this patient population 2) utility of pimavanserin 3) interpretation of data showing increased mortality in patients being treated for Parkinson’s disease psychosis,” wrote Farwa Ali, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., in an accompanying editorial published in Neurology.

Hallucinations and delusions are highly prevalent in Parkinson’s disease; as many as 60% of patients will develop psychosis over the course of their illness. Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist which targets 5-HT_2A serotonin receptors in the brain, decreasing their activity in order to attenuate hallucinations and delusions.

“Pimavanserin has been approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] for Parkinson’s disease psychosis, but its safety has been called into question based on previous reports of increased mortality risk, compared with a rather modest benefit seen in a 6-week clinical trial, the duration of which limits determination of long-term safety,” wrote Dr. Ali.

Pimavanserin carries a boxed warning that elderly patients with dementia may be at an increased risk of death. After its approval in 2016, the U.S. FDA later reviewed 893 deaths in association with pimavanserin during the postmarketing surveillance period – “an unexpected number in a new drug,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues noted. “It [the FDA] noted that most reports occurred in a population with high underlying death rates and did not signal any additional risk beyond the current warning for all antipsychotics, which could have resulted in annual mortality rates of up to 60%.”

As the first cohort study to examine hospitalization and death between pimavanserin users and nonusers, “the study confirms previous concerns regarding safety of pimavanserin and more importantly brings to attention the importance of carefully considering risks and benefits of pharmacotherapy in Parkinson’s disease psychosis, clear communication with patients and families, and close observation to ensure safety,” wrote Dr. Ali.

The study limitations include its observational design, which subjected the findings to residual confounding.

“While we developed models to maximize the strength of causal inference, our comparison group was pimavanserin nonusers and the very reason for prescription of pimavanserin could have predisposed its users to the outcomes of hospitalization and death, introducing confounding by indication,” Dr. Hwang and colleagues wrote in the paper.

Additionally, “while robust analyses were conducted to ensure pimavanserin users and nonusers were comparable, Dr. Hwang et al. did find that pimavanserin users were more likely to concomitantly use other antipsychotic drugs which has been demonstrated as increasing the mortality risk,” Dr. Ali pointed out.

Since patients living in long-term care facilities may have a higher risk of mortality because of more severe or later-stage Parkinson’s disease, the study results “may not be generalizable to community-dwelling PD patients,” Dr. Ali wrote. “These factors are important to consider while making individual management decisions.”

Dr. Hwang and Dr. Ali disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study authors reported no targeted funding.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most commonly and newly diagnosed nonskin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the United States. About 191,930 cases and about 33,330 deaths from PC were expected for the year 2020.¹ About 1 in 41 men will die of PC. Most men diagnosed with PC are aged > 65 years and do not die of their disease. The 5-year survival rate of localized and regional disease is nearly 100%, and disease with distant metastases is 31%. As a result, more than 3.1 million men in the United States who have been diagnosed with PC are still alive today.¹ Among veterans, there is a substantial population living with PC. Skolarus and Hawley reported in 2014 that an estimated 200,000 veterans with PC were survivors and 12,000 were newly diagnosed.²

In PC, skeletal strength can be affected by several factors, such as aging, malnutrition, androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and bone metastasis.^3,4 In fact, most men can live the rest of their life with PC by using strategies to monitor and treat it, once it shows either radiographic or chemical signs of progression.⁵ ADT is the standard of care to treat hormone-sensitive PC, which is associated with significant skeletal-related adverse effects (AEs).^6,7

Men undergoing ADT are 4 times more likely to develop substantial bone deficiency, Shahinian and colleagues found that in men surviving 5 years after PC diagnosis, 19.4% of those who received ADT had a fracture compared with 12% in men who did not (P < .001). The authors established a significant relation between the number of doses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone given in the first 12 months and the risk of fracture.⁸ Of those who progressed to metastatic disease, the first metastatic nonnodal site is most commonly to the bone.⁹ Advanced PC is characterized by increased bone turnover, which further raises concerns for bone health and patient performance.¹⁰

Skeletal-related events (SREs) include pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, palliative radiation, or surgery to bone, and change in antineoplastic therapy secondary to bone pain. The concept of bone health refers to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of idiopathic, pathogenic, and treatment-related bone loss and delay or prevention of SREs.^6,11 Guidelines and expert groups have recommended screening for osteoporosis at the start of ADT with bone mineral density testing, ensuring adequate calcium and vitamin D intake, modifying lifestyle behaviors (smoking cessation, alcohol moderation, and regular exercise), and prescribing bisphosphonates or receptor-activated nuclear factor κ-B ligand inhibitor, denosumab, for men with osteoporosis or who are at general high-fracture risk.^12,13 The overuse of these medications results in undue cost to patients as well as AEs, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), hypocalcemia, and bone/joint pains.^14-17 There are evidence-based guidelines for appropriate use of bisphosphonates and denosumab for delay and prevention of SREs in the setting of advanced PC.¹⁸ These doses also typically differ in frequency to those of osteoporosis.¹⁹ We summarize the evidence and guidance for health care providers who care for patients with PC at various stages and complications from both disease-related and treatment-related comorbidities.

Bone-Strengthening Agents

Overall, there is evidence to support the use of bone-strengthening agents in patients with osteopenia/osteoporosis in the prevention of SREs with significant risk factors for progressive bone demineralization, such as lifestyle factors and, in particular, treatments such as ADT. Bone-remodeling agents for treatment of bony metastasis have been shown to provide therapeutic advantage only in limited instances in the castration-resistant PC (CRPC) setting. Hence, in patients with hormone-sensitive PC due to medication-related AEs, treatment with bone-strengthening agents is indicated only if the patient has a significant preexisting risk for fracture from osteopenia/osteoporosis (Table). The Figure depicts an algorithm for the management of bone health in men with PC who are being treated with ADT.

Denosumab and bisphosphonates have an established role in preventing SREs in metastatic CRPC.²⁰ The choice of denosumab or a bisphosphonate typically varies based on the indication, possible AEs, and cost of therapy. There are multiple studies involving initiation of these agents at various stages of disease to improve both time to progression as well as management of SREs. There is a lack of evidence that bisphosphonates prevent metastatic-bone lesions in castration-sensitive PC; therefore, prophylactic use of this agent is not recommended in patients unless they have significant bone demineralization.^21,22

Bone Health in Patients

Nonmetastatic Hormone-Sensitive PC

ADT forms the backbone of treatment for patients with local and advanced metastatic castration-sensitive PC along with surgical and focal radiotherapy options. Cancer treatment-induced bone loss is known to occur with prolonged use of ADT. The ZEUS trial found no prevention of bone metastasis in patients with high-risk localized PC with the use of ZA in the absence of bone metastasis. A Kaplan-Meier estimated proportion of bone metastases after a median follow-up of 4.8 years was found to be not statistically significant: 14.7% in the ZA group vs 13.2% in the control/placebo group.²⁹ The STAMPEDE trial showed no significant overall survival (OS) benefit with the addition of ZA to ADT vs ADT alone (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.11; P = .45), 5-year survival with ADT alone was 55% compared to ADT plus ZA with 57% 5-year survival.³⁰ The RADAR trial showed that at 5 years in high Gleason score patients, use of ZA in the absence of bone metastasis was beneficial, but not in low- or intermediate-risk patients. However, at 10-year analysis there was no significant difference in any of the high-stratified groups with or without ZA.³¹

The PR04 trial showed no effect on OS with clodronate compared with placebo in nonmetastatic castration-sensitive PC, with a HR of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.89-1.42; P = .94). The estimated 5-year survival was 80% with placebo and 78% with clodronate; 10-year survival rates were 51% with placebo and 48% with clodronate.³² Data from the HALT trial showed an increased bone mineral density and reduced risk of new vertebral fractures vs placebo (1.5% vs 3.9%, respectively) in the absence of metastatic bone lesions and a reduction in new vertebral fractures in patients with nonmetastatic PC.³³ Most of these studies showed no benefit with the addition of ZA to nonmetastatic PC; although, the HALT trial provides evidence to support use of denosumab in patients with nonmetastatic PC for preventing vertebral fragility fractures in men receiving ADT.

Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive PC

ZA is often used to treat men with metastatic castration-sensitive PC despite limited efficacy and safety data. The CALGB 90202 (Alliance) trial authors found that the early use of ZA was not associated with increased time to first SRE. The median time to first SRE was 31.9 months in the ZA group (95% CI, 24.2-40.3) and 29.8 months in the placebo group (stratified HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0-1.17; 1-sided stratified log-rank P = .39).³⁴ OS was similar between the groups (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12; P = .29) as were reported AEs.³⁴ Results from these studies suggest limited benefit in treating patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC with bisphosphonates without other medical indications for use. Additional studies suggest similar results for treatment with denosumab to that of bisphosphonate therapies.³⁵

Nonmetastatic CRPC

Reasonable interest among treating clinicians exists to be able to delay or prevent the development of metastatic bone disease in patients who are showing biochemical signs of castration resistance but have not yet developed distant metastatic disease. Time to progression on ADT to castration resistance usually occurs 2 to 3 years following initiation of treatment. This typically occurs in patients with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA). As per the Prostate Cancer Working Group 3, in the absence of radiologic progression, CRPC is defined by a 25% increase from the nadir (considering a starting value of ≥ 1 ng/mL), with a minimum rise of 2 ng/mL in the setting of castrate serum testosterone < 50 ng/dL despite good adherence to an ADT regimen, with proven serologic castration either by undetectable or a near undetectable nadir of serum testosterone concentration. Therapeutic implications include prevention of SREs as well as time to metastatic bone lesions. The Zometa 704 trial examined the use of ZA to reduce time to first metastatic bone lesion in the setting of patients with nonmetastatic CRPC.³⁶ The trial was discontinued prematurely due to low patient accrual, but initial analysis provided information on the natural history of a rising PSA in this patient population. At 2 years, one-third of patients had developed bone metastases. Median bone metastasis-free survival was 30 months. Median time to first bone metastasis and OS were not reached. Baseline PSA and PSA velocity independently predicted a shorter time to first bone metastasis, metastasis-free survival, and OS.³⁶

Denosumab was also studied in the setting of nonmetastatic CRPC in the Denosumab 147 trial. The study enrolled 1432 patients and found a significantly increased bone metastasis-free survival by a median of 4.2 months over placebo (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; P = .03). Denosumab significantly delayed time to first bone metastasis (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; P = .03). OS was similar between groups (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85-1.20; P = .91). Rates of AEs and serious AEs were similar between groups, except for ONJ and hypocalcemia. The rates of ONJ for denosumab were 1%, 3%, 4% in years 1,2, 3, respectively; overall, < 5% (n = 33). Hypocalcemia occurred in < 2% (n = 12) in denosumab-treated patients. The authors concluded that in men with CRPC, denosumab significantly prolonged bone metastasis–free survival and delayed time-to-bone metastasis.³⁷ These 2 studies suggest a role of receptor-activated nuclear factor κ-B ligand inhibitor denosumab in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC in the appropriate setting. There were delays in bony metastatic disease, but no difference in OS. Rare denosumab treatment–related specific AEs were noted. Hence, denosumab is not recommended for use in this setting.

Metastatic CRPC

Castration resistance typically occurs 2 to 3 years following initiation of ADT and the most common extranodal site of disease is within the bone in metastatic PC. Disease progression within bones after ADT can be challenging given both the nature of progressive cancer with osteoblastic metastatic lesions and the prolonged effects of ADT on unaffected bone. The Zometa 039 study compared ZA with placebo and found a significant difference in SREs (38% and 49%, respectively; P .03). No survival benefit was observed with the addition of ZA. Use of other bisphosphonates pamidronate and clodronate did not have a similar degree of benefit.^38,39

A phase 3 study of 1904 patients found that denosumab was superior to ZA in delaying the time to first on-study SRE (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95) and reducing rates of multiple SREs (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94).⁴⁰ This was later confirmed with an additional study that demonstrated treatment with denosumab significantly reduced the risk of developing a first symptomatic SRE, defined as a pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, necessity for radiation, or surgery (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; P = .005) and first and subsequent symptomatic SREs (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92; P = .004) compared with ZA.²⁸ These findings suggest a continued role of denosumab in the treatment of advanced metastatic CRPC from both control of bone disease as well as quality of life and palliation of cancer-related symptoms.

Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) is an α-emitting radionuclide for treatment of metastatic CRPC with bone metastasis, but otherwise no additional metastatic sites. Radium-223 is a calcium-mimetic that preferentially accumulates into areas of high-bone turnover, such as where bone metastases tend to occur. Radium-223 induces apoptosis of tumor cells through double-stranded DNA breaks. Studies have shown radium-223 to prolong OS and time-to-first symptomatic SRE.⁴¹ The ERA-223 trial showed that when radium-223 was combined with abiraterone acetate, there was an increase in fragility fracture risk compared with placebo combined with abiraterone. Data from the study revealed that the median symptomatic SRE-free survival was 22.3 months (95% CI, 20.4-24.8) in the radium-223 group and 26.0 months (21.8-28.3) in the placebo group. Concurrent treatment with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone and radium-223 was associated with increased fracture risk. Osteoporotic fractures were the most common type of fracture in the radium-223 group and of all fracture types, differed the most between the study groups.⁴²

Conclusions

Convincing evidence supports the ongoing use of bisphosphonates and denosumab in patients with osteoporosis, significant osteopenia with risk factors, and in patients with CRPC with bone metastasis. Bone metastases can cause considerable morbidity and mortality among men with advanced PC. Pain, fracture, and neurologic injury can occur with metastatic bone lesions as well as with ADT-related bone loss. Prevention of SREs in patients with PC is a reasonable goal in PC survivors while being mindful of managing the risks of these therapies.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most commonly and newly diagnosed nonskin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the United States. About 191,930 cases and about 33,330 deaths from PC were expected for the year 2020.¹ About 1 in 41 men will die of PC. Most men diagnosed with PC are aged > 65 years and do not die of their disease. The 5-year survival rate of localized and regional disease is nearly 100%, and disease with distant metastases is 31%. As a result, more than 3.1 million men in the United States who have been diagnosed with PC are still alive today.¹ Among veterans, there is a substantial population living with PC. Skolarus and Hawley reported in 2014 that an estimated 200,000 veterans with PC were survivors and 12,000 were newly diagnosed.²

In PC, skeletal strength can be affected by several factors, such as aging, malnutrition, androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and bone metastasis.^3,4 In fact, most men can live the rest of their life with PC by using strategies to monitor and treat it, once it shows either radiographic or chemical signs of progression.⁵ ADT is the standard of care to treat hormone-sensitive PC, which is associated with significant skeletal-related adverse effects (AEs).^6,7

Men undergoing ADT are 4 times more likely to develop substantial bone deficiency, Shahinian and colleagues found that in men surviving 5 years after PC diagnosis, 19.4% of those who received ADT had a fracture compared with 12% in men who did not (P < .001). The authors established a significant relation between the number of doses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone given in the first 12 months and the risk of fracture.⁸ Of those who progressed to metastatic disease, the first metastatic nonnodal site is most commonly to the bone.⁹ Advanced PC is characterized by increased bone turnover, which further raises concerns for bone health and patient performance.¹⁰

Skeletal-related events (SREs) include pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, palliative radiation, or surgery to bone, and change in antineoplastic therapy secondary to bone pain. The concept of bone health refers to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of idiopathic, pathogenic, and treatment-related bone loss and delay or prevention of SREs.^6,11 Guidelines and expert groups have recommended screening for osteoporosis at the start of ADT with bone mineral density testing, ensuring adequate calcium and vitamin D intake, modifying lifestyle behaviors (smoking cessation, alcohol moderation, and regular exercise), and prescribing bisphosphonates or receptor-activated nuclear factor κ-B ligand inhibitor, denosumab, for men with osteoporosis or who are at general high-fracture risk.^12,13 The overuse of these medications results in undue cost to patients as well as AEs, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), hypocalcemia, and bone/joint pains.^14-17 There are evidence-based guidelines for appropriate use of bisphosphonates and denosumab for delay and prevention of SREs in the setting of advanced PC.¹⁸ These doses also typically differ in frequency to those of osteoporosis.¹⁹ We summarize the evidence and guidance for health care providers who care for patients with PC at various stages and complications from both disease-related and treatment-related comorbidities.

Bone-Strengthening Agents

Overall, there is evidence to support the use of bone-strengthening agents in patients with osteopenia/osteoporosis in the prevention of SREs with significant risk factors for progressive bone demineralization, such as lifestyle factors and, in particular, treatments such as ADT. Bone-remodeling agents for treatment of bony metastasis have been shown to provide therapeutic advantage only in limited instances in the castration-resistant PC (CRPC) setting. Hence, in patients with hormone-sensitive PC due to medication-related AEs, treatment with bone-strengthening agents is indicated only if the patient has a significant preexisting risk for fracture from osteopenia/osteoporosis (Table). The Figure depicts an algorithm for the management of bone health in men with PC who are being treated with ADT.

Denosumab and bisphosphonates have an established role in preventing SREs in metastatic CRPC.²⁰ The choice of denosumab or a bisphosphonate typically varies based on the indication, possible AEs, and cost of therapy. There are multiple studies involving initiation of these agents at various stages of disease to improve both time to progression as well as management of SREs. There is a lack of evidence that bisphosphonates prevent metastatic-bone lesions in castration-sensitive PC; therefore, prophylactic use of this agent is not recommended in patients unless they have significant bone demineralization.^21,22

Bone Health in Patients

Nonmetastatic Hormone-Sensitive PC

ADT forms the backbone of treatment for patients with local and advanced metastatic castration-sensitive PC along with surgical and focal radiotherapy options. Cancer treatment-induced bone loss is known to occur with prolonged use of ADT. The ZEUS trial found no prevention of bone metastasis in patients with high-risk localized PC with the use of ZA in the absence of bone metastasis. A Kaplan-Meier estimated proportion of bone metastases after a median follow-up of 4.8 years was found to be not statistically significant: 14.7% in the ZA group vs 13.2% in the control/placebo group.²⁹ The STAMPEDE trial showed no significant overall survival (OS) benefit with the addition of ZA to ADT vs ADT alone (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.11; P = .45), 5-year survival with ADT alone was 55% compared to ADT plus ZA with 57% 5-year survival.³⁰ The RADAR trial showed that at 5 years in high Gleason score patients, use of ZA in the absence of bone metastasis was beneficial, but not in low- or intermediate-risk patients. However, at 10-year analysis there was no significant difference in any of the high-stratified groups with or without ZA.³¹

The PR04 trial showed no effect on OS with clodronate compared with placebo in nonmetastatic castration-sensitive PC, with a HR of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.89-1.42; P = .94). The estimated 5-year survival was 80% with placebo and 78% with clodronate; 10-year survival rates were 51% with placebo and 48% with clodronate.³² Data from the HALT trial showed an increased bone mineral density and reduced risk of new vertebral fractures vs placebo (1.5% vs 3.9%, respectively) in the absence of metastatic bone lesions and a reduction in new vertebral fractures in patients with nonmetastatic PC.³³ Most of these studies showed no benefit with the addition of ZA to nonmetastatic PC; although, the HALT trial provides evidence to support use of denosumab in patients with nonmetastatic PC for preventing vertebral fragility fractures in men receiving ADT.

Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive PC

ZA is often used to treat men with metastatic castration-sensitive PC despite limited efficacy and safety data. The CALGB 90202 (Alliance) trial authors found that the early use of ZA was not associated with increased time to first SRE. The median time to first SRE was 31.9 months in the ZA group (95% CI, 24.2-40.3) and 29.8 months in the placebo group (stratified HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0-1.17; 1-sided stratified log-rank P = .39).³⁴ OS was similar between the groups (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12; P = .29) as were reported AEs.³⁴ Results from these studies suggest limited benefit in treating patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC with bisphosphonates without other medical indications for use. Additional studies suggest similar results for treatment with denosumab to that of bisphosphonate therapies.³⁵

Nonmetastatic CRPC

Reasonable interest among treating clinicians exists to be able to delay or prevent the development of metastatic bone disease in patients who are showing biochemical signs of castration resistance but have not yet developed distant metastatic disease. Time to progression on ADT to castration resistance usually occurs 2 to 3 years following initiation of treatment. This typically occurs in patients with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA). As per the Prostate Cancer Working Group 3, in the absence of radiologic progression, CRPC is defined by a 25% increase from the nadir (considering a starting value of ≥ 1 ng/mL), with a minimum rise of 2 ng/mL in the setting of castrate serum testosterone < 50 ng/dL despite good adherence to an ADT regimen, with proven serologic castration either by undetectable or a near undetectable nadir of serum testosterone concentration. Therapeutic implications include prevention of SREs as well as time to metastatic bone lesions. The Zometa 704 trial examined the use of ZA to reduce time to first metastatic bone lesion in the setting of patients with nonmetastatic CRPC.³⁶ The trial was discontinued prematurely due to low patient accrual, but initial analysis provided information on the natural history of a rising PSA in this patient population. At 2 years, one-third of patients had developed bone metastases. Median bone metastasis-free survival was 30 months. Median time to first bone metastasis and OS were not reached. Baseline PSA and PSA velocity independently predicted a shorter time to first bone metastasis, metastasis-free survival, and OS.³⁶

Denosumab was also studied in the setting of nonmetastatic CRPC in the Denosumab 147 trial. The study enrolled 1432 patients and found a significantly increased bone metastasis-free survival by a median of 4.2 months over placebo (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; P = .03). Denosumab significantly delayed time to first bone metastasis (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; P = .03). OS was similar between groups (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85-1.20; P = .91). Rates of AEs and serious AEs were similar between groups, except for ONJ and hypocalcemia. The rates of ONJ for denosumab were 1%, 3%, 4% in years 1,2, 3, respectively; overall, < 5% (n = 33). Hypocalcemia occurred in < 2% (n = 12) in denosumab-treated patients. The authors concluded that in men with CRPC, denosumab significantly prolonged bone metastasis–free survival and delayed time-to-bone metastasis.³⁷ These 2 studies suggest a role of receptor-activated nuclear factor κ-B ligand inhibitor denosumab in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC in the appropriate setting. There were delays in bony metastatic disease, but no difference in OS. Rare denosumab treatment–related specific AEs were noted. Hence, denosumab is not recommended for use in this setting.

Metastatic CRPC

Castration resistance typically occurs 2 to 3 years following initiation of ADT and the most common extranodal site of disease is within the bone in metastatic PC. Disease progression within bones after ADT can be challenging given both the nature of progressive cancer with osteoblastic metastatic lesions and the prolonged effects of ADT on unaffected bone. The Zometa 039 study compared ZA with placebo and found a significant difference in SREs (38% and 49%, respectively; P .03). No survival benefit was observed with the addition of ZA. Use of other bisphosphonates pamidronate and clodronate did not have a similar degree of benefit.^38,39

A phase 3 study of 1904 patients found that denosumab was superior to ZA in delaying the time to first on-study SRE (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95) and reducing rates of multiple SREs (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94).⁴⁰ This was later confirmed with an additional study that demonstrated treatment with denosumab significantly reduced the risk of developing a first symptomatic SRE, defined as a pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, necessity for radiation, or surgery (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; P = .005) and first and subsequent symptomatic SREs (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92; P = .004) compared with ZA.²⁸ These findings suggest a continued role of denosumab in the treatment of advanced metastatic CRPC from both control of bone disease as well as quality of life and palliation of cancer-related symptoms.

Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) is an α-emitting radionuclide for treatment of metastatic CRPC with bone metastasis, but otherwise no additional metastatic sites. Radium-223 is a calcium-mimetic that preferentially accumulates into areas of high-bone turnover, such as where bone metastases tend to occur. Radium-223 induces apoptosis of tumor cells through double-stranded DNA breaks. Studies have shown radium-223 to prolong OS and time-to-first symptomatic SRE.⁴¹ The ERA-223 trial showed that when radium-223 was combined with abiraterone acetate, there was an increase in fragility fracture risk compared with placebo combined with abiraterone. Data from the study revealed that the median symptomatic SRE-free survival was 22.3 months (95% CI, 20.4-24.8) in the radium-223 group and 26.0 months (21.8-28.3) in the placebo group. Concurrent treatment with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone and radium-223 was associated with increased fracture risk. Osteoporotic fractures were the most common type of fracture in the radium-223 group and of all fracture types, differed the most between the study groups.⁴²

Conclusions

Convincing evidence supports the ongoing use of bisphosphonates and denosumab in patients with osteoporosis, significant osteopenia with risk factors, and in patients with CRPC with bone metastasis. Bone metastases can cause considerable morbidity and mortality among men with advanced PC. Pain, fracture, and neurologic injury can occur with metastatic bone lesions as well as with ADT-related bone loss. Prevention of SREs in patients with PC is a reasonable goal in PC survivors while being mindful of managing the risks of these therapies.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most commonly and newly diagnosed nonskin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the United States. About 191,930 cases and about 33,330 deaths from PC were expected for the year 2020.¹ About 1 in 41 men will die of PC. Most men diagnosed with PC are aged > 65 years and do not die of their disease. The 5-year survival rate of localized and regional disease is nearly 100%, and disease with distant metastases is 31%. As a result, more than 3.1 million men in the United States who have been diagnosed with PC are still alive today.¹ Among veterans, there is a substantial population living with PC. Skolarus and Hawley reported in 2014 that an estimated 200,000 veterans with PC were survivors and 12,000 were newly diagnosed.²

In PC, skeletal strength can be affected by several factors, such as aging, malnutrition, androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and bone metastasis.^3,4 In fact, most men can live the rest of their life with PC by using strategies to monitor and treat it, once it shows either radiographic or chemical signs of progression.⁵ ADT is the standard of care to treat hormone-sensitive PC, which is associated with significant skeletal-related adverse effects (AEs).^6,7

Men undergoing ADT are 4 times more likely to develop substantial bone deficiency, Shahinian and colleagues found that in men surviving 5 years after PC diagnosis, 19.4% of those who received ADT had a fracture compared with 12% in men who did not (P < .001). The authors established a significant relation between the number of doses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone given in the first 12 months and the risk of fracture.⁸ Of those who progressed to metastatic disease, the first metastatic nonnodal site is most commonly to the bone.⁹ Advanced PC is characterized by increased bone turnover, which further raises concerns for bone health and patient performance.¹⁰

Skeletal-related events (SREs) include pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, palliative radiation, or surgery to bone, and change in antineoplastic therapy secondary to bone pain. The concept of bone health refers to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of idiopathic, pathogenic, and treatment-related bone loss and delay or prevention of SREs.^6,11 Guidelines and expert groups have recommended screening for osteoporosis at the start of ADT with bone mineral density testing, ensuring adequate calcium and vitamin D intake, modifying lifestyle behaviors (smoking cessation, alcohol moderation, and regular exercise), and prescribing bisphosphonates or receptor-activated nuclear factor κ-B ligand inhibitor, denosumab, for men with osteoporosis or who are at general high-fracture risk.^12,13 The overuse of these medications results in undue cost to patients as well as AEs, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), hypocalcemia, and bone/joint pains.^14-17 There are evidence-based guidelines for appropriate use of bisphosphonates and denosumab for delay and prevention of SREs in the setting of advanced PC.¹⁸ These doses also typically differ in frequency to those of osteoporosis.¹⁹ We summarize the evidence and guidance for health care providers who care for patients with PC at various stages and complications from both disease-related and treatment-related comorbidities.

Bone-Strengthening Agents

Overall, there is evidence to support the use of bone-strengthening agents in patients with osteopenia/osteoporosis in the prevention of SREs with significant risk factors for progressive bone demineralization, such as lifestyle factors and, in particular, treatments such as ADT. Bone-remodeling agents for treatment of bony metastasis have been shown to provide therapeutic advantage only in limited instances in the castration-resistant PC (CRPC) setting. Hence, in patients with hormone-sensitive PC due to medication-related AEs, treatment with bone-strengthening agents is indicated only if the patient has a significant preexisting risk for fracture from osteopenia/osteoporosis (Table). The Figure depicts an algorithm for the management of bone health in men with PC who are being treated with ADT.

Denosumab and bisphosphonates have an established role in preventing SREs in metastatic CRPC.²⁰ The choice of denosumab or a bisphosphonate typically varies based on the indication, possible AEs, and cost of therapy. There are multiple studies involving initiation of these agents at various stages of disease to improve both time to progression as well as management of SREs. There is a lack of evidence that bisphosphonates prevent metastatic-bone lesions in castration-sensitive PC; therefore, prophylactic use of this agent is not recommended in patients unless they have significant bone demineralization.^21,22

Bone Health in Patients

Nonmetastatic Hormone-Sensitive PC

ADT forms the backbone of treatment for patients with local and advanced metastatic castration-sensitive PC along with surgical and focal radiotherapy options. Cancer treatment-induced bone loss is known to occur with prolonged use of ADT. The ZEUS trial found no prevention of bone metastasis in patients with high-risk localized PC with the use of ZA in the absence of bone metastasis. A Kaplan-Meier estimated proportion of bone metastases after a median follow-up of 4.8 years was found to be not statistically significant: 14.7% in the ZA group vs 13.2% in the control/placebo group.²⁹ The STAMPEDE trial showed no significant overall survival (OS) benefit with the addition of ZA to ADT vs ADT alone (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.11; P = .45), 5-year survival with ADT alone was 55% compared to ADT plus ZA with 57% 5-year survival.³⁰ The RADAR trial showed that at 5 years in high Gleason score patients, use of ZA in the absence of bone metastasis was beneficial, but not in low- or intermediate-risk patients. However, at 10-year analysis there was no significant difference in any of the high-stratified groups with or without ZA.³¹

The PR04 trial showed no effect on OS with clodronate compared with placebo in nonmetastatic castration-sensitive PC, with a HR of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.89-1.42; P = .94). The estimated 5-year survival was 80% with placebo and 78% with clodronate; 10-year survival rates were 51% with placebo and 48% with clodronate.³² Data from the HALT trial showed an increased bone mineral density and reduced risk of new vertebral fractures vs placebo (1.5% vs 3.9%, respectively) in the absence of metastatic bone lesions and a reduction in new vertebral fractures in patients with nonmetastatic PC.³³ Most of these studies showed no benefit with the addition of ZA to nonmetastatic PC; although, the HALT trial provides evidence to support use of denosumab in patients with nonmetastatic PC for preventing vertebral fragility fractures in men receiving ADT.

Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive PC

ZA is often used to treat men with metastatic castration-sensitive PC despite limited efficacy and safety data. The CALGB 90202 (Alliance) trial authors found that the early use of ZA was not associated with increased time to first SRE. The median time to first SRE was 31.9 months in the ZA group (95% CI, 24.2-40.3) and 29.8 months in the placebo group (stratified HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0-1.17; 1-sided stratified log-rank P = .39).³⁴ OS was similar between the groups (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12; P = .29) as were reported AEs.³⁴ Results from these studies suggest limited benefit in treating patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC with bisphosphonates without other medical indications for use. Additional studies suggest similar results for treatment with denosumab to that of bisphosphonate therapies.³⁵

Nonmetastatic CRPC

Reasonable interest among treating clinicians exists to be able to delay or prevent the development of metastatic bone disease in patients who are showing biochemical signs of castration resistance but have not yet developed distant metastatic disease. Time to progression on ADT to castration resistance usually occurs 2 to 3 years following initiation of treatment. This typically occurs in patients with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA). As per the Prostate Cancer Working Group 3, in the absence of radiologic progression, CRPC is defined by a 25% increase from the nadir (considering a starting value of ≥ 1 ng/mL), with a minimum rise of 2 ng/mL in the setting of castrate serum testosterone < 50 ng/dL despite good adherence to an ADT regimen, with proven serologic castration either by undetectable or a near undetectable nadir of serum testosterone concentration. Therapeutic implications include prevention of SREs as well as time to metastatic bone lesions. The Zometa 704 trial examined the use of ZA to reduce time to first metastatic bone lesion in the setting of patients with nonmetastatic CRPC.³⁶ The trial was discontinued prematurely due to low patient accrual, but initial analysis provided information on the natural history of a rising PSA in this patient population. At 2 years, one-third of patients had developed bone metastases. Median bone metastasis-free survival was 30 months. Median time to first bone metastasis and OS were not reached. Baseline PSA and PSA velocity independently predicted a shorter time to first bone metastasis, metastasis-free survival, and OS.³⁶

Denosumab was also studied in the setting of nonmetastatic CRPC in the Denosumab 147 trial. The study enrolled 1432 patients and found a significantly increased bone metastasis-free survival by a median of 4.2 months over placebo (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; P = .03). Denosumab significantly delayed time to first bone metastasis (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; P = .03). OS was similar between groups (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85-1.20; P = .91). Rates of AEs and serious AEs were similar between groups, except for ONJ and hypocalcemia. The rates of ONJ for denosumab were 1%, 3%, 4% in years 1,2, 3, respectively; overall, < 5% (n = 33). Hypocalcemia occurred in < 2% (n = 12) in denosumab-treated patients. The authors concluded that in men with CRPC, denosumab significantly prolonged bone metastasis–free survival and delayed time-to-bone metastasis.³⁷ These 2 studies suggest a role of receptor-activated nuclear factor κ-B ligand inhibitor denosumab in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC in the appropriate setting. There were delays in bony metastatic disease, but no difference in OS. Rare denosumab treatment–related specific AEs were noted. Hence, denosumab is not recommended for use in this setting.

Metastatic CRPC

Castration resistance typically occurs 2 to 3 years following initiation of ADT and the most common extranodal site of disease is within the bone in metastatic PC. Disease progression within bones after ADT can be challenging given both the nature of progressive cancer with osteoblastic metastatic lesions and the prolonged effects of ADT on unaffected bone. The Zometa 039 study compared ZA with placebo and found a significant difference in SREs (38% and 49%, respectively; P .03). No survival benefit was observed with the addition of ZA. Use of other bisphosphonates pamidronate and clodronate did not have a similar degree of benefit.^38,39

A phase 3 study of 1904 patients found that denosumab was superior to ZA in delaying the time to first on-study SRE (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95) and reducing rates of multiple SREs (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94).⁴⁰ This was later confirmed with an additional study that demonstrated treatment with denosumab significantly reduced the risk of developing a first symptomatic SRE, defined as a pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, necessity for radiation, or surgery (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; P = .005) and first and subsequent symptomatic SREs (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92; P = .004) compared with ZA.²⁸ These findings suggest a continued role of denosumab in the treatment of advanced metastatic CRPC from both control of bone disease as well as quality of life and palliation of cancer-related symptoms.

Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) is an α-emitting radionuclide for treatment of metastatic CRPC with bone metastasis, but otherwise no additional metastatic sites. Radium-223 is a calcium-mimetic that preferentially accumulates into areas of high-bone turnover, such as where bone metastases tend to occur. Radium-223 induces apoptosis of tumor cells through double-stranded DNA breaks. Studies have shown radium-223 to prolong OS and time-to-first symptomatic SRE.⁴¹ The ERA-223 trial showed that when radium-223 was combined with abiraterone acetate, there was an increase in fragility fracture risk compared with placebo combined with abiraterone. Data from the study revealed that the median symptomatic SRE-free survival was 22.3 months (95% CI, 20.4-24.8) in the radium-223 group and 26.0 months (21.8-28.3) in the placebo group. Concurrent treatment with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone and radium-223 was associated with increased fracture risk. Osteoporotic fractures were the most common type of fracture in the radium-223 group and of all fracture types, differed the most between the study groups.⁴²

Conclusions

Convincing evidence supports the ongoing use of bisphosphonates and denosumab in patients with osteoporosis, significant osteopenia with risk factors, and in patients with CRPC with bone metastasis. Bone metastases can cause considerable morbidity and mortality among men with advanced PC. Pain, fracture, and neurologic injury can occur with metastatic bone lesions as well as with ADT-related bone loss. Prevention of SREs in patients with PC is a reasonable goal in PC survivors while being mindful of managing the risks of these therapies.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are an important but understudied aspect of treating patients diagnosed with cancer. Substance use can affect cancer treatment outcomes, including morbidity and mortality.^1,2 Additionally, patients with cancer and SUD may have unique psychosocial needs that require close attention and management. There is a paucity of data regarding the best approach to treating such patients. For example, cocaine use may increase the cardiovascular and hematologic risk of some traditional chemotherapy agents.^3,4 Newer targeted agents and immunotherapies remain understudied with respect to SUD risk.

Although the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has established helpful clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of SUD, there are no guidelines for treating patients with SUD and cancer.⁵ Clinicians have limited confidence in treatment approach, and treatment is inconsistent among oncologists nationwide even within the same practice. Furthermore, it can be challenging to safely prescribe opioids for cancer-related pain in individuals with SUD. There is a high risk of SUD and mental health disorders in veterans, making this population particularly vulnerable. We report a case of a male with metastatic pancreatic cancer, severe opioid use disorder (OUD) and moderate cocaine use disorder (CUD) who received pain management and cancer treatment under the direction of a multidisciplinary team approach.

Case Report

A 63-year-old male with a medical history of HIV treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), compensated cirrhosis, severe OUD, moderate CUD, and sedative use disorder in sustained remission was admitted to the West Haven campus of the VA Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) with abdominal pain, weight loss and fatigue. He used heroin 1 month prior to his admission and reported regular cocaine and marijuana use (Table 1). He was diagnosed with HIV in 1989, and his medical history included herpes zoster and oral candidiasis but no other opportunistic infections. Several months prior to this admission, he had an undetectable viral load and CD4 count of 688.

At the time of this admission, the patient was adherent to methadone treatment. He reported increased abdominal pain. Computed tomography (CT) showed a 2.4-cm mass in the pancreatic uncinate process, multiple liver metastases, retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy, and small lung nodules. A CT-guided liver biopsy showed adenocarcinoma consistent with a primary cancer of the pancreas. Given the complexity of the case, a multidisciplinary team approach was used to treat his cancer and the sequelae safely, including the oncology team, community living center team, palliative care team, and interprofessional opioid reassessment clinic team (ORC).

Cancer Treatment

Chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin calcium, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin) was recommended. The first cycle of treatment originally was planned for the outpatient setting, and a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line was placed. However, after a urine toxicology test was positive for cocaine, the PICC line was removed due to concern for possible use of PICC line for nonprescribed substance use. The patient expressed suicidal ideation at the time and was admitted for psychiatric consult and pain control. Cycle 1 FOLFIRINOX was started during this admission. A PICC line was again put in place and then removed before discharge. A celiac plexus block was performed several days after this admission for pain control.

Given concern about cocaine use increasing the risk of cardiac toxicity with FOLFIRINOX treatment, treating providers sconsulted with the community living center (CLC) about possible admission for future chemotherapy administration and pain management. The CLC at VACHS has 38 beds for rehabilitation, long-term care, and hospice with the mission to restore each veteran to his or her highest level of well-being. After discussion with this patient and CLC staff, he agreed to a CLC admission. The patient agreed to remain in the facility, wear a secure care device, and not leave without staff accompaniment. He was able to obtain a 2-hour pass to pay bills and rent. During the 2 months he was admitted to the CLC he would present to the VACHS Cancer Center for chemotherapy every 2 weeks. He completed 6 cycles of chemotherapy while admitted. During the admission, he was transferred to active medical service for 2 days for fever and malaise, and then returned to the CLC. The patient elected to leave the CLC after 2 months as the inability to see close friends was interfering with his quality of life.

Upon being discharged from the CLC, shared decision making took place with the patient to establish a new treatment plan. In collaboration with the patient, a plan was made to admit him every 2 weeks for continued chemotherapy. A PICC line was placed on each day of admission and removed prior to discharge. It was also agreed that treatment would be delayed if a urine drug test was positive for cocaine on the morning of admission. The patient was also seen by ORC every 2 weeks after being discharged from the CLC.

Imaging after cycle 6 showed decreased size of liver metastases, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, and pancreas mass. Cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) tumor marker was reduced from 3513 U/mL pretreatment to 50 U/mL after cycle 7. Chemotherapy cycle 7 was delayed 6 days due to active cocaine and heroin use. A repeat urine was obtained several days later, which was negative for cocaine, and he was admitted for cycle 7 chemotherapy. Using this treatment approach of admissions for every cycle, the patient was able to receive 11 cycles of FOLFIRINOX with clinical benefit.

Palliative Care/Pain Management

Safely treating the patient’s malignant pain in the context of his OUD was critically important. In order to do this the palliative care team worked closely alongside ORC, is a multidisciplinary team consisting of health care providers (HCPs) from addiction psychiatry, internal medicine, health psychology and pharmacy who are consulted to evaluate veterans’ current opioid regimens and make recommendations to optimize both safety and efficacy. ORC followed this particular veteran as an outpatient and consulted on pain issues during his admission. They recommended the continuation of methadone at 120 mg daily and increased oral oxycodone to 30 mg every 6 hours, and then further increased to 45 mg every 6 hours. He continued to have increased pain despite higher doses of oxycodone, and pain medication was changed to oral hydromorphone 28 mg every 6 hours with the continuation of methadone. ORC and the palliative care team obtained consent from the veteran and a release of Information form signed by the patient to contact his community methadone clinic for further collaboration around pain management throughout the time caring for the veteran.

Even with improvement in disease based on imaging and tumor markers, opioid medications could not be decreased in this case. This is likely in part due to the multidimensional nature of pain. Careful assessment of the biologic, emotional, social, and spiritual contributors to pain is needed in the management of pain, especially at end of life.⁶ Nonpharmacologic pain management strategies used in this case included a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation unit, moist heat, celiac plexus block, and emotional support.

Psychosocial Issues/Substance Use

Psychosocial support for the patient was provided by the interdisciplinary palliative care team and the ORC team in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. Despite efforts from case management to get the veteran home services once discharged from the CLC, he declined repeatedly. Thus, the CLC social worker obtained a guardian alert for the veteran on discharge.

Close outpatient follow-up for medical and psychosocial support was very critical. When an outpatient, the veteran was scheduled for biweekly appointments with palliative care or ORC. When admitted to the hospital, the palliative care team medical director and psychologist conducted joint visits with him. Although he denied depressed mood and anxiety throughout his treatment, he often reflected on regrets that he had as he faced the end of his life. Specifically, he shared thoughts about being estranged from his surviving brother given his long struggle with substance use. Although he did not think a relationship was possible with his brother at the end of life, he still cared deeply for him and wanted to make him aware of his pancreatic cancer diagnosis. This was particularly important to him because their late brother had also died of pancreatic cancer. It was the patient’s wish at the end of his life to alert his surviving brother of his diagnosis so he and his children could get adequate screening throughout their lives. Although he had spoken of this desire often, it wasn’t until his disease progressed and he elected to transition to hospice that he felt ready to write the letter. The palliative care team assisted the veteran in writing and mailing a letter to his brother informing him of his diagnosis and transition to hospice as well as communicating that his brother and his family had been in his thoughts at the end of his life. The patient’s brother received this letter and with assistance from the CLC social worker made arrangements to visit the veteran at bedside at the inpatient CLC hospice unit the final days of his life.

Discussion

There are very little data on the safety of cancer-directed therapy in patients with active SUD. The limited studies that have been done showed conflicting results.

A retrospective study among women with co-occurring SUD and locally advanced cervical cancer who were undergoing primary radiation therapy found that SUD was not associated with a difference in toxicity or survival outcomes.⁷ However, other research suggests that SUD may be associated with an increase in all-cause mortality as well as other adverse outcomes for patients and health care systems (eg, emergency department visits, hospitalizations).⁸ A retrospective study of patients with a history of SUD and nonsmall cell lung cancer showed that these patients had higher rates of depression, less family support, increased rates of missed appointments, more emergency department visits and more hospitalizations.⁹ Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes who had long-term cocaine use had a 6-fold increased risk of death, which was not found in patients who had long-term alcohol or marijuana use.²

The limited data highlight the need for careful consideration of ways to mitigate potentially adverse outcomes in this population while still providing clinically indicated cancer treatment. Integrated VA health care systems provide unique resources that can maximize veteran safety during cancer treatment. Utilization of VA resources and close interdisciplinary collaboration across VA HCPs can help to ensure equitable access to state-of-the-art cancer therapies for veterans with comorbid SUD.

VA Services for Patients With Comorbidities

This case highlights several distinct aspects of VA health care that make it possible to safely treat individuals with complex comorbidities. One important aspect of this was collaboration with the CLC to admit the veteran for his initial treatment after a positive cocaine test. CLC admission was nonpunitive and allowed ongoing involvement in the VA community. This provided an essential, safe, and structured environment in which 6 cycles of chemotherapy could be delivered.

Although the patient left the CLC after 2 months due to floor restrictions negatively impacting his quality of life and ability to spend time with close friends, several important events occurred during this stay. First, the patient established close relationships with the CLC staff and the palliative care team; both groups followed him throughout his inpatient and outpatient care. These relationships proved essential throughout his care as they were the foundation of difficult conversations about substance use, treatment adherence, and eventually, transition to hospice.

In addition, the opportunity to administer 6 cycles of chemotherapy at the CLC was enough to lead to clinical benefit and radiographic response to treatment. Clinical benefits while in the CLC included maintenance of a good appetite, 15-lb weight gain and preserved performance status (ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Group]-1), which allowed him to actively participate in multiple social and recreational activities while in the CLC. From early conversations, this patient was clear that he wanted treatment as long as his life could be prolonged with good quality of life. Having evidence of the benefit of treatment, at least initially, increased the patient’s confidence in treatment. There were a few conversations when the challenges of treatment mounted (eg, pain, needs for abstinence from cocaine prior to admission for chemotherapy, frequent doctor appointments), and the patient would remind himself of these data to recommit himself to treatment. The opportunity to admit him to the inpatient VA facility, including bed availability for 3 days during his treatment once he left the CLC was important. This plan to admit the patient following a negative urine toxicology test for cocaine was made collaboratively with the veteran and the oncology and palliative care teams. The plan allowed the patient to achieve his treatment goals while maintaining his safety and reducing theoretical cardiac toxicities with his cancer treatment.

Finally, the availability of a multidisciplinary team approach including palliative care, oncology, psychology, addiction medicine and addiction psychiatry, was critical for addressing the veteran’s malignant pain. Palliative care worked in close collaboration with the ORC to prescribe and renew pain medications. ORC offered ongoing consultation on pain management in the context of OUD. As the veteran’s cancer progressed and functional decline prohibited his daily attendance at the community methadone clinic, palliative care and ORC met with the methadone clinic to arrange a less frequent methadone pickup schedule (the patient previously needed daily pickup). Non-VA settings may not have access to these resources to safely treat the biopsychosocial issues that arise in complex cases.

Substance Use and Cancer Treatments

This case raises several critical questions for oncologic care. Cocaine and fluorouracil are both associated with cardiotoxicity, and many oncologists would not feel it is safe to administer a regimen containing fluorouracil to a patient with active cocaine use. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) panel recommends FOLFIRINOX as a preferred category 1 recommendation for first-line treatment of patients with advanced pancreas cancer with good performance status.¹⁰ This recommendation is based on the PRODIGE trial, which has shown improved overall survival (OS): 11.1 vs 6.8 months for patients who received single-agent gemcitabine.¹¹ If patients are not candidates for FOLFIRINOX and have good performance status, the NCCN recommends gemcitabine plus albumin-bound paclitaxel with category 1 level of evidence based on the IMPACT trial, which showed improvement in OS (8.7 vs 6.6 months compared with single-agent gemcitabine).¹²

Some oncologists may have additional concerns administering fluorouracil treatment alternatives (such as gemcitabine and albumin-bound paclitaxel) to individuals with active SUD because of concerns about altered mental status impacting the ability to report important adverse effects. In the absence of sufficient data, HCPs must determine whether they feel it is safe to administer these agents in individuals with active cocaine use. However, denying these patients the possible benefits of standard-of-care life-prolonging therapies without established data raises concerns regarding the ethics of such practices. There is concern that the stigma surrounding cocaine use might contribute to withholding treatment, while treatment is continued for individuals taking prescribed stimulant medications that also have cardiotoxicity risks. VA health care facilities are uniquely situated to use all available resources to address these issues using interprofessional patient-centered care and determine the most optimal treatment based on a risk/benefit discussion between the patient and the HCP.

SUD Screening

This case begs the question of whether oncologists are adequately screening for a range of SUDs, and when they encounter an issue, how they are addressing it. Many oncologists do not receive adequate training on assessment of current or recent substance use. There are health care and systems-level practices that may increase patient safety for individuals with ongoing substance use who are undergoing cancer treatment. Training on obtaining appropriate substance use histories, motivational interviewing to resolve ambivalence about substance use in the direction of change, and shared decision making about treatment options could increase confidence in understanding and addressing substance use issues. It is also important to educate oncologists on how to address patients who return to or continued substance use during treatment. In this case the collaboration from palliative care, psychology, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry through the ORC was essential in assisting with ongoing assessment of substance use, guiding difficult conversations about the impact of substance use on the treatment plan, and identifying risk-mitigation strategies. Close collaboration and full utilization of all VA resources allowed this patient to receive first-line treatment for pancreatic cancer in order to reach his goal of prolonging his life while maintaining acceptable quality of life. Table 2 provides best practices for management of patients with comorbid SUD and cancer.

More research is needed into cancer treatment for patients with SUD, especially in the current era of cancer care using novel cancer treatments leading to significantly improved survival in many cancer types. Ideally, oncologists should be routinely or consistently screening patients for substance use, including alcohol. The patient should participate in this decision-making process after being educated about the risks and benefits. These patients can be followed using a multimodal approach to increase their rates of success and improve their quality of life. Although the literature is limited and no formal guidelines are available, VA oncologists are fortunate to have a range of resources available to them to navigate these difficult cases. Veterans have elevated rates of SUD, making this a critical issue to consider in the VA.¹³ It is the hope that this case can highlight how to take advantage of the many VA resources in order to ensure equitable cancer care for all veterans.

Conclusions

This case demonstrates that cancer-directed treatment is safe and feasible in a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer and coexisting active SUD by using a multidisciplinary approach. The multidisciplinary team included palliative care, oncology, psychology, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry. Critical steps for a successful outcome include gathering history about SUD; motivational interviewing to resolve ambivalence about treatment for SUD; shared decision making about cancer treatment; and risk-reduction strategies in pain and SUD management.

Treatment advancements in many cancer types have led to significantly longer survival, and it is critical to develop safe protocols to treat patients with active SUD so they also can derive benefit from these very significant medical advancements.

Acknowledgments

Michal Rose, MD, Director of VACHS Cancer Center, and Chandrika Kumar, MD, Director of VACHS Community Living Center, for their collaboration in care for this veteran.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are an important but understudied aspect of treating patients diagnosed with cancer. Substance use can affect cancer treatment outcomes, including morbidity and mortality.^1,2 Additionally, patients with cancer and SUD may have unique psychosocial needs that require close attention and management. There is a paucity of data regarding the best approach to treating such patients. For example, cocaine use may increase the cardiovascular and hematologic risk of some traditional chemotherapy agents.^3,4 Newer targeted agents and immunotherapies remain understudied with respect to SUD risk.

Although the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has established helpful clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of SUD, there are no guidelines for treating patients with SUD and cancer.⁵ Clinicians have limited confidence in treatment approach, and treatment is inconsistent among oncologists nationwide even within the same practice. Furthermore, it can be challenging to safely prescribe opioids for cancer-related pain in individuals with SUD. There is a high risk of SUD and mental health disorders in veterans, making this population particularly vulnerable. We report a case of a male with metastatic pancreatic cancer, severe opioid use disorder (OUD) and moderate cocaine use disorder (CUD) who received pain management and cancer treatment under the direction of a multidisciplinary team approach.

Case Report

A 63-year-old male with a medical history of HIV treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), compensated cirrhosis, severe OUD, moderate CUD, and sedative use disorder in sustained remission was admitted to the West Haven campus of the VA Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) with abdominal pain, weight loss and fatigue. He used heroin 1 month prior to his admission and reported regular cocaine and marijuana use (Table 1). He was diagnosed with HIV in 1989, and his medical history included herpes zoster and oral candidiasis but no other opportunistic infections. Several months prior to this admission, he had an undetectable viral load and CD4 count of 688.

At the time of this admission, the patient was adherent to methadone treatment. He reported increased abdominal pain. Computed tomography (CT) showed a 2.4-cm mass in the pancreatic uncinate process, multiple liver metastases, retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy, and small lung nodules. A CT-guided liver biopsy showed adenocarcinoma consistent with a primary cancer of the pancreas. Given the complexity of the case, a multidisciplinary team approach was used to treat his cancer and the sequelae safely, including the oncology team, community living center team, palliative care team, and interprofessional opioid reassessment clinic team (ORC).

Cancer Treatment

Chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin calcium, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin) was recommended. The first cycle of treatment originally was planned for the outpatient setting, and a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line was placed. However, after a urine toxicology test was positive for cocaine, the PICC line was removed due to concern for possible use of PICC line for nonprescribed substance use. The patient expressed suicidal ideation at the time and was admitted for psychiatric consult and pain control. Cycle 1 FOLFIRINOX was started during this admission. A PICC line was again put in place and then removed before discharge. A celiac plexus block was performed several days after this admission for pain control.

Given concern about cocaine use increasing the risk of cardiac toxicity with FOLFIRINOX treatment, treating providers sconsulted with the community living center (CLC) about possible admission for future chemotherapy administration and pain management. The CLC at VACHS has 38 beds for rehabilitation, long-term care, and hospice with the mission to restore each veteran to his or her highest level of well-being. After discussion with this patient and CLC staff, he agreed to a CLC admission. The patient agreed to remain in the facility, wear a secure care device, and not leave without staff accompaniment. He was able to obtain a 2-hour pass to pay bills and rent. During the 2 months he was admitted to the CLC he would present to the VACHS Cancer Center for chemotherapy every 2 weeks. He completed 6 cycles of chemotherapy while admitted. During the admission, he was transferred to active medical service for 2 days for fever and malaise, and then returned to the CLC. The patient elected to leave the CLC after 2 months as the inability to see close friends was interfering with his quality of life.

Upon being discharged from the CLC, shared decision making took place with the patient to establish a new treatment plan. In collaboration with the patient, a plan was made to admit him every 2 weeks for continued chemotherapy. A PICC line was placed on each day of admission and removed prior to discharge. It was also agreed that treatment would be delayed if a urine drug test was positive for cocaine on the morning of admission. The patient was also seen by ORC every 2 weeks after being discharged from the CLC.

Imaging after cycle 6 showed decreased size of liver metastases, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, and pancreas mass. Cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) tumor marker was reduced from 3513 U/mL pretreatment to 50 U/mL after cycle 7. Chemotherapy cycle 7 was delayed 6 days due to active cocaine and heroin use. A repeat urine was obtained several days later, which was negative for cocaine, and he was admitted for cycle 7 chemotherapy. Using this treatment approach of admissions for every cycle, the patient was able to receive 11 cycles of FOLFIRINOX with clinical benefit.

Palliative Care/Pain Management

Safely treating the patient’s malignant pain in the context of his OUD was critically important. In order to do this the palliative care team worked closely alongside ORC, is a multidisciplinary team consisting of health care providers (HCPs) from addiction psychiatry, internal medicine, health psychology and pharmacy who are consulted to evaluate veterans’ current opioid regimens and make recommendations to optimize both safety and efficacy. ORC followed this particular veteran as an outpatient and consulted on pain issues during his admission. They recommended the continuation of methadone at 120 mg daily and increased oral oxycodone to 30 mg every 6 hours, and then further increased to 45 mg every 6 hours. He continued to have increased pain despite higher doses of oxycodone, and pain medication was changed to oral hydromorphone 28 mg every 6 hours with the continuation of methadone. ORC and the palliative care team obtained consent from the veteran and a release of Information form signed by the patient to contact his community methadone clinic for further collaboration around pain management throughout the time caring for the veteran.

Even with improvement in disease based on imaging and tumor markers, opioid medications could not be decreased in this case. This is likely in part due to the multidimensional nature of pain. Careful assessment of the biologic, emotional, social, and spiritual contributors to pain is needed in the management of pain, especially at end of life.⁶ Nonpharmacologic pain management strategies used in this case included a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation unit, moist heat, celiac plexus block, and emotional support.

Psychosocial Issues/Substance Use

Psychosocial support for the patient was provided by the interdisciplinary palliative care team and the ORC team in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. Despite efforts from case management to get the veteran home services once discharged from the CLC, he declined repeatedly. Thus, the CLC social worker obtained a guardian alert for the veteran on discharge.

Close outpatient follow-up for medical and psychosocial support was very critical. When an outpatient, the veteran was scheduled for biweekly appointments with palliative care or ORC. When admitted to the hospital, the palliative care team medical director and psychologist conducted joint visits with him. Although he denied depressed mood and anxiety throughout his treatment, he often reflected on regrets that he had as he faced the end of his life. Specifically, he shared thoughts about being estranged from his surviving brother given his long struggle with substance use. Although he did not think a relationship was possible with his brother at the end of life, he still cared deeply for him and wanted to make him aware of his pancreatic cancer diagnosis. This was particularly important to him because their late brother had also died of pancreatic cancer. It was the patient’s wish at the end of his life to alert his surviving brother of his diagnosis so he and his children could get adequate screening throughout their lives. Although he had spoken of this desire often, it wasn’t until his disease progressed and he elected to transition to hospice that he felt ready to write the letter. The palliative care team assisted the veteran in writing and mailing a letter to his brother informing him of his diagnosis and transition to hospice as well as communicating that his brother and his family had been in his thoughts at the end of his life. The patient’s brother received this letter and with assistance from the CLC social worker made arrangements to visit the veteran at bedside at the inpatient CLC hospice unit the final days of his life.

Discussion

There are very little data on the safety of cancer-directed therapy in patients with active SUD. The limited studies that have been done showed conflicting results.

A retrospective study among women with co-occurring SUD and locally advanced cervical cancer who were undergoing primary radiation therapy found that SUD was not associated with a difference in toxicity or survival outcomes.⁷ However, other research suggests that SUD may be associated with an increase in all-cause mortality as well as other adverse outcomes for patients and health care systems (eg, emergency department visits, hospitalizations).⁸ A retrospective study of patients with a history of SUD and nonsmall cell lung cancer showed that these patients had higher rates of depression, less family support, increased rates of missed appointments, more emergency department visits and more hospitalizations.⁹ Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes who had long-term cocaine use had a 6-fold increased risk of death, which was not found in patients who had long-term alcohol or marijuana use.²

The limited data highlight the need for careful consideration of ways to mitigate potentially adverse outcomes in this population while still providing clinically indicated cancer treatment. Integrated VA health care systems provide unique resources that can maximize veteran safety during cancer treatment. Utilization of VA resources and close interdisciplinary collaboration across VA HCPs can help to ensure equitable access to state-of-the-art cancer therapies for veterans with comorbid SUD.

VA Services for Patients With Comorbidities

This case highlights several distinct aspects of VA health care that make it possible to safely treat individuals with complex comorbidities. One important aspect of this was collaboration with the CLC to admit the veteran for his initial treatment after a positive cocaine test. CLC admission was nonpunitive and allowed ongoing involvement in the VA community. This provided an essential, safe, and structured environment in which 6 cycles of chemotherapy could be delivered.

Although the patient left the CLC after 2 months due to floor restrictions negatively impacting his quality of life and ability to spend time with close friends, several important events occurred during this stay. First, the patient established close relationships with the CLC staff and the palliative care team; both groups followed him throughout his inpatient and outpatient care. These relationships proved essential throughout his care as they were the foundation of difficult conversations about substance use, treatment adherence, and eventually, transition to hospice.

In addition, the opportunity to administer 6 cycles of chemotherapy at the CLC was enough to lead to clinical benefit and radiographic response to treatment. Clinical benefits while in the CLC included maintenance of a good appetite, 15-lb weight gain and preserved performance status (ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Group]-1), which allowed him to actively participate in multiple social and recreational activities while in the CLC. From early conversations, this patient was clear that he wanted treatment as long as his life could be prolonged with good quality of life. Having evidence of the benefit of treatment, at least initially, increased the patient’s confidence in treatment. There were a few conversations when the challenges of treatment mounted (eg, pain, needs for abstinence from cocaine prior to admission for chemotherapy, frequent doctor appointments), and the patient would remind himself of these data to recommit himself to treatment. The opportunity to admit him to the inpatient VA facility, including bed availability for 3 days during his treatment once he left the CLC was important. This plan to admit the patient following a negative urine toxicology test for cocaine was made collaboratively with the veteran and the oncology and palliative care teams. The plan allowed the patient to achieve his treatment goals while maintaining his safety and reducing theoretical cardiac toxicities with his cancer treatment.

Finally, the availability of a multidisciplinary team approach including palliative care, oncology, psychology, addiction medicine and addiction psychiatry, was critical for addressing the veteran’s malignant pain. Palliative care worked in close collaboration with the ORC to prescribe and renew pain medications. ORC offered ongoing consultation on pain management in the context of OUD. As the veteran’s cancer progressed and functional decline prohibited his daily attendance at the community methadone clinic, palliative care and ORC met with the methadone clinic to arrange a less frequent methadone pickup schedule (the patient previously needed daily pickup). Non-VA settings may not have access to these resources to safely treat the biopsychosocial issues that arise in complex cases.

Substance Use and Cancer Treatments

This case raises several critical questions for oncologic care. Cocaine and fluorouracil are both associated with cardiotoxicity, and many oncologists would not feel it is safe to administer a regimen containing fluorouracil to a patient with active cocaine use. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) panel recommends FOLFIRINOX as a preferred category 1 recommendation for first-line treatment of patients with advanced pancreas cancer with good performance status.¹⁰ This recommendation is based on the PRODIGE trial, which has shown improved overall survival (OS): 11.1 vs 6.8 months for patients who received single-agent gemcitabine.¹¹ If patients are not candidates for FOLFIRINOX and have good performance status, the NCCN recommends gemcitabine plus albumin-bound paclitaxel with category 1 level of evidence based on the IMPACT trial, which showed improvement in OS (8.7 vs 6.6 months compared with single-agent gemcitabine).¹²

Some oncologists may have additional concerns administering fluorouracil treatment alternatives (such as gemcitabine and albumin-bound paclitaxel) to individuals with active SUD because of concerns about altered mental status impacting the ability to report important adverse effects. In the absence of sufficient data, HCPs must determine whether they feel it is safe to administer these agents in individuals with active cocaine use. However, denying these patients the possible benefits of standard-of-care life-prolonging therapies without established data raises concerns regarding the ethics of such practices. There is concern that the stigma surrounding cocaine use might contribute to withholding treatment, while treatment is continued for individuals taking prescribed stimulant medications that also have cardiotoxicity risks. VA health care facilities are uniquely situated to use all available resources to address these issues using interprofessional patient-centered care and determine the most optimal treatment based on a risk/benefit discussion between the patient and the HCP.

SUD Screening

This case begs the question of whether oncologists are adequately screening for a range of SUDs, and when they encounter an issue, how they are addressing it. Many oncologists do not receive adequate training on assessment of current or recent substance use. There are health care and systems-level practices that may increase patient safety for individuals with ongoing substance use who are undergoing cancer treatment. Training on obtaining appropriate substance use histories, motivational interviewing to resolve ambivalence about substance use in the direction of change, and shared decision making about treatment options could increase confidence in understanding and addressing substance use issues. It is also important to educate oncologists on how to address patients who return to or continued substance use during treatment. In this case the collaboration from palliative care, psychology, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry through the ORC was essential in assisting with ongoing assessment of substance use, guiding difficult conversations about the impact of substance use on the treatment plan, and identifying risk-mitigation strategies. Close collaboration and full utilization of all VA resources allowed this patient to receive first-line treatment for pancreatic cancer in order to reach his goal of prolonging his life while maintaining acceptable quality of life. Table 2 provides best practices for management of patients with comorbid SUD and cancer.

More research is needed into cancer treatment for patients with SUD, especially in the current era of cancer care using novel cancer treatments leading to significantly improved survival in many cancer types. Ideally, oncologists should be routinely or consistently screening patients for substance use, including alcohol. The patient should participate in this decision-making process after being educated about the risks and benefits. These patients can be followed using a multimodal approach to increase their rates of success and improve their quality of life. Although the literature is limited and no formal guidelines are available, VA oncologists are fortunate to have a range of resources available to them to navigate these difficult cases. Veterans have elevated rates of SUD, making this a critical issue to consider in the VA.¹³ It is the hope that this case can highlight how to take advantage of the many VA resources in order to ensure equitable cancer care for all veterans.

Conclusions

This case demonstrates that cancer-directed treatment is safe and feasible in a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer and coexisting active SUD by using a multidisciplinary approach. The multidisciplinary team included palliative care, oncology, psychology, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry. Critical steps for a successful outcome include gathering history about SUD; motivational interviewing to resolve ambivalence about treatment for SUD; shared decision making about cancer treatment; and risk-reduction strategies in pain and SUD management.

Treatment advancements in many cancer types have led to significantly longer survival, and it is critical to develop safe protocols to treat patients with active SUD so they also can derive benefit from these very significant medical advancements.

Acknowledgments

Michal Rose, MD, Director of VACHS Cancer Center, and Chandrika Kumar, MD, Director of VACHS Community Living Center, for their collaboration in care for this veteran.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are an important but understudied aspect of treating patients diagnosed with cancer. Substance use can affect cancer treatment outcomes, including morbidity and mortality.^1,2 Additionally, patients with cancer and SUD may have unique psychosocial needs that require close attention and management. There is a paucity of data regarding the best approach to treating such patients. For example, cocaine use may increase the cardiovascular and hematologic risk of some traditional chemotherapy agents.^3,4 Newer targeted agents and immunotherapies remain understudied with respect to SUD risk.

Although the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has established helpful clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of SUD, there are no guidelines for treating patients with SUD and cancer.⁵ Clinicians have limited confidence in treatment approach, and treatment is inconsistent among oncologists nationwide even within the same practice. Furthermore, it can be challenging to safely prescribe opioids for cancer-related pain in individuals with SUD. There is a high risk of SUD and mental health disorders in veterans, making this population particularly vulnerable. We report a case of a male with metastatic pancreatic cancer, severe opioid use disorder (OUD) and moderate cocaine use disorder (CUD) who received pain management and cancer treatment under the direction of a multidisciplinary team approach.

Case Report

A 63-year-old male with a medical history of HIV treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), compensated cirrhosis, severe OUD, moderate CUD, and sedative use disorder in sustained remission was admitted to the West Haven campus of the VA Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) with abdominal pain, weight loss and fatigue. He used heroin 1 month prior to his admission and reported regular cocaine and marijuana use (Table 1). He was diagnosed with HIV in 1989, and his medical history included herpes zoster and oral candidiasis but no other opportunistic infections. Several months prior to this admission, he had an undetectable viral load and CD4 count of 688.

At the time of this admission, the patient was adherent to methadone treatment. He reported increased abdominal pain. Computed tomography (CT) showed a 2.4-cm mass in the pancreatic uncinate process, multiple liver metastases, retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy, and small lung nodules. A CT-guided liver biopsy showed adenocarcinoma consistent with a primary cancer of the pancreas. Given the complexity of the case, a multidisciplinary team approach was used to treat his cancer and the sequelae safely, including the oncology team, community living center team, palliative care team, and interprofessional opioid reassessment clinic team (ORC).

Cancer Treatment

Chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin calcium, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin) was recommended. The first cycle of treatment originally was planned for the outpatient setting, and a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line was placed. However, after a urine toxicology test was positive for cocaine, the PICC line was removed due to concern for possible use of PICC line for nonprescribed substance use. The patient expressed suicidal ideation at the time and was admitted for psychiatric consult and pain control. Cycle 1 FOLFIRINOX was started during this admission. A PICC line was again put in place and then removed before discharge. A celiac plexus block was performed several days after this admission for pain control.

Given concern about cocaine use increasing the risk of cardiac toxicity with FOLFIRINOX treatment, treating providers sconsulted with the community living center (CLC) about possible admission for future chemotherapy administration and pain management. The CLC at VACHS has 38 beds for rehabilitation, long-term care, and hospice with the mission to restore each veteran to his or her highest level of well-being. After discussion with this patient and CLC staff, he agreed to a CLC admission. The patient agreed to remain in the facility, wear a secure care device, and not leave without staff accompaniment. He was able to obtain a 2-hour pass to pay bills and rent. During the 2 months he was admitted to the CLC he would present to the VACHS Cancer Center for chemotherapy every 2 weeks. He completed 6 cycles of chemotherapy while admitted. During the admission, he was transferred to active medical service for 2 days for fever and malaise, and then returned to the CLC. The patient elected to leave the CLC after 2 months as the inability to see close friends was interfering with his quality of life.

Upon being discharged from the CLC, shared decision making took place with the patient to establish a new treatment plan. In collaboration with the patient, a plan was made to admit him every 2 weeks for continued chemotherapy. A PICC line was placed on each day of admission and removed prior to discharge. It was also agreed that treatment would be delayed if a urine drug test was positive for cocaine on the morning of admission. The patient was also seen by ORC every 2 weeks after being discharged from the CLC.

Imaging after cycle 6 showed decreased size of liver metastases, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, and pancreas mass. Cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) tumor marker was reduced from 3513 U/mL pretreatment to 50 U/mL after cycle 7. Chemotherapy cycle 7 was delayed 6 days due to active cocaine and heroin use. A repeat urine was obtained several days later, which was negative for cocaine, and he was admitted for cycle 7 chemotherapy. Using this treatment approach of admissions for every cycle, the patient was able to receive 11 cycles of FOLFIRINOX with clinical benefit.

Palliative Care/Pain Management

Safely treating the patient’s malignant pain in the context of his OUD was critically important. In order to do this the palliative care team worked closely alongside ORC, is a multidisciplinary team consisting of health care providers (HCPs) from addiction psychiatry, internal medicine, health psychology and pharmacy who are consulted to evaluate veterans’ current opioid regimens and make recommendations to optimize both safety and efficacy. ORC followed this particular veteran as an outpatient and consulted on pain issues during his admission. They recommended the continuation of methadone at 120 mg daily and increased oral oxycodone to 30 mg every 6 hours, and then further increased to 45 mg every 6 hours. He continued to have increased pain despite higher doses of oxycodone, and pain medication was changed to oral hydromorphone 28 mg every 6 hours with the continuation of methadone. ORC and the palliative care team obtained consent from the veteran and a release of Information form signed by the patient to contact his community methadone clinic for further collaboration around pain management throughout the time caring for the veteran.

Even with improvement in disease based on imaging and tumor markers, opioid medications could not be decreased in this case. This is likely in part due to the multidimensional nature of pain. Careful assessment of the biologic, emotional, social, and spiritual contributors to pain is needed in the management of pain, especially at end of life.⁶ Nonpharmacologic pain management strategies used in this case included a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation unit, moist heat, celiac plexus block, and emotional support.

Psychosocial Issues/Substance Use

Psychosocial support for the patient was provided by the interdisciplinary palliative care team and the ORC team in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. Despite efforts from case management to get the veteran home services once discharged from the CLC, he declined repeatedly. Thus, the CLC social worker obtained a guardian alert for the veteran on discharge.

Close outpatient follow-up for medical and psychosocial support was very critical. When an outpatient, the veteran was scheduled for biweekly appointments with palliative care or ORC. When admitted to the hospital, the palliative care team medical director and psychologist conducted joint visits with him. Although he denied depressed mood and anxiety throughout his treatment, he often reflected on regrets that he had as he faced the end of his life. Specifically, he shared thoughts about being estranged from his surviving brother given his long struggle with substance use. Although he did not think a relationship was possible with his brother at the end of life, he still cared deeply for him and wanted to make him aware of his pancreatic cancer diagnosis. This was particularly important to him because their late brother had also died of pancreatic cancer. It was the patient’s wish at the end of his life to alert his surviving brother of his diagnosis so he and his children could get adequate screening throughout their lives. Although he had spoken of this desire often, it wasn’t until his disease progressed and he elected to transition to hospice that he felt ready to write the letter. The palliative care team assisted the veteran in writing and mailing a letter to his brother informing him of his diagnosis and transition to hospice as well as communicating that his brother and his family had been in his thoughts at the end of his life. The patient’s brother received this letter and with assistance from the CLC social worker made arrangements to visit the veteran at bedside at the inpatient CLC hospice unit the final days of his life.

Discussion

There are very little data on the safety of cancer-directed therapy in patients with active SUD. The limited studies that have been done showed conflicting results.

A retrospective study among women with co-occurring SUD and locally advanced cervical cancer who were undergoing primary radiation therapy found that SUD was not associated with a difference in toxicity or survival outcomes.⁷ However, other research suggests that SUD may be associated with an increase in all-cause mortality as well as other adverse outcomes for patients and health care systems (eg, emergency department visits, hospitalizations).⁸ A retrospective study of patients with a history of SUD and nonsmall cell lung cancer showed that these patients had higher rates of depression, less family support, increased rates of missed appointments, more emergency department visits and more hospitalizations.⁹ Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes who had long-term cocaine use had a 6-fold increased risk of death, which was not found in patients who had long-term alcohol or marijuana use.²

The limited data highlight the need for careful consideration of ways to mitigate potentially adverse outcomes in this population while still providing clinically indicated cancer treatment. Integrated VA health care systems provide unique resources that can maximize veteran safety during cancer treatment. Utilization of VA resources and close interdisciplinary collaboration across VA HCPs can help to ensure equitable access to state-of-the-art cancer therapies for veterans with comorbid SUD.

VA Services for Patients With Comorbidities

This case highlights several distinct aspects of VA health care that make it possible to safely treat individuals with complex comorbidities. One important aspect of this was collaboration with the CLC to admit the veteran for his initial treatment after a positive cocaine test. CLC admission was nonpunitive and allowed ongoing involvement in the VA community. This provided an essential, safe, and structured environment in which 6 cycles of chemotherapy could be delivered.

Although the patient left the CLC after 2 months due to floor restrictions negatively impacting his quality of life and ability to spend time with close friends, several important events occurred during this stay. First, the patient established close relationships with the CLC staff and the palliative care team; both groups followed him throughout his inpatient and outpatient care. These relationships proved essential throughout his care as they were the foundation of difficult conversations about substance use, treatment adherence, and eventually, transition to hospice.

In addition, the opportunity to administer 6 cycles of chemotherapy at the CLC was enough to lead to clinical benefit and radiographic response to treatment. Clinical benefits while in the CLC included maintenance of a good appetite, 15-lb weight gain and preserved performance status (ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Group]-1), which allowed him to actively participate in multiple social and recreational activities while in the CLC. From early conversations, this patient was clear that he wanted treatment as long as his life could be prolonged with good quality of life. Having evidence of the benefit of treatment, at least initially, increased the patient’s confidence in treatment. There were a few conversations when the challenges of treatment mounted (eg, pain, needs for abstinence from cocaine prior to admission for chemotherapy, frequent doctor appointments), and the patient would remind himself of these data to recommit himself to treatment. The opportunity to admit him to the inpatient VA facility, including bed availability for 3 days during his treatment once he left the CLC was important. This plan to admit the patient following a negative urine toxicology test for cocaine was made collaboratively with the veteran and the oncology and palliative care teams. The plan allowed the patient to achieve his treatment goals while maintaining his safety and reducing theoretical cardiac toxicities with his cancer treatment.

Finally, the availability of a multidisciplinary team approach including palliative care, oncology, psychology, addiction medicine and addiction psychiatry, was critical for addressing the veteran’s malignant pain. Palliative care worked in close collaboration with the ORC to prescribe and renew pain medications. ORC offered ongoing consultation on pain management in the context of OUD. As the veteran’s cancer progressed and functional decline prohibited his daily attendance at the community methadone clinic, palliative care and ORC met with the methadone clinic to arrange a less frequent methadone pickup schedule (the patient previously needed daily pickup). Non-VA settings may not have access to these resources to safely treat the biopsychosocial issues that arise in complex cases.

Substance Use and Cancer Treatments

This case raises several critical questions for oncologic care. Cocaine and fluorouracil are both associated with cardiotoxicity, and many oncologists would not feel it is safe to administer a regimen containing fluorouracil to a patient with active cocaine use. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) panel recommends FOLFIRINOX as a preferred category 1 recommendation for first-line treatment of patients with advanced pancreas cancer with good performance status.¹⁰ This recommendation is based on the PRODIGE trial, which has shown improved overall survival (OS): 11.1 vs 6.8 months for patients who received single-agent gemcitabine.¹¹ If patients are not candidates for FOLFIRINOX and have good performance status, the NCCN recommends gemcitabine plus albumin-bound paclitaxel with category 1 level of evidence based on the IMPACT trial, which showed improvement in OS (8.7 vs 6.6 months compared with single-agent gemcitabine).¹²

Some oncologists may have additional concerns administering fluorouracil treatment alternatives (such as gemcitabine and albumin-bound paclitaxel) to individuals with active SUD because of concerns about altered mental status impacting the ability to report important adverse effects. In the absence of sufficient data, HCPs must determine whether they feel it is safe to administer these agents in individuals with active cocaine use. However, denying these patients the possible benefits of standard-of-care life-prolonging therapies without established data raises concerns regarding the ethics of such practices. There is concern that the stigma surrounding cocaine use might contribute to withholding treatment, while treatment is continued for individuals taking prescribed stimulant medications that also have cardiotoxicity risks. VA health care facilities are uniquely situated to use all available resources to address these issues using interprofessional patient-centered care and determine the most optimal treatment based on a risk/benefit discussion between the patient and the HCP.

SUD Screening

This case begs the question of whether oncologists are adequately screening for a range of SUDs, and when they encounter an issue, how they are addressing it. Many oncologists do not receive adequate training on assessment of current or recent substance use. There are health care and systems-level practices that may increase patient safety for individuals with ongoing substance use who are undergoing cancer treatment. Training on obtaining appropriate substance use histories, motivational interviewing to resolve ambivalence about substance use in the direction of change, and shared decision making about treatment options could increase confidence in understanding and addressing substance use issues. It is also important to educate oncologists on how to address patients who return to or continued substance use during treatment. In this case the collaboration from palliative care, psychology, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry through the ORC was essential in assisting with ongoing assessment of substance use, guiding difficult conversations about the impact of substance use on the treatment plan, and identifying risk-mitigation strategies. Close collaboration and full utilization of all VA resources allowed this patient to receive first-line treatment for pancreatic cancer in order to reach his goal of prolonging his life while maintaining acceptable quality of life. Table 2 provides best practices for management of patients with comorbid SUD and cancer.

More research is needed into cancer treatment for patients with SUD, especially in the current era of cancer care using novel cancer treatments leading to significantly improved survival in many cancer types. Ideally, oncologists should be routinely or consistently screening patients for substance use, including alcohol. The patient should participate in this decision-making process after being educated about the risks and benefits. These patients can be followed using a multimodal approach to increase their rates of success and improve their quality of life. Although the literature is limited and no formal guidelines are available, VA oncologists are fortunate to have a range of resources available to them to navigate these difficult cases. Veterans have elevated rates of SUD, making this a critical issue to consider in the VA.¹³ It is the hope that this case can highlight how to take advantage of the many VA resources in order to ensure equitable cancer care for all veterans.

Conclusions

This case demonstrates that cancer-directed treatment is safe and feasible in a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer and coexisting active SUD by using a multidisciplinary approach. The multidisciplinary team included palliative care, oncology, psychology, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry. Critical steps for a successful outcome include gathering history about SUD; motivational interviewing to resolve ambivalence about treatment for SUD; shared decision making about cancer treatment; and risk-reduction strategies in pain and SUD management.

Treatment advancements in many cancer types have led to significantly longer survival, and it is critical to develop safe protocols to treat patients with active SUD so they also can derive benefit from these very significant medical advancements.

Acknowledgments

Michal Rose, MD, Director of VACHS Cancer Center, and Chandrika Kumar, MD, Director of VACHS Community Living Center, for their collaboration in care for this veteran.

Veterans living with cancer need comprehensive assessment that includes supportive psychosocial care. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer require accredited cancer centers to evaluate psychosocial distress and provide appropriate triage and treatment for all patients.^1-3 Implementing psychosocial distress screening can be difficult because of procedural barriers and time constraints, clinic and supportive care resources, and lack of knowledge about how to access supportive services.

Distress screening protocols must be designed to address the specific needs of each population. To improve screening for cancer-related distress, deliver effective supportive services, and gain agreement on distress screening standards of care, the Coleman Foundation supported development of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC), a project of 135 interdisciplinary health care professionals from 25 Chicago-area cancer care institutions.⁴

The Jesse Brown US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (JBVAMC) was chosen to assess cancer-related concerns among veterans using the CSOC screening tool and to improve access to supportive oncology. JBVAMC provides care to approximately 49,000 veterans in Chicago, Illinois, and northwestern Indiana. The JBVAMC patient population includes a large number of veterans with dual diagnoses (co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders) and veterans experiencing homelessness.

Delivering integrated screening and oncologic care that is culture and age appropriate is particularly important for veterans given their unique risk factors. The veteran population is considered vulnerable in terms of health status, psychological functioning, and social context. Veterans who use the VA health system as a principal source of care have poorer health, greater comorbid medical conditions, and an increased risk of mortality and suicide compared with the general population.^5,6 Poorer health status in veterans also may relate to old age, low income, poor education, psychological health, and minority race.^7-9

Past studies point to unique risk factors for cancer and poor cancer adjustment among veterans, which may complicate cancer treatment and end-of-life/survivorship care. Veteran-specific risk factors include military-related exposures, particularly Agent Orange and morbidity/mortality secondary to comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]).^10-12 Moreover, the geriatric veteran population continues to grow,with increasing rates of cancer that require unique considerations for effective cancer care.^13,14 Despite this, there are minimal data to inform best practices and supportive care approaches for veterans with cancer. Lack of guidelines specific to veterans and other populations with increased psychosocial challenges may impede successful cancer care, making distress screening procedures particularly important. This is especially the case for the JBVAMC, which serves primarily African American urban-dwelling veterans who experience high rates of cancer disparities, including increased rates of mortality and increased levels of psychosocial distress.^15,16

The goals of this program were to (1) examine levels of psychological, physical, financial, and treatment-related distress in a large sample of urban-dwelling veterans; (2) create a streamlined, sustainable process to screen a large number of veterans receiving cancer care in the outpatient setting and connect them with available supportive services; and (3) educate oncology physicians, nurses, and other staff about cancer-related distress and concerns using in-service trainings and interpersonal interactions to improve patient care. Our program was based on a Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) model that embeds health psychologists in general medical clinics to better reach veterans dealing with mental health issues. We tailored for palliative care involvement.

Studies of this model have shown that mental health integration improves access to mental health services and mental health treatment outcomes and has higher patient and provider satisfaction.¹⁷ We were also influenced by the construct of the patient aligned care team (PACT) social worker who, in this veteran-centered approach, often functions as a care coordinator. Social work responsibilities include assessment of patients’ stressors including adjusting to the medical conditions, identifying untreated or undertreated mental health or substance abuse issues, economic instability, legal problems, and inadequate housing and transportation, which can often be exacerbated during cancer treatment.¹⁸

Methods

This institutional review board at JBVAMC reviewed and exempted this quality improvement program using the SQUIRE framework.¹⁹ It was led by a group of palliative care clinicians, psychologists, and administrators who have worked with the oncology service for many years, primarily in the care of hospitalized patients. Common palliative care services include providing care for patients with serious illness diagnosis through the illness trajectory.

Setting

At the start of this program, we assessed the current clinic workflow to determine how to best screen and assist veterans experiencing distress. We met with team members individually to identify the best method of clinic integration, including attending medical oncologists, medical oncology fellows, psychology interns, oncology nursing staff, the oncology nurse coordinator, and clinic clerks.

The JBVAMC provides cancer care through 4 half-day medical hematology-oncology clinics that serve about 50 patients per half-day clinic. The clinics are staffed by hematology-oncology fellows supervised by hematology-oncology attending physicians, who are affiliated with 2 academic medical centers. These clinics are staffed by 3 registered nurses (RNs) and a licensed practical nurse (LPN) and are adjacent to a chemotherapy infusion clinic with unique nursing staff. The JBVAMC also provides a variety of supportive care services, including extensive mental health and substance use treatment, physical and occupational therapy, acupuncture, nutrition, social work, and housing services. Following our assessment, it was evident that there were a low number of referrals from oncology clinics to supportive care services, mostly due to lack of knowledge of resources and unclear referral procedures.

Based on clinical volume, we determined that our screening program could best be implemented through a stepped approach beginning in one clinic and expanding thereafter. We began by having a palliative care physician and health psychology intern embedded in 1 weekly half-day clinic and a health psychology intern embedded in a second weekly half-day clinic. Our program included 2 health psychology interns (for each academic year of the program) who were supervised by a JBVA health psychologist.

About 15 months after successful integration within the first 2 half-day clinics, we expanded the screening program to staff an additional half-day medical oncology clinic with a palliative care APRN. This allowed us to expand the screening tool distribution and collection to 3 of 4 of the weekly half-day oncology clinics as well as to meet individually with veterans experiencing high levels of distress. Veterans were flagged as having high distress levels by either the results of their completed screening tool or by referral from a medical oncology physician. We initially established screening in clinics that were sufficiently staffed to ensure that screens were appropriately distributed and reviewed. Patients seen in nonparticipating clinics were referred to outpatient social work, mental health and/or outpatient palliative care according to oncology fellows’ clinical assessments of the patient. All oncology fellows received education about distress screening and methods for referring to supportive care. Our clinic screening program extended from February 2017 through January 2020.

Screening

Program staff screened patients with new cancer diagnoses, then identified patients for follow-up screens. This tracking allowed staff to identify patients with oncology appointments that day and cross-reference patients needing a follow-up screen.

Following feedback from the clinic nurses, we determined that nurses would provide the distress tool to patients in paper form after they completed their assessment of vitals and waited to be seen by their medical oncologist. The patient would then deliver their completed form to the nurse who would combine it with the patient’s clinic notes for the oncologist to review. Veterans who reported elevated 4-question Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) scores ≥ 6 were seen immediately by program staff. Veterans were referred to social work or psychiatry services for a same day visit if they endorsed a high level of psychological distress during clinical examination. They were referred for other supportive care services if they were determined to have practical, family, or nutrition unmet distress needs by either the program staff or oncology fellows. Program staff provided guidance to medical oncology fellows for needed referrals including social work, mental health, and palliative care follow ups (eAppendix A available at doi:10.12788/fp.0158).

Veterans referred for supportive care services were contacted by the relevant clinical administrator by phone to schedule an intake; for social work referrals, patients were either seen in a walk-in office located in a colocated building or contacted by a social worker by phone.

Our screening tool was the Coleman Foundation Supportive Oncology Collaborative Screening Tool, compiled from validated instruments. Patients completed this screening tool, which includes the PHQ-4, NCCN problem list concerns, adapted Mini Nutrition Assessment and PROMIS Pain and Fatigue measure (eAppendix B available at doi:10.12788/fp.0158).^20-22

We also worked with the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) to create an electronic template for the screening tool. Completed screening tools were manually entered by the physician, psychologists, or APRN into the CPRS chart.

We analyzed the different supportive care services available at the JBVAMC and noticed that many supportive services were available, yet these services were often separated. Therefore, we created a consult flowsheet to assist oncologists in placing referrals. These supportive care services include mental health services, a cancer support group, home health care, social services, nutrition, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and other specialty services.

Patient Education

The psychology and nursing staff created a patient information bulletin board where patients could access information about supportive services available at JBVAMC. This board required frequent replenishment of handouts because patients consulted the board regularly. Handouts and folders about common clinical issues also were placed in the clinic treatment rooms. We partnered with 2 local cancer support centers, Gilda’s Club and the Cancer Support Center, to make referrals for family members and/or caregivers who would benefit from additional support.

We provided in-service trainings for oncology fellows, including trainings on PTSD and substance abuse and their relationship to cancer care at the VA. These topics were chosen based on the feedback program staff received about perceived knowledge gaps from the oncology fellows. This program allowed for multiple informal conversations between that program staff and oncology fellows about overall patient care. We held trainings with the cancer coordinator and clinical nursing staff on strategies to identify and follow-up on cancer-related distress, and with oncology fellows to review the importance of distress screening and to instruct fellows on instructions for the consult flowsheet.

Funding

This program was funded by the Chicago-based Coleman Foundation as part of the CSOC. Funding was used to support a portion of time for administrative and clinical work of program staff, as well as data collection and analysis.

Results

We established 3 half-day integrated clinics where patients were screened and referred for services based on supportive oncology needs. In addition to our primary activities to screen and refer veterans, we held multiple educational sessions for colleagues, developed a workflow template, and integrated patient education materials into the clinics.

Screening

Veterans completed 1010 distress screens in 3 of 4 half-day oncology clinics over the 2.5-year project period. Veterans were screened at initial diagnosis and every 3 months, or during changes in their clinical care or disease status. As a result, 579 patients completed screening, with some patients doing several follow-up screens during their care. Integration of palliative care providers and health psychologists was instrumental in facilitating screening in these busy general medical oncology clinics. Most veterans were receptive to completing surveys with few refusing to fill out the survey.²³ Medical oncology fellows often used the completed screener to inform their review of systems (by reviewing the Coleman screener Physical and Other Concerns section) and connect with the supportive care staff present in clinic for patient’s identifying severe needs (ie, mental health distress or complex psychosocial needs). Veterans’ rates of distress needs and successfuloutcomes of integration with mental health and social work services have been reported elsewhere.²³

The mean (SD) age for veterans in this cohort was 72 (9.5) years. Participants were primarily African American veterans (70%), with mostly advanced disease (Table 1). Participants endorsed elevated distress needs compared with other patient populations screened in Chicago through the CSOC for depressed mood, pain, housing, transportation, and physical, nutrition, and treatment concerns.²³ Elevated presence of needs was especially prominent for food, housing and insurance/medical needs; physical concerns; nutrition, and treatment- or care-related concerns. Veterans in this cohort reported extensive financial and housing concerns: 10.4% reported food and housing concerns, 18.6% reported transportation concerns, and 9.0% reported issues paying for medical care or medications (Table 2).²⁰ Anecdotally, many experienced job loss or strain with their cancer diagnosis or were living at the poverty level before their diagnosis.

Discussion

This project created a successful program to screen veterans for psychosocial distress and triage them to appropriate services. During the project, patients in VA-outpatient oncology clinics reported significant cancer-related distress due to baseline psychosocial needs, changes in emotional and physical functioning, logistical and financial challenges of receiving cancer care, and lack of instrumental support.²³

Staff education supported successful buy-in, development and implementation of supportive oncology programs. We used a combination of in-service trainings, online trainings, and handouts to provide evidence for distress screening.²⁴ Highlighting the evidence-base that demonstrates how cancer-related distress screening improves cancer and quality of life outcomes helped to address physician reluctance to accept the additional requirements needed to address veterans’ psychosocial needs and care concerns. To increase buy-in and collaboration among team members and foster heightened understanding between providers and patients, we recommend creating accessible education for all staff levels.

One specific area of education we focused on was primary palliative care, which includes the core competencies of communication and symptom management recommended for generalists and specialists of all disciplines.²⁵ Program staff supported oncology fellows in developing their primary palliative care skills by being available to discuss basic symptom management and communication issues. VA cancer care programs could benefit from ongoing palliative care education of oncology staff to facilitate primary palliative care as well as earlier integration of secondary palliative care when needed.²⁶ Secondary palliative care or care provided directly by the palliative care team assists with complex symptom management or communication issues. For these needs, oncology fellows were encouraged to refer to either the palliative care staff available in one of the half-day clinics or to the outpatient palliative care clinic. As a unique strength, the VA allows veterans to receive concurrent cancer-directed therapy and hospice care, which enables earlier referrals to hospice care and higher quality end-of-life care and emphasizes the need for primary palliative care in oncology.^27,28

Integrating supportive oncology team members, such as licensed clinical social worker and psychology interns, was successful. This was modeled on the VA PACT, which focuses on prevention, health promotion, coordination and chronic disease management.²⁹ Social determinants of health have a major impact on health outcomes especially in veteran-specific and African American populations, making screening for distress critical.^30-32 The VA Office of Health Equity actively addresses health inequities by supporting initiation of screening programs for social determinants of health, including education, employment, exposure to abuse and violence, food insecurity, housing instability, legal needs, social isolation, transportation needs, and utility needs. This is especially needed for African-American individuals who are not only more likely to experience cancer, but also more likely to be negatively impacted by the consequences of cancer diagnosis/treatment, such as complications related to one’s job security, access to care, adverse effects, and other highly distressing needs.^33,34

Our program found that veterans with cancer often had concerns associated with food and housing insecurity, transportation and paying for medication or medical care, and screening allowed health care providers to detect and address these social determinants of health through referrals to VA and community-specific programs. Social workers integrated into VA cancer clinics are uniquely equipped to coordinate distress screening and support continuity of care by virtue of their training, connections to preexisting VA supportive services, and knowledge of community resources. This model could be used in other VA specialty clinics serving veterans with chronic illness and those with high levels of physical frailty.³⁵

Our ability to roll out distress screening was scaffolded by technological integration into existing VA systems (eg, screening results in CPRS and electronic referrals). Screening procedures could have been even more efficient with improved technology (Table 3). For example, technological limitations made it challenging to easily identify patients due for screening, requiring a cumbersome process of tracking, collecting and entering patients’ paper forms. Health care providers seeking to develop a distress screening program should consider investing in technology that allows for identification of patients requiring screening at a predetermined interval, completion of screening via tablet or personal device, integration of screening responses into the electronic health record, and automatic generation of notifications to the treating physician and appropriate support services.

Conclusions

Veterans with cancer benefited from enhanced screening and psychosocial service availability, similar to a PCMHI model. Robust screening programs helped advocate for veterans dealing with the effects of poverty through identification of need and referral to existing VA programs and services quickly and efficiently. Providing comprehensive care within ambulatory cancer clinics can address cancer-related distress and any potential barriers to care in real time. VA hospitals typically offer an array of supportive services to address veterans’ psychosocial needs, yet these services tend to be siloed. Integrated referrals can help to resolve such access barriers. Since many veterans with burdensome cancers are not able to see their VA primary care physician regularly, offering comprehensive care within medical oncology ensures complete and integrated care that includes psychosocial screening.

We believe that this program is an example of a mechanism for oncologists and palliative care clinicians to integrate their care in a way that identifies needs and triages services for vulnerable veterans. As colleagues have written, “it is fundamental to our commitment to veterans that we ensure comparable, high quality care regardless of a veteran’s gender, race, or where they live.^”34 Health care providers may underestimate the extensive change a cancer diagnosis can have on a patient’s quality of life. Cancer diagnosis and treatment have a large impact on all individuals, but this impact may be greater for individuals in poverty due to inability to work from home, inflexible work hours, and limited support structures. By creating screening programs with psychosocial integration in oncology clinics such as we have described, we hope to improve access to more equitable care for vulnerable veterans.

Veterans living with cancer need comprehensive assessment that includes supportive psychosocial care. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer require accredited cancer centers to evaluate psychosocial distress and provide appropriate triage and treatment for all patients.^1-3 Implementing psychosocial distress screening can be difficult because of procedural barriers and time constraints, clinic and supportive care resources, and lack of knowledge about how to access supportive services.

Distress screening protocols must be designed to address the specific needs of each population. To improve screening for cancer-related distress, deliver effective supportive services, and gain agreement on distress screening standards of care, the Coleman Foundation supported development of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC), a project of 135 interdisciplinary health care professionals from 25 Chicago-area cancer care institutions.⁴

The Jesse Brown US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (JBVAMC) was chosen to assess cancer-related concerns among veterans using the CSOC screening tool and to improve access to supportive oncology. JBVAMC provides care to approximately 49,000 veterans in Chicago, Illinois, and northwestern Indiana. The JBVAMC patient population includes a large number of veterans with dual diagnoses (co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders) and veterans experiencing homelessness.

Delivering integrated screening and oncologic care that is culture and age appropriate is particularly important for veterans given their unique risk factors. The veteran population is considered vulnerable in terms of health status, psychological functioning, and social context. Veterans who use the VA health system as a principal source of care have poorer health, greater comorbid medical conditions, and an increased risk of mortality and suicide compared with the general population.^5,6 Poorer health status in veterans also may relate to old age, low income, poor education, psychological health, and minority race.^7-9

Past studies point to unique risk factors for cancer and poor cancer adjustment among veterans, which may complicate cancer treatment and end-of-life/survivorship care. Veteran-specific risk factors include military-related exposures, particularly Agent Orange and morbidity/mortality secondary to comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]).^10-12 Moreover, the geriatric veteran population continues to grow,with increasing rates of cancer that require unique considerations for effective cancer care.^13,14 Despite this, there are minimal data to inform best practices and supportive care approaches for veterans with cancer. Lack of guidelines specific to veterans and other populations with increased psychosocial challenges may impede successful cancer care, making distress screening procedures particularly important. This is especially the case for the JBVAMC, which serves primarily African American urban-dwelling veterans who experience high rates of cancer disparities, including increased rates of mortality and increased levels of psychosocial distress.^15,16

The goals of this program were to (1) examine levels of psychological, physical, financial, and treatment-related distress in a large sample of urban-dwelling veterans; (2) create a streamlined, sustainable process to screen a large number of veterans receiving cancer care in the outpatient setting and connect them with available supportive services; and (3) educate oncology physicians, nurses, and other staff about cancer-related distress and concerns using in-service trainings and interpersonal interactions to improve patient care. Our program was based on a Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) model that embeds health psychologists in general medical clinics to better reach veterans dealing with mental health issues. We tailored for palliative care involvement.

Studies of this model have shown that mental health integration improves access to mental health services and mental health treatment outcomes and has higher patient and provider satisfaction.¹⁷ We were also influenced by the construct of the patient aligned care team (PACT) social worker who, in this veteran-centered approach, often functions as a care coordinator. Social work responsibilities include assessment of patients’ stressors including adjusting to the medical conditions, identifying untreated or undertreated mental health or substance abuse issues, economic instability, legal problems, and inadequate housing and transportation, which can often be exacerbated during cancer treatment.¹⁸

Methods

This institutional review board at JBVAMC reviewed and exempted this quality improvement program using the SQUIRE framework.¹⁹ It was led by a group of palliative care clinicians, psychologists, and administrators who have worked with the oncology service for many years, primarily in the care of hospitalized patients. Common palliative care services include providing care for patients with serious illness diagnosis through the illness trajectory.

Setting

At the start of this program, we assessed the current clinic workflow to determine how to best screen and assist veterans experiencing distress. We met with team members individually to identify the best method of clinic integration, including attending medical oncologists, medical oncology fellows, psychology interns, oncology nursing staff, the oncology nurse coordinator, and clinic clerks.

The JBVAMC provides cancer care through 4 half-day medical hematology-oncology clinics that serve about 50 patients per half-day clinic. The clinics are staffed by hematology-oncology fellows supervised by hematology-oncology attending physicians, who are affiliated with 2 academic medical centers. These clinics are staffed by 3 registered nurses (RNs) and a licensed practical nurse (LPN) and are adjacent to a chemotherapy infusion clinic with unique nursing staff. The JBVAMC also provides a variety of supportive care services, including extensive mental health and substance use treatment, physical and occupational therapy, acupuncture, nutrition, social work, and housing services. Following our assessment, it was evident that there were a low number of referrals from oncology clinics to supportive care services, mostly due to lack of knowledge of resources and unclear referral procedures.

Based on clinical volume, we determined that our screening program could best be implemented through a stepped approach beginning in one clinic and expanding thereafter. We began by having a palliative care physician and health psychology intern embedded in 1 weekly half-day clinic and a health psychology intern embedded in a second weekly half-day clinic. Our program included 2 health psychology interns (for each academic year of the program) who were supervised by a JBVA health psychologist.

About 15 months after successful integration within the first 2 half-day clinics, we expanded the screening program to staff an additional half-day medical oncology clinic with a palliative care APRN. This allowed us to expand the screening tool distribution and collection to 3 of 4 of the weekly half-day oncology clinics as well as to meet individually with veterans experiencing high levels of distress. Veterans were flagged as having high distress levels by either the results of their completed screening tool or by referral from a medical oncology physician. We initially established screening in clinics that were sufficiently staffed to ensure that screens were appropriately distributed and reviewed. Patients seen in nonparticipating clinics were referred to outpatient social work, mental health and/or outpatient palliative care according to oncology fellows’ clinical assessments of the patient. All oncology fellows received education about distress screening and methods for referring to supportive care. Our clinic screening program extended from February 2017 through January 2020.

Screening

Program staff screened patients with new cancer diagnoses, then identified patients for follow-up screens. This tracking allowed staff to identify patients with oncology appointments that day and cross-reference patients needing a follow-up screen.

Following feedback from the clinic nurses, we determined that nurses would provide the distress tool to patients in paper form after they completed their assessment of vitals and waited to be seen by their medical oncologist. The patient would then deliver their completed form to the nurse who would combine it with the patient’s clinic notes for the oncologist to review. Veterans who reported elevated 4-question Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) scores ≥ 6 were seen immediately by program staff. Veterans were referred to social work or psychiatry services for a same day visit if they endorsed a high level of psychological distress during clinical examination. They were referred for other supportive care services if they were determined to have practical, family, or nutrition unmet distress needs by either the program staff or oncology fellows. Program staff provided guidance to medical oncology fellows for needed referrals including social work, mental health, and palliative care follow ups (eAppendix A available at doi:10.12788/fp.0158).

Veterans referred for supportive care services were contacted by the relevant clinical administrator by phone to schedule an intake; for social work referrals, patients were either seen in a walk-in office located in a colocated building or contacted by a social worker by phone.

Our screening tool was the Coleman Foundation Supportive Oncology Collaborative Screening Tool, compiled from validated instruments. Patients completed this screening tool, which includes the PHQ-4, NCCN problem list concerns, adapted Mini Nutrition Assessment and PROMIS Pain and Fatigue measure (eAppendix B available at doi:10.12788/fp.0158).^20-22

We also worked with the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) to create an electronic template for the screening tool. Completed screening tools were manually entered by the physician, psychologists, or APRN into the CPRS chart.

We analyzed the different supportive care services available at the JBVAMC and noticed that many supportive services were available, yet these services were often separated. Therefore, we created a consult flowsheet to assist oncologists in placing referrals. These supportive care services include mental health services, a cancer support group, home health care, social services, nutrition, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and other specialty services.

Patient Education

The psychology and nursing staff created a patient information bulletin board where patients could access information about supportive services available at JBVAMC. This board required frequent replenishment of handouts because patients consulted the board regularly. Handouts and folders about common clinical issues also were placed in the clinic treatment rooms. We partnered with 2 local cancer support centers, Gilda’s Club and the Cancer Support Center, to make referrals for family members and/or caregivers who would benefit from additional support.

We provided in-service trainings for oncology fellows, including trainings on PTSD and substance abuse and their relationship to cancer care at the VA. These topics were chosen based on the feedback program staff received about perceived knowledge gaps from the oncology fellows. This program allowed for multiple informal conversations between that program staff and oncology fellows about overall patient care. We held trainings with the cancer coordinator and clinical nursing staff on strategies to identify and follow-up on cancer-related distress, and with oncology fellows to review the importance of distress screening and to instruct fellows on instructions for the consult flowsheet.

Funding

This program was funded by the Chicago-based Coleman Foundation as part of the CSOC. Funding was used to support a portion of time for administrative and clinical work of program staff, as well as data collection and analysis.

Results

We established 3 half-day integrated clinics where patients were screened and referred for services based on supportive oncology needs. In addition to our primary activities to screen and refer veterans, we held multiple educational sessions for colleagues, developed a workflow template, and integrated patient education materials into the clinics.

Screening

Veterans completed 1010 distress screens in 3 of 4 half-day oncology clinics over the 2.5-year project period. Veterans were screened at initial diagnosis and every 3 months, or during changes in their clinical care or disease status. As a result, 579 patients completed screening, with some patients doing several follow-up screens during their care. Integration of palliative care providers and health psychologists was instrumental in facilitating screening in these busy general medical oncology clinics. Most veterans were receptive to completing surveys with few refusing to fill out the survey.²³ Medical oncology fellows often used the completed screener to inform their review of systems (by reviewing the Coleman screener Physical and Other Concerns section) and connect with the supportive care staff present in clinic for patient’s identifying severe needs (ie, mental health distress or complex psychosocial needs). Veterans’ rates of distress needs and successfuloutcomes of integration with mental health and social work services have been reported elsewhere.²³

The mean (SD) age for veterans in this cohort was 72 (9.5) years. Participants were primarily African American veterans (70%), with mostly advanced disease (Table 1). Participants endorsed elevated distress needs compared with other patient populations screened in Chicago through the CSOC for depressed mood, pain, housing, transportation, and physical, nutrition, and treatment concerns.²³ Elevated presence of needs was especially prominent for food, housing and insurance/medical needs; physical concerns; nutrition, and treatment- or care-related concerns. Veterans in this cohort reported extensive financial and housing concerns: 10.4% reported food and housing concerns, 18.6% reported transportation concerns, and 9.0% reported issues paying for medical care or medications (Table 2).²⁰ Anecdotally, many experienced job loss or strain with their cancer diagnosis or were living at the poverty level before their diagnosis.

Discussion

This project created a successful program to screen veterans for psychosocial distress and triage them to appropriate services. During the project, patients in VA-outpatient oncology clinics reported significant cancer-related distress due to baseline psychosocial needs, changes in emotional and physical functioning, logistical and financial challenges of receiving cancer care, and lack of instrumental support.²³

Staff education supported successful buy-in, development and implementation of supportive oncology programs. We used a combination of in-service trainings, online trainings, and handouts to provide evidence for distress screening.²⁴ Highlighting the evidence-base that demonstrates how cancer-related distress screening improves cancer and quality of life outcomes helped to address physician reluctance to accept the additional requirements needed to address veterans’ psychosocial needs and care concerns. To increase buy-in and collaboration among team members and foster heightened understanding between providers and patients, we recommend creating accessible education for all staff levels.

One specific area of education we focused on was primary palliative care, which includes the core competencies of communication and symptom management recommended for generalists and specialists of all disciplines.²⁵ Program staff supported oncology fellows in developing their primary palliative care skills by being available to discuss basic symptom management and communication issues. VA cancer care programs could benefit from ongoing palliative care education of oncology staff to facilitate primary palliative care as well as earlier integration of secondary palliative care when needed.²⁶ Secondary palliative care or care provided directly by the palliative care team assists with complex symptom management or communication issues. For these needs, oncology fellows were encouraged to refer to either the palliative care staff available in one of the half-day clinics or to the outpatient palliative care clinic. As a unique strength, the VA allows veterans to receive concurrent cancer-directed therapy and hospice care, which enables earlier referrals to hospice care and higher quality end-of-life care and emphasizes the need for primary palliative care in oncology.^27,28

Integrating supportive oncology team members, such as licensed clinical social worker and psychology interns, was successful. This was modeled on the VA PACT, which focuses on prevention, health promotion, coordination and chronic disease management.²⁹ Social determinants of health have a major impact on health outcomes especially in veteran-specific and African American populations, making screening for distress critical.^30-32 The VA Office of Health Equity actively addresses health inequities by supporting initiation of screening programs for social determinants of health, including education, employment, exposure to abuse and violence, food insecurity, housing instability, legal needs, social isolation, transportation needs, and utility needs. This is especially needed for African-American individuals who are not only more likely to experience cancer, but also more likely to be negatively impacted by the consequences of cancer diagnosis/treatment, such as complications related to one’s job security, access to care, adverse effects, and other highly distressing needs.^33,34

Our program found that veterans with cancer often had concerns associated with food and housing insecurity, transportation and paying for medication or medical care, and screening allowed health care providers to detect and address these social determinants of health through referrals to VA and community-specific programs. Social workers integrated into VA cancer clinics are uniquely equipped to coordinate distress screening and support continuity of care by virtue of their training, connections to preexisting VA supportive services, and knowledge of community resources. This model could be used in other VA specialty clinics serving veterans with chronic illness and those with high levels of physical frailty.³⁵

Our ability to roll out distress screening was scaffolded by technological integration into existing VA systems (eg, screening results in CPRS and electronic referrals). Screening procedures could have been even more efficient with improved technology (Table 3). For example, technological limitations made it challenging to easily identify patients due for screening, requiring a cumbersome process of tracking, collecting and entering patients’ paper forms. Health care providers seeking to develop a distress screening program should consider investing in technology that allows for identification of patients requiring screening at a predetermined interval, completion of screening via tablet or personal device, integration of screening responses into the electronic health record, and automatic generation of notifications to the treating physician and appropriate support services.

Conclusions

Veterans with cancer benefited from enhanced screening and psychosocial service availability, similar to a PCMHI model. Robust screening programs helped advocate for veterans dealing with the effects of poverty through identification of need and referral to existing VA programs and services quickly and efficiently. Providing comprehensive care within ambulatory cancer clinics can address cancer-related distress and any potential barriers to care in real time. VA hospitals typically offer an array of supportive services to address veterans’ psychosocial needs, yet these services tend to be siloed. Integrated referrals can help to resolve such access barriers. Since many veterans with burdensome cancers are not able to see their VA primary care physician regularly, offering comprehensive care within medical oncology ensures complete and integrated care that includes psychosocial screening.

We believe that this program is an example of a mechanism for oncologists and palliative care clinicians to integrate their care in a way that identifies needs and triages services for vulnerable veterans. As colleagues have written, “it is fundamental to our commitment to veterans that we ensure comparable, high quality care regardless of a veteran’s gender, race, or where they live.^”34 Health care providers may underestimate the extensive change a cancer diagnosis can have on a patient’s quality of life. Cancer diagnosis and treatment have a large impact on all individuals, but this impact may be greater for individuals in poverty due to inability to work from home, inflexible work hours, and limited support structures. By creating screening programs with psychosocial integration in oncology clinics such as we have described, we hope to improve access to more equitable care for vulnerable veterans.

Veterans living with cancer need comprehensive assessment that includes supportive psychosocial care. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer require accredited cancer centers to evaluate psychosocial distress and provide appropriate triage and treatment for all patients.^1-3 Implementing psychosocial distress screening can be difficult because of procedural barriers and time constraints, clinic and supportive care resources, and lack of knowledge about how to access supportive services.

Distress screening protocols must be designed to address the specific needs of each population. To improve screening for cancer-related distress, deliver effective supportive services, and gain agreement on distress screening standards of care, the Coleman Foundation supported development of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC), a project of 135 interdisciplinary health care professionals from 25 Chicago-area cancer care institutions.⁴

The Jesse Brown US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (JBVAMC) was chosen to assess cancer-related concerns among veterans using the CSOC screening tool and to improve access to supportive oncology. JBVAMC provides care to approximately 49,000 veterans in Chicago, Illinois, and northwestern Indiana. The JBVAMC patient population includes a large number of veterans with dual diagnoses (co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders) and veterans experiencing homelessness.

Delivering integrated screening and oncologic care that is culture and age appropriate is particularly important for veterans given their unique risk factors. The veteran population is considered vulnerable in terms of health status, psychological functioning, and social context. Veterans who use the VA health system as a principal source of care have poorer health, greater comorbid medical conditions, and an increased risk of mortality and suicide compared with the general population.^5,6 Poorer health status in veterans also may relate to old age, low income, poor education, psychological health, and minority race.^7-9

Past studies point to unique risk factors for cancer and poor cancer adjustment among veterans, which may complicate cancer treatment and end-of-life/survivorship care. Veteran-specific risk factors include military-related exposures, particularly Agent Orange and morbidity/mortality secondary to comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]).^10-12 Moreover, the geriatric veteran population continues to grow,with increasing rates of cancer that require unique considerations for effective cancer care.^13,14 Despite this, there are minimal data to inform best practices and supportive care approaches for veterans with cancer. Lack of guidelines specific to veterans and other populations with increased psychosocial challenges may impede successful cancer care, making distress screening procedures particularly important. This is especially the case for the JBVAMC, which serves primarily African American urban-dwelling veterans who experience high rates of cancer disparities, including increased rates of mortality and increased levels of psychosocial distress.^15,16

The goals of this program were to (1) examine levels of psychological, physical, financial, and treatment-related distress in a large sample of urban-dwelling veterans; (2) create a streamlined, sustainable process to screen a large number of veterans receiving cancer care in the outpatient setting and connect them with available supportive services; and (3) educate oncology physicians, nurses, and other staff about cancer-related distress and concerns using in-service trainings and interpersonal interactions to improve patient care. Our program was based on a Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) model that embeds health psychologists in general medical clinics to better reach veterans dealing with mental health issues. We tailored for palliative care involvement.

Studies of this model have shown that mental health integration improves access to mental health services and mental health treatment outcomes and has higher patient and provider satisfaction.¹⁷ We were also influenced by the construct of the patient aligned care team (PACT) social worker who, in this veteran-centered approach, often functions as a care coordinator. Social work responsibilities include assessment of patients’ stressors including adjusting to the medical conditions, identifying untreated or undertreated mental health or substance abuse issues, economic instability, legal problems, and inadequate housing and transportation, which can often be exacerbated during cancer treatment.¹⁸

Methods

This institutional review board at JBVAMC reviewed and exempted this quality improvement program using the SQUIRE framework.¹⁹ It was led by a group of palliative care clinicians, psychologists, and administrators who have worked with the oncology service for many years, primarily in the care of hospitalized patients. Common palliative care services include providing care for patients with serious illness diagnosis through the illness trajectory.

Setting

At the start of this program, we assessed the current clinic workflow to determine how to best screen and assist veterans experiencing distress. We met with team members individually to identify the best method of clinic integration, including attending medical oncologists, medical oncology fellows, psychology interns, oncology nursing staff, the oncology nurse coordinator, and clinic clerks.

The JBVAMC provides cancer care through 4 half-day medical hematology-oncology clinics that serve about 50 patients per half-day clinic. The clinics are staffed by hematology-oncology fellows supervised by hematology-oncology attending physicians, who are affiliated with 2 academic medical centers. These clinics are staffed by 3 registered nurses (RNs) and a licensed practical nurse (LPN) and are adjacent to a chemotherapy infusion clinic with unique nursing staff. The JBVAMC also provides a variety of supportive care services, including extensive mental health and substance use treatment, physical and occupational therapy, acupuncture, nutrition, social work, and housing services. Following our assessment, it was evident that there were a low number of referrals from oncology clinics to supportive care services, mostly due to lack of knowledge of resources and unclear referral procedures.

Based on clinical volume, we determined that our screening program could best be implemented through a stepped approach beginning in one clinic and expanding thereafter. We began by having a palliative care physician and health psychology intern embedded in 1 weekly half-day clinic and a health psychology intern embedded in a second weekly half-day clinic. Our program included 2 health psychology interns (for each academic year of the program) who were supervised by a JBVA health psychologist.

About 15 months after successful integration within the first 2 half-day clinics, we expanded the screening program to staff an additional half-day medical oncology clinic with a palliative care APRN. This allowed us to expand the screening tool distribution and collection to 3 of 4 of the weekly half-day oncology clinics as well as to meet individually with veterans experiencing high levels of distress. Veterans were flagged as having high distress levels by either the results of their completed screening tool or by referral from a medical oncology physician. We initially established screening in clinics that were sufficiently staffed to ensure that screens were appropriately distributed and reviewed. Patients seen in nonparticipating clinics were referred to outpatient social work, mental health and/or outpatient palliative care according to oncology fellows’ clinical assessments of the patient. All oncology fellows received education about distress screening and methods for referring to supportive care. Our clinic screening program extended from February 2017 through January 2020.

Screening

Program staff screened patients with new cancer diagnoses, then identified patients for follow-up screens. This tracking allowed staff to identify patients with oncology appointments that day and cross-reference patients needing a follow-up screen.

Following feedback from the clinic nurses, we determined that nurses would provide the distress tool to patients in paper form after they completed their assessment of vitals and waited to be seen by their medical oncologist. The patient would then deliver their completed form to the nurse who would combine it with the patient’s clinic notes for the oncologist to review. Veterans who reported elevated 4-question Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) scores ≥ 6 were seen immediately by program staff. Veterans were referred to social work or psychiatry services for a same day visit if they endorsed a high level of psychological distress during clinical examination. They were referred for other supportive care services if they were determined to have practical, family, or nutrition unmet distress needs by either the program staff or oncology fellows. Program staff provided guidance to medical oncology fellows for needed referrals including social work, mental health, and palliative care follow ups (eAppendix A available at doi:10.12788/fp.0158).

Veterans referred for supportive care services were contacted by the relevant clinical administrator by phone to schedule an intake; for social work referrals, patients were either seen in a walk-in office located in a colocated building or contacted by a social worker by phone.

Our screening tool was the Coleman Foundation Supportive Oncology Collaborative Screening Tool, compiled from validated instruments. Patients completed this screening tool, which includes the PHQ-4, NCCN problem list concerns, adapted Mini Nutrition Assessment and PROMIS Pain and Fatigue measure (eAppendix B available at doi:10.12788/fp.0158).^20-22

We also worked with the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) to create an electronic template for the screening tool. Completed screening tools were manually entered by the physician, psychologists, or APRN into the CPRS chart.

We analyzed the different supportive care services available at the JBVAMC and noticed that many supportive services were available, yet these services were often separated. Therefore, we created a consult flowsheet to assist oncologists in placing referrals. These supportive care services include mental health services, a cancer support group, home health care, social services, nutrition, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and other specialty services.

Patient Education

The psychology and nursing staff created a patient information bulletin board where patients could access information about supportive services available at JBVAMC. This board required frequent replenishment of handouts because patients consulted the board regularly. Handouts and folders about common clinical issues also were placed in the clinic treatment rooms. We partnered with 2 local cancer support centers, Gilda’s Club and the Cancer Support Center, to make referrals for family members and/or caregivers who would benefit from additional support.

We provided in-service trainings for oncology fellows, including trainings on PTSD and substance abuse and their relationship to cancer care at the VA. These topics were chosen based on the feedback program staff received about perceived knowledge gaps from the oncology fellows. This program allowed for multiple informal conversations between that program staff and oncology fellows about overall patient care. We held trainings with the cancer coordinator and clinical nursing staff on strategies to identify and follow-up on cancer-related distress, and with oncology fellows to review the importance of distress screening and to instruct fellows on instructions for the consult flowsheet.

Funding

This program was funded by the Chicago-based Coleman Foundation as part of the CSOC. Funding was used to support a portion of time for administrative and clinical work of program staff, as well as data collection and analysis.

Results

We established 3 half-day integrated clinics where patients were screened and referred for services based on supportive oncology needs. In addition to our primary activities to screen and refer veterans, we held multiple educational sessions for colleagues, developed a workflow template, and integrated patient education materials into the clinics.

Screening

Veterans completed 1010 distress screens in 3 of 4 half-day oncology clinics over the 2.5-year project period. Veterans were screened at initial diagnosis and every 3 months, or during changes in their clinical care or disease status. As a result, 579 patients completed screening, with some patients doing several follow-up screens during their care. Integration of palliative care providers and health psychologists was instrumental in facilitating screening in these busy general medical oncology clinics. Most veterans were receptive to completing surveys with few refusing to fill out the survey.²³ Medical oncology fellows often used the completed screener to inform their review of systems (by reviewing the Coleman screener Physical and Other Concerns section) and connect with the supportive care staff present in clinic for patient’s identifying severe needs (ie, mental health distress or complex psychosocial needs). Veterans’ rates of distress needs and successfuloutcomes of integration with mental health and social work services have been reported elsewhere.²³

The mean (SD) age for veterans in this cohort was 72 (9.5) years. Participants were primarily African American veterans (70%), with mostly advanced disease (Table 1). Participants endorsed elevated distress needs compared with other patient populations screened in Chicago through the CSOC for depressed mood, pain, housing, transportation, and physical, nutrition, and treatment concerns.²³ Elevated presence of needs was especially prominent for food, housing and insurance/medical needs; physical concerns; nutrition, and treatment- or care-related concerns. Veterans in this cohort reported extensive financial and housing concerns: 10.4% reported food and housing concerns, 18.6% reported transportation concerns, and 9.0% reported issues paying for medical care or medications (Table 2).²⁰ Anecdotally, many experienced job loss or strain with their cancer diagnosis or were living at the poverty level before their diagnosis.

Discussion

This project created a successful program to screen veterans for psychosocial distress and triage them to appropriate services. During the project, patients in VA-outpatient oncology clinics reported significant cancer-related distress due to baseline psychosocial needs, changes in emotional and physical functioning, logistical and financial challenges of receiving cancer care, and lack of instrumental support.²³

Staff education supported successful buy-in, development and implementation of supportive oncology programs. We used a combination of in-service trainings, online trainings, and handouts to provide evidence for distress screening.²⁴ Highlighting the evidence-base that demonstrates how cancer-related distress screening improves cancer and quality of life outcomes helped to address physician reluctance to accept the additional requirements needed to address veterans’ psychosocial needs and care concerns. To increase buy-in and collaboration among team members and foster heightened understanding between providers and patients, we recommend creating accessible education for all staff levels.

One specific area of education we focused on was primary palliative care, which includes the core competencies of communication and symptom management recommended for generalists and specialists of all disciplines.²⁵ Program staff supported oncology fellows in developing their primary palliative care skills by being available to discuss basic symptom management and communication issues. VA cancer care programs could benefit from ongoing palliative care education of oncology staff to facilitate primary palliative care as well as earlier integration of secondary palliative care when needed.²⁶ Secondary palliative care or care provided directly by the palliative care team assists with complex symptom management or communication issues. For these needs, oncology fellows were encouraged to refer to either the palliative care staff available in one of the half-day clinics or to the outpatient palliative care clinic. As a unique strength, the VA allows veterans to receive concurrent cancer-directed therapy and hospice care, which enables earlier referrals to hospice care and higher quality end-of-life care and emphasizes the need for primary palliative care in oncology.^27,28

Integrating supportive oncology team members, such as licensed clinical social worker and psychology interns, was successful. This was modeled on the VA PACT, which focuses on prevention, health promotion, coordination and chronic disease management.²⁹ Social determinants of health have a major impact on health outcomes especially in veteran-specific and African American populations, making screening for distress critical.^30-32 The VA Office of Health Equity actively addresses health inequities by supporting initiation of screening programs for social determinants of health, including education, employment, exposure to abuse and violence, food insecurity, housing instability, legal needs, social isolation, transportation needs, and utility needs. This is especially needed for African-American individuals who are not only more likely to experience cancer, but also more likely to be negatively impacted by the consequences of cancer diagnosis/treatment, such as complications related to one’s job security, access to care, adverse effects, and other highly distressing needs.^33,34

Our program found that veterans with cancer often had concerns associated with food and housing insecurity, transportation and paying for medication or medical care, and screening allowed health care providers to detect and address these social determinants of health through referrals to VA and community-specific programs. Social workers integrated into VA cancer clinics are uniquely equipped to coordinate distress screening and support continuity of care by virtue of their training, connections to preexisting VA supportive services, and knowledge of community resources. This model could be used in other VA specialty clinics serving veterans with chronic illness and those with high levels of physical frailty.³⁵

Our ability to roll out distress screening was scaffolded by technological integration into existing VA systems (eg, screening results in CPRS and electronic referrals). Screening procedures could have been even more efficient with improved technology (Table 3). For example, technological limitations made it challenging to easily identify patients due for screening, requiring a cumbersome process of tracking, collecting and entering patients’ paper forms. Health care providers seeking to develop a distress screening program should consider investing in technology that allows for identification of patients requiring screening at a predetermined interval, completion of screening via tablet or personal device, integration of screening responses into the electronic health record, and automatic generation of notifications to the treating physician and appropriate support services.

Conclusions

Veterans with cancer benefited from enhanced screening and psychosocial service availability, similar to a PCMHI model. Robust screening programs helped advocate for veterans dealing with the effects of poverty through identification of need and referral to existing VA programs and services quickly and efficiently. Providing comprehensive care within ambulatory cancer clinics can address cancer-related distress and any potential barriers to care in real time. VA hospitals typically offer an array of supportive services to address veterans’ psychosocial needs, yet these services tend to be siloed. Integrated referrals can help to resolve such access barriers. Since many veterans with burdensome cancers are not able to see their VA primary care physician regularly, offering comprehensive care within medical oncology ensures complete and integrated care that includes psychosocial screening.

We believe that this program is an example of a mechanism for oncologists and palliative care clinicians to integrate their care in a way that identifies needs and triages services for vulnerable veterans. As colleagues have written, “it is fundamental to our commitment to veterans that we ensure comparable, high quality care regardless of a veteran’s gender, race, or where they live.^”34 Health care providers may underestimate the extensive change a cancer diagnosis can have on a patient’s quality of life. Cancer diagnosis and treatment have a large impact on all individuals, but this impact may be greater for individuals in poverty due to inability to work from home, inflexible work hours, and limited support structures. By creating screening programs with psychosocial integration in oncology clinics such as we have described, we hope to improve access to more equitable care for vulnerable veterans.

New policy hopes to be in line with full FDA approval expected in September. When the largest employer in the world makes any significant decision, everyone sits up and takes notice.

That’s what happened when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III sent out a memo to all US Department of Defense (DoD) employees saying he was seeking President Biden’s approval to make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory. His decision affects not only the 3.2 million employees on the payroll, but their families, communities, and states. Florida, for instance, where approximately 40% of the population remains unvaccinated has about 55,000 active duty service members and 36,000 reservists.

Vaccination rates in the military have lagged behind other populations, especially among Black and Hispanic service members. An April study published in Medical Surveillance Monthly Report found that “non-Hispanic Blacks, as well as those who were female, younger, of lower rank, with lower education levels, and those serving in the Army were less likely to initiate COVID-19 vaccination after adjusting for other factors.”

The decision had been in the offing for some time but when cases of the Delta variant of the virus began to spike in July, President Biden asked Sec. Austin to consider how and when the COVID vaccine could be added to the list of required vaccines for service members. It’s a long list already: Depending on their location, service members can get as many as 17 vaccines. It also folllows on the heals of the decision by the US Department of Veterans Affairs to require vaccinations for frontline health care workers.

Austin promised to “not let grass grow.” He consulted with Army Gen. Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, service chiefs, service secretaries, and medical professionals. Based on those discussions, he decided to ask for approval to make the vaccines mandatory no later than mid-September or immediately upon FDA licensure, whichever comes first.

However, he added, “[t]o defend this Nation, we need a healthy and ready force. I strongly encourage all DoD military and civilian personnel—as well as contractor personnel—to get vaccinated now and for military Service members to not wait for the mandate.” Currently, 73% of active-duty personnel have had at least one dose of the vaccine.

Leaping upon the news—and based on the wording in the memo—some in the media were reporting that it meant all troops have to be vaccinated by mid-September. “He’ll make the request by mid-September, unless or until FDA licensure occurs before that time, at which point the Secretary has the authority he needs…to make whatever vaccine is then given that license mandatory.”  That’s not the case, said Pentagon press secretary John Kirby in a briefing. Some voices also have called on the DoD to do more to dispel vaccine hesitancy among the troops.

In the meantime, Kirby said, “[T]wo things are going to happen. One, the services are going to be tasked to come back to the Secretary with implementation plans for how they’re going to get this moving.” Noting that mid-September isn’t far away, he pointed out that the services have a “fair but limited amount of time” to arrange their implementation plans. “I have every confidence that service leadership and your commanders will implement this new vaccination program with professionalism, skill, and compassion,” Austin wrote in his memo.

The second thing, Kirby said, was that DoD would be developing policies that comply with the President’s direction that the unvaccinated will have to be subjected to “certain requirements and restrictions.” The Delta variant is hitting the unvaccinated hardest. Austin said the DoD will keep a close eye on infection rates “and the impact these rates might have on our readiness. I will not hesitate to act sooner or recommend a different course to the President if I feel the need to do so.”

Kirby said he didn’t have all the details for that yet, but the department is “working hard” on a policy directive that will clarify what those requirements and restrictions might be.

President Biden replied almost immediately to Austin’s message. “I strongly support Secretary Austin’s message to the force today…. Secretary Austin and I share an unshakeable commitment to making sure our troops have every tool they need to do their jobs as safely as possible. These vaccines will save lives. Period.”

“All FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective,” Austin said in the close to his memo. “They will protect you and your family. They will protect your unit, your ship, and your co-workers. …Get the shot. Stay healthy. Stay ready.”

New policy hopes to be in line with full FDA approval expected in September. When the largest employer in the world makes any significant decision, everyone sits up and takes notice.

That’s what happened when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III sent out a memo to all US Department of Defense (DoD) employees saying he was seeking President Biden’s approval to make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory. His decision affects not only the 3.2 million employees on the payroll, but their families, communities, and states. Florida, for instance, where approximately 40% of the population remains unvaccinated has about 55,000 active duty service members and 36,000 reservists.

Vaccination rates in the military have lagged behind other populations, especially among Black and Hispanic service members. An April study published in Medical Surveillance Monthly Report found that “non-Hispanic Blacks, as well as those who were female, younger, of lower rank, with lower education levels, and those serving in the Army were less likely to initiate COVID-19 vaccination after adjusting for other factors.”

The decision had been in the offing for some time but when cases of the Delta variant of the virus began to spike in July, President Biden asked Sec. Austin to consider how and when the COVID vaccine could be added to the list of required vaccines for service members. It’s a long list already: Depending on their location, service members can get as many as 17 vaccines. It also folllows on the heals of the decision by the US Department of Veterans Affairs to require vaccinations for frontline health care workers.

Austin promised to “not let grass grow.” He consulted with Army Gen. Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, service chiefs, service secretaries, and medical professionals. Based on those discussions, he decided to ask for approval to make the vaccines mandatory no later than mid-September or immediately upon FDA licensure, whichever comes first.

However, he added, “[t]o defend this Nation, we need a healthy and ready force. I strongly encourage all DoD military and civilian personnel—as well as contractor personnel—to get vaccinated now and for military Service members to not wait for the mandate.” Currently, 73% of active-duty personnel have had at least one dose of the vaccine.

Leaping upon the news—and based on the wording in the memo—some in the media were reporting that it meant all troops have to be vaccinated by mid-September. “He’ll make the request by mid-September, unless or until FDA licensure occurs before that time, at which point the Secretary has the authority he needs…to make whatever vaccine is then given that license mandatory.”  That’s not the case, said Pentagon press secretary John Kirby in a briefing. Some voices also have called on the DoD to do more to dispel vaccine hesitancy among the troops.

In the meantime, Kirby said, “[T]wo things are going to happen. One, the services are going to be tasked to come back to the Secretary with implementation plans for how they’re going to get this moving.” Noting that mid-September isn’t far away, he pointed out that the services have a “fair but limited amount of time” to arrange their implementation plans. “I have every confidence that service leadership and your commanders will implement this new vaccination program with professionalism, skill, and compassion,” Austin wrote in his memo.

The second thing, Kirby said, was that DoD would be developing policies that comply with the President’s direction that the unvaccinated will have to be subjected to “certain requirements and restrictions.” The Delta variant is hitting the unvaccinated hardest. Austin said the DoD will keep a close eye on infection rates “and the impact these rates might have on our readiness. I will not hesitate to act sooner or recommend a different course to the President if I feel the need to do so.”

Kirby said he didn’t have all the details for that yet, but the department is “working hard” on a policy directive that will clarify what those requirements and restrictions might be.

President Biden replied almost immediately to Austin’s message. “I strongly support Secretary Austin’s message to the force today…. Secretary Austin and I share an unshakeable commitment to making sure our troops have every tool they need to do their jobs as safely as possible. These vaccines will save lives. Period.”

“All FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective,” Austin said in the close to his memo. “They will protect you and your family. They will protect your unit, your ship, and your co-workers. …Get the shot. Stay healthy. Stay ready.”

New policy hopes to be in line with full FDA approval expected in September. When the largest employer in the world makes any significant decision, everyone sits up and takes notice.

That’s what happened when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III sent out a memo to all US Department of Defense (DoD) employees saying he was seeking President Biden’s approval to make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory. His decision affects not only the 3.2 million employees on the payroll, but their families, communities, and states. Florida, for instance, where approximately 40% of the population remains unvaccinated has about 55,000 active duty service members and 36,000 reservists.

Vaccination rates in the military have lagged behind other populations, especially among Black and Hispanic service members. An April study published in Medical Surveillance Monthly Report found that “non-Hispanic Blacks, as well as those who were female, younger, of lower rank, with lower education levels, and those serving in the Army were less likely to initiate COVID-19 vaccination after adjusting for other factors.”

The decision had been in the offing for some time but when cases of the Delta variant of the virus began to spike in July, President Biden asked Sec. Austin to consider how and when the COVID vaccine could be added to the list of required vaccines for service members. It’s a long list already: Depending on their location, service members can get as many as 17 vaccines. It also folllows on the heals of the decision by the US Department of Veterans Affairs to require vaccinations for frontline health care workers.

Austin promised to “not let grass grow.” He consulted with Army Gen. Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, service chiefs, service secretaries, and medical professionals. Based on those discussions, he decided to ask for approval to make the vaccines mandatory no later than mid-September or immediately upon FDA licensure, whichever comes first.

However, he added, “[t]o defend this Nation, we need a healthy and ready force. I strongly encourage all DoD military and civilian personnel—as well as contractor personnel—to get vaccinated now and for military Service members to not wait for the mandate.” Currently, 73% of active-duty personnel have had at least one dose of the vaccine.

Leaping upon the news—and based on the wording in the memo—some in the media were reporting that it meant all troops have to be vaccinated by mid-September. “He’ll make the request by mid-September, unless or until FDA licensure occurs before that time, at which point the Secretary has the authority he needs…to make whatever vaccine is then given that license mandatory.”  That’s not the case, said Pentagon press secretary John Kirby in a briefing. Some voices also have called on the DoD to do more to dispel vaccine hesitancy among the troops.

In the meantime, Kirby said, “[T]wo things are going to happen. One, the services are going to be tasked to come back to the Secretary with implementation plans for how they’re going to get this moving.” Noting that mid-September isn’t far away, he pointed out that the services have a “fair but limited amount of time” to arrange their implementation plans. “I have every confidence that service leadership and your commanders will implement this new vaccination program with professionalism, skill, and compassion,” Austin wrote in his memo.

The second thing, Kirby said, was that DoD would be developing policies that comply with the President’s direction that the unvaccinated will have to be subjected to “certain requirements and restrictions.” The Delta variant is hitting the unvaccinated hardest. Austin said the DoD will keep a close eye on infection rates “and the impact these rates might have on our readiness. I will not hesitate to act sooner or recommend a different course to the President if I feel the need to do so.”

Kirby said he didn’t have all the details for that yet, but the department is “working hard” on a policy directive that will clarify what those requirements and restrictions might be.

President Biden replied almost immediately to Austin’s message. “I strongly support Secretary Austin’s message to the force today…. Secretary Austin and I share an unshakeable commitment to making sure our troops have every tool they need to do their jobs as safely as possible. These vaccines will save lives. Period.”

“All FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective,” Austin said in the close to his memo. “They will protect you and your family. They will protect your unit, your ship, and your co-workers. …Get the shot. Stay healthy. Stay ready.”

Intranasal dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) may provide safe and effective migraine relief, a new study suggests.

A phase 3, open-label trial of INP104, or Trudhesa – Impel NeuroPharma’s proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery of DHE – found that most patients experienced symptom relief within 2 hours and reported that the medication was easy to use and preferable to their current therapy.
 

Another treatment option?

Of about 18 million diagnosed migraine patients in the United States, 4 million receive prescription treatment. Nearly 80% of migraine therapies involve triptans, but 30%-40% of patients don’t find adequate relief with triptans. Moreover, the majority of patients who do respond to triptans report that they’d like to try a different therapy.

“INP104 has the potential to deliver rapid symptom relief, without injection, that is well tolerated and suitable for outpatient us,” lead author Timothy Smith, MD, of StudyMetrix Research, St. Louis, and colleagues wrote in the paper.

The results were published online Aug. 7 in Headache.

A total of 360 patients aged 18-65 years with a diagnosis of migraine with or without aura with at least two attacks per month over the course of the previous 6 months were enrolled in the 24-week safety study, which had a 28-week extension period. Participants used their “best usual care” to treat their migraines during the initial 28-day screening period. Afterward, they were given 1.45-mg doses of INP04 to self-administer into the upper nasal space to treat self-recognized attacks. No more than two doses per 24 hours and three doses per 7 days were allowed. The Full Safety Set analysis comprised 354 patients who dosed at least once. The Primary Safety Set involved 185 patients who administered an average of two or more doses per 28-day period during the 24-week treatment period. A total of 4,515 self-recognized migraines were treated during the 24-week period; 6,332 doses of INP04 were analyzed.

Nearly 37% (130/354) of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 6.8% (24/354) discontinued treatment because of the TEAEs over the 24 weeks. The most common TEAE was nasal congestion (15%, 53/354), followed by nausea (6.8%, 24/354).

Within an hour of INP104 administration, 47.6% of patients reported pain relief. After 2 hours of INP104 administration, 38% reported pain freedom and 66.3% reported pain relief. Headache recurrence was observed in 7.1% and 14.3% of patients at 24 and 48 hours, respectively.

In a questionnaire, 84% of patients agreed or strongly agreed that INP04 was easy to use. Most reported that INP104 slowed the recurrence of their migraines and was more rapidly and consistently effective than their previous best usual care treatment.

Intranasal delivery of DHE was developed in response to the challenges of traditional IV administration.

“While intravenous (IV) dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate has a long, established history as an effective migraine therapy, its use as an acute treatment can be limited by the high rate of nausea and vomiting reported by patients, which often requires pretreatment with antiemetics,” Dr. Smith and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, IV DHE mesylate needs to be administered in emergency room settings or by headache specialists, limiting convenience.”
 

A novel delivery system

“There’s already a nasal spray on the market right now which doesn’t seem to work that well in a large number of people. This device [INP04] was designed to get the same substances to a part of the nose that’s higher and farther back, where there may be better absorption,” said Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Rapoport was not involved with the study.

The proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD) is meant to improve on current nasal delivery methods such as sprays, droppers, and pumps, which may deliver “less than 5% of the active drug to the upper nasal space,” according to a press release from Impel NeuroPharma.

Nasal delivery also may have advantages over oral medications. People with migraines may be more likely to have gastroparesis – delayed stomach emptying – which may affect their ability to absorb oral medications and delay symptom relief. However, patients may hesitate to agree to a medication that involves nasal delivery, Dr. Rapoport said.

“I will say it’s a little more difficult getting your patients to take a nasal spray,” Dr. Rapoport said. “Patients are used to taking tablets for their headaches,” he said. “But if the doctor spends a little more time with the patient and says, ‘Look, this could work faster for your migraine as a nasal spray. Why don’t you try it a couple of times and see if you like it or not?’ patients are usually willing to give it a try.”

The study’s limitations include the lack of a control group given that it was an open-label trial. It was carried out at 38 sites in one geographical area, which may affect the generalizability of the results. The study did not assess patients with new-onset migraine or chronic migraine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Trudhesa on Sept. 2, 2021.

The study was funded by Impel NeuroPharma. Dr. Smith has received funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Rapoport disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Intranasal dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) may provide safe and effective migraine relief, a new study suggests.

A phase 3, open-label trial of INP104, or Trudhesa – Impel NeuroPharma’s proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery of DHE – found that most patients experienced symptom relief within 2 hours and reported that the medication was easy to use and preferable to their current therapy.
 

Another treatment option?

Of about 18 million diagnosed migraine patients in the United States, 4 million receive prescription treatment. Nearly 80% of migraine therapies involve triptans, but 30%-40% of patients don’t find adequate relief with triptans. Moreover, the majority of patients who do respond to triptans report that they’d like to try a different therapy.

“INP104 has the potential to deliver rapid symptom relief, without injection, that is well tolerated and suitable for outpatient us,” lead author Timothy Smith, MD, of StudyMetrix Research, St. Louis, and colleagues wrote in the paper.

The results were published online Aug. 7 in Headache.

A total of 360 patients aged 18-65 years with a diagnosis of migraine with or without aura with at least two attacks per month over the course of the previous 6 months were enrolled in the 24-week safety study, which had a 28-week extension period. Participants used their “best usual care” to treat their migraines during the initial 28-day screening period. Afterward, they were given 1.45-mg doses of INP04 to self-administer into the upper nasal space to treat self-recognized attacks. No more than two doses per 24 hours and three doses per 7 days were allowed. The Full Safety Set analysis comprised 354 patients who dosed at least once. The Primary Safety Set involved 185 patients who administered an average of two or more doses per 28-day period during the 24-week treatment period. A total of 4,515 self-recognized migraines were treated during the 24-week period; 6,332 doses of INP04 were analyzed.

Nearly 37% (130/354) of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 6.8% (24/354) discontinued treatment because of the TEAEs over the 24 weeks. The most common TEAE was nasal congestion (15%, 53/354), followed by nausea (6.8%, 24/354).

Within an hour of INP104 administration, 47.6% of patients reported pain relief. After 2 hours of INP104 administration, 38% reported pain freedom and 66.3% reported pain relief. Headache recurrence was observed in 7.1% and 14.3% of patients at 24 and 48 hours, respectively.

In a questionnaire, 84% of patients agreed or strongly agreed that INP04 was easy to use. Most reported that INP104 slowed the recurrence of their migraines and was more rapidly and consistently effective than their previous best usual care treatment.

Intranasal delivery of DHE was developed in response to the challenges of traditional IV administration.

“While intravenous (IV) dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate has a long, established history as an effective migraine therapy, its use as an acute treatment can be limited by the high rate of nausea and vomiting reported by patients, which often requires pretreatment with antiemetics,” Dr. Smith and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, IV DHE mesylate needs to be administered in emergency room settings or by headache specialists, limiting convenience.”
 

A novel delivery system

“There’s already a nasal spray on the market right now which doesn’t seem to work that well in a large number of people. This device [INP04] was designed to get the same substances to a part of the nose that’s higher and farther back, where there may be better absorption,” said Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Rapoport was not involved with the study.

The proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD) is meant to improve on current nasal delivery methods such as sprays, droppers, and pumps, which may deliver “less than 5% of the active drug to the upper nasal space,” according to a press release from Impel NeuroPharma.

Nasal delivery also may have advantages over oral medications. People with migraines may be more likely to have gastroparesis – delayed stomach emptying – which may affect their ability to absorb oral medications and delay symptom relief. However, patients may hesitate to agree to a medication that involves nasal delivery, Dr. Rapoport said.

“I will say it’s a little more difficult getting your patients to take a nasal spray,” Dr. Rapoport said. “Patients are used to taking tablets for their headaches,” he said. “But if the doctor spends a little more time with the patient and says, ‘Look, this could work faster for your migraine as a nasal spray. Why don’t you try it a couple of times and see if you like it or not?’ patients are usually willing to give it a try.”

The study’s limitations include the lack of a control group given that it was an open-label trial. It was carried out at 38 sites in one geographical area, which may affect the generalizability of the results. The study did not assess patients with new-onset migraine or chronic migraine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Trudhesa on Sept. 2, 2021.

The study was funded by Impel NeuroPharma. Dr. Smith has received funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Rapoport disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Intranasal dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) may provide safe and effective migraine relief, a new study suggests.

A phase 3, open-label trial of INP104, or Trudhesa – Impel NeuroPharma’s proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery of DHE – found that most patients experienced symptom relief within 2 hours and reported that the medication was easy to use and preferable to their current therapy.
 

Another treatment option?

Of about 18 million diagnosed migraine patients in the United States, 4 million receive prescription treatment. Nearly 80% of migraine therapies involve triptans, but 30%-40% of patients don’t find adequate relief with triptans. Moreover, the majority of patients who do respond to triptans report that they’d like to try a different therapy.

“INP104 has the potential to deliver rapid symptom relief, without injection, that is well tolerated and suitable for outpatient us,” lead author Timothy Smith, MD, of StudyMetrix Research, St. Louis, and colleagues wrote in the paper.

The results were published online Aug. 7 in Headache.

A total of 360 patients aged 18-65 years with a diagnosis of migraine with or without aura with at least two attacks per month over the course of the previous 6 months were enrolled in the 24-week safety study, which had a 28-week extension period. Participants used their “best usual care” to treat their migraines during the initial 28-day screening period. Afterward, they were given 1.45-mg doses of INP04 to self-administer into the upper nasal space to treat self-recognized attacks. No more than two doses per 24 hours and three doses per 7 days were allowed. The Full Safety Set analysis comprised 354 patients who dosed at least once. The Primary Safety Set involved 185 patients who administered an average of two or more doses per 28-day period during the 24-week treatment period. A total of 4,515 self-recognized migraines were treated during the 24-week period; 6,332 doses of INP04 were analyzed.

Nearly 37% (130/354) of patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs); 6.8% (24/354) discontinued treatment because of the TEAEs over the 24 weeks. The most common TEAE was nasal congestion (15%, 53/354), followed by nausea (6.8%, 24/354).

Within an hour of INP104 administration, 47.6% of patients reported pain relief. After 2 hours of INP104 administration, 38% reported pain freedom and 66.3% reported pain relief. Headache recurrence was observed in 7.1% and 14.3% of patients at 24 and 48 hours, respectively.

In a questionnaire, 84% of patients agreed or strongly agreed that INP04 was easy to use. Most reported that INP104 slowed the recurrence of their migraines and was more rapidly and consistently effective than their previous best usual care treatment.

Intranasal delivery of DHE was developed in response to the challenges of traditional IV administration.

“While intravenous (IV) dihydroergotamine (DHE) mesylate has a long, established history as an effective migraine therapy, its use as an acute treatment can be limited by the high rate of nausea and vomiting reported by patients, which often requires pretreatment with antiemetics,” Dr. Smith and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, IV DHE mesylate needs to be administered in emergency room settings or by headache specialists, limiting convenience.”
 

A novel delivery system

“There’s already a nasal spray on the market right now which doesn’t seem to work that well in a large number of people. This device [INP04] was designed to get the same substances to a part of the nose that’s higher and farther back, where there may be better absorption,” said Alan Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Rapoport was not involved with the study.

The proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD) is meant to improve on current nasal delivery methods such as sprays, droppers, and pumps, which may deliver “less than 5% of the active drug to the upper nasal space,” according to a press release from Impel NeuroPharma.

Nasal delivery also may have advantages over oral medications. People with migraines may be more likely to have gastroparesis – delayed stomach emptying – which may affect their ability to absorb oral medications and delay symptom relief. However, patients may hesitate to agree to a medication that involves nasal delivery, Dr. Rapoport said.

“I will say it’s a little more difficult getting your patients to take a nasal spray,” Dr. Rapoport said. “Patients are used to taking tablets for their headaches,” he said. “But if the doctor spends a little more time with the patient and says, ‘Look, this could work faster for your migraine as a nasal spray. Why don’t you try it a couple of times and see if you like it or not?’ patients are usually willing to give it a try.”

The study’s limitations include the lack of a control group given that it was an open-label trial. It was carried out at 38 sites in one geographical area, which may affect the generalizability of the results. The study did not assess patients with new-onset migraine or chronic migraine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved Trudhesa on Sept. 2, 2021.

The study was funded by Impel NeuroPharma. Dr. Smith has received funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Rapoport disclosed no relevant financial relationships.