CHEST Physician

NEW ORLEANS – For patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), further clinical data continue to show benefit from preoperative treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with chemotherapy.

The combination resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a 14-fold greater chance of having a pathological complete response compared with chemotherapy alone.

Adding immunotherapy (IO) to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting represents “a quantum leap in lung cancer therapy,” commented David P. Carbone, MD, PhD, director of the James Thoracic Center at Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Combining IO with surgery I think is a new standard of care and will almost certainly improve overall survival [OS] in early-stage disease, for the first time in decades, in my entire career,” he said while discussing the new data at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The data come from the phase 3 CheckMate 816 study, an open-label trial involving patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

Results from this trial were the basis of the Food and Drug Administration’s recent approval of neoadjuvant therapy with nivolumab (Opdivo) and platinum-based chemotherapy in this population, which one expert described as “a turning point in how we treat resectable NSCLC.”

“Neoadjuvant IO has multiple theoretical advantages of over adjuvant IO,” commented Dr. Carbone. “CheckMate 816 suggests that practice will prove this theory correct.”

Importance of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy

New details of the results were presented at the meeting by Nicolas Girard, MD, from Institut Curie in Paris.

Among 358 patients in the trial, the median event-free survival (EFS) was 31.6 months for patients randomly assigned to the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and platinum-base chemotherapy, compared with 20.8 months for patients assigned to chemotherapy alone. This translated into a hazard ratio for disease recurrence, progression, or death of 0.63 (P = .005).

In addition, 24% of patients assigned to the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm had a pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy, compared with only 2.2% of those assigned to chemotherapy alone (P < .001).

Dr. Girard said the study provided important clues to the importance of neoadjuvant therapy for improving objective responses.

“Event-free survival was improved in patients with a pathological complete response, compared with those without, suggesting pCR is a surrogate endpoint for long-term outcomes in resectable non–small cell lung cancer, and this is the first time [this has been shown] in a randomized, phase 3 study,” he said.
 

Neoadjuvant slow to catch on

About one -fourth of all patients who are diagnosed with NSCLC have resectable disease, Dr. Girard and colleagues noted. However, 30%-55% of patients who undergo surgery with curative intent ultimately experience recurrence and die from their disease.

Neoadjuvant therapy may improve chances for complete resection and prevent or delay recurrence after surgery, but the absolute difference in 5-year recurrence-free survival and OS with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone is only about 6%, they noted.

The new results suggest that adding neoadjuvant immunotherapy to chemotherapy will improve upon this, although so far, the OS data from this trial are immature.

In an interim analysis, the median OS rate was 83% at 2 years for patients treated with nivolumab plus chemotherapy, compared with 71% for patients treated with chemotherapy alone. The published results show a significant improvement in the two primary endpoints – EFS and pCR.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Christine M. Lovly, MD, PhD, from the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., commented that the results of the trial are expected to change practice.

“However, several issues remain to be addressed,” she wrote. “First, is a pathological complete response predictive of event-free survival? Can event-free survival be used as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival? Second, although not mandated for this trial, approximately 20% of the patients received postoperative therapy. Is adjuvant therapy necessary? What criteria should be used to select patients to receive adjuvant therapy?”

Dr. Lovly also pointed out that patients with tumors harboring mutations in the genes EGFR or ALK were excluded from the trial.

“Therefore, implementation of neoadjuvant therapies requires biomarker testing for patients with early-stage disease at the time of diagnosis, a considerable alteration in the routine practice of lung-cancer medicine,” she wrote.
 

Fears of delaying surgery

In an interview, Upal Basu Roy, PhD, MPH, executive director of research at the LUNGevity Foundation, who was not involved in the study, gave a reason why neoadjuvant therapy is not more widely prescribed for patients with resectable NSCLC.

“Clinicians are always scared, and I think patients are as well, that giving a treatment before surgery would delay surgery,” he said. “When patients are diagnosed with lung cancer and they’re told that surgery offers the potential of cure and then hear that you’re giving them a treatment before surgery and that treatment may potentially delay surgery, that is a huge source of anxiety.”

In addition, clinicians until recently were unsure about which patients were most likely to benefit from neoadjuvant therapy when the only option was chemotherapy, “but that’s changing, obviously, with the recent approval of neoadjuvant nivolumab through CheckMate 816,” he said.
 

CheckMate 816 details

In the CheckMate 816 study, investigators enrolled patients with newly diagnosed resectable NSCLC (stage IB-IIIA) who had good performance status and no known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK alterations.

After stratification by stage, programmed death–1 status, and sex, the team randomly assigned patients to receive either nivolumab 360 mg plus platinum-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for a total of three cycles or chemotherapy alone.

At the end of neoadjuvant therapy, patients underwent radiologic restaging and surgery within 6 weeks. Patients could also receive optional adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy.

Of the 179 patients in each arm, 176 received the assigned treatment. In all, 149 (83%) of those assigned to the combination had definitive surgery, as did 135 (75%) of those assigned to chemotherapy alone.

In addition, 35 patients (20%) of those assigned to nivolumab-chemo and 56 (32%) assigned to chemotherapy alone received adjuvant therapy.

The coprimary endpoints of EFS and pCR favored the combination, both in the overall population and across most subgroups, including patients younger than 65, men and women, Asian patients, those with stage IIIA disease, nonsquamous histology, current smokers and never-smokers, and patients with higher levels of PD–ligand 1 expression.

The rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were similar between the groups, at 33.5% with the combination and 36.9% with chemotherapy alone.

Rates of adverse events leading to study discontinuation, treatment-related adverse events, and surgery-related adverse events were similar between the groups. There were two treatment-related deaths, both in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

CheckMate 816 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb (manufacturer of nivolumab). Girard has consulted for and has received grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and other companies. Dr. Carbone has consulted for Bristol-Myers Squibb and other companies. Dr. Lovly has consulted for various companies. Dr. Roy has received grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb to the LUNGevity Foundation.

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

NEW ORLEANS – For patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), further clinical data continue to show benefit from preoperative treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with chemotherapy.

The combination resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a 14-fold greater chance of having a pathological complete response compared with chemotherapy alone.

Adding immunotherapy (IO) to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting represents “a quantum leap in lung cancer therapy,” commented David P. Carbone, MD, PhD, director of the James Thoracic Center at Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Combining IO with surgery I think is a new standard of care and will almost certainly improve overall survival [OS] in early-stage disease, for the first time in decades, in my entire career,” he said while discussing the new data at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The data come from the phase 3 CheckMate 816 study, an open-label trial involving patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

Results from this trial were the basis of the Food and Drug Administration’s recent approval of neoadjuvant therapy with nivolumab (Opdivo) and platinum-based chemotherapy in this population, which one expert described as “a turning point in how we treat resectable NSCLC.”

“Neoadjuvant IO has multiple theoretical advantages of over adjuvant IO,” commented Dr. Carbone. “CheckMate 816 suggests that practice will prove this theory correct.”

Importance of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy

New details of the results were presented at the meeting by Nicolas Girard, MD, from Institut Curie in Paris.

Among 358 patients in the trial, the median event-free survival (EFS) was 31.6 months for patients randomly assigned to the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and platinum-base chemotherapy, compared with 20.8 months for patients assigned to chemotherapy alone. This translated into a hazard ratio for disease recurrence, progression, or death of 0.63 (P = .005).

In addition, 24% of patients assigned to the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm had a pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy, compared with only 2.2% of those assigned to chemotherapy alone (P < .001).

Dr. Girard said the study provided important clues to the importance of neoadjuvant therapy for improving objective responses.

“Event-free survival was improved in patients with a pathological complete response, compared with those without, suggesting pCR is a surrogate endpoint for long-term outcomes in resectable non–small cell lung cancer, and this is the first time [this has been shown] in a randomized, phase 3 study,” he said.
 

Neoadjuvant slow to catch on

About one -fourth of all patients who are diagnosed with NSCLC have resectable disease, Dr. Girard and colleagues noted. However, 30%-55% of patients who undergo surgery with curative intent ultimately experience recurrence and die from their disease.

Neoadjuvant therapy may improve chances for complete resection and prevent or delay recurrence after surgery, but the absolute difference in 5-year recurrence-free survival and OS with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone is only about 6%, they noted.

The new results suggest that adding neoadjuvant immunotherapy to chemotherapy will improve upon this, although so far, the OS data from this trial are immature.

In an interim analysis, the median OS rate was 83% at 2 years for patients treated with nivolumab plus chemotherapy, compared with 71% for patients treated with chemotherapy alone. The published results show a significant improvement in the two primary endpoints – EFS and pCR.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Christine M. Lovly, MD, PhD, from the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., commented that the results of the trial are expected to change practice.

“However, several issues remain to be addressed,” she wrote. “First, is a pathological complete response predictive of event-free survival? Can event-free survival be used as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival? Second, although not mandated for this trial, approximately 20% of the patients received postoperative therapy. Is adjuvant therapy necessary? What criteria should be used to select patients to receive adjuvant therapy?”

Dr. Lovly also pointed out that patients with tumors harboring mutations in the genes EGFR or ALK were excluded from the trial.

“Therefore, implementation of neoadjuvant therapies requires biomarker testing for patients with early-stage disease at the time of diagnosis, a considerable alteration in the routine practice of lung-cancer medicine,” she wrote.
 

Fears of delaying surgery

In an interview, Upal Basu Roy, PhD, MPH, executive director of research at the LUNGevity Foundation, who was not involved in the study, gave a reason why neoadjuvant therapy is not more widely prescribed for patients with resectable NSCLC.

“Clinicians are always scared, and I think patients are as well, that giving a treatment before surgery would delay surgery,” he said. “When patients are diagnosed with lung cancer and they’re told that surgery offers the potential of cure and then hear that you’re giving them a treatment before surgery and that treatment may potentially delay surgery, that is a huge source of anxiety.”

In addition, clinicians until recently were unsure about which patients were most likely to benefit from neoadjuvant therapy when the only option was chemotherapy, “but that’s changing, obviously, with the recent approval of neoadjuvant nivolumab through CheckMate 816,” he said.
 

CheckMate 816 details

In the CheckMate 816 study, investigators enrolled patients with newly diagnosed resectable NSCLC (stage IB-IIIA) who had good performance status and no known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK alterations.

After stratification by stage, programmed death–1 status, and sex, the team randomly assigned patients to receive either nivolumab 360 mg plus platinum-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for a total of three cycles or chemotherapy alone.

At the end of neoadjuvant therapy, patients underwent radiologic restaging and surgery within 6 weeks. Patients could also receive optional adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy.

Of the 179 patients in each arm, 176 received the assigned treatment. In all, 149 (83%) of those assigned to the combination had definitive surgery, as did 135 (75%) of those assigned to chemotherapy alone.

In addition, 35 patients (20%) of those assigned to nivolumab-chemo and 56 (32%) assigned to chemotherapy alone received adjuvant therapy.

The coprimary endpoints of EFS and pCR favored the combination, both in the overall population and across most subgroups, including patients younger than 65, men and women, Asian patients, those with stage IIIA disease, nonsquamous histology, current smokers and never-smokers, and patients with higher levels of PD–ligand 1 expression.

The rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were similar between the groups, at 33.5% with the combination and 36.9% with chemotherapy alone.

Rates of adverse events leading to study discontinuation, treatment-related adverse events, and surgery-related adverse events were similar between the groups. There were two treatment-related deaths, both in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

CheckMate 816 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb (manufacturer of nivolumab). Girard has consulted for and has received grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and other companies. Dr. Carbone has consulted for Bristol-Myers Squibb and other companies. Dr. Lovly has consulted for various companies. Dr. Roy has received grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb to the LUNGevity Foundation.

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

NEW ORLEANS – For patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), further clinical data continue to show benefit from preoperative treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) with chemotherapy.

The combination resulted in significantly longer event-free survival and a 14-fold greater chance of having a pathological complete response compared with chemotherapy alone.

Adding immunotherapy (IO) to chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting represents “a quantum leap in lung cancer therapy,” commented David P. Carbone, MD, PhD, director of the James Thoracic Center at Ohio State University, Columbus.

“Combining IO with surgery I think is a new standard of care and will almost certainly improve overall survival [OS] in early-stage disease, for the first time in decades, in my entire career,” he said while discussing the new data at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The data come from the phase 3 CheckMate 816 study, an open-label trial involving patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.

Results from this trial were the basis of the Food and Drug Administration’s recent approval of neoadjuvant therapy with nivolumab (Opdivo) and platinum-based chemotherapy in this population, which one expert described as “a turning point in how we treat resectable NSCLC.”

“Neoadjuvant IO has multiple theoretical advantages of over adjuvant IO,” commented Dr. Carbone. “CheckMate 816 suggests that practice will prove this theory correct.”

Importance of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy

New details of the results were presented at the meeting by Nicolas Girard, MD, from Institut Curie in Paris.

Among 358 patients in the trial, the median event-free survival (EFS) was 31.6 months for patients randomly assigned to the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and platinum-base chemotherapy, compared with 20.8 months for patients assigned to chemotherapy alone. This translated into a hazard ratio for disease recurrence, progression, or death of 0.63 (P = .005).

In addition, 24% of patients assigned to the nivolumab plus chemotherapy arm had a pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy, compared with only 2.2% of those assigned to chemotherapy alone (P < .001).

Dr. Girard said the study provided important clues to the importance of neoadjuvant therapy for improving objective responses.

“Event-free survival was improved in patients with a pathological complete response, compared with those without, suggesting pCR is a surrogate endpoint for long-term outcomes in resectable non–small cell lung cancer, and this is the first time [this has been shown] in a randomized, phase 3 study,” he said.
 

Neoadjuvant slow to catch on

About one -fourth of all patients who are diagnosed with NSCLC have resectable disease, Dr. Girard and colleagues noted. However, 30%-55% of patients who undergo surgery with curative intent ultimately experience recurrence and die from their disease.

Neoadjuvant therapy may improve chances for complete resection and prevent or delay recurrence after surgery, but the absolute difference in 5-year recurrence-free survival and OS with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone is only about 6%, they noted.

The new results suggest that adding neoadjuvant immunotherapy to chemotherapy will improve upon this, although so far, the OS data from this trial are immature.

In an interim analysis, the median OS rate was 83% at 2 years for patients treated with nivolumab plus chemotherapy, compared with 71% for patients treated with chemotherapy alone. The published results show a significant improvement in the two primary endpoints – EFS and pCR.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Christine M. Lovly, MD, PhD, from the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., commented that the results of the trial are expected to change practice.

“However, several issues remain to be addressed,” she wrote. “First, is a pathological complete response predictive of event-free survival? Can event-free survival be used as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival? Second, although not mandated for this trial, approximately 20% of the patients received postoperative therapy. Is adjuvant therapy necessary? What criteria should be used to select patients to receive adjuvant therapy?”

Dr. Lovly also pointed out that patients with tumors harboring mutations in the genes EGFR or ALK were excluded from the trial.

“Therefore, implementation of neoadjuvant therapies requires biomarker testing for patients with early-stage disease at the time of diagnosis, a considerable alteration in the routine practice of lung-cancer medicine,” she wrote.
 

Fears of delaying surgery

In an interview, Upal Basu Roy, PhD, MPH, executive director of research at the LUNGevity Foundation, who was not involved in the study, gave a reason why neoadjuvant therapy is not more widely prescribed for patients with resectable NSCLC.

“Clinicians are always scared, and I think patients are as well, that giving a treatment before surgery would delay surgery,” he said. “When patients are diagnosed with lung cancer and they’re told that surgery offers the potential of cure and then hear that you’re giving them a treatment before surgery and that treatment may potentially delay surgery, that is a huge source of anxiety.”

In addition, clinicians until recently were unsure about which patients were most likely to benefit from neoadjuvant therapy when the only option was chemotherapy, “but that’s changing, obviously, with the recent approval of neoadjuvant nivolumab through CheckMate 816,” he said.
 

CheckMate 816 details

In the CheckMate 816 study, investigators enrolled patients with newly diagnosed resectable NSCLC (stage IB-IIIA) who had good performance status and no known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK alterations.

After stratification by stage, programmed death–1 status, and sex, the team randomly assigned patients to receive either nivolumab 360 mg plus platinum-based chemotherapy every 3 weeks for a total of three cycles or chemotherapy alone.

At the end of neoadjuvant therapy, patients underwent radiologic restaging and surgery within 6 weeks. Patients could also receive optional adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy.

Of the 179 patients in each arm, 176 received the assigned treatment. In all, 149 (83%) of those assigned to the combination had definitive surgery, as did 135 (75%) of those assigned to chemotherapy alone.

In addition, 35 patients (20%) of those assigned to nivolumab-chemo and 56 (32%) assigned to chemotherapy alone received adjuvant therapy.

The coprimary endpoints of EFS and pCR favored the combination, both in the overall population and across most subgroups, including patients younger than 65, men and women, Asian patients, those with stage IIIA disease, nonsquamous histology, current smokers and never-smokers, and patients with higher levels of PD–ligand 1 expression.

The rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were similar between the groups, at 33.5% with the combination and 36.9% with chemotherapy alone.

Rates of adverse events leading to study discontinuation, treatment-related adverse events, and surgery-related adverse events were similar between the groups. There were two treatment-related deaths, both in the chemotherapy-alone arm.

CheckMate 816 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb (manufacturer of nivolumab). Girard has consulted for and has received grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and other companies. Dr. Carbone has consulted for Bristol-Myers Squibb and other companies. Dr. Lovly has consulted for various companies. Dr. Roy has received grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb to the LUNGevity Foundation.

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

NEW ORLEANS – One third of patients with non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) bearing the KRASG12C mutation were alive 2 years after starting therapy with the first-in-class KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen).

The finding comes from an analysis of long-term follow-up data from the CodeBreaK100 trial, which showed a 2-year overall survival (OS) rate of 32.5% in pretreated patients with KRASG12C-mutant disease.

That rate compares favorably with historical data on NSCLC therapies, said Grace K. Dy, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y.

“We expect about half of that [survival rate] in patients who are treated with docetaxel,” she said in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Sotorasib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2021 as the first drug for patients with NSCLC and KRAS mutations and was described as a “historic milestone.” 

In this most recent analysis, which combined data from patients enrolled in phases 1 and 2 of the trial, the “objective response rate of 41% of patients was achieved with sotorasib, with a durable [disease] control rate of 84% and a median duration of response of 12.3 months, with no new safety signals emerging,” she said.

Nearly one-fourth of patients saw long-term benefit, as defined by progression-free survival of at least 12 months, and this long-term benefit was seen across variant allele frequencies of KRASG12C, programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score, and other comutations, she noted.

“KRASG12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS-mutant lung cancers and other types as well,” said invited discussant Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, director of clinical research at the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston.

He cautioned, however, that “the therapeutic efficacy of these G12C inhibitors is currently limited by several things, including patient factors, intrinsic biology, and the emergence of complex resistance mechanisms.”

New approaches will be needed, he said, “to delay and overcome drug resistance to hopefully keep kicking cancer’s KRAS.”

At a media briefing where Dr. Dy presented the data prior to the oral abstract session, moderator Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented that the development of drug resistance is common in oncology.

“That is exactly why we’re now actively working on multiple different combinatorial approaches in the clinic. There have been pretty compelling data published from Mirati [Therapeutics] and from other companies, from Amgen, that really show the resistance mechanisms that actually come about upon monotherapy with KRASG12C inhibitors, including CDK4/6, including P13K-Akt pathways,” he said.

“The solution there really is, No. 1, we need to identify proactively the resistance mechanisms involved and driving each cancer’s resistance, and No. 2, then apply the combinatorial agent, to bring in a combination that’s a rational approach to match a patient’s molecular profile upon resistance,” he said.
 

Tarnished triumph

As previously reported, sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting in 2020.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

But as Dr. Awad reported at the 2021 AACR annual meeting, the efficacy of sotorasib and other KRAS inhibitors in development has been threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Dr. Awad reported that among 30 patients with NSCLC or colorectal cancer bearing the KRASG12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with the investigational inhibitor adagrasib in clinical trials, investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to the drug.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRASG12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” he said.
 

Long follow-up

The long-term data reported at the 2022 meeting by Dr. Dy and colleagues included data on 48 patients enrolled in phase 1 of the trial, which had a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability, and 126 patients enrolled in phase 2, with a primary endpoint of objective response rate by blinded independent review.

The trial was conducted in centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

Nearly all patients were pretreated: 92.5% of patients had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 90.2% had received anti–PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.

Patients received oral sotorasib 960 mg once daily and were followed with radiographic scans every 6 weeks for the first year and once every 12 weeks thereafter.

Of the 174 patients enrolled, two were not evaluable for response at 2 years because of a lack of measurable lesions at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, 5 patients (2.9%) had a complete response and 65 (37.8%) had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 40.7%. An additional 74 patients (43%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 83.7%. Of the remaining patients, 23 (13.4%) had disease progression, and 5 were either not evaluable or had missing scan data.

Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Median time to response was 6 weeks, and median duration of response was 12.3 months. Half of patients who had a response retained that response for at least 12 months.

Median OS was 12.5 months. The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 50.8% and 32.5%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21% of patients, and one patient had new-onset grade 3 hemolytic anemia 1 year after starting therapy. There were no treatment-related deaths and no treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation after the first year.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of the drug was seen across tumors with varying levels of PD-L1 expression and the oncogenic STK11 comutation, and across KRASG12C variant allele frequency.

The investigators also reported that baseline circulating tumor DNA levels correlated with tumor burden, and that patients who had long-term benefits had lower baseline ctDNA. This finding is consistent with the documented role of ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis regardless of therapy.

Dr. Dy reported receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, and Takeda in the past 2 years. Dr. Yap disclosed receiving consulting fees from multiple companies. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for multiple companies.

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

NEW ORLEANS – One third of patients with non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) bearing the KRASG12C mutation were alive 2 years after starting therapy with the first-in-class KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen).

The finding comes from an analysis of long-term follow-up data from the CodeBreaK100 trial, which showed a 2-year overall survival (OS) rate of 32.5% in pretreated patients with KRASG12C-mutant disease.

That rate compares favorably with historical data on NSCLC therapies, said Grace K. Dy, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y.

“We expect about half of that [survival rate] in patients who are treated with docetaxel,” she said in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Sotorasib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2021 as the first drug for patients with NSCLC and KRAS mutations and was described as a “historic milestone.” 

In this most recent analysis, which combined data from patients enrolled in phases 1 and 2 of the trial, the “objective response rate of 41% of patients was achieved with sotorasib, with a durable [disease] control rate of 84% and a median duration of response of 12.3 months, with no new safety signals emerging,” she said.

Nearly one-fourth of patients saw long-term benefit, as defined by progression-free survival of at least 12 months, and this long-term benefit was seen across variant allele frequencies of KRASG12C, programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score, and other comutations, she noted.

“KRASG12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS-mutant lung cancers and other types as well,” said invited discussant Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, director of clinical research at the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston.

He cautioned, however, that “the therapeutic efficacy of these G12C inhibitors is currently limited by several things, including patient factors, intrinsic biology, and the emergence of complex resistance mechanisms.”

New approaches will be needed, he said, “to delay and overcome drug resistance to hopefully keep kicking cancer’s KRAS.”

At a media briefing where Dr. Dy presented the data prior to the oral abstract session, moderator Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented that the development of drug resistance is common in oncology.

“That is exactly why we’re now actively working on multiple different combinatorial approaches in the clinic. There have been pretty compelling data published from Mirati [Therapeutics] and from other companies, from Amgen, that really show the resistance mechanisms that actually come about upon monotherapy with KRASG12C inhibitors, including CDK4/6, including P13K-Akt pathways,” he said.

“The solution there really is, No. 1, we need to identify proactively the resistance mechanisms involved and driving each cancer’s resistance, and No. 2, then apply the combinatorial agent, to bring in a combination that’s a rational approach to match a patient’s molecular profile upon resistance,” he said.
 

Tarnished triumph

As previously reported, sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting in 2020.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

But as Dr. Awad reported at the 2021 AACR annual meeting, the efficacy of sotorasib and other KRAS inhibitors in development has been threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Dr. Awad reported that among 30 patients with NSCLC or colorectal cancer bearing the KRASG12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with the investigational inhibitor adagrasib in clinical trials, investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to the drug.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRASG12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” he said.
 

Long follow-up

The long-term data reported at the 2022 meeting by Dr. Dy and colleagues included data on 48 patients enrolled in phase 1 of the trial, which had a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability, and 126 patients enrolled in phase 2, with a primary endpoint of objective response rate by blinded independent review.

The trial was conducted in centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

Nearly all patients were pretreated: 92.5% of patients had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 90.2% had received anti–PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.

Patients received oral sotorasib 960 mg once daily and were followed with radiographic scans every 6 weeks for the first year and once every 12 weeks thereafter.

Of the 174 patients enrolled, two were not evaluable for response at 2 years because of a lack of measurable lesions at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, 5 patients (2.9%) had a complete response and 65 (37.8%) had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 40.7%. An additional 74 patients (43%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 83.7%. Of the remaining patients, 23 (13.4%) had disease progression, and 5 were either not evaluable or had missing scan data.

Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Median time to response was 6 weeks, and median duration of response was 12.3 months. Half of patients who had a response retained that response for at least 12 months.

Median OS was 12.5 months. The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 50.8% and 32.5%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21% of patients, and one patient had new-onset grade 3 hemolytic anemia 1 year after starting therapy. There were no treatment-related deaths and no treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation after the first year.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of the drug was seen across tumors with varying levels of PD-L1 expression and the oncogenic STK11 comutation, and across KRASG12C variant allele frequency.

The investigators also reported that baseline circulating tumor DNA levels correlated with tumor burden, and that patients who had long-term benefits had lower baseline ctDNA. This finding is consistent with the documented role of ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis regardless of therapy.

Dr. Dy reported receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, and Takeda in the past 2 years. Dr. Yap disclosed receiving consulting fees from multiple companies. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for multiple companies.

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

NEW ORLEANS – One third of patients with non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) bearing the KRASG12C mutation were alive 2 years after starting therapy with the first-in-class KRAS inhibitor sotorasib (Lumakras, Amgen).

The finding comes from an analysis of long-term follow-up data from the CodeBreaK100 trial, which showed a 2-year overall survival (OS) rate of 32.5% in pretreated patients with KRASG12C-mutant disease.

That rate compares favorably with historical data on NSCLC therapies, said Grace K. Dy, MD, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y.

“We expect about half of that [survival rate] in patients who are treated with docetaxel,” she said in a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Sotorasib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 2021 as the first drug for patients with NSCLC and KRAS mutations and was described as a “historic milestone.” 

In this most recent analysis, which combined data from patients enrolled in phases 1 and 2 of the trial, the “objective response rate of 41% of patients was achieved with sotorasib, with a durable [disease] control rate of 84% and a median duration of response of 12.3 months, with no new safety signals emerging,” she said.

Nearly one-fourth of patients saw long-term benefit, as defined by progression-free survival of at least 12 months, and this long-term benefit was seen across variant allele frequencies of KRASG12C, programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score, and other comutations, she noted.

“KRASG12C inhibitors represent a major advance in the treatment of KRAS-mutant lung cancers and other types as well,” said invited discussant Mark M. Awad, MD, PhD, director of clinical research at the Lowe Center for Thoracic Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston.

He cautioned, however, that “the therapeutic efficacy of these G12C inhibitors is currently limited by several things, including patient factors, intrinsic biology, and the emergence of complex resistance mechanisms.”

New approaches will be needed, he said, “to delay and overcome drug resistance to hopefully keep kicking cancer’s KRAS.”

At a media briefing where Dr. Dy presented the data prior to the oral abstract session, moderator Timothy A. Yap, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented that the development of drug resistance is common in oncology.

“That is exactly why we’re now actively working on multiple different combinatorial approaches in the clinic. There have been pretty compelling data published from Mirati [Therapeutics] and from other companies, from Amgen, that really show the resistance mechanisms that actually come about upon monotherapy with KRASG12C inhibitors, including CDK4/6, including P13K-Akt pathways,” he said.

“The solution there really is, No. 1, we need to identify proactively the resistance mechanisms involved and driving each cancer’s resistance, and No. 2, then apply the combinatorial agent, to bring in a combination that’s a rational approach to match a patient’s molecular profile upon resistance,” he said.
 

Tarnished triumph

As previously reported, sotorasib was hailed as “a triumph of drug discovery” when early results of the trial were reported at the European Society of Medical Oncology annual meeting in 2020.

Sotorasib is a small-molecule, specific, and irreversible inhibitor of KRAS that interacts with a “pocket” on the gene’s surface that is present only in an inactive conformation of KRAS. The drug inhibits oncogenic signaling and tumorigenesis by preventing cycling of the oncogene into its active form.

But as Dr. Awad reported at the 2021 AACR annual meeting, the efficacy of sotorasib and other KRAS inhibitors in development has been threatened by the development of resistance caused by a wide range of genomic and histologic mechanisms.

Dr. Awad reported that among 30 patients with NSCLC or colorectal cancer bearing the KRASG12C mutation who had disease progression while being treated with the investigational inhibitor adagrasib in clinical trials, investigators found multiple on-target KRAS alterations and off-target bypass mechanisms of acquired resistance to the drug.

“Diverse mechanisms confer resistance to the KRASG12C inhibitors, including secondary KRAS mutations, MAP [mitogen-activated protein] kinase pathway alterations, acquired genomic rearrangements, and histologic transformation,” he said.
 

Long follow-up

The long-term data reported at the 2022 meeting by Dr. Dy and colleagues included data on 48 patients enrolled in phase 1 of the trial, which had a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability, and 126 patients enrolled in phase 2, with a primary endpoint of objective response rate by blinded independent review.

The trial was conducted in centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.

Nearly all patients were pretreated: 92.5% of patients had received prior platinum-based chemotherapy and 90.2% had received anti–PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.

Patients received oral sotorasib 960 mg once daily and were followed with radiographic scans every 6 weeks for the first year and once every 12 weeks thereafter.

Of the 174 patients enrolled, two were not evaluable for response at 2 years because of a lack of measurable lesions at baseline.

At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, 5 patients (2.9%) had a complete response and 65 (37.8%) had a partial response, for an objective response rate of 40.7%. An additional 74 patients (43%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 83.7%. Of the remaining patients, 23 (13.4%) had disease progression, and 5 were either not evaluable or had missing scan data.

Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Median time to response was 6 weeks, and median duration of response was 12.3 months. Half of patients who had a response retained that response for at least 12 months.

Median OS was 12.5 months. The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 50.8% and 32.5%, respectively.

Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21% of patients, and one patient had new-onset grade 3 hemolytic anemia 1 year after starting therapy. There were no treatment-related deaths and no treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation after the first year.

In exploratory analyses, the benefit of the drug was seen across tumors with varying levels of PD-L1 expression and the oncogenic STK11 comutation, and across KRASG12C variant allele frequency.

The investigators also reported that baseline circulating tumor DNA levels correlated with tumor burden, and that patients who had long-term benefits had lower baseline ctDNA. This finding is consistent with the documented role of ctDNA as a marker for poor prognosis regardless of therapy.

Dr. Dy reported receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Mirati Therapeutics, and Takeda in the past 2 years. Dr. Yap disclosed receiving consulting fees from multiple companies. Dr. Awad disclosed consulting for multiple companies.

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

Approximately one-third of critical care workers reported some degree of depression, anxiety, or somatic symptoms in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on survey results from 939 health care professionals.

The emotional response of professionals in a critical care setting in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been well studied, Robyn Branca, PhD, and Paul Branca, MD, of Carson Newman University and the University of Tennessee Medical Center, both in Knoxville, wrote in an abstract presented at the virtual Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and somatization is low in the general population overall, but the researchers predicted that these conditions increased among workers in critical care settings early in the pandemic.

To assess the prevalence of psychological problems during that time, they sent an email survey on April 7, 2020, to members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The survey collected data on demographics, perceived caseload, and potential course of the pandemic. The survey also collected responses to assessments for depression (using the Patient Health Questionnaire–9), anxiety (using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD] Scale–7), and symptom somatization (using the PHQ-15).

Of the 939 survey respondents, 37% were male, 61.4% were female, and 1.4% gave another or no response.

Overall, 32.3% reported encountering 0-50 COVID-19 cases, 31.1% had encountered 51-200 cases, 12.5% had encountered 201-500 cases, 9.4% had encountered 501-1000 cases, and 13.7% had encountered more than 1,000 cases.

Based on the PHQ-9 depression scale, 44.9% of the respondents had minimal symptoms, 31.1% mild symptoms, 14.3% moderate symptoms, and 9.7% met criteria for severe depressive symptoms. Based on the GAD-7 anxiety scale, 35.5% had minimal symptoms, 32.9% mild, 16.8% moderate, and 14.8% had severe symptoms. Based on the PHQ-15 somatization scale, 39.6% of respondents showed minimal symptoms, whereas 38.2% showed mild symptoms, 17.3% moderate symptoms, and 4.9% had a severe degree of somatic symptoms.

The study findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports; however, the results indicate that a high percentage of critical care workers experienced significant, diagnosable levels of depression, anxiety, and somatic symptoms, the researchers said.

The standard guidance is to pursue individual intervention for anyone with scores of moderate or severe on the scales used in the survey, the researchers said.

Therefore, the findings represent “an alarming degree of mental health impact,” they emphasized. “Immediate mitigation efforts are needed to preserve the health of our ICU workforce.”

The study is important at this time because clinician fatigue and occupational stress are at endemic levels, Bernard Chang, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, said in an interview. “It is vital that we take stock of how frontline workers in critical care settings are doing overall,” said Dr. Chang.  

Dr. Chang, who was not involved with the study but has conducted research on mental health in frontline health care workers during the pandemic, said he was not surprised by the findings. “This work builds on the growing body of literature in the pandemic noting high levels of stress, fatigue, and depression/anxiety symptoms across many frontline workers, from emergency department staff, first responders and others. These are all data points highlighting the urgent need for a broad safety net, not only for patients but the providers serving them.”

The takeaway message: “Clinicians are often so focused on providing care for their patients that they may overlook the need to care for their own well-being and mental health,” said Dr. Chang.

As for additional research, “we need to now take this important data and build on creating and identifying tangible solutions to improve the morale of the acute care/health care workforce to ensure career longevity, professional satisfaction, and overall well-being,” Dr. Chang emphasized. Mental health and morale affect not only health care workers, but also the patients they care for. Well–cared for health care providers can be at their best to provide the optimal care for their patients.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Chang disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately one-third of critical care workers reported some degree of depression, anxiety, or somatic symptoms in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on survey results from 939 health care professionals.

The emotional response of professionals in a critical care setting in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been well studied, Robyn Branca, PhD, and Paul Branca, MD, of Carson Newman University and the University of Tennessee Medical Center, both in Knoxville, wrote in an abstract presented at the virtual Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and somatization is low in the general population overall, but the researchers predicted that these conditions increased among workers in critical care settings early in the pandemic.

To assess the prevalence of psychological problems during that time, they sent an email survey on April 7, 2020, to members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The survey collected data on demographics, perceived caseload, and potential course of the pandemic. The survey also collected responses to assessments for depression (using the Patient Health Questionnaire–9), anxiety (using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD] Scale–7), and symptom somatization (using the PHQ-15).

Of the 939 survey respondents, 37% were male, 61.4% were female, and 1.4% gave another or no response.

Overall, 32.3% reported encountering 0-50 COVID-19 cases, 31.1% had encountered 51-200 cases, 12.5% had encountered 201-500 cases, 9.4% had encountered 501-1000 cases, and 13.7% had encountered more than 1,000 cases.

Based on the PHQ-9 depression scale, 44.9% of the respondents had minimal symptoms, 31.1% mild symptoms, 14.3% moderate symptoms, and 9.7% met criteria for severe depressive symptoms. Based on the GAD-7 anxiety scale, 35.5% had minimal symptoms, 32.9% mild, 16.8% moderate, and 14.8% had severe symptoms. Based on the PHQ-15 somatization scale, 39.6% of respondents showed minimal symptoms, whereas 38.2% showed mild symptoms, 17.3% moderate symptoms, and 4.9% had a severe degree of somatic symptoms.

The study findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports; however, the results indicate that a high percentage of critical care workers experienced significant, diagnosable levels of depression, anxiety, and somatic symptoms, the researchers said.

The standard guidance is to pursue individual intervention for anyone with scores of moderate or severe on the scales used in the survey, the researchers said.

Therefore, the findings represent “an alarming degree of mental health impact,” they emphasized. “Immediate mitigation efforts are needed to preserve the health of our ICU workforce.”

The study is important at this time because clinician fatigue and occupational stress are at endemic levels, Bernard Chang, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, said in an interview. “It is vital that we take stock of how frontline workers in critical care settings are doing overall,” said Dr. Chang.  

Dr. Chang, who was not involved with the study but has conducted research on mental health in frontline health care workers during the pandemic, said he was not surprised by the findings. “This work builds on the growing body of literature in the pandemic noting high levels of stress, fatigue, and depression/anxiety symptoms across many frontline workers, from emergency department staff, first responders and others. These are all data points highlighting the urgent need for a broad safety net, not only for patients but the providers serving them.”

The takeaway message: “Clinicians are often so focused on providing care for their patients that they may overlook the need to care for their own well-being and mental health,” said Dr. Chang.

As for additional research, “we need to now take this important data and build on creating and identifying tangible solutions to improve the morale of the acute care/health care workforce to ensure career longevity, professional satisfaction, and overall well-being,” Dr. Chang emphasized. Mental health and morale affect not only health care workers, but also the patients they care for. Well–cared for health care providers can be at their best to provide the optimal care for their patients.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Chang disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately one-third of critical care workers reported some degree of depression, anxiety, or somatic symptoms in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, based on survey results from 939 health care professionals.

The emotional response of professionals in a critical care setting in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been well studied, Robyn Branca, PhD, and Paul Branca, MD, of Carson Newman University and the University of Tennessee Medical Center, both in Knoxville, wrote in an abstract presented at the virtual Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The prevalence of depression, anxiety, and somatization is low in the general population overall, but the researchers predicted that these conditions increased among workers in critical care settings early in the pandemic.

To assess the prevalence of psychological problems during that time, they sent an email survey on April 7, 2020, to members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The survey collected data on demographics, perceived caseload, and potential course of the pandemic. The survey also collected responses to assessments for depression (using the Patient Health Questionnaire–9), anxiety (using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD] Scale–7), and symptom somatization (using the PHQ-15).

Of the 939 survey respondents, 37% were male, 61.4% were female, and 1.4% gave another or no response.

Overall, 32.3% reported encountering 0-50 COVID-19 cases, 31.1% had encountered 51-200 cases, 12.5% had encountered 201-500 cases, 9.4% had encountered 501-1000 cases, and 13.7% had encountered more than 1,000 cases.

Based on the PHQ-9 depression scale, 44.9% of the respondents had minimal symptoms, 31.1% mild symptoms, 14.3% moderate symptoms, and 9.7% met criteria for severe depressive symptoms. Based on the GAD-7 anxiety scale, 35.5% had minimal symptoms, 32.9% mild, 16.8% moderate, and 14.8% had severe symptoms. Based on the PHQ-15 somatization scale, 39.6% of respondents showed minimal symptoms, whereas 38.2% showed mild symptoms, 17.3% moderate symptoms, and 4.9% had a severe degree of somatic symptoms.

The study findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports; however, the results indicate that a high percentage of critical care workers experienced significant, diagnosable levels of depression, anxiety, and somatic symptoms, the researchers said.

The standard guidance is to pursue individual intervention for anyone with scores of moderate or severe on the scales used in the survey, the researchers said.

Therefore, the findings represent “an alarming degree of mental health impact,” they emphasized. “Immediate mitigation efforts are needed to preserve the health of our ICU workforce.”

The study is important at this time because clinician fatigue and occupational stress are at endemic levels, Bernard Chang, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, said in an interview. “It is vital that we take stock of how frontline workers in critical care settings are doing overall,” said Dr. Chang.  

Dr. Chang, who was not involved with the study but has conducted research on mental health in frontline health care workers during the pandemic, said he was not surprised by the findings. “This work builds on the growing body of literature in the pandemic noting high levels of stress, fatigue, and depression/anxiety symptoms across many frontline workers, from emergency department staff, first responders and others. These are all data points highlighting the urgent need for a broad safety net, not only for patients but the providers serving them.”

The takeaway message: “Clinicians are often so focused on providing care for their patients that they may overlook the need to care for their own well-being and mental health,” said Dr. Chang.

As for additional research, “we need to now take this important data and build on creating and identifying tangible solutions to improve the morale of the acute care/health care workforce to ensure career longevity, professional satisfaction, and overall well-being,” Dr. Chang emphasized. Mental health and morale affect not only health care workers, but also the patients they care for. Well–cared for health care providers can be at their best to provide the optimal care for their patients.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Chang disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Psychiatric disorders are tied to an increased risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection, particularly among older adults, new research shows.

“Psychiatric disorders remained significantly associated with incident breakthrough infections above and beyond sociodemographic and medical factors, suggesting that mental health is important to consider in conjunction with other risk factors,” wrote the investigators, led by Aoife O’Donovan, PhD, University of California, San Francisco.

Individuals with psychiatric disorders “should be prioritized for booster vaccinations and other critical preventive efforts, including increased SARS-CoV-2 screening, public health campaigns, or COVID-19 discussions during clinical care,” they added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Elderly most vulnerable

The researchers reviewed the records of 263,697 veterans who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Just over a half (51.4%) had one or more psychiatric diagnoses within the last 5 years and 14.8% developed breakthrough COVID-19 infections, confirmed by a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

Psychiatric diagnoses among the veterans included depression, posttraumatic stress, anxiety, adjustment disorder, substance use disorder, bipolar disorder, psychosis, ADHD, dissociation, and eating disorders.

In the overall sample, a history of any psychiatric disorder was associated with a 7% higher incidence of breakthrough COVID-19 infection in models adjusted for potential confounders (adjusted relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09) and a 3% higher incidence in models additionally adjusted for underlying medical comorbidities and smoking (aRR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05).

Most psychiatric disorders were associated with a higher incidence of breakthrough infection, with the highest relative risk observed for substance use disorders (aRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.12 -1.21) and adjustment disorder (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16) in fully adjusted models.

Older vaccinated veterans with psychiatric illnesses appear to be most vulnerable to COVID-19 reinfection.

In veterans aged 65 and older, all psychiatric disorders were associated with an increased incidence of breakthrough infection, with increases in the incidence rate ranging from 3% to 24% in fully adjusted models.

In the younger veterans, in contrast, only anxiety, adjustment, and substance use disorders were associated with an increased incidence of breakthrough infection in fully adjusted models.

Psychotic disorders were associated with a 10% lower incidence of breakthrough infection among younger veterans, perhaps because of greater social isolation, the researchers said.
 

Risky behavior or impaired immunity?

“Although some of the larger observed effect sizes are compelling at an individual level, even the relatively modest effect sizes may have a large effect at the population level when considering the high prevalence of psychiatric disorders and the global reach and scale of the pandemic,” Dr. O’Donovan and colleagues wrote.

They noted that psychiatric disorders, including depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorders, have been associated with impaired cellular immunity and blunted response to vaccines. Therefore, it’s possible that those with psychiatric disorders have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccination.

It’s also possible that immunity following vaccination wanes more quickly or more strongly in people with psychiatric disorders and they could have less protection against new variants, they added.

Patients with psychiatric disorders could be more apt to engage in risky behaviors for contracting COVID-19, which could also increase the risk for breakthrough infection, they said.

The study was supported by a UCSF Department of Psychiatry Rapid Award and UCSF Faculty Resource Fund Award. Dr. O’Donovan reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Psychiatric disorders are tied to an increased risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection, particularly among older adults, new research shows.

“Psychiatric disorders remained significantly associated with incident breakthrough infections above and beyond sociodemographic and medical factors, suggesting that mental health is important to consider in conjunction with other risk factors,” wrote the investigators, led by Aoife O’Donovan, PhD, University of California, San Francisco.

Individuals with psychiatric disorders “should be prioritized for booster vaccinations and other critical preventive efforts, including increased SARS-CoV-2 screening, public health campaigns, or COVID-19 discussions during clinical care,” they added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Elderly most vulnerable

The researchers reviewed the records of 263,697 veterans who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Just over a half (51.4%) had one or more psychiatric diagnoses within the last 5 years and 14.8% developed breakthrough COVID-19 infections, confirmed by a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

Psychiatric diagnoses among the veterans included depression, posttraumatic stress, anxiety, adjustment disorder, substance use disorder, bipolar disorder, psychosis, ADHD, dissociation, and eating disorders.

In the overall sample, a history of any psychiatric disorder was associated with a 7% higher incidence of breakthrough COVID-19 infection in models adjusted for potential confounders (adjusted relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09) and a 3% higher incidence in models additionally adjusted for underlying medical comorbidities and smoking (aRR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05).

Most psychiatric disorders were associated with a higher incidence of breakthrough infection, with the highest relative risk observed for substance use disorders (aRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.12 -1.21) and adjustment disorder (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16) in fully adjusted models.

Older vaccinated veterans with psychiatric illnesses appear to be most vulnerable to COVID-19 reinfection.

In veterans aged 65 and older, all psychiatric disorders were associated with an increased incidence of breakthrough infection, with increases in the incidence rate ranging from 3% to 24% in fully adjusted models.

In the younger veterans, in contrast, only anxiety, adjustment, and substance use disorders were associated with an increased incidence of breakthrough infection in fully adjusted models.

Psychotic disorders were associated with a 10% lower incidence of breakthrough infection among younger veterans, perhaps because of greater social isolation, the researchers said.
 

Risky behavior or impaired immunity?

“Although some of the larger observed effect sizes are compelling at an individual level, even the relatively modest effect sizes may have a large effect at the population level when considering the high prevalence of psychiatric disorders and the global reach and scale of the pandemic,” Dr. O’Donovan and colleagues wrote.

They noted that psychiatric disorders, including depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorders, have been associated with impaired cellular immunity and blunted response to vaccines. Therefore, it’s possible that those with psychiatric disorders have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccination.

It’s also possible that immunity following vaccination wanes more quickly or more strongly in people with psychiatric disorders and they could have less protection against new variants, they added.

Patients with psychiatric disorders could be more apt to engage in risky behaviors for contracting COVID-19, which could also increase the risk for breakthrough infection, they said.

The study was supported by a UCSF Department of Psychiatry Rapid Award and UCSF Faculty Resource Fund Award. Dr. O’Donovan reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Psychiatric disorders are tied to an increased risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection, particularly among older adults, new research shows.

“Psychiatric disorders remained significantly associated with incident breakthrough infections above and beyond sociodemographic and medical factors, suggesting that mental health is important to consider in conjunction with other risk factors,” wrote the investigators, led by Aoife O’Donovan, PhD, University of California, San Francisco.

Individuals with psychiatric disorders “should be prioritized for booster vaccinations and other critical preventive efforts, including increased SARS-CoV-2 screening, public health campaigns, or COVID-19 discussions during clinical care,” they added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Elderly most vulnerable

The researchers reviewed the records of 263,697 veterans who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

Just over a half (51.4%) had one or more psychiatric diagnoses within the last 5 years and 14.8% developed breakthrough COVID-19 infections, confirmed by a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

Psychiatric diagnoses among the veterans included depression, posttraumatic stress, anxiety, adjustment disorder, substance use disorder, bipolar disorder, psychosis, ADHD, dissociation, and eating disorders.

In the overall sample, a history of any psychiatric disorder was associated with a 7% higher incidence of breakthrough COVID-19 infection in models adjusted for potential confounders (adjusted relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.09) and a 3% higher incidence in models additionally adjusted for underlying medical comorbidities and smoking (aRR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05).

Most psychiatric disorders were associated with a higher incidence of breakthrough infection, with the highest relative risk observed for substance use disorders (aRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.12 -1.21) and adjustment disorder (aRR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.16) in fully adjusted models.

Older vaccinated veterans with psychiatric illnesses appear to be most vulnerable to COVID-19 reinfection.

In veterans aged 65 and older, all psychiatric disorders were associated with an increased incidence of breakthrough infection, with increases in the incidence rate ranging from 3% to 24% in fully adjusted models.

In the younger veterans, in contrast, only anxiety, adjustment, and substance use disorders were associated with an increased incidence of breakthrough infection in fully adjusted models.

Psychotic disorders were associated with a 10% lower incidence of breakthrough infection among younger veterans, perhaps because of greater social isolation, the researchers said.
 

Risky behavior or impaired immunity?

“Although some of the larger observed effect sizes are compelling at an individual level, even the relatively modest effect sizes may have a large effect at the population level when considering the high prevalence of psychiatric disorders and the global reach and scale of the pandemic,” Dr. O’Donovan and colleagues wrote.

They noted that psychiatric disorders, including depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorders, have been associated with impaired cellular immunity and blunted response to vaccines. Therefore, it’s possible that those with psychiatric disorders have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccination.

It’s also possible that immunity following vaccination wanes more quickly or more strongly in people with psychiatric disorders and they could have less protection against new variants, they added.

Patients with psychiatric disorders could be more apt to engage in risky behaviors for contracting COVID-19, which could also increase the risk for breakthrough infection, they said.

The study was supported by a UCSF Department of Psychiatry Rapid Award and UCSF Faculty Resource Fund Award. Dr. O’Donovan reported no relevant disclosures.

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

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.

This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.

“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).

Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.

“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.

To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.

They identified 13 best practice points to support the development and implementation of the calls to action.

“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.

Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.

“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.

Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”

In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.

“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.

This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.

“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).

Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.

“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.

To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.

They identified 13 best practice points to support the development and implementation of the calls to action.

“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.

Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.

“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.

Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”

In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.

“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, a collaboration of physicians, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and data experts, has reached a consensus on key actions designed to standardize and homogenize lung cancer care that includes early diagnosis and access to care for all patients.

This consensus, reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress, is an effort to address disparities in care recognized by the group’s in-house research team. The team identified significantly different survival rates in early stage lung cancer patients from a group of countries with similar health care metrics, such as health care expenditure and universal access to health care.

“This group of countries is very comparable, but we saw a 20% difference in survival in localized, stage I and II cancers. When you consider that lung cancer is a bigger killer than any other cancer –more than breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined – that’s thousands of people,” said the project’s lead clinician, Christian Finley, MD, a thoracic surgeon with St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Ont.).

Founded in 2009, the ICBP includes about 500 experts in its core countries of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada; New Zealand and Ireland have also participated. The goal of the partnership is to benchmark survival and other outcomes in cancer and to research why disparities between countries exist.

“That’s why we keep the membership fairly small, so that we can actually make more meaningful research projects to get into depth in factors beyond benchmarking survival and mortality,” said study author Charlotte Lynch, MSc, a senior researcher with Cancer Research UK in London.

To help narrow the disparity gap, Ms. Lynch, Dr. Finley and colleagues brought together nine key informants from ICBP countries to discuss local clinical insights and best practices, and ultimately came up a list of five recommendations considered most crucial: implementing cost-effective, equitable, and effective screening; ensuring diagnoses of lung cancer within 30 days of referral; developing thoracic centers of excellence; launching an international audit of lung cancer care; and prioritizing the recognition of improvements in lung cancer care and outcomes.

They identified 13 best practice points to support the development and implementation of the calls to action.

“For example, points supporting the screening call to action focus on timely access to cross-sectional imaging and availability and development of patient and health care practitioner lung cancer awareness materials,” Ms. Lynch said.

Another example would be the point that describes the need for a minimum data set to evaluate lung cancer patients’ diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare.

“I think we all work in a very disrupted system right now. Screening programs really took a hit during the pandemic, and I think people coming out of those disruptions are trying to imagine a more effective system using tools like information technologies, mobile clinics and having a better understanding of equity,” Dr. Finley said.

Ms. Lynch said the ICBP intends to use the consensus to generate concrete actions. “We’re thinking about how we can get everyone in the room to share lessons learned and best practices to push things forward rather than saying, ‘this is what should be done,’ making sure we do the next steps, collaborative thinking, and moving forward.”

In a press release, Antonio Passaro, MD, a lung cancer expert from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, said there is a need to prioritize primary and secondary prevention of lung cancer.

“Although a much-debated topic in recent years, a strong body of research has now shown that lung cancer screening through annual computed tomography scans in individuals with a history of smoking can improve detection rates. Targeting the right populations with these interventions will be crucial to implementing screening approaches that are both efficacious and cost effective,” he stated.

The authors declared no conflicts of interest and this study was not funded.

In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.

But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”

The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”

Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.

As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”

Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.

Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma. A new paradigm has emerged in the physician/pharma rep relationship, and it’s unlikely things will ever be the same.
 

The post-COVID paradigm shift

The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”

“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”

The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”

Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”

But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.

Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.

“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”

More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”

Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
 

Restrictions on drug reps became tighter

In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.

The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.

However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”

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

In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.

But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”

The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”

Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.

As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”

Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.

Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma. A new paradigm has emerged in the physician/pharma rep relationship, and it’s unlikely things will ever be the same.
 

The post-COVID paradigm shift

The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”

“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”

The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”

Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”

But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.

Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.

“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”

More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”

Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
 

Restrictions on drug reps became tighter

In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.

The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.

However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”

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

In their heyday, drug reps had big expense budgets and would wine and dine physicians, golf with them, and give gifts to their potential physician clients.

But in 2002, pressure from Congress and increased scrutiny from the American Medical Association prompted the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to adopt a set of voluntary ethical codes to regulate the gifts given to physicians. Now, physicians must report even small gifts or meals to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Before the restrictions, physician/pharmaceutical rep relationships relied on face-to-face meetings. These included lunches with a limited budget or sharing a cup of coffee during a morning visit to a practice. The parties got to know each other, which led to trust and long-term relationships.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, everything changed. “It was culture shock for us,” admitted Craig F, a career pharmaceutical rep. “We didn’t know what we were going to do.”

The pharmaceutical industry pivoted and quickly got up to speed with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and the like. “We began by reaching out to doctors via email and cell phones to set up virtual meetings,” Craig said. “Most of the doctors were working from home, doing telehealth whenever possible. For new sales reps, this was particularly difficult, because they couldn’t visit offices and get to know doctors.”

Many physicians didn’t want to devote time to Zoom meetings with pharma reps. “We worked around their schedules, and sometimes this even looked like Sunday calls,” he said.

As vaccination levels increased and medical offices began to reopen, so too did some of the old-school, face-to-face pharma rep/doctor meetings. But most proceeded with caution. “Some pharmaceutical companies didn’t put reps back into the field until the fall of 2020,” said Craig. “If we weren’t welcome in an office, we didn’t push it.”

Once much of the population was vaccinated, the thaw began in earnest, although the drug reps continued to tread cautiously, mask up, and respect the wishes of physicians. Today, Craig estimated that about two-thirds of his appointments are in person.

Still, it’s unlikely that the drug rep–supplied “free staff lunch” will ever regain its former popularity. Medical office staff are still keeping distance, owing to COVID; office schedules may be more crowded and may not allow the time; and many physicians are still nervous about having to report “gifts” or “paid lunches” from pharma. A new paradigm has emerged in the physician/pharma rep relationship, and it’s unlikely things will ever be the same.
 

The post-COVID paradigm shift

The pandemic put a dent in the pharma rep/doctor relationship, said Suzy Jackson, managing director of life sciences at Accenture and an author of The “New” Rules of Healthcare Provider Engagement . “COVID started moving power away from reps because they lost the ability to simply wander into a building and have a conversation with a health care provider. We’re seeing the pandemic evolve the meeting model into a hybrid in-person and virtual.”

“Many doctors are operating in a slower fashion because they’re balancing a hybrid model with patients, as well,” said Craig. “Some of my visits now involve talking to nurses or front-office staff, not getting in to see the doctors.”

The push from some doctors to see reps virtually as opposed to in person is a challenge for the pharma companies. “We get more done in person, so virtual is not our favorite way to do business,” said Craig. “But we’re thankful for any time we can get with doctors, so when they ask to do virtual, we agree.”

Still, the Accenture survey offered good news for pharma reps: Only 4% of respondents didn’t want to continue with in-person meetings at all. “I think of this as a positive,” Ms. Jackson said. “It shows that physicians value these relationships, if they’re done in the right way.”

But a survey by Boston Consulting Group confirms that virtual visits are likely to continue. BCG’s Doctors’ Changing Expectations of Pharma Are Here to Stay revealed that three-quarters of respondent physicians prefer to maintain or increase the amount of virtual engagements with pharma reps after becoming accustomed to the practice during the pandemic.

Under these changing scenarios, said Ms. Jackson, pharma reps have to think about more meaningful ways to engage with doctors.

“I feel that doctors are more crunched for time now, managing hybrid environments,” Craig said. “They have less time and want more patient-specific information that leads to fewer calls back to their offices.”

More physicians now value webinars, virtual training, and speaker programs. Virtual channels, the survey found, “give physicians access to the information they need in an easy and convenient manner.”

Still, physicians have noted that the survey indicated that email communications from pharma reps had increased. Often, physicians found the useful information buried in irrelevant “clutter.”
 

Restrictions on drug reps became tighter

In the 20 years since the guidelines came into existence, PhRMA has continued to strengthen the codes. In 2009, PhRMA issued new recommendations surrounding noneducational gifts and placed a cap of $100 for meals, drug samples, and other items. In 2022, they added layers to the code that focus on speaker programs. For instance, while companies can provide “modest” meals to attendees as an incidental courtesy, pharma reps can no longer pay for or provide alcohol in conjunction with these programs.

The rules vary from state to state. In Minnesota, for instance, gifts from pharma companies cannot exceed $50 per year. Some institutions – such as the Cleveland Clinic – have even stricter rules. “When we have conventions, we put up signage reminding doctors from the strictest states that they can’t even accept a cup of coffee from a rep,” said Craig.

However, COVID hasn’t completely changed doctor/pharma relationships. In Ms. Jackson’s words, “In spite of the shift to a more hybrid model, this is a very human relationship yielding real human results.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering what to tell the public about second booster shots with mRNA vaccinations for COVID-19.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March authorized a second booster dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for people aged 50 and older and certain immunocompromised adults, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

In a meeting April 20, the CDC asked its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to discuss second booster shots, but did not ask the group of experts to vote on formal recommendations.

Instead, the experts talked about the potential timing of additional COVID-19 vaccines for those who already have had three shots, and challenges for vaccination efforts that likely will arise as the pandemic persists.

ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said she’s concerned about the potential for “booster fatigue.”

“A vaccination program that’s going to require boosting large proportions of the population every 4-6 months is really not sustainable and probably not something that most people want to participate in,” she said.

The benefit of additional COVID-19 shots for now appears to be smaller than what people get from the initial doses, Dr. Bell said.

Earlier in the meeting, CDC staff presented estimates about how well the COVID-19 vaccines work to prevent one case of hospitalization from the disease over 4 months among people aged 50 and older.

The major gain in preventing hospitalizations occurs with the first vaccination series and then wanes, the CDC said.

It appears that one hospitalization is prevented for every 135 people who get the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations. But it takes 674 people getting a first booster dose to prevent one hospitalization. A second booster prevents one hospitalization for every 1,205 people vaccinated.

Dr. Bell said she’s concerned about considering additional doses for “smaller and smaller return and creating an impression that we don’t have a very effective vaccination program,” even though the CDC’s data show a clear benefit.
 

Reasons to get a second booster

Elisha Hall, PhD, RD, of the CDC presented slides with some factors to help determine the urgency for a person to get a second booster:

• Having certain underlying medical conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 illness.
• Being moderately or severely immunocompromised.
• Living with someone who is immunocompromised, at increased risk for severe disease, or who cannot be vaccinated because of age or contraindication.
• Being at increased risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, such as through occupational, institutional, or other activities (e.g., travel or large gatherings).
• Living or working in an area where there is a medium or high level of COVID-19 in the community.

In contrast, people might want to wait if they had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 within the past 3 months, Dr. Hall said in her presentation. Another reason for delay might be a concern that a booster dose may be more important later in the year.

The experts also addressed public confusion over boosters. For the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, a second booster is a fourth dose, but for those who received the one-shot J&J vaccine, the second booster is a third dose.

Going forward, it may be easier to refer to subsequent doses as “annual boosters,” the CDC’s Sara Oliver, MD, MSPH, told the panel. It will be important to keep language about subsequent vaccinations clear and easy for the public to follow, she said.

Dr. Oliver also said there’s already been a drop-off in the acceptance of second rounds of COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC data show that 77% of people in the United States have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, but only 66% of the population is fully vaccinated, and only 45% have had a first booster dose.

In her presentation, Dr. Oliver said the top priority in COVID-19 vaccination efforts remains initial vaccinations for people who haven’t gotten them.
 

Kids younger than 5

During the public comment session of the CDC meeting, several people called on the FDA to move quickly to expand authorization of COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5 years and younger.

“We know that many parents and caregivers and health care providers are anxious to have COVID vaccines available” for young children, said Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a deputy director of the FDA’s vaccines division.

He said the agency is working to be ready to authorize the shots for young children while it awaits research results from the manufacturers.

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

Despite Spain’s lack of a national project or standard protocol for biomarker testing, more than half of patients diagnosed with stage 4 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are tested for biomarkers, according to a Spanish national registry study reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress.

“In recent years we’ve developed drugs that target biomarkers, so it’s important to identify those biomarkers to guide treatment and have an impact on the survival of our patients,” said lead author Virginia Calvo, MD, a medical oncologist with the Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda University Hospital, Madrid.

“If we don’t know our patients’ biomarkers, we can’t treat them with targeted therapies,” she added, noting that the overall survival of lung cancer patients has increased by 15% in the last 10 years, largely because of better therapies such as targeted drugs for advanced stage disease and immunotherapies.

To assess the status of biomarker testing in Spain, Dr. Calvo and colleagues analyzed data from the country’s Thoracic Tumor Registry on 9,239 patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC from 2016 to the present, 7,467 (81%) with nonsquamous tumors and 1,772 (19%) with squamous tumors.

They found that 85% of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and about 53% of those with squamous cancers had undergone biomarker testing. They discovered that 4,115 (44%) of patients tested positive for EGFR, ALK, KRAS, BRAF, ROS1, or PD-L1.

Dr. Calvo attributes the widespread use of biomarker testing and its significant increase in the last 5 years to the growing knowledge and understanding of the disease.

“We are learning more about NSCLC, and I think in the next few years the number of biomarkers are going to grow,” she said.

The study’s findings also highlight the importance of establishing and maintaining cancer registries, Dr. Calvo said, noting that 182 hospitals across Spain and more than 550 experts participate in the Thoracic Tumors Registry, which includes data on patients from every Spanish territory.

“It’s important to collect information on real-life cancer care so that we know what our real situation is and take steps to improve it,” she said.

She anticipates that treatment for NSCLC patients will become increasingly complex in the future with the growing number of different biomarkers and the proportion of patients who test positive for them. “We may need to establish national strategies to implement next generation sequencing so that we can identify different biomarkers and improve the survival of our patients.”

In a press release, Rolf Stahel, MD, president of the European Thoracic Oncology Platform, said that it would be helpful to look at how frequently molecular testing led to patients receiving appropriate targeted treatment.

In the United States, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends biomarker testing for eligible patients with newly diagnosed stage 4 NSCLC, and it can be considered for patients with squamous histology because 5%-10% of these tumors have targetable mutations. “This is because numerous lines of evidence show that patients with stage 4 NSCLC and a targetable mutation, typically have improved overall survival when treated with a targeted therapy,” wrote the authors of the NCCN recommendations.

“For newly diagnosed stage 4 NSCLC, there is always a tension between the need to start therapy versus waiting for molecular results. This is because if a recommended targeted option is identified, it is the optimal first-line therapy. Targeted therapy cannot be given to everyone. Different biomarkers predict response to different agents. This has been well illustrated and it makes testing critically important for patients with NSCLC,” Dara Aisner, MD, PhD, associate professor of pathology with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in the NCCN guideline.

The study presented at ELCC was funded by a grant from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program. Dr. Calvo has received fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD and AstraZeneca.

Despite Spain’s lack of a national project or standard protocol for biomarker testing, more than half of patients diagnosed with stage 4 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are tested for biomarkers, according to a Spanish national registry study reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress.

“In recent years we’ve developed drugs that target biomarkers, so it’s important to identify those biomarkers to guide treatment and have an impact on the survival of our patients,” said lead author Virginia Calvo, MD, a medical oncologist with the Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda University Hospital, Madrid.

“If we don’t know our patients’ biomarkers, we can’t treat them with targeted therapies,” she added, noting that the overall survival of lung cancer patients has increased by 15% in the last 10 years, largely because of better therapies such as targeted drugs for advanced stage disease and immunotherapies.

To assess the status of biomarker testing in Spain, Dr. Calvo and colleagues analyzed data from the country’s Thoracic Tumor Registry on 9,239 patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC from 2016 to the present, 7,467 (81%) with nonsquamous tumors and 1,772 (19%) with squamous tumors.

They found that 85% of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and about 53% of those with squamous cancers had undergone biomarker testing. They discovered that 4,115 (44%) of patients tested positive for EGFR, ALK, KRAS, BRAF, ROS1, or PD-L1.

Dr. Calvo attributes the widespread use of biomarker testing and its significant increase in the last 5 years to the growing knowledge and understanding of the disease.

“We are learning more about NSCLC, and I think in the next few years the number of biomarkers are going to grow,” she said.

The study’s findings also highlight the importance of establishing and maintaining cancer registries, Dr. Calvo said, noting that 182 hospitals across Spain and more than 550 experts participate in the Thoracic Tumors Registry, which includes data on patients from every Spanish territory.

“It’s important to collect information on real-life cancer care so that we know what our real situation is and take steps to improve it,” she said.

She anticipates that treatment for NSCLC patients will become increasingly complex in the future with the growing number of different biomarkers and the proportion of patients who test positive for them. “We may need to establish national strategies to implement next generation sequencing so that we can identify different biomarkers and improve the survival of our patients.”

In a press release, Rolf Stahel, MD, president of the European Thoracic Oncology Platform, said that it would be helpful to look at how frequently molecular testing led to patients receiving appropriate targeted treatment.

In the United States, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends biomarker testing for eligible patients with newly diagnosed stage 4 NSCLC, and it can be considered for patients with squamous histology because 5%-10% of these tumors have targetable mutations. “This is because numerous lines of evidence show that patients with stage 4 NSCLC and a targetable mutation, typically have improved overall survival when treated with a targeted therapy,” wrote the authors of the NCCN recommendations.

“For newly diagnosed stage 4 NSCLC, there is always a tension between the need to start therapy versus waiting for molecular results. This is because if a recommended targeted option is identified, it is the optimal first-line therapy. Targeted therapy cannot be given to everyone. Different biomarkers predict response to different agents. This has been well illustrated and it makes testing critically important for patients with NSCLC,” Dara Aisner, MD, PhD, associate professor of pathology with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in the NCCN guideline.

The study presented at ELCC was funded by a grant from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program. Dr. Calvo has received fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD and AstraZeneca.

Despite Spain’s lack of a national project or standard protocol for biomarker testing, more than half of patients diagnosed with stage 4 non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are tested for biomarkers, according to a Spanish national registry study reported at the 2022 European Lung Cancer Congress.

“In recent years we’ve developed drugs that target biomarkers, so it’s important to identify those biomarkers to guide treatment and have an impact on the survival of our patients,” said lead author Virginia Calvo, MD, a medical oncologist with the Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda University Hospital, Madrid.

“If we don’t know our patients’ biomarkers, we can’t treat them with targeted therapies,” she added, noting that the overall survival of lung cancer patients has increased by 15% in the last 10 years, largely because of better therapies such as targeted drugs for advanced stage disease and immunotherapies.

To assess the status of biomarker testing in Spain, Dr. Calvo and colleagues analyzed data from the country’s Thoracic Tumor Registry on 9,239 patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC from 2016 to the present, 7,467 (81%) with nonsquamous tumors and 1,772 (19%) with squamous tumors.

They found that 85% of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and about 53% of those with squamous cancers had undergone biomarker testing. They discovered that 4,115 (44%) of patients tested positive for EGFR, ALK, KRAS, BRAF, ROS1, or PD-L1.

Dr. Calvo attributes the widespread use of biomarker testing and its significant increase in the last 5 years to the growing knowledge and understanding of the disease.

“We are learning more about NSCLC, and I think in the next few years the number of biomarkers are going to grow,” she said.

The study’s findings also highlight the importance of establishing and maintaining cancer registries, Dr. Calvo said, noting that 182 hospitals across Spain and more than 550 experts participate in the Thoracic Tumors Registry, which includes data on patients from every Spanish territory.

“It’s important to collect information on real-life cancer care so that we know what our real situation is and take steps to improve it,” she said.

She anticipates that treatment for NSCLC patients will become increasingly complex in the future with the growing number of different biomarkers and the proportion of patients who test positive for them. “We may need to establish national strategies to implement next generation sequencing so that we can identify different biomarkers and improve the survival of our patients.”

In a press release, Rolf Stahel, MD, president of the European Thoracic Oncology Platform, said that it would be helpful to look at how frequently molecular testing led to patients receiving appropriate targeted treatment.

In the United States, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends biomarker testing for eligible patients with newly diagnosed stage 4 NSCLC, and it can be considered for patients with squamous histology because 5%-10% of these tumors have targetable mutations. “This is because numerous lines of evidence show that patients with stage 4 NSCLC and a targetable mutation, typically have improved overall survival when treated with a targeted therapy,” wrote the authors of the NCCN recommendations.

“For newly diagnosed stage 4 NSCLC, there is always a tension between the need to start therapy versus waiting for molecular results. This is because if a recommended targeted option is identified, it is the optimal first-line therapy. Targeted therapy cannot be given to everyone. Different biomarkers predict response to different agents. This has been well illustrated and it makes testing critically important for patients with NSCLC,” Dara Aisner, MD, PhD, associate professor of pathology with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in the NCCN guideline.

The study presented at ELCC was funded by a grant from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program. Dr. Calvo has received fees from Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD and AstraZeneca.

About 30% of COVID-19 patients developed the condition known as long COVID, University of California, Los Angeles, researchers said in a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The UCLA researchers studied 1,038 people enrolled in the UCLA COVID Ambulatory Program between April 2020 and February 2021 and found that 309 developed long COVID.

A long-COVID diagnosis came if a patient answering a questionnaire reported persistent symptoms 60-90 days after they were infected or hospitalized. The most persistent symptoms were fatigue (31%) and shortness of breath (15%) in hospitalized participants. Among outpatients, 16% reported losing sense of smell.

The study’s findings differ from earlier research. The University of California, Davis, for example, estimated that 10% of COVID-19 patients develop long-haul symptoms. A 2021 study from Penn State University found that more than half of worldwide COVID-19 patients would develop long COVID.

Part of the discrepancy can blamed on the fact there is no official, widely accepted definition of long COVID. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said it means patients who experience “new, returning, or ongoing health problems 4 or more weeks after an initial infection” the coronavirus. The UCLA study, meanwhile, included patients still having symptoms 60-90 days after infection.

Still, the UCLA research team looked at demographics and clinical characteristics in an attempt to develop effective treatments.

People with a history of hospitalization, diabetes, and higher body mass index were most likely to develop long COVID, the researchers said. The kind of insurance the patients had also seemed to be a factor, though the researchers didn’t offer a reason why.

“Surprisingly, patients with commercial insurance had double the likelihood of developing [long COVID] compared to patients with Medicaid,” they wrote. “This association will be important to explore further to understand if insurance status in this group is representing unmeasured demographic factors or exposures.”

Older age and socioeconomic status were not associated with long COVID in the study – a surprise because those characteristics are often linked with severe illness and higher risk of death from COVID-19.

Weaknesses in the study included the subjective nature of how patients rated their symptoms and the limited number of symptoms evaluated.

“This study illustrates the need to follow diverse patient populations ... to understand the long COVID disease trajectory and evaluate how individual factors such as preexisting comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, vaccination status and virus variant type affect type and persistence of long COVID symptoms,” said Sun Yoo, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor at UCLA.

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

About 30% of COVID-19 patients developed the condition known as long COVID, University of California, Los Angeles, researchers said in a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The UCLA researchers studied 1,038 people enrolled in the UCLA COVID Ambulatory Program between April 2020 and February 2021 and found that 309 developed long COVID.

A long-COVID diagnosis came if a patient answering a questionnaire reported persistent symptoms 60-90 days after they were infected or hospitalized. The most persistent symptoms were fatigue (31%) and shortness of breath (15%) in hospitalized participants. Among outpatients, 16% reported losing sense of smell.

The study’s findings differ from earlier research. The University of California, Davis, for example, estimated that 10% of COVID-19 patients develop long-haul symptoms. A 2021 study from Penn State University found that more than half of worldwide COVID-19 patients would develop long COVID.

Part of the discrepancy can blamed on the fact there is no official, widely accepted definition of long COVID. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said it means patients who experience “new, returning, or ongoing health problems 4 or more weeks after an initial infection” the coronavirus. The UCLA study, meanwhile, included patients still having symptoms 60-90 days after infection.

Still, the UCLA research team looked at demographics and clinical characteristics in an attempt to develop effective treatments.

People with a history of hospitalization, diabetes, and higher body mass index were most likely to develop long COVID, the researchers said. The kind of insurance the patients had also seemed to be a factor, though the researchers didn’t offer a reason why.

“Surprisingly, patients with commercial insurance had double the likelihood of developing [long COVID] compared to patients with Medicaid,” they wrote. “This association will be important to explore further to understand if insurance status in this group is representing unmeasured demographic factors or exposures.”

Older age and socioeconomic status were not associated with long COVID in the study – a surprise because those characteristics are often linked with severe illness and higher risk of death from COVID-19.

Weaknesses in the study included the subjective nature of how patients rated their symptoms and the limited number of symptoms evaluated.

“This study illustrates the need to follow diverse patient populations ... to understand the long COVID disease trajectory and evaluate how individual factors such as preexisting comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, vaccination status and virus variant type affect type and persistence of long COVID symptoms,” said Sun Yoo, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor at UCLA.

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

About 30% of COVID-19 patients developed the condition known as long COVID, University of California, Los Angeles, researchers said in a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

The UCLA researchers studied 1,038 people enrolled in the UCLA COVID Ambulatory Program between April 2020 and February 2021 and found that 309 developed long COVID.

A long-COVID diagnosis came if a patient answering a questionnaire reported persistent symptoms 60-90 days after they were infected or hospitalized. The most persistent symptoms were fatigue (31%) and shortness of breath (15%) in hospitalized participants. Among outpatients, 16% reported losing sense of smell.

The study’s findings differ from earlier research. The University of California, Davis, for example, estimated that 10% of COVID-19 patients develop long-haul symptoms. A 2021 study from Penn State University found that more than half of worldwide COVID-19 patients would develop long COVID.

Part of the discrepancy can blamed on the fact there is no official, widely accepted definition of long COVID. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said it means patients who experience “new, returning, or ongoing health problems 4 or more weeks after an initial infection” the coronavirus. The UCLA study, meanwhile, included patients still having symptoms 60-90 days after infection.

Still, the UCLA research team looked at demographics and clinical characteristics in an attempt to develop effective treatments.

People with a history of hospitalization, diabetes, and higher body mass index were most likely to develop long COVID, the researchers said. The kind of insurance the patients had also seemed to be a factor, though the researchers didn’t offer a reason why.

“Surprisingly, patients with commercial insurance had double the likelihood of developing [long COVID] compared to patients with Medicaid,” they wrote. “This association will be important to explore further to understand if insurance status in this group is representing unmeasured demographic factors or exposures.”

Older age and socioeconomic status were not associated with long COVID in the study – a surprise because those characteristics are often linked with severe illness and higher risk of death from COVID-19.

Weaknesses in the study included the subjective nature of how patients rated their symptoms and the limited number of symptoms evaluated.

“This study illustrates the need to follow diverse patient populations ... to understand the long COVID disease trajectory and evaluate how individual factors such as preexisting comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, vaccination status and virus variant type affect type and persistence of long COVID symptoms,” said Sun Yoo, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor at UCLA.

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

The force is with Ukraine, always

Of all the things we could want from Star Wars, a lightsaber is at the top of the list. And someone is working on that. But second is probably the iconic X-wing. It was used to blow up the Death Star after all: Who wouldn’t want one?

A real-life star fighter may be outside our technological capabilities, but Dr. Akaki Lekiachvili of Atlanta has done the next best thing and constructed a two-thirds scale model to encourage kids to enter the sciences and, with the advent of the war in Ukraine, raise money for medical supplies to assist doctors in the embattled country. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dr. Lekiachvili, originally from Georgia (the country, former Soviet republic, and previous target of Russian aggression in 2008), takes a dim view toward the invasion of Ukraine: “Russia is like the Evil Empire and Ukraine the Rebel Alliance.”

Richard Franki/MDedge

It’s been a long road finishing the X-Wing, as Dr. Lekiachvili started the project in 2016 and spent $60,000 on it, posting numerous updates on social media over that time, even attracting the attention of Luke Skywalker himself, actor Mark Hamill. Now that he’s done, he’s brought his model out to the public multiple times, delighting kids and adults alike. It can’t fly, but it has an engine and wheels so it can move, the wings can lock into attack position, the thrusters light up, and the voices of Obi-Wan Kenobi and R2-D2 guide children along as they sit in the cockpit.

Dr. Lekiachvili hopes to auction off his creation to a collector and donate the proceeds to Ukrainian charities, and we’re sure he’ll receive far more than the $60,000 he spent building his masterpiece. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to raid our bank accounts. We have a Death Star to destroy.
 

I’m a doctor, not a hologram

Telemedicine got a big boost during the early phase of the pandemic when hospitals and medical offices were off limits to anyone without COVID-19, but things have cooled off, telemedically speaking, since then. Well, NASA may have heated them up again. Or maybe it was Starfleet. Hmm, wait a second while we check. … No, it was NASA.

Thomas Pesquet/ESA

The space agency used the Microsoft Hololens Kinect camera and a personal computer with custom software from Aexa Aerospace to “holoport” NASA flight surgeon Josef Schmid up to the International Space Station, where he had a conversation with European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Pesquet, who wore an augmented reality headset that allowed him to see, hear, and interact with a 3D representation of the earthbound medical provider.

“Holoportation has been in use since at least 2016 by Microsoft, but this is the first use in such an extreme and remote environment such as space,” NASA said in a recent written statement, noting that the extreme house call took place on Oct. 8, 2021.

They seem to be forgetting about Star Trek, but we’ll let them slide on that one. Anyway, NASA didn’t share any details of the medical holoconversation – which may have strained the limits of HIPAA’s portability provisions – but Dr. Schmid described it as “a brand-new way of human exploration, where our human entity is able to travel off the planet. Our physical body is not there, but our human entity absolutely is there.”

Boldly doctoring where no doctor has gone before, you might say. You also might notice from the photo that Dr. Schmid went full Trekkie with a genuine Vulcan salute. Live long and prosper, Dr. Schmid. Live long and prosper.
 

Add electricity for umami

Salt makes everything taste better. Unfortunately, excess salt can cause problems for our bodies down the line, starting with high blood pressure and continuing on to heart disease and strokes. So how do we enjoy our deliciously salty foods without putting ourselves at risk? One answer may be electricity.

OpenClipart-Vectors/Pixabay

Researchers at Meiji University in Tokyo partnered with food and beverage maker Kirin to develop a set of electric chopsticks to boost the taste of salt in foods without the extra sodium. According to codeveloper and Meiji University professor Homei Miyashita, the device, worn like a watch with a wire attached to one of the chopsticks, “uses a weak electrical current to transmit sodium ions from food, through the chopsticks, to the mouth where they create a sense of saltines,” Reuters said.

In a country like Japan, where a lot of food is made with heavily sodium-based ingredients like miso and soy sauce, the average adult consumes 10 g of salt a day. That’s twice the recommended amount proposed by the World Health Organization. To not sacrifice bland food for better health, this device, which enhances the saltiness of the food consumed by 1.5 times, offers a fairly easy solution to a big public health crisis.

The chopsticks were tested by giving participants reduced-sodium miso soup. They told the researchers that the food was improved in “richness, sweetness, and overall tastiness,” the Guardian said.

Worried about having something electric in your mouth? Don’t worry. Kirin said in a statement that the electricity is very weak and not enough to affect the body.

The chopsticks are still in a prototype stage, but you may be able to get your pair as soon as next year. Until then, maybe be a little mindful of the salt.
 

Pet poop works in mysterious ways

We usually see it as a burden when our pets poop and pee in the house, but those bodily excretions may be able to tell us something about cancer-causing toxins running rampant in our homes.

PxHere

Those toxins, known as aromatic amines, can be found in tobacco smoke and dyes used in make-up, textiles, and plastics. “Our findings suggest that pets are coming into contact with aromatic amines that leach from products in their household environment,” lead author Sridhar Chinthakindi, PhD, of NYU Langone Health, said in a statement from the university. “As these substances have been tied to bladder, colorectal, and other forms of cancer, our results may help explain why so many dogs and cats develop such diseases.”

Tobacco smoke was not the main source of the aromatic amines found in the poop and urine, but 70% of dogs and 80% of cats had these chemicals in their waste. The researchers looked for 30 types of aromatic amines plus nicotine in the sample and found 8. The chemical concentrations were much higher in cats than in dogs, possibly because of differences in exposure and metabolism between the two species, they suggested.

“If [pets] are getting exposed to toxins in our homes, then we had better take a closer look at our own exposure,” said senior author Kurunthachalam Kannan, PhD, of NYU Langone.

So the next time your pet poops or pees in the house, don’t get mad. Maybe they’re just trying to help you out by supplying some easy-to-collect samples.

The force is with Ukraine, always

Of all the things we could want from Star Wars, a lightsaber is at the top of the list. And someone is working on that. But second is probably the iconic X-wing. It was used to blow up the Death Star after all: Who wouldn’t want one?

A real-life star fighter may be outside our technological capabilities, but Dr. Akaki Lekiachvili of Atlanta has done the next best thing and constructed a two-thirds scale model to encourage kids to enter the sciences and, with the advent of the war in Ukraine, raise money for medical supplies to assist doctors in the embattled country. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dr. Lekiachvili, originally from Georgia (the country, former Soviet republic, and previous target of Russian aggression in 2008), takes a dim view toward the invasion of Ukraine: “Russia is like the Evil Empire and Ukraine the Rebel Alliance.”

Richard Franki/MDedge

It’s been a long road finishing the X-Wing, as Dr. Lekiachvili started the project in 2016 and spent $60,000 on it, posting numerous updates on social media over that time, even attracting the attention of Luke Skywalker himself, actor Mark Hamill. Now that he’s done, he’s brought his model out to the public multiple times, delighting kids and adults alike. It can’t fly, but it has an engine and wheels so it can move, the wings can lock into attack position, the thrusters light up, and the voices of Obi-Wan Kenobi and R2-D2 guide children along as they sit in the cockpit.

Dr. Lekiachvili hopes to auction off his creation to a collector and donate the proceeds to Ukrainian charities, and we’re sure he’ll receive far more than the $60,000 he spent building his masterpiece. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to raid our bank accounts. We have a Death Star to destroy.
 

I’m a doctor, not a hologram

Telemedicine got a big boost during the early phase of the pandemic when hospitals and medical offices were off limits to anyone without COVID-19, but things have cooled off, telemedically speaking, since then. Well, NASA may have heated them up again. Or maybe it was Starfleet. Hmm, wait a second while we check. … No, it was NASA.

Thomas Pesquet/ESA

The space agency used the Microsoft Hololens Kinect camera and a personal computer with custom software from Aexa Aerospace to “holoport” NASA flight surgeon Josef Schmid up to the International Space Station, where he had a conversation with European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Pesquet, who wore an augmented reality headset that allowed him to see, hear, and interact with a 3D representation of the earthbound medical provider.

“Holoportation has been in use since at least 2016 by Microsoft, but this is the first use in such an extreme and remote environment such as space,” NASA said in a recent written statement, noting that the extreme house call took place on Oct. 8, 2021.

They seem to be forgetting about Star Trek, but we’ll let them slide on that one. Anyway, NASA didn’t share any details of the medical holoconversation – which may have strained the limits of HIPAA’s portability provisions – but Dr. Schmid described it as “a brand-new way of human exploration, where our human entity is able to travel off the planet. Our physical body is not there, but our human entity absolutely is there.”

Boldly doctoring where no doctor has gone before, you might say. You also might notice from the photo that Dr. Schmid went full Trekkie with a genuine Vulcan salute. Live long and prosper, Dr. Schmid. Live long and prosper.
 

Add electricity for umami

Salt makes everything taste better. Unfortunately, excess salt can cause problems for our bodies down the line, starting with high blood pressure and continuing on to heart disease and strokes. So how do we enjoy our deliciously salty foods without putting ourselves at risk? One answer may be electricity.

OpenClipart-Vectors/Pixabay

Researchers at Meiji University in Tokyo partnered with food and beverage maker Kirin to develop a set of electric chopsticks to boost the taste of salt in foods without the extra sodium. According to codeveloper and Meiji University professor Homei Miyashita, the device, worn like a watch with a wire attached to one of the chopsticks, “uses a weak electrical current to transmit sodium ions from food, through the chopsticks, to the mouth where they create a sense of saltines,” Reuters said.

In a country like Japan, where a lot of food is made with heavily sodium-based ingredients like miso and soy sauce, the average adult consumes 10 g of salt a day. That’s twice the recommended amount proposed by the World Health Organization. To not sacrifice bland food for better health, this device, which enhances the saltiness of the food consumed by 1.5 times, offers a fairly easy solution to a big public health crisis.

The chopsticks were tested by giving participants reduced-sodium miso soup. They told the researchers that the food was improved in “richness, sweetness, and overall tastiness,” the Guardian said.

Worried about having something electric in your mouth? Don’t worry. Kirin said in a statement that the electricity is very weak and not enough to affect the body.

The chopsticks are still in a prototype stage, but you may be able to get your pair as soon as next year. Until then, maybe be a little mindful of the salt.
 

Pet poop works in mysterious ways

We usually see it as a burden when our pets poop and pee in the house, but those bodily excretions may be able to tell us something about cancer-causing toxins running rampant in our homes.

PxHere

Those toxins, known as aromatic amines, can be found in tobacco smoke and dyes used in make-up, textiles, and plastics. “Our findings suggest that pets are coming into contact with aromatic amines that leach from products in their household environment,” lead author Sridhar Chinthakindi, PhD, of NYU Langone Health, said in a statement from the university. “As these substances have been tied to bladder, colorectal, and other forms of cancer, our results may help explain why so many dogs and cats develop such diseases.”

Tobacco smoke was not the main source of the aromatic amines found in the poop and urine, but 70% of dogs and 80% of cats had these chemicals in their waste. The researchers looked for 30 types of aromatic amines plus nicotine in the sample and found 8. The chemical concentrations were much higher in cats than in dogs, possibly because of differences in exposure and metabolism between the two species, they suggested.

“If [pets] are getting exposed to toxins in our homes, then we had better take a closer look at our own exposure,” said senior author Kurunthachalam Kannan, PhD, of NYU Langone.

So the next time your pet poops or pees in the house, don’t get mad. Maybe they’re just trying to help you out by supplying some easy-to-collect samples.

The force is with Ukraine, always

Of all the things we could want from Star Wars, a lightsaber is at the top of the list. And someone is working on that. But second is probably the iconic X-wing. It was used to blow up the Death Star after all: Who wouldn’t want one?

A real-life star fighter may be outside our technological capabilities, but Dr. Akaki Lekiachvili of Atlanta has done the next best thing and constructed a two-thirds scale model to encourage kids to enter the sciences and, with the advent of the war in Ukraine, raise money for medical supplies to assist doctors in the embattled country. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dr. Lekiachvili, originally from Georgia (the country, former Soviet republic, and previous target of Russian aggression in 2008), takes a dim view toward the invasion of Ukraine: “Russia is like the Evil Empire and Ukraine the Rebel Alliance.”

Richard Franki/MDedge

It’s been a long road finishing the X-Wing, as Dr. Lekiachvili started the project in 2016 and spent $60,000 on it, posting numerous updates on social media over that time, even attracting the attention of Luke Skywalker himself, actor Mark Hamill. Now that he’s done, he’s brought his model out to the public multiple times, delighting kids and adults alike. It can’t fly, but it has an engine and wheels so it can move, the wings can lock into attack position, the thrusters light up, and the voices of Obi-Wan Kenobi and R2-D2 guide children along as they sit in the cockpit.

Dr. Lekiachvili hopes to auction off his creation to a collector and donate the proceeds to Ukrainian charities, and we’re sure he’ll receive far more than the $60,000 he spent building his masterpiece. Now, if you’ll excuse us, we’re off to raid our bank accounts. We have a Death Star to destroy.
 

I’m a doctor, not a hologram

Telemedicine got a big boost during the early phase of the pandemic when hospitals and medical offices were off limits to anyone without COVID-19, but things have cooled off, telemedically speaking, since then. Well, NASA may have heated them up again. Or maybe it was Starfleet. Hmm, wait a second while we check. … No, it was NASA.

Thomas Pesquet/ESA

The space agency used the Microsoft Hololens Kinect camera and a personal computer with custom software from Aexa Aerospace to “holoport” NASA flight surgeon Josef Schmid up to the International Space Station, where he had a conversation with European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Pesquet, who wore an augmented reality headset that allowed him to see, hear, and interact with a 3D representation of the earthbound medical provider.

“Holoportation has been in use since at least 2016 by Microsoft, but this is the first use in such an extreme and remote environment such as space,” NASA said in a recent written statement, noting that the extreme house call took place on Oct. 8, 2021.

They seem to be forgetting about Star Trek, but we’ll let them slide on that one. Anyway, NASA didn’t share any details of the medical holoconversation – which may have strained the limits of HIPAA’s portability provisions – but Dr. Schmid described it as “a brand-new way of human exploration, where our human entity is able to travel off the planet. Our physical body is not there, but our human entity absolutely is there.”

Boldly doctoring where no doctor has gone before, you might say. You also might notice from the photo that Dr. Schmid went full Trekkie with a genuine Vulcan salute. Live long and prosper, Dr. Schmid. Live long and prosper.
 

Add electricity for umami

Salt makes everything taste better. Unfortunately, excess salt can cause problems for our bodies down the line, starting with high blood pressure and continuing on to heart disease and strokes. So how do we enjoy our deliciously salty foods without putting ourselves at risk? One answer may be electricity.

OpenClipart-Vectors/Pixabay

Researchers at Meiji University in Tokyo partnered with food and beverage maker Kirin to develop a set of electric chopsticks to boost the taste of salt in foods without the extra sodium. According to codeveloper and Meiji University professor Homei Miyashita, the device, worn like a watch with a wire attached to one of the chopsticks, “uses a weak electrical current to transmit sodium ions from food, through the chopsticks, to the mouth where they create a sense of saltines,” Reuters said.

In a country like Japan, where a lot of food is made with heavily sodium-based ingredients like miso and soy sauce, the average adult consumes 10 g of salt a day. That’s twice the recommended amount proposed by the World Health Organization. To not sacrifice bland food for better health, this device, which enhances the saltiness of the food consumed by 1.5 times, offers a fairly easy solution to a big public health crisis.

The chopsticks were tested by giving participants reduced-sodium miso soup. They told the researchers that the food was improved in “richness, sweetness, and overall tastiness,” the Guardian said.

Worried about having something electric in your mouth? Don’t worry. Kirin said in a statement that the electricity is very weak and not enough to affect the body.

The chopsticks are still in a prototype stage, but you may be able to get your pair as soon as next year. Until then, maybe be a little mindful of the salt.
 

Pet poop works in mysterious ways

We usually see it as a burden when our pets poop and pee in the house, but those bodily excretions may be able to tell us something about cancer-causing toxins running rampant in our homes.

PxHere

Those toxins, known as aromatic amines, can be found in tobacco smoke and dyes used in make-up, textiles, and plastics. “Our findings suggest that pets are coming into contact with aromatic amines that leach from products in their household environment,” lead author Sridhar Chinthakindi, PhD, of NYU Langone Health, said in a statement from the university. “As these substances have been tied to bladder, colorectal, and other forms of cancer, our results may help explain why so many dogs and cats develop such diseases.”

Tobacco smoke was not the main source of the aromatic amines found in the poop and urine, but 70% of dogs and 80% of cats had these chemicals in their waste. The researchers looked for 30 types of aromatic amines plus nicotine in the sample and found 8. The chemical concentrations were much higher in cats than in dogs, possibly because of differences in exposure and metabolism between the two species, they suggested.

“If [pets] are getting exposed to toxins in our homes, then we had better take a closer look at our own exposure,” said senior author Kurunthachalam Kannan, PhD, of NYU Langone.

So the next time your pet poops or pees in the house, don’t get mad. Maybe they’re just trying to help you out by supplying some easy-to-collect samples.