CHEST Physician

A real-world study published in  JAMA Open Network found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral Paxlovid is now less effective at preventing hospitalization or death in high-risk patients, compared with earlier studies. But when looking at death alone, the antiviral was still highly effective. 

Paxlovid was about 37% effective at preventing death or hospitalization in high-risk patients, compared with no treatment. The study also looked at the antiviral Lagevrio, made by Merck, and found it was about 41% effective. In preventing death alone, Paxlovid was about 84% effective, compared with no treatment, and Lagevrio was about 77% effective.

The investigators, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Cleveland Clinic, examined electronic health records of 68,867 patients at hospitals in Cleveland and Florida who were diagnosed with COVID from April 1, 2022, to Feb. 20, 2023.

For Paxlovid, the effectiveness against death and hospitalization was lower than the effectiveness rate of about 86% found in clinical trials in 2021, according to Bloomberg. 

The difference in effectiveness in the real-world and clinical studies may have occurred because the early studies were conducted with unvaccinated people. Also, the virus has evolved since those first studies, Bloomberg reported. 

The researchers said Paxlovid and Lagevrio are recommended for use because they reduce hospitalization and death among high-risk patients who get COVID, even taking recent Omicron subvariants into account.

“These findings suggest that the use of either nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) is associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in patients infected with Omicron, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions,” the researchers wrote. “Both drugs can, therefore, be used to treat nonhospitalized patients who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19.”

Both drugs should be taken within 5 days of the onset of COVID symptoms.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Three coauthors reported conflicts of interest with various companies and organizations.

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

A real-world study published in  JAMA Open Network found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral Paxlovid is now less effective at preventing hospitalization or death in high-risk patients, compared with earlier studies. But when looking at death alone, the antiviral was still highly effective. 

Paxlovid was about 37% effective at preventing death or hospitalization in high-risk patients, compared with no treatment. The study also looked at the antiviral Lagevrio, made by Merck, and found it was about 41% effective. In preventing death alone, Paxlovid was about 84% effective, compared with no treatment, and Lagevrio was about 77% effective.

The investigators, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Cleveland Clinic, examined electronic health records of 68,867 patients at hospitals in Cleveland and Florida who were diagnosed with COVID from April 1, 2022, to Feb. 20, 2023.

For Paxlovid, the effectiveness against death and hospitalization was lower than the effectiveness rate of about 86% found in clinical trials in 2021, according to Bloomberg. 

The difference in effectiveness in the real-world and clinical studies may have occurred because the early studies were conducted with unvaccinated people. Also, the virus has evolved since those first studies, Bloomberg reported. 

The researchers said Paxlovid and Lagevrio are recommended for use because they reduce hospitalization and death among high-risk patients who get COVID, even taking recent Omicron subvariants into account.

“These findings suggest that the use of either nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) is associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in patients infected with Omicron, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions,” the researchers wrote. “Both drugs can, therefore, be used to treat nonhospitalized patients who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19.”

Both drugs should be taken within 5 days of the onset of COVID symptoms.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Three coauthors reported conflicts of interest with various companies and organizations.

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

A real-world study published in  JAMA Open Network found that Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral Paxlovid is now less effective at preventing hospitalization or death in high-risk patients, compared with earlier studies. But when looking at death alone, the antiviral was still highly effective. 

Paxlovid was about 37% effective at preventing death or hospitalization in high-risk patients, compared with no treatment. The study also looked at the antiviral Lagevrio, made by Merck, and found it was about 41% effective. In preventing death alone, Paxlovid was about 84% effective, compared with no treatment, and Lagevrio was about 77% effective.

The investigators, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Cleveland Clinic, examined electronic health records of 68,867 patients at hospitals in Cleveland and Florida who were diagnosed with COVID from April 1, 2022, to Feb. 20, 2023.

For Paxlovid, the effectiveness against death and hospitalization was lower than the effectiveness rate of about 86% found in clinical trials in 2021, according to Bloomberg. 

The difference in effectiveness in the real-world and clinical studies may have occurred because the early studies were conducted with unvaccinated people. Also, the virus has evolved since those first studies, Bloomberg reported. 

The researchers said Paxlovid and Lagevrio are recommended for use because they reduce hospitalization and death among high-risk patients who get COVID, even taking recent Omicron subvariants into account.

“These findings suggest that the use of either nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) is associated with reductions in mortality and hospitalization in patients infected with Omicron, regardless of age, race and ethnicity, virus strain, vaccination status, previous infection status, or coexisting conditions,” the researchers wrote. “Both drugs can, therefore, be used to treat nonhospitalized patients who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19.”

Both drugs should be taken within 5 days of the onset of COVID symptoms.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Three coauthors reported conflicts of interest with various companies and organizations.

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

Adults with nonsevere community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) responded nearly equally to three first-line and alternative antibiotic regimens, based on data from more than 23,000 individuals.

Current recommendations for the treatment of CAP vary across guidelines, wrote Anthony D. Bai, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues. However, most guidelines were based on studies that were not powered to examine the effect of treatments on mortality, they said.

“Large observational studies could fill this gap by comparing multiple treatment arms, including patients not well represented in trials, and having a large sample size powered to detect a difference in mortality,” they noted.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 23,512 consecutive patients admitted to 19 hospitals in Canada for CAP between 2015 and 2021. Patients were treated with one of four initial antibiotic regimens: beta-lactam plus macrolide (BL+M), beta-lactam alone (BL), respiratory fluoroquinolone (FQ), or beta-lactam plus doxycycline (BL+D). Of these, BL+M is generally considered the first-line regimen, the researchers noted.

Patients were divided into four groups according to their initial antibiotic treatment within 48 hours of admission; 9,340 patients received BL+M, 9,146 received BL, 4,510 received FQ, and 516 received BL+D. The duration of any antibiotic that was active against CAP was at least 4 days, or until hospital discharge or death.

The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality, which was 7.5%, 9.7%, 6.7%, and 6.0% for patients in each of the four treatment groups, respectively. Relative to the first-line therapy of BL+M, the adjusted risk differences for BL, FQ, and BL+D were 1.5%, –0.9%, and –1.9%, respectively.

The adjusted in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between BL+M and either FQ or BL+D, but the difference of 1.5% seen with BL alone suggested a “small but clinically important difference,” the researchers noted.

Key secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay and being discharged alive. The median length of stay was 4.6 days for BL+M, 5.2 days for BL, 4.6 days for FQ, and 6.0 days for BL+D. Patients treated with BL also had a longer time to hospital discharge, which suggests that BL may not be as effective as the other regimens, the researchers said. In addition, patients in the BL group had a subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.90 for being discharged alive, compared with the BL+M group after adjustment with propensity scores and overlap weighting.

Overall, the results support dropping BL as a first-line regimen in the current ATS/IDSA guidelines, and support the recommendation of BL+M, FQ, and BL+D as similarly effective options as listed in other guidelines, applied according to other patient characteristics. For example, “Doxycycline may be preferred over a macrolide in many cases such as macrolide allergy, prolonged QT, or high [Clostridioides] difficile risk,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of follow-up data after hospital discharge.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and use of a comprehensive database that allowed adjustment for many variables, as well as the availability of complete follow-up data for the time spent in the hospital. Based on this study, clinicians may choose a respiratory fluoroquinolone, a beta-lactam plus macrolide, or a beta-lactam plus doxycycline for equally effective antibiotic treatment of CAP, based on the best fit for each individual patient, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with nonsevere community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) responded nearly equally to three first-line and alternative antibiotic regimens, based on data from more than 23,000 individuals.

Current recommendations for the treatment of CAP vary across guidelines, wrote Anthony D. Bai, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues. However, most guidelines were based on studies that were not powered to examine the effect of treatments on mortality, they said.

“Large observational studies could fill this gap by comparing multiple treatment arms, including patients not well represented in trials, and having a large sample size powered to detect a difference in mortality,” they noted.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 23,512 consecutive patients admitted to 19 hospitals in Canada for CAP between 2015 and 2021. Patients were treated with one of four initial antibiotic regimens: beta-lactam plus macrolide (BL+M), beta-lactam alone (BL), respiratory fluoroquinolone (FQ), or beta-lactam plus doxycycline (BL+D). Of these, BL+M is generally considered the first-line regimen, the researchers noted.

Patients were divided into four groups according to their initial antibiotic treatment within 48 hours of admission; 9,340 patients received BL+M, 9,146 received BL, 4,510 received FQ, and 516 received BL+D. The duration of any antibiotic that was active against CAP was at least 4 days, or until hospital discharge or death.

The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality, which was 7.5%, 9.7%, 6.7%, and 6.0% for patients in each of the four treatment groups, respectively. Relative to the first-line therapy of BL+M, the adjusted risk differences for BL, FQ, and BL+D were 1.5%, –0.9%, and –1.9%, respectively.

The adjusted in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between BL+M and either FQ or BL+D, but the difference of 1.5% seen with BL alone suggested a “small but clinically important difference,” the researchers noted.

Key secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay and being discharged alive. The median length of stay was 4.6 days for BL+M, 5.2 days for BL, 4.6 days for FQ, and 6.0 days for BL+D. Patients treated with BL also had a longer time to hospital discharge, which suggests that BL may not be as effective as the other regimens, the researchers said. In addition, patients in the BL group had a subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.90 for being discharged alive, compared with the BL+M group after adjustment with propensity scores and overlap weighting.

Overall, the results support dropping BL as a first-line regimen in the current ATS/IDSA guidelines, and support the recommendation of BL+M, FQ, and BL+D as similarly effective options as listed in other guidelines, applied according to other patient characteristics. For example, “Doxycycline may be preferred over a macrolide in many cases such as macrolide allergy, prolonged QT, or high [Clostridioides] difficile risk,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of follow-up data after hospital discharge.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and use of a comprehensive database that allowed adjustment for many variables, as well as the availability of complete follow-up data for the time spent in the hospital. Based on this study, clinicians may choose a respiratory fluoroquinolone, a beta-lactam plus macrolide, or a beta-lactam plus doxycycline for equally effective antibiotic treatment of CAP, based on the best fit for each individual patient, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with nonsevere community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) responded nearly equally to three first-line and alternative antibiotic regimens, based on data from more than 23,000 individuals.

Current recommendations for the treatment of CAP vary across guidelines, wrote Anthony D. Bai, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues. However, most guidelines were based on studies that were not powered to examine the effect of treatments on mortality, they said.

“Large observational studies could fill this gap by comparing multiple treatment arms, including patients not well represented in trials, and having a large sample size powered to detect a difference in mortality,” they noted.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 23,512 consecutive patients admitted to 19 hospitals in Canada for CAP between 2015 and 2021. Patients were treated with one of four initial antibiotic regimens: beta-lactam plus macrolide (BL+M), beta-lactam alone (BL), respiratory fluoroquinolone (FQ), or beta-lactam plus doxycycline (BL+D). Of these, BL+M is generally considered the first-line regimen, the researchers noted.

Patients were divided into four groups according to their initial antibiotic treatment within 48 hours of admission; 9,340 patients received BL+M, 9,146 received BL, 4,510 received FQ, and 516 received BL+D. The duration of any antibiotic that was active against CAP was at least 4 days, or until hospital discharge or death.

The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality, which was 7.5%, 9.7%, 6.7%, and 6.0% for patients in each of the four treatment groups, respectively. Relative to the first-line therapy of BL+M, the adjusted risk differences for BL, FQ, and BL+D were 1.5%, –0.9%, and –1.9%, respectively.

The adjusted in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between BL+M and either FQ or BL+D, but the difference of 1.5% seen with BL alone suggested a “small but clinically important difference,” the researchers noted.

Key secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay and being discharged alive. The median length of stay was 4.6 days for BL+M, 5.2 days for BL, 4.6 days for FQ, and 6.0 days for BL+D. Patients treated with BL also had a longer time to hospital discharge, which suggests that BL may not be as effective as the other regimens, the researchers said. In addition, patients in the BL group had a subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.90 for being discharged alive, compared with the BL+M group after adjustment with propensity scores and overlap weighting.

Overall, the results support dropping BL as a first-line regimen in the current ATS/IDSA guidelines, and support the recommendation of BL+M, FQ, and BL+D as similarly effective options as listed in other guidelines, applied according to other patient characteristics. For example, “Doxycycline may be preferred over a macrolide in many cases such as macrolide allergy, prolonged QT, or high [Clostridioides] difficile risk,” the researchers said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of follow-up data after hospital discharge.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and use of a comprehensive database that allowed adjustment for many variables, as well as the availability of complete follow-up data for the time spent in the hospital. Based on this study, clinicians may choose a respiratory fluoroquinolone, a beta-lactam plus macrolide, or a beta-lactam plus doxycycline for equally effective antibiotic treatment of CAP, based on the best fit for each individual patient, the researchers concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

MILAN – Numerous unresolved questions surround progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) treatment, according to Elisabeth Bendstrup, MD, PhD, a researcher and clinical professor in the department of clinical medicine – department of respiratory diseases and allergy, Aarhus (Denmark) University, Denmark. These questions regard the optimal timing for treatment initiation, the role of available medications, either as monotherapy or in combination, and nonpharmacologic support options.

What’s in the toolbox?

Pulmonologists who manage PPF have a range of treatment options at their disposal. This includes careful patient observation, with treatment initiation based on clinical necessity. The therapeutic arsenal comprises immunomodulatory treatments, antifibrotic agents, palliative and supportive care, and, for a minority of patients, lung transplantation.

“Once a patient is diagnosed with PPF, it is important to remember that the diagnostic criteria from the guidelines are not exactly the same of those accepted for the reimbursement of antifibrotic treatments in different countries,” Dr. Bendstrup said, suggesting that nonclinical considerations could also potentially influence the treatment choice. She spoke at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Michael Kreuter, MD, director of the Lung Center at the University Hospital in Mainz, Germany, provided insight into the introduction of antifibrotic drugs for the treatment of PPF. Drawing from nearly a decade ago when the first antifibrotic medication was approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), Dr. Kreuter noted its effectiveness in slowing disease progression, although it does not reverse it. Subsequently, the discovery that non-IPF diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, exhibited IPF-like behavior led to the exploration of the use of the same drugs for similar conditions, even if not IPF.

“That’s how antifibrotic treatments came into place. Now we have more trials and data to be discussed in the future,” Dr. Kreuter added. He highlighted that antifibrotic drugs are effective for several diseases. Most of those diseases are treated with different anti-inflammatory drugs, which makes it difficult to decide when to start antifibrotic therapy and how to eventually combine it with different pharmacologic approaches.
 

A pivotal starting point

One of the primary challenges faced by pulmonologists in the management of PPF is determining the appropriate timing for initiating treatment, a question only partially addressed by existing guidelines. Dr. Bendstrup advocated for a comprehensive baseline evaluation. Factors to be considered include symptom burden, the severity of lung decline, radiologic characteristics, signs of alveolar inflammation, progression risk factors, quality of life, patient preferences, and medical history. “All these should be best discussed in a multidisciplinary team, including pulmonologists, nurses, experts in palliative care, occupational physicians, and more,” she said.

Current guidelines recommend nintedanib for PPF treatment for patients who have failed standard management for fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD) other than IPF. However, the definition of “standard management” remains a topic of debate, and it is acknowledged that evidence-based guidance for a standard of care varies among patients. Dr. Bendstrup pointed out the limited guidance clinicians receive from these guidelines. “As clinicians, we are not left with very much help from here.”
 

Choosing the right approach

Dr. Bendstrup delved into the factors influencing the choice between antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory therapies. This decision hinges on whether the patient presents with a predominantly inflammatory or a fibrotic progressive phenotype. Certain clinical characteristics contribute to the decision. Factors such as younger age, female gender, and the presence of connective tissue disease lean toward an inflammatory phenotype. Radiologic patterns, such as organized pneumonia, hypersensitivity pneumonia, or usual interstitial pneumonia–like patterns also provide valuable clues. Additionally, genetics plays a role, with shorter telomeres indicating a more fibrotic phenotype and an increased risk of immunomodulatory treatment side effects in non-IPF ILDs.

Bendstrup referred to a recent position paper on treatment recommendations and many other studies that support the use of different treatments for patients with PPF. The authors highlighted limited evidence for immunomodulation in fibrotic ILD, though such treatment is generally used except for ILD associated with systemic sclerosis. Moreover, the guidelines conditionally recommend nintedanib and call for further research on pirfenidone in PPF.

“We need intelligent, well-designed trials looking at subgroups of patients at higher risk, maybe based on molecular identification. We also need to have good biomarkers to better classify our patients based on disease behavior and treatment response. There’s a lot of discussion of biomarkers for progression, much less – if any – on biomarkers for the response to treatment. And we need them as well,” Dr. Bendstrup said in an interview.
 

The role of supportive care

Effective PPF treatment extends beyond pharmacologic interventions. It encompasses symptom management, patient education on vaccination and smoking cessation, and fostering social support networks. Psychological support, supplemental oxygen therapy, and pulmonary rehabilitation are integral components of care.

Elisabeth Robertson, a PPF patient representative from the United Kingdom, emphasized the importance of palliative care, not just in end-of-life scenarios but throughout the patient’s journey. Palliative care encompasses symptom alleviation, enabling patients to stay at home when possible, addressing mental health, and preparing for the end of life. Such holistic care can significantly enhance the patient’s quality of life.

The cochair of the session, Marlies S. Wijsenbeek, MD, PhD, pulmonary physician and head of the ILD Centre at the Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, underscored that palliative care begins at diagnosis and involves managing symptom burdens. “Supportive care also includes nurses, as they are precious for the patients while answering their questions and can help save time for the doctors,” she said in an interview.

In the discussion on treatment decisions, experts agreed on the pivotal role of patients in decision-making. However, Dr. Kreuter highlighted two critical factors that influence successful patient-doctor interactions: the cultural backgrounds of patients and their relatives, and the attitudes of health care providers.

Dr. Bendstrup has received honoraria or consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Chiesi, and Daiichi Sankyo. Ms. Robertson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Numerous unresolved questions surround progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) treatment, according to Elisabeth Bendstrup, MD, PhD, a researcher and clinical professor in the department of clinical medicine – department of respiratory diseases and allergy, Aarhus (Denmark) University, Denmark. These questions regard the optimal timing for treatment initiation, the role of available medications, either as monotherapy or in combination, and nonpharmacologic support options.

What’s in the toolbox?

Pulmonologists who manage PPF have a range of treatment options at their disposal. This includes careful patient observation, with treatment initiation based on clinical necessity. The therapeutic arsenal comprises immunomodulatory treatments, antifibrotic agents, palliative and supportive care, and, for a minority of patients, lung transplantation.

“Once a patient is diagnosed with PPF, it is important to remember that the diagnostic criteria from the guidelines are not exactly the same of those accepted for the reimbursement of antifibrotic treatments in different countries,” Dr. Bendstrup said, suggesting that nonclinical considerations could also potentially influence the treatment choice. She spoke at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Michael Kreuter, MD, director of the Lung Center at the University Hospital in Mainz, Germany, provided insight into the introduction of antifibrotic drugs for the treatment of PPF. Drawing from nearly a decade ago when the first antifibrotic medication was approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), Dr. Kreuter noted its effectiveness in slowing disease progression, although it does not reverse it. Subsequently, the discovery that non-IPF diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, exhibited IPF-like behavior led to the exploration of the use of the same drugs for similar conditions, even if not IPF.

“That’s how antifibrotic treatments came into place. Now we have more trials and data to be discussed in the future,” Dr. Kreuter added. He highlighted that antifibrotic drugs are effective for several diseases. Most of those diseases are treated with different anti-inflammatory drugs, which makes it difficult to decide when to start antifibrotic therapy and how to eventually combine it with different pharmacologic approaches.
 

A pivotal starting point

One of the primary challenges faced by pulmonologists in the management of PPF is determining the appropriate timing for initiating treatment, a question only partially addressed by existing guidelines. Dr. Bendstrup advocated for a comprehensive baseline evaluation. Factors to be considered include symptom burden, the severity of lung decline, radiologic characteristics, signs of alveolar inflammation, progression risk factors, quality of life, patient preferences, and medical history. “All these should be best discussed in a multidisciplinary team, including pulmonologists, nurses, experts in palliative care, occupational physicians, and more,” she said.

Current guidelines recommend nintedanib for PPF treatment for patients who have failed standard management for fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD) other than IPF. However, the definition of “standard management” remains a topic of debate, and it is acknowledged that evidence-based guidance for a standard of care varies among patients. Dr. Bendstrup pointed out the limited guidance clinicians receive from these guidelines. “As clinicians, we are not left with very much help from here.”
 

Choosing the right approach

Dr. Bendstrup delved into the factors influencing the choice between antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory therapies. This decision hinges on whether the patient presents with a predominantly inflammatory or a fibrotic progressive phenotype. Certain clinical characteristics contribute to the decision. Factors such as younger age, female gender, and the presence of connective tissue disease lean toward an inflammatory phenotype. Radiologic patterns, such as organized pneumonia, hypersensitivity pneumonia, or usual interstitial pneumonia–like patterns also provide valuable clues. Additionally, genetics plays a role, with shorter telomeres indicating a more fibrotic phenotype and an increased risk of immunomodulatory treatment side effects in non-IPF ILDs.

Bendstrup referred to a recent position paper on treatment recommendations and many other studies that support the use of different treatments for patients with PPF. The authors highlighted limited evidence for immunomodulation in fibrotic ILD, though such treatment is generally used except for ILD associated with systemic sclerosis. Moreover, the guidelines conditionally recommend nintedanib and call for further research on pirfenidone in PPF.

“We need intelligent, well-designed trials looking at subgroups of patients at higher risk, maybe based on molecular identification. We also need to have good biomarkers to better classify our patients based on disease behavior and treatment response. There’s a lot of discussion of biomarkers for progression, much less – if any – on biomarkers for the response to treatment. And we need them as well,” Dr. Bendstrup said in an interview.
 

The role of supportive care

Effective PPF treatment extends beyond pharmacologic interventions. It encompasses symptom management, patient education on vaccination and smoking cessation, and fostering social support networks. Psychological support, supplemental oxygen therapy, and pulmonary rehabilitation are integral components of care.

Elisabeth Robertson, a PPF patient representative from the United Kingdom, emphasized the importance of palliative care, not just in end-of-life scenarios but throughout the patient’s journey. Palliative care encompasses symptom alleviation, enabling patients to stay at home when possible, addressing mental health, and preparing for the end of life. Such holistic care can significantly enhance the patient’s quality of life.

The cochair of the session, Marlies S. Wijsenbeek, MD, PhD, pulmonary physician and head of the ILD Centre at the Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, underscored that palliative care begins at diagnosis and involves managing symptom burdens. “Supportive care also includes nurses, as they are precious for the patients while answering their questions and can help save time for the doctors,” she said in an interview.

In the discussion on treatment decisions, experts agreed on the pivotal role of patients in decision-making. However, Dr. Kreuter highlighted two critical factors that influence successful patient-doctor interactions: the cultural backgrounds of patients and their relatives, and the attitudes of health care providers.

Dr. Bendstrup has received honoraria or consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Chiesi, and Daiichi Sankyo. Ms. Robertson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Numerous unresolved questions surround progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) treatment, according to Elisabeth Bendstrup, MD, PhD, a researcher and clinical professor in the department of clinical medicine – department of respiratory diseases and allergy, Aarhus (Denmark) University, Denmark. These questions regard the optimal timing for treatment initiation, the role of available medications, either as monotherapy or in combination, and nonpharmacologic support options.

What’s in the toolbox?

Pulmonologists who manage PPF have a range of treatment options at their disposal. This includes careful patient observation, with treatment initiation based on clinical necessity. The therapeutic arsenal comprises immunomodulatory treatments, antifibrotic agents, palliative and supportive care, and, for a minority of patients, lung transplantation.

“Once a patient is diagnosed with PPF, it is important to remember that the diagnostic criteria from the guidelines are not exactly the same of those accepted for the reimbursement of antifibrotic treatments in different countries,” Dr. Bendstrup said, suggesting that nonclinical considerations could also potentially influence the treatment choice. She spoke at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Michael Kreuter, MD, director of the Lung Center at the University Hospital in Mainz, Germany, provided insight into the introduction of antifibrotic drugs for the treatment of PPF. Drawing from nearly a decade ago when the first antifibrotic medication was approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), Dr. Kreuter noted its effectiveness in slowing disease progression, although it does not reverse it. Subsequently, the discovery that non-IPF diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, exhibited IPF-like behavior led to the exploration of the use of the same drugs for similar conditions, even if not IPF.

“That’s how antifibrotic treatments came into place. Now we have more trials and data to be discussed in the future,” Dr. Kreuter added. He highlighted that antifibrotic drugs are effective for several diseases. Most of those diseases are treated with different anti-inflammatory drugs, which makes it difficult to decide when to start antifibrotic therapy and how to eventually combine it with different pharmacologic approaches.
 

A pivotal starting point

One of the primary challenges faced by pulmonologists in the management of PPF is determining the appropriate timing for initiating treatment, a question only partially addressed by existing guidelines. Dr. Bendstrup advocated for a comprehensive baseline evaluation. Factors to be considered include symptom burden, the severity of lung decline, radiologic characteristics, signs of alveolar inflammation, progression risk factors, quality of life, patient preferences, and medical history. “All these should be best discussed in a multidisciplinary team, including pulmonologists, nurses, experts in palliative care, occupational physicians, and more,” she said.

Current guidelines recommend nintedanib for PPF treatment for patients who have failed standard management for fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD) other than IPF. However, the definition of “standard management” remains a topic of debate, and it is acknowledged that evidence-based guidance for a standard of care varies among patients. Dr. Bendstrup pointed out the limited guidance clinicians receive from these guidelines. “As clinicians, we are not left with very much help from here.”
 

Choosing the right approach

Dr. Bendstrup delved into the factors influencing the choice between antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory therapies. This decision hinges on whether the patient presents with a predominantly inflammatory or a fibrotic progressive phenotype. Certain clinical characteristics contribute to the decision. Factors such as younger age, female gender, and the presence of connective tissue disease lean toward an inflammatory phenotype. Radiologic patterns, such as organized pneumonia, hypersensitivity pneumonia, or usual interstitial pneumonia–like patterns also provide valuable clues. Additionally, genetics plays a role, with shorter telomeres indicating a more fibrotic phenotype and an increased risk of immunomodulatory treatment side effects in non-IPF ILDs.

Bendstrup referred to a recent position paper on treatment recommendations and many other studies that support the use of different treatments for patients with PPF. The authors highlighted limited evidence for immunomodulation in fibrotic ILD, though such treatment is generally used except for ILD associated with systemic sclerosis. Moreover, the guidelines conditionally recommend nintedanib and call for further research on pirfenidone in PPF.

“We need intelligent, well-designed trials looking at subgroups of patients at higher risk, maybe based on molecular identification. We also need to have good biomarkers to better classify our patients based on disease behavior and treatment response. There’s a lot of discussion of biomarkers for progression, much less – if any – on biomarkers for the response to treatment. And we need them as well,” Dr. Bendstrup said in an interview.
 

The role of supportive care

Effective PPF treatment extends beyond pharmacologic interventions. It encompasses symptom management, patient education on vaccination and smoking cessation, and fostering social support networks. Psychological support, supplemental oxygen therapy, and pulmonary rehabilitation are integral components of care.

Elisabeth Robertson, a PPF patient representative from the United Kingdom, emphasized the importance of palliative care, not just in end-of-life scenarios but throughout the patient’s journey. Palliative care encompasses symptom alleviation, enabling patients to stay at home when possible, addressing mental health, and preparing for the end of life. Such holistic care can significantly enhance the patient’s quality of life.

The cochair of the session, Marlies S. Wijsenbeek, MD, PhD, pulmonary physician and head of the ILD Centre at the Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, underscored that palliative care begins at diagnosis and involves managing symptom burdens. “Supportive care also includes nurses, as they are precious for the patients while answering their questions and can help save time for the doctors,” she said in an interview.

In the discussion on treatment decisions, experts agreed on the pivotal role of patients in decision-making. However, Dr. Kreuter highlighted two critical factors that influence successful patient-doctor interactions: the cultural backgrounds of patients and their relatives, and the attitudes of health care providers.

Dr. Bendstrup has received honoraria or consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Chiesi, and Daiichi Sankyo. Ms. Robertson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SINGAPORE – A few months after releasing its phase 1 and 2 data, OSE Immunotherapeutics, which is based in Nantes, France, has announced positive results for its therapeutic vaccine to treat cancer. Following its promising findings concerning early-stage melanoma, pancreatic cancer, ENT cancers, and HPV-associated anogenital cancer, the company-funded phase 3 Atalante-1 trial has shown the benefits of the Tedopi (OSE2101) vaccine in treating patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer who are on their second or third line of treatment.

The results suggest that Tedopi is the most developmentally advanced therapeutic vaccine for cancer.

The data from Atalante-1 were presented at the World Conference on Lung Cancer and were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.

Tedopi is composed of synthetic tumoral neo-epitopes (peptide fragments) that target five tumoral antigens, permitting the activation of tumor-specific T-lymphocytes for patients who are HLA-A2 positive. In 95% of cases, tumors express at least one of these five antigens. The aim of integrating these five antigens is to prevent immune escape. The technology uses the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) system, one of the keys for presenting antigens to T-lymphocytes. The vaccine is effective for patients who express the HLA-A2 gene, which is present in around half of the population. The HLA-A2 biomarker, detected via a blood test, can identify appropriate patients.
 

Study protocol

In the Atalante-1 trial, participants had locally advanced (unresectable and not eligible for radiotherapy) or metastatic (without alteration of the EGFR and ALK genes) non–small cell lung cancer that was resistant to previous immunotherapy. They had an HLA-A2 phenotype, as determined by a blood draw to determine whether their immune system could respond to the vaccine.

In this trial, 219 patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive the vaccine or standard-of-care chemotherapy (80% received docetaxel). The vaccine was administered subcutaneously on day 1 every 3 weeks for six cycles. After that point, the vaccine was administered every 8 weeks until 1 year of treatment and every 12 weeks thereafter. The primary endpoint was overall survival.
 

Secondary resistance

The plan was to enroll 363 patients in the protocol, but the study did not complete its recruitment phase because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the study was stopped after the enrollment of 219 patients.

“It didn’t have the power we would have liked, but it helped us understand that the people who benefited the most from the vaccine were patients who had responded to immunotherapy in the past. These patients have what is called ‘secondary resistance,’ ” explained Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, during a press conference organized by OSE Immunotherapeutics. Dr. Besse, the study’s principal investigator, is the director of clinical research at Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

Overall, the results weren’t significant. But the results were positive for patients who had previously responded well to immunotherapy for at least 3 months. Of the 219 patients, 118 (54%) had a positive response.

Among these patients with secondary resistance to immunotherapy, median OS was 11.1 months with Tedopi versus 7.5 months with docetaxel.

For these patients, the risk of death was reduced by 41% with the vaccine, compared with chemotherapy. Overall, 44% of patients lived for another year after receiving Tedopi, versus 27.5% with docetaxel.

“This study is a positive signal for overall survival in the selected population. In this study of 219 patients, we realized that just half of patients really benefited from the vaccine: those who had previously responded to immunotherapy,” said Dr. Besse. “The study needs confirmation from a further, larger phase 3 study in more than 300 patients with secondary resistance to immunotherapy to give us the statistical power we need to convince the regulatory authorities.”
 

Tolerability profile

Fewer serious adverse effects were reported with the vaccine than with chemotherapy (11.4% with Tedopi and 35.1% with docetaxel).

The vaccine also allowed patients to maintain a better quality of life. Scores from the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, which explores several areas of daily life, were better with the vaccine. Change in patients’ overall well-being was delayed in the vaccine group: 3.3 months in the chemotherapy arm versus 9 months in the vaccine arm.

“The vaccine was well tolerated. It has benefits in terms of controlling disease symptoms and causes few side effects. Chemotherapy with docetaxel, meanwhile, is more toxic and may affect a patient’s overall well-being. It causes hair loss in practically 100% of patients, induces neuropathy, makes hands and feet swell, damages the nails, is associated with nausea and vomiting ...” noted Dr. Besse. He went on to say that after the trial, of the patients who stopped receiving the vaccine or chemotherapy (either for toxicity reasons or for disease progression), those who had been given the vaccine responded better to the subsequent chemotherapy “because their overall health was better.”
 

Clinical development

The clinical development of Tedopi is ongoing. Three trials are currently taking place. One study is comparing the Tedopi vaccine plus docetaxel with Tedopi plus nivolumab (immunotherapy not used as a first-line treatment) to determine whether the effects of these treatment combinations might might be enhanced for patients with previously treated lung cancer.

Another study relating to ovarian cancer is in the recruitment phase. The researchers seek to evaluate the vaccine alone or in combination with pembrolizumab for patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Results from both trials are expected in 2025.

The third trial seeks to assess FOLFIRI as maintenance therapy or FOLFIRI as maintenance plus Tedopi for patients with pancreatic cancer to improve disease management. Efficacy data are expected next year.

OSE Immunotherapeutics is simultaneously working on a companion biomarker, the HLA-A2 test.

The study was funded by OSE Immunotherapeutics. Dr. Besse disclosed the following conflicts of interest (research funding, institution): AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ellipse Pharma, EISAI, Genmab, Genzyme Corporation, Hedera Dx, Inivata, IPSEN, Janssen, MSD, Pharmamar, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Socar Research, Taiho Oncology, and Turning Point Therapeutics.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

SINGAPORE – A few months after releasing its phase 1 and 2 data, OSE Immunotherapeutics, which is based in Nantes, France, has announced positive results for its therapeutic vaccine to treat cancer. Following its promising findings concerning early-stage melanoma, pancreatic cancer, ENT cancers, and HPV-associated anogenital cancer, the company-funded phase 3 Atalante-1 trial has shown the benefits of the Tedopi (OSE2101) vaccine in treating patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer who are on their second or third line of treatment.

The results suggest that Tedopi is the most developmentally advanced therapeutic vaccine for cancer.

The data from Atalante-1 were presented at the World Conference on Lung Cancer and were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.

Tedopi is composed of synthetic tumoral neo-epitopes (peptide fragments) that target five tumoral antigens, permitting the activation of tumor-specific T-lymphocytes for patients who are HLA-A2 positive. In 95% of cases, tumors express at least one of these five antigens. The aim of integrating these five antigens is to prevent immune escape. The technology uses the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) system, one of the keys for presenting antigens to T-lymphocytes. The vaccine is effective for patients who express the HLA-A2 gene, which is present in around half of the population. The HLA-A2 biomarker, detected via a blood test, can identify appropriate patients.
 

Study protocol

In the Atalante-1 trial, participants had locally advanced (unresectable and not eligible for radiotherapy) or metastatic (without alteration of the EGFR and ALK genes) non–small cell lung cancer that was resistant to previous immunotherapy. They had an HLA-A2 phenotype, as determined by a blood draw to determine whether their immune system could respond to the vaccine.

In this trial, 219 patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive the vaccine or standard-of-care chemotherapy (80% received docetaxel). The vaccine was administered subcutaneously on day 1 every 3 weeks for six cycles. After that point, the vaccine was administered every 8 weeks until 1 year of treatment and every 12 weeks thereafter. The primary endpoint was overall survival.
 

Secondary resistance

The plan was to enroll 363 patients in the protocol, but the study did not complete its recruitment phase because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the study was stopped after the enrollment of 219 patients.

“It didn’t have the power we would have liked, but it helped us understand that the people who benefited the most from the vaccine were patients who had responded to immunotherapy in the past. These patients have what is called ‘secondary resistance,’ ” explained Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, during a press conference organized by OSE Immunotherapeutics. Dr. Besse, the study’s principal investigator, is the director of clinical research at Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

Overall, the results weren’t significant. But the results were positive for patients who had previously responded well to immunotherapy for at least 3 months. Of the 219 patients, 118 (54%) had a positive response.

Among these patients with secondary resistance to immunotherapy, median OS was 11.1 months with Tedopi versus 7.5 months with docetaxel.

For these patients, the risk of death was reduced by 41% with the vaccine, compared with chemotherapy. Overall, 44% of patients lived for another year after receiving Tedopi, versus 27.5% with docetaxel.

“This study is a positive signal for overall survival in the selected population. In this study of 219 patients, we realized that just half of patients really benefited from the vaccine: those who had previously responded to immunotherapy,” said Dr. Besse. “The study needs confirmation from a further, larger phase 3 study in more than 300 patients with secondary resistance to immunotherapy to give us the statistical power we need to convince the regulatory authorities.”
 

Tolerability profile

Fewer serious adverse effects were reported with the vaccine than with chemotherapy (11.4% with Tedopi and 35.1% with docetaxel).

The vaccine also allowed patients to maintain a better quality of life. Scores from the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, which explores several areas of daily life, were better with the vaccine. Change in patients’ overall well-being was delayed in the vaccine group: 3.3 months in the chemotherapy arm versus 9 months in the vaccine arm.

“The vaccine was well tolerated. It has benefits in terms of controlling disease symptoms and causes few side effects. Chemotherapy with docetaxel, meanwhile, is more toxic and may affect a patient’s overall well-being. It causes hair loss in practically 100% of patients, induces neuropathy, makes hands and feet swell, damages the nails, is associated with nausea and vomiting ...” noted Dr. Besse. He went on to say that after the trial, of the patients who stopped receiving the vaccine or chemotherapy (either for toxicity reasons or for disease progression), those who had been given the vaccine responded better to the subsequent chemotherapy “because their overall health was better.”
 

Clinical development

The clinical development of Tedopi is ongoing. Three trials are currently taking place. One study is comparing the Tedopi vaccine plus docetaxel with Tedopi plus nivolumab (immunotherapy not used as a first-line treatment) to determine whether the effects of these treatment combinations might might be enhanced for patients with previously treated lung cancer.

Another study relating to ovarian cancer is in the recruitment phase. The researchers seek to evaluate the vaccine alone or in combination with pembrolizumab for patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Results from both trials are expected in 2025.

The third trial seeks to assess FOLFIRI as maintenance therapy or FOLFIRI as maintenance plus Tedopi for patients with pancreatic cancer to improve disease management. Efficacy data are expected next year.

OSE Immunotherapeutics is simultaneously working on a companion biomarker, the HLA-A2 test.

The study was funded by OSE Immunotherapeutics. Dr. Besse disclosed the following conflicts of interest (research funding, institution): AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ellipse Pharma, EISAI, Genmab, Genzyme Corporation, Hedera Dx, Inivata, IPSEN, Janssen, MSD, Pharmamar, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Socar Research, Taiho Oncology, and Turning Point Therapeutics.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

SINGAPORE – A few months after releasing its phase 1 and 2 data, OSE Immunotherapeutics, which is based in Nantes, France, has announced positive results for its therapeutic vaccine to treat cancer. Following its promising findings concerning early-stage melanoma, pancreatic cancer, ENT cancers, and HPV-associated anogenital cancer, the company-funded phase 3 Atalante-1 trial has shown the benefits of the Tedopi (OSE2101) vaccine in treating patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer who are on their second or third line of treatment.

The results suggest that Tedopi is the most developmentally advanced therapeutic vaccine for cancer.

The data from Atalante-1 were presented at the World Conference on Lung Cancer and were simultaneously published in Annals of Oncology.

Tedopi is composed of synthetic tumoral neo-epitopes (peptide fragments) that target five tumoral antigens, permitting the activation of tumor-specific T-lymphocytes for patients who are HLA-A2 positive. In 95% of cases, tumors express at least one of these five antigens. The aim of integrating these five antigens is to prevent immune escape. The technology uses the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) system, one of the keys for presenting antigens to T-lymphocytes. The vaccine is effective for patients who express the HLA-A2 gene, which is present in around half of the population. The HLA-A2 biomarker, detected via a blood test, can identify appropriate patients.
 

Study protocol

In the Atalante-1 trial, participants had locally advanced (unresectable and not eligible for radiotherapy) or metastatic (without alteration of the EGFR and ALK genes) non–small cell lung cancer that was resistant to previous immunotherapy. They had an HLA-A2 phenotype, as determined by a blood draw to determine whether their immune system could respond to the vaccine.

In this trial, 219 patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive the vaccine or standard-of-care chemotherapy (80% received docetaxel). The vaccine was administered subcutaneously on day 1 every 3 weeks for six cycles. After that point, the vaccine was administered every 8 weeks until 1 year of treatment and every 12 weeks thereafter. The primary endpoint was overall survival.
 

Secondary resistance

The plan was to enroll 363 patients in the protocol, but the study did not complete its recruitment phase because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the study was stopped after the enrollment of 219 patients.

“It didn’t have the power we would have liked, but it helped us understand that the people who benefited the most from the vaccine were patients who had responded to immunotherapy in the past. These patients have what is called ‘secondary resistance,’ ” explained Benjamin Besse, MD, PhD, during a press conference organized by OSE Immunotherapeutics. Dr. Besse, the study’s principal investigator, is the director of clinical research at Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

Overall, the results weren’t significant. But the results were positive for patients who had previously responded well to immunotherapy for at least 3 months. Of the 219 patients, 118 (54%) had a positive response.

Among these patients with secondary resistance to immunotherapy, median OS was 11.1 months with Tedopi versus 7.5 months with docetaxel.

For these patients, the risk of death was reduced by 41% with the vaccine, compared with chemotherapy. Overall, 44% of patients lived for another year after receiving Tedopi, versus 27.5% with docetaxel.

“This study is a positive signal for overall survival in the selected population. In this study of 219 patients, we realized that just half of patients really benefited from the vaccine: those who had previously responded to immunotherapy,” said Dr. Besse. “The study needs confirmation from a further, larger phase 3 study in more than 300 patients with secondary resistance to immunotherapy to give us the statistical power we need to convince the regulatory authorities.”
 

Tolerability profile

Fewer serious adverse effects were reported with the vaccine than with chemotherapy (11.4% with Tedopi and 35.1% with docetaxel).

The vaccine also allowed patients to maintain a better quality of life. Scores from the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, which explores several areas of daily life, were better with the vaccine. Change in patients’ overall well-being was delayed in the vaccine group: 3.3 months in the chemotherapy arm versus 9 months in the vaccine arm.

“The vaccine was well tolerated. It has benefits in terms of controlling disease symptoms and causes few side effects. Chemotherapy with docetaxel, meanwhile, is more toxic and may affect a patient’s overall well-being. It causes hair loss in practically 100% of patients, induces neuropathy, makes hands and feet swell, damages the nails, is associated with nausea and vomiting ...” noted Dr. Besse. He went on to say that after the trial, of the patients who stopped receiving the vaccine or chemotherapy (either for toxicity reasons or for disease progression), those who had been given the vaccine responded better to the subsequent chemotherapy “because their overall health was better.”
 

Clinical development

The clinical development of Tedopi is ongoing. Three trials are currently taking place. One study is comparing the Tedopi vaccine plus docetaxel with Tedopi plus nivolumab (immunotherapy not used as a first-line treatment) to determine whether the effects of these treatment combinations might might be enhanced for patients with previously treated lung cancer.

Another study relating to ovarian cancer is in the recruitment phase. The researchers seek to evaluate the vaccine alone or in combination with pembrolizumab for patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Results from both trials are expected in 2025.

The third trial seeks to assess FOLFIRI as maintenance therapy or FOLFIRI as maintenance plus Tedopi for patients with pancreatic cancer to improve disease management. Efficacy data are expected next year.

OSE Immunotherapeutics is simultaneously working on a companion biomarker, the HLA-A2 test.

The study was funded by OSE Immunotherapeutics. Dr. Besse disclosed the following conflicts of interest (research funding, institution): AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ellipse Pharma, EISAI, Genmab, Genzyme Corporation, Hedera Dx, Inivata, IPSEN, Janssen, MSD, Pharmamar, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Socar Research, Taiho Oncology, and Turning Point Therapeutics.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan-Kettering, still musing on things I learned at ASCO 2023.

I learned that there is a new C word.

People used to be afraid to use the word “cancer,” so they would call it the C word. Hopefully we’ve gotten over that stigma, that cancer is an illness that can be fought like any other illness.

There’s a new C word now that people seem, again, afraid to use, and that word is “cure.” It’s almost a true rarity that – again, I’m talking about the lung cancer world in particular – folks use the word “cure.” I didn’t hear it at ASCO, but the truth of the matter is that’s a word we should be using and be using more.

What do our patients want? I think if you truly ask a patient what their goal of care should be, it would be to cure the illness. What I mean by “cure” is to eradicate the cancer that is in their body, keep the cancer and its effects from interfering with their ability to continue their lives, and to do it for the length of their natural life. That’s what our patients want. Yes, overall survival is important, but not as much as a life free of cancer and the burden that it puts on people having cancer in the body.

When you start thinking about cure and how to make it a goal of care, a number of issues immediately crop up. The first one is defining what is meant by “cure.” We don’t have a strict definition of cure. Again, I would probably go to the patients and ask them what they mean by it. There may be some landmark part of the definition that needs to be discussed and addressed, but again, to me it’s having your life not disturbed by cancer, and that generally comes by eradicating cancer. Living with cancer is harder than the living after cancer has been cured. But we don’t have a good definition.

We also don’t have a good way of designing clinical trials to assess whether the regimen is curative. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a trial in lung cancer that looked at the ability of any given treatment to cure patients. We need to come up with ways to design trials to do that. Now, in addition to clinical trials, we don’t have a good body of evidence to design our preclinical experiments to look for those treatments that can lead to cures, or total eradication of cancer in whatever model system might be used. If we make cure the goal, then we need to find ways preclinically to identify those strategies that could lead to that.

Also in the realm of clinical trials, we need a very clear statistical underpinning to show that one or another treatment has a better chance of cure and to show with scientific rigor that one treatment is better than the other when it comes to cure. I think there needs to be more attention to this, and as we think about revamping the clinical trial process, we need to focus more on cure.

I’m saving the most important step for last. None of this can happen unless we try to make it happen and we say cure is possible. My mentor, George Boswell, always taught us that we would, in every single patient with cancer, try to develop a curative strategy. Is there a curative strategy for this patient? If so, pursue it with all the tools and vigor that we have. We really need to think that way.

Obviously, not every patient with cancer can be cured with our current armamentarium of anticancer treatments, but we need to make sure we put it on the table. We need to [confirm] that a strategy does not currently exist that could lead to cure. And of course, if we do find that strategy, we need to pursue it with all the energy and resources that we have.

Please don’t be afraid to use the word “cure.” Our patients want that. They deserve it. We should work hard to try to provide it and work toward developing strategies that we can propose and cure more patients.

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. His research interests include targeted therapies for lung cancer, multimodality therapy, the development of new anticancer drugs, and symptom management with a focus on preventing emesis.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan-Kettering, still musing on things I learned at ASCO 2023.

I learned that there is a new C word.

People used to be afraid to use the word “cancer,” so they would call it the C word. Hopefully we’ve gotten over that stigma, that cancer is an illness that can be fought like any other illness.

There’s a new C word now that people seem, again, afraid to use, and that word is “cure.” It’s almost a true rarity that – again, I’m talking about the lung cancer world in particular – folks use the word “cure.” I didn’t hear it at ASCO, but the truth of the matter is that’s a word we should be using and be using more.

What do our patients want? I think if you truly ask a patient what their goal of care should be, it would be to cure the illness. What I mean by “cure” is to eradicate the cancer that is in their body, keep the cancer and its effects from interfering with their ability to continue their lives, and to do it for the length of their natural life. That’s what our patients want. Yes, overall survival is important, but not as much as a life free of cancer and the burden that it puts on people having cancer in the body.

When you start thinking about cure and how to make it a goal of care, a number of issues immediately crop up. The first one is defining what is meant by “cure.” We don’t have a strict definition of cure. Again, I would probably go to the patients and ask them what they mean by it. There may be some landmark part of the definition that needs to be discussed and addressed, but again, to me it’s having your life not disturbed by cancer, and that generally comes by eradicating cancer. Living with cancer is harder than the living after cancer has been cured. But we don’t have a good definition.

We also don’t have a good way of designing clinical trials to assess whether the regimen is curative. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a trial in lung cancer that looked at the ability of any given treatment to cure patients. We need to come up with ways to design trials to do that. Now, in addition to clinical trials, we don’t have a good body of evidence to design our preclinical experiments to look for those treatments that can lead to cures, or total eradication of cancer in whatever model system might be used. If we make cure the goal, then we need to find ways preclinically to identify those strategies that could lead to that.

Also in the realm of clinical trials, we need a very clear statistical underpinning to show that one or another treatment has a better chance of cure and to show with scientific rigor that one treatment is better than the other when it comes to cure. I think there needs to be more attention to this, and as we think about revamping the clinical trial process, we need to focus more on cure.

I’m saving the most important step for last. None of this can happen unless we try to make it happen and we say cure is possible. My mentor, George Boswell, always taught us that we would, in every single patient with cancer, try to develop a curative strategy. Is there a curative strategy for this patient? If so, pursue it with all the tools and vigor that we have. We really need to think that way.

Obviously, not every patient with cancer can be cured with our current armamentarium of anticancer treatments, but we need to make sure we put it on the table. We need to [confirm] that a strategy does not currently exist that could lead to cure. And of course, if we do find that strategy, we need to pursue it with all the energy and resources that we have.

Please don’t be afraid to use the word “cure.” Our patients want that. They deserve it. We should work hard to try to provide it and work toward developing strategies that we can propose and cure more patients.

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. His research interests include targeted therapies for lung cancer, multimodality therapy, the development of new anticancer drugs, and symptom management with a focus on preventing emesis.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. It’s Mark Kris from Memorial Sloan-Kettering, still musing on things I learned at ASCO 2023.

I learned that there is a new C word.

People used to be afraid to use the word “cancer,” so they would call it the C word. Hopefully we’ve gotten over that stigma, that cancer is an illness that can be fought like any other illness.

There’s a new C word now that people seem, again, afraid to use, and that word is “cure.” It’s almost a true rarity that – again, I’m talking about the lung cancer world in particular – folks use the word “cure.” I didn’t hear it at ASCO, but the truth of the matter is that’s a word we should be using and be using more.

What do our patients want? I think if you truly ask a patient what their goal of care should be, it would be to cure the illness. What I mean by “cure” is to eradicate the cancer that is in their body, keep the cancer and its effects from interfering with their ability to continue their lives, and to do it for the length of their natural life. That’s what our patients want. Yes, overall survival is important, but not as much as a life free of cancer and the burden that it puts on people having cancer in the body.

When you start thinking about cure and how to make it a goal of care, a number of issues immediately crop up. The first one is defining what is meant by “cure.” We don’t have a strict definition of cure. Again, I would probably go to the patients and ask them what they mean by it. There may be some landmark part of the definition that needs to be discussed and addressed, but again, to me it’s having your life not disturbed by cancer, and that generally comes by eradicating cancer. Living with cancer is harder than the living after cancer has been cured. But we don’t have a good definition.

We also don’t have a good way of designing clinical trials to assess whether the regimen is curative. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a trial in lung cancer that looked at the ability of any given treatment to cure patients. We need to come up with ways to design trials to do that. Now, in addition to clinical trials, we don’t have a good body of evidence to design our preclinical experiments to look for those treatments that can lead to cures, or total eradication of cancer in whatever model system might be used. If we make cure the goal, then we need to find ways preclinically to identify those strategies that could lead to that.

Also in the realm of clinical trials, we need a very clear statistical underpinning to show that one or another treatment has a better chance of cure and to show with scientific rigor that one treatment is better than the other when it comes to cure. I think there needs to be more attention to this, and as we think about revamping the clinical trial process, we need to focus more on cure.

I’m saving the most important step for last. None of this can happen unless we try to make it happen and we say cure is possible. My mentor, George Boswell, always taught us that we would, in every single patient with cancer, try to develop a curative strategy. Is there a curative strategy for this patient? If so, pursue it with all the tools and vigor that we have. We really need to think that way.

Obviously, not every patient with cancer can be cured with our current armamentarium of anticancer treatments, but we need to make sure we put it on the table. We need to [confirm] that a strategy does not currently exist that could lead to cure. And of course, if we do find that strategy, we need to pursue it with all the energy and resources that we have.

Please don’t be afraid to use the word “cure.” Our patients want that. They deserve it. We should work hard to try to provide it and work toward developing strategies that we can propose and cure more patients.

Mark G. Kris, MD, is chief of the thoracic oncology service and the William and Joy Ruane Chair in Thoracic Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. His research interests include targeted therapies for lung cancer, multimodality therapy, the development of new anticancer drugs, and symptom management with a focus on preventing emesis.

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

Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.

During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.

Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”

In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”

She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
 

Emerging risk factors

Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.

In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.

“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”

Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.

“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”

Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.

Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.

She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.

“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
 

Improving health outcomes

Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.

“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”

Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.

“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.

She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.

“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”

Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.

During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.

Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”

In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”

She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
 

Emerging risk factors

Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.

In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.

“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”

Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.

“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”

Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.

Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.

She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.

“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
 

Improving health outcomes

Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.

“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”

Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.

“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.

She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.

“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”

Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.

During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.

Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”

In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”

She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
 

Emerging risk factors

Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.

In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.

“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”

Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.

“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”

Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.

Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.

She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.

“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
 

Improving health outcomes

Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.

“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”

Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.

“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.

She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.

“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”

Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Plenty of perks come along with earning a physician’s salary, but a low tax rate isn’t among them. Medscape’s Physicians and Taxes Report 2023 shows that last year, doctors paid an average of nearly $100,000 in state and federal taxes, and three-quarters of them thought that they were paying too much to Uncle Sam. In most cases, it’s impossible to eliminate that tax bill, but physicians told us they have found ways to minimize it.

“The percentage you have to pay in taxes escalates as you earn more money, and most doctors are at the maximum rate,” says Paul Joseph, a certified public accountant and founder of Joseph & Joseph Tax & Payroll in Williamston, Mich. “So every dollar you can deduct from your income is worth more.”

Here’s a look at the seven top tax breaks physician respondents claimed in our tax report, so you can ensure you’re making the most of the tax strategies available to you. To claim most of these options, you’ll need to itemize your deductions when filing your taxes.
 

Contribute to charity

Claimed by 70% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Anyone.

How it works: If you itemize your taxes, you can deduct the value of cash, securities, or property donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. You’ll need a receipt from the charity and a third-party appraisal for any property donations worth more than $5,000.

Pro tip: Donating stocks that have appreciated in value can deliver additional tax benefits: You get to write off both the value of the contribution and avoid capital gains taxes that you’d face for selling the security.
 

Contribute to a pre-tax 401(k) account

Claimed by 60% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Those who work for a company that sponsors a 401(k) plan.

How it works: Contributions to a 401(k) or 403(b) account come directly out of your paycheck, pre-tax, and grow tax-free until you withdraw them in retirement. Many companies offer a match on contributions. In 2023, you can contribute up to $22,500 ($30,000 if you’re age 50 or older) to a 401(k) account.

Pro tip: If you’re maxing out your 401(k) account, you can stash money in other tax-advantaged accounts such as a health savings account (if you have a high-deductible health plan) or an individual retirement account (IRA). Although employees with access to a 401(k) may not get the pre-tax advantage of the IRA contributions, the money will grow tax-free through retirement, and you may have access to additional investment options unavailable in your workplace plan.

“You want to maximize your retirement contributions,” says Mark Steber, the chief tax information officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. “If you’re not taking full advantage of them, you’re probably leaving some tax dollars on the table.”

If you’re self-employed and don’t have access to a workplace plan, there are several options for tax-advantaged retirement savings, including a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k).
 

Deduct interest on a home mortgage

Claimed by 52% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Most homeowners who have a mortgage.

How it works: Homeowners can deduct the interest paid on the first $750,000 of their mortgage. (Those who have had the same mortgage since before December 16, 2007, can deduct interest on the first $1 million of their loan.)

Pro tip: If you purchased a home this year and bought points to reduce the rate, you may be able to deduct the cost of those points on your taxes.

Physicians might also be eligible for other home-related tax benefits, such as for green home improvements under the Inflation Reduction Act or for home equity loans used to improve the value of your home.
 

Write off eligible business expenses

Claimed by 46% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Physicians who own all or a portion of their practice, as well as those who work as consultants or contractors paid with a 1099.

How it works: Doctors who run their business using an LLC or S corporation can itemize the deductions on their Schedule C. There are dozens of deductions that might qualify, including for office space and supplies, medical equipment, uniforms, staff wages and benefits, and state and local tax payments. Physicians who work as consultants can deduct home office expenses, travel costs, and the price of supplies purchased for the job.

“For business expenses, you want to make sure that you’re tracking those expenses on an ongoing basis, rather than trying to reconstruct something at the end of the year from 8 months ago,” Mr. Joseph says. “You want to have a system in place that’s calculating those expenses every single day.”

Pro tip: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also allows owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their business income.

“Not all physicians will qualify for that, because they are in a service-based business and many of them make too much money, but it’s always a good idea to look at whether that’s something they’re eligible for and make sure that they claim it,” says Eric Bronnenkant, head of tax at New York–based investment company Betterment.
 

Contribute to a 529 college savings plan

Claimed by 27% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Those who live in the 37 states that offer a credit or deduction for 529 plan contributions.

How it works: The rules and amounts that qualify vary significantly by state. Most states offer benefits for contributions to in-state accounts only, whereas others offer a tax break for contributions to any 529 account.

Although there is no federal income tax benefit for contributions to a 529 plan, the money grows tax-free until tapped for qualified education expenses, which include both private primary and high school tuition and college costs. Starting in 2024, up to $35,000 in unused funds can roll over into a Roth IRA for the beneficiary.

“It’s not just about the immediate deduction with a 529 account,” says Brian Copeland, partner and director of financial planning with Hightower Wealth Advisors in St. Louis. “It’s not saving you a lot on day one; it’s more about as that account grows, you don’t have to pay taxes on it along the way, so you’re sheltering it from taxes for the 18 years you’re saving for your kids’ college.”

Pro tip: Even if you live in a state without a state income tax or without a tax break for 529 contributions, opening an account can be a smart financial move. Because you don’t need to choose an in-state plan for the tax breaks, look for one that offers low fees and investment options that you like.
 

Sell investments at a loss

Claimed by 22% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who has sold stocks, mutual funds, or other investments at a loss.

How it works: After selling a security that has lost value, you can deduct the value of that loss on your taxes to offset capital gains in the same year. If you have more losses than gains, you can use the losses to offset up to $3,000 in ordinary income per year. If you have more than $3,000 in losses, you can carry those losses forward to offset future income or capital gains.

Pro tip: In years with a lot of market volatility, such as this one, there’s potential to engage in “tax loss harvesting” in which you intentionally sell securities that have lost value to realize the losses for the tax benefits. Keep in mind that if you sell a security at a loss, you cannot repurchase the same security within 30 days – the IRS sees that as a “wash sale,” which does not qualify for a capital loss for tax purposes.
 

Contribute to a backdoor Roth IRA

Claimed by 20% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who wishes to contribute to a Roth IRA but is not allowed to do so because their income is too high.

How it works: High earners typically don’t qualify for contributions to a Roth IRA, in which contributions go in after taxes but grow tax-free and distributions in retirement are also tax-free. But there are no income requirements for making after-tax contributions to a traditional and then converting it to a Roth IRA.

There are, however, complex tax rules for those who also have a traditional IRA that’s funded with pre-tax dollars. If that’s the case, work with a tax pro or financial advisor to determine whether a backdoor Roth conversion is the most tax-efficient approach for your situation.

Pro tip: A growing number of workplace retirement plans now include an option for Roth contributions. There are no income limits on a Roth 401(k), so contributing to that type of an account could be a smart route for taxpayers for whom a backdoor conversion doesn’t make sense.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plenty of perks come along with earning a physician’s salary, but a low tax rate isn’t among them. Medscape’s Physicians and Taxes Report 2023 shows that last year, doctors paid an average of nearly $100,000 in state and federal taxes, and three-quarters of them thought that they were paying too much to Uncle Sam. In most cases, it’s impossible to eliminate that tax bill, but physicians told us they have found ways to minimize it.

“The percentage you have to pay in taxes escalates as you earn more money, and most doctors are at the maximum rate,” says Paul Joseph, a certified public accountant and founder of Joseph & Joseph Tax & Payroll in Williamston, Mich. “So every dollar you can deduct from your income is worth more.”

Here’s a look at the seven top tax breaks physician respondents claimed in our tax report, so you can ensure you’re making the most of the tax strategies available to you. To claim most of these options, you’ll need to itemize your deductions when filing your taxes.
 

Contribute to charity

Claimed by 70% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Anyone.

How it works: If you itemize your taxes, you can deduct the value of cash, securities, or property donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. You’ll need a receipt from the charity and a third-party appraisal for any property donations worth more than $5,000.

Pro tip: Donating stocks that have appreciated in value can deliver additional tax benefits: You get to write off both the value of the contribution and avoid capital gains taxes that you’d face for selling the security.
 

Contribute to a pre-tax 401(k) account

Claimed by 60% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Those who work for a company that sponsors a 401(k) plan.

How it works: Contributions to a 401(k) or 403(b) account come directly out of your paycheck, pre-tax, and grow tax-free until you withdraw them in retirement. Many companies offer a match on contributions. In 2023, you can contribute up to $22,500 ($30,000 if you’re age 50 or older) to a 401(k) account.

Pro tip: If you’re maxing out your 401(k) account, you can stash money in other tax-advantaged accounts such as a health savings account (if you have a high-deductible health plan) or an individual retirement account (IRA). Although employees with access to a 401(k) may not get the pre-tax advantage of the IRA contributions, the money will grow tax-free through retirement, and you may have access to additional investment options unavailable in your workplace plan.

“You want to maximize your retirement contributions,” says Mark Steber, the chief tax information officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. “If you’re not taking full advantage of them, you’re probably leaving some tax dollars on the table.”

If you’re self-employed and don’t have access to a workplace plan, there are several options for tax-advantaged retirement savings, including a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k).
 

Deduct interest on a home mortgage

Claimed by 52% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Most homeowners who have a mortgage.

How it works: Homeowners can deduct the interest paid on the first $750,000 of their mortgage. (Those who have had the same mortgage since before December 16, 2007, can deduct interest on the first $1 million of their loan.)

Pro tip: If you purchased a home this year and bought points to reduce the rate, you may be able to deduct the cost of those points on your taxes.

Physicians might also be eligible for other home-related tax benefits, such as for green home improvements under the Inflation Reduction Act or for home equity loans used to improve the value of your home.
 

Write off eligible business expenses

Claimed by 46% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Physicians who own all or a portion of their practice, as well as those who work as consultants or contractors paid with a 1099.

How it works: Doctors who run their business using an LLC or S corporation can itemize the deductions on their Schedule C. There are dozens of deductions that might qualify, including for office space and supplies, medical equipment, uniforms, staff wages and benefits, and state and local tax payments. Physicians who work as consultants can deduct home office expenses, travel costs, and the price of supplies purchased for the job.

“For business expenses, you want to make sure that you’re tracking those expenses on an ongoing basis, rather than trying to reconstruct something at the end of the year from 8 months ago,” Mr. Joseph says. “You want to have a system in place that’s calculating those expenses every single day.”

Pro tip: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also allows owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their business income.

“Not all physicians will qualify for that, because they are in a service-based business and many of them make too much money, but it’s always a good idea to look at whether that’s something they’re eligible for and make sure that they claim it,” says Eric Bronnenkant, head of tax at New York–based investment company Betterment.
 

Contribute to a 529 college savings plan

Claimed by 27% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Those who live in the 37 states that offer a credit or deduction for 529 plan contributions.

How it works: The rules and amounts that qualify vary significantly by state. Most states offer benefits for contributions to in-state accounts only, whereas others offer a tax break for contributions to any 529 account.

Although there is no federal income tax benefit for contributions to a 529 plan, the money grows tax-free until tapped for qualified education expenses, which include both private primary and high school tuition and college costs. Starting in 2024, up to $35,000 in unused funds can roll over into a Roth IRA for the beneficiary.

“It’s not just about the immediate deduction with a 529 account,” says Brian Copeland, partner and director of financial planning with Hightower Wealth Advisors in St. Louis. “It’s not saving you a lot on day one; it’s more about as that account grows, you don’t have to pay taxes on it along the way, so you’re sheltering it from taxes for the 18 years you’re saving for your kids’ college.”

Pro tip: Even if you live in a state without a state income tax or without a tax break for 529 contributions, opening an account can be a smart financial move. Because you don’t need to choose an in-state plan for the tax breaks, look for one that offers low fees and investment options that you like.
 

Sell investments at a loss

Claimed by 22% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who has sold stocks, mutual funds, or other investments at a loss.

How it works: After selling a security that has lost value, you can deduct the value of that loss on your taxes to offset capital gains in the same year. If you have more losses than gains, you can use the losses to offset up to $3,000 in ordinary income per year. If you have more than $3,000 in losses, you can carry those losses forward to offset future income or capital gains.

Pro tip: In years with a lot of market volatility, such as this one, there’s potential to engage in “tax loss harvesting” in which you intentionally sell securities that have lost value to realize the losses for the tax benefits. Keep in mind that if you sell a security at a loss, you cannot repurchase the same security within 30 days – the IRS sees that as a “wash sale,” which does not qualify for a capital loss for tax purposes.
 

Contribute to a backdoor Roth IRA

Claimed by 20% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who wishes to contribute to a Roth IRA but is not allowed to do so because their income is too high.

How it works: High earners typically don’t qualify for contributions to a Roth IRA, in which contributions go in after taxes but grow tax-free and distributions in retirement are also tax-free. But there are no income requirements for making after-tax contributions to a traditional and then converting it to a Roth IRA.

There are, however, complex tax rules for those who also have a traditional IRA that’s funded with pre-tax dollars. If that’s the case, work with a tax pro or financial advisor to determine whether a backdoor Roth conversion is the most tax-efficient approach for your situation.

Pro tip: A growing number of workplace retirement plans now include an option for Roth contributions. There are no income limits on a Roth 401(k), so contributing to that type of an account could be a smart route for taxpayers for whom a backdoor conversion doesn’t make sense.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plenty of perks come along with earning a physician’s salary, but a low tax rate isn’t among them. Medscape’s Physicians and Taxes Report 2023 shows that last year, doctors paid an average of nearly $100,000 in state and federal taxes, and three-quarters of them thought that they were paying too much to Uncle Sam. In most cases, it’s impossible to eliminate that tax bill, but physicians told us they have found ways to minimize it.

“The percentage you have to pay in taxes escalates as you earn more money, and most doctors are at the maximum rate,” says Paul Joseph, a certified public accountant and founder of Joseph & Joseph Tax & Payroll in Williamston, Mich. “So every dollar you can deduct from your income is worth more.”

Here’s a look at the seven top tax breaks physician respondents claimed in our tax report, so you can ensure you’re making the most of the tax strategies available to you. To claim most of these options, you’ll need to itemize your deductions when filing your taxes.
 

Contribute to charity

Claimed by 70% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Anyone.

How it works: If you itemize your taxes, you can deduct the value of cash, securities, or property donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. You’ll need a receipt from the charity and a third-party appraisal for any property donations worth more than $5,000.

Pro tip: Donating stocks that have appreciated in value can deliver additional tax benefits: You get to write off both the value of the contribution and avoid capital gains taxes that you’d face for selling the security.
 

Contribute to a pre-tax 401(k) account

Claimed by 60% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Those who work for a company that sponsors a 401(k) plan.

How it works: Contributions to a 401(k) or 403(b) account come directly out of your paycheck, pre-tax, and grow tax-free until you withdraw them in retirement. Many companies offer a match on contributions. In 2023, you can contribute up to $22,500 ($30,000 if you’re age 50 or older) to a 401(k) account.

Pro tip: If you’re maxing out your 401(k) account, you can stash money in other tax-advantaged accounts such as a health savings account (if you have a high-deductible health plan) or an individual retirement account (IRA). Although employees with access to a 401(k) may not get the pre-tax advantage of the IRA contributions, the money will grow tax-free through retirement, and you may have access to additional investment options unavailable in your workplace plan.

“You want to maximize your retirement contributions,” says Mark Steber, the chief tax information officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. “If you’re not taking full advantage of them, you’re probably leaving some tax dollars on the table.”

If you’re self-employed and don’t have access to a workplace plan, there are several options for tax-advantaged retirement savings, including a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k).
 

Deduct interest on a home mortgage

Claimed by 52% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Most homeowners who have a mortgage.

How it works: Homeowners can deduct the interest paid on the first $750,000 of their mortgage. (Those who have had the same mortgage since before December 16, 2007, can deduct interest on the first $1 million of their loan.)

Pro tip: If you purchased a home this year and bought points to reduce the rate, you may be able to deduct the cost of those points on your taxes.

Physicians might also be eligible for other home-related tax benefits, such as for green home improvements under the Inflation Reduction Act or for home equity loans used to improve the value of your home.
 

Write off eligible business expenses

Claimed by 46% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Physicians who own all or a portion of their practice, as well as those who work as consultants or contractors paid with a 1099.

How it works: Doctors who run their business using an LLC or S corporation can itemize the deductions on their Schedule C. There are dozens of deductions that might qualify, including for office space and supplies, medical equipment, uniforms, staff wages and benefits, and state and local tax payments. Physicians who work as consultants can deduct home office expenses, travel costs, and the price of supplies purchased for the job.

“For business expenses, you want to make sure that you’re tracking those expenses on an ongoing basis, rather than trying to reconstruct something at the end of the year from 8 months ago,” Mr. Joseph says. “You want to have a system in place that’s calculating those expenses every single day.”

Pro tip: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also allows owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their business income.

“Not all physicians will qualify for that, because they are in a service-based business and many of them make too much money, but it’s always a good idea to look at whether that’s something they’re eligible for and make sure that they claim it,” says Eric Bronnenkant, head of tax at New York–based investment company Betterment.
 

Contribute to a 529 college savings plan

Claimed by 27% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Those who live in the 37 states that offer a credit or deduction for 529 plan contributions.

How it works: The rules and amounts that qualify vary significantly by state. Most states offer benefits for contributions to in-state accounts only, whereas others offer a tax break for contributions to any 529 account.

Although there is no federal income tax benefit for contributions to a 529 plan, the money grows tax-free until tapped for qualified education expenses, which include both private primary and high school tuition and college costs. Starting in 2024, up to $35,000 in unused funds can roll over into a Roth IRA for the beneficiary.

“It’s not just about the immediate deduction with a 529 account,” says Brian Copeland, partner and director of financial planning with Hightower Wealth Advisors in St. Louis. “It’s not saving you a lot on day one; it’s more about as that account grows, you don’t have to pay taxes on it along the way, so you’re sheltering it from taxes for the 18 years you’re saving for your kids’ college.”

Pro tip: Even if you live in a state without a state income tax or without a tax break for 529 contributions, opening an account can be a smart financial move. Because you don’t need to choose an in-state plan for the tax breaks, look for one that offers low fees and investment options that you like.
 

Sell investments at a loss

Claimed by 22% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who has sold stocks, mutual funds, or other investments at a loss.

How it works: After selling a security that has lost value, you can deduct the value of that loss on your taxes to offset capital gains in the same year. If you have more losses than gains, you can use the losses to offset up to $3,000 in ordinary income per year. If you have more than $3,000 in losses, you can carry those losses forward to offset future income or capital gains.

Pro tip: In years with a lot of market volatility, such as this one, there’s potential to engage in “tax loss harvesting” in which you intentionally sell securities that have lost value to realize the losses for the tax benefits. Keep in mind that if you sell a security at a loss, you cannot repurchase the same security within 30 days – the IRS sees that as a “wash sale,” which does not qualify for a capital loss for tax purposes.
 

Contribute to a backdoor Roth IRA

Claimed by 20% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who wishes to contribute to a Roth IRA but is not allowed to do so because their income is too high.

How it works: High earners typically don’t qualify for contributions to a Roth IRA, in which contributions go in after taxes but grow tax-free and distributions in retirement are also tax-free. But there are no income requirements for making after-tax contributions to a traditional and then converting it to a Roth IRA.

There are, however, complex tax rules for those who also have a traditional IRA that’s funded with pre-tax dollars. If that’s the case, work with a tax pro or financial advisor to determine whether a backdoor Roth conversion is the most tax-efficient approach for your situation.

Pro tip: A growing number of workplace retirement plans now include an option for Roth contributions. There are no income limits on a Roth 401(k), so contributing to that type of an account could be a smart route for taxpayers for whom a backdoor conversion doesn’t make sense.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.

Version 1 appeared in late 2022.

While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
 

Practice points

• Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.

“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”

• Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.

There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.

“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.

The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).


 

Review details

Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.

It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).

Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).

“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.

The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.

Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.

Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”

Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.

The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.

Version 1 appeared in late 2022.

While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
 

Practice points

• Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.

“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”

• Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.

There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.

“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.

The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).


 

Review details

Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.

It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).

Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).

“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.

The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.

Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.

Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”

Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.

The American College of Physicians has issued an updated version of its living, rapid practice point guideline on the best treatment options for outpatients with confirmed COVID-19 in the era of the dominant Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The recommendations in version 2 apply to persons presenting with mild to moderate infection and symptom onset in the past 5 days who are at high risk for progression to severe disease and potential hospitalization or death.

Version 1 appeared in late 2022.

While outpatient management is appropriate for most patients, treatment should be personalized and based on careful risk stratification and informed decision-making, said the guideline authors, led by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, vice president of clinical policy and the Center for Evidence Reviews at the ACP in Philadelphia.
 

Practice points

• Consider the oral antivirals nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) or molnupiravir (Lagevrio) for symptomatic outpatients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease.

New evidence for the Omicron variant suggests a possible net benefit of the antiviral molnupiravir versus standard or no treatment in terms of reducing recovery time if treatment is initiated within 5 days of symptom onset. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with reductions in COVID-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality.

“The practice points only address [whether] treatments work compared to placebo, no treatment, or usual care,” cautioned Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH, MACP, chair of the ACP’s Population Health and Medical Science Committee and a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University VA Portland Health Care System. The ACP continues to monitor the evidence. “Once enough evidence has emerged, it will be possible to compare treatments to each other. Until that time we are unable to determine if there is an advantage to using one treatment over another.”

• Do not use the antiparasitic ivermectin (Stromectol) or the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab (Xevudy) to treat this patient population. “It is not expected to be effective against the Omicron variant,” Dr. Humphrey said.

There was no evidence to support the use of medications such as corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, SSRIs, and multiple other agents.

“The guideline is not a departure from previous knowledge and reflects what appears in other guidelines and is already being done generally in practice,” said Mirella Salvatore, MD, an associate professor of medicine and population health sciences at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the ACP statement. It is therefore unlikely the recommendations will trigger controversy or negative feedback, added Dr. Salvatore, who is also a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “We believe that our evidence-based approach, which considers the balance of benefits and harms of various treatments, will be embraced by the physician community,” Dr. Humphrey said.

The updated recommendations are based on new data from the evidence review of multiple treatments, which concluded that both nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir likely improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The review was conducted after the emergence of the Omicron variant by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria/University for Continuing Education Krems (Austria).


 

Review details

Inclusion criteria were modified to focus on the Omicron variant by limiting eligible studies to only those enrolling patients on or after Nov. 26, 2021. The investigators included two randomized controlled trials and six retrospective cohort studies and ranked quality of evidence for the effectiveness of the following treatments, compared with usual care or no treatment: azithromycin, camostat mesylate, chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine, chlorpheniramine, colchicine, convalescent plasma, corticosteroids, ensitrelvir, favipiravir, fluvoxamine, ivermectin, lopinavir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, metformin, niclosamide, nitazoxanide, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, and remdesivir.

It compared results for all-cause and COVID-specific mortality, recovery, time to recovery, COVID hospitalization, and adverse and serious adverse events.

Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization caused by COVID-19 of 0.7% versus 1.2% (moderate certainty of evidence [COE]) and a reduction in all-cause mortality of less than 0.1% versus 0.2% (moderate COE).

Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate of 31.8% versus 22.6% (moderate COE) and a reduced time to recovery of 9 versus 15 median days (moderate COE). It had no effect, however, on all-cause mortality: 0.02% versus 0.04% (moderate COE). Nor did it affect the incidence of serious adverse events: 0.4% versus 0.3% (moderate COE).

“There have been no head-to-head comparative studies of these two treatments, but nirmatrelvir-ritonavir appears to be the preferred treatment,” Dr. Salvatore said. She noted that molnupiravir cannot be used in pregnant women or young persons under age 18, while nirmatrelvir-ritonavir carries the risk of drug interactions. Viral rebound and recurrence of symptoms have been reported in some patients receiving nirmatrelvir-ritonavir.

In other review findings, ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and adverse events versus placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality, compared with no treatment (low COE). There were no eligible studies for all of the other treatments of interest nor were there any that specifically evaluated the benefits and harms of treatments for the Omicron variant.

The panel pointed to the need for more evaluation of the efficacy, effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness, as well as harms of pharmacologic and biologic treatments of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, particularly in the context of changing dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants.

Another area requiring further research is the effectiveness of retreatment in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. Subgroup analyses are also needed to assess whether the efficacy and effectiveness of outpatient treatments vary by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions – or by SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunity status (prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination status, or time since infection or vaccination), symptom duration, or disease severity.

Dr. Salvatore agreed that more research is needed in special convalescent groups. “For instance, those with cancer who are immunocompromised may need longer treatment and adjunctive treatment with convalescent plasma. But is difficult to find a large enough study with 5,000 immunocompromised patients.”

Financial support for the development of the practice points came exclusively from the ACP operating budget. The evidence review was funded by the ACP. The authors disclosed no relevant high-level competing interests with regard to this guidance, although several authors reported intellectual interests in various areas of research. Dr. Salvatore disclosed no conflicts of interest relevant to her comments but is engaged in influenza research for Genentech.

Most patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are long-term responders to immunotherapy will continue receiving treatment beyond 2 years. However, the best available evidence to date indicates that receiving immunotherapy after this 2-year mark likely offers no survival benefit.

Given the data, why do many clinicians keep having their patients receive immunotherapy beyond 2 years?

Is it an overabundance of caution? A desire for more definitive data? Or is it simply a judgment call oncologists make on the basis of the individual patient?

Lova Sun, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, believes the general inconsistency between the data and clinical practice “likely reflects significant hesitation on the part of clinicians, patients, or both to stop a treatment that is still ‘working.’ ”

H. Jack West, MD, agreed, adding that “in an ambiguous situation, a U.S.-based population is going to err on the side of overtreatment.”

Without “incontrovertible evidence” that immunotherapy should stop at 2 years, “many, many, many patients and clinicians are going to favor continuing ‘doing what you’re doing’ in the absence of either prohibitive toxicity or clinically significant disease progression,” said Dr. West of the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif.

One factor adding to this ambiguity: Most pivotal studies that examine first-line immunotherapy in NSCLC limit therapy duration to 2 years.

Another key factor is the absence of prospective data as to when to stop treatment for these patients, according to Martin Reck, MD, PhD, head of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany).

“We have never prospectively investigated the correlation of the duration of a checkpoint blockade and the efficacy of treatment,” Dr. Reck said. “And this is a big problem.” It means “we really do not know how long we should treat the patient.”

To make matters muddier, some data do suggest that more therapy may be better. The recent Checkmate 153 trial, for instance, found that patients who had no signs of disease progression and who received 1-year fixed-duration nivolumab had significantly shorter progression-free and overall survival than those who received treatment indefinitely.

However, randomized trials with longer-term follow-up suggest durable responses can be maintained for years after immunotherapy is stopped.

Data from the KEYNOTE-024 trial, for instance, showed that more than 45% of patients with metastatic NSCLC and high tumor PD-L1 expression who received pembrolizumab for 2 years remained alive at 5 years without further treatment or disease progression. Another trial, KEYNOTE-407, demonstrated similar 5-year survival outcomes among patients with advanced squamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 status, who completed 2 years of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab followed by maintenance pembrolizumab.

With these studies, however, “we can only speculate about whether the proportion of patients alive without progression would be substantially higher if treatment with immunotherapy continued longer,” Dr. West wrote in a recent editorial .

Perhaps the most telling data so far come from a recent retrospective analysis from Dr. Sun and colleagues. The researchers directly compared survival outcomes among patients who continued receiving immunotherapy indefinitely with outcomes among patients for whom immunotherapy was discontinued at 2 years.

The JAMA Oncology study, which focused on 706 patients with NSCLC who completed 2 years of therapy, found that only 16% stopped receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at 2 years, whereas the remaining 84% continued receiving treatment indefinitely.

Among patients who continued receiving immunotherapy for 2 additional years, overall survival was not better than among those who stopped receiving immunotherapy at the 2-year mark. Even among the 11 patients whose condition progressed when therapy was discontinued, most still did well after treatment was resumed.

However, the retrospective design of the study limits its impact.

Without more definitive “data about when the treatment can be stopped,” many continue “indefinitely as long as the patient is tolerating treatment and the disease is not progressing,” Conor E. Steuer, MD, and Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, wrote in a recent review.
 

Impact on practice?

Dr. Sun views her team’s findings not as a recommendation to halt immunotherapy for every patient at 2 years but rather as “one piece of data that may provide reassurance to providers and patients who wish to stop at 2 years.”

Ultimately, however, the decision as to when or whether to stop immunotherapy for long-term responders is “an individualized one that requires shared decision-making and consideration of each patient’s clinical history, preferences, and risk tolerance,” Dr. Sun explained.

Dr. Reck agreed, noting that until prospective trials evaluate a fixed approach, the duration of immunotherapy “has to be determined by the treating physician and the individual patient.”

For a patient with metastatic NSCLC who is having an excellent response to checkpoint blockade, “we are somewhat afraid to stop the immunotherapy,” explained Dr. Reck, “because we are afraid the disease might relapse.” However, he noted, for patients who have a stable response to therapy, it may make sense to consider discontinuing checkpoint blockade.

Outside of survival outcomes, oncologists should also consider quality of life. Stopping treatment at 2 years comes with a “lower risk of toxic effects, less time in treatment for patients, and considerably lower costs for our health care system,” said Dr. West.

But for a fixed strategy to become more standard practice, the burden of proof is high, Dr. West said.

Jonathan W. Goldman, MD, says he understands the mentality, “If it’s going well, why would I change?”

In his experience, at 2 years of immunotherapy, most patients “say they’re feeling great” and “don’t mind coming in every 4 or 6 weeks, depending on the drug,” said Dr. Goldman, director of clinical trials in thoracic oncology at UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif.

Dr. Goldman noted that in the future, instead of continuing immunotherapy indefinitely, clinicians may aim to maintain the patient “in the best response possible,” adding an intervention, such as stereotactic body radiotherapy or radiologic ablation, when needed.

“It may be that many of these long-term disease control patients are not cured in a traditional sense,” Dr. Goldman said, “but have controlled cancer that could potentially last years or even decades with ongoing care.”

Dr. Sun has relationships with Regeneron, GenMab, Seagen, and Bayer and has received institutional funding from Blueprint Research, Seagen Research, and IO Biotech Research. Dr. West has relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr. Reck has relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, Roche Regeneron, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are long-term responders to immunotherapy will continue receiving treatment beyond 2 years. However, the best available evidence to date indicates that receiving immunotherapy after this 2-year mark likely offers no survival benefit.

Given the data, why do many clinicians keep having their patients receive immunotherapy beyond 2 years?

Is it an overabundance of caution? A desire for more definitive data? Or is it simply a judgment call oncologists make on the basis of the individual patient?

Lova Sun, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, believes the general inconsistency between the data and clinical practice “likely reflects significant hesitation on the part of clinicians, patients, or both to stop a treatment that is still ‘working.’ ”

H. Jack West, MD, agreed, adding that “in an ambiguous situation, a U.S.-based population is going to err on the side of overtreatment.”

Without “incontrovertible evidence” that immunotherapy should stop at 2 years, “many, many, many patients and clinicians are going to favor continuing ‘doing what you’re doing’ in the absence of either prohibitive toxicity or clinically significant disease progression,” said Dr. West of the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif.

One factor adding to this ambiguity: Most pivotal studies that examine first-line immunotherapy in NSCLC limit therapy duration to 2 years.

Another key factor is the absence of prospective data as to when to stop treatment for these patients, according to Martin Reck, MD, PhD, head of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany).

“We have never prospectively investigated the correlation of the duration of a checkpoint blockade and the efficacy of treatment,” Dr. Reck said. “And this is a big problem.” It means “we really do not know how long we should treat the patient.”

To make matters muddier, some data do suggest that more therapy may be better. The recent Checkmate 153 trial, for instance, found that patients who had no signs of disease progression and who received 1-year fixed-duration nivolumab had significantly shorter progression-free and overall survival than those who received treatment indefinitely.

However, randomized trials with longer-term follow-up suggest durable responses can be maintained for years after immunotherapy is stopped.

Data from the KEYNOTE-024 trial, for instance, showed that more than 45% of patients with metastatic NSCLC and high tumor PD-L1 expression who received pembrolizumab for 2 years remained alive at 5 years without further treatment or disease progression. Another trial, KEYNOTE-407, demonstrated similar 5-year survival outcomes among patients with advanced squamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 status, who completed 2 years of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab followed by maintenance pembrolizumab.

With these studies, however, “we can only speculate about whether the proportion of patients alive without progression would be substantially higher if treatment with immunotherapy continued longer,” Dr. West wrote in a recent editorial .

Perhaps the most telling data so far come from a recent retrospective analysis from Dr. Sun and colleagues. The researchers directly compared survival outcomes among patients who continued receiving immunotherapy indefinitely with outcomes among patients for whom immunotherapy was discontinued at 2 years.

The JAMA Oncology study, which focused on 706 patients with NSCLC who completed 2 years of therapy, found that only 16% stopped receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at 2 years, whereas the remaining 84% continued receiving treatment indefinitely.

Among patients who continued receiving immunotherapy for 2 additional years, overall survival was not better than among those who stopped receiving immunotherapy at the 2-year mark. Even among the 11 patients whose condition progressed when therapy was discontinued, most still did well after treatment was resumed.

However, the retrospective design of the study limits its impact.

Without more definitive “data about when the treatment can be stopped,” many continue “indefinitely as long as the patient is tolerating treatment and the disease is not progressing,” Conor E. Steuer, MD, and Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, wrote in a recent review.
 

Impact on practice?

Dr. Sun views her team’s findings not as a recommendation to halt immunotherapy for every patient at 2 years but rather as “one piece of data that may provide reassurance to providers and patients who wish to stop at 2 years.”

Ultimately, however, the decision as to when or whether to stop immunotherapy for long-term responders is “an individualized one that requires shared decision-making and consideration of each patient’s clinical history, preferences, and risk tolerance,” Dr. Sun explained.

Dr. Reck agreed, noting that until prospective trials evaluate a fixed approach, the duration of immunotherapy “has to be determined by the treating physician and the individual patient.”

For a patient with metastatic NSCLC who is having an excellent response to checkpoint blockade, “we are somewhat afraid to stop the immunotherapy,” explained Dr. Reck, “because we are afraid the disease might relapse.” However, he noted, for patients who have a stable response to therapy, it may make sense to consider discontinuing checkpoint blockade.

Outside of survival outcomes, oncologists should also consider quality of life. Stopping treatment at 2 years comes with a “lower risk of toxic effects, less time in treatment for patients, and considerably lower costs for our health care system,” said Dr. West.

But for a fixed strategy to become more standard practice, the burden of proof is high, Dr. West said.

Jonathan W. Goldman, MD, says he understands the mentality, “If it’s going well, why would I change?”

In his experience, at 2 years of immunotherapy, most patients “say they’re feeling great” and “don’t mind coming in every 4 or 6 weeks, depending on the drug,” said Dr. Goldman, director of clinical trials in thoracic oncology at UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif.

Dr. Goldman noted that in the future, instead of continuing immunotherapy indefinitely, clinicians may aim to maintain the patient “in the best response possible,” adding an intervention, such as stereotactic body radiotherapy or radiologic ablation, when needed.

“It may be that many of these long-term disease control patients are not cured in a traditional sense,” Dr. Goldman said, “but have controlled cancer that could potentially last years or even decades with ongoing care.”

Dr. Sun has relationships with Regeneron, GenMab, Seagen, and Bayer and has received institutional funding from Blueprint Research, Seagen Research, and IO Biotech Research. Dr. West has relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr. Reck has relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, Roche Regeneron, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are long-term responders to immunotherapy will continue receiving treatment beyond 2 years. However, the best available evidence to date indicates that receiving immunotherapy after this 2-year mark likely offers no survival benefit.

Given the data, why do many clinicians keep having their patients receive immunotherapy beyond 2 years?

Is it an overabundance of caution? A desire for more definitive data? Or is it simply a judgment call oncologists make on the basis of the individual patient?

Lova Sun, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, believes the general inconsistency between the data and clinical practice “likely reflects significant hesitation on the part of clinicians, patients, or both to stop a treatment that is still ‘working.’ ”

H. Jack West, MD, agreed, adding that “in an ambiguous situation, a U.S.-based population is going to err on the side of overtreatment.”

Without “incontrovertible evidence” that immunotherapy should stop at 2 years, “many, many, many patients and clinicians are going to favor continuing ‘doing what you’re doing’ in the absence of either prohibitive toxicity or clinically significant disease progression,” said Dr. West of the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, Calif.

One factor adding to this ambiguity: Most pivotal studies that examine first-line immunotherapy in NSCLC limit therapy duration to 2 years.

Another key factor is the absence of prospective data as to when to stop treatment for these patients, according to Martin Reck, MD, PhD, head of thoracic oncology at the Lung Clinic Grosshansdorf (Germany).

“We have never prospectively investigated the correlation of the duration of a checkpoint blockade and the efficacy of treatment,” Dr. Reck said. “And this is a big problem.” It means “we really do not know how long we should treat the patient.”

To make matters muddier, some data do suggest that more therapy may be better. The recent Checkmate 153 trial, for instance, found that patients who had no signs of disease progression and who received 1-year fixed-duration nivolumab had significantly shorter progression-free and overall survival than those who received treatment indefinitely.

However, randomized trials with longer-term follow-up suggest durable responses can be maintained for years after immunotherapy is stopped.

Data from the KEYNOTE-024 trial, for instance, showed that more than 45% of patients with metastatic NSCLC and high tumor PD-L1 expression who received pembrolizumab for 2 years remained alive at 5 years without further treatment or disease progression. Another trial, KEYNOTE-407, demonstrated similar 5-year survival outcomes among patients with advanced squamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 status, who completed 2 years of chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab followed by maintenance pembrolizumab.

With these studies, however, “we can only speculate about whether the proportion of patients alive without progression would be substantially higher if treatment with immunotherapy continued longer,” Dr. West wrote in a recent editorial .

Perhaps the most telling data so far come from a recent retrospective analysis from Dr. Sun and colleagues. The researchers directly compared survival outcomes among patients who continued receiving immunotherapy indefinitely with outcomes among patients for whom immunotherapy was discontinued at 2 years.

The JAMA Oncology study, which focused on 706 patients with NSCLC who completed 2 years of therapy, found that only 16% stopped receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at 2 years, whereas the remaining 84% continued receiving treatment indefinitely.

Among patients who continued receiving immunotherapy for 2 additional years, overall survival was not better than among those who stopped receiving immunotherapy at the 2-year mark. Even among the 11 patients whose condition progressed when therapy was discontinued, most still did well after treatment was resumed.

However, the retrospective design of the study limits its impact.

Without more definitive “data about when the treatment can be stopped,” many continue “indefinitely as long as the patient is tolerating treatment and the disease is not progressing,” Conor E. Steuer, MD, and Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD, of Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, Atlanta, wrote in a recent review.
 

Impact on practice?

Dr. Sun views her team’s findings not as a recommendation to halt immunotherapy for every patient at 2 years but rather as “one piece of data that may provide reassurance to providers and patients who wish to stop at 2 years.”

Ultimately, however, the decision as to when or whether to stop immunotherapy for long-term responders is “an individualized one that requires shared decision-making and consideration of each patient’s clinical history, preferences, and risk tolerance,” Dr. Sun explained.

Dr. Reck agreed, noting that until prospective trials evaluate a fixed approach, the duration of immunotherapy “has to be determined by the treating physician and the individual patient.”

For a patient with metastatic NSCLC who is having an excellent response to checkpoint blockade, “we are somewhat afraid to stop the immunotherapy,” explained Dr. Reck, “because we are afraid the disease might relapse.” However, he noted, for patients who have a stable response to therapy, it may make sense to consider discontinuing checkpoint blockade.

Outside of survival outcomes, oncologists should also consider quality of life. Stopping treatment at 2 years comes with a “lower risk of toxic effects, less time in treatment for patients, and considerably lower costs for our health care system,” said Dr. West.

But for a fixed strategy to become more standard practice, the burden of proof is high, Dr. West said.

Jonathan W. Goldman, MD, says he understands the mentality, “If it’s going well, why would I change?”

In his experience, at 2 years of immunotherapy, most patients “say they’re feeling great” and “don’t mind coming in every 4 or 6 weeks, depending on the drug,” said Dr. Goldman, director of clinical trials in thoracic oncology at UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif.

Dr. Goldman noted that in the future, instead of continuing immunotherapy indefinitely, clinicians may aim to maintain the patient “in the best response possible,” adding an intervention, such as stereotactic body radiotherapy or radiologic ablation, when needed.

“It may be that many of these long-term disease control patients are not cured in a traditional sense,” Dr. Goldman said, “but have controlled cancer that could potentially last years or even decades with ongoing care.”

Dr. Sun has relationships with Regeneron, GenMab, Seagen, and Bayer and has received institutional funding from Blueprint Research, Seagen Research, and IO Biotech Research. Dr. West has relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Regeneron outside the submitted work. Dr. Reck has relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, Roche Regeneron, and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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