AVAHO

A case report describes a novel helmet device that generates a noninvasive oscillating magnetic field and that shrunk a glioblastoma tumor by about a third.

This is the first time that the wearable Oncomagnetic device was tried with a patient.

The patient had end-stage recurrent glioblastoma and had undergone all standard therapy options. He wore the device for 5 weeks but died from an unrelated injury, so the treatment period was cut short.

A brain scan showed a 31% reduction of contrast-enhanced tumor volume, and an autopsy of his brain confirmed the rapid response to the treatment.

The case study was published online on July 22, 2021, in Frontiers in Oncology.

“I believe that there is a great potential with this device,” said study author David S. Baskin, MD, director of the Kenneth R. Peak Center for Brain and Pituitary Tumor Treatment in the department of neurosurgery at Houston Methodist Hospital. “This is a very exciting time.”

The team is now treating several patients with glioblastoma under compassionate use.

In an independent comment, Adilia Hormigo, MD, PhD, director of the neuro-oncology program at the Tisch Cancer Institute, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that a clinical trial is needed to evaluate the device. “But this is an interesting idea, and we have to be open-minded in treating this fatal disease.”
 

Oscillating magnetic fields

The Oncomagnetic device consists of three oncoscillators that are attached to the outside of a helmet and are connected to a microprocessor-based electronic controller powered by a rechargeable battery.

It consists of a series of rotating magnets that produce oscillating magnetic fields that cover the entire brain, including the upper part of the brain stem. The device induces rapid apoptosis of glioblastoma cells, Dr. Baskin explained. Its mechanism of action involves disruption of the electron transport in the mitochondrial respiratory chain, causing an elevation of reactive oxygen species and caspase-dependent cancer cell death.

Dr. Baskin emphasized that the new Oncomagnetic device is very different from the Optune device (Novocare), which is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration and has been shown to increase survival among patients with glioblastoma. Optune uses tumor-treating fields (TTFs), which are electromagnetic waves that are delivered via an electric field generator through four transducer arrays that are placed on a shaved scalp. Preclinical studies indicated that the TTFs disrupt cell division by disrupting several steps in the mitotic process that are crucial for cell division.

Both of these devices “are using a type of external maneuver” rather than invasive intracranial approaches, said Dr. Hormingo. The experimental Oncomagnetic device may have an advantage in that it needs to be worn by the patient for fewer hours, she commented. A better understanding of the physics and underlying mechanism is needed, however. Clinical trials are an essential next step.
 

Most common brain cancer in adults

Glioblastoma is the most common malignant tumor of the brain in adults. Outcomes continue to be dismal. In more than 40 years, median survival has only modestly improved.

“We haven’t gotten very far with glioblastoma despite millions of dollars in research,” Dr. Baskin said. “With treatment, survival is about 15 months, and those are not very good months.”
 

Out of the box

Standard treatments for glioblastoma include surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, and many patients cannot tolerate some of these, Dr. Baskin noted. Hence, there is a great need for a different therapeutic approach that yields better outcomes with lower toxicity.

“We didn’t want to develop another chemotherapeutic agent that would help you live another 2 months,” he said in an interview. “We were trying to think out of the box.

“If you want to do something that will really make a difference in an aggressive tumor like glioblastoma, you have to attack something so basic that the tumor can’t evade it,” he said. “For example, with temozolomide, if it is unmethylated, the tumor can repair the DNA damage from the chemotherapy. Even if you’re sensitive to begin with, over time, the tumor will eventually become resistant.”

The new device stems from work by Dr. Baskin and colleagues on mitochondria, which he describes as the powerhouse of the cell. “Mitochondrial DNA can’t repair itself, so if you damage the mitochondria, you will damage the cell, and theoretically, it cannot repair itself,” he said.

In preclinical models, the oscillating magnetic fields generated by the new device were shown to kill patient-derived glioblastoma cells in cell culture without having cytotoxic effects on cortical neurons and normal human astrocytes. Animal studies also showed that it was effective and nontoxic, explained Dr. Baskin.

However, getting the device to human clinical trials has been slow going. “We wanted to start an early-phase trial for an investigational device, but the FDA is overwhelmed with COVID-related applications,” he said. “That has taken priority, and we understand that. So we were able to evaluate it on a patient through compassionate use via the [Food and Drug Administration]–approved Expanded Access Program.”
 

Exciting possibilities

The patient was a 53-year-old man who had undergone radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and the tumor was progressing. Imaging revealed the presence of leptomeningeal disease, which is associated with a poor outcome and a median survival of 3.5-3.9 months.

The patient was fitted with the helmet device and wore it under supervision for the first 3 days of treatment, during which time the strength of the oscillating magnetic fields was escalated. After this initial supervised phase, the treatment continued at home without supervision, using the same regimen as on the third day.

Treatment was first administered for 2 hours while under supervision and was then gradually increased to a maximum of 6 hours per day. The patient was evaluated clinically on days 7, 16, 30, and 44 after initiation of treatment. No serious adverse events were reported during treatment. The patient’s wife reported subjective improvement in speech and cognitive function.

Dr. Baskin noted that the patient had been experiencing falls for the past year and a half before treatment was initiated. “And then he tripped and fell and sustained a head injury that he subsequently died from,” he said.

Autopsy results confirmed the rapid response to treatment, and tumor shrinkage appeared to correlate with the treatment dose.

“Our results in the laboratory and with this patient open a new world of noninvasive and nontoxic therapy for brain cancer, with many exciting possibilities for the future,” Dr. Baskin commented.

He said his team has experimented with this approach with other tumor types in the laboratory, including triple-negative breast cancer and lung cancer. “We’ve only tried it in a culture so far, but it seems to melt the cancer cells,” he said.

The work was supported by a grant from the Translational Research Initiative of the Houston Methodist Research Institute and several foundations. Dr. Baskin and two coauthors are listed as inventors on a U.S. patent application filed by Houston Methodist Hospital for the device used in this report.

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

A case report describes a novel helmet device that generates a noninvasive oscillating magnetic field and that shrunk a glioblastoma tumor by about a third.

This is the first time that the wearable Oncomagnetic device was tried with a patient.

The patient had end-stage recurrent glioblastoma and had undergone all standard therapy options. He wore the device for 5 weeks but died from an unrelated injury, so the treatment period was cut short.

A brain scan showed a 31% reduction of contrast-enhanced tumor volume, and an autopsy of his brain confirmed the rapid response to the treatment.

The case study was published online on July 22, 2021, in Frontiers in Oncology.

“I believe that there is a great potential with this device,” said study author David S. Baskin, MD, director of the Kenneth R. Peak Center for Brain and Pituitary Tumor Treatment in the department of neurosurgery at Houston Methodist Hospital. “This is a very exciting time.”

The team is now treating several patients with glioblastoma under compassionate use.

In an independent comment, Adilia Hormigo, MD, PhD, director of the neuro-oncology program at the Tisch Cancer Institute, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that a clinical trial is needed to evaluate the device. “But this is an interesting idea, and we have to be open-minded in treating this fatal disease.”
 

Oscillating magnetic fields

The Oncomagnetic device consists of three oncoscillators that are attached to the outside of a helmet and are connected to a microprocessor-based electronic controller powered by a rechargeable battery.

It consists of a series of rotating magnets that produce oscillating magnetic fields that cover the entire brain, including the upper part of the brain stem. The device induces rapid apoptosis of glioblastoma cells, Dr. Baskin explained. Its mechanism of action involves disruption of the electron transport in the mitochondrial respiratory chain, causing an elevation of reactive oxygen species and caspase-dependent cancer cell death.

Dr. Baskin emphasized that the new Oncomagnetic device is very different from the Optune device (Novocare), which is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration and has been shown to increase survival among patients with glioblastoma. Optune uses tumor-treating fields (TTFs), which are electromagnetic waves that are delivered via an electric field generator through four transducer arrays that are placed on a shaved scalp. Preclinical studies indicated that the TTFs disrupt cell division by disrupting several steps in the mitotic process that are crucial for cell division.

Both of these devices “are using a type of external maneuver” rather than invasive intracranial approaches, said Dr. Hormingo. The experimental Oncomagnetic device may have an advantage in that it needs to be worn by the patient for fewer hours, she commented. A better understanding of the physics and underlying mechanism is needed, however. Clinical trials are an essential next step.
 

Most common brain cancer in adults

Glioblastoma is the most common malignant tumor of the brain in adults. Outcomes continue to be dismal. In more than 40 years, median survival has only modestly improved.

“We haven’t gotten very far with glioblastoma despite millions of dollars in research,” Dr. Baskin said. “With treatment, survival is about 15 months, and those are not very good months.”
 

Out of the box

Standard treatments for glioblastoma include surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, and many patients cannot tolerate some of these, Dr. Baskin noted. Hence, there is a great need for a different therapeutic approach that yields better outcomes with lower toxicity.

“We didn’t want to develop another chemotherapeutic agent that would help you live another 2 months,” he said in an interview. “We were trying to think out of the box.

“If you want to do something that will really make a difference in an aggressive tumor like glioblastoma, you have to attack something so basic that the tumor can’t evade it,” he said. “For example, with temozolomide, if it is unmethylated, the tumor can repair the DNA damage from the chemotherapy. Even if you’re sensitive to begin with, over time, the tumor will eventually become resistant.”

The new device stems from work by Dr. Baskin and colleagues on mitochondria, which he describes as the powerhouse of the cell. “Mitochondrial DNA can’t repair itself, so if you damage the mitochondria, you will damage the cell, and theoretically, it cannot repair itself,” he said.

In preclinical models, the oscillating magnetic fields generated by the new device were shown to kill patient-derived glioblastoma cells in cell culture without having cytotoxic effects on cortical neurons and normal human astrocytes. Animal studies also showed that it was effective and nontoxic, explained Dr. Baskin.

However, getting the device to human clinical trials has been slow going. “We wanted to start an early-phase trial for an investigational device, but the FDA is overwhelmed with COVID-related applications,” he said. “That has taken priority, and we understand that. So we were able to evaluate it on a patient through compassionate use via the [Food and Drug Administration]–approved Expanded Access Program.”
 

Exciting possibilities

The patient was a 53-year-old man who had undergone radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and the tumor was progressing. Imaging revealed the presence of leptomeningeal disease, which is associated with a poor outcome and a median survival of 3.5-3.9 months.

The patient was fitted with the helmet device and wore it under supervision for the first 3 days of treatment, during which time the strength of the oscillating magnetic fields was escalated. After this initial supervised phase, the treatment continued at home without supervision, using the same regimen as on the third day.

Treatment was first administered for 2 hours while under supervision and was then gradually increased to a maximum of 6 hours per day. The patient was evaluated clinically on days 7, 16, 30, and 44 after initiation of treatment. No serious adverse events were reported during treatment. The patient’s wife reported subjective improvement in speech and cognitive function.

Dr. Baskin noted that the patient had been experiencing falls for the past year and a half before treatment was initiated. “And then he tripped and fell and sustained a head injury that he subsequently died from,” he said.

Autopsy results confirmed the rapid response to treatment, and tumor shrinkage appeared to correlate with the treatment dose.

“Our results in the laboratory and with this patient open a new world of noninvasive and nontoxic therapy for brain cancer, with many exciting possibilities for the future,” Dr. Baskin commented.

He said his team has experimented with this approach with other tumor types in the laboratory, including triple-negative breast cancer and lung cancer. “We’ve only tried it in a culture so far, but it seems to melt the cancer cells,” he said.

The work was supported by a grant from the Translational Research Initiative of the Houston Methodist Research Institute and several foundations. Dr. Baskin and two coauthors are listed as inventors on a U.S. patent application filed by Houston Methodist Hospital for the device used in this report.

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

A case report describes a novel helmet device that generates a noninvasive oscillating magnetic field and that shrunk a glioblastoma tumor by about a third.

This is the first time that the wearable Oncomagnetic device was tried with a patient.

The patient had end-stage recurrent glioblastoma and had undergone all standard therapy options. He wore the device for 5 weeks but died from an unrelated injury, so the treatment period was cut short.

A brain scan showed a 31% reduction of contrast-enhanced tumor volume, and an autopsy of his brain confirmed the rapid response to the treatment.

The case study was published online on July 22, 2021, in Frontiers in Oncology.

“I believe that there is a great potential with this device,” said study author David S. Baskin, MD, director of the Kenneth R. Peak Center for Brain and Pituitary Tumor Treatment in the department of neurosurgery at Houston Methodist Hospital. “This is a very exciting time.”

The team is now treating several patients with glioblastoma under compassionate use.

In an independent comment, Adilia Hormigo, MD, PhD, director of the neuro-oncology program at the Tisch Cancer Institute, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that a clinical trial is needed to evaluate the device. “But this is an interesting idea, and we have to be open-minded in treating this fatal disease.”
 

Oscillating magnetic fields

The Oncomagnetic device consists of three oncoscillators that are attached to the outside of a helmet and are connected to a microprocessor-based electronic controller powered by a rechargeable battery.

It consists of a series of rotating magnets that produce oscillating magnetic fields that cover the entire brain, including the upper part of the brain stem. The device induces rapid apoptosis of glioblastoma cells, Dr. Baskin explained. Its mechanism of action involves disruption of the electron transport in the mitochondrial respiratory chain, causing an elevation of reactive oxygen species and caspase-dependent cancer cell death.

Dr. Baskin emphasized that the new Oncomagnetic device is very different from the Optune device (Novocare), which is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration and has been shown to increase survival among patients with glioblastoma. Optune uses tumor-treating fields (TTFs), which are electromagnetic waves that are delivered via an electric field generator through four transducer arrays that are placed on a shaved scalp. Preclinical studies indicated that the TTFs disrupt cell division by disrupting several steps in the mitotic process that are crucial for cell division.

Both of these devices “are using a type of external maneuver” rather than invasive intracranial approaches, said Dr. Hormingo. The experimental Oncomagnetic device may have an advantage in that it needs to be worn by the patient for fewer hours, she commented. A better understanding of the physics and underlying mechanism is needed, however. Clinical trials are an essential next step.
 

Most common brain cancer in adults

Glioblastoma is the most common malignant tumor of the brain in adults. Outcomes continue to be dismal. In more than 40 years, median survival has only modestly improved.

“We haven’t gotten very far with glioblastoma despite millions of dollars in research,” Dr. Baskin said. “With treatment, survival is about 15 months, and those are not very good months.”
 

Out of the box

Standard treatments for glioblastoma include surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, and many patients cannot tolerate some of these, Dr. Baskin noted. Hence, there is a great need for a different therapeutic approach that yields better outcomes with lower toxicity.

“We didn’t want to develop another chemotherapeutic agent that would help you live another 2 months,” he said in an interview. “We were trying to think out of the box.

“If you want to do something that will really make a difference in an aggressive tumor like glioblastoma, you have to attack something so basic that the tumor can’t evade it,” he said. “For example, with temozolomide, if it is unmethylated, the tumor can repair the DNA damage from the chemotherapy. Even if you’re sensitive to begin with, over time, the tumor will eventually become resistant.”

The new device stems from work by Dr. Baskin and colleagues on mitochondria, which he describes as the powerhouse of the cell. “Mitochondrial DNA can’t repair itself, so if you damage the mitochondria, you will damage the cell, and theoretically, it cannot repair itself,” he said.

In preclinical models, the oscillating magnetic fields generated by the new device were shown to kill patient-derived glioblastoma cells in cell culture without having cytotoxic effects on cortical neurons and normal human astrocytes. Animal studies also showed that it was effective and nontoxic, explained Dr. Baskin.

However, getting the device to human clinical trials has been slow going. “We wanted to start an early-phase trial for an investigational device, but the FDA is overwhelmed with COVID-related applications,” he said. “That has taken priority, and we understand that. So we were able to evaluate it on a patient through compassionate use via the [Food and Drug Administration]–approved Expanded Access Program.”
 

Exciting possibilities

The patient was a 53-year-old man who had undergone radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and the tumor was progressing. Imaging revealed the presence of leptomeningeal disease, which is associated with a poor outcome and a median survival of 3.5-3.9 months.

The patient was fitted with the helmet device and wore it under supervision for the first 3 days of treatment, during which time the strength of the oscillating magnetic fields was escalated. After this initial supervised phase, the treatment continued at home without supervision, using the same regimen as on the third day.

Treatment was first administered for 2 hours while under supervision and was then gradually increased to a maximum of 6 hours per day. The patient was evaluated clinically on days 7, 16, 30, and 44 after initiation of treatment. No serious adverse events were reported during treatment. The patient’s wife reported subjective improvement in speech and cognitive function.

Dr. Baskin noted that the patient had been experiencing falls for the past year and a half before treatment was initiated. “And then he tripped and fell and sustained a head injury that he subsequently died from,” he said.

Autopsy results confirmed the rapid response to treatment, and tumor shrinkage appeared to correlate with the treatment dose.

“Our results in the laboratory and with this patient open a new world of noninvasive and nontoxic therapy for brain cancer, with many exciting possibilities for the future,” Dr. Baskin commented.

He said his team has experimented with this approach with other tumor types in the laboratory, including triple-negative breast cancer and lung cancer. “We’ve only tried it in a culture so far, but it seems to melt the cancer cells,” he said.

The work was supported by a grant from the Translational Research Initiative of the Houston Methodist Research Institute and several foundations. Dr. Baskin and two coauthors are listed as inventors on a U.S. patent application filed by Houston Methodist Hospital for the device used in this report.

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

A Federal Practitioner Exclusive

Topics Include:

• Asthma
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Dementia
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Pain
• Migraine
• Suicide/Suicide Prevention
• Depression
• Anxiety
• Substance Use Disorder
• Tobacco
• Diabetes/Cardiovascular Disease
• Diabetic Retinopathy
• COVID-19
• Vaccination
• HIV
• Cancer Screening
  
  To read the supplement click on the cover image or here 

A Federal Practitioner Exclusive

Topics Include:

• Asthma
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Dementia
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Pain
• Migraine
• Suicide/Suicide Prevention
• Depression
• Anxiety
• Substance Use Disorder
• Tobacco
• Diabetes/Cardiovascular Disease
• Diabetic Retinopathy
• COVID-19
• Vaccination
• HIV
• Cancer Screening
  
  To read the supplement click on the cover image or here 

A Federal Practitioner Exclusive

Topics Include:

• Asthma
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Dementia
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Pain
• Migraine
• Suicide/Suicide Prevention
• Depression
• Anxiety
• Substance Use Disorder
• Tobacco
• Diabetes/Cardiovascular Disease
• Diabetic Retinopathy
• COVID-19
• Vaccination
• HIV
• Cancer Screening
  
  To read the supplement click on the cover image or here 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert regarding an increased risk of death associated with Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide) used in patients with multiple myeloma participating in the ongoing OCEAN clinical trial.

The drug was granted accelerated approval in February 2021 for use in combination with dexamethasone in the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer, Oncopeptides, was required to conduct a confirmatory clinical trial and launched the OCEAN trial.

Enrollment in OCEAN as well as other ongoing trials of the drug have now been halted, according to the FDA alert.

The warning comes in the wake of OCEAN trial findings showing worse survival among patients in the experimental group, who were receiving melphalan plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with patients in the control group, who were receiving pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio for overall survival, 1.104). Median overall survival in the treatment and control groups was 19.7 and 25.0 months, respectively.

Health care professionals should “review patients’ progress on Pepaxto and discuss the risks of continued administration with each patient in the context of other treatments,” and patients currently receiving the drug should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care professional, the FDA advises. “Patients receiving clinical benefit from Pepaxto may continue treatment in the OCEAN trial provided they are informed of the risks and sign a revised written informed consent.”

The FDA also hinted at “a future public meeting to discuss the safety findings and explore the continued marketing of Pepaxto,” which has a price tag of $19,000 per treatment course.
 

Accelerated approval data

Melphalan flufenamide was initially evaluated in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in the multicenter, single-arm HORIZON trial of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

Patients received melphalan flufenamide at a dose of 40 mg intravenously on day 1 along with oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (or 20 mg for those over age 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, pyrexia, and respiratory tract infection. The most common laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 50% of patients, were decreased leukocytes, platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and hemoglobin, and increased creatinine.

Accelerated approval was granted after the HORIZON trial showed an overall response rate of 23.7% and median duration of response of 4.2 months. The application by Oncopeptides received priority review and orphan drug status.
 

Confirmatory trial data

The confirmatory OCEAN trial compared melphalan flufenamide plus low-dose dexamethasone to pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma following 2-4 lines of therapy and in patients who were resistant to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy.

The FDA conducted an efficacy and safety evaluation of the OCEAN trial using a data cutoff date of February 3, 2021. At a median follow-up of 19.1 months, 117 of 246 patients (48%) in the melphalan flufenamide group had died, compared with 108 of 249 patients (43%) in the pomalidomide control group.

“Patient safety is paramount to Oncopeptides,” the company said in a press statement, which also notes that “dialogue with the FDA” is ongoing and that updated information will be provided as it becomes available.

The company plans to submit complete data from the OCEAN study to the International Myeloma Workshop meeting in Vienna being held September 8-11, 2021.

Health care professionals and patients should report adverse events or quality issues experienced with melphalan flufenamide or any other medication to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program, either online or by downloading and completing a reporting form and submitting via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert regarding an increased risk of death associated with Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide) used in patients with multiple myeloma participating in the ongoing OCEAN clinical trial.

The drug was granted accelerated approval in February 2021 for use in combination with dexamethasone in the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer, Oncopeptides, was required to conduct a confirmatory clinical trial and launched the OCEAN trial.

Enrollment in OCEAN as well as other ongoing trials of the drug have now been halted, according to the FDA alert.

The warning comes in the wake of OCEAN trial findings showing worse survival among patients in the experimental group, who were receiving melphalan plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with patients in the control group, who were receiving pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio for overall survival, 1.104). Median overall survival in the treatment and control groups was 19.7 and 25.0 months, respectively.

Health care professionals should “review patients’ progress on Pepaxto and discuss the risks of continued administration with each patient in the context of other treatments,” and patients currently receiving the drug should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care professional, the FDA advises. “Patients receiving clinical benefit from Pepaxto may continue treatment in the OCEAN trial provided they are informed of the risks and sign a revised written informed consent.”

The FDA also hinted at “a future public meeting to discuss the safety findings and explore the continued marketing of Pepaxto,” which has a price tag of $19,000 per treatment course.
 

Accelerated approval data

Melphalan flufenamide was initially evaluated in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in the multicenter, single-arm HORIZON trial of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

Patients received melphalan flufenamide at a dose of 40 mg intravenously on day 1 along with oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (or 20 mg for those over age 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, pyrexia, and respiratory tract infection. The most common laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 50% of patients, were decreased leukocytes, platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and hemoglobin, and increased creatinine.

Accelerated approval was granted after the HORIZON trial showed an overall response rate of 23.7% and median duration of response of 4.2 months. The application by Oncopeptides received priority review and orphan drug status.
 

Confirmatory trial data

The confirmatory OCEAN trial compared melphalan flufenamide plus low-dose dexamethasone to pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma following 2-4 lines of therapy and in patients who were resistant to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy.

The FDA conducted an efficacy and safety evaluation of the OCEAN trial using a data cutoff date of February 3, 2021. At a median follow-up of 19.1 months, 117 of 246 patients (48%) in the melphalan flufenamide group had died, compared with 108 of 249 patients (43%) in the pomalidomide control group.

“Patient safety is paramount to Oncopeptides,” the company said in a press statement, which also notes that “dialogue with the FDA” is ongoing and that updated information will be provided as it becomes available.

The company plans to submit complete data from the OCEAN study to the International Myeloma Workshop meeting in Vienna being held September 8-11, 2021.

Health care professionals and patients should report adverse events or quality issues experienced with melphalan flufenamide or any other medication to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program, either online or by downloading and completing a reporting form and submitting via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert regarding an increased risk of death associated with Pepaxto (melphalan flufenamide) used in patients with multiple myeloma participating in the ongoing OCEAN clinical trial.

The drug was granted accelerated approval in February 2021 for use in combination with dexamethasone in the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

As a condition of the accelerated approval, the manufacturer, Oncopeptides, was required to conduct a confirmatory clinical trial and launched the OCEAN trial.

Enrollment in OCEAN as well as other ongoing trials of the drug have now been halted, according to the FDA alert.

The warning comes in the wake of OCEAN trial findings showing worse survival among patients in the experimental group, who were receiving melphalan plus low-dose dexamethasone, compared with patients in the control group, who were receiving pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio for overall survival, 1.104). Median overall survival in the treatment and control groups was 19.7 and 25.0 months, respectively.

Health care professionals should “review patients’ progress on Pepaxto and discuss the risks of continued administration with each patient in the context of other treatments,” and patients currently receiving the drug should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care professional, the FDA advises. “Patients receiving clinical benefit from Pepaxto may continue treatment in the OCEAN trial provided they are informed of the risks and sign a revised written informed consent.”

The FDA also hinted at “a future public meeting to discuss the safety findings and explore the continued marketing of Pepaxto,” which has a price tag of $19,000 per treatment course.
 

Accelerated approval data

Melphalan flufenamide was initially evaluated in combination with low-dose dexamethasone in the multicenter, single-arm HORIZON trial of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who received at least four prior lines of therapy and whose disease was refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulator, and one CD38-directed monoclonal antibody.

Patients received melphalan flufenamide at a dose of 40 mg intravenously on day 1 along with oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (or 20 mg for those over age 75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The most common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients, were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, pyrexia, and respiratory tract infection. The most common laboratory abnormalities, occurring in at least 50% of patients, were decreased leukocytes, platelets, lymphocytes, neutrophils, and hemoglobin, and increased creatinine.

Accelerated approval was granted after the HORIZON trial showed an overall response rate of 23.7% and median duration of response of 4.2 months. The application by Oncopeptides received priority review and orphan drug status.
 

Confirmatory trial data

The confirmatory OCEAN trial compared melphalan flufenamide plus low-dose dexamethasone to pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma following 2-4 lines of therapy and in patients who were resistant to lenalidomide in the last line of therapy.

The FDA conducted an efficacy and safety evaluation of the OCEAN trial using a data cutoff date of February 3, 2021. At a median follow-up of 19.1 months, 117 of 246 patients (48%) in the melphalan flufenamide group had died, compared with 108 of 249 patients (43%) in the pomalidomide control group.

“Patient safety is paramount to Oncopeptides,” the company said in a press statement, which also notes that “dialogue with the FDA” is ongoing and that updated information will be provided as it becomes available.

The company plans to submit complete data from the OCEAN study to the International Myeloma Workshop meeting in Vienna being held September 8-11, 2021.

Health care professionals and patients should report adverse events or quality issues experienced with melphalan flufenamide or any other medication to the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program, either online or by downloading and completing a reporting form and submitting via fax at 1-800-FDA-0178.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Many of the changes to cancer clinical trials forced through by the COVID-19 pandemic should remain, as they have made trials “more patient centered and efficient,” according to a group of thought leaders in oncology.

Among the potential improvements were more efficient study enrollment through secure electronic platforms, direct shipment of oral drugs to patients, remote assessment of adverse events, and streamlined data collection.

These changes should be implemented on a permanent basis, the group argues in a commentary published online July 21, 2021, in Cancer Discovery, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“The ability to distribute oral investigational drugs by mail to patients at their home has probably been the single most impactful change to clinical trial conduct, linked with virtual visits with patients to assess side effects and symptoms,” commented lead author Keith Flaherty, MD, who is director of clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the AACR board of directors.

“This has made it more feasible for patients for whom participation in clinical trials poses a disruption of their ability to work or provide care for family members to participate in trials,” he added in a press statement issued by the AACR.
 

Pandemic halted many clinical trials

A survey of cancer programs in early 2020 showed that nearly 60% halted screening and/or enrollment for at least some trials because of COVID-19.

“In the spring of 2020, clinical trial conduct halted and then restarted focusing on the bare minimum procedures that first allowed patients continued access to their experimental therapies, and then allowed clinical trial sites and sponsors to collect information on the effects of the therapies,” the authors said.

“The COVID-19–induced changes to clinical trials were a big challenge, probably the largest change in clinical trial conduct since the start of modern oncology clinical testing,” they commented.

“But it also represents an opportunity to rethink the key aspects of clinical trial conduct that are strictly necessary to reach the goal of testing the effectiveness of cancer therapies, and which others are dispensable or provide only minor additional contributions,” they added.

As previously reported at the time by this news organization, efforts to find alternative approaches to conducting trials amid the pandemic led to the emergence of a few “silver linings.”

Key adaptations made to clinical trials and highlighted by the authors include:

• Uptake of remote consenting and telemedicine
• Use of alternative laboratories and imaging centers
• Delivery or administration of investigational drugs at patients’ homes or local clinics
• Commercial attainment of study drugs already approved for other indications

Indeed, the restrictions encountered during the pandemic underscore the importance of designing patient-centered trials versus study site–centered trials, added Antoni Ribas, MD, commentary coauthor and immediate past president of the AACR.

Many of the changes implemented during the pandemic could help increase access for patients living in underserved communities who are underrepresented in clinical trials, he explained.
 

Harnessing the lessons learned

The authors also recommended the following additional adaptations, which they believe will enhance efficiency and further expand access to clinical trials:

• Incorporating patient-reported outcomes and alternative endpoints in efficacy assessments
• Aiming for 100% remote drug infusions and monitoring
• Increasing funding for clinical trials conducted in underserved communities
• Expanding clinical trial eligibility to include patients with a wide range of comorbidities
• Reducing collection of low-grade adverse events and allowing minor protocol deviations

The group’s recommendations are based on discussions by the AACR COVID-19 and Cancer Task Force, in which they participated.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology is also working to leverage pandemic-related lessons to streamline care and trial planning.

ASCO’s “Road to Recovery” recommendations, published in December 2020, aim to “ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality,” the authors explained.

Dr. Flaherty and colleagues further underscore the importance of focusing on improvements going forward.

“Guided by lessons learned, many of the remote assessments and trial efficiencies deployed during the pandemic can be preserved and improved upon. We strongly encourage use of these streamlined procedures where appropriate in future prospectively designed cancer clinical trials,” they wrote.

Dr. Flaherty reported receiving personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ribas reported receiving grants from Agilent and Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Clinical trials underway across the United States are exploring the use of robotic surgical devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, but are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning from the Food and Drug Administration that those outcomes are important.

The FDA warning was issued in February 2019 to both the public and physicians. The FDA cautioned that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgical devices for mastectomy “have not been established” and robots are not approved for the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also noted that “diminished long-term survival” was associated with robotic surgery in another women’s cancer, that of hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

The FDA also made a surprising statement. The agency typically approves the robot for surgical use based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care). But it said that going forward it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robots in cancer “would be supported” by cancer outcomes such as progression-free survival and overall survival, which require much longer follow-up.

In short, the FDA hinted that it would change how it regulated medical devices, or at least robots used in women’s cancers. “The FDA takes women’s health very seriously,” said the organization.

Fast forward to 2021, and there are several prospective clinical trials of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy underway in the United States, including a five-center study sponsored by Intuitive Surgical, the maker of da Vinci robots, the dominant machine on the market. There are also single-center studies at Ohio State and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

However, in each case, the study design either excludes cancer outcomes or does not primarily focus on those measures.

Instead, the primary outcomes are relatively short term and include safety and efficacy measures such as en bloc (in one piece) removal of the breast tissue, conversions to open mastectomy, and the incidence of adverse events during surgery and up to 6 weeks after surgery.

Importantly, none of the studies is a randomized trial; all have single arms.

That’s not what is needed, says breast surgeon Julie A. Margenthaler, MD of Washington University in St. Louis.

“I firmly believe that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be considered in the context of a well-designed, randomized trial evaluating patient selection, patient safety, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes with a concomitant cost analysis,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote in an essay published last year in JAMA Surgery.

As with the FDA warning, she cites worse survival with commonly used minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, saying it “is a stark reminder that the marketing of robotic surgery has its roots in cosmesis and convenience rather than oncologic outcomes.”

In addition, robotic surgery is prohibitively expensive, said Dr. Margenthaler. In fact, cost is her “main criticism regarding robotic-assisted mastectomy.” It costs an additional $6,000 for robot use per procedure, according to a study conducted at a center in Taiwan. “I simply cannot be convinced that this will ever achieve cost-effective or even cost-neutral status,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote.
 

Not looking at the right outcomes

“They’re not looking at the right outcomes,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, about the current trials in the United States. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and is now a patient advocate after his wife, Amy Reed, MD, died of uterine cancer in 2017 following a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with a power morcellator that resulted in the upstaging of an undetected gynecologic cancer.

“You have to look at oncologic outcomes and do randomized, noninferiority trials to demonstrate that those cancer outcomes are at least equivalent to standard of care,” he said in an interview.

The current U.S. trials are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Are randomized trials forthcoming after this initial set of single-arm trials? This news organization reached out to Intuitive Surgical, maker of the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment to find out.  

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a company spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

What about the FDA? Will the agency change its current approach to approving robots in surgeries for women’s cancers and require – not just anticipate – cancer-related outcomes data? At press time, the FDA did not respond to a request for comment.  

Not having a randomized trial with cancer outcomes in any eventual FDA review opens the door for robotic mastectomy to be cleared for use in some mastectomies with short-term, nononcologic data, said Dr. Noorchashm.
 

Safety concerns with robotic mastectomy

Proponents of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, which is coupled with reconstruction to preserve the shape of both the breast and nipple-areola area, suggest that improved patient cosmesis is a significant advantage with the high-tech intervention, said Dr. Margenthaler.

That’s because most robotic mastectomies performed to date (almost exclusively in Europe and Asia) have employed a 3- to 5-cm vertical incision located behind the lateral breast fold, allowing the scar to be hidden under the patient’s arm.

But therein also lies a safety concern, she asserted.

The “oncologic integrity” of the specimen on extraction is in question in some cases, she wrote, because of “such a small opening.”

Dr. Noorchashm agreed: “It all comes down to trying to get a large specimen out of a small incision.”

Traditional open mastectomy optimally yields the en bloc removal of a tumor – in one whole piece – to avoid fragmenting the cancerous tissue and possibly leaving residual disease behind. These undesirable events are associated with a higher risk for recurrence and treatment failure, he explained.

Thus, there is a need for a randomized trial with longer-term oncologic outcomes that compares the new approach with traditional open mastectomy, argued both Dr. Margenthaler and Dr. Noorchashm.
 

In defense of single-arm trials

“Oncologic safety is what we are concerned about and what we would like to study,” said Ko Un (Clara) Park, MD, a breast surgeon at The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Park is leading a single-center, single-arm pilot study of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy enrolling up to 20 women with early-stage breast cancer or inherited genetic risk factors (but no cancer diagnosis). The trial, sponsored by a Pelotonia Idea Grant and Ohio State, recently enrolled its first patient.

The study’s primary outcomes include the feasibility of removal of the breast tissue en bloc; however, none of the outcomes are classic oncologic metrics such as progression-free survival.

The en bloc removal outcome is in direct response to the FDA’s concerns about minimally invasive cancer surgeries in women, Dr. Park said in an interview. The pilot trial has an investigational device exemption (IDE) granted by the FDA.

“The reason why we can’t just open a randomized controlled study (of robot versus open) and measure oncologic outcomes like recurrence-free survival is because, before we get to that point, we have to make sure” basic safety issues are addressed and established, she explained.

But Dr. Noorchashm said that argument is missing the larger, more important point: “They are still doing an oncologic procedure – you are still obliged to do noninferiority [randomized] testing with respect to cancer outcomes.”

Dr. Park sounded a different note: “We are doing it as safely as we can do it.”
 

Prophylactic use is also a cancer surgery

Intuitive’s five-center trial does not include en bloc removal of the breast gland as a primary outcome. Instead, the two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

The company’s trial does not include any women with breast cancer, but is limited to women at increased risk for breast cancer and seeking prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery.

Enrollment in the 145-patient single-arm trial began in the last few months and has a primary completion date of December 2022. It also has an IDE from the FDA.

“I do think that things like this need to be done with caution,” said Katherine Kopkash, MD, an investigator in the Intuitive trial and a breast surgeon at NorthShore University HealthSystem in Evanston, Ill., referring to the trial’s FDA exemption.  

Dr. Kopkash said in an interview that the researchers in the multisite, single-arm Intuitive trial will also track oncologic outcomes, but the trial description at clinicaltrials.gov does not indicate that.

Both Dr. Kopkash and Dr. Park cited the high-profile missteps that took place in 2018 at Monmouth County Medical Center in Long Branch, N.J., during what was described as the first-ever use of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive cancer in the United States, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, neither the center or surgeon, Stephen Chagares, MD, requested or received an IDE from the FDA, and use of robotic mastectomy was halted after two cases.

It’s conceivable that Intuitive will seek out FDA clearance for use of its da Vinci system in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with data in a prophylactic setting and then expand the pool of patients, argued Dr. Noorchashm.

“Even if you introduce a new technology ... for a narrow subset of patients, the application of it eventually occurs on a ‘sliding scale,’ ” he said.

The former surgeon gave an example: The first device used in gastric bypass surgery was cleared for use in 2001 by the FDA for adults who were “severely morbidly obese.” But by the late 2000s, the operation was also being performed on people with lower body mass indexes who hadn’t exhausted traditional weight loss procedures. “It was very lucrative,” Dr. Noorchashm said about the surgery.
 

Surgeons only get one body

Intuitive has been hugely successful in developing and marketing its da Vinci system around the world for general and oncologic surgeries, with more than 1 million surgeries in 2018, a greater than sevenfold increase in 10 years, according to the authors of a new essay published in the June issue of the Annals of Surgery. The authors include breast surgeon Rosa F. Hwang, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who is also an investigator for the Intuitive trial.

However, robotic mastectomy is still a new surgery – only about 150 patients have been treated in the world, mostly in Italy, France, Taiwan, and Korea, the authors noted.

Despite such small numbers, “there’s a lot of interest in bringing this to the United States,” said Dr. Park.

One of the arguments in favor of robotic mastectomy for nipple-sparing procedures has nothing to do with patients. Instead, it is improved ergonomics – the robot makes a tough surgery easier on the surgeon.

Even stalwart robot critic Dr. Margenthaler conceded that this was possibly a winning feature.

“Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a very physically demanding procedure for the surgeon, resulting in higher rates of neck and back pain and fatigue compared with a standard skin-sparing approach,” she noted. She suggested, however, that practitioners of traditional mastectomy ought to first experiment with changes to patient positioning and incision placement to alleviate stress before looking to the robot for change.

When this news organization interviewed NorthShore University’s Dr. Kopkash, she had conducted four nipple-sparing mastectomies in the previous week. “It’s a difficult procedure on our bodies. I just turned 40 and I’m considered young for a surgeon. We get one body for our career and we have to figure out ways to make it work and protect it.”

Intuitive Surgical is funding the five-center clinical trial of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, and UT Southwestern is funding its own trial. The Ohio State trial is funded by the university and a Pelotonia Idea Grant. Dr. Noorchashm and Dr. Margenthaler have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Clinical trials underway across the United States are exploring the use of robotic surgical devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, but are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning from the Food and Drug Administration that those outcomes are important.

The FDA warning was issued in February 2019 to both the public and physicians. The FDA cautioned that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgical devices for mastectomy “have not been established” and robots are not approved for the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also noted that “diminished long-term survival” was associated with robotic surgery in another women’s cancer, that of hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

The FDA also made a surprising statement. The agency typically approves the robot for surgical use based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care). But it said that going forward it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robots in cancer “would be supported” by cancer outcomes such as progression-free survival and overall survival, which require much longer follow-up.

In short, the FDA hinted that it would change how it regulated medical devices, or at least robots used in women’s cancers. “The FDA takes women’s health very seriously,” said the organization.

Fast forward to 2021, and there are several prospective clinical trials of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy underway in the United States, including a five-center study sponsored by Intuitive Surgical, the maker of da Vinci robots, the dominant machine on the market. There are also single-center studies at Ohio State and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

However, in each case, the study design either excludes cancer outcomes or does not primarily focus on those measures.

Instead, the primary outcomes are relatively short term and include safety and efficacy measures such as en bloc (in one piece) removal of the breast tissue, conversions to open mastectomy, and the incidence of adverse events during surgery and up to 6 weeks after surgery.

Importantly, none of the studies is a randomized trial; all have single arms.

That’s not what is needed, says breast surgeon Julie A. Margenthaler, MD of Washington University in St. Louis.

“I firmly believe that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be considered in the context of a well-designed, randomized trial evaluating patient selection, patient safety, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes with a concomitant cost analysis,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote in an essay published last year in JAMA Surgery.

As with the FDA warning, she cites worse survival with commonly used minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, saying it “is a stark reminder that the marketing of robotic surgery has its roots in cosmesis and convenience rather than oncologic outcomes.”

In addition, robotic surgery is prohibitively expensive, said Dr. Margenthaler. In fact, cost is her “main criticism regarding robotic-assisted mastectomy.” It costs an additional $6,000 for robot use per procedure, according to a study conducted at a center in Taiwan. “I simply cannot be convinced that this will ever achieve cost-effective or even cost-neutral status,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote.
 

Not looking at the right outcomes

“They’re not looking at the right outcomes,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, about the current trials in the United States. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and is now a patient advocate after his wife, Amy Reed, MD, died of uterine cancer in 2017 following a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with a power morcellator that resulted in the upstaging of an undetected gynecologic cancer.

“You have to look at oncologic outcomes and do randomized, noninferiority trials to demonstrate that those cancer outcomes are at least equivalent to standard of care,” he said in an interview.

The current U.S. trials are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Are randomized trials forthcoming after this initial set of single-arm trials? This news organization reached out to Intuitive Surgical, maker of the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment to find out.  

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a company spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

What about the FDA? Will the agency change its current approach to approving robots in surgeries for women’s cancers and require – not just anticipate – cancer-related outcomes data? At press time, the FDA did not respond to a request for comment.  

Not having a randomized trial with cancer outcomes in any eventual FDA review opens the door for robotic mastectomy to be cleared for use in some mastectomies with short-term, nononcologic data, said Dr. Noorchashm.
 

Safety concerns with robotic mastectomy

Proponents of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, which is coupled with reconstruction to preserve the shape of both the breast and nipple-areola area, suggest that improved patient cosmesis is a significant advantage with the high-tech intervention, said Dr. Margenthaler.

That’s because most robotic mastectomies performed to date (almost exclusively in Europe and Asia) have employed a 3- to 5-cm vertical incision located behind the lateral breast fold, allowing the scar to be hidden under the patient’s arm.

But therein also lies a safety concern, she asserted.

The “oncologic integrity” of the specimen on extraction is in question in some cases, she wrote, because of “such a small opening.”

Dr. Noorchashm agreed: “It all comes down to trying to get a large specimen out of a small incision.”

Traditional open mastectomy optimally yields the en bloc removal of a tumor – in one whole piece – to avoid fragmenting the cancerous tissue and possibly leaving residual disease behind. These undesirable events are associated with a higher risk for recurrence and treatment failure, he explained.

Thus, there is a need for a randomized trial with longer-term oncologic outcomes that compares the new approach with traditional open mastectomy, argued both Dr. Margenthaler and Dr. Noorchashm.
 

In defense of single-arm trials

“Oncologic safety is what we are concerned about and what we would like to study,” said Ko Un (Clara) Park, MD, a breast surgeon at The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Park is leading a single-center, single-arm pilot study of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy enrolling up to 20 women with early-stage breast cancer or inherited genetic risk factors (but no cancer diagnosis). The trial, sponsored by a Pelotonia Idea Grant and Ohio State, recently enrolled its first patient.

The study’s primary outcomes include the feasibility of removal of the breast tissue en bloc; however, none of the outcomes are classic oncologic metrics such as progression-free survival.

The en bloc removal outcome is in direct response to the FDA’s concerns about minimally invasive cancer surgeries in women, Dr. Park said in an interview. The pilot trial has an investigational device exemption (IDE) granted by the FDA.

“The reason why we can’t just open a randomized controlled study (of robot versus open) and measure oncologic outcomes like recurrence-free survival is because, before we get to that point, we have to make sure” basic safety issues are addressed and established, she explained.

But Dr. Noorchashm said that argument is missing the larger, more important point: “They are still doing an oncologic procedure – you are still obliged to do noninferiority [randomized] testing with respect to cancer outcomes.”

Dr. Park sounded a different note: “We are doing it as safely as we can do it.”
 

Prophylactic use is also a cancer surgery

Intuitive’s five-center trial does not include en bloc removal of the breast gland as a primary outcome. Instead, the two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

The company’s trial does not include any women with breast cancer, but is limited to women at increased risk for breast cancer and seeking prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery.

Enrollment in the 145-patient single-arm trial began in the last few months and has a primary completion date of December 2022. It also has an IDE from the FDA.

“I do think that things like this need to be done with caution,” said Katherine Kopkash, MD, an investigator in the Intuitive trial and a breast surgeon at NorthShore University HealthSystem in Evanston, Ill., referring to the trial’s FDA exemption.  

Dr. Kopkash said in an interview that the researchers in the multisite, single-arm Intuitive trial will also track oncologic outcomes, but the trial description at clinicaltrials.gov does not indicate that.

Both Dr. Kopkash and Dr. Park cited the high-profile missteps that took place in 2018 at Monmouth County Medical Center in Long Branch, N.J., during what was described as the first-ever use of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive cancer in the United States, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, neither the center or surgeon, Stephen Chagares, MD, requested or received an IDE from the FDA, and use of robotic mastectomy was halted after two cases.

It’s conceivable that Intuitive will seek out FDA clearance for use of its da Vinci system in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with data in a prophylactic setting and then expand the pool of patients, argued Dr. Noorchashm.

“Even if you introduce a new technology ... for a narrow subset of patients, the application of it eventually occurs on a ‘sliding scale,’ ” he said.

The former surgeon gave an example: The first device used in gastric bypass surgery was cleared for use in 2001 by the FDA for adults who were “severely morbidly obese.” But by the late 2000s, the operation was also being performed on people with lower body mass indexes who hadn’t exhausted traditional weight loss procedures. “It was very lucrative,” Dr. Noorchashm said about the surgery.
 

Surgeons only get one body

Intuitive has been hugely successful in developing and marketing its da Vinci system around the world for general and oncologic surgeries, with more than 1 million surgeries in 2018, a greater than sevenfold increase in 10 years, according to the authors of a new essay published in the June issue of the Annals of Surgery. The authors include breast surgeon Rosa F. Hwang, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who is also an investigator for the Intuitive trial.

However, robotic mastectomy is still a new surgery – only about 150 patients have been treated in the world, mostly in Italy, France, Taiwan, and Korea, the authors noted.

Despite such small numbers, “there’s a lot of interest in bringing this to the United States,” said Dr. Park.

One of the arguments in favor of robotic mastectomy for nipple-sparing procedures has nothing to do with patients. Instead, it is improved ergonomics – the robot makes a tough surgery easier on the surgeon.

Even stalwart robot critic Dr. Margenthaler conceded that this was possibly a winning feature.

“Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a very physically demanding procedure for the surgeon, resulting in higher rates of neck and back pain and fatigue compared with a standard skin-sparing approach,” she noted. She suggested, however, that practitioners of traditional mastectomy ought to first experiment with changes to patient positioning and incision placement to alleviate stress before looking to the robot for change.

When this news organization interviewed NorthShore University’s Dr. Kopkash, she had conducted four nipple-sparing mastectomies in the previous week. “It’s a difficult procedure on our bodies. I just turned 40 and I’m considered young for a surgeon. We get one body for our career and we have to figure out ways to make it work and protect it.”

Intuitive Surgical is funding the five-center clinical trial of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, and UT Southwestern is funding its own trial. The Ohio State trial is funded by the university and a Pelotonia Idea Grant. Dr. Noorchashm and Dr. Margenthaler have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Clinical trials underway across the United States are exploring the use of robotic surgical devices for nipple-sparing mastectomy, but are either not collecting cancer outcomes or not doing so as a primary measure – despite a stiff warning from the Food and Drug Administration that those outcomes are important.

The FDA warning was issued in February 2019 to both the public and physicians. The FDA cautioned that the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgical devices for mastectomy “have not been established” and robots are not approved for the prevention or treatment of breast cancer.

The agency also noted that “diminished long-term survival” was associated with robotic surgery in another women’s cancer, that of hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

The FDA also made a surprising statement. The agency typically approves the robot for surgical use based on 30-day complication rates (compared with standards of care). But it said that going forward it “anticipates” that any evaluation of new use of robots in cancer “would be supported” by cancer outcomes such as progression-free survival and overall survival, which require much longer follow-up.

In short, the FDA hinted that it would change how it regulated medical devices, or at least robots used in women’s cancers. “The FDA takes women’s health very seriously,” said the organization.

Fast forward to 2021, and there are several prospective clinical trials of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy underway in the United States, including a five-center study sponsored by Intuitive Surgical, the maker of da Vinci robots, the dominant machine on the market. There are also single-center studies at Ohio State and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

However, in each case, the study design either excludes cancer outcomes or does not primarily focus on those measures.

Instead, the primary outcomes are relatively short term and include safety and efficacy measures such as en bloc (in one piece) removal of the breast tissue, conversions to open mastectomy, and the incidence of adverse events during surgery and up to 6 weeks after surgery.

Importantly, none of the studies is a randomized trial; all have single arms.

That’s not what is needed, says breast surgeon Julie A. Margenthaler, MD of Washington University in St. Louis.

“I firmly believe that robotic-assisted mastectomy should only be considered in the context of a well-designed, randomized trial evaluating patient selection, patient safety, surgical complications, and oncologic outcomes with a concomitant cost analysis,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote in an essay published last year in JAMA Surgery.

As with the FDA warning, she cites worse survival with commonly used minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer, saying it “is a stark reminder that the marketing of robotic surgery has its roots in cosmesis and convenience rather than oncologic outcomes.”

In addition, robotic surgery is prohibitively expensive, said Dr. Margenthaler. In fact, cost is her “main criticism regarding robotic-assisted mastectomy.” It costs an additional $6,000 for robot use per procedure, according to a study conducted at a center in Taiwan. “I simply cannot be convinced that this will ever achieve cost-effective or even cost-neutral status,” Dr. Margenthaler wrote.
 

Not looking at the right outcomes

“They’re not looking at the right outcomes,” said Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD, about the current trials in the United States. He is a former surgeon and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and is now a patient advocate after his wife, Amy Reed, MD, died of uterine cancer in 2017 following a laparoscopic hysterectomy performed with a power morcellator that resulted in the upstaging of an undetected gynecologic cancer.

“You have to look at oncologic outcomes and do randomized, noninferiority trials to demonstrate that those cancer outcomes are at least equivalent to standard of care,” he said in an interview.

The current U.S. trials are “totally inappropriate,” he said.

Are randomized trials forthcoming after this initial set of single-arm trials? This news organization reached out to Intuitive Surgical, maker of the market leader da Vinci robotic surgical equipment to find out.  

“Any plans for use of da Vinci Xi surgical system in nipple-sparing mastectomy will be based on these [single-arm] study results as well as other data and evidence,” said a company spokesperson, who did not confirm use of a randomized trial.

What about the FDA? Will the agency change its current approach to approving robots in surgeries for women’s cancers and require – not just anticipate – cancer-related outcomes data? At press time, the FDA did not respond to a request for comment.  

Not having a randomized trial with cancer outcomes in any eventual FDA review opens the door for robotic mastectomy to be cleared for use in some mastectomies with short-term, nononcologic data, said Dr. Noorchashm.
 

Safety concerns with robotic mastectomy

Proponents of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, which is coupled with reconstruction to preserve the shape of both the breast and nipple-areola area, suggest that improved patient cosmesis is a significant advantage with the high-tech intervention, said Dr. Margenthaler.

That’s because most robotic mastectomies performed to date (almost exclusively in Europe and Asia) have employed a 3- to 5-cm vertical incision located behind the lateral breast fold, allowing the scar to be hidden under the patient’s arm.

But therein also lies a safety concern, she asserted.

The “oncologic integrity” of the specimen on extraction is in question in some cases, she wrote, because of “such a small opening.”

Dr. Noorchashm agreed: “It all comes down to trying to get a large specimen out of a small incision.”

Traditional open mastectomy optimally yields the en bloc removal of a tumor – in one whole piece – to avoid fragmenting the cancerous tissue and possibly leaving residual disease behind. These undesirable events are associated with a higher risk for recurrence and treatment failure, he explained.

Thus, there is a need for a randomized trial with longer-term oncologic outcomes that compares the new approach with traditional open mastectomy, argued both Dr. Margenthaler and Dr. Noorchashm.
 

In defense of single-arm trials

“Oncologic safety is what we are concerned about and what we would like to study,” said Ko Un (Clara) Park, MD, a breast surgeon at The Ohio State University in Columbus.

Dr. Park is leading a single-center, single-arm pilot study of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy enrolling up to 20 women with early-stage breast cancer or inherited genetic risk factors (but no cancer diagnosis). The trial, sponsored by a Pelotonia Idea Grant and Ohio State, recently enrolled its first patient.

The study’s primary outcomes include the feasibility of removal of the breast tissue en bloc; however, none of the outcomes are classic oncologic metrics such as progression-free survival.

The en bloc removal outcome is in direct response to the FDA’s concerns about minimally invasive cancer surgeries in women, Dr. Park said in an interview. The pilot trial has an investigational device exemption (IDE) granted by the FDA.

“The reason why we can’t just open a randomized controlled study (of robot versus open) and measure oncologic outcomes like recurrence-free survival is because, before we get to that point, we have to make sure” basic safety issues are addressed and established, she explained.

But Dr. Noorchashm said that argument is missing the larger, more important point: “They are still doing an oncologic procedure – you are still obliged to do noninferiority [randomized] testing with respect to cancer outcomes.”

Dr. Park sounded a different note: “We are doing it as safely as we can do it.”
 

Prophylactic use is also a cancer surgery

Intuitive’s five-center trial does not include en bloc removal of the breast gland as a primary outcome. Instead, the two primary outcomes are conversions to open mastectomy (efficacy measure) and the incidence of adverse events during surgery to 42 days after surgery (safety measure).

The company’s trial does not include any women with breast cancer, but is limited to women at increased risk for breast cancer and seeking prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery.

Enrollment in the 145-patient single-arm trial began in the last few months and has a primary completion date of December 2022. It also has an IDE from the FDA.

“I do think that things like this need to be done with caution,” said Katherine Kopkash, MD, an investigator in the Intuitive trial and a breast surgeon at NorthShore University HealthSystem in Evanston, Ill., referring to the trial’s FDA exemption.  

Dr. Kopkash said in an interview that the researchers in the multisite, single-arm Intuitive trial will also track oncologic outcomes, but the trial description at clinicaltrials.gov does not indicate that.

Both Dr. Kopkash and Dr. Park cited the high-profile missteps that took place in 2018 at Monmouth County Medical Center in Long Branch, N.J., during what was described as the first-ever use of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for invasive cancer in the United States, as reported by Medscape Medical News. However, neither the center or surgeon, Stephen Chagares, MD, requested or received an IDE from the FDA, and use of robotic mastectomy was halted after two cases.

It’s conceivable that Intuitive will seek out FDA clearance for use of its da Vinci system in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy with data in a prophylactic setting and then expand the pool of patients, argued Dr. Noorchashm.

“Even if you introduce a new technology ... for a narrow subset of patients, the application of it eventually occurs on a ‘sliding scale,’ ” he said.

The former surgeon gave an example: The first device used in gastric bypass surgery was cleared for use in 2001 by the FDA for adults who were “severely morbidly obese.” But by the late 2000s, the operation was also being performed on people with lower body mass indexes who hadn’t exhausted traditional weight loss procedures. “It was very lucrative,” Dr. Noorchashm said about the surgery.
 

Surgeons only get one body

Intuitive has been hugely successful in developing and marketing its da Vinci system around the world for general and oncologic surgeries, with more than 1 million surgeries in 2018, a greater than sevenfold increase in 10 years, according to the authors of a new essay published in the June issue of the Annals of Surgery. The authors include breast surgeon Rosa F. Hwang, MD, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, who is also an investigator for the Intuitive trial.

However, robotic mastectomy is still a new surgery – only about 150 patients have been treated in the world, mostly in Italy, France, Taiwan, and Korea, the authors noted.

Despite such small numbers, “there’s a lot of interest in bringing this to the United States,” said Dr. Park.

One of the arguments in favor of robotic mastectomy for nipple-sparing procedures has nothing to do with patients. Instead, it is improved ergonomics – the robot makes a tough surgery easier on the surgeon.

Even stalwart robot critic Dr. Margenthaler conceded that this was possibly a winning feature.

“Nipple-sparing mastectomy is a very physically demanding procedure for the surgeon, resulting in higher rates of neck and back pain and fatigue compared with a standard skin-sparing approach,” she noted. She suggested, however, that practitioners of traditional mastectomy ought to first experiment with changes to patient positioning and incision placement to alleviate stress before looking to the robot for change.

When this news organization interviewed NorthShore University’s Dr. Kopkash, she had conducted four nipple-sparing mastectomies in the previous week. “It’s a difficult procedure on our bodies. I just turned 40 and I’m considered young for a surgeon. We get one body for our career and we have to figure out ways to make it work and protect it.”

Intuitive Surgical is funding the five-center clinical trial of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy, and UT Southwestern is funding its own trial. The Ohio State trial is funded by the university and a Pelotonia Idea Grant. Dr. Noorchashm and Dr. Margenthaler have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

The tragic loss of three medical residents in our beloved South Bronx hospital shook us to the core. They were our colleagues and friends – promising young physicians whose lives and contributions to our hospital family will never be forgotten. We miss them and we grieve them.

We have been keenly aware of the growing trend of physician suicides across the country. That’s one of the reasons why, years ago, we established the nationally recognized Helping Healers Heal program across our health system and more recently expanded other mental health counseling and support to our frontline clinicians.

Our focus is wellness and prevention, as well as helping address the sadness, anxiety, and depression that so many of us experience after a traumatic event. During the surge of the COVID pandemic, these programs proved to be essential, as we expanded these services to all staff, not just those on the frontlines of patient care.

We share Dr. Pamela Wible’s concerns about the physician suicide crisis in this country. However, she misrepresented our residency program and made numerous statements that are false and simply hurtful.

Out of respect for our colleagues and their families, we cannot share everything that we know about this tragic and irreparable loss. But we must set the record straight about a number of incorrect references made by Dr. Wible:

1. We lost two residents to suicide. Though no less horrific, the third death was investigated and declared an accident by the police department.

2. Resident work hours and workload are closely monitored to follow guidance set by the New York State Department of Health and by ACGME. In fact, at the peak of the COVID pandemic, when we were caring for nearly 130 intubated patients at a time, we adopted a strict residency program schedule with built-in breaks and reduced shifts and hours. Even at that tasking time, no one worked more than 80 hours. Although the maximum number of patients assigned to an intern allowed by ACGME is 10, we rarely have more than five or six patients assigned to each of our interns.

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

The tragic loss of three medical residents in our beloved South Bronx hospital shook us to the core. They were our colleagues and friends – promising young physicians whose lives and contributions to our hospital family will never be forgotten. We miss them and we grieve them.

We have been keenly aware of the growing trend of physician suicides across the country. That’s one of the reasons why, years ago, we established the nationally recognized Helping Healers Heal program across our health system and more recently expanded other mental health counseling and support to our frontline clinicians.

Our focus is wellness and prevention, as well as helping address the sadness, anxiety, and depression that so many of us experience after a traumatic event. During the surge of the COVID pandemic, these programs proved to be essential, as we expanded these services to all staff, not just those on the frontlines of patient care.

We share Dr. Pamela Wible’s concerns about the physician suicide crisis in this country. However, she misrepresented our residency program and made numerous statements that are false and simply hurtful.

Out of respect for our colleagues and their families, we cannot share everything that we know about this tragic and irreparable loss. But we must set the record straight about a number of incorrect references made by Dr. Wible:

1. We lost two residents to suicide. Though no less horrific, the third death was investigated and declared an accident by the police department.

2. Resident work hours and workload are closely monitored to follow guidance set by the New York State Department of Health and by ACGME. In fact, at the peak of the COVID pandemic, when we were caring for nearly 130 intubated patients at a time, we adopted a strict residency program schedule with built-in breaks and reduced shifts and hours. Even at that tasking time, no one worked more than 80 hours. Although the maximum number of patients assigned to an intern allowed by ACGME is 10, we rarely have more than five or six patients assigned to each of our interns.

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

The tragic loss of three medical residents in our beloved South Bronx hospital shook us to the core. They were our colleagues and friends – promising young physicians whose lives and contributions to our hospital family will never be forgotten. We miss them and we grieve them.

We have been keenly aware of the growing trend of physician suicides across the country. That’s one of the reasons why, years ago, we established the nationally recognized Helping Healers Heal program across our health system and more recently expanded other mental health counseling and support to our frontline clinicians.

Our focus is wellness and prevention, as well as helping address the sadness, anxiety, and depression that so many of us experience after a traumatic event. During the surge of the COVID pandemic, these programs proved to be essential, as we expanded these services to all staff, not just those on the frontlines of patient care.

We share Dr. Pamela Wible’s concerns about the physician suicide crisis in this country. However, she misrepresented our residency program and made numerous statements that are false and simply hurtful.

Out of respect for our colleagues and their families, we cannot share everything that we know about this tragic and irreparable loss. But we must set the record straight about a number of incorrect references made by Dr. Wible:

1. We lost two residents to suicide. Though no less horrific, the third death was investigated and declared an accident by the police department.

2. Resident work hours and workload are closely monitored to follow guidance set by the New York State Department of Health and by ACGME. In fact, at the peak of the COVID pandemic, when we were caring for nearly 130 intubated patients at a time, we adopted a strict residency program schedule with built-in breaks and reduced shifts and hours. Even at that tasking time, no one worked more than 80 hours. Although the maximum number of patients assigned to an intern allowed by ACGME is 10, we rarely have more than five or six patients assigned to each of our interns.

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

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the state of California, and New York City announced July 26 that employees will be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in coming months -- or, in the case of California and New York City, undergo regular testing.

The VA becomes the first federal agency to mandate COVID vaccinations for workers. In a news release, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said the mandate is “the best way to keep Veterans safe, especially as the Delta variant spreads across the country.”

VA health care personnel -- including doctors, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, registered nurses, physician assistants, and chiropractors -- have 8 weeks to become fully vaccinated, the news release said. The New York Times reported that about 115,000 workers will be affected.

The trifecta of federal-state-municipal vaccine requirements arrived as the nation searches for ways to get more people vaccinated to tamp down the Delta variant.

Some organizations, including the military, have already said vaccinations will be required as soon as the Food and Drug Administration formally approves the vaccines, which are now given under emergency use authorizations. The FDA has said the Pfizer vaccine could receive full approval within months.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the requirements he announced July 27 were the first in the nation on the state level.

“As the state’s largest employer, we are leading by example and requiring all state and health care workers to show proof of vaccination or be tested regularly, and we are encouraging local governments and businesses to do the same,” he said in a news release.

California employees must provide proof of vaccination or get tested at least once a week. The policy starts Aug. 2 for state employees and Aug. 9 for state health care workers and employees of congregate facilities, such as jails or homeless shelters.

California, especially the southern part of the state, is grappling with a COVID-19 surge. The state’s daily case rate more than quadrupled, from a low of 1.9 cases per 100,000 in May to at least 9.5 cases per 100,000 today, the release said.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio had previously announced that city health and hospital employees and those working in Department of Health and Mental Hygiene clinical settings would be required to provide proof of vaccination or have regular testing.

On July 27 he expanded the rule to cover all city employees, with a Sept. 13 deadline for most of them, according to a news release.

“This is what it takes to continue our recovery for all of us while fighting back the Delta variant,” Mayor de Blasio said. “It’s going to take all of us to finally end the fight against COVID-19.”

“We have a moral responsibility to take every precaution possible to ensure we keep ourselves, our colleagues and loved ones safe,” NYC Health + Hospitals President and CEO Mitchell Katz, MD, said in the release. “Our city’s new testing requirement for city workers provides more [peace] of mind until more people get their safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine.”

NBC News reported the plan would affect about 340,000 employees.

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

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the state of California, and New York City announced July 26 that employees will be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in coming months -- or, in the case of California and New York City, undergo regular testing.

The VA becomes the first federal agency to mandate COVID vaccinations for workers. In a news release, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said the mandate is “the best way to keep Veterans safe, especially as the Delta variant spreads across the country.”

VA health care personnel -- including doctors, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, registered nurses, physician assistants, and chiropractors -- have 8 weeks to become fully vaccinated, the news release said. The New York Times reported that about 115,000 workers will be affected.

The trifecta of federal-state-municipal vaccine requirements arrived as the nation searches for ways to get more people vaccinated to tamp down the Delta variant.

Some organizations, including the military, have already said vaccinations will be required as soon as the Food and Drug Administration formally approves the vaccines, which are now given under emergency use authorizations. The FDA has said the Pfizer vaccine could receive full approval within months.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the requirements he announced July 27 were the first in the nation on the state level.

“As the state’s largest employer, we are leading by example and requiring all state and health care workers to show proof of vaccination or be tested regularly, and we are encouraging local governments and businesses to do the same,” he said in a news release.

California employees must provide proof of vaccination or get tested at least once a week. The policy starts Aug. 2 for state employees and Aug. 9 for state health care workers and employees of congregate facilities, such as jails or homeless shelters.

California, especially the southern part of the state, is grappling with a COVID-19 surge. The state’s daily case rate more than quadrupled, from a low of 1.9 cases per 100,000 in May to at least 9.5 cases per 100,000 today, the release said.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio had previously announced that city health and hospital employees and those working in Department of Health and Mental Hygiene clinical settings would be required to provide proof of vaccination or have regular testing.

On July 27 he expanded the rule to cover all city employees, with a Sept. 13 deadline for most of them, according to a news release.

“This is what it takes to continue our recovery for all of us while fighting back the Delta variant,” Mayor de Blasio said. “It’s going to take all of us to finally end the fight against COVID-19.”

“We have a moral responsibility to take every precaution possible to ensure we keep ourselves, our colleagues and loved ones safe,” NYC Health + Hospitals President and CEO Mitchell Katz, MD, said in the release. “Our city’s new testing requirement for city workers provides more [peace] of mind until more people get their safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine.”

NBC News reported the plan would affect about 340,000 employees.

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

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the state of California, and New York City announced July 26 that employees will be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in coming months -- or, in the case of California and New York City, undergo regular testing.

The VA becomes the first federal agency to mandate COVID vaccinations for workers. In a news release, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said the mandate is “the best way to keep Veterans safe, especially as the Delta variant spreads across the country.”

VA health care personnel -- including doctors, dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, registered nurses, physician assistants, and chiropractors -- have 8 weeks to become fully vaccinated, the news release said. The New York Times reported that about 115,000 workers will be affected.

The trifecta of federal-state-municipal vaccine requirements arrived as the nation searches for ways to get more people vaccinated to tamp down the Delta variant.

Some organizations, including the military, have already said vaccinations will be required as soon as the Food and Drug Administration formally approves the vaccines, which are now given under emergency use authorizations. The FDA has said the Pfizer vaccine could receive full approval within months.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the requirements he announced July 27 were the first in the nation on the state level.

“As the state’s largest employer, we are leading by example and requiring all state and health care workers to show proof of vaccination or be tested regularly, and we are encouraging local governments and businesses to do the same,” he said in a news release.

California employees must provide proof of vaccination or get tested at least once a week. The policy starts Aug. 2 for state employees and Aug. 9 for state health care workers and employees of congregate facilities, such as jails or homeless shelters.

California, especially the southern part of the state, is grappling with a COVID-19 surge. The state’s daily case rate more than quadrupled, from a low of 1.9 cases per 100,000 in May to at least 9.5 cases per 100,000 today, the release said.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio had previously announced that city health and hospital employees and those working in Department of Health and Mental Hygiene clinical settings would be required to provide proof of vaccination or have regular testing.

On July 27 he expanded the rule to cover all city employees, with a Sept. 13 deadline for most of them, according to a news release.

“This is what it takes to continue our recovery for all of us while fighting back the Delta variant,” Mayor de Blasio said. “It’s going to take all of us to finally end the fight against COVID-19.”

“We have a moral responsibility to take every precaution possible to ensure we keep ourselves, our colleagues and loved ones safe,” NYC Health + Hospitals President and CEO Mitchell Katz, MD, said in the release. “Our city’s new testing requirement for city workers provides more [peace] of mind until more people get their safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine.”

NBC News reported the plan would affect about 340,000 employees.

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

For the sixth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., claimed the No. 1 spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals published July 27 by U.S. News & World Report.
 

This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.

With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.

Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.

The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.

“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.

“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.

Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops

Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.

UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.

In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.

Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
 

2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix

16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston

17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis

17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.

At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty

For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
 

Top five for cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston

5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

Top five for orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York

5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report is available online.

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

For the sixth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., claimed the No. 1 spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals published July 27 by U.S. News & World Report.
 

This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.

With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.

Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.

The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.

“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.

“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.

Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops

Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.

UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.

In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.

Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
 

2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix

16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston

17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis

17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.

At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty

For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
 

Top five for cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston

5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

Top five for orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York

5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report is available online.

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

For the sixth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., claimed the No. 1 spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals published July 27 by U.S. News & World Report.
 

This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.

With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.

Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.

The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.

“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.

“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.

Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops

Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.

UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.

In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.

Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
 

2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix

16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston

17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis

17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.

At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty

For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
 

Top five for cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston

5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

Top five for orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York

5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report is available online.

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

As COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths mount again across the country, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nursing Association, and 54 other medical and allied healthcare associations released a joint statement calling on “all health care and long-term care employers” to require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

This injunction, issued July 26, covers everyone in healthcare, Emanuel Ezekiel, MD, PhD, chair of the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the organizer of the joint statement, said in an interview.

That includes not only hospitals, but also physician offices, ambulatory surgery centers, home care agencies, skilled nursing facilities, pharmacies, laboratories, and imaging centers, he said.

The exhortation to get vaccinated also extends to federal and state healthcare facilities, including those of the military health system — TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs — which instituted a mandate the same day.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) and other hospital groups recently said they supported hospitals and health systems that required their personnel to get vaccinated. Several dozen healthcare organizations have already done so, including some of the nation’s largest health systems.

A substantial fraction of U.S. healthcare workers have not yet gotten vaccinated, although how many are unvaccinated is unclear. An analysis by WebMD and Medscape Medical News estimated that 25% of hospital workers who had contact with patients were unvaccinated at the end of May.

More than 38% of nursing workers were not fully vaccinated by July 11, according to an analysis of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data by LeadingAge, which was cited by the Washington Post. And more than 40% of nursing home employees have not been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The joint statement did not give any indication of how many employees of physician practices have failed to get COVID shots. However, a recent AMA survey shows that 96% of physicians have been fully vaccinated.
 

Ethical commitment

The main reason for vaccine mandates, according to the healthcare associations’ statement, is “the ethical commitment to put patients as well as residents of long-term care facilities first and take all steps necessary to ensure their health and well-being.”

In addition, the statement noted, vaccination can protect healthcare workers and their families from getting COVID-19.

The statement also pointed out that many healthcare and long-term care organizations already require vaccinations for influenza, hepatitis B, and pertussis.

Workers who have certain medical conditions should be exempt from the vaccination mandates, the statement added.

While recognizing the “historical mistrust of health care institutions” among some healthcare workers, the statement said, “We must continue to address workers’ concerns, engage with marginalized populations, and work with trusted messengers to improve vaccine acceptance.”

There has been some skepticism about the legality of requiring healthcare workers to get vaccinated as a condition of employment, partly because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet fully authorized any of the COVID-19 vaccines.

But in June, a federal judge turned down a legal challenge to Houston Methodist’s vaccination mandate.

“It is critical that all people in the health care workforce get vaccinated against COVID-19 for the safety of our patients and our colleagues. With more than 300 million doses administered in the United States and nearly 4 billion doses administered worldwide, we know the vaccines are safe and highly effective at preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19.

“Increased vaccinations among health care personnel will not only reduce the spread of COVID-19 but also reduce the harmful toll this virus is taking within the health care workforce and those we are striving to serve,” Susan Bailey, MD, immediate past president of the AMA, said in a news release.

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

As COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths mount again across the country, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nursing Association, and 54 other medical and allied healthcare associations released a joint statement calling on “all health care and long-term care employers” to require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

This injunction, issued July 26, covers everyone in healthcare, Emanuel Ezekiel, MD, PhD, chair of the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the organizer of the joint statement, said in an interview.

That includes not only hospitals, but also physician offices, ambulatory surgery centers, home care agencies, skilled nursing facilities, pharmacies, laboratories, and imaging centers, he said.

The exhortation to get vaccinated also extends to federal and state healthcare facilities, including those of the military health system — TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs — which instituted a mandate the same day.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) and other hospital groups recently said they supported hospitals and health systems that required their personnel to get vaccinated. Several dozen healthcare organizations have already done so, including some of the nation’s largest health systems.

A substantial fraction of U.S. healthcare workers have not yet gotten vaccinated, although how many are unvaccinated is unclear. An analysis by WebMD and Medscape Medical News estimated that 25% of hospital workers who had contact with patients were unvaccinated at the end of May.

More than 38% of nursing workers were not fully vaccinated by July 11, according to an analysis of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data by LeadingAge, which was cited by the Washington Post. And more than 40% of nursing home employees have not been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The joint statement did not give any indication of how many employees of physician practices have failed to get COVID shots. However, a recent AMA survey shows that 96% of physicians have been fully vaccinated.
 

Ethical commitment

The main reason for vaccine mandates, according to the healthcare associations’ statement, is “the ethical commitment to put patients as well as residents of long-term care facilities first and take all steps necessary to ensure their health and well-being.”

In addition, the statement noted, vaccination can protect healthcare workers and their families from getting COVID-19.

The statement also pointed out that many healthcare and long-term care organizations already require vaccinations for influenza, hepatitis B, and pertussis.

Workers who have certain medical conditions should be exempt from the vaccination mandates, the statement added.

While recognizing the “historical mistrust of health care institutions” among some healthcare workers, the statement said, “We must continue to address workers’ concerns, engage with marginalized populations, and work with trusted messengers to improve vaccine acceptance.”

There has been some skepticism about the legality of requiring healthcare workers to get vaccinated as a condition of employment, partly because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet fully authorized any of the COVID-19 vaccines.

But in June, a federal judge turned down a legal challenge to Houston Methodist’s vaccination mandate.

“It is critical that all people in the health care workforce get vaccinated against COVID-19 for the safety of our patients and our colleagues. With more than 300 million doses administered in the United States and nearly 4 billion doses administered worldwide, we know the vaccines are safe and highly effective at preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19.

“Increased vaccinations among health care personnel will not only reduce the spread of COVID-19 but also reduce the harmful toll this virus is taking within the health care workforce and those we are striving to serve,” Susan Bailey, MD, immediate past president of the AMA, said in a news release.

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

As COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths mount again across the country, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nursing Association, and 54 other medical and allied healthcare associations released a joint statement calling on “all health care and long-term care employers” to require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

This injunction, issued July 26, covers everyone in healthcare, Emanuel Ezekiel, MD, PhD, chair of the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the organizer of the joint statement, said in an interview.

That includes not only hospitals, but also physician offices, ambulatory surgery centers, home care agencies, skilled nursing facilities, pharmacies, laboratories, and imaging centers, he said.

The exhortation to get vaccinated also extends to federal and state healthcare facilities, including those of the military health system — TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs — which instituted a mandate the same day.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) and other hospital groups recently said they supported hospitals and health systems that required their personnel to get vaccinated. Several dozen healthcare organizations have already done so, including some of the nation’s largest health systems.

A substantial fraction of U.S. healthcare workers have not yet gotten vaccinated, although how many are unvaccinated is unclear. An analysis by WebMD and Medscape Medical News estimated that 25% of hospital workers who had contact with patients were unvaccinated at the end of May.

More than 38% of nursing workers were not fully vaccinated by July 11, according to an analysis of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data by LeadingAge, which was cited by the Washington Post. And more than 40% of nursing home employees have not been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The joint statement did not give any indication of how many employees of physician practices have failed to get COVID shots. However, a recent AMA survey shows that 96% of physicians have been fully vaccinated.
 

Ethical commitment

The main reason for vaccine mandates, according to the healthcare associations’ statement, is “the ethical commitment to put patients as well as residents of long-term care facilities first and take all steps necessary to ensure their health and well-being.”

In addition, the statement noted, vaccination can protect healthcare workers and their families from getting COVID-19.

The statement also pointed out that many healthcare and long-term care organizations already require vaccinations for influenza, hepatitis B, and pertussis.

Workers who have certain medical conditions should be exempt from the vaccination mandates, the statement added.

While recognizing the “historical mistrust of health care institutions” among some healthcare workers, the statement said, “We must continue to address workers’ concerns, engage with marginalized populations, and work with trusted messengers to improve vaccine acceptance.”

There has been some skepticism about the legality of requiring healthcare workers to get vaccinated as a condition of employment, partly because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet fully authorized any of the COVID-19 vaccines.

But in June, a federal judge turned down a legal challenge to Houston Methodist’s vaccination mandate.

“It is critical that all people in the health care workforce get vaccinated against COVID-19 for the safety of our patients and our colleagues. With more than 300 million doses administered in the United States and nearly 4 billion doses administered worldwide, we know the vaccines are safe and highly effective at preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19.

“Increased vaccinations among health care personnel will not only reduce the spread of COVID-19 but also reduce the harmful toll this virus is taking within the health care workforce and those we are striving to serve,” Susan Bailey, MD, immediate past president of the AMA, said in a news release.

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

Terminally ill patients with advanced cancer may not be receiving adequate pain management, according to new findings.

There has been a sharp decrease in access to opioids during the past decade, and many patients are going to emergency departments for pain treatment.

Overall, during the study period (2007-2017), there was a 34% reduction in the number of opioid prescriptions filled per patient and a 38% reduction in the total dose of opioids filled near the end of life.

There was a dramatic drop in the use of long-acting opioids, which can provide patients with more consistent pain relief and are important for managing severe cancer pain. The investigators’ results show that during the study period, the number of long-acting opioid prescriptions filled per patient fell by 50%.

“We do believe that the decline in cancer patients’ access to opioids near the end of life is likely attributable to the efforts to curtail opioid misuse,” commented lead author Andrea Enzinger, MD, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The study was published online July 22 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“The study provides fascinating data that support our clinical observations,” said Marcin Chwistek, MD, FAAHPM, director of the supportive oncology and palliative care program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, who was asked for comment. “Primarily, we have noticed a heightened reluctance on the parts of patients with cancer, including those with advanced cancer, to take opioids in general.”
 

Many factors involved

The crisis of opioid misuse and abuse led to the implementation of regulations to curb inappropriate prescribing. But these restrictions on opioid prescribing may have unintended consequences for patients with advanced, incurable malignancies who are experiencing pain.

“Many but not all opioid regulations specifically exclude cancer patients,” said Dr. Enzinger. “However, the cumulative effect of these regulations may have had a chilling effect on providers’ comfort or willingness to prescribe opioids, even for cancer pain.”

She said in an interview that the prescribing of opioids has become much more difficult. Prescribers are often required to sign an opioid agreement with patients prior to providing them with opioids. Health care professionals may need to use a two-factor authentication to prescribe, and prescribers in 49 of 50 U.S. states are required to check electronic prescription drug monitoring programs prior to providing the prescription.

“After the medications are prescribed, insurance companies require prior-authorization paperwork before filling the medications, particularly for long-acting opioids or high-dose opioids,” Dr. Enzinger said. “These barriers pile up and make the whole process onerous and time consuming.”

Patient factors may also have contributed to the decline in use.

“Cancer patients are often very hesitant to use opioids to treat their pain, as they worry about becoming addicted or being labeled a ‘pill seeker,’” she explained. “Also, the added regulations, such as requirements for prior authorization paperwork, signing opioid agreements, and so on, may add to the stigma of opioid therapy and send a message to patients that these medications are inherently dangerous.”

Dr. Enzinger added that there are legitimate reasons why patients may not want to use opioids and that these should be respected. “But addiction risk should really not weigh into the decisions about pain management for patients who are dying from cancer,” she said.
 

Decline in opioid dose and prescriptions

Dr. Enzinger and colleagues used administrative data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to identify 270,632 Medicare fee-for-service patients who had cancers that were associated with poor prognoses and who died from 2007 to 2017. During this period, the opioid crisis was first recognized. There followed legislative reforms and subsequent declines in population-based opioid prescribing.

Among the patients in the study, the most common cancers were lung, colorectal, pancreatic, prostate, and breast cancers; 166,962 patients (61.7%) were enrolled in hospice before death. This percentage increased from 57.1% in 2007 to 66.2% in 2017 (P for trend < .001).

From 2007 to 2017, the proportion of patients filling greater than or equal to 1 opioid prescriptions declined from 42.0% to 35.5%. The proportion declined faster from 2012-2017 than from 2007-2011.

The proportion of patients who filled prescriptions for long-acting opioids dropped from 18.1% to 11.5%. Here again, the decline was faster from 2012-2017 than from 2007-2011. Prescriptions for strong short-acting opioids declined from 31.7% to 28.5%. Prescribing was initially stable from 2007-2011 and began to decline in 2012. Conversely, prescriptions for weak short-acting opioids dropped from 8.4% to 6.5% from 2007-2011 and then stabilized after 2012.

The mean daily dose fell 24.5%, from 85.6 morphine milligram equivalents per day (MMED) to 64.6 MMED. Overall, the total amount of opioids prescribed per decedent fell 38.0%, from 1,075 MMEs per person to 666 MMEs.

At the same time, the proportion of patients who visited EDs increased 50.8%, from 13.2% to 19.9%.
 

Experts weigh in

Approached for an independent comment, Amit Barochia, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with Health First Medical Group, Titusville, Fla., commented that the decline could be due, in part, to greater vigilance and awareness by physicians in light of more stringent requirements and of federal and state regulations. “Some physicians are avoiding prescribing opioids due to more regulations and requirements as well, which is routing patients to the ER for pain relief,” he said.

Dr. Barochia agreed that some of the decline could be due to patient factors. “I do think that some of the patients are hesitant about considering opioid use for better pain relief, in part due to fear of addiction as well as complications arising from their use,” he said. “This is likely resulting from more awareness in the community about their adverse effects.

“That awareness could come from aggressive media coverage as well as social media,” he continued. “It is also true that there is a difficulty in getting authorization for certain opioid products, which is delaying the onset of a proper pain regimen that would help to provide adequate pain relief early on.”

For patients with advanced cancer, earlier referral to palliative care would be beneficial, Dr. Barochia pointed out, because this would allow for a more in-depth discussion about pain in addition to addressing the physical and mental symptoms associated with cancer.

Fox Chase Cancer Center’s Dr. Chwistek noted that patients and their caregivers are often apprehensive about the potential adverse effects of opioids, because they often hear about community-based opioid overdoses and are fearful of taking the medications. “Additionally, it has become increasingly challenging to fill opioid prescriptions at local pharmacies, due to quantity limitations, ubiquitous need for prior authorizations, and stigma,” he said.

The fear of addiction is often brought up by the patients during clinic visits, and insurers and pharmacies have imposed many limits on opioid prescribing. “Most of these can be overcome with prior authorizations, but not always, and prior authorizations are time consuming, confusing, and very frustrating for patients,” he said in an interview.

These findings suggest that not enough patients are getting optimal palliative care. “One of the primary tenets of palliative care is optimal symptom control, including pain,” said Dr. Chwistek. “Palliative care teams have the experience and insight needed to help patients overcome the barriers to appropriate pain control. Education, support, and advocacy are critical to ensure that patients’ pain is appropriately addressed.”

The study was funded by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

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

Terminally ill patients with advanced cancer may not be receiving adequate pain management, according to new findings.

There has been a sharp decrease in access to opioids during the past decade, and many patients are going to emergency departments for pain treatment.

Overall, during the study period (2007-2017), there was a 34% reduction in the number of opioid prescriptions filled per patient and a 38% reduction in the total dose of opioids filled near the end of life.

There was a dramatic drop in the use of long-acting opioids, which can provide patients with more consistent pain relief and are important for managing severe cancer pain. The investigators’ results show that during the study period, the number of long-acting opioid prescriptions filled per patient fell by 50%.

“We do believe that the decline in cancer patients’ access to opioids near the end of life is likely attributable to the efforts to curtail opioid misuse,” commented lead author Andrea Enzinger, MD, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The study was published online July 22 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“The study provides fascinating data that support our clinical observations,” said Marcin Chwistek, MD, FAAHPM, director of the supportive oncology and palliative care program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, who was asked for comment. “Primarily, we have noticed a heightened reluctance on the parts of patients with cancer, including those with advanced cancer, to take opioids in general.”
 

Many factors involved

The crisis of opioid misuse and abuse led to the implementation of regulations to curb inappropriate prescribing. But these restrictions on opioid prescribing may have unintended consequences for patients with advanced, incurable malignancies who are experiencing pain.

“Many but not all opioid regulations specifically exclude cancer patients,” said Dr. Enzinger. “However, the cumulative effect of these regulations may have had a chilling effect on providers’ comfort or willingness to prescribe opioids, even for cancer pain.”

She said in an interview that the prescribing of opioids has become much more difficult. Prescribers are often required to sign an opioid agreement with patients prior to providing them with opioids. Health care professionals may need to use a two-factor authentication to prescribe, and prescribers in 49 of 50 U.S. states are required to check electronic prescription drug monitoring programs prior to providing the prescription.

“After the medications are prescribed, insurance companies require prior-authorization paperwork before filling the medications, particularly for long-acting opioids or high-dose opioids,” Dr. Enzinger said. “These barriers pile up and make the whole process onerous and time consuming.”

Patient factors may also have contributed to the decline in use.

“Cancer patients are often very hesitant to use opioids to treat their pain, as they worry about becoming addicted or being labeled a ‘pill seeker,’” she explained. “Also, the added regulations, such as requirements for prior authorization paperwork, signing opioid agreements, and so on, may add to the stigma of opioid therapy and send a message to patients that these medications are inherently dangerous.”

Dr. Enzinger added that there are legitimate reasons why patients may not want to use opioids and that these should be respected. “But addiction risk should really not weigh into the decisions about pain management for patients who are dying from cancer,” she said.
 

Decline in opioid dose and prescriptions

Dr. Enzinger and colleagues used administrative data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to identify 270,632 Medicare fee-for-service patients who had cancers that were associated with poor prognoses and who died from 2007 to 2017. During this period, the opioid crisis was first recognized. There followed legislative reforms and subsequent declines in population-based opioid prescribing.

Among the patients in the study, the most common cancers were lung, colorectal, pancreatic, prostate, and breast cancers; 166,962 patients (61.7%) were enrolled in hospice before death. This percentage increased from 57.1% in 2007 to 66.2% in 2017 (P for trend < .001).

From 2007 to 2017, the proportion of patients filling greater than or equal to 1 opioid prescriptions declined from 42.0% to 35.5%. The proportion declined faster from 2012-2017 than from 2007-2011.

The proportion of patients who filled prescriptions for long-acting opioids dropped from 18.1% to 11.5%. Here again, the decline was faster from 2012-2017 than from 2007-2011. Prescriptions for strong short-acting opioids declined from 31.7% to 28.5%. Prescribing was initially stable from 2007-2011 and began to decline in 2012. Conversely, prescriptions for weak short-acting opioids dropped from 8.4% to 6.5% from 2007-2011 and then stabilized after 2012.

The mean daily dose fell 24.5%, from 85.6 morphine milligram equivalents per day (MMED) to 64.6 MMED. Overall, the total amount of opioids prescribed per decedent fell 38.0%, from 1,075 MMEs per person to 666 MMEs.

At the same time, the proportion of patients who visited EDs increased 50.8%, from 13.2% to 19.9%.
 

Experts weigh in

Approached for an independent comment, Amit Barochia, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with Health First Medical Group, Titusville, Fla., commented that the decline could be due, in part, to greater vigilance and awareness by physicians in light of more stringent requirements and of federal and state regulations. “Some physicians are avoiding prescribing opioids due to more regulations and requirements as well, which is routing patients to the ER for pain relief,” he said.

Dr. Barochia agreed that some of the decline could be due to patient factors. “I do think that some of the patients are hesitant about considering opioid use for better pain relief, in part due to fear of addiction as well as complications arising from their use,” he said. “This is likely resulting from more awareness in the community about their adverse effects.

“That awareness could come from aggressive media coverage as well as social media,” he continued. “It is also true that there is a difficulty in getting authorization for certain opioid products, which is delaying the onset of a proper pain regimen that would help to provide adequate pain relief early on.”

For patients with advanced cancer, earlier referral to palliative care would be beneficial, Dr. Barochia pointed out, because this would allow for a more in-depth discussion about pain in addition to addressing the physical and mental symptoms associated with cancer.

Fox Chase Cancer Center’s Dr. Chwistek noted that patients and their caregivers are often apprehensive about the potential adverse effects of opioids, because they often hear about community-based opioid overdoses and are fearful of taking the medications. “Additionally, it has become increasingly challenging to fill opioid prescriptions at local pharmacies, due to quantity limitations, ubiquitous need for prior authorizations, and stigma,” he said.

The fear of addiction is often brought up by the patients during clinic visits, and insurers and pharmacies have imposed many limits on opioid prescribing. “Most of these can be overcome with prior authorizations, but not always, and prior authorizations are time consuming, confusing, and very frustrating for patients,” he said in an interview.

These findings suggest that not enough patients are getting optimal palliative care. “One of the primary tenets of palliative care is optimal symptom control, including pain,” said Dr. Chwistek. “Palliative care teams have the experience and insight needed to help patients overcome the barriers to appropriate pain control. Education, support, and advocacy are critical to ensure that patients’ pain is appropriately addressed.”

The study was funded by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

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

Terminally ill patients with advanced cancer may not be receiving adequate pain management, according to new findings.

There has been a sharp decrease in access to opioids during the past decade, and many patients are going to emergency departments for pain treatment.

Overall, during the study period (2007-2017), there was a 34% reduction in the number of opioid prescriptions filled per patient and a 38% reduction in the total dose of opioids filled near the end of life.

There was a dramatic drop in the use of long-acting opioids, which can provide patients with more consistent pain relief and are important for managing severe cancer pain. The investigators’ results show that during the study period, the number of long-acting opioid prescriptions filled per patient fell by 50%.

“We do believe that the decline in cancer patients’ access to opioids near the end of life is likely attributable to the efforts to curtail opioid misuse,” commented lead author Andrea Enzinger, MD, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

The study was published online July 22 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“The study provides fascinating data that support our clinical observations,” said Marcin Chwistek, MD, FAAHPM, director of the supportive oncology and palliative care program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, who was asked for comment. “Primarily, we have noticed a heightened reluctance on the parts of patients with cancer, including those with advanced cancer, to take opioids in general.”
 

Many factors involved

The crisis of opioid misuse and abuse led to the implementation of regulations to curb inappropriate prescribing. But these restrictions on opioid prescribing may have unintended consequences for patients with advanced, incurable malignancies who are experiencing pain.

“Many but not all opioid regulations specifically exclude cancer patients,” said Dr. Enzinger. “However, the cumulative effect of these regulations may have had a chilling effect on providers’ comfort or willingness to prescribe opioids, even for cancer pain.”

She said in an interview that the prescribing of opioids has become much more difficult. Prescribers are often required to sign an opioid agreement with patients prior to providing them with opioids. Health care professionals may need to use a two-factor authentication to prescribe, and prescribers in 49 of 50 U.S. states are required to check electronic prescription drug monitoring programs prior to providing the prescription.

“After the medications are prescribed, insurance companies require prior-authorization paperwork before filling the medications, particularly for long-acting opioids or high-dose opioids,” Dr. Enzinger said. “These barriers pile up and make the whole process onerous and time consuming.”

Patient factors may also have contributed to the decline in use.

“Cancer patients are often very hesitant to use opioids to treat their pain, as they worry about becoming addicted or being labeled a ‘pill seeker,’” she explained. “Also, the added regulations, such as requirements for prior authorization paperwork, signing opioid agreements, and so on, may add to the stigma of opioid therapy and send a message to patients that these medications are inherently dangerous.”

Dr. Enzinger added that there are legitimate reasons why patients may not want to use opioids and that these should be respected. “But addiction risk should really not weigh into the decisions about pain management for patients who are dying from cancer,” she said.
 

Decline in opioid dose and prescriptions

Dr. Enzinger and colleagues used administrative data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to identify 270,632 Medicare fee-for-service patients who had cancers that were associated with poor prognoses and who died from 2007 to 2017. During this period, the opioid crisis was first recognized. There followed legislative reforms and subsequent declines in population-based opioid prescribing.

Among the patients in the study, the most common cancers were lung, colorectal, pancreatic, prostate, and breast cancers; 166,962 patients (61.7%) were enrolled in hospice before death. This percentage increased from 57.1% in 2007 to 66.2% in 2017 (P for trend < .001).

From 2007 to 2017, the proportion of patients filling greater than or equal to 1 opioid prescriptions declined from 42.0% to 35.5%. The proportion declined faster from 2012-2017 than from 2007-2011.

The proportion of patients who filled prescriptions for long-acting opioids dropped from 18.1% to 11.5%. Here again, the decline was faster from 2012-2017 than from 2007-2011. Prescriptions for strong short-acting opioids declined from 31.7% to 28.5%. Prescribing was initially stable from 2007-2011 and began to decline in 2012. Conversely, prescriptions for weak short-acting opioids dropped from 8.4% to 6.5% from 2007-2011 and then stabilized after 2012.

The mean daily dose fell 24.5%, from 85.6 morphine milligram equivalents per day (MMED) to 64.6 MMED. Overall, the total amount of opioids prescribed per decedent fell 38.0%, from 1,075 MMEs per person to 666 MMEs.

At the same time, the proportion of patients who visited EDs increased 50.8%, from 13.2% to 19.9%.
 

Experts weigh in

Approached for an independent comment, Amit Barochia, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with Health First Medical Group, Titusville, Fla., commented that the decline could be due, in part, to greater vigilance and awareness by physicians in light of more stringent requirements and of federal and state regulations. “Some physicians are avoiding prescribing opioids due to more regulations and requirements as well, which is routing patients to the ER for pain relief,” he said.

Dr. Barochia agreed that some of the decline could be due to patient factors. “I do think that some of the patients are hesitant about considering opioid use for better pain relief, in part due to fear of addiction as well as complications arising from their use,” he said. “This is likely resulting from more awareness in the community about their adverse effects.

“That awareness could come from aggressive media coverage as well as social media,” he continued. “It is also true that there is a difficulty in getting authorization for certain opioid products, which is delaying the onset of a proper pain regimen that would help to provide adequate pain relief early on.”

For patients with advanced cancer, earlier referral to palliative care would be beneficial, Dr. Barochia pointed out, because this would allow for a more in-depth discussion about pain in addition to addressing the physical and mental symptoms associated with cancer.

Fox Chase Cancer Center’s Dr. Chwistek noted that patients and their caregivers are often apprehensive about the potential adverse effects of opioids, because they often hear about community-based opioid overdoses and are fearful of taking the medications. “Additionally, it has become increasingly challenging to fill opioid prescriptions at local pharmacies, due to quantity limitations, ubiquitous need for prior authorizations, and stigma,” he said.

The fear of addiction is often brought up by the patients during clinic visits, and insurers and pharmacies have imposed many limits on opioid prescribing. “Most of these can be overcome with prior authorizations, but not always, and prior authorizations are time consuming, confusing, and very frustrating for patients,” he said in an interview.

These findings suggest that not enough patients are getting optimal palliative care. “One of the primary tenets of palliative care is optimal symptom control, including pain,” said Dr. Chwistek. “Palliative care teams have the experience and insight needed to help patients overcome the barriers to appropriate pain control. Education, support, and advocacy are critical to ensure that patients’ pain is appropriately addressed.”

The study was funded by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

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