AVAHO

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved avapritinib (AYVAKIT, Blueprint Medicines) for the treatment of adults with indolent systemic mastocytosis. The new approval, which expands use of the drug to patients with indolent systemic mastocytosis, represents the “first and only approved medicine” to treat this disease, according to the company press statement.

Avapritinib, a selective KIT mutation-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was approved in 2021 to treat advanced systemic mastocytosis, a rare and potentially fatal hematologic disorder. Nonadvanced forms include indolent or smoldering disease; advanced disease can progress to leukemia. The expanded approval now covers patients with indolent disease, which represents the majority of patients with systemic mastocytosis.

The drug is also approved for adults with unresectable or metastatic GIST that harbors a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 mutation.

The approval is based on data from the phase 2 PIONEER trial. In the trial, 222 patients with moderate to severe indolent, systemic mastocytosis* were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either avapritinib 25 mg once daily plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care.

The findings, published in February, revealed that patients who received avapritinib experienced significantly greater improvements in total symptom scores at 24 weeks (–15.6 vs. –9.2 for control patients). Significantly more patients in the avapritinib arm achieved greater than or equal to 50% reductions in serum tryptase (54% vs. 0%), bone marrow mast cell aggregates (53% vs. 23%), and KIT D816V variant allele fraction (68% vs. 6%).

Most adverse reactions were mild to moderate in severity and included eye edema, dizziness, peripheral edema, and flushing. Fewer than 1% of patients discontinued treatment because of serious adverse reactions.

“People with indolent systemic mastocytosis are significantly impacted by their disease symptoms, and many individuals self-isolate at home to protect against unpredictable external triggers,” Judith Kain Emmel, board chair of the Mast Cell Disease Society, said in the company press release. “Today’s approval is a historic moment for the [systemic mastocytosis] community and offers new hope for patients and their families.

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

Correction, 5/23/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized these patients' conditions. They had moderate to severe indolent, systemic mastocytosis.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved avapritinib (AYVAKIT, Blueprint Medicines) for the treatment of adults with indolent systemic mastocytosis. The new approval, which expands use of the drug to patients with indolent systemic mastocytosis, represents the “first and only approved medicine” to treat this disease, according to the company press statement.

Avapritinib, a selective KIT mutation-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was approved in 2021 to treat advanced systemic mastocytosis, a rare and potentially fatal hematologic disorder. Nonadvanced forms include indolent or smoldering disease; advanced disease can progress to leukemia. The expanded approval now covers patients with indolent disease, which represents the majority of patients with systemic mastocytosis.

The drug is also approved for adults with unresectable or metastatic GIST that harbors a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 mutation.

The approval is based on data from the phase 2 PIONEER trial. In the trial, 222 patients with moderate to severe indolent, systemic mastocytosis* were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either avapritinib 25 mg once daily plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care.

The findings, published in February, revealed that patients who received avapritinib experienced significantly greater improvements in total symptom scores at 24 weeks (–15.6 vs. –9.2 for control patients). Significantly more patients in the avapritinib arm achieved greater than or equal to 50% reductions in serum tryptase (54% vs. 0%), bone marrow mast cell aggregates (53% vs. 23%), and KIT D816V variant allele fraction (68% vs. 6%).

Most adverse reactions were mild to moderate in severity and included eye edema, dizziness, peripheral edema, and flushing. Fewer than 1% of patients discontinued treatment because of serious adverse reactions.

“People with indolent systemic mastocytosis are significantly impacted by their disease symptoms, and many individuals self-isolate at home to protect against unpredictable external triggers,” Judith Kain Emmel, board chair of the Mast Cell Disease Society, said in the company press release. “Today’s approval is a historic moment for the [systemic mastocytosis] community and offers new hope for patients and their families.

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

Correction, 5/23/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized these patients' conditions. They had moderate to severe indolent, systemic mastocytosis.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved avapritinib (AYVAKIT, Blueprint Medicines) for the treatment of adults with indolent systemic mastocytosis. The new approval, which expands use of the drug to patients with indolent systemic mastocytosis, represents the “first and only approved medicine” to treat this disease, according to the company press statement.

Avapritinib, a selective KIT mutation-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was approved in 2021 to treat advanced systemic mastocytosis, a rare and potentially fatal hematologic disorder. Nonadvanced forms include indolent or smoldering disease; advanced disease can progress to leukemia. The expanded approval now covers patients with indolent disease, which represents the majority of patients with systemic mastocytosis.

The drug is also approved for adults with unresectable or metastatic GIST that harbors a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 mutation.

The approval is based on data from the phase 2 PIONEER trial. In the trial, 222 patients with moderate to severe indolent, systemic mastocytosis* were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either avapritinib 25 mg once daily plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care.

The findings, published in February, revealed that patients who received avapritinib experienced significantly greater improvements in total symptom scores at 24 weeks (–15.6 vs. –9.2 for control patients). Significantly more patients in the avapritinib arm achieved greater than or equal to 50% reductions in serum tryptase (54% vs. 0%), bone marrow mast cell aggregates (53% vs. 23%), and KIT D816V variant allele fraction (68% vs. 6%).

Most adverse reactions were mild to moderate in severity and included eye edema, dizziness, peripheral edema, and flushing. Fewer than 1% of patients discontinued treatment because of serious adverse reactions.

“People with indolent systemic mastocytosis are significantly impacted by their disease symptoms, and many individuals self-isolate at home to protect against unpredictable external triggers,” Judith Kain Emmel, board chair of the Mast Cell Disease Society, said in the company press release. “Today’s approval is a historic moment for the [systemic mastocytosis] community and offers new hope for patients and their families.

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

Correction, 5/23/23: An earlier version of this article mischaracterized these patients' conditions. They had moderate to severe indolent, systemic mastocytosis.

Thrombophilia testing should be limited to specific circumstances, including when venous thromboembolism (VTE) is provoked by nonsurgical risk factors such as pregnancy or oral contraception use, according to new clinical practice guidelines released by the American Society of Hematology. Individuals with a family history of VTE and high-risk thrombophilia, and those with VTE at unusual body sites should also be tested, the guidelines panel agreed.

“These guidelines will potentially change practice – we know that providers and patients will make a shared treatment decision and we wanted to outline specific scenarios to guide that decision,” panel cochair and first author Saskia Middeldorp, MD, PhD, explained in a press release announcing the publication of the guidelines in Blood Advances.

Dr. Middeldorp is a professor of medicine and head of the department of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The guidelines are the latest in an ASH series of VTE-related guidelines. ASH convened a multidisciplinary panel with clinical and methodological expertise to develop the guidelines, which were subject to public comment, and they “provide recommendations informed by case-based approaches and modeling to ensure the medical community can better diagnose and treat thrombophilia and people with the condition can make the best decisions for their care,” the press release explains.

Thrombophilia affects an estimated 10% of the population. Testing for the clotting disorder can be costly, and the use of testing to help guide treatment decisions is controversial.

“For decades there has been dispute about thrombophilia testing,” Dr. Middeldorp said. “We created a model about whether and when it would be useful to test for thrombophilia, and based on the model, we suggest it can be appropriate in [the specified] situations.

The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and management. Most are based on “very low certainty” in the evidence because of modeling assumptions.

However, the panel agreed on a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COC), and a conditional recommendation for thrombophilia testing in:

• Patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors
• Patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued
• Individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance related to the use of COC or hormone therapy
• Pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types
• Patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE

“In all other instances, we suggest not testing for thrombophilia,” said Dr. Middeldorp.

The ASH guidelines largely mirror those of existing guidelines from a number of other organizations, but the recommendation in favor of testing for thrombophilia in patients with VTE provoked by a nonsurgical major transient risk factor or associated with COCs, hormone therapy, pregnancy or postpartum is new and “may cause considerable discussion, as many currently view these VTE episodes as provoked and are generally inclined to use short-term anticoagulation for such patients,” the guideline authors wrote.

“It is important to note, however, that most guidelines or guidance statements on thrombophilia testing did not distinguish between major and minor provoking risk factors, which current science suggests is appropriate,” they added.

Another novel recommendation is the suggestion to test for hereditary thrombophilia to guide the use of thromboprophylaxis during systemic treatment in ambulatory patients with cancer who are at low or intermediate risk for VTE and who have a family history of VTE.

“This new recommendation should be seen as a new application of an established risk stratification approach,” they said.

Additional research is urgently needed, particularly “large implementation studies comparing the impact, in terms of outcomes rates, among management strategies involving or not involving thrombophilia testing,” they noted.

The guideline was wholly funded by ASH. Dr. Middeldorp reported having no conflicts of interest.

Thrombophilia testing should be limited to specific circumstances, including when venous thromboembolism (VTE) is provoked by nonsurgical risk factors such as pregnancy or oral contraception use, according to new clinical practice guidelines released by the American Society of Hematology. Individuals with a family history of VTE and high-risk thrombophilia, and those with VTE at unusual body sites should also be tested, the guidelines panel agreed.

“These guidelines will potentially change practice – we know that providers and patients will make a shared treatment decision and we wanted to outline specific scenarios to guide that decision,” panel cochair and first author Saskia Middeldorp, MD, PhD, explained in a press release announcing the publication of the guidelines in Blood Advances.

Dr. Middeldorp is a professor of medicine and head of the department of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The guidelines are the latest in an ASH series of VTE-related guidelines. ASH convened a multidisciplinary panel with clinical and methodological expertise to develop the guidelines, which were subject to public comment, and they “provide recommendations informed by case-based approaches and modeling to ensure the medical community can better diagnose and treat thrombophilia and people with the condition can make the best decisions for their care,” the press release explains.

Thrombophilia affects an estimated 10% of the population. Testing for the clotting disorder can be costly, and the use of testing to help guide treatment decisions is controversial.

“For decades there has been dispute about thrombophilia testing,” Dr. Middeldorp said. “We created a model about whether and when it would be useful to test for thrombophilia, and based on the model, we suggest it can be appropriate in [the specified] situations.

The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and management. Most are based on “very low certainty” in the evidence because of modeling assumptions.

However, the panel agreed on a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COC), and a conditional recommendation for thrombophilia testing in:

• Patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors
• Patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued
• Individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance related to the use of COC or hormone therapy
• Pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types
• Patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE

“In all other instances, we suggest not testing for thrombophilia,” said Dr. Middeldorp.

The ASH guidelines largely mirror those of existing guidelines from a number of other organizations, but the recommendation in favor of testing for thrombophilia in patients with VTE provoked by a nonsurgical major transient risk factor or associated with COCs, hormone therapy, pregnancy or postpartum is new and “may cause considerable discussion, as many currently view these VTE episodes as provoked and are generally inclined to use short-term anticoagulation for such patients,” the guideline authors wrote.

“It is important to note, however, that most guidelines or guidance statements on thrombophilia testing did not distinguish between major and minor provoking risk factors, which current science suggests is appropriate,” they added.

Another novel recommendation is the suggestion to test for hereditary thrombophilia to guide the use of thromboprophylaxis during systemic treatment in ambulatory patients with cancer who are at low or intermediate risk for VTE and who have a family history of VTE.

“This new recommendation should be seen as a new application of an established risk stratification approach,” they said.

Additional research is urgently needed, particularly “large implementation studies comparing the impact, in terms of outcomes rates, among management strategies involving or not involving thrombophilia testing,” they noted.

The guideline was wholly funded by ASH. Dr. Middeldorp reported having no conflicts of interest.

Thrombophilia testing should be limited to specific circumstances, including when venous thromboembolism (VTE) is provoked by nonsurgical risk factors such as pregnancy or oral contraception use, according to new clinical practice guidelines released by the American Society of Hematology. Individuals with a family history of VTE and high-risk thrombophilia, and those with VTE at unusual body sites should also be tested, the guidelines panel agreed.

“These guidelines will potentially change practice – we know that providers and patients will make a shared treatment decision and we wanted to outline specific scenarios to guide that decision,” panel cochair and first author Saskia Middeldorp, MD, PhD, explained in a press release announcing the publication of the guidelines in Blood Advances.

Dr. Middeldorp is a professor of medicine and head of the department of internal medicine at Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The guidelines are the latest in an ASH series of VTE-related guidelines. ASH convened a multidisciplinary panel with clinical and methodological expertise to develop the guidelines, which were subject to public comment, and they “provide recommendations informed by case-based approaches and modeling to ensure the medical community can better diagnose and treat thrombophilia and people with the condition can make the best decisions for their care,” the press release explains.

Thrombophilia affects an estimated 10% of the population. Testing for the clotting disorder can be costly, and the use of testing to help guide treatment decisions is controversial.

“For decades there has been dispute about thrombophilia testing,” Dr. Middeldorp said. “We created a model about whether and when it would be useful to test for thrombophilia, and based on the model, we suggest it can be appropriate in [the specified] situations.

The panel agreed on 23 recommendations regarding thrombophilia testing and management. Most are based on “very low certainty” in the evidence because of modeling assumptions.

However, the panel agreed on a strong recommendation against testing the general population before starting combined oral contraceptives (COC), and a conditional recommendation for thrombophilia testing in:

• Patients with VTE associated with nonsurgical major transient or hormonal risk factors
• Patients with cerebral or splanchnic venous thrombosis in settings where anticoagulation would otherwise be discontinued
• Individuals with a family history of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency when considering thromboprophylaxis for minor provoking risk factors and for guidance related to the use of COC or hormone therapy
• Pregnant women with a family history of high-risk thrombophilia types
• Patients with cancer at low or intermediate risk of thrombosis and with a family history of VTE

“In all other instances, we suggest not testing for thrombophilia,” said Dr. Middeldorp.

The ASH guidelines largely mirror those of existing guidelines from a number of other organizations, but the recommendation in favor of testing for thrombophilia in patients with VTE provoked by a nonsurgical major transient risk factor or associated with COCs, hormone therapy, pregnancy or postpartum is new and “may cause considerable discussion, as many currently view these VTE episodes as provoked and are generally inclined to use short-term anticoagulation for such patients,” the guideline authors wrote.

“It is important to note, however, that most guidelines or guidance statements on thrombophilia testing did not distinguish between major and minor provoking risk factors, which current science suggests is appropriate,” they added.

Another novel recommendation is the suggestion to test for hereditary thrombophilia to guide the use of thromboprophylaxis during systemic treatment in ambulatory patients with cancer who are at low or intermediate risk for VTE and who have a family history of VTE.

“This new recommendation should be seen as a new application of an established risk stratification approach,” they said.

Additional research is urgently needed, particularly “large implementation studies comparing the impact, in terms of outcomes rates, among management strategies involving or not involving thrombophilia testing,” they noted.

The guideline was wholly funded by ASH. Dr. Middeldorp reported having no conflicts of interest.

In a sign of the power of combination therapy for high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a small new study showed that patients were more likely to reach undetectable measurable residual disease (U-MRD) when they added venetoclax to their drug regimen after a year or more of taking ibrutinib.

Of 45 patients, 57% reached U-MRD at 12 months, and 55% reached complete remission, according to the study, published in Leukemia.

By adding venetoclax, “you can get very deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib,” lead author Philip A. Thompson, MBBS, a hematologist-oncologist with the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, also in Melbourne, said in an interview. “This is a significant advance for really high-risk patients.”

According to Dr. Thompson, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors like ibrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of high-risk CLL by forcing the disease into remission for several years and allowing patients to avoid stem cell transplants. “But the drug doesn’t eradicate the disease,” he said, “so eventually these patients develop progression.”

The current hope, he said, is to use a combination therapy like ibrutinib and venetoclax to send CLL into remission with lower chance of drug resistance and then allow patients to stop taking the medications.

Previous research has supported the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax in CLL in the frontline setting, and the European Commission approved it in 2022 for that use. But “ours is the first [study] that looked at patients who’ve been on ibrutinib for a long time and added venetoclax,” Dr. Thompson said. In some cases, he said, patients in the study had been on ibrutinib for several years.

For the new study, researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston – where Dr. Thompson used to work – tracked 45 patients (average age, 68.5 years; 51-80 years) with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma who had MRD but no clinical disease progression. They all had at least 1 high-risk feature such as a mutated TP53. They’d been on ibrutinib for a median of 32 months (12-73 months), and two were in complete remission but with MRD.

An intention-to-treat analysis found that 71% reached U-MRD when they finished taking venetoclax. “We were actually pleasantly surprised by the high rate of undetectable MRD,” Dr. Thompson said.

At a median 41-month follow-up, 11% of patients had progressed, but none had died of CLL or Richter transformation, a deadly complication of CLL. “The main side effects were neutropenia and diarrhea, which we were manageable,” Dr. Thompson said.

It’s not clear why the drug combination is especially effective, he said, but it may be because the medications are synergistic. According to the National Cancer Institute, synergy in medicine refers to “the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”

The findings suggest that “you can get deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib and venetoclax with very with good tolerability and very low risk of on-treatment progression,” Dr. Thompson said. “We don’t yet have enough progression events to talk about retreatment data, but we do feel that retreatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors – plus or minus venetoclax – will be successful in the vast majority of patients.”

The combination can be given off label in the United States, Dr. Thompson added. As for expense, adding venetoclax will double the cost of ibrutinib. The two drugs are some of the most expensive medications in the world. But patients will save money if they can stop therapy when they reach remission.

In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is not involved with the study, praised the research: “While small, this study does say quite a bit about this as a strategy to help people discontinue ibrutinib prior to resistance developing.”

She noted that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors “are generally given as a continuous monotherapy, and venetoclax is usually given for a fixed duration in combination with an anti-CD20 antibody.”

Going forward, she said, “the fact that the study was in high-risk patients who have the most to gain from such a combination suggests that similar or better rates of undetectable minimal residual disease might be seen in non–high-risk groups. Additional follow-up should be reported as well as use of this strategy in a larger group of patients before this should be considered a standard approach.”

AbbVie funding the study and provided study drugs. MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted the study and discloses funding from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Thompson reported ties with AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, BeiGene, and Genentech. The other study authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Rogers disclosed relationships with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.

In a sign of the power of combination therapy for high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a small new study showed that patients were more likely to reach undetectable measurable residual disease (U-MRD) when they added venetoclax to their drug regimen after a year or more of taking ibrutinib.

Of 45 patients, 57% reached U-MRD at 12 months, and 55% reached complete remission, according to the study, published in Leukemia.

By adding venetoclax, “you can get very deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib,” lead author Philip A. Thompson, MBBS, a hematologist-oncologist with the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, also in Melbourne, said in an interview. “This is a significant advance for really high-risk patients.”

According to Dr. Thompson, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors like ibrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of high-risk CLL by forcing the disease into remission for several years and allowing patients to avoid stem cell transplants. “But the drug doesn’t eradicate the disease,” he said, “so eventually these patients develop progression.”

The current hope, he said, is to use a combination therapy like ibrutinib and venetoclax to send CLL into remission with lower chance of drug resistance and then allow patients to stop taking the medications.

Previous research has supported the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax in CLL in the frontline setting, and the European Commission approved it in 2022 for that use. But “ours is the first [study] that looked at patients who’ve been on ibrutinib for a long time and added venetoclax,” Dr. Thompson said. In some cases, he said, patients in the study had been on ibrutinib for several years.

For the new study, researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston – where Dr. Thompson used to work – tracked 45 patients (average age, 68.5 years; 51-80 years) with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma who had MRD but no clinical disease progression. They all had at least 1 high-risk feature such as a mutated TP53. They’d been on ibrutinib for a median of 32 months (12-73 months), and two were in complete remission but with MRD.

An intention-to-treat analysis found that 71% reached U-MRD when they finished taking venetoclax. “We were actually pleasantly surprised by the high rate of undetectable MRD,” Dr. Thompson said.

At a median 41-month follow-up, 11% of patients had progressed, but none had died of CLL or Richter transformation, a deadly complication of CLL. “The main side effects were neutropenia and diarrhea, which we were manageable,” Dr. Thompson said.

It’s not clear why the drug combination is especially effective, he said, but it may be because the medications are synergistic. According to the National Cancer Institute, synergy in medicine refers to “the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”

The findings suggest that “you can get deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib and venetoclax with very with good tolerability and very low risk of on-treatment progression,” Dr. Thompson said. “We don’t yet have enough progression events to talk about retreatment data, but we do feel that retreatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors – plus or minus venetoclax – will be successful in the vast majority of patients.”

The combination can be given off label in the United States, Dr. Thompson added. As for expense, adding venetoclax will double the cost of ibrutinib. The two drugs are some of the most expensive medications in the world. But patients will save money if they can stop therapy when they reach remission.

In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is not involved with the study, praised the research: “While small, this study does say quite a bit about this as a strategy to help people discontinue ibrutinib prior to resistance developing.”

She noted that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors “are generally given as a continuous monotherapy, and venetoclax is usually given for a fixed duration in combination with an anti-CD20 antibody.”

Going forward, she said, “the fact that the study was in high-risk patients who have the most to gain from such a combination suggests that similar or better rates of undetectable minimal residual disease might be seen in non–high-risk groups. Additional follow-up should be reported as well as use of this strategy in a larger group of patients before this should be considered a standard approach.”

AbbVie funding the study and provided study drugs. MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted the study and discloses funding from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Thompson reported ties with AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, BeiGene, and Genentech. The other study authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Rogers disclosed relationships with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.

In a sign of the power of combination therapy for high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a small new study showed that patients were more likely to reach undetectable measurable residual disease (U-MRD) when they added venetoclax to their drug regimen after a year or more of taking ibrutinib.

Of 45 patients, 57% reached U-MRD at 12 months, and 55% reached complete remission, according to the study, published in Leukemia.

By adding venetoclax, “you can get very deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib,” lead author Philip A. Thompson, MBBS, a hematologist-oncologist with the University of Melbourne and Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, also in Melbourne, said in an interview. “This is a significant advance for really high-risk patients.”

According to Dr. Thompson, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors like ibrutinib have revolutionized the treatment of high-risk CLL by forcing the disease into remission for several years and allowing patients to avoid stem cell transplants. “But the drug doesn’t eradicate the disease,” he said, “so eventually these patients develop progression.”

The current hope, he said, is to use a combination therapy like ibrutinib and venetoclax to send CLL into remission with lower chance of drug resistance and then allow patients to stop taking the medications.

Previous research has supported the combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax in CLL in the frontline setting, and the European Commission approved it in 2022 for that use. But “ours is the first [study] that looked at patients who’ve been on ibrutinib for a long time and added venetoclax,” Dr. Thompson said. In some cases, he said, patients in the study had been on ibrutinib for several years.

For the new study, researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston – where Dr. Thompson used to work – tracked 45 patients (average age, 68.5 years; 51-80 years) with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma who had MRD but no clinical disease progression. They all had at least 1 high-risk feature such as a mutated TP53. They’d been on ibrutinib for a median of 32 months (12-73 months), and two were in complete remission but with MRD.

An intention-to-treat analysis found that 71% reached U-MRD when they finished taking venetoclax. “We were actually pleasantly surprised by the high rate of undetectable MRD,” Dr. Thompson said.

At a median 41-month follow-up, 11% of patients had progressed, but none had died of CLL or Richter transformation, a deadly complication of CLL. “The main side effects were neutropenia and diarrhea, which we were manageable,” Dr. Thompson said.

It’s not clear why the drug combination is especially effective, he said, but it may be because the medications are synergistic. According to the National Cancer Institute, synergy in medicine refers to “the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”

The findings suggest that “you can get deep remissions in high-risk patients with ibrutinib and venetoclax with very with good tolerability and very low risk of on-treatment progression,” Dr. Thompson said. “We don’t yet have enough progression events to talk about retreatment data, but we do feel that retreatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors – plus or minus venetoclax – will be successful in the vast majority of patients.”

The combination can be given off label in the United States, Dr. Thompson added. As for expense, adding venetoclax will double the cost of ibrutinib. The two drugs are some of the most expensive medications in the world. But patients will save money if they can stop therapy when they reach remission.

In an interview, hematologist-oncologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, who is not involved with the study, praised the research: “While small, this study does say quite a bit about this as a strategy to help people discontinue ibrutinib prior to resistance developing.”

She noted that Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors “are generally given as a continuous monotherapy, and venetoclax is usually given for a fixed duration in combination with an anti-CD20 antibody.”

Going forward, she said, “the fact that the study was in high-risk patients who have the most to gain from such a combination suggests that similar or better rates of undetectable minimal residual disease might be seen in non–high-risk groups. Additional follow-up should be reported as well as use of this strategy in a larger group of patients before this should be considered a standard approach.”

AbbVie funding the study and provided study drugs. MD Anderson Cancer Center conducted the study and discloses funding from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Thompson reported ties with AbbVie, Pharmacyclics, Lilly, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Janssen, BeiGene, and Genentech. The other study authors reported multiple disclosures. Dr. Rogers disclosed relationships with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, BeiGene, Lilly, and AstraZeneca.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved epcoritamab-bysp (Epkinly, AbbVie and Genmab) today for adults with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma following at least two lines of systemic therapy. This includes patients with DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

Epcoritamab is the first subcutaneous bispecific antibody approved for the indication. The biologic simultaneously binds CD3 on cytotoxic T cells to CD20 on lymphomic B cells, inducing T-cell mediated destruction.

“Together with our partner, AbbVie, we recognize the unmet need for safe, effective, and accessible treatments for patients with B-cell malignancies and we believe that epcoritamab has the potential to become a core therapy in this patient population,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, CEO of Genmab, said in a press release announcing the FDA’s acceptance of its biologic licensing application in November 2022.

A potential competitor, Roche’s bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio), was approved in December 2022. Mosunetuzumab has the same mechanism of action as epcoritamab but is indicated for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two lines of systemic therapy. A phase 3 trial is currently underway exploring epcoritamab for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma as part of combination therapy.

The current approval was based on the open-label phase 2 EPCORE NHL-1 trial conducted by AbbVie and Genmab. The trial’s efficacy population included 148 adults with relapsed or refractory CD20+ large B-cell lymphoma who had received at least two prior lines of therapy, including anti-CD20 therapies. Almost 40% had undergone CAR-T cell therapy.

Epcoritamab was administered initially once weekly, then every 2 weeks, and then every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The trial had no comparator arm.

At a median follow-up of 10.7 months, the overall response rate was 61% and the complete response rate was 38%. At a median follow-up of 9.8 months among responders, the median duration of response was 15.6 months.

The prescribing information comes with a boxed warning for serious or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome and life-threatening or fatal immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Warnings and precautions include infections and cytopenias.

Among the 157 patients who received epcoritamab in the trial at the recommended dose, grade 1-3 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 51%, immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome occurred in 6% (with one fatal case), and 15% experienced serious infections.

The most common grade 3 or 4 events included neutropenia (14.6%), anemia (10.2%), and thrombocytopenia (5.7%).

The FDA recommends epcoritamab be administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The FDA also noted that “this indication is approved under accelerated approval based on response rate and durability of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.”
 

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved epcoritamab-bysp (Epkinly, AbbVie and Genmab) today for adults with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma following at least two lines of systemic therapy. This includes patients with DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

Epcoritamab is the first subcutaneous bispecific antibody approved for the indication. The biologic simultaneously binds CD3 on cytotoxic T cells to CD20 on lymphomic B cells, inducing T-cell mediated destruction.

“Together with our partner, AbbVie, we recognize the unmet need for safe, effective, and accessible treatments for patients with B-cell malignancies and we believe that epcoritamab has the potential to become a core therapy in this patient population,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, CEO of Genmab, said in a press release announcing the FDA’s acceptance of its biologic licensing application in November 2022.

A potential competitor, Roche’s bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio), was approved in December 2022. Mosunetuzumab has the same mechanism of action as epcoritamab but is indicated for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two lines of systemic therapy. A phase 3 trial is currently underway exploring epcoritamab for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma as part of combination therapy.

The current approval was based on the open-label phase 2 EPCORE NHL-1 trial conducted by AbbVie and Genmab. The trial’s efficacy population included 148 adults with relapsed or refractory CD20+ large B-cell lymphoma who had received at least two prior lines of therapy, including anti-CD20 therapies. Almost 40% had undergone CAR-T cell therapy.

Epcoritamab was administered initially once weekly, then every 2 weeks, and then every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The trial had no comparator arm.

At a median follow-up of 10.7 months, the overall response rate was 61% and the complete response rate was 38%. At a median follow-up of 9.8 months among responders, the median duration of response was 15.6 months.

The prescribing information comes with a boxed warning for serious or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome and life-threatening or fatal immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Warnings and precautions include infections and cytopenias.

Among the 157 patients who received epcoritamab in the trial at the recommended dose, grade 1-3 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 51%, immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome occurred in 6% (with one fatal case), and 15% experienced serious infections.

The most common grade 3 or 4 events included neutropenia (14.6%), anemia (10.2%), and thrombocytopenia (5.7%).

The FDA recommends epcoritamab be administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The FDA also noted that “this indication is approved under accelerated approval based on response rate and durability of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.”
 

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved epcoritamab-bysp (Epkinly, AbbVie and Genmab) today for adults with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma following at least two lines of systemic therapy. This includes patients with DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma and high-grade B-cell lymphoma.

Epcoritamab is the first subcutaneous bispecific antibody approved for the indication. The biologic simultaneously binds CD3 on cytotoxic T cells to CD20 on lymphomic B cells, inducing T-cell mediated destruction.

“Together with our partner, AbbVie, we recognize the unmet need for safe, effective, and accessible treatments for patients with B-cell malignancies and we believe that epcoritamab has the potential to become a core therapy in this patient population,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, CEO of Genmab, said in a press release announcing the FDA’s acceptance of its biologic licensing application in November 2022.

A potential competitor, Roche’s bispecific antibody mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio), was approved in December 2022. Mosunetuzumab has the same mechanism of action as epcoritamab but is indicated for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two lines of systemic therapy. A phase 3 trial is currently underway exploring epcoritamab for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma as part of combination therapy.

The current approval was based on the open-label phase 2 EPCORE NHL-1 trial conducted by AbbVie and Genmab. The trial’s efficacy population included 148 adults with relapsed or refractory CD20+ large B-cell lymphoma who had received at least two prior lines of therapy, including anti-CD20 therapies. Almost 40% had undergone CAR-T cell therapy.

Epcoritamab was administered initially once weekly, then every 2 weeks, and then every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The trial had no comparator arm.

At a median follow-up of 10.7 months, the overall response rate was 61% and the complete response rate was 38%. At a median follow-up of 9.8 months among responders, the median duration of response was 15.6 months.

The prescribing information comes with a boxed warning for serious or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome and life-threatening or fatal immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Warnings and precautions include infections and cytopenias.

Among the 157 patients who received epcoritamab in the trial at the recommended dose, grade 1-3 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 51%, immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome occurred in 6% (with one fatal case), and 15% experienced serious infections.

The most common grade 3 or 4 events included neutropenia (14.6%), anemia (10.2%), and thrombocytopenia (5.7%).

The FDA recommends epcoritamab be administered subcutaneously in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The FDA also noted that “this indication is approved under accelerated approval based on response rate and durability of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial.”
 

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

A new strategy proposed by an international team of experts would limit the use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for screening tor prostate cancer to men who are younger than 70 years and who are at high risk or symptomatic.

This would reduce potential harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment, the risk for which is high with the on-demand screening that is the current standard of care in most wealthy nations.

In a paper published online in The BMJ, the panel recommends instead a comprehensive nationwide program that would base PSA testing on individual patient risk and direct those with abnormal results to a managed system of imaging, targeted biopsy only if indicated, and subsequent active monitoring or treatment for those with more aggressive disease features.

Alternatively, government health programs could actively discourage widespread PSA testing and implement policies that would effectively limit PSA-based screening only to men with urologic symptoms warranting further exploration, said the authors, led by Andrew Vickers, PhD, a research epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Although we believe that early detection of prostate cancer should involve shared decision making, the current approach of determining testing by shared decision making has resulted in the worst possible practical outcome of high levels of PSA testing and medical harm, with minimal benefit and inequity,” they wrote.

“To make better use of PSA testing, policy makers should choose between a comprehensive, risk adapted approach that is specifically designed to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or restricting PSA testing to people referred to urologists with symptoms. That choice will need to take into account wider patient and public perspective, as well as health economic concerns,” they continued.
 

Inappropriate testing

Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the first PSA screen in 1986 as a means for monitoring disease progression in patients being treated for prostate cancer, the test has remained controversial, embraced by some for its presumed ability to spot early prostate cancer but scorned by others for its equivocal results in patients with benign prostate pathology and for its potential to lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-grade disease in men who would otherwise be likely to die of other causes.

Currently, only Lithuania and Kazakhstan have government-supported population-based screening programs for prostate cancer. In contrast, the United States, United Kingdom, and other high-income countries have opted not to implement nationwide prostate cancer screening but allow so-called “informed choice testing,” in which men can receiving PSA screening after discussion with a primary care physician, urologist, or other specialist.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that for men aged 55-69 years, the decision to undergo PSA testing should be an individual one, based on an understanding of the risks and benefits. For men aged 70 or older, the task force flatly states, “Do not screen for prostate cancer.”

But as Dr. Vickers and colleagues noted, “high income countries that have made PSA testing available to men who request it after shared decision making with their physician now have a high prevalence of PSA testing with an inappropriate age distribution.”

For example, they pointed out that in the United Kingdom, men in their 80s are twice as likely as are men in their 50s to get a PSA test, even though men in the older age group are far less likely to have benefit and far more likely to experience harm from treatment. Similarly, in France, nearly one-third of men over 40 get an annual PSA test, with the highest incidence of PSA testing in men over age 70. There are also high rates of PSA testing in men over 70 in Italy, Germany, and Ireland.

“A key problem is that, in current routine care – and despite guidelines to the contrary – most men with an abnormal PSA result have prostate biopsy, even though only a minority will have aggressive prostate cancer,” Dr. Vickers and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, most men with biopsy-detected cancers have either surgery or radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) even if they have low-risk tumors that are unlikely to cause cancer related morbidity or mortality.”

In addition, informed-choice PSA testing may lead to health inequities, the team noted, citing data from the United States, Canada, and Switzerland showing an inverse association between income and education and the likelihood of PSA testing. Also, in the United States and Canada, men from ethnic minority groups are less likely to have PSA testing.
 

Comprehensive risk-based program

Dr. Vickers and colleagues proposed that a “comprehensive, risk-based prostate cancer detection program based on best evidence on how to use PSA testing and manage subsequent diagnostic follow-up and treatment could reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

“Such a program would restrict testing to men (and those not identifying as male but who have a prostate) aged 50-70, define testing intervals by PSA levels, stop testing early for those with lower PSA, offer biopsy only to those identified as at high risk of aggressive disease after a secondary test (such as magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or blood markers), and limit treatment to those with high Gleason grade tumors,” they wrote.
 

‘Sound analysis’

Two experts who were not involved with the BMJ paper applaud the suggestions made in comments posted on the U.K. Science Media Centre.

Benjamin W. Lamb, MBBS, MA, PhD, a consultant urologist and surgeon at Barts Health NHS Trust in London, said the analysis conducted by the panel “is sound as there are known benefits from risk-adapted comprehensive screening trials in men aged 50-70, but discordance with current practice, meaning benefits and harms are not those seen in trials.”

However, he also said that the strategies proposed by the authors would be unlikely to prevent older, well-informed men from requesting and getting a PSA test.

“In my view, the emphasis should be on engaging younger and at-risk men rather than restricting access for older men,” he said, noting that the alternative proposal of restricting PSA testing “in my view, is not feasible.”

Nick James, MBBS, PhD, professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and consultant oncologist at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, said, “I agree with the authors and strongly support the implementation of a risk-based approach to PSA testing at a national level.

“There is an urgent need for a more equitable and targeted screening strategy, which could help address existing health disparities,” Dr. James said. “Currently, individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to undergo PSA testing. Men in their 50s or younger, who may stand to benefit more from these tests, are also less likely to receive PSA tests compared to older men who benefit less. Linked to better diagnostic pathways with MRI, already standard in the UK, potential harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment can be mitigated.”

The analysis was supported in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute with a Cancer Center Support Grant to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and NIH grants to coauthors. Dr. Vickers is a coinventor of the 4Kscore, a commercial test for predicting prostate biopsy outcome. He receives royalties from sales of the test and owns stock options in OPKO, which offers the test. Coauthor James W.F. Catto, PhD, disclosed ties to Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Nucleix, Photocure, QED Therapeutics, and Roche.

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

A new strategy proposed by an international team of experts would limit the use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for screening tor prostate cancer to men who are younger than 70 years and who are at high risk or symptomatic.

This would reduce potential harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment, the risk for which is high with the on-demand screening that is the current standard of care in most wealthy nations.

In a paper published online in The BMJ, the panel recommends instead a comprehensive nationwide program that would base PSA testing on individual patient risk and direct those with abnormal results to a managed system of imaging, targeted biopsy only if indicated, and subsequent active monitoring or treatment for those with more aggressive disease features.

Alternatively, government health programs could actively discourage widespread PSA testing and implement policies that would effectively limit PSA-based screening only to men with urologic symptoms warranting further exploration, said the authors, led by Andrew Vickers, PhD, a research epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Although we believe that early detection of prostate cancer should involve shared decision making, the current approach of determining testing by shared decision making has resulted in the worst possible practical outcome of high levels of PSA testing and medical harm, with minimal benefit and inequity,” they wrote.

“To make better use of PSA testing, policy makers should choose between a comprehensive, risk adapted approach that is specifically designed to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or restricting PSA testing to people referred to urologists with symptoms. That choice will need to take into account wider patient and public perspective, as well as health economic concerns,” they continued.
 

Inappropriate testing

Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the first PSA screen in 1986 as a means for monitoring disease progression in patients being treated for prostate cancer, the test has remained controversial, embraced by some for its presumed ability to spot early prostate cancer but scorned by others for its equivocal results in patients with benign prostate pathology and for its potential to lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-grade disease in men who would otherwise be likely to die of other causes.

Currently, only Lithuania and Kazakhstan have government-supported population-based screening programs for prostate cancer. In contrast, the United States, United Kingdom, and other high-income countries have opted not to implement nationwide prostate cancer screening but allow so-called “informed choice testing,” in which men can receiving PSA screening after discussion with a primary care physician, urologist, or other specialist.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that for men aged 55-69 years, the decision to undergo PSA testing should be an individual one, based on an understanding of the risks and benefits. For men aged 70 or older, the task force flatly states, “Do not screen for prostate cancer.”

But as Dr. Vickers and colleagues noted, “high income countries that have made PSA testing available to men who request it after shared decision making with their physician now have a high prevalence of PSA testing with an inappropriate age distribution.”

For example, they pointed out that in the United Kingdom, men in their 80s are twice as likely as are men in their 50s to get a PSA test, even though men in the older age group are far less likely to have benefit and far more likely to experience harm from treatment. Similarly, in France, nearly one-third of men over 40 get an annual PSA test, with the highest incidence of PSA testing in men over age 70. There are also high rates of PSA testing in men over 70 in Italy, Germany, and Ireland.

“A key problem is that, in current routine care – and despite guidelines to the contrary – most men with an abnormal PSA result have prostate biopsy, even though only a minority will have aggressive prostate cancer,” Dr. Vickers and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, most men with biopsy-detected cancers have either surgery or radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) even if they have low-risk tumors that are unlikely to cause cancer related morbidity or mortality.”

In addition, informed-choice PSA testing may lead to health inequities, the team noted, citing data from the United States, Canada, and Switzerland showing an inverse association between income and education and the likelihood of PSA testing. Also, in the United States and Canada, men from ethnic minority groups are less likely to have PSA testing.
 

Comprehensive risk-based program

Dr. Vickers and colleagues proposed that a “comprehensive, risk-based prostate cancer detection program based on best evidence on how to use PSA testing and manage subsequent diagnostic follow-up and treatment could reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

“Such a program would restrict testing to men (and those not identifying as male but who have a prostate) aged 50-70, define testing intervals by PSA levels, stop testing early for those with lower PSA, offer biopsy only to those identified as at high risk of aggressive disease after a secondary test (such as magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or blood markers), and limit treatment to those with high Gleason grade tumors,” they wrote.
 

‘Sound analysis’

Two experts who were not involved with the BMJ paper applaud the suggestions made in comments posted on the U.K. Science Media Centre.

Benjamin W. Lamb, MBBS, MA, PhD, a consultant urologist and surgeon at Barts Health NHS Trust in London, said the analysis conducted by the panel “is sound as there are known benefits from risk-adapted comprehensive screening trials in men aged 50-70, but discordance with current practice, meaning benefits and harms are not those seen in trials.”

However, he also said that the strategies proposed by the authors would be unlikely to prevent older, well-informed men from requesting and getting a PSA test.

“In my view, the emphasis should be on engaging younger and at-risk men rather than restricting access for older men,” he said, noting that the alternative proposal of restricting PSA testing “in my view, is not feasible.”

Nick James, MBBS, PhD, professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and consultant oncologist at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, said, “I agree with the authors and strongly support the implementation of a risk-based approach to PSA testing at a national level.

“There is an urgent need for a more equitable and targeted screening strategy, which could help address existing health disparities,” Dr. James said. “Currently, individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to undergo PSA testing. Men in their 50s or younger, who may stand to benefit more from these tests, are also less likely to receive PSA tests compared to older men who benefit less. Linked to better diagnostic pathways with MRI, already standard in the UK, potential harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment can be mitigated.”

The analysis was supported in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute with a Cancer Center Support Grant to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and NIH grants to coauthors. Dr. Vickers is a coinventor of the 4Kscore, a commercial test for predicting prostate biopsy outcome. He receives royalties from sales of the test and owns stock options in OPKO, which offers the test. Coauthor James W.F. Catto, PhD, disclosed ties to Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Nucleix, Photocure, QED Therapeutics, and Roche.

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

A new strategy proposed by an international team of experts would limit the use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for screening tor prostate cancer to men who are younger than 70 years and who are at high risk or symptomatic.

This would reduce potential harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment, the risk for which is high with the on-demand screening that is the current standard of care in most wealthy nations.

In a paper published online in The BMJ, the panel recommends instead a comprehensive nationwide program that would base PSA testing on individual patient risk and direct those with abnormal results to a managed system of imaging, targeted biopsy only if indicated, and subsequent active monitoring or treatment for those with more aggressive disease features.

Alternatively, government health programs could actively discourage widespread PSA testing and implement policies that would effectively limit PSA-based screening only to men with urologic symptoms warranting further exploration, said the authors, led by Andrew Vickers, PhD, a research epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Although we believe that early detection of prostate cancer should involve shared decision making, the current approach of determining testing by shared decision making has resulted in the worst possible practical outcome of high levels of PSA testing and medical harm, with minimal benefit and inequity,” they wrote.

“To make better use of PSA testing, policy makers should choose between a comprehensive, risk adapted approach that is specifically designed to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or restricting PSA testing to people referred to urologists with symptoms. That choice will need to take into account wider patient and public perspective, as well as health economic concerns,” they continued.
 

Inappropriate testing

Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the first PSA screen in 1986 as a means for monitoring disease progression in patients being treated for prostate cancer, the test has remained controversial, embraced by some for its presumed ability to spot early prostate cancer but scorned by others for its equivocal results in patients with benign prostate pathology and for its potential to lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-grade disease in men who would otherwise be likely to die of other causes.

Currently, only Lithuania and Kazakhstan have government-supported population-based screening programs for prostate cancer. In contrast, the United States, United Kingdom, and other high-income countries have opted not to implement nationwide prostate cancer screening but allow so-called “informed choice testing,” in which men can receiving PSA screening after discussion with a primary care physician, urologist, or other specialist.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that for men aged 55-69 years, the decision to undergo PSA testing should be an individual one, based on an understanding of the risks and benefits. For men aged 70 or older, the task force flatly states, “Do not screen for prostate cancer.”

But as Dr. Vickers and colleagues noted, “high income countries that have made PSA testing available to men who request it after shared decision making with their physician now have a high prevalence of PSA testing with an inappropriate age distribution.”

For example, they pointed out that in the United Kingdom, men in their 80s are twice as likely as are men in their 50s to get a PSA test, even though men in the older age group are far less likely to have benefit and far more likely to experience harm from treatment. Similarly, in France, nearly one-third of men over 40 get an annual PSA test, with the highest incidence of PSA testing in men over age 70. There are also high rates of PSA testing in men over 70 in Italy, Germany, and Ireland.

“A key problem is that, in current routine care – and despite guidelines to the contrary – most men with an abnormal PSA result have prostate biopsy, even though only a minority will have aggressive prostate cancer,” Dr. Vickers and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, most men with biopsy-detected cancers have either surgery or radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) even if they have low-risk tumors that are unlikely to cause cancer related morbidity or mortality.”

In addition, informed-choice PSA testing may lead to health inequities, the team noted, citing data from the United States, Canada, and Switzerland showing an inverse association between income and education and the likelihood of PSA testing. Also, in the United States and Canada, men from ethnic minority groups are less likely to have PSA testing.
 

Comprehensive risk-based program

Dr. Vickers and colleagues proposed that a “comprehensive, risk-based prostate cancer detection program based on best evidence on how to use PSA testing and manage subsequent diagnostic follow-up and treatment could reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

“Such a program would restrict testing to men (and those not identifying as male but who have a prostate) aged 50-70, define testing intervals by PSA levels, stop testing early for those with lower PSA, offer biopsy only to those identified as at high risk of aggressive disease after a secondary test (such as magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or blood markers), and limit treatment to those with high Gleason grade tumors,” they wrote.
 

‘Sound analysis’

Two experts who were not involved with the BMJ paper applaud the suggestions made in comments posted on the U.K. Science Media Centre.

Benjamin W. Lamb, MBBS, MA, PhD, a consultant urologist and surgeon at Barts Health NHS Trust in London, said the analysis conducted by the panel “is sound as there are known benefits from risk-adapted comprehensive screening trials in men aged 50-70, but discordance with current practice, meaning benefits and harms are not those seen in trials.”

However, he also said that the strategies proposed by the authors would be unlikely to prevent older, well-informed men from requesting and getting a PSA test.

“In my view, the emphasis should be on engaging younger and at-risk men rather than restricting access for older men,” he said, noting that the alternative proposal of restricting PSA testing “in my view, is not feasible.”

Nick James, MBBS, PhD, professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and consultant oncologist at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, said, “I agree with the authors and strongly support the implementation of a risk-based approach to PSA testing at a national level.

“There is an urgent need for a more equitable and targeted screening strategy, which could help address existing health disparities,” Dr. James said. “Currently, individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to undergo PSA testing. Men in their 50s or younger, who may stand to benefit more from these tests, are also less likely to receive PSA tests compared to older men who benefit less. Linked to better diagnostic pathways with MRI, already standard in the UK, potential harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment can be mitigated.”

The analysis was supported in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute with a Cancer Center Support Grant to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and NIH grants to coauthors. Dr. Vickers is a coinventor of the 4Kscore, a commercial test for predicting prostate biopsy outcome. He receives royalties from sales of the test and owns stock options in OPKO, which offers the test. Coauthor James W.F. Catto, PhD, disclosed ties to Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Nucleix, Photocure, QED Therapeutics, and Roche.

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

Drug shortages in the United States hit a 10-year high in the first quarter of 2023, according to data from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). Among the top five drug classes affected by shortages are chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of cancer, many of which do not have alternatives.

“The shortage of certain cancer drugs has become a serious and life-threatening issue for cancer patients across the country,” Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), said in a statement. “I have heard from patients and practitioners who are directly experiencing the impact of these shortages.”

As of early May, there were 15 oncology drugs on the official Food and Drug Administration drug shortage list. The other top drug classes on shortage include drugs used for central nervous system (CNS) disorders,  antimicrobials, fluids and electrolytes, and hormones.

Factors blamed for the current shortages include expanded demand, supply shortages, limited manufacturing capacity, and low profit margins for generic therapies.

Dr. Knudsen emphasized that several of the oncology drugs now in short supply do not have an effective alternative. “As first-line treatments for a number of cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia often experienced by pediatric cancer patients, the shortage could lead to delays in treatment that could result in worse outcomes,” she said.

The ACS has listed the following oncology drugs and supportive agents as being in short supply: carboplatin injection used to treat triple negative breast cancer, ovarian, head, and neck cancers; fludarabine phosphate injection used for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia; dacarbazine injection for treatment of skin cancer; amifostine injection; azacitidine injection; capecitabine tablets; cisplatin injection; cytarabine injection; dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection; hydrocortisone sodium succinate injection; leucovorin calcium lyophilized powder for injection; Lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto) injection; methotrexate injection; pentostatin injection; and streptozocin (Zanosar) sterile powder.

Many of these drugs, such as cisplatin, are used in multiple regimens, so the issue is not limited to one specific cancer type.

In addition to these drugs, many products used in cancer care such as intravenous saline solutions are also in short supply, the ACS noted.
 

Two decades of shortages

Drug shortages in the United States have been a chronic problem for more than 2 decades, waxing and waning in intensity. In March, a hearing on drug shortages held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that since 2001, the number of new drug shortages has ranged between 58 (in 2004) and 267 (in 2011). The trend toward new drug shortages declined from 2018 through 2021, but then rose to 160 in 2022.

The report further noted that the first quarter of 2023 marked the highest number of ongoing shortages by quarter since early 2018, with 301 active shortages as of March 31. For some drugs, the problem has become chronic, as more than 15 critical drug products have been in short supply for more than a decade, and 20 have been in shortage since at least 2015.

A 2022 survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.

Dr. Knudsen noted that the FDA is largely limited to working directly with the manufacturer on whatever issue is causing the shortage, as well as working with other manufacturers of the same product to urge them to ramp up production. 

“ACS CAN is urging Congress to look at longer-term solutions that change the fundamental underpinnings of the shortages,” she said. “In the meantime, we urge the industry to work with medical practitioners to help identify alternatives where possible to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments are not delayed.”
 

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

Drug shortages in the United States hit a 10-year high in the first quarter of 2023, according to data from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). Among the top five drug classes affected by shortages are chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of cancer, many of which do not have alternatives.

“The shortage of certain cancer drugs has become a serious and life-threatening issue for cancer patients across the country,” Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), said in a statement. “I have heard from patients and practitioners who are directly experiencing the impact of these shortages.”

As of early May, there were 15 oncology drugs on the official Food and Drug Administration drug shortage list. The other top drug classes on shortage include drugs used for central nervous system (CNS) disorders,  antimicrobials, fluids and electrolytes, and hormones.

Factors blamed for the current shortages include expanded demand, supply shortages, limited manufacturing capacity, and low profit margins for generic therapies.

Dr. Knudsen emphasized that several of the oncology drugs now in short supply do not have an effective alternative. “As first-line treatments for a number of cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia often experienced by pediatric cancer patients, the shortage could lead to delays in treatment that could result in worse outcomes,” she said.

The ACS has listed the following oncology drugs and supportive agents as being in short supply: carboplatin injection used to treat triple negative breast cancer, ovarian, head, and neck cancers; fludarabine phosphate injection used for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia; dacarbazine injection for treatment of skin cancer; amifostine injection; azacitidine injection; capecitabine tablets; cisplatin injection; cytarabine injection; dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection; hydrocortisone sodium succinate injection; leucovorin calcium lyophilized powder for injection; Lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto) injection; methotrexate injection; pentostatin injection; and streptozocin (Zanosar) sterile powder.

Many of these drugs, such as cisplatin, are used in multiple regimens, so the issue is not limited to one specific cancer type.

In addition to these drugs, many products used in cancer care such as intravenous saline solutions are also in short supply, the ACS noted.
 

Two decades of shortages

Drug shortages in the United States have been a chronic problem for more than 2 decades, waxing and waning in intensity. In March, a hearing on drug shortages held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that since 2001, the number of new drug shortages has ranged between 58 (in 2004) and 267 (in 2011). The trend toward new drug shortages declined from 2018 through 2021, but then rose to 160 in 2022.

The report further noted that the first quarter of 2023 marked the highest number of ongoing shortages by quarter since early 2018, with 301 active shortages as of March 31. For some drugs, the problem has become chronic, as more than 15 critical drug products have been in short supply for more than a decade, and 20 have been in shortage since at least 2015.

A 2022 survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.

Dr. Knudsen noted that the FDA is largely limited to working directly with the manufacturer on whatever issue is causing the shortage, as well as working with other manufacturers of the same product to urge them to ramp up production. 

“ACS CAN is urging Congress to look at longer-term solutions that change the fundamental underpinnings of the shortages,” she said. “In the meantime, we urge the industry to work with medical practitioners to help identify alternatives where possible to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments are not delayed.”
 

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

Drug shortages in the United States hit a 10-year high in the first quarter of 2023, according to data from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). Among the top five drug classes affected by shortages are chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of cancer, many of which do not have alternatives.

“The shortage of certain cancer drugs has become a serious and life-threatening issue for cancer patients across the country,” Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), said in a statement. “I have heard from patients and practitioners who are directly experiencing the impact of these shortages.”

As of early May, there were 15 oncology drugs on the official Food and Drug Administration drug shortage list. The other top drug classes on shortage include drugs used for central nervous system (CNS) disorders,  antimicrobials, fluids and electrolytes, and hormones.

Factors blamed for the current shortages include expanded demand, supply shortages, limited manufacturing capacity, and low profit margins for generic therapies.

Dr. Knudsen emphasized that several of the oncology drugs now in short supply do not have an effective alternative. “As first-line treatments for a number of cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia often experienced by pediatric cancer patients, the shortage could lead to delays in treatment that could result in worse outcomes,” she said.

The ACS has listed the following oncology drugs and supportive agents as being in short supply: carboplatin injection used to treat triple negative breast cancer, ovarian, head, and neck cancers; fludarabine phosphate injection used for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia; dacarbazine injection for treatment of skin cancer; amifostine injection; azacitidine injection; capecitabine tablets; cisplatin injection; cytarabine injection; dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection; hydrocortisone sodium succinate injection; leucovorin calcium lyophilized powder for injection; Lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto) injection; methotrexate injection; pentostatin injection; and streptozocin (Zanosar) sterile powder.

Many of these drugs, such as cisplatin, are used in multiple regimens, so the issue is not limited to one specific cancer type.

In addition to these drugs, many products used in cancer care such as intravenous saline solutions are also in short supply, the ACS noted.
 

Two decades of shortages

Drug shortages in the United States have been a chronic problem for more than 2 decades, waxing and waning in intensity. In March, a hearing on drug shortages held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that since 2001, the number of new drug shortages has ranged between 58 (in 2004) and 267 (in 2011). The trend toward new drug shortages declined from 2018 through 2021, but then rose to 160 in 2022.

The report further noted that the first quarter of 2023 marked the highest number of ongoing shortages by quarter since early 2018, with 301 active shortages as of March 31. For some drugs, the problem has become chronic, as more than 15 critical drug products have been in short supply for more than a decade, and 20 have been in shortage since at least 2015.

A 2022 survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.

Dr. Knudsen noted that the FDA is largely limited to working directly with the manufacturer on whatever issue is causing the shortage, as well as working with other manufacturers of the same product to urge them to ramp up production. 

“ACS CAN is urging Congress to look at longer-term solutions that change the fundamental underpinnings of the shortages,” she said. “In the meantime, we urge the industry to work with medical practitioners to help identify alternatives where possible to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments are not delayed.”
 

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

Many of the persistent problems that breast cancer survivors experience after treatment are not part of the conversation with oncologists during treatment, said Patricia A. Ganz, MD, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

Several studies suggest that many breast cancer patients are not well prepared to move forward after a breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatments, continued Dr. Ganz, who works at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.

Meeting the survivorship needs of breast cancer patients requires addressing both their physical and psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz said. She explained how to achieve that, but first pointed to research elaborating on what's missing from some breast cancer survivors' care and barriers to these patients having their variety of health-related needs met.

In a 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Survivorship, Dr. Ganz and colleagues conducted a survey of approximately 200 medical oncologists in the United States. They determined that less than 50% provide survivorship care plans to patients at the end of treatment or communicate with patients’ other physicians about follow-up care.

In a secondary analysis of data from the same survey published in 2022 in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Dr. Ganz and colleagues examined medical oncologists’ perceived barriers to addressing both physical and psychosocial long-term effects in breast cancer survivors. For both, lack of time was the greatest perceived barrier, cited by nearly two-thirds of oncologists. Other barriers to addressing physical effects included lack of evidence-based, effective interventions, lack of clinical algorithms to guide care, and ambiguity regarding professional responsibility at the end of treatment. Other top barriers to addressing psychosocial issues included lack of mental health providers, lack of psychosocial resources, and lack of clinician knowledge and skills.

Data from additional studies suggest that, overall, cancer patients with greater physical burdens, such as more complex and lengthy treatment regimens, also have greater psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz noted. Plus, approximately 15%-20% of cancer survivors have ongoing anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Shift to primary care

As more breast cancer and other cancer patients survive for longer periods, more care will likely occur in general medical settings, Dr. Ganz said. Issues to be addressed will include the potential increased risk of comorbid conditions for these survivors, and whether survivorship interventions earlier in the disease trajectory will impact survivorship. For cancer patients who achieve remission after treatment, the first 5 years after a diagnosis involves treatment and short-term surveillance for late effects. Beyond 5 years, care for cancer survivors mainly involves primary care and management of any comorbid conditions, as well as surveillance for late effects and recurrences, and awareness of new research.

A patient consultation early in the process after diagnosis is the start of a continuum of care, Dr. Ganz said. A patient consultation should address symptoms related to initial treatments, such as neuropathy, pain, fatigue, and insomnia, as well as the psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression. An early consultation also should evaluate adherence to endocrine therapy and management of symptoms, if needed, with the larger goal of preparing patients for recovery and the transition to survivorship, and what to expect for long-term follow-up.
 

Delivering the three P’s

The “Three P’s” of survivor care for breast cancer patients are palliation, prevention, and promotion of health, according to Dr. Ganz .

The first “P,” for palliative, is a key part of survivorship care, said Dr. Ganz. Palliative care is defined as care that focuses on reducing symptom severity and improving quality of life. The biological effects of cancer treatment can be associated with physical effects, such as functional limitations and frailty, and behavioral/cognitive effects such as depression, fatigue, and cognitive deficits, she said. To manage these effects and provide palliative care, consultation is needed with specialists in relevant areas including mental health, pain management, physical medicine/rehabilitation, endocrinology, cardiology, and neurology.

The second “P,” which is for prevention in survivorship care, refers to ongoing follow-up screening to identify any potentially serious late-onset complications such as osteoporosis or cardiac disease so they can be addressed, said Dr. Ganz. Other considerations include chemoprevention if available and genetic counseling for patients with hereditary cancers. Prevention also includes counseling patients about lifestyle modifications to help prevent additional cancer.

The goal of the third “P,” which is for health promotion, is to promote risk reduction for the health problems associated with accelerated aging that may arise in cancer survivors, said Dr. Ganz.

Health promotion strategies include maintaining a healthy weight, increasing physical activity, and avoiding harmful exposures, she said. Healthy lifestyle interventions can also reduce the risk of other chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

To that end, Dr. Ganz outlined several behavioral interventions that may mitigate the effects of cancer treatment on the accelerated aging process, including stress reduction in the form of meditation or yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, improving sleep, increasing physical activity, reducing obesity, and decreasing tobacco and alcohol use. These interventions may help reduce inflammation and promote tissue repair and healing.

For cancer survivors, the life span may be longer than the health span, and these patients may benefit from an integrated model of care, with systematic screening and consolidated appointments, rather than a fragmented model in which departments and referrals are siloed, which may result in conflicting advice or redundancy, said Dr. Ganz.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to explore models of care delivery, as requirements for survivor care will vary among patients and care settings, Dr. Ganz said.

However, regardless of setting, treatment plans and shared decision-making can help reduce potential long-term or late-emerging effects, she said. Developing a survivorship care plan can help patients learn how to enhance their recovery.

During a question and answer session, Dr. Ganz was asked about whether hormone therapy could be used for patients with hormone negative breast cancer. “I think vaginal estrogen can be used if someone is on tamoxifen,” she said. However, “we need to be cautious” in case there are remaining estrogen positive cells, in order to avoid potential metastases, and use of hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors is an individualized decision based in part on quality of life.
 

Engaging a patient’s partner early can be helpful

If possible, engage the patient’s partner in survivorship discussions, said Luzia Travado, PhD, head of psycho-oncology at the Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, who presented on the topic of sexuality and commented on survivorship during the discussion. For those women with partners, engaging the partner early in treatment often means they are more likely to play a larger role in the post treatment and long term by providing stability and emotional support.

“Make sure partners are engaged and understand that they have a role, and that this role is valued,” she said. Unfortunately, there are a lot of divorced women with breast cancer, as the disease can take a toll on relationships. However, remember “sexuality is not just sex; it is caring, loving, and intimacy.”

“To end on a positive note, it is important to empower patients, and to give them self-management skills so they can make things even better in their survivorship,” said Dr. Ganz. In spite of discussing difficulties and challenges, one of the goals of the session was to offer potential solutions and answers.

Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as editor of the cancer survivorship section on Up-to-Date, and serving as a consultant for Blue Note Therapeutics, GRAIL, InformedDNA, and Roche-Genentech. Dr. Travado had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Many of the persistent problems that breast cancer survivors experience after treatment are not part of the conversation with oncologists during treatment, said Patricia A. Ganz, MD, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

Several studies suggest that many breast cancer patients are not well prepared to move forward after a breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatments, continued Dr. Ganz, who works at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.

Meeting the survivorship needs of breast cancer patients requires addressing both their physical and psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz said. She explained how to achieve that, but first pointed to research elaborating on what's missing from some breast cancer survivors' care and barriers to these patients having their variety of health-related needs met.

In a 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Survivorship, Dr. Ganz and colleagues conducted a survey of approximately 200 medical oncologists in the United States. They determined that less than 50% provide survivorship care plans to patients at the end of treatment or communicate with patients’ other physicians about follow-up care.

In a secondary analysis of data from the same survey published in 2022 in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Dr. Ganz and colleagues examined medical oncologists’ perceived barriers to addressing both physical and psychosocial long-term effects in breast cancer survivors. For both, lack of time was the greatest perceived barrier, cited by nearly two-thirds of oncologists. Other barriers to addressing physical effects included lack of evidence-based, effective interventions, lack of clinical algorithms to guide care, and ambiguity regarding professional responsibility at the end of treatment. Other top barriers to addressing psychosocial issues included lack of mental health providers, lack of psychosocial resources, and lack of clinician knowledge and skills.

Data from additional studies suggest that, overall, cancer patients with greater physical burdens, such as more complex and lengthy treatment regimens, also have greater psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz noted. Plus, approximately 15%-20% of cancer survivors have ongoing anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Shift to primary care

As more breast cancer and other cancer patients survive for longer periods, more care will likely occur in general medical settings, Dr. Ganz said. Issues to be addressed will include the potential increased risk of comorbid conditions for these survivors, and whether survivorship interventions earlier in the disease trajectory will impact survivorship. For cancer patients who achieve remission after treatment, the first 5 years after a diagnosis involves treatment and short-term surveillance for late effects. Beyond 5 years, care for cancer survivors mainly involves primary care and management of any comorbid conditions, as well as surveillance for late effects and recurrences, and awareness of new research.

A patient consultation early in the process after diagnosis is the start of a continuum of care, Dr. Ganz said. A patient consultation should address symptoms related to initial treatments, such as neuropathy, pain, fatigue, and insomnia, as well as the psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression. An early consultation also should evaluate adherence to endocrine therapy and management of symptoms, if needed, with the larger goal of preparing patients for recovery and the transition to survivorship, and what to expect for long-term follow-up.
 

Delivering the three P’s

The “Three P’s” of survivor care for breast cancer patients are palliation, prevention, and promotion of health, according to Dr. Ganz .

The first “P,” for palliative, is a key part of survivorship care, said Dr. Ganz. Palliative care is defined as care that focuses on reducing symptom severity and improving quality of life. The biological effects of cancer treatment can be associated with physical effects, such as functional limitations and frailty, and behavioral/cognitive effects such as depression, fatigue, and cognitive deficits, she said. To manage these effects and provide palliative care, consultation is needed with specialists in relevant areas including mental health, pain management, physical medicine/rehabilitation, endocrinology, cardiology, and neurology.

The second “P,” which is for prevention in survivorship care, refers to ongoing follow-up screening to identify any potentially serious late-onset complications such as osteoporosis or cardiac disease so they can be addressed, said Dr. Ganz. Other considerations include chemoprevention if available and genetic counseling for patients with hereditary cancers. Prevention also includes counseling patients about lifestyle modifications to help prevent additional cancer.

The goal of the third “P,” which is for health promotion, is to promote risk reduction for the health problems associated with accelerated aging that may arise in cancer survivors, said Dr. Ganz.

Health promotion strategies include maintaining a healthy weight, increasing physical activity, and avoiding harmful exposures, she said. Healthy lifestyle interventions can also reduce the risk of other chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

To that end, Dr. Ganz outlined several behavioral interventions that may mitigate the effects of cancer treatment on the accelerated aging process, including stress reduction in the form of meditation or yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, improving sleep, increasing physical activity, reducing obesity, and decreasing tobacco and alcohol use. These interventions may help reduce inflammation and promote tissue repair and healing.

For cancer survivors, the life span may be longer than the health span, and these patients may benefit from an integrated model of care, with systematic screening and consolidated appointments, rather than a fragmented model in which departments and referrals are siloed, which may result in conflicting advice or redundancy, said Dr. Ganz.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to explore models of care delivery, as requirements for survivor care will vary among patients and care settings, Dr. Ganz said.

However, regardless of setting, treatment plans and shared decision-making can help reduce potential long-term or late-emerging effects, she said. Developing a survivorship care plan can help patients learn how to enhance their recovery.

During a question and answer session, Dr. Ganz was asked about whether hormone therapy could be used for patients with hormone negative breast cancer. “I think vaginal estrogen can be used if someone is on tamoxifen,” she said. However, “we need to be cautious” in case there are remaining estrogen positive cells, in order to avoid potential metastases, and use of hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors is an individualized decision based in part on quality of life.
 

Engaging a patient’s partner early can be helpful

If possible, engage the patient’s partner in survivorship discussions, said Luzia Travado, PhD, head of psycho-oncology at the Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, who presented on the topic of sexuality and commented on survivorship during the discussion. For those women with partners, engaging the partner early in treatment often means they are more likely to play a larger role in the post treatment and long term by providing stability and emotional support.

“Make sure partners are engaged and understand that they have a role, and that this role is valued,” she said. Unfortunately, there are a lot of divorced women with breast cancer, as the disease can take a toll on relationships. However, remember “sexuality is not just sex; it is caring, loving, and intimacy.”

“To end on a positive note, it is important to empower patients, and to give them self-management skills so they can make things even better in their survivorship,” said Dr. Ganz. In spite of discussing difficulties and challenges, one of the goals of the session was to offer potential solutions and answers.

Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as editor of the cancer survivorship section on Up-to-Date, and serving as a consultant for Blue Note Therapeutics, GRAIL, InformedDNA, and Roche-Genentech. Dr. Travado had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Many of the persistent problems that breast cancer survivors experience after treatment are not part of the conversation with oncologists during treatment, said Patricia A. Ganz, MD, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

Several studies suggest that many breast cancer patients are not well prepared to move forward after a breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatments, continued Dr. Ganz, who works at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.

Meeting the survivorship needs of breast cancer patients requires addressing both their physical and psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz said. She explained how to achieve that, but first pointed to research elaborating on what's missing from some breast cancer survivors' care and barriers to these patients having their variety of health-related needs met.

In a 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Survivorship, Dr. Ganz and colleagues conducted a survey of approximately 200 medical oncologists in the United States. They determined that less than 50% provide survivorship care plans to patients at the end of treatment or communicate with patients’ other physicians about follow-up care.

In a secondary analysis of data from the same survey published in 2022 in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Dr. Ganz and colleagues examined medical oncologists’ perceived barriers to addressing both physical and psychosocial long-term effects in breast cancer survivors. For both, lack of time was the greatest perceived barrier, cited by nearly two-thirds of oncologists. Other barriers to addressing physical effects included lack of evidence-based, effective interventions, lack of clinical algorithms to guide care, and ambiguity regarding professional responsibility at the end of treatment. Other top barriers to addressing psychosocial issues included lack of mental health providers, lack of psychosocial resources, and lack of clinician knowledge and skills.

Data from additional studies suggest that, overall, cancer patients with greater physical burdens, such as more complex and lengthy treatment regimens, also have greater psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz noted. Plus, approximately 15%-20% of cancer survivors have ongoing anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Shift to primary care

As more breast cancer and other cancer patients survive for longer periods, more care will likely occur in general medical settings, Dr. Ganz said. Issues to be addressed will include the potential increased risk of comorbid conditions for these survivors, and whether survivorship interventions earlier in the disease trajectory will impact survivorship. For cancer patients who achieve remission after treatment, the first 5 years after a diagnosis involves treatment and short-term surveillance for late effects. Beyond 5 years, care for cancer survivors mainly involves primary care and management of any comorbid conditions, as well as surveillance for late effects and recurrences, and awareness of new research.

A patient consultation early in the process after diagnosis is the start of a continuum of care, Dr. Ganz said. A patient consultation should address symptoms related to initial treatments, such as neuropathy, pain, fatigue, and insomnia, as well as the psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression. An early consultation also should evaluate adherence to endocrine therapy and management of symptoms, if needed, with the larger goal of preparing patients for recovery and the transition to survivorship, and what to expect for long-term follow-up.
 

Delivering the three P’s

The “Three P’s” of survivor care for breast cancer patients are palliation, prevention, and promotion of health, according to Dr. Ganz .

The first “P,” for palliative, is a key part of survivorship care, said Dr. Ganz. Palliative care is defined as care that focuses on reducing symptom severity and improving quality of life. The biological effects of cancer treatment can be associated with physical effects, such as functional limitations and frailty, and behavioral/cognitive effects such as depression, fatigue, and cognitive deficits, she said. To manage these effects and provide palliative care, consultation is needed with specialists in relevant areas including mental health, pain management, physical medicine/rehabilitation, endocrinology, cardiology, and neurology.

The second “P,” which is for prevention in survivorship care, refers to ongoing follow-up screening to identify any potentially serious late-onset complications such as osteoporosis or cardiac disease so they can be addressed, said Dr. Ganz. Other considerations include chemoprevention if available and genetic counseling for patients with hereditary cancers. Prevention also includes counseling patients about lifestyle modifications to help prevent additional cancer.

The goal of the third “P,” which is for health promotion, is to promote risk reduction for the health problems associated with accelerated aging that may arise in cancer survivors, said Dr. Ganz.

Health promotion strategies include maintaining a healthy weight, increasing physical activity, and avoiding harmful exposures, she said. Healthy lifestyle interventions can also reduce the risk of other chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

To that end, Dr. Ganz outlined several behavioral interventions that may mitigate the effects of cancer treatment on the accelerated aging process, including stress reduction in the form of meditation or yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, improving sleep, increasing physical activity, reducing obesity, and decreasing tobacco and alcohol use. These interventions may help reduce inflammation and promote tissue repair and healing.

For cancer survivors, the life span may be longer than the health span, and these patients may benefit from an integrated model of care, with systematic screening and consolidated appointments, rather than a fragmented model in which departments and referrals are siloed, which may result in conflicting advice or redundancy, said Dr. Ganz.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to explore models of care delivery, as requirements for survivor care will vary among patients and care settings, Dr. Ganz said.

However, regardless of setting, treatment plans and shared decision-making can help reduce potential long-term or late-emerging effects, she said. Developing a survivorship care plan can help patients learn how to enhance their recovery.

During a question and answer session, Dr. Ganz was asked about whether hormone therapy could be used for patients with hormone negative breast cancer. “I think vaginal estrogen can be used if someone is on tamoxifen,” she said. However, “we need to be cautious” in case there are remaining estrogen positive cells, in order to avoid potential metastases, and use of hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors is an individualized decision based in part on quality of life.
 

Engaging a patient’s partner early can be helpful

If possible, engage the patient’s partner in survivorship discussions, said Luzia Travado, PhD, head of psycho-oncology at the Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, who presented on the topic of sexuality and commented on survivorship during the discussion. For those women with partners, engaging the partner early in treatment often means they are more likely to play a larger role in the post treatment and long term by providing stability and emotional support.

“Make sure partners are engaged and understand that they have a role, and that this role is valued,” she said. Unfortunately, there are a lot of divorced women with breast cancer, as the disease can take a toll on relationships. However, remember “sexuality is not just sex; it is caring, loving, and intimacy.”

“To end on a positive note, it is important to empower patients, and to give them self-management skills so they can make things even better in their survivorship,” said Dr. Ganz. In spite of discussing difficulties and challenges, one of the goals of the session was to offer potential solutions and answers.

Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as editor of the cancer survivorship section on Up-to-Date, and serving as a consultant for Blue Note Therapeutics, GRAIL, InformedDNA, and Roche-Genentech. Dr. Travado had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

“What am I allowed to do?” radiation oncologist Vivek Kavadi, MD, asked the business manager at Texas Oncology in Sugar Land, Tex.

Dr. Kavadi wanted to give his patient with early-stage breast cancer a standard radiation treatment – hypofractionated 3D conformal radiation therapy – following her lumpectomy.

But his hands were tied.

Dr. Kavadi had submitted a prior authorization request, but the patient’s health insurance was dragging its feet. And without prior authorization, Dr. Kavadi couldn’t schedule his patient’s first treatment.

“I chose the most cost-effective, standard treatment, but nothing could begin without the insurance company’s permission,” he said.

One of the most challenging aspects of the delay was explaining to his patient why he couldn’t schedule her treatment. “We would love to start, but your insurance company has not given us approval. The best I can do is give you a tentative appointment,” he recalled telling her.

After a few days with no word, calls to the insurance company began. “My patient called, I called, my office called,” Dr. Kavadi said. “It was a week or more of aggravation, stress, and time wasted for my patient and my team.”

This type of delay has become increasingly common in radiation oncology. One recent analysis estimated that 97% of radiation oncology services now require prior authorization under Medicare Advantage. And another analysis found that almost all radiation oncologists said prior authorization delays life-saving care for their patients.

The rise of prior authorization requirements may boil down to the fact that prior authorization is no longer reserved for uncertain or high-cost care. Terrence Cunningham, director of administrative simplification policy for the American Hospital Association, told this news organization last year that “prior authorization used to be applied only to new, costly, or high-risk services,” but now “many insurers require authorizations for even routine care, which is inappropriate.”

The growth of prior authorization requirements has forced many doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to dedicate part of their workday to handling requests and appealing denials and has forced many practices to hire staff exclusively for prior authorizations.

This additional work is costly.

One recent study found that the radiation oncology department of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., spent nearly $500,000 annually in employee time to obtain prior authorization for radiation therapy treatments. Extrapolated nationally, the researchers estimated that physicians’ annual compensation for prior authorization duties came to an estimated $46 million. Overall, 86% of these costs were for treatments that were ultimately approved, the majority on initial request and some on appeal.

Dr. Kavadi has five full-time employees dedicated to managing prior authorization requests and challenges.

And after a week of delays and hours on the phone with the insurer, his patient’s radiation treatment was ultimately approved.

Dr. Kavadi wondered why something so simple needed to be so onerous.

Stretching out an approval for a standard radiation treatment “feels like a means of intentionally delaying care,” Dr. Kavadi said. “This is an example of a process that has run so far amok. It’s just a burden across the board.”

And even with his 30 years of experience, “I still have to ask my business supervisor what I am allowed to do,” he said. “I can’t just proceed with what’s best for my patient, what the patient has consented to, and what also happens to be the least expensive option.”

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

“What am I allowed to do?” radiation oncologist Vivek Kavadi, MD, asked the business manager at Texas Oncology in Sugar Land, Tex.

Dr. Kavadi wanted to give his patient with early-stage breast cancer a standard radiation treatment – hypofractionated 3D conformal radiation therapy – following her lumpectomy.

But his hands were tied.

Dr. Kavadi had submitted a prior authorization request, but the patient’s health insurance was dragging its feet. And without prior authorization, Dr. Kavadi couldn’t schedule his patient’s first treatment.

“I chose the most cost-effective, standard treatment, but nothing could begin without the insurance company’s permission,” he said.

One of the most challenging aspects of the delay was explaining to his patient why he couldn’t schedule her treatment. “We would love to start, but your insurance company has not given us approval. The best I can do is give you a tentative appointment,” he recalled telling her.

After a few days with no word, calls to the insurance company began. “My patient called, I called, my office called,” Dr. Kavadi said. “It was a week or more of aggravation, stress, and time wasted for my patient and my team.”

This type of delay has become increasingly common in radiation oncology. One recent analysis estimated that 97% of radiation oncology services now require prior authorization under Medicare Advantage. And another analysis found that almost all radiation oncologists said prior authorization delays life-saving care for their patients.

The rise of prior authorization requirements may boil down to the fact that prior authorization is no longer reserved for uncertain or high-cost care. Terrence Cunningham, director of administrative simplification policy for the American Hospital Association, told this news organization last year that “prior authorization used to be applied only to new, costly, or high-risk services,” but now “many insurers require authorizations for even routine care, which is inappropriate.”

The growth of prior authorization requirements has forced many doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to dedicate part of their workday to handling requests and appealing denials and has forced many practices to hire staff exclusively for prior authorizations.

This additional work is costly.

One recent study found that the radiation oncology department of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., spent nearly $500,000 annually in employee time to obtain prior authorization for radiation therapy treatments. Extrapolated nationally, the researchers estimated that physicians’ annual compensation for prior authorization duties came to an estimated $46 million. Overall, 86% of these costs were for treatments that were ultimately approved, the majority on initial request and some on appeal.

Dr. Kavadi has five full-time employees dedicated to managing prior authorization requests and challenges.

And after a week of delays and hours on the phone with the insurer, his patient’s radiation treatment was ultimately approved.

Dr. Kavadi wondered why something so simple needed to be so onerous.

Stretching out an approval for a standard radiation treatment “feels like a means of intentionally delaying care,” Dr. Kavadi said. “This is an example of a process that has run so far amok. It’s just a burden across the board.”

And even with his 30 years of experience, “I still have to ask my business supervisor what I am allowed to do,” he said. “I can’t just proceed with what’s best for my patient, what the patient has consented to, and what also happens to be the least expensive option.”

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

“What am I allowed to do?” radiation oncologist Vivek Kavadi, MD, asked the business manager at Texas Oncology in Sugar Land, Tex.

Dr. Kavadi wanted to give his patient with early-stage breast cancer a standard radiation treatment – hypofractionated 3D conformal radiation therapy – following her lumpectomy.

But his hands were tied.

Dr. Kavadi had submitted a prior authorization request, but the patient’s health insurance was dragging its feet. And without prior authorization, Dr. Kavadi couldn’t schedule his patient’s first treatment.

“I chose the most cost-effective, standard treatment, but nothing could begin without the insurance company’s permission,” he said.

One of the most challenging aspects of the delay was explaining to his patient why he couldn’t schedule her treatment. “We would love to start, but your insurance company has not given us approval. The best I can do is give you a tentative appointment,” he recalled telling her.

After a few days with no word, calls to the insurance company began. “My patient called, I called, my office called,” Dr. Kavadi said. “It was a week or more of aggravation, stress, and time wasted for my patient and my team.”

This type of delay has become increasingly common in radiation oncology. One recent analysis estimated that 97% of radiation oncology services now require prior authorization under Medicare Advantage. And another analysis found that almost all radiation oncologists said prior authorization delays life-saving care for their patients.

The rise of prior authorization requirements may boil down to the fact that prior authorization is no longer reserved for uncertain or high-cost care. Terrence Cunningham, director of administrative simplification policy for the American Hospital Association, told this news organization last year that “prior authorization used to be applied only to new, costly, or high-risk services,” but now “many insurers require authorizations for even routine care, which is inappropriate.”

The growth of prior authorization requirements has forced many doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to dedicate part of their workday to handling requests and appealing denials and has forced many practices to hire staff exclusively for prior authorizations.

This additional work is costly.

One recent study found that the radiation oncology department of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., spent nearly $500,000 annually in employee time to obtain prior authorization for radiation therapy treatments. Extrapolated nationally, the researchers estimated that physicians’ annual compensation for prior authorization duties came to an estimated $46 million. Overall, 86% of these costs were for treatments that were ultimately approved, the majority on initial request and some on appeal.

Dr. Kavadi has five full-time employees dedicated to managing prior authorization requests and challenges.

And after a week of delays and hours on the phone with the insurer, his patient’s radiation treatment was ultimately approved.

Dr. Kavadi wondered why something so simple needed to be so onerous.

Stretching out an approval for a standard radiation treatment “feels like a means of intentionally delaying care,” Dr. Kavadi said. “This is an example of a process that has run so far amok. It’s just a burden across the board.”

And even with his 30 years of experience, “I still have to ask my business supervisor what I am allowed to do,” he said. “I can’t just proceed with what’s best for my patient, what the patient has consented to, and what also happens to be the least expensive option.”

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