Federal Practitioner

A monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19–related hospitalizations and death from any cause in the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial of outpatients.

Researchers, led by David Weinreich, MD, MBA, executive vice president of the drug cocktail’s manufacturer Regeneron, found in the randomized trial that the combination also resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more quickly, compared with placebo.

Findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

COVID-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1,355 patients (1.3%) in the group getting 2,400 mg infusions of the study drug, compared with 62 (4.6%) of 1,341 in the matching placebo group, indicating a relative risk reduction of 71.3%; P < .001.

Sunil Joshi, MD, president of the Duval County Medical Society Foundation and an immunologist in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview that these findings confirm benefits of REGEN-COV and are very good news for a patient group that includes those age 65 and older with high blood pressure, diabetes, or obesity; and for people not vaccinated, who are all at high risk of hospitalization or death if they get COVID-19.

“Vaccines are critically important,” he said, “but if you were to be infected and know that there’s a way to keep yourself out of the hospital, this is very good news.”
 

Researchers seek lowest doses

This trial found that the effect was similar when researchers cut the doses in half. These outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 (1%) of patients given 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV and in 24 (3.2%) of 748 in the matching placebo group (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = .002).

Symptoms were resolved on average 4 days earlier with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P < .001 for both comparisons).

Dr. Weinreich said in an interview that trials will continue to find the lowest effective doses that can stand up to all evolving variants.

“This is one of those settings where you don’t want to underdose. You’ve got one shot at this,” he said. “We’d love to do lower doses. It would be more convenient and we could treat more patients, but if it generates more clinical failures or doesn’t work with certain variants, then you’ve done a huge disservice to the world.”

Also new in this study is that researchers tested not only seronegative patients, but patients at high risk regardless of blood antibody status, he said.

“It’s the first suggestion of data that if you’re breaking through a vaccine and you’re at high risk, the use of the cocktail is something to strongly consider because treatment early is better than treatment later,” Dr. Weinreich said.

In addition to efficacy, the phase 3 trial demonstrated the cocktail had a good safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred more often in the placebo group (4%) than in the 1,200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2,400-mg group (1.3%). Infusion reactions (grade 2 or higher) occurred in less than 0.3% of patients in all groups. 

William Fales, MD, state medical director for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, said the results confirm the promise of REGEN-COV for reducing hospitalizations and death in a peer-reviewed publication.
 

COVID-19 a moving target

However, Dr. Fales noted that COVID-19 is a moving target with emerging variants. The criteria for populations at high risk have also broadened since the start of the study, he said.

“A great example is pregnancy is now included as high risk, and that would have likely been a specific contraindication of patients in this clinical trial,” he said.

Dr. Fales said Michigan has been using both REGEN-COV and the Eli Lilly combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which also has an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration, with positive results.

REGEN-COV has an EUA to treat people who are at high risk of serious consequences from COVID-19, including those who are already infected (nonhospitalized) or those in certain postexposure prophylaxis settings.

“We’re seeing very low hospitalization rates and few deaths in a state that is predominately Delta,” Dr. Fales said. “So, this makes us feel that we’re doing the right thing and supports the current efforts around the country to make monoclonal antibody therapy available to high-risk patients.”  

Dr. Joshi noted that trial results have been emerging from other monoclonal antibody cocktails with different COVID-19 patient groups.

However, he said in an interview, “how much more effective they would be than this is something we’d have to look at, as 71% effectiveness in keeping people out of the hospital is pretty good for any treatment.”

“These are great numbers, but vaccination itself keeps you from getting the disease in the first place and not just for a short time period. This treatment is just that – a treatment. It gets you through that episode but it doesn’t mean you won’t get sick again. You don’t develop an immune response as you do with the vaccine,” he said.

Dr. Weinreich agreed: “This is not a substitute for a vaccine except for the small group who get the vaccine and their bodies can’t respond to it because they’re significantly immunocompromised.”

The results from this paper “are one piece of a large, multistudy, phase 3 program that basically spans from prophylaxis all the way to hospitalization and pretty much the gamut – all of them – have worked. All of these studies have shown dramatic improvement in whatever the definitive regulatory endpoint is,” Dr. Weinreich said.

He said discussions are ongoing for full regulatory approval in the United States and for expanding the EUA for other populations, including pre-exposure prophylaxis, “which the [United Kingdom’s] authority has already granted us but the FDA has not.”

The study is funded by Regeneron and the Department of Health & Human Services. Dr. Weinreich is a vice president of Regeneron. Dr. Joshi reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fales holds stock in Eli Lilly.

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

A monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19–related hospitalizations and death from any cause in the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial of outpatients.

Researchers, led by David Weinreich, MD, MBA, executive vice president of the drug cocktail’s manufacturer Regeneron, found in the randomized trial that the combination also resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more quickly, compared with placebo.

Findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

COVID-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1,355 patients (1.3%) in the group getting 2,400 mg infusions of the study drug, compared with 62 (4.6%) of 1,341 in the matching placebo group, indicating a relative risk reduction of 71.3%; P < .001.

Sunil Joshi, MD, president of the Duval County Medical Society Foundation and an immunologist in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview that these findings confirm benefits of REGEN-COV and are very good news for a patient group that includes those age 65 and older with high blood pressure, diabetes, or obesity; and for people not vaccinated, who are all at high risk of hospitalization or death if they get COVID-19.

“Vaccines are critically important,” he said, “but if you were to be infected and know that there’s a way to keep yourself out of the hospital, this is very good news.”
 

Researchers seek lowest doses

This trial found that the effect was similar when researchers cut the doses in half. These outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 (1%) of patients given 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV and in 24 (3.2%) of 748 in the matching placebo group (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = .002).

Symptoms were resolved on average 4 days earlier with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P < .001 for both comparisons).

Dr. Weinreich said in an interview that trials will continue to find the lowest effective doses that can stand up to all evolving variants.

“This is one of those settings where you don’t want to underdose. You’ve got one shot at this,” he said. “We’d love to do lower doses. It would be more convenient and we could treat more patients, but if it generates more clinical failures or doesn’t work with certain variants, then you’ve done a huge disservice to the world.”

Also new in this study is that researchers tested not only seronegative patients, but patients at high risk regardless of blood antibody status, he said.

“It’s the first suggestion of data that if you’re breaking through a vaccine and you’re at high risk, the use of the cocktail is something to strongly consider because treatment early is better than treatment later,” Dr. Weinreich said.

In addition to efficacy, the phase 3 trial demonstrated the cocktail had a good safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred more often in the placebo group (4%) than in the 1,200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2,400-mg group (1.3%). Infusion reactions (grade 2 or higher) occurred in less than 0.3% of patients in all groups. 

William Fales, MD, state medical director for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, said the results confirm the promise of REGEN-COV for reducing hospitalizations and death in a peer-reviewed publication.
 

COVID-19 a moving target

However, Dr. Fales noted that COVID-19 is a moving target with emerging variants. The criteria for populations at high risk have also broadened since the start of the study, he said.

“A great example is pregnancy is now included as high risk, and that would have likely been a specific contraindication of patients in this clinical trial,” he said.

Dr. Fales said Michigan has been using both REGEN-COV and the Eli Lilly combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which also has an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration, with positive results.

REGEN-COV has an EUA to treat people who are at high risk of serious consequences from COVID-19, including those who are already infected (nonhospitalized) or those in certain postexposure prophylaxis settings.

“We’re seeing very low hospitalization rates and few deaths in a state that is predominately Delta,” Dr. Fales said. “So, this makes us feel that we’re doing the right thing and supports the current efforts around the country to make monoclonal antibody therapy available to high-risk patients.”  

Dr. Joshi noted that trial results have been emerging from other monoclonal antibody cocktails with different COVID-19 patient groups.

However, he said in an interview, “how much more effective they would be than this is something we’d have to look at, as 71% effectiveness in keeping people out of the hospital is pretty good for any treatment.”

“These are great numbers, but vaccination itself keeps you from getting the disease in the first place and not just for a short time period. This treatment is just that – a treatment. It gets you through that episode but it doesn’t mean you won’t get sick again. You don’t develop an immune response as you do with the vaccine,” he said.

Dr. Weinreich agreed: “This is not a substitute for a vaccine except for the small group who get the vaccine and their bodies can’t respond to it because they’re significantly immunocompromised.”

The results from this paper “are one piece of a large, multistudy, phase 3 program that basically spans from prophylaxis all the way to hospitalization and pretty much the gamut – all of them – have worked. All of these studies have shown dramatic improvement in whatever the definitive regulatory endpoint is,” Dr. Weinreich said.

He said discussions are ongoing for full regulatory approval in the United States and for expanding the EUA for other populations, including pre-exposure prophylaxis, “which the [United Kingdom’s] authority has already granted us but the FDA has not.”

The study is funded by Regeneron and the Department of Health & Human Services. Dr. Weinreich is a vice president of Regeneron. Dr. Joshi reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fales holds stock in Eli Lilly.

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

A monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV) significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19–related hospitalizations and death from any cause in the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial of outpatients.

Researchers, led by David Weinreich, MD, MBA, executive vice president of the drug cocktail’s manufacturer Regeneron, found in the randomized trial that the combination also resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more quickly, compared with placebo.

Findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

COVID-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1,355 patients (1.3%) in the group getting 2,400 mg infusions of the study drug, compared with 62 (4.6%) of 1,341 in the matching placebo group, indicating a relative risk reduction of 71.3%; P < .001.

Sunil Joshi, MD, president of the Duval County Medical Society Foundation and an immunologist in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview that these findings confirm benefits of REGEN-COV and are very good news for a patient group that includes those age 65 and older with high blood pressure, diabetes, or obesity; and for people not vaccinated, who are all at high risk of hospitalization or death if they get COVID-19.

“Vaccines are critically important,” he said, “but if you were to be infected and know that there’s a way to keep yourself out of the hospital, this is very good news.”
 

Researchers seek lowest doses

This trial found that the effect was similar when researchers cut the doses in half. These outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 (1%) of patients given 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV and in 24 (3.2%) of 748 in the matching placebo group (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = .002).

Symptoms were resolved on average 4 days earlier with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P < .001 for both comparisons).

Dr. Weinreich said in an interview that trials will continue to find the lowest effective doses that can stand up to all evolving variants.

“This is one of those settings where you don’t want to underdose. You’ve got one shot at this,” he said. “We’d love to do lower doses. It would be more convenient and we could treat more patients, but if it generates more clinical failures or doesn’t work with certain variants, then you’ve done a huge disservice to the world.”

Also new in this study is that researchers tested not only seronegative patients, but patients at high risk regardless of blood antibody status, he said.

“It’s the first suggestion of data that if you’re breaking through a vaccine and you’re at high risk, the use of the cocktail is something to strongly consider because treatment early is better than treatment later,” Dr. Weinreich said.

In addition to efficacy, the phase 3 trial demonstrated the cocktail had a good safety profile. Serious adverse events occurred more often in the placebo group (4%) than in the 1,200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2,400-mg group (1.3%). Infusion reactions (grade 2 or higher) occurred in less than 0.3% of patients in all groups. 

William Fales, MD, state medical director for the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, said the results confirm the promise of REGEN-COV for reducing hospitalizations and death in a peer-reviewed publication.
 

COVID-19 a moving target

However, Dr. Fales noted that COVID-19 is a moving target with emerging variants. The criteria for populations at high risk have also broadened since the start of the study, he said.

“A great example is pregnancy is now included as high risk, and that would have likely been a specific contraindication of patients in this clinical trial,” he said.

Dr. Fales said Michigan has been using both REGEN-COV and the Eli Lilly combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab, which also has an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration, with positive results.

REGEN-COV has an EUA to treat people who are at high risk of serious consequences from COVID-19, including those who are already infected (nonhospitalized) or those in certain postexposure prophylaxis settings.

“We’re seeing very low hospitalization rates and few deaths in a state that is predominately Delta,” Dr. Fales said. “So, this makes us feel that we’re doing the right thing and supports the current efforts around the country to make monoclonal antibody therapy available to high-risk patients.”  

Dr. Joshi noted that trial results have been emerging from other monoclonal antibody cocktails with different COVID-19 patient groups.

However, he said in an interview, “how much more effective they would be than this is something we’d have to look at, as 71% effectiveness in keeping people out of the hospital is pretty good for any treatment.”

“These are great numbers, but vaccination itself keeps you from getting the disease in the first place and not just for a short time period. This treatment is just that – a treatment. It gets you through that episode but it doesn’t mean you won’t get sick again. You don’t develop an immune response as you do with the vaccine,” he said.

Dr. Weinreich agreed: “This is not a substitute for a vaccine except for the small group who get the vaccine and their bodies can’t respond to it because they’re significantly immunocompromised.”

The results from this paper “are one piece of a large, multistudy, phase 3 program that basically spans from prophylaxis all the way to hospitalization and pretty much the gamut – all of them – have worked. All of these studies have shown dramatic improvement in whatever the definitive regulatory endpoint is,” Dr. Weinreich said.

He said discussions are ongoing for full regulatory approval in the United States and for expanding the EUA for other populations, including pre-exposure prophylaxis, “which the [United Kingdom’s] authority has already granted us but the FDA has not.”

The study is funded by Regeneron and the Department of Health & Human Services. Dr. Weinreich is a vice president of Regeneron. Dr. Joshi reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fales holds stock in Eli Lilly.

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

Telehealth use, although much higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, accounted for less than 20% of weekly outpatient visits 6 months into the pandemic, according to a new report from the American Medical Association. Ten percent of weekly visits were conducted via videoconferencing, and 8.1% of visits were conducted using the telephone.

Those figures may overstate the true level of telehealth use in fall 2020. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, Boston, and Phreesia found that in December of that year, only 8% of outpatient visits involved the use of telemedicine – and that was up from 6% in October. In contrast to the AMA results, which came from its 2020 benchmark survey of physicians, the Commonwealth Fund study used data from practice management systems and an online patient registration platform, as well as electronic health record data.

A more recent survey of hospital executives found that as of September 2021, hospital telehealth visits had leveled off at 10% to 20% of appointments. Similarly, a McKinsey survey in July showed that telehealth encounters made up 13% to 17% of evaluation and management visits across all specialties.

RichLegg/E+

Big jump during pandemic

The AMA report offers a wealth of data on how physicians use telehealth and the differences between specialties in this area.

The report found that 70.3% of physicians worked in practices that used videoconferencing to provide patient visits in September 2020, compared to 14.3% of physicians in September 2018. Sixty-seven percent of physicians worked in practices that used telephone visits (the comparable figure for 2018 was unavailable).

Overall, 79% of physicians worked in a practice that used telehealth, compared to 25% in 2018.

Not every doctor in practices that utilized telehealth conducted virtual visits. In contrast to the 70.3% of doctors who were in practices that had video visits, only 59.1% of the respondents had personally conducted a videoconferencing visit in the previous week. The average numbers of weekly video and telephone visits per physician were 9.9 and 7.6, respectively, including those who did none.

There were big differences in virtual visit use among specialties as well. Eighty-five percent of psychiatrists were in practices that provided online appointments, according to the AMA survey, and three-quarters of primary care physicians said their practices offered telehealth appointments. Pediatricians were much less likely than family practice/general practice physicians (FPs/GPs) or general internists to do so.

The practices of many medical specialists were also highly likely to provide telehealth. Over 75% of practices in cardiology, endocrinology/diabetes, gastroenterology, nephrology, and neurology offered telehealth visits. About 88% of hematologists/oncologists offered video visits. Far fewer surgeons reported that their practice used virtual visits; the exceptions were urologists and dermatologists, 87% of whose practices used telehealth.
 

How telehealth was used

Across all specialties, 58% of physicians said clinicians in their practices used it to diagnose or treat patients; 59.2%, to manage patients with chronic disease; 50.4%, to provide acute care; and 34.3%, to provide preventive care.

Seventy-two percent of FP/GP and pediatric practices used telehealth to diagnose or treat patients. Just 64.9% of internists said their practices did so, and only 61.9% of them said their practices provided acute care via telehealth, versus 70% of FPs/GPs and pediatricians.

Among medical specialties, endocrinologists/diabetes physicians were those most likely to report the practice-level use of telehealth to diagnose or treat patients (71.9%), manage patients with chronic disease (92.1%), and provide preventive care (52.6%).

Significantly, 33% of medical specialists said their practices used remote patient monitoring. This finding was driven by high rates of use among cardiology practices (63.3%) and endocrinology practices (41.6%). Overall, the practice-level use of remote patient monitoring rose from 10.4% of practices in 2018 to 19.9% in 2020.
 

Virtual consults with peers

Some practices used telehealth to enable physicians to consult with colleagues. Twelve percent of respondents said their practices used telehealth to seek a second opinion from a health care professional in 2020, compared to 6.9% in 2018. Formal consultations via telehealth were also increasingly common: 17.2% of doctors said their practices did this in 2020, compared to 11.3% in 2018.

Also of note, 22.4% of physicians said their practices used telehealth for after-hours care or night calls in 2020, versus 9.9% in 2018.

The AMA report credited telehealth and expanded coverage and payment rules for enabling physician practices to keep their revenue streams positive and their practices open. However, the Commonwealth Fund study found “a substantial cumulative reduction in visits across all specialties over the course of the pandemic in 2020.” These ranged from a drop of 27% in pediatric visits to a decline of 8% in rheumatology visits during the period from March to December 2020.

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

Telehealth use, although much higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, accounted for less than 20% of weekly outpatient visits 6 months into the pandemic, according to a new report from the American Medical Association. Ten percent of weekly visits were conducted via videoconferencing, and 8.1% of visits were conducted using the telephone.

Those figures may overstate the true level of telehealth use in fall 2020. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, Boston, and Phreesia found that in December of that year, only 8% of outpatient visits involved the use of telemedicine – and that was up from 6% in October. In contrast to the AMA results, which came from its 2020 benchmark survey of physicians, the Commonwealth Fund study used data from practice management systems and an online patient registration platform, as well as electronic health record data.

A more recent survey of hospital executives found that as of September 2021, hospital telehealth visits had leveled off at 10% to 20% of appointments. Similarly, a McKinsey survey in July showed that telehealth encounters made up 13% to 17% of evaluation and management visits across all specialties.

RichLegg/E+

Big jump during pandemic

The AMA report offers a wealth of data on how physicians use telehealth and the differences between specialties in this area.

The report found that 70.3% of physicians worked in practices that used videoconferencing to provide patient visits in September 2020, compared to 14.3% of physicians in September 2018. Sixty-seven percent of physicians worked in practices that used telephone visits (the comparable figure for 2018 was unavailable).

Overall, 79% of physicians worked in a practice that used telehealth, compared to 25% in 2018.

Not every doctor in practices that utilized telehealth conducted virtual visits. In contrast to the 70.3% of doctors who were in practices that had video visits, only 59.1% of the respondents had personally conducted a videoconferencing visit in the previous week. The average numbers of weekly video and telephone visits per physician were 9.9 and 7.6, respectively, including those who did none.

There were big differences in virtual visit use among specialties as well. Eighty-five percent of psychiatrists were in practices that provided online appointments, according to the AMA survey, and three-quarters of primary care physicians said their practices offered telehealth appointments. Pediatricians were much less likely than family practice/general practice physicians (FPs/GPs) or general internists to do so.

The practices of many medical specialists were also highly likely to provide telehealth. Over 75% of practices in cardiology, endocrinology/diabetes, gastroenterology, nephrology, and neurology offered telehealth visits. About 88% of hematologists/oncologists offered video visits. Far fewer surgeons reported that their practice used virtual visits; the exceptions were urologists and dermatologists, 87% of whose practices used telehealth.
 

How telehealth was used

Across all specialties, 58% of physicians said clinicians in their practices used it to diagnose or treat patients; 59.2%, to manage patients with chronic disease; 50.4%, to provide acute care; and 34.3%, to provide preventive care.

Seventy-two percent of FP/GP and pediatric practices used telehealth to diagnose or treat patients. Just 64.9% of internists said their practices did so, and only 61.9% of them said their practices provided acute care via telehealth, versus 70% of FPs/GPs and pediatricians.

Among medical specialties, endocrinologists/diabetes physicians were those most likely to report the practice-level use of telehealth to diagnose or treat patients (71.9%), manage patients with chronic disease (92.1%), and provide preventive care (52.6%).

Significantly, 33% of medical specialists said their practices used remote patient monitoring. This finding was driven by high rates of use among cardiology practices (63.3%) and endocrinology practices (41.6%). Overall, the practice-level use of remote patient monitoring rose from 10.4% of practices in 2018 to 19.9% in 2020.
 

Virtual consults with peers

Some practices used telehealth to enable physicians to consult with colleagues. Twelve percent of respondents said their practices used telehealth to seek a second opinion from a health care professional in 2020, compared to 6.9% in 2018. Formal consultations via telehealth were also increasingly common: 17.2% of doctors said their practices did this in 2020, compared to 11.3% in 2018.

Also of note, 22.4% of physicians said their practices used telehealth for after-hours care or night calls in 2020, versus 9.9% in 2018.

The AMA report credited telehealth and expanded coverage and payment rules for enabling physician practices to keep their revenue streams positive and their practices open. However, the Commonwealth Fund study found “a substantial cumulative reduction in visits across all specialties over the course of the pandemic in 2020.” These ranged from a drop of 27% in pediatric visits to a decline of 8% in rheumatology visits during the period from March to December 2020.

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

Telehealth use, although much higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic, accounted for less than 20% of weekly outpatient visits 6 months into the pandemic, according to a new report from the American Medical Association. Ten percent of weekly visits were conducted via videoconferencing, and 8.1% of visits were conducted using the telephone.

Those figures may overstate the true level of telehealth use in fall 2020. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, Harvard University, Boston, and Phreesia found that in December of that year, only 8% of outpatient visits involved the use of telemedicine – and that was up from 6% in October. In contrast to the AMA results, which came from its 2020 benchmark survey of physicians, the Commonwealth Fund study used data from practice management systems and an online patient registration platform, as well as electronic health record data.

A more recent survey of hospital executives found that as of September 2021, hospital telehealth visits had leveled off at 10% to 20% of appointments. Similarly, a McKinsey survey in July showed that telehealth encounters made up 13% to 17% of evaluation and management visits across all specialties.

RichLegg/E+

Big jump during pandemic

The AMA report offers a wealth of data on how physicians use telehealth and the differences between specialties in this area.

The report found that 70.3% of physicians worked in practices that used videoconferencing to provide patient visits in September 2020, compared to 14.3% of physicians in September 2018. Sixty-seven percent of physicians worked in practices that used telephone visits (the comparable figure for 2018 was unavailable).

Overall, 79% of physicians worked in a practice that used telehealth, compared to 25% in 2018.

Not every doctor in practices that utilized telehealth conducted virtual visits. In contrast to the 70.3% of doctors who were in practices that had video visits, only 59.1% of the respondents had personally conducted a videoconferencing visit in the previous week. The average numbers of weekly video and telephone visits per physician were 9.9 and 7.6, respectively, including those who did none.

There were big differences in virtual visit use among specialties as well. Eighty-five percent of psychiatrists were in practices that provided online appointments, according to the AMA survey, and three-quarters of primary care physicians said their practices offered telehealth appointments. Pediatricians were much less likely than family practice/general practice physicians (FPs/GPs) or general internists to do so.

The practices of many medical specialists were also highly likely to provide telehealth. Over 75% of practices in cardiology, endocrinology/diabetes, gastroenterology, nephrology, and neurology offered telehealth visits. About 88% of hematologists/oncologists offered video visits. Far fewer surgeons reported that their practice used virtual visits; the exceptions were urologists and dermatologists, 87% of whose practices used telehealth.
 

How telehealth was used

Across all specialties, 58% of physicians said clinicians in their practices used it to diagnose or treat patients; 59.2%, to manage patients with chronic disease; 50.4%, to provide acute care; and 34.3%, to provide preventive care.

Seventy-two percent of FP/GP and pediatric practices used telehealth to diagnose or treat patients. Just 64.9% of internists said their practices did so, and only 61.9% of them said their practices provided acute care via telehealth, versus 70% of FPs/GPs and pediatricians.

Among medical specialties, endocrinologists/diabetes physicians were those most likely to report the practice-level use of telehealth to diagnose or treat patients (71.9%), manage patients with chronic disease (92.1%), and provide preventive care (52.6%).

Significantly, 33% of medical specialists said their practices used remote patient monitoring. This finding was driven by high rates of use among cardiology practices (63.3%) and endocrinology practices (41.6%). Overall, the practice-level use of remote patient monitoring rose from 10.4% of practices in 2018 to 19.9% in 2020.
 

Virtual consults with peers

Some practices used telehealth to enable physicians to consult with colleagues. Twelve percent of respondents said their practices used telehealth to seek a second opinion from a health care professional in 2020, compared to 6.9% in 2018. Formal consultations via telehealth were also increasingly common: 17.2% of doctors said their practices did this in 2020, compared to 11.3% in 2018.

Also of note, 22.4% of physicians said their practices used telehealth for after-hours care or night calls in 2020, versus 9.9% in 2018.

The AMA report credited telehealth and expanded coverage and payment rules for enabling physician practices to keep their revenue streams positive and their practices open. However, the Commonwealth Fund study found “a substantial cumulative reduction in visits across all specialties over the course of the pandemic in 2020.” These ranged from a drop of 27% in pediatric visits to a decline of 8% in rheumatology visits during the period from March to December 2020.

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

Adherence to the MIND diet can improve memory and thinking skills of older adults, even in the presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology, new data from the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) show.

Suprijono Suharjoto/Fotolia

“The MIND diet was associated with better cognitive functions independently of brain pathologies related to Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting that diet may contribute to cognitive resilience, which ultimately indicates that it is never too late for dementia prevention,” lead author Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, with the Rush Institute of Healthy Aging at Rush University, Chicago, said in an interview.

The study was published online Sept. 14, 2021, in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

Impact on brain pathology

“While previous investigations determined that the MIND diet is associated with a slower cognitive decline, the current study furthered the diet and brain health evidence by assessing the impact of brain pathology in the diet-cognition relationship,” Dr. Dhana said.

The MIND diet was pioneered by the late Martha Clare Morris, ScD, a Rush nutritional epidemiologist, who died in 2020 of cancer at age 64. A hybrid of the Mediterranean and DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets, the MIND diet includes green leafy vegetables, fish, nuts, berries, beans, and whole grains and limits consumption of fried and fast foods, sweets, and pastries.

The current study focused on 569 older adults who died while participating in the MAP study, which began in 1997. Participants in the study were mostly White and were without known dementia. All of the participants agreed to undergo annual clinical evaluations. They also agreed to undergo brain autopsy after death.

Beginning in 2004, participants completed annual food frequency questionnaires, which were used to calculate a MIND diet score based on how often the participants ate specific foods.

The researchers used a series of regression analyses to examine associations of the MIND diet, dementia-related brain pathologies, and global cognition near the time of death. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, apo E4, late-life cognitive activities, and total energy intake.

The results show that a higher MIND diet score was associated with better global cognitive functioning around the time of death (beta, 0.119; P = .003).

Notably, the researchers said, neither the strength nor the significance of association changed markedly when AD pathology and other brain pathologies were included in the model (beta, 0.111; P = .003).

The relationship between better adherence to the MIND diet and better cognition remained significant when the analysis was restricted to individuals without mild cognitive impairment at baseline (beta, 0.121; P = .005) as well as to persons in whom a postmortem diagnosis of AD was made on the basis of NIA-Reagan consensus recommendations (beta, 0.114; P = .023).

The limitations of the study include the reliance on self-reported diet information and a sample made up of mostly White volunteers who agreed to annual evaluations and postmortem organ donation, thus limiting generalizability.

Strengths of the study include the prospective design with annual assessment of cognitive function using standardized tests and collection of the dietary information using validated questionnaires. Also, the neuropathologic evaluations were performed by examiners blinded to clinical data.

“Diet changes can impact cognitive functioning and risk of dementia, for better or worse. There are fairly simple diet and lifestyle changes a person could make that may help to slow cognitive decline with aging and contribute to brain health,” Dr. Dhana said in a news release.
 

Builds resilience

Weighing in on the study, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this “interesting study sheds light on the impact of nutrition on cognitive function.

“The findings add to the growing literature that lifestyle factors – like access to a heart-healthy diet – may help the brain be more resilient to disease-specific changes,” Snyder said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association’s US POINTER study is investigating how lifestyle interventions, including nutrition guidance, like the MIND diet, may impact a person’s risk of cognitive decline. An ancillary study of the US POINTER will include brain imaging to investigate how these lifestyle interventions impact the biology of the brain,” Dr. Snyder noted.

The research was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dhana and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adherence to the MIND diet can improve memory and thinking skills of older adults, even in the presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology, new data from the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) show.

Suprijono Suharjoto/Fotolia

“The MIND diet was associated with better cognitive functions independently of brain pathologies related to Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting that diet may contribute to cognitive resilience, which ultimately indicates that it is never too late for dementia prevention,” lead author Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, with the Rush Institute of Healthy Aging at Rush University, Chicago, said in an interview.

The study was published online Sept. 14, 2021, in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

Impact on brain pathology

“While previous investigations determined that the MIND diet is associated with a slower cognitive decline, the current study furthered the diet and brain health evidence by assessing the impact of brain pathology in the diet-cognition relationship,” Dr. Dhana said.

The MIND diet was pioneered by the late Martha Clare Morris, ScD, a Rush nutritional epidemiologist, who died in 2020 of cancer at age 64. A hybrid of the Mediterranean and DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets, the MIND diet includes green leafy vegetables, fish, nuts, berries, beans, and whole grains and limits consumption of fried and fast foods, sweets, and pastries.

The current study focused on 569 older adults who died while participating in the MAP study, which began in 1997. Participants in the study were mostly White and were without known dementia. All of the participants agreed to undergo annual clinical evaluations. They also agreed to undergo brain autopsy after death.

Beginning in 2004, participants completed annual food frequency questionnaires, which were used to calculate a MIND diet score based on how often the participants ate specific foods.

The researchers used a series of regression analyses to examine associations of the MIND diet, dementia-related brain pathologies, and global cognition near the time of death. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, apo E4, late-life cognitive activities, and total energy intake.

The results show that a higher MIND diet score was associated with better global cognitive functioning around the time of death (beta, 0.119; P = .003).

Notably, the researchers said, neither the strength nor the significance of association changed markedly when AD pathology and other brain pathologies were included in the model (beta, 0.111; P = .003).

The relationship between better adherence to the MIND diet and better cognition remained significant when the analysis was restricted to individuals without mild cognitive impairment at baseline (beta, 0.121; P = .005) as well as to persons in whom a postmortem diagnosis of AD was made on the basis of NIA-Reagan consensus recommendations (beta, 0.114; P = .023).

The limitations of the study include the reliance on self-reported diet information and a sample made up of mostly White volunteers who agreed to annual evaluations and postmortem organ donation, thus limiting generalizability.

Strengths of the study include the prospective design with annual assessment of cognitive function using standardized tests and collection of the dietary information using validated questionnaires. Also, the neuropathologic evaluations were performed by examiners blinded to clinical data.

“Diet changes can impact cognitive functioning and risk of dementia, for better or worse. There are fairly simple diet and lifestyle changes a person could make that may help to slow cognitive decline with aging and contribute to brain health,” Dr. Dhana said in a news release.
 

Builds resilience

Weighing in on the study, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this “interesting study sheds light on the impact of nutrition on cognitive function.

“The findings add to the growing literature that lifestyle factors – like access to a heart-healthy diet – may help the brain be more resilient to disease-specific changes,” Snyder said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association’s US POINTER study is investigating how lifestyle interventions, including nutrition guidance, like the MIND diet, may impact a person’s risk of cognitive decline. An ancillary study of the US POINTER will include brain imaging to investigate how these lifestyle interventions impact the biology of the brain,” Dr. Snyder noted.

The research was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dhana and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adherence to the MIND diet can improve memory and thinking skills of older adults, even in the presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology, new data from the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) show.

Suprijono Suharjoto/Fotolia

“The MIND diet was associated with better cognitive functions independently of brain pathologies related to Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting that diet may contribute to cognitive resilience, which ultimately indicates that it is never too late for dementia prevention,” lead author Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, with the Rush Institute of Healthy Aging at Rush University, Chicago, said in an interview.

The study was published online Sept. 14, 2021, in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.
 

Impact on brain pathology

“While previous investigations determined that the MIND diet is associated with a slower cognitive decline, the current study furthered the diet and brain health evidence by assessing the impact of brain pathology in the diet-cognition relationship,” Dr. Dhana said.

The MIND diet was pioneered by the late Martha Clare Morris, ScD, a Rush nutritional epidemiologist, who died in 2020 of cancer at age 64. A hybrid of the Mediterranean and DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diets, the MIND diet includes green leafy vegetables, fish, nuts, berries, beans, and whole grains and limits consumption of fried and fast foods, sweets, and pastries.

The current study focused on 569 older adults who died while participating in the MAP study, which began in 1997. Participants in the study were mostly White and were without known dementia. All of the participants agreed to undergo annual clinical evaluations. They also agreed to undergo brain autopsy after death.

Beginning in 2004, participants completed annual food frequency questionnaires, which were used to calculate a MIND diet score based on how often the participants ate specific foods.

The researchers used a series of regression analyses to examine associations of the MIND diet, dementia-related brain pathologies, and global cognition near the time of death. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, education, apo E4, late-life cognitive activities, and total energy intake.

The results show that a higher MIND diet score was associated with better global cognitive functioning around the time of death (beta, 0.119; P = .003).

Notably, the researchers said, neither the strength nor the significance of association changed markedly when AD pathology and other brain pathologies were included in the model (beta, 0.111; P = .003).

The relationship between better adherence to the MIND diet and better cognition remained significant when the analysis was restricted to individuals without mild cognitive impairment at baseline (beta, 0.121; P = .005) as well as to persons in whom a postmortem diagnosis of AD was made on the basis of NIA-Reagan consensus recommendations (beta, 0.114; P = .023).

The limitations of the study include the reliance on self-reported diet information and a sample made up of mostly White volunteers who agreed to annual evaluations and postmortem organ donation, thus limiting generalizability.

Strengths of the study include the prospective design with annual assessment of cognitive function using standardized tests and collection of the dietary information using validated questionnaires. Also, the neuropathologic evaluations were performed by examiners blinded to clinical data.

“Diet changes can impact cognitive functioning and risk of dementia, for better or worse. There are fairly simple diet and lifestyle changes a person could make that may help to slow cognitive decline with aging and contribute to brain health,” Dr. Dhana said in a news release.
 

Builds resilience

Weighing in on the study, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, said this “interesting study sheds light on the impact of nutrition on cognitive function.

“The findings add to the growing literature that lifestyle factors – like access to a heart-healthy diet – may help the brain be more resilient to disease-specific changes,” Snyder said in an interview.

“The Alzheimer’s Association’s US POINTER study is investigating how lifestyle interventions, including nutrition guidance, like the MIND diet, may impact a person’s risk of cognitive decline. An ancillary study of the US POINTER will include brain imaging to investigate how these lifestyle interventions impact the biology of the brain,” Dr. Snyder noted.

The research was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Dhana and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.

Research released this week could change that.

Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.

More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.

But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.

“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.

The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

A good first step?

“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.” 

“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”

The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
 

Recruitment realities

When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”

“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.

Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.

“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”

“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.

Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
 

Key findings

A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).

In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.

In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).

The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).

“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
 

Inducement vs. coercion

The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey. 

Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.

After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
 

Research implications

A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.

“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”

“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
 

Responding to criticism

The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”

Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”

There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.

“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.  

The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”

“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.

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

Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.

Research released this week could change that.

Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.

More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.

But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.

“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.

The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

A good first step?

“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.” 

“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”

The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
 

Recruitment realities

When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”

“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.

Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.

“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”

“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.

Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
 

Key findings

A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).

In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.

In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).

The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).

“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
 

Inducement vs. coercion

The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey. 

Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.

After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
 

Research implications

A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.

“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”

“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
 

Responding to criticism

The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”

Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”

There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.

“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.  

The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”

“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.

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

Paying people to participate in clinical trials remains controversial. But to date, most reservations are based on hypothetical scenarios or expert opinion with few real-world data to support them.

Research released this week could change that.

Investigators offered nearly 1,300 participants in two clinical trials either no payment or incentives up to $500 to partake in a smoking cessation study or an analysis of a behavioral intervention to increase ambulation in hospitalized patients.

More cash was associated with greater agreement to participate in the smoking cessation study but not the ambulation trial.

But the bigger news may be that offering payment did not appear to get people to accept more risks or skew participation to lower-income individuals, as some ethicists have warned.

“With the publication of our study, investigators finally have data that they can cite to put to rest any lingering concerns about offering moderate incentives in low-risk trials,” lead author Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, the John M. Eisenberg Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

This initial real-world data centers on low-risk interventions and more research is needed to analyze the ethics and effectiveness of paying people to join clinical trials with more inherent risk, the researchers note.

The study was published online Sept. 20 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

A good first step?

“Payments to research participants are notoriously controversial. Many people oppose payments altogether or insist on minimal payments out of concern that people might be unduly influenced to participate,” Ana S. Iltis, PhD, told this news organization when asked for comment. “Others worry that incentives will disproportionately motivate the less well-off to participate.” 

“This is an important study that begins to assess whether these concerns are justified in a real-world context,” added Dr. Iltis, director of the Center for Bioethics, Health and Society and professor of philosophy at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.

In an accompanying invited commentary, Sang Ngo, Anthony S. Kim, MD, and Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, write: “This work is welcome, as it presents experimental data to a bioethical debate that so far has been largely driven by conjecture and competing suppositions.”

The commentary authors, however, question the conclusiveness of the findings. “Interpreting the authors’ findings is complex and illustrates some of the challenges inherent to applying empirical data to ethical problems,” they write.
 

Recruitment realities

When asked his advice for researchers considering financial incentives, Dr. Halpern said: “All researchers would happily include incentives in their trial budgets if not for concerns that the sponsor or institutional review board might not approve of them.”

“By far the biggest threat to a trial’s success is the inability to enroll enough participants,” he added.

Dr. Iltis agreed, framing the need to boost enrollment in ethical terms. “There is another important ethical issue that often gets ignored, and that is the issue of studies that fail to enroll enough participants and are never completed or are underpowered,” she said.

“These studies end up exposing people to research risks and burdens without a compensating social benefit.”

“If incentives help to increase enrollment and do not necessarily result in undue influence or unfair participant selection, then there might be ethical reasons to offer incentives,” Dr. Iltis added.

Building on previous work assessing financial incentives in hypothetical clinical trials, Dr. Halpern and colleagues studied 654 participants with major depressive disorder in a smoking cessation trial. They also studied another 642 participants in a study that compared a gamification strategy to usual care for encouraging hospitalized patients to get out of bed and walk.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues randomly assigned people in the smoking cessation study to receive no financial compensation, $200, or $500. In the ambulation trial, participants were randomly allocated to receive no compensation, $100, or $300.
 

Key findings

A total of 22% of those offered no incentive enrolled in the smoking cessation study. In contrast, 36% offered $200 agreed, as did 47% of those offered $500, which the investigators say supports offering cash incentives to boost enrollment. The differences were significant (P < .001).

In contrast, the amount offered did not significantly incentivize more people to participate in the ambulation trial (P = .62). Rates were 45% with no compensation, 48% with $100 payment, and 43% with $300 payment.

In an analysis that adjusted for demographic differences, financial well-being, and Research Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ-7) scores, each increase in cash incentive increased the odds of enrollment in the smoking cessation trial by 70% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.17).

The same effect was not seen in the ambulation trial, where each higher cash incentive did not make a significant difference (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22).

“The ambulation trial was a lower-risk trial in which patients’ willingness to participate was higher in general. So there were likely fewer people whose participation decisions could be influenced by offers of money,” Dr. Halpern said.
 

Inducement vs. coercion

The incentives in the study “did not function as unjust inducements, as they were not preferentially motivating across groups with different income levels or financial well-being in either trial,” the researchers note.

Dr. Halpern and colleagues also checked for any perceptions of coercion. More than 70% of participants in each smoking cessation trial group perceived no coercion, as did more than 93% of participants in each ambulation trial group, according to scores on a modified Perceived Coercion Scale of the MacArthur Admission Experience Survey. 

Furthermore, perception of risks did not significantly alter the association between cash incentives and enrollment in either trial.

After collecting the findings, Dr. Halpern and colleagues informed participants about their participation in RETAIN and explained the rationale for using different cash incentives. They also let all participants know they would ultimately receive the maximum incentive – either $500 or $300, depending on the trial.
 

Research implications

A study limitation was reliance on participant risk perception, as was an inability to measure perceived coercion among people who chose not to participant in the trials. Another potential limitation is that “neither of these parent trials posed particularly high risks. Future tests of incentives of different sizes, and in the context of higher-risk parent trials, including trials that test treatments of serious illnesses, are warranted,” the researchers note.

“While there are many more questions to ask and contexts in which to study the effects of incentives, this study calls on opponents of incentivizing research participants with money to be more humble,” Dr. Iltis said. “Incentives might not have the effects they assume they have and which they have long held make such incentives unethical.”

“I encourage researchers who are offering incentives to consider working with people doing ethics research to assess the effects of incentives in their studies,” Dr. Halpern said. “Real-world, as opposed to hypothetical studies that can improve our understanding of the impact of incentives can improve the ethical conduct of research over time.”
 

Responding to criticism

The authors of the invited commentary questioned the definitions Dr. Halpern and colleagues used for undue or unjust inducement. “Among bioethicists, there is no consensus about what counts as undue inducement or an unjust distribution of research burdens. In this article, the authors have operationalized these constructs based on their own interpretations of undue and unjust inducement, which may not capture all the concerns that scholars have raised about inducement.”

Asked to respond to this and other criticisms raised in the commentary, Dr. Halpern said: “Did our study answer all possible questions about incentives? Absolutely not. But when it comes to incentives for research participation, an ounce of data is worth a pound of conjecture.”

There was agreement, however, that the findings could now put the onus on opponents of financial incentives for trial participants.

“I agree with the commentary’s authors that our study essentially shifts the burden of proof, such that, as they say, ‘those who would limit [incentives’] application may owe us an applicable criterion,’ ” Dr. Halpern said.  

The authors of the invited commentary also criticized use of the study’s noninferiority design to rule out undue or unjust inducement. They note this design “may be unfamiliar to many bioethicists and can place substantial evaluative demands on readers.”

“As for the authors’ claim that noninferiority designs are difficult to interpret and unfamiliar to most clinicians and ethicists, I certainly agree,” Dr. Halpern said. “But that is hardly a reason to not employ the most rigorous methods possible to answer important questions.”

The study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute.

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

Sexual harassment or assault during military service among young and middle-aged veterans is associated with an increased risk for hypertension, a new study suggests.

“Understanding a patient’s trauma history is invaluable for treating the whole person,” Allison E. Gaffey, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, told this news organization.

“Assessing men and women’s history of trauma, including sexual trauma, is critical for recognizing nontraditional factors that contribute to their cardiovascular risk and to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their mental and physical health,” Dr. Gaffey added.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
 

Lasting impact on physical health

Dr. Gaffey and colleagues analyzed data from the VA for roughly 1.2 million veterans (mean age, 30.2 years; 12% female) who were discharged from the military after Sept. 30, 2001, and who received health care services at VA medical centers from 2001 to 2017. 

All were screened for sexual harassment and assault, known as military sexual trauma (MST), when they first began receiving VA care.

During 16 years of follow-up, 33,881 veterans screened positive for MST (65% women), and 307,332 developed hypertension (15% women).

Overall, MST was associated with a 30% increase in risk for incident hypertension in unadjusted models (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.33; P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, cardiovascular comorbidities, PTSD, anxiety, and depression, MST remained significantly associated with hypertension (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12; P < .001).

When women and men were examined separately, the link between MST and risk for hypertension remained for both groups, but was slightly stronger among women.

“Sexual trauma has been associated with autonomic dysfunction, inflammation, and dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which could lead to elevations in BP over time,” Dr. Gaffey told this news organization.

“These findings show that even many years after being discharged from military service, exposure to military sexual trauma can continue to significantly influence veterans’ physical health,” she added.

Dr. Gaffey said it will be important to determine if early treatment of MST improves hypertension risk, particularly among those showing elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension.
 

Social determinants of health

Willie Lawrence Jr., MD, head of the AHA National Hypertension Control Initiative oversight committee, said the findings in this study are “in line with what we know about the impact of social determinants of health on high blood pressure.”

“There are studies that suggest that things that we historically don’t look at as risk factors for hypertension – lifelong racism, crime, mental health status – do in fact predict your risk of developing hypertension,” Dr. Lawrence, from Spectrum Health in Benton Harbor, Mich., told this news organization.

“It’s not just your genetics that will determine your health, and there are a lot of things that will affect your blood pressure. Your blood pressure is really just a barometer of everything that’s going on in your life and some of the things that have gone on in your life in the past,” added Dr. Lawrence, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Gaffey and Dr. Lawrence have no relevant disclosures.

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

Sexual harassment or assault during military service among young and middle-aged veterans is associated with an increased risk for hypertension, a new study suggests.

“Understanding a patient’s trauma history is invaluable for treating the whole person,” Allison E. Gaffey, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, told this news organization.

“Assessing men and women’s history of trauma, including sexual trauma, is critical for recognizing nontraditional factors that contribute to their cardiovascular risk and to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their mental and physical health,” Dr. Gaffey added.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
 

Lasting impact on physical health

Dr. Gaffey and colleagues analyzed data from the VA for roughly 1.2 million veterans (mean age, 30.2 years; 12% female) who were discharged from the military after Sept. 30, 2001, and who received health care services at VA medical centers from 2001 to 2017. 

All were screened for sexual harassment and assault, known as military sexual trauma (MST), when they first began receiving VA care.

During 16 years of follow-up, 33,881 veterans screened positive for MST (65% women), and 307,332 developed hypertension (15% women).

Overall, MST was associated with a 30% increase in risk for incident hypertension in unadjusted models (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.33; P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, cardiovascular comorbidities, PTSD, anxiety, and depression, MST remained significantly associated with hypertension (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12; P < .001).

When women and men were examined separately, the link between MST and risk for hypertension remained for both groups, but was slightly stronger among women.

“Sexual trauma has been associated with autonomic dysfunction, inflammation, and dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which could lead to elevations in BP over time,” Dr. Gaffey told this news organization.

“These findings show that even many years after being discharged from military service, exposure to military sexual trauma can continue to significantly influence veterans’ physical health,” she added.

Dr. Gaffey said it will be important to determine if early treatment of MST improves hypertension risk, particularly among those showing elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension.
 

Social determinants of health

Willie Lawrence Jr., MD, head of the AHA National Hypertension Control Initiative oversight committee, said the findings in this study are “in line with what we know about the impact of social determinants of health on high blood pressure.”

“There are studies that suggest that things that we historically don’t look at as risk factors for hypertension – lifelong racism, crime, mental health status – do in fact predict your risk of developing hypertension,” Dr. Lawrence, from Spectrum Health in Benton Harbor, Mich., told this news organization.

“It’s not just your genetics that will determine your health, and there are a lot of things that will affect your blood pressure. Your blood pressure is really just a barometer of everything that’s going on in your life and some of the things that have gone on in your life in the past,” added Dr. Lawrence, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Gaffey and Dr. Lawrence have no relevant disclosures.

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

Sexual harassment or assault during military service among young and middle-aged veterans is associated with an increased risk for hypertension, a new study suggests.

“Understanding a patient’s trauma history is invaluable for treating the whole person,” Allison E. Gaffey, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and the Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, told this news organization.

“Assessing men and women’s history of trauma, including sexual trauma, is critical for recognizing nontraditional factors that contribute to their cardiovascular risk and to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their mental and physical health,” Dr. Gaffey added.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
 

Lasting impact on physical health

Dr. Gaffey and colleagues analyzed data from the VA for roughly 1.2 million veterans (mean age, 30.2 years; 12% female) who were discharged from the military after Sept. 30, 2001, and who received health care services at VA medical centers from 2001 to 2017. 

All were screened for sexual harassment and assault, known as military sexual trauma (MST), when they first began receiving VA care.

During 16 years of follow-up, 33,881 veterans screened positive for MST (65% women), and 307,332 developed hypertension (15% women).

Overall, MST was associated with a 30% increase in risk for incident hypertension in unadjusted models (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.33; P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, cardiovascular comorbidities, PTSD, anxiety, and depression, MST remained significantly associated with hypertension (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12; P < .001).

When women and men were examined separately, the link between MST and risk for hypertension remained for both groups, but was slightly stronger among women.

“Sexual trauma has been associated with autonomic dysfunction, inflammation, and dysregulation in the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which could lead to elevations in BP over time,” Dr. Gaffey told this news organization.

“These findings show that even many years after being discharged from military service, exposure to military sexual trauma can continue to significantly influence veterans’ physical health,” she added.

Dr. Gaffey said it will be important to determine if early treatment of MST improves hypertension risk, particularly among those showing elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension.
 

Social determinants of health

Willie Lawrence Jr., MD, head of the AHA National Hypertension Control Initiative oversight committee, said the findings in this study are “in line with what we know about the impact of social determinants of health on high blood pressure.”

“There are studies that suggest that things that we historically don’t look at as risk factors for hypertension – lifelong racism, crime, mental health status – do in fact predict your risk of developing hypertension,” Dr. Lawrence, from Spectrum Health in Benton Harbor, Mich., told this news organization.

“It’s not just your genetics that will determine your health, and there are a lot of things that will affect your blood pressure. Your blood pressure is really just a barometer of everything that’s going on in your life and some of the things that have gone on in your life in the past,” added Dr. Lawrence, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Funding for the study was provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Gaffey and Dr. Lawrence have no relevant disclosures.

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

            Radiation has long been a part of treatment for localized prostate cancer. However, radiation and radiation-delivery modalities continue to evolve to decrease toxicity without sacrificing efficacy, expand the roles of these modalities, and enhance efficacy of other concomitantly delivered treatment modalities. The accompanying studies describe efforts to those effects.

            Hypofractionated delivery of radiation is now often considered preferred over conventionally fractionated radiation for localized prostate cancer to maintain efficacy while decreasing toxicity. To determine if the benefit of lower toxicity holds over time, Staffurth et al assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in participants of the CHHiP trial where men were randomized to conventional radiation versus 2 alternative hypofraction schedules. At 5 years post-radiation, there were no significant differences amongst the 3 groups with respect to bowel bother, urinary bother, or sexual bother.

            Evidence is emerging that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has benefits for oligometastatic disease; however, studies are emerging that support the hypothesis that radiation may enhance immunotherapy in many cancers in the metastatic setting. Kwan et al evaluated the effects of a single fraction of SBRT administered to 1 or 2 disease sites before the first and second doses of avelumab (a PD-L1 antibody) in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (with prior exposure to at least one second-generation androgen receptor inhibitor). In this single arm phase II study, the disease control rate was 48%, overall response rate was 31%, median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was 8.4 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 14.1 months in this heavily pretreated group of 31 participants. As immunotherapy has been considered efficacious in select groups of prostate cancer (such as tumors with microsatellite instability), this study supports ongoing and new efforts to evaluate how to enhance immunotherapy against prostate cancer.

            Radium-223 has been demonstrated to have efficacy in metastatic disease of the bone. Ongoing efforts to determine whether combined modality treatment in this setting may improve outcomes in metastatic disease, Maughn et al evaluated the combination of radium-223 and enzalutamide for safety and efficacy in a small and hypothesis-generating study 47 participants where 35 received enzalutamide plus radium-223 and 12 received enzlutamide alone. Of note, there were no increase in fractures (45 of the 47 participants received bone protective therapy, however), but there were no differences in the secondary endpoints of PSA-PFS, rPFS, or OS (primary endpoints of decline in bone metabolism markers were previously reported). This is a hypothesis generating study that supports the likely safety of this modality if bone protecting agents are utilized.

            The 3 studies summarized here represent the ongoing evolution of radiation or radiation-delivery modalities in localized and metastatic prostate cancer. It is encouraging to see the ongoing evaluate of PROs over time, as long-term quality of life in patients potentially cured of disease is of utmost importance. In addition, efforts to evaluate radiation or radium-223 in widely metastatic disease as part of combination therapy may reveal not only situations with modest benefits in efficacy, but more importantly, may reveal molecular insights into newer treatment strategies.

            Radiation has long been a part of treatment for localized prostate cancer. However, radiation and radiation-delivery modalities continue to evolve to decrease toxicity without sacrificing efficacy, expand the roles of these modalities, and enhance efficacy of other concomitantly delivered treatment modalities. The accompanying studies describe efforts to those effects.

            Hypofractionated delivery of radiation is now often considered preferred over conventionally fractionated radiation for localized prostate cancer to maintain efficacy while decreasing toxicity. To determine if the benefit of lower toxicity holds over time, Staffurth et al assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in participants of the CHHiP trial where men were randomized to conventional radiation versus 2 alternative hypofraction schedules. At 5 years post-radiation, there were no significant differences amongst the 3 groups with respect to bowel bother, urinary bother, or sexual bother.

            Evidence is emerging that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has benefits for oligometastatic disease; however, studies are emerging that support the hypothesis that radiation may enhance immunotherapy in many cancers in the metastatic setting. Kwan et al evaluated the effects of a single fraction of SBRT administered to 1 or 2 disease sites before the first and second doses of avelumab (a PD-L1 antibody) in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (with prior exposure to at least one second-generation androgen receptor inhibitor). In this single arm phase II study, the disease control rate was 48%, overall response rate was 31%, median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was 8.4 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 14.1 months in this heavily pretreated group of 31 participants. As immunotherapy has been considered efficacious in select groups of prostate cancer (such as tumors with microsatellite instability), this study supports ongoing and new efforts to evaluate how to enhance immunotherapy against prostate cancer.

            Radium-223 has been demonstrated to have efficacy in metastatic disease of the bone. Ongoing efforts to determine whether combined modality treatment in this setting may improve outcomes in metastatic disease, Maughn et al evaluated the combination of radium-223 and enzalutamide for safety and efficacy in a small and hypothesis-generating study 47 participants where 35 received enzalutamide plus radium-223 and 12 received enzlutamide alone. Of note, there were no increase in fractures (45 of the 47 participants received bone protective therapy, however), but there were no differences in the secondary endpoints of PSA-PFS, rPFS, or OS (primary endpoints of decline in bone metabolism markers were previously reported). This is a hypothesis generating study that supports the likely safety of this modality if bone protecting agents are utilized.

            The 3 studies summarized here represent the ongoing evolution of radiation or radiation-delivery modalities in localized and metastatic prostate cancer. It is encouraging to see the ongoing evaluate of PROs over time, as long-term quality of life in patients potentially cured of disease is of utmost importance. In addition, efforts to evaluate radiation or radium-223 in widely metastatic disease as part of combination therapy may reveal not only situations with modest benefits in efficacy, but more importantly, may reveal molecular insights into newer treatment strategies.

            Radiation has long been a part of treatment for localized prostate cancer. However, radiation and radiation-delivery modalities continue to evolve to decrease toxicity without sacrificing efficacy, expand the roles of these modalities, and enhance efficacy of other concomitantly delivered treatment modalities. The accompanying studies describe efforts to those effects.

            Hypofractionated delivery of radiation is now often considered preferred over conventionally fractionated radiation for localized prostate cancer to maintain efficacy while decreasing toxicity. To determine if the benefit of lower toxicity holds over time, Staffurth et al assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in participants of the CHHiP trial where men were randomized to conventional radiation versus 2 alternative hypofraction schedules. At 5 years post-radiation, there were no significant differences amongst the 3 groups with respect to bowel bother, urinary bother, or sexual bother.

            Evidence is emerging that stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has benefits for oligometastatic disease; however, studies are emerging that support the hypothesis that radiation may enhance immunotherapy in many cancers in the metastatic setting. Kwan et al evaluated the effects of a single fraction of SBRT administered to 1 or 2 disease sites before the first and second doses of avelumab (a PD-L1 antibody) in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (with prior exposure to at least one second-generation androgen receptor inhibitor). In this single arm phase II study, the disease control rate was 48%, overall response rate was 31%, median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was 8.4 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 14.1 months in this heavily pretreated group of 31 participants. As immunotherapy has been considered efficacious in select groups of prostate cancer (such as tumors with microsatellite instability), this study supports ongoing and new efforts to evaluate how to enhance immunotherapy against prostate cancer.

            Radium-223 has been demonstrated to have efficacy in metastatic disease of the bone. Ongoing efforts to determine whether combined modality treatment in this setting may improve outcomes in metastatic disease, Maughn et al evaluated the combination of radium-223 and enzalutamide for safety and efficacy in a small and hypothesis-generating study 47 participants where 35 received enzalutamide plus radium-223 and 12 received enzlutamide alone. Of note, there were no increase in fractures (45 of the 47 participants received bone protective therapy, however), but there were no differences in the secondary endpoints of PSA-PFS, rPFS, or OS (primary endpoints of decline in bone metabolism markers were previously reported). This is a hypothesis generating study that supports the likely safety of this modality if bone protecting agents are utilized.

            The 3 studies summarized here represent the ongoing evolution of radiation or radiation-delivery modalities in localized and metastatic prostate cancer. It is encouraging to see the ongoing evaluate of PROs over time, as long-term quality of life in patients potentially cured of disease is of utmost importance. In addition, efforts to evaluate radiation or radium-223 in widely metastatic disease as part of combination therapy may reveal not only situations with modest benefits in efficacy, but more importantly, may reveal molecular insights into newer treatment strategies.

Treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) requires a multidisciplinary approach. This month we will review articles that analyze outcomes after liver resection compared to percutaneous ablation, prediction of immunotherapy efficacy based on observed treatment-related side effects, and the risk of subsequent malignancies in patients with HCC.

Xie et al. reported their retrospective review of outcomes of 67 adults with resectable caudate HCC within Milan criteria. Out of these, 46 underwent hepatic resection and 21 underwent percutaneous ablation. Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 97.6%, 83.6%, and 71.5%, respectively, for the hepatic resection patients, vs 89.4%, 58.5%, and 48.8%, respectively, for the percutaneous ablation patients (P = 0.032). Recurrence-free survival at these time points was 77.6%, 47.9%, and 42.6%, respectively, for the hepatic resection group, and 40.5%, 23.2%, and 15.4%, respectively, for the percutaneous ablation group (P = 0.010). The investigators concluded that HCC patients who underwent hepatic resection had significantly higher rates of recurrence-free and overall survival compared to those who underwent percutaneous ablation.

For those patients with unresectable HCC, systemic immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy is now part of the standard of care. Treatment-associated adverse events occur in over half of patients treated with immunotherapy. Pinato et al. reviewed the outcomes of a cohort of 406 adults with unresectable or advanced HCC who were receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy while enrolled in clinical trials that were submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. the development of adverse events was associated with longer overall survival and progression-free survival rates compared to patients who did not develop treatment-related adverse events (16.7 months vs 11.2 months; 5.5 months vs 2.2 months, respectively).  The authors concluded that the development of treatment-related adverse events was significantly correlated with improve overall and progression-free survival in HCC patients treated with ICI monotherapy in clinical trials.

Finally, Kong et al. retrospectively looked at a cohort of 40,314 adult patients diagnosed with HCC between 2000 and 2014 in the SEER database, identifying the incidence of second primary cancers. Overall, the patients were followed for a median of 19 months following their HCC diagnosis. A total of 1,593 HCC patients (3.95%) developed secondary primary malignancies starting at 2 months after their initial HCC diagnosis. The 3-, 5-, and 10-year cumulative incidence of developing second primary malignancies were 2.35%, 3.12%, and 4.51%. The top five sites of the second primary malignancies were lung and bronchus, prostate, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, colon, and breast. The patients with poorer tumor-related characteristics such as larger tumor size, vascular invasion, positive AFP level, poorer tumor grade, and distant extension were associated with a decreased risk of developing second primary cancers, most probably because of their higher risk of dying from HCC. The authors developed a competing-risk nomogram for the purpose of improving guideline surveillance and further management of HCC survivors, concluding that HCC survivors should be monitored for evidence of secondary primary cancers.

Treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) requires a multidisciplinary approach. This month we will review articles that analyze outcomes after liver resection compared to percutaneous ablation, prediction of immunotherapy efficacy based on observed treatment-related side effects, and the risk of subsequent malignancies in patients with HCC.

Xie et al. reported their retrospective review of outcomes of 67 adults with resectable caudate HCC within Milan criteria. Out of these, 46 underwent hepatic resection and 21 underwent percutaneous ablation. Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 97.6%, 83.6%, and 71.5%, respectively, for the hepatic resection patients, vs 89.4%, 58.5%, and 48.8%, respectively, for the percutaneous ablation patients (P = 0.032). Recurrence-free survival at these time points was 77.6%, 47.9%, and 42.6%, respectively, for the hepatic resection group, and 40.5%, 23.2%, and 15.4%, respectively, for the percutaneous ablation group (P = 0.010). The investigators concluded that HCC patients who underwent hepatic resection had significantly higher rates of recurrence-free and overall survival compared to those who underwent percutaneous ablation.

For those patients with unresectable HCC, systemic immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy is now part of the standard of care. Treatment-associated adverse events occur in over half of patients treated with immunotherapy. Pinato et al. reviewed the outcomes of a cohort of 406 adults with unresectable or advanced HCC who were receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy while enrolled in clinical trials that were submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. the development of adverse events was associated with longer overall survival and progression-free survival rates compared to patients who did not develop treatment-related adverse events (16.7 months vs 11.2 months; 5.5 months vs 2.2 months, respectively).  The authors concluded that the development of treatment-related adverse events was significantly correlated with improve overall and progression-free survival in HCC patients treated with ICI monotherapy in clinical trials.

Finally, Kong et al. retrospectively looked at a cohort of 40,314 adult patients diagnosed with HCC between 2000 and 2014 in the SEER database, identifying the incidence of second primary cancers. Overall, the patients were followed for a median of 19 months following their HCC diagnosis. A total of 1,593 HCC patients (3.95%) developed secondary primary malignancies starting at 2 months after their initial HCC diagnosis. The 3-, 5-, and 10-year cumulative incidence of developing second primary malignancies were 2.35%, 3.12%, and 4.51%. The top five sites of the second primary malignancies were lung and bronchus, prostate, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, colon, and breast. The patients with poorer tumor-related characteristics such as larger tumor size, vascular invasion, positive AFP level, poorer tumor grade, and distant extension were associated with a decreased risk of developing second primary cancers, most probably because of their higher risk of dying from HCC. The authors developed a competing-risk nomogram for the purpose of improving guideline surveillance and further management of HCC survivors, concluding that HCC survivors should be monitored for evidence of secondary primary cancers.

Treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) requires a multidisciplinary approach. This month we will review articles that analyze outcomes after liver resection compared to percutaneous ablation, prediction of immunotherapy efficacy based on observed treatment-related side effects, and the risk of subsequent malignancies in patients with HCC.

Xie et al. reported their retrospective review of outcomes of 67 adults with resectable caudate HCC within Milan criteria. Out of these, 46 underwent hepatic resection and 21 underwent percutaneous ablation. Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 97.6%, 83.6%, and 71.5%, respectively, for the hepatic resection patients, vs 89.4%, 58.5%, and 48.8%, respectively, for the percutaneous ablation patients (P = 0.032). Recurrence-free survival at these time points was 77.6%, 47.9%, and 42.6%, respectively, for the hepatic resection group, and 40.5%, 23.2%, and 15.4%, respectively, for the percutaneous ablation group (P = 0.010). The investigators concluded that HCC patients who underwent hepatic resection had significantly higher rates of recurrence-free and overall survival compared to those who underwent percutaneous ablation.

For those patients with unresectable HCC, systemic immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy is now part of the standard of care. Treatment-associated adverse events occur in over half of patients treated with immunotherapy. Pinato et al. reviewed the outcomes of a cohort of 406 adults with unresectable or advanced HCC who were receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy while enrolled in clinical trials that were submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. the development of adverse events was associated with longer overall survival and progression-free survival rates compared to patients who did not develop treatment-related adverse events (16.7 months vs 11.2 months; 5.5 months vs 2.2 months, respectively).  The authors concluded that the development of treatment-related adverse events was significantly correlated with improve overall and progression-free survival in HCC patients treated with ICI monotherapy in clinical trials.

Finally, Kong et al. retrospectively looked at a cohort of 40,314 adult patients diagnosed with HCC between 2000 and 2014 in the SEER database, identifying the incidence of second primary cancers. Overall, the patients were followed for a median of 19 months following their HCC diagnosis. A total of 1,593 HCC patients (3.95%) developed secondary primary malignancies starting at 2 months after their initial HCC diagnosis. The 3-, 5-, and 10-year cumulative incidence of developing second primary malignancies were 2.35%, 3.12%, and 4.51%. The top five sites of the second primary malignancies were lung and bronchus, prostate, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, colon, and breast. The patients with poorer tumor-related characteristics such as larger tumor size, vascular invasion, positive AFP level, poorer tumor grade, and distant extension were associated with a decreased risk of developing second primary cancers, most probably because of their higher risk of dying from HCC. The authors developed a competing-risk nomogram for the purpose of improving guideline surveillance and further management of HCC survivors, concluding that HCC survivors should be monitored for evidence of secondary primary cancers.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tisotumab vedotin-tftv (Tivdak, Seagen/Genmab) for the treatment of adult patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who have experienced disease progression on or after chemotherapy.

There is currently no standard option for these patients. The mainstay of therapy in this setting is monotherapy with chemotherapy, but the benefit-risk profiles are poor, and overall response rates (ORRs) are less than 15%.

In the clinical trial that led to the accelerated approval, tisotumab vedotin-tftv yielded an ORR of 24%, which an expert not connected with the trial said was “impressive.”

“Tivdak’s approval as a monotherapy in the U.S. is an important milestone for women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer with disease progression on or after chemotherapy, as they are in need of a new treatment option and we look forward to making it available to them,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, chief executive officer of Genmab, said in a statement.

Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody–drug conjugate: A human monoclonal antibody directed against tissue factor, which is highly expressed on many solid tumors, is attached to the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin E.
 

Details of clinical trial data

The accelerated approval was based on the results of the innovaTV 204, an open-label, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial, which was published online on April 9 in The Lancet Oncology, as reported at the time.

The trial included 101 women with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous cervical cancer whose disease had progressed with or after doublet chemotherapy with bevacizumab (if eligible by local standards) and who had received two or fewer previous systemic regimens for recurrent or metastatic disease.

All patients received tisotumab vendotin intravenously at a dose of 2.0 mg/kg (up to a maximum of 200 mg) once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The confirmed ORR was 24% and included seven (7%) complete responses and 17 (17%) partial responses.

The disease control rate was 72%, and the median duration of response was 8.3 months. The median progression-free survival was 4.2 months; the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 30%.

Median overall survival (OS) was 12.1 months. OS rates were 79% at 6 months and 51% at 12 months.

Overall, the safety profile with tisotumab vedotin was manageable, the trialists reported. The most common treatment-related adverse events were alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea (27%), conjunctivitis (26%), fatigue (26%), and dry eye (23%). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported by 28% of patients and included neutropenia (3%), fatigue (2%), ulcerative keratitis (2%), and peripheral neuropathies (2%). One patient died as a result of septic shock that was considered by the investigators to be related to therapy.

The new product labeling includes a boxed warning for ocular toxicity. It notes that tisotumab vedotin “caused changes in the corneal epithelium and conjunctiva resulting in changes in vision, including severe vision loss, and corneal ulceration.” It recommends that clinicians conduct an ophthalmic exam at baseline, prior to each dose, and as clinically indicated and that patients adhere to premedication and required eye care before, during, and after infusion.
 

Confirmatory trial underway

Continued approval may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The confirmatory trial for tisotumab vedotin is already underway: The global phase 3 innovaTV 301 trial began in January 2021. It will compare tisotumab vendotin to chemotherapy (topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed) for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who have received one or two prior lines of systemic therapy.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tisotumab vedotin-tftv (Tivdak, Seagen/Genmab) for the treatment of adult patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who have experienced disease progression on or after chemotherapy.

There is currently no standard option for these patients. The mainstay of therapy in this setting is monotherapy with chemotherapy, but the benefit-risk profiles are poor, and overall response rates (ORRs) are less than 15%.

In the clinical trial that led to the accelerated approval, tisotumab vedotin-tftv yielded an ORR of 24%, which an expert not connected with the trial said was “impressive.”

“Tivdak’s approval as a monotherapy in the U.S. is an important milestone for women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer with disease progression on or after chemotherapy, as they are in need of a new treatment option and we look forward to making it available to them,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, chief executive officer of Genmab, said in a statement.

Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody–drug conjugate: A human monoclonal antibody directed against tissue factor, which is highly expressed on many solid tumors, is attached to the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin E.
 

Details of clinical trial data

The accelerated approval was based on the results of the innovaTV 204, an open-label, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial, which was published online on April 9 in The Lancet Oncology, as reported at the time.

The trial included 101 women with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous cervical cancer whose disease had progressed with or after doublet chemotherapy with bevacizumab (if eligible by local standards) and who had received two or fewer previous systemic regimens for recurrent or metastatic disease.

All patients received tisotumab vendotin intravenously at a dose of 2.0 mg/kg (up to a maximum of 200 mg) once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The confirmed ORR was 24% and included seven (7%) complete responses and 17 (17%) partial responses.

The disease control rate was 72%, and the median duration of response was 8.3 months. The median progression-free survival was 4.2 months; the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 30%.

Median overall survival (OS) was 12.1 months. OS rates were 79% at 6 months and 51% at 12 months.

Overall, the safety profile with tisotumab vedotin was manageable, the trialists reported. The most common treatment-related adverse events were alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea (27%), conjunctivitis (26%), fatigue (26%), and dry eye (23%). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported by 28% of patients and included neutropenia (3%), fatigue (2%), ulcerative keratitis (2%), and peripheral neuropathies (2%). One patient died as a result of septic shock that was considered by the investigators to be related to therapy.

The new product labeling includes a boxed warning for ocular toxicity. It notes that tisotumab vedotin “caused changes in the corneal epithelium and conjunctiva resulting in changes in vision, including severe vision loss, and corneal ulceration.” It recommends that clinicians conduct an ophthalmic exam at baseline, prior to each dose, and as clinically indicated and that patients adhere to premedication and required eye care before, during, and after infusion.
 

Confirmatory trial underway

Continued approval may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The confirmatory trial for tisotumab vedotin is already underway: The global phase 3 innovaTV 301 trial began in January 2021. It will compare tisotumab vendotin to chemotherapy (topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed) for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who have received one or two prior lines of systemic therapy.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to tisotumab vedotin-tftv (Tivdak, Seagen/Genmab) for the treatment of adult patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who have experienced disease progression on or after chemotherapy.

There is currently no standard option for these patients. The mainstay of therapy in this setting is monotherapy with chemotherapy, but the benefit-risk profiles are poor, and overall response rates (ORRs) are less than 15%.

In the clinical trial that led to the accelerated approval, tisotumab vedotin-tftv yielded an ORR of 24%, which an expert not connected with the trial said was “impressive.”

“Tivdak’s approval as a monotherapy in the U.S. is an important milestone for women with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer with disease progression on or after chemotherapy, as they are in need of a new treatment option and we look forward to making it available to them,” Jan van de Winkel, PhD, chief executive officer of Genmab, said in a statement.

Tisotumab vedotin is an antibody–drug conjugate: A human monoclonal antibody directed against tissue factor, which is highly expressed on many solid tumors, is attached to the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin E.
 

Details of clinical trial data

The accelerated approval was based on the results of the innovaTV 204, an open-label, multicenter, single-arm clinical trial, which was published online on April 9 in The Lancet Oncology, as reported at the time.

The trial included 101 women with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous cervical cancer whose disease had progressed with or after doublet chemotherapy with bevacizumab (if eligible by local standards) and who had received two or fewer previous systemic regimens for recurrent or metastatic disease.

All patients received tisotumab vendotin intravenously at a dose of 2.0 mg/kg (up to a maximum of 200 mg) once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

The confirmed ORR was 24% and included seven (7%) complete responses and 17 (17%) partial responses.

The disease control rate was 72%, and the median duration of response was 8.3 months. The median progression-free survival was 4.2 months; the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 30%.

Median overall survival (OS) was 12.1 months. OS rates were 79% at 6 months and 51% at 12 months.

Overall, the safety profile with tisotumab vedotin was manageable, the trialists reported. The most common treatment-related adverse events were alopecia (38%), epistaxis (30%), nausea (27%), conjunctivitis (26%), fatigue (26%), and dry eye (23%). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported by 28% of patients and included neutropenia (3%), fatigue (2%), ulcerative keratitis (2%), and peripheral neuropathies (2%). One patient died as a result of septic shock that was considered by the investigators to be related to therapy.

The new product labeling includes a boxed warning for ocular toxicity. It notes that tisotumab vedotin “caused changes in the corneal epithelium and conjunctiva resulting in changes in vision, including severe vision loss, and corneal ulceration.” It recommends that clinicians conduct an ophthalmic exam at baseline, prior to each dose, and as clinically indicated and that patients adhere to premedication and required eye care before, during, and after infusion.
 

Confirmatory trial underway

Continued approval may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The confirmatory trial for tisotumab vedotin is already underway: The global phase 3 innovaTV 301 trial began in January 2021. It will compare tisotumab vendotin to chemotherapy (topotecan, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, or pemetrexed) for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who have received one or two prior lines of systemic therapy.

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

For primary care patients feeling well enough to discontinue antidepressant medication, there was a higher rate of depressive relapse among those who discontinued therapy, compared with those who did not, a new study shows.

The results of the Antidepressants to Prevent Relapse in Depression (ANTLER) trial also suggest that “many patients can discontinue their antidepressants safely in primary care without relapsing, when there is a tapering regime,” said lead investigator Gemma Lewis, PhD, from University College London, in an interview.

The multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2021;385:1257-67), included 478 patients, from 150 primary care practices in the United Kingdom.

The participants (73% female, average age 54 years) had a history of at least two depressive episodes or had been taking antidepressants (citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, or mirtazapine) for at least 2 years. The vast majority of patients – 70% – had been using the drugs for more than 3 years, the researchers wrote.

Study participants were randomized to either maintain their antidepressant regimen or to taper off for up to 2 months before switching to a placebo.

Over a follow-up of 52 weeks, relapse occurred in 56% of those who discontinued, compared with 39% of those who maintained their regimen (hazard ratio, 2.06; P < .001). Relapse also occurred sooner in the discontinuation group (13 weeks vs. 19 weeks).

The definition of relapse was answering yes to either of the following two questions:

• Have you had a spell of feeling sad, miserable, or depressed?
• Have you been unable to enjoy or take an interest in things as much as you usually do?

Patients also had to report that one of these experiences had lasted for 2 weeks or more, and having had at least one of the following symptoms: depressive thoughts, fatigue, loss of concentration, or sleep disturbance.

By the end of the trial, 39% of patients in the group who discontinued taking an antidepressant had returned to taking that type of drug.

“We found that remaining on antidepressants long-term does effectively reduce the risk of relapse. However, we also found that 44% of those who discontinued their antidepressants did not relapse after a full year,” Dr. Lewis said.

Who can stop medications without relapsing is unknown

“Many people can stop their medication without relapsing, though at present we cannot identify who those people are,” noted Dr. Lewis.

“Our study did not investigate who is at higher risk of relapse … but this is something we will focus on in the future,” she said.

For primary care clinicians whose patients are considering discontinuation of antidepressant medication, “current best practice is to engage with patients’ priorities and collaborate in coming to a decision,” she noted.

“For the individual patient, it is only possible to know about the average likelihood of relapse – and the severity of potential relapses will also be unpredictable. Our findings will give patients and clinicians an estimate of the likely benefits and harms of stopping long-term maintenance antidepressants to inform shared decision-making in primary care.”

Findings are ‘important’ but ‘disappointing’

In an editorial published alongside the study (N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1327-8), Jeffrey L. Jackson, MD, MPH, from the Zablocki VA Medical Center and the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee characterized the findings as “important but disappointing.”

“They confirm what most primary care physicians already knew or intuited. The frequency of relapse after the discontinuation of treatment is high, particularly among patients with several previous depressive episodes,” he explained.

Dr. Jackson also pointed out some unknowns about the trial, including the length trial participants had been in remission for depression.

“It is unclear whether the trial results are generalizable to primary care patients with a first episode of depression,” he said, and noted that participants with three or more previous depressive episodes were more than twice as likely to relapse, compared with participants with fewer episodes.

“I encourage patients with a single bout of depression, especially episodes that are triggered by a life event, such as loss of a loved one, to consider weaning antidepressant treatment after at least 6 months of remission,” he wrote. “For those with three or more previous bouts of depression, my practice has been to recommend that they anticipate medical treatment for life or, if they wish to stop taking medication, explore nonpharmacologic approaches, such as cognitive-behavior therapy.”

Protective effect of antidepressants was clear

“This is an important paper providing an evidence base to the often-cited recommendation that after two or more episodes of depression, antidepressant medication should be continued indefinitely,” said Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

“The protective effect of antidepressant medication here was clear – those who discontinued antidepressant medication had a clinically and significantly higher rate of relapse at the end of a year.”

Side effects can be significant

“It is important to note, though, that in the discontinuation group, 44% of patients did not experience a relapse,” Dr. Skolnik said. “While antidepressants work without significant side effects for many patients, for others there are significant side effects that include adverse sexual side effects, effects on appetite and weight, nighttime sweats, and other side effects.”

“So, this study should not be confused to mean that all patients who have had recurrent depression should remain on antidepressants long term. The decision about whether to continue an antidepressant is influenced by many things and should be a shared decision-making process between clinician and patient, informed by the important results of this study, the current situation of the patient, and most importantly, the patient’s informed decision of what they would like to do,” he said.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research

Dr. Lewis, Dr. Jackson, and Dr. Skolnik reported no conflicts of interest.

For primary care patients feeling well enough to discontinue antidepressant medication, there was a higher rate of depressive relapse among those who discontinued therapy, compared with those who did not, a new study shows.

The results of the Antidepressants to Prevent Relapse in Depression (ANTLER) trial also suggest that “many patients can discontinue their antidepressants safely in primary care without relapsing, when there is a tapering regime,” said lead investigator Gemma Lewis, PhD, from University College London, in an interview.

The multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2021;385:1257-67), included 478 patients, from 150 primary care practices in the United Kingdom.

The participants (73% female, average age 54 years) had a history of at least two depressive episodes or had been taking antidepressants (citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, or mirtazapine) for at least 2 years. The vast majority of patients – 70% – had been using the drugs for more than 3 years, the researchers wrote.

Study participants were randomized to either maintain their antidepressant regimen or to taper off for up to 2 months before switching to a placebo.

Over a follow-up of 52 weeks, relapse occurred in 56% of those who discontinued, compared with 39% of those who maintained their regimen (hazard ratio, 2.06; P < .001). Relapse also occurred sooner in the discontinuation group (13 weeks vs. 19 weeks).

The definition of relapse was answering yes to either of the following two questions: