Federal Practitioner

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

People whose treatment for cancer is delayed by even 1 month have a 6%-13% higher risk of dying, suggests research published online in the BMJ.

In light of the treatment delays resulting from the pandemic, Canadian and U.K. researchers carried out a review and analysis of relevant studies published between January 2000 and April 2020.

Included studies examined data on surgical interventions, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy for seven forms of cancer – bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck. Delays were measured from diagnosis to the first treatment or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next.

The search identified 34 suitable studies for 17 indications, with data from more than 1.2 million patients. The analysis identified a significant association between delay and increased mortality for 13 of the 17 indications (P < .05).

For surgery, there was a 6%-8% increase in the risk of death for every 4-week treatment delay. Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range, 1.01-1.28). Four-week delays in radiotherapy were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.09), and cervical cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.50).

Delays of up to 8 and 12 weeks further increased mortality. An 8-week delay in breast cancer surgery was linked to a 17% increased mortality, and a 12-week delay would increase mortality by 26%.

A surgical delay of 12 weeks for patients with breast cancer continuing for 1 year – which is likely to be the case as the pandemic continues – would lead to 1,400 excess deaths in the United Kingdom.

The authors said the results of this study could be used to guide policy making on the organization of cancer services, particularly as the pandemic continues and further delays are expected.

This article originally appeared on Univadis, part of the Medscape Professional Network.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

Medication adherence remains a truly challenging issue. For most chronic diseases, up to 20%-30% of the pills that are prescribed are not taken. In the case of inhalers for asthma and COPD, patients miss over half of the prescribed doses.

There are many things that contribute to the problem of poor adherence, but people often just simply forget. Thankfully, there are tools designed to help remind patients of what they need to take and when. A survey of apps developed to help patients remember to take their medicines found more than 700 available in Apple and Android app stores.¹ Most apps focus on medication alerts, reminders, and medication logs.² A recent review showed that apps have some – yet limited – effectiveness in increasing adherence, with patient self-reported improvements of 7%-40%.³

Another perhaps more promising area of improving adherence involves high-tech advances in the way medications can be taken. Inhalers are a primary target as they are complicated devices. A patient has to breathe in at the correct time after the inhaler is actuated, and the inhaler works optimally only if the rate of inhalation is sufficient to carry the medication into the lungs.

A number of companies have developed attachments for inhalers (and even inhalers themselves) that can record when the medication is taken through a Bluetooth connection to a patient’s smartphone. These can also assess inspiratory flow. Reminders to take the medication are built into the app, and those reminders disappear if the medication is taken. Patients can receive feedback about the quality of their timing and inspiratory rate to maximize medication delivery to the lungs.⁴

We learned long ago that it is difficult to take medications three to four times a day, so extended-release tablets were developed to reduce the frequency to once or twice a day. A great deal of work is now being done behind the scenes to develop medications that decrease the need for patients to remember to take their medications. The best examples of this are the long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices, specifically IUDs and Nexplanon. Compared with traditional oral contraceptives that need to be taken daily, LARCs reduce the rate of pregnancy by five- to tenfold.

We also now have medications for osteoporosis that can be taken monthly, or even annually. When bisphosphonates were first developed for osteoporosis prevention, they needed to be taken daily. Then a weekly bisphosphonate was developed. Now there is a once-monthly oral bisphosphonate, Ibandronate, and even a once yearly IV bisphosphonate.

Exciting developments have also occurred in the management of diabetes. We may be tempted to take for granted how once-daily long-acting insulin, which releases insulin slowly over the course of a day, has revolutionized the diabetic treatment since its Food and Drug Administration approval in 2000. Yet progress did not end there. The first GLP-1 receptor agonist for diabetes was approved in 2005 and was a twice-a-day medicine. Shortly afterward, a daily GLP-1 was approved, and now there are three once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers are now working on a once-weekly insulin,⁵ as well as an implantable GLP-1 receptor agonist that will need to be replaced every 6-12 months.⁶ Imagine your patient coming in once a year to replace his or her potent glucose lowering medication – one that offers a low incidence of hypoglycemia, maintains glucose control all year long, and requires no adherence to a complicated medication regimen.

Similar technology is being used to develop a once-yearly anti-HIV prophylactic medication delivery system.⁷ This could help prevent the spread of HIV in areas of the world where it may be difficult for people to take daily medications.⁷

The many technological advances we have described may help us reduce our likelihood of missing a dose of a medication. We are hopeful that progress in this area will continue, and that one day medication adherence will require even less effort from patients than it does today.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. Tabi K et al. Mobile apps for medication management: Review and analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Sep 7(9):13608.

2. Park JYE et al. Mobile phone apps targeting medication adherence: Quality assessment and content analysis of user reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Jan 31;7(1):e11919.

3. Pérez-Jover V et al. Mobile apps for increasing treatment adherence: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(6):e12505. doi: 10.2196/12505.

4. 4 Smart inhalers that could be lifesaving for people living with asthma & COPD. MyTherapy, July 11, 2019.

5. Rosenstock J et al. Once-weekly insulin for type 2 diabetes without previous insulin treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022474.

6. GLP-1 agonists: From 2 daily injections to 1 per week and beyond. DiaTribe, Jan. 10, 2018.

7. Long-acting HIV prevention tools. Hiv.gov, July 20, 2019.

Patients with metastatic castrate resistant prostate carcinoma (CRPC) have several treatment options, including radium-223 dichloride (Ra-223) radionuclide therapy, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and cabazitaxel. Ra-223 therapy has been reported to increase median survival in patients with bone metastatic prostate carcinoma.^1,2 However, ERA 223 trial data showed an increase of bone fractures with combination of Ra-223 and abiraterone.³

Agent Orange (AO) exposure has been studied as a potential risk factor for development of prostate carcinoma. AO was a commercially manufactured defoliate that was sprayed extensively during the Vietnam War. Due to a side product of chemical manufacturing, AO was contaminated with the toxin 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, a putative carcinogen. These dioxins can enter the food chain through soil contamination. There is enough evidence to link AO to hematologic malignancies and several solid tumors, including prostate carcinoma.⁴ Although no real estimates exist for what percentage of Vietnam veterans experienced AO exposure, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data showed that about 3 million veterans served in Southeast Asia where AO was used extensively in the combat theater. AO has been reported to be positively associated with a 52% increase in risk of prostate carcinoma detection at initial prostate biopsy.⁵

There has been no reported study of treatment efficacy in veterans with AO-related prostate carcinoma. We present a retrospective study of Ra-223 and other therapies in metastatic CRPC. The purpose of this study was to compare response to therapy and survival in veterans exposed to agent orange (AO+) vs veterans who were not exposed to (AO-) in a single US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) medical center.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of veterans with metastatic CRPC to bones who received Ra-223 radionuclide therapy with standard dose of 50 kBq per kg of body weight and other sequential therapies at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) from January 2014 to January 2019. The purpose of this study was to measure difference in treatment outcome between AO+ veterans and AO- veterans.

Eligibility Criteria

All veterans had a history that included bone metastasis CRPC. They could have 2 to 3 small lymphadenopathies but not visceral metastasis. They received a minimum of 3 cycles and a maximum of 6 cycles of Ra-223 therapy, which was given in 4-week intervals. Pretreatment criteria was hemoglobin > 10 g/dL, platelet > 100 × 10⁹/L, and absolute neutrophil counts > 1.5 × 10⁹/L. Other therapies, such as abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, and cabazitaxel, were administered either after Ra-223 (Ra first) or before Ra-223 therapy (Ra later). Veterans also received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist (leuprolide acetate) to maintain castrate level of testosterone and bisphosphonates for bone metastasis. Eligible veterans were divided into 2 groups: AO+ and AO-. AO+ veterans are those that were proven to be physically active during the Vietnam War and have been determined by the US government to receive service-connected compensation from the VA. AO- veterans were those who were not exposed to AO.

Statistics

Time to study was calculated from the initiation of Ra-223 therapy. Time to skeletal-related events (SRE), progression of prostate specific antigen (PSA), bone metastasis, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were calculated in months, using unpaired t test with 2-tailed P value. Median survival was calculated in months by Kaplan Meier R log-rank test Definition).

Results

Forty-eight veterans with bone metastasis CRPC received Ra-223 therapy. Of those, 34 veterans were eligible for this retrospective study: 17 AO+ veterans and 17 AO- veterans. Mean age of diagnosis was 62 years (AO+) and 69 years (AO-) (P = .005). Mean Gleason score was 8.2 (AO+) and 8.0 (AO-) (P = .705). Veterans received initial therapy at diagnosis of prostate carcinoma, including radical prostatectomy (6 AO+ and 3 AO-), localized radiation therapy (3 AO+ and 5 AO-), and ADT (8 AO+ and 9 AO-) (Table 1).

Mean PSA at the initiation of Ra-223 therapy for AO+ was 92.8 (range, 2-551) and for AO- was 102.3 (range, 4-639; P = .86). Mean Ra-223 dose per cycle for AO+ and AO- was 157 uCi and 113 uCi, respectively. All 34 veterans received ADT (leuprolide acetate), and 30 veterans (16 AO+ and 14 AO-) received bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid or denosumab). A total of 10 veterans (29%) received Ra-223 as a first-line therapy (4 AO+ and 6 AO-), and 24 veterans (71%) received Ra-223 after hormonal or chemotherapy (13 AO+ and 11 AO-).

Discussions

There has been no reported VA study of using Ra-223 and other therapies (hormonal and chemotherapy) in veterans exposed to AO. This is the first retrospective study to compare the response and survival between AO+ and AO- veterans. Even though this study featured a small sample, it is interesting to note the difference between those 2 populations. There was 1 prior study in veterans with prostate carcinoma using radiotherapy (brachytherapy) in early-stage disease. Everly and colleagues reported that AO+ veterans were less likely to remain biochemically controlled compared with AO- and nonveteran patients with prostate carcinoma.⁴

Ansbaugh and colleagues reported that AO was associated with a 75% increase in the risk of Gleason ≥ 7 and a 110% increase in Gleason ≥ 8. AO+ veterans are at risk for the detection of high-grade prostate carcinoma. They also tend to have an average age of diagnosis that is 4 to 5 years younger than AO- veterans.⁶

Our study revealed that AO+ veterans were diagnosed at a younger age (mean 62 years) compared with that of AO- veterans (mean 69 years, P = .005). We also proved that AO veterans have a higher mean Gleason score (8.2) compared with that of AO- veterans (8.0). Veterans received therapy at the time of diagnosis of prostate carcinoma with either radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or ADT with leuprolide acetate. Mean PSA at the start of Ra-223 therapy for AO+ was 92.8 (range, 2-551); for AO- was 102.3 (range, 4-639), which is not statistically significant.

Ra-223, an α-emitting radiopharmaceutical, mimics calcium in forming complexes with the bone mineral hydroxyapatite, which specifically targets bone metastases. Ra-223 preferentially targets new bone growth surrounding bone metastases while emitting α particles within the tumor microenvironment. α particles have high linear energy transfer with enhanced ability to induce lethal double-stranded DNA breaks, thus eliciting greater cytotoxic effects on bone-metastatic tumor sites.⁷

In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study by Parker and colleagues (ALSYMPCA study), 921 patients who had received, were not eligible to receive, or declined docetaxel, in a 2:1 ratio, were randomized to receive 6 injections of Ra-223 or matching placebo.² Ra-223 significantly improved overall survival (OS) (median, 14.9 months vs 11.3 months) compared with that of placebo. Ra-223 also prolonged the time to the first symptomatic SRE (median, 15.6 months vs 9.8 months), the time to an increase in the total ALP level (median 7.4 months vs 3.8 months), and the time to an increase in the PSA level (median 3.6 months vs 3.4 months).²

In our study, the mean time to SRE for AO+ was 10.6 months and AO- was 10.3 months (P = .93). Mean time to PSA progression for AO+ was 5.4 months and for AO- was 6.8 months (P = .28). Mean time to bone progression for AO+ and for AO- were 7.6 months and 10.1 months respectively (P = .16). Mean time to ALP progression for AO+ and AO- were 6.3 months and 8.7 months respectively (P = .05). There is a trend of shorter PSA progression, bone progression, and ALP progression in AO+ veterans, though these were not statistically significant due to small sample population. In our study the median survival in for AO- was 18 months and for AO+ was 12 months, which is comparable with median survival of 14.9 months from the ALSYMPCA study.

There were 12 veterans who developed SREs. All received radiation therapy due to bone progression or impending fracture. AO+ veterans developed more SREs (n = 8) when compared with AO- veterans (n = 4). There were more AO- veterans alive (n = 10) than there were AO+ veterans (n = 4). The plausible explanation of this may be due to the aggressive pattern of prostate carcinoma in AO+ veterans (younger age and higher Gleason score).

VAPHS participated in the ERA trial between 2014 and 2016. The trial enrolled 806 patients who were randomly assigned to receive first-line Ra-223 or placebo in addition to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone.³ The study was unblinded prematurely after more fractures and deaths were noted in the Ra-223 and abiraterone group than there were in the placebo and abiraterone group. Median symptomatic SRE was 22.3 months in the Ra-223 group and 26.0 months in the placebo group. Fractures (any grade) occurred in 29% in the Ra-223 group and 11% in the placebo group. It was suggested that Ra-223 could contribute to the risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with bone metastatic prostate carcinoma. Median OS was 30.7 months in the Ra-223 group and 33.3 months in the placebo group.³

We enrolled 3 veterans in the ERA clinical trial. Two AO+ veterans had SREs at 7 months and 11 months. In our study, the median OS for Ra-223 first line was 32 months, which is comparable with median survival of 30.7 months from ERA-223 study. Median survival for Ra-223 later was only 15 months. We recommend veterans with at least 2 to 3-bone metastasis receive Ra-223 in the first-line setting rather than second- or third-line setting. In this retrospective study with Ra-223 and other therapies, we proved that AO+ veterans have a worse response and OS when compared with that of AO- veterans.

Conclusions

This is the first VA study to compare the efficacy of Ra-223 and other therapies in metastatic CRPC between AO+ and AO- veterans. AO+ veterans were diagnosed at a younger age and had higher Gleason scores. There was no statistical difference between AO+ and AO- veterans in terms of time to SRE, PSA progression, and bone and ALP progression even though there was a trend of shorter duration in AO+ veterans. There was no median survival difference between veterans who received Ra-223 first vs Ra-223 later as well as between AO+ and AO- veterans, but there was a trend of worse survival in veteran who received Ra-223 later and AO+ veterans.

This study showed that AO+ veterans have a shorter duration of response to therapy and shorter median survival compared with that of AO- veterans. We recommend that veterans should get Ra-223 in the first-line setting rather than after hormonal therapy and chemotherapy because their marrows are still intact. We need to investigate further whether veterans that exposed to carcinogen 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) may have different molecular biology and as such may cause inferior efficacy in the treatment of prostate carcinoma.

Patients with metastatic castrate resistant prostate carcinoma (CRPC) have several treatment options, including radium-223 dichloride (Ra-223) radionuclide therapy, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and cabazitaxel. Ra-223 therapy has been reported to increase median survival in patients with bone metastatic prostate carcinoma.^1,2 However, ERA 223 trial data showed an increase of bone fractures with combination of Ra-223 and abiraterone.³

Agent Orange (AO) exposure has been studied as a potential risk factor for development of prostate carcinoma. AO was a commercially manufactured defoliate that was sprayed extensively during the Vietnam War. Due to a side product of chemical manufacturing, AO was contaminated with the toxin 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, a putative carcinogen. These dioxins can enter the food chain through soil contamination. There is enough evidence to link AO to hematologic malignancies and several solid tumors, including prostate carcinoma.⁴ Although no real estimates exist for what percentage of Vietnam veterans experienced AO exposure, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data showed that about 3 million veterans served in Southeast Asia where AO was used extensively in the combat theater. AO has been reported to be positively associated with a 52% increase in risk of prostate carcinoma detection at initial prostate biopsy.⁵

There has been no reported study of treatment efficacy in veterans with AO-related prostate carcinoma. We present a retrospective study of Ra-223 and other therapies in metastatic CRPC. The purpose of this study was to compare response to therapy and survival in veterans exposed to agent orange (AO+) vs veterans who were not exposed to (AO-) in a single US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) medical center.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of veterans with metastatic CRPC to bones who received Ra-223 radionuclide therapy with standard dose of 50 kBq per kg of body weight and other sequential therapies at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) from January 2014 to January 2019. The purpose of this study was to measure difference in treatment outcome between AO+ veterans and AO- veterans.

Eligibility Criteria

All veterans had a history that included bone metastasis CRPC. They could have 2 to 3 small lymphadenopathies but not visceral metastasis. They received a minimum of 3 cycles and a maximum of 6 cycles of Ra-223 therapy, which was given in 4-week intervals. Pretreatment criteria was hemoglobin > 10 g/dL, platelet > 100 × 10⁹/L, and absolute neutrophil counts > 1.5 × 10⁹/L. Other therapies, such as abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, and cabazitaxel, were administered either after Ra-223 (Ra first) or before Ra-223 therapy (Ra later). Veterans also received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist (leuprolide acetate) to maintain castrate level of testosterone and bisphosphonates for bone metastasis. Eligible veterans were divided into 2 groups: AO+ and AO-. AO+ veterans are those that were proven to be physically active during the Vietnam War and have been determined by the US government to receive service-connected compensation from the VA. AO- veterans were those who were not exposed to AO.

Statistics

Time to study was calculated from the initiation of Ra-223 therapy. Time to skeletal-related events (SRE), progression of prostate specific antigen (PSA), bone metastasis, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were calculated in months, using unpaired t test with 2-tailed P value. Median survival was calculated in months by Kaplan Meier R log-rank test Definition).

Results

Forty-eight veterans with bone metastasis CRPC received Ra-223 therapy. Of those, 34 veterans were eligible for this retrospective study: 17 AO+ veterans and 17 AO- veterans. Mean age of diagnosis was 62 years (AO+) and 69 years (AO-) (P = .005). Mean Gleason score was 8.2 (AO+) and 8.0 (AO-) (P = .705). Veterans received initial therapy at diagnosis of prostate carcinoma, including radical prostatectomy (6 AO+ and 3 AO-), localized radiation therapy (3 AO+ and 5 AO-), and ADT (8 AO+ and 9 AO-) (Table 1).

Mean PSA at the initiation of Ra-223 therapy for AO+ was 92.8 (range, 2-551) and for AO- was 102.3 (range, 4-639; P = .86). Mean Ra-223 dose per cycle for AO+ and AO- was 157 uCi and 113 uCi, respectively. All 34 veterans received ADT (leuprolide acetate), and 30 veterans (16 AO+ and 14 AO-) received bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid or denosumab). A total of 10 veterans (29%) received Ra-223 as a first-line therapy (4 AO+ and 6 AO-), and 24 veterans (71%) received Ra-223 after hormonal or chemotherapy (13 AO+ and 11 AO-).

Discussions

There has been no reported VA study of using Ra-223 and other therapies (hormonal and chemotherapy) in veterans exposed to AO. This is the first retrospective study to compare the response and survival between AO+ and AO- veterans. Even though this study featured a small sample, it is interesting to note the difference between those 2 populations. There was 1 prior study in veterans with prostate carcinoma using radiotherapy (brachytherapy) in early-stage disease. Everly and colleagues reported that AO+ veterans were less likely to remain biochemically controlled compared with AO- and nonveteran patients with prostate carcinoma.⁴

Ansbaugh and colleagues reported that AO was associated with a 75% increase in the risk of Gleason ≥ 7 and a 110% increase in Gleason ≥ 8. AO+ veterans are at risk for the detection of high-grade prostate carcinoma. They also tend to have an average age of diagnosis that is 4 to 5 years younger than AO- veterans.⁶

Our study revealed that AO+ veterans were diagnosed at a younger age (mean 62 years) compared with that of AO- veterans (mean 69 years, P = .005). We also proved that AO veterans have a higher mean Gleason score (8.2) compared with that of AO- veterans (8.0). Veterans received therapy at the time of diagnosis of prostate carcinoma with either radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or ADT with leuprolide acetate. Mean PSA at the start of Ra-223 therapy for AO+ was 92.8 (range, 2-551); for AO- was 102.3 (range, 4-639), which is not statistically significant.

Ra-223, an α-emitting radiopharmaceutical, mimics calcium in forming complexes with the bone mineral hydroxyapatite, which specifically targets bone metastases. Ra-223 preferentially targets new bone growth surrounding bone metastases while emitting α particles within the tumor microenvironment. α particles have high linear energy transfer with enhanced ability to induce lethal double-stranded DNA breaks, thus eliciting greater cytotoxic effects on bone-metastatic tumor sites.⁷

In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study by Parker and colleagues (ALSYMPCA study), 921 patients who had received, were not eligible to receive, or declined docetaxel, in a 2:1 ratio, were randomized to receive 6 injections of Ra-223 or matching placebo.² Ra-223 significantly improved overall survival (OS) (median, 14.9 months vs 11.3 months) compared with that of placebo. Ra-223 also prolonged the time to the first symptomatic SRE (median, 15.6 months vs 9.8 months), the time to an increase in the total ALP level (median 7.4 months vs 3.8 months), and the time to an increase in the PSA level (median 3.6 months vs 3.4 months).²

In our study, the mean time to SRE for AO+ was 10.6 months and AO- was 10.3 months (P = .93). Mean time to PSA progression for AO+ was 5.4 months and for AO- was 6.8 months (P = .28). Mean time to bone progression for AO+ and for AO- were 7.6 months and 10.1 months respectively (P = .16). Mean time to ALP progression for AO+ and AO- were 6.3 months and 8.7 months respectively (P = .05). There is a trend of shorter PSA progression, bone progression, and ALP progression in AO+ veterans, though these were not statistically significant due to small sample population. In our study the median survival in for AO- was 18 months and for AO+ was 12 months, which is comparable with median survival of 14.9 months from the ALSYMPCA study.

There were 12 veterans who developed SREs. All received radiation therapy due to bone progression or impending fracture. AO+ veterans developed more SREs (n = 8) when compared with AO- veterans (n = 4). There were more AO- veterans alive (n = 10) than there were AO+ veterans (n = 4). The plausible explanation of this may be due to the aggressive pattern of prostate carcinoma in AO+ veterans (younger age and higher Gleason score).

VAPHS participated in the ERA trial between 2014 and 2016. The trial enrolled 806 patients who were randomly assigned to receive first-line Ra-223 or placebo in addition to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone.³ The study was unblinded prematurely after more fractures and deaths were noted in the Ra-223 and abiraterone group than there were in the placebo and abiraterone group. Median symptomatic SRE was 22.3 months in the Ra-223 group and 26.0 months in the placebo group. Fractures (any grade) occurred in 29% in the Ra-223 group and 11% in the placebo group. It was suggested that Ra-223 could contribute to the risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with bone metastatic prostate carcinoma. Median OS was 30.7 months in the Ra-223 group and 33.3 months in the placebo group.³

We enrolled 3 veterans in the ERA clinical trial. Two AO+ veterans had SREs at 7 months and 11 months. In our study, the median OS for Ra-223 first line was 32 months, which is comparable with median survival of 30.7 months from ERA-223 study. Median survival for Ra-223 later was only 15 months. We recommend veterans with at least 2 to 3-bone metastasis receive Ra-223 in the first-line setting rather than second- or third-line setting. In this retrospective study with Ra-223 and other therapies, we proved that AO+ veterans have a worse response and OS when compared with that of AO- veterans.

Conclusions

This is the first VA study to compare the efficacy of Ra-223 and other therapies in metastatic CRPC between AO+ and AO- veterans. AO+ veterans were diagnosed at a younger age and had higher Gleason scores. There was no statistical difference between AO+ and AO- veterans in terms of time to SRE, PSA progression, and bone and ALP progression even though there was a trend of shorter duration in AO+ veterans. There was no median survival difference between veterans who received Ra-223 first vs Ra-223 later as well as between AO+ and AO- veterans, but there was a trend of worse survival in veteran who received Ra-223 later and AO+ veterans.

This study showed that AO+ veterans have a shorter duration of response to therapy and shorter median survival compared with that of AO- veterans. We recommend that veterans should get Ra-223 in the first-line setting rather than after hormonal therapy and chemotherapy because their marrows are still intact. We need to investigate further whether veterans that exposed to carcinogen 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) may have different molecular biology and as such may cause inferior efficacy in the treatment of prostate carcinoma.

Patients with metastatic castrate resistant prostate carcinoma (CRPC) have several treatment options, including radium-223 dichloride (Ra-223) radionuclide therapy, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and cabazitaxel. Ra-223 therapy has been reported to increase median survival in patients with bone metastatic prostate carcinoma.^1,2 However, ERA 223 trial data showed an increase of bone fractures with combination of Ra-223 and abiraterone.³

Agent Orange (AO) exposure has been studied as a potential risk factor for development of prostate carcinoma. AO was a commercially manufactured defoliate that was sprayed extensively during the Vietnam War. Due to a side product of chemical manufacturing, AO was contaminated with the toxin 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, a putative carcinogen. These dioxins can enter the food chain through soil contamination. There is enough evidence to link AO to hematologic malignancies and several solid tumors, including prostate carcinoma.⁴ Although no real estimates exist for what percentage of Vietnam veterans experienced AO exposure, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data showed that about 3 million veterans served in Southeast Asia where AO was used extensively in the combat theater. AO has been reported to be positively associated with a 52% increase in risk of prostate carcinoma detection at initial prostate biopsy.⁵

There has been no reported study of treatment efficacy in veterans with AO-related prostate carcinoma. We present a retrospective study of Ra-223 and other therapies in metastatic CRPC. The purpose of this study was to compare response to therapy and survival in veterans exposed to agent orange (AO+) vs veterans who were not exposed to (AO-) in a single US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) medical center.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of veterans with metastatic CRPC to bones who received Ra-223 radionuclide therapy with standard dose of 50 kBq per kg of body weight and other sequential therapies at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS) from January 2014 to January 2019. The purpose of this study was to measure difference in treatment outcome between AO+ veterans and AO- veterans.

Eligibility Criteria

All veterans had a history that included bone metastasis CRPC. They could have 2 to 3 small lymphadenopathies but not visceral metastasis. They received a minimum of 3 cycles and a maximum of 6 cycles of Ra-223 therapy, which was given in 4-week intervals. Pretreatment criteria was hemoglobin > 10 g/dL, platelet > 100 × 10⁹/L, and absolute neutrophil counts > 1.5 × 10⁹/L. Other therapies, such as abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, and cabazitaxel, were administered either after Ra-223 (Ra first) or before Ra-223 therapy (Ra later). Veterans also received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist (leuprolide acetate) to maintain castrate level of testosterone and bisphosphonates for bone metastasis. Eligible veterans were divided into 2 groups: AO+ and AO-. AO+ veterans are those that were proven to be physically active during the Vietnam War and have been determined by the US government to receive service-connected compensation from the VA. AO- veterans were those who were not exposed to AO.

Statistics

Time to study was calculated from the initiation of Ra-223 therapy. Time to skeletal-related events (SRE), progression of prostate specific antigen (PSA), bone metastasis, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) were calculated in months, using unpaired t test with 2-tailed P value. Median survival was calculated in months by Kaplan Meier R log-rank test Definition).

Results

Forty-eight veterans with bone metastasis CRPC received Ra-223 therapy. Of those, 34 veterans were eligible for this retrospective study: 17 AO+ veterans and 17 AO- veterans. Mean age of diagnosis was 62 years (AO+) and 69 years (AO-) (P = .005). Mean Gleason score was 8.2 (AO+) and 8.0 (AO-) (P = .705). Veterans received initial therapy at diagnosis of prostate carcinoma, including radical prostatectomy (6 AO+ and 3 AO-), localized radiation therapy (3 AO+ and 5 AO-), and ADT (8 AO+ and 9 AO-) (Table 1).

Mean PSA at the initiation of Ra-223 therapy for AO+ was 92.8 (range, 2-551) and for AO- was 102.3 (range, 4-639; P = .86). Mean Ra-223 dose per cycle for AO+ and AO- was 157 uCi and 113 uCi, respectively. All 34 veterans received ADT (leuprolide acetate), and 30 veterans (16 AO+ and 14 AO-) received bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid or denosumab). A total of 10 veterans (29%) received Ra-223 as a first-line therapy (4 AO+ and 6 AO-), and 24 veterans (71%) received Ra-223 after hormonal or chemotherapy (13 AO+ and 11 AO-).

Discussions

There has been no reported VA study of using Ra-223 and other therapies (hormonal and chemotherapy) in veterans exposed to AO. This is the first retrospective study to compare the response and survival between AO+ and AO- veterans. Even though this study featured a small sample, it is interesting to note the difference between those 2 populations. There was 1 prior study in veterans with prostate carcinoma using radiotherapy (brachytherapy) in early-stage disease. Everly and colleagues reported that AO+ veterans were less likely to remain biochemically controlled compared with AO- and nonveteran patients with prostate carcinoma.⁴

Ansbaugh and colleagues reported that AO was associated with a 75% increase in the risk of Gleason ≥ 7 and a 110% increase in Gleason ≥ 8. AO+ veterans are at risk for the detection of high-grade prostate carcinoma. They also tend to have an average age of diagnosis that is 4 to 5 years younger than AO- veterans.⁶

Our study revealed that AO+ veterans were diagnosed at a younger age (mean 62 years) compared with that of AO- veterans (mean 69 years, P = .005). We also proved that AO veterans have a higher mean Gleason score (8.2) compared with that of AO- veterans (8.0). Veterans received therapy at the time of diagnosis of prostate carcinoma with either radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or ADT with leuprolide acetate. Mean PSA at the start of Ra-223 therapy for AO+ was 92.8 (range, 2-551); for AO- was 102.3 (range, 4-639), which is not statistically significant.

Ra-223, an α-emitting radiopharmaceutical, mimics calcium in forming complexes with the bone mineral hydroxyapatite, which specifically targets bone metastases. Ra-223 preferentially targets new bone growth surrounding bone metastases while emitting α particles within the tumor microenvironment. α particles have high linear energy transfer with enhanced ability to induce lethal double-stranded DNA breaks, thus eliciting greater cytotoxic effects on bone-metastatic tumor sites.⁷

In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study by Parker and colleagues (ALSYMPCA study), 921 patients who had received, were not eligible to receive, or declined docetaxel, in a 2:1 ratio, were randomized to receive 6 injections of Ra-223 or matching placebo.² Ra-223 significantly improved overall survival (OS) (median, 14.9 months vs 11.3 months) compared with that of placebo. Ra-223 also prolonged the time to the first symptomatic SRE (median, 15.6 months vs 9.8 months), the time to an increase in the total ALP level (median 7.4 months vs 3.8 months), and the time to an increase in the PSA level (median 3.6 months vs 3.4 months).²

In our study, the mean time to SRE for AO+ was 10.6 months and AO- was 10.3 months (P = .93). Mean time to PSA progression for AO+ was 5.4 months and for AO- was 6.8 months (P = .28). Mean time to bone progression for AO+ and for AO- were 7.6 months and 10.1 months respectively (P = .16). Mean time to ALP progression for AO+ and AO- were 6.3 months and 8.7 months respectively (P = .05). There is a trend of shorter PSA progression, bone progression, and ALP progression in AO+ veterans, though these were not statistically significant due to small sample population. In our study the median survival in for AO- was 18 months and for AO+ was 12 months, which is comparable with median survival of 14.9 months from the ALSYMPCA study.

There were 12 veterans who developed SREs. All received radiation therapy due to bone progression or impending fracture. AO+ veterans developed more SREs (n = 8) when compared with AO- veterans (n = 4). There were more AO- veterans alive (n = 10) than there were AO+ veterans (n = 4). The plausible explanation of this may be due to the aggressive pattern of prostate carcinoma in AO+ veterans (younger age and higher Gleason score).

VAPHS participated in the ERA trial between 2014 and 2016. The trial enrolled 806 patients who were randomly assigned to receive first-line Ra-223 or placebo in addition to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone.³ The study was unblinded prematurely after more fractures and deaths were noted in the Ra-223 and abiraterone group than there were in the placebo and abiraterone group. Median symptomatic SRE was 22.3 months in the Ra-223 group and 26.0 months in the placebo group. Fractures (any grade) occurred in 29% in the Ra-223 group and 11% in the placebo group. It was suggested that Ra-223 could contribute to the risk of osteoporotic fractures in patients with bone metastatic prostate carcinoma. Median OS was 30.7 months in the Ra-223 group and 33.3 months in the placebo group.³

We enrolled 3 veterans in the ERA clinical trial. Two AO+ veterans had SREs at 7 months and 11 months. In our study, the median OS for Ra-223 first line was 32 months, which is comparable with median survival of 30.7 months from ERA-223 study. Median survival for Ra-223 later was only 15 months. We recommend veterans with at least 2 to 3-bone metastasis receive Ra-223 in the first-line setting rather than second- or third-line setting. In this retrospective study with Ra-223 and other therapies, we proved that AO+ veterans have a worse response and OS when compared with that of AO- veterans.

Conclusions

This is the first VA study to compare the efficacy of Ra-223 and other therapies in metastatic CRPC between AO+ and AO- veterans. AO+ veterans were diagnosed at a younger age and had higher Gleason scores. There was no statistical difference between AO+ and AO- veterans in terms of time to SRE, PSA progression, and bone and ALP progression even though there was a trend of shorter duration in AO+ veterans. There was no median survival difference between veterans who received Ra-223 first vs Ra-223 later as well as between AO+ and AO- veterans, but there was a trend of worse survival in veteran who received Ra-223 later and AO+ veterans.

This study showed that AO+ veterans have a shorter duration of response to therapy and shorter median survival compared with that of AO- veterans. We recommend that veterans should get Ra-223 in the first-line setting rather than after hormonal therapy and chemotherapy because their marrows are still intact. We need to investigate further whether veterans that exposed to carcinogen 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) may have different molecular biology and as such may cause inferior efficacy in the treatment of prostate carcinoma.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of durvalumab for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease has not progressed following concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CRT).¹ After 2 randomized phase 3 studies in 2017 and 2018 showed significant progression-free and overall survival respectively,^2,3 durvalumab became a category 1 recommendation for the above indication per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.⁴ Adherence to guidelines have been shown to improve patient survival across several cancer types.^5-7 However, guideline adherence rates have been variable across health institutions. Therefore, further study is warranted to evaluate nonadherent practices with the goal of improving the quality of cancer care delivery.^8,9

Stage III NSCLC is associated with poor survival rates.¹⁰ Concurrent CRT remains the standard of care in patients with good performance status based on clinical trial populations.⁴ Lung cancer remains a disease of the elderly, with a median age at diagnosis of 70 years.¹¹ Discrepancies in the treatment of lung cancer in older adults can vary widely due to a lack of evidence surrounding the treatment in those who have comorbidities and poor performance status, widening the gap between clinical trial and real-world populations.¹¹

A recent review by Passaro and colleagues revealed that at least 11 pivotal randomized controlled trials have shown the activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in locally advanced and metastatic lung cancer. However, these studies have mostly excluded patients with a performance status of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) level ≥ 2.¹¹

Durvalumab is one of many new therapies to enter clinical practice to demonstrate survival benefit, but its use among veterans with stage III NSCLC in adherence with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines was not robust at the Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Alabama. Therefore, we decided to study the level of adherence and to identify barriers to conformity to the category 1 NCCN recommendations.

Methods

The Birmingham VAMC Outpatient Oncology Clinic billing data identified all individuals diagnosed with lung cancer treated between October 2017 and August 2019. Patients who did not have NSCLC that was stage III and unresectable were excluded from our study. Patients who did not receive a majority of their treatment at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities were excluded as well. Each patient’s demographic, functional level, and tumor characteristics during the treatment planning phase and follow-up visits were obtained. Two investigators who evaluated health care provider documentation using the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) conducted chart reviews.

The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who received concurrent CRT and the proportion who received durvalumab consolidation. Our chart review also categorized reasons for nonreceipt of concurrent CRT and subsequent durvalumab. Documented reasons for guideline discordancy were generated empirically and broadly. We noted if documentation was unclear and included reasons for why a veteran was not a candidate for CRT, the presence of toxicities associated with CRT, and a patient’s refusal for therapy despite medical advice. Descriptive data were analyzed for all clinical or demographic characteristics and outcomes.

This was considered an internal quality improvement initiative. As such, Birmingham VAMC did not require institutional review board approval for the study. The facility is accredited by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer.

Results

A total of 41 veterans with stage III NSCLC were identified to have established care in the Birmingham VAMC Oncology Clinic between October 2017 and August 2019. Of these, 7 received the majority of their treatment from community-based non-VA facilities and 14 were not candidates for CRT and were excluded from this study.

The mean (SD) age of study participants was 70.0 (8.4) years (range, 57 to 92 years). Most of the study veterans (33; 97.1%) were male and 20 (58.8%) were African American (Table). Eighteen (53%) of study participants had clinical stage IIIa NSCLC; 19 (56%) showed a squamous subtype of NSCLC. A majority (53%) of the veterans studied were evaluated to be functionally fit with an ECOG status of 0 to 1, although documentation of ECOG status was lacking in 5 (14.7%) patients in the initial treatment planning visit records. It was unclear if performance status had been reevaluated and changes noted over the course of concurrent CRT.

CRT Patients

The relative distribution of veterans who underwent CRT for stage III NSCLC plus the reasons they did not receive guideline-based treatment with durvalumab is shown in the Figure. Fourteen patients (41%) were inappropriate candidates for CRT; the most common reason for this was their poor performance status upon initial evaluation and 3 patients (8.8%) in the study had extensive disease or were upstaged upon follow-up clinic visit.

Twenty (59%) veterans in the study initiated CRT. However, only 16 (47.1%) completed CRT. Those who dropped out of CRT did so because of toxicities that included various cytopenia, gastrointestinal toxicities due to radiation and/or chemotherapy, or failure to thrive.

Durvalumab Treatment

After initiation of CRT, 9 (26.5%) patients did not go on to receive durvalumab. Three patients (8.8%) suffered toxicities during CRT. One study patient was found to have a severe respiratory infection requiring intensive care unit admission. Another study patient was found to have a new sternal lesion on follow-up positron emission tomography. One declined because of a history of severe antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies vasculitis, which made durvalumab use unsafe. Three patients (8.8%) declined treatment with CRT or durvalumab because of personal preference. Documentation was unclear as to why durvalumab was prescribed to one patient who had completed CRT.

Discussion

NCCN guidelines on the use of durvalumab in NSCLC are based on the phase 3 PACIFIC placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. This trial, which included only patients with documented performance status of ECOG 0 or 1, reported that grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 30.5% of patients randomized to consolidative durvalumab. Treatment was discontinued in 15.4% of patients due to adverse events.³

Our study examined consolidation therapy with durvalumab in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC with an ECOG performance status of 0 to 1 who had not progressed after 2 or more cycles of definitive concurrent CRT.⁴ Patients with previous exposure to immunotherapy, a history of immunodeficiency, active infection, unresolved toxicity from CRT, autoimmune disease, and patients who received sequential CRT were excluded.² Surprisingly, the adherence rate to guidelines was close to 100% with appropriate documentation and justification of CRT initiation and durvalumab use. Five (14.7%) of veterans with unresectable stage III NSCLC did not have clear documentation of ECOG status on initial visit and only 1 veteran who completed CRT did not have clear documentation as to why durvalumab was not provided. Unfortunately, 23 (68.6%) veterans in the study were unable to receive durvalumab, a potentially disease-modifying drug; nearly one-third (10) of veterans were deemed poor candidates for concurrent CRT despite the fact that 52.9% (18) of veterans in the study had a documented ECOG of 0 or 1 on initial evaluation.

Clinical Trials vs Real World

The heterogeneity between anticipated study populations, those who were able to receive durvalumab in the PACIFIC trial, compared with our observed real-world veteran population, likely stems from the lack of information about how comorbidity and fitness can affect the choice of therapeutic intervention in patients with lung cancer.¹² In addition, older adults who participated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not representative of the average older adult who presents to medical oncology clinics, making the application of guideline concordant care difficult.¹³

Similar real-world observations parallel to our analyses have confirmed, complemented and/or refuted findings of RCTs, and have helped impact the treatment of multiple acute and chronic conditions including influenza, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.¹⁴

A component of socioeconomic barriers and access to supportive care played roles in the decisions of certain patients who chose not to undergo concurrent CRT despite medical advice. These 2 obstacles also affected the decision making for some in the study when considering the use of durvalumab (administered by a 60-minute IV infusion every 2 weeks for 1 year) per recommended guidelines.¹ These hurdles need further study in the context of their effect on quality of life and the difficulties generated by various social determinants of health.

Limitations

Study limitations included the biased and confounding factors previously described about retrospective and nonrandomized observational studies that are controlled for during RCTs.¹⁵ Electronic health record data may have been incorrectly collected resulting in missing or wrong data points that affect the validity of our conclusion. Recall bias with regard to documentation by health care providers describing reasons why CRT or durvalumab were not initiated or the patient’s ability to recall previous treatments and report ECOG status or toxicities also may have impacted our findings. Comorbidities and poor performance status, frequently occurring among veterans, negatively impact cancer treatment decisions and may result in a detection bias. For example, tobacco use, cardiovascular disease, including heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are notoriously higher in the US veteran population when compared with civilian cohorts.^16-18 Also, veterans with poorly controlled depression and posttraumatic stress disorder resulting in functional impairment are a factor.¹⁹ Steps were taken to address some of these biases by performing repeat checks of tabulated data and employing 2 independent reviewers to evaluate all relevant clinical documentation, compare results, and reach a consensus.

Conlcusions

This retrospective analysis of adherence to category 1 NCCN guidelines for durvalumab use among patients at the Birmingham VAMC Oncology Clinic reinforced our practice and identified minor deficiencies in documentation that would impact future clinical visits. More importantly, it depicted the massive disparity in treatment candidacy among Birmingham veterans compared with clinical trial populations. Efforts will be made to address factors impacting a veteran’s candidacy for CRT and explore other variables such as socioeconomic barriers to treatment. Multiple complementary tools to assess patients’ frailty, such as the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), are now being used for a variety of disorders including cancers. More robust data and standardization are needed to validate the use of these assessments in predicting response to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently being evaluated in stage III NSCLC studies and may be implemented as routine practice in the future.¹² It is important to distinguish fit from frail veterans with lung cancer for treatment selection. We would like to see the expansion of the eligibility criteria for clinical trials to include patients with a performance status of ECOG 2 in order for results to be truly generalizable to the real-world population. Our hope is that such work will improve not only the quality of lung cancer care, but also the quality of care across multiple tumor types.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of durvalumab for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease has not progressed following concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CRT).¹ After 2 randomized phase 3 studies in 2017 and 2018 showed significant progression-free and overall survival respectively,^2,3 durvalumab became a category 1 recommendation for the above indication per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.⁴ Adherence to guidelines have been shown to improve patient survival across several cancer types.^5-7 However, guideline adherence rates have been variable across health institutions. Therefore, further study is warranted to evaluate nonadherent practices with the goal of improving the quality of cancer care delivery.^8,9

Stage III NSCLC is associated with poor survival rates.¹⁰ Concurrent CRT remains the standard of care in patients with good performance status based on clinical trial populations.⁴ Lung cancer remains a disease of the elderly, with a median age at diagnosis of 70 years.¹¹ Discrepancies in the treatment of lung cancer in older adults can vary widely due to a lack of evidence surrounding the treatment in those who have comorbidities and poor performance status, widening the gap between clinical trial and real-world populations.¹¹

A recent review by Passaro and colleagues revealed that at least 11 pivotal randomized controlled trials have shown the activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in locally advanced and metastatic lung cancer. However, these studies have mostly excluded patients with a performance status of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) level ≥ 2.¹¹

Durvalumab is one of many new therapies to enter clinical practice to demonstrate survival benefit, but its use among veterans with stage III NSCLC in adherence with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines was not robust at the Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Alabama. Therefore, we decided to study the level of adherence and to identify barriers to conformity to the category 1 NCCN recommendations.

Methods

The Birmingham VAMC Outpatient Oncology Clinic billing data identified all individuals diagnosed with lung cancer treated between October 2017 and August 2019. Patients who did not have NSCLC that was stage III and unresectable were excluded from our study. Patients who did not receive a majority of their treatment at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities were excluded as well. Each patient’s demographic, functional level, and tumor characteristics during the treatment planning phase and follow-up visits were obtained. Two investigators who evaluated health care provider documentation using the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) conducted chart reviews.

The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who received concurrent CRT and the proportion who received durvalumab consolidation. Our chart review also categorized reasons for nonreceipt of concurrent CRT and subsequent durvalumab. Documented reasons for guideline discordancy were generated empirically and broadly. We noted if documentation was unclear and included reasons for why a veteran was not a candidate for CRT, the presence of toxicities associated with CRT, and a patient’s refusal for therapy despite medical advice. Descriptive data were analyzed for all clinical or demographic characteristics and outcomes.

This was considered an internal quality improvement initiative. As such, Birmingham VAMC did not require institutional review board approval for the study. The facility is accredited by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer.

Results

A total of 41 veterans with stage III NSCLC were identified to have established care in the Birmingham VAMC Oncology Clinic between October 2017 and August 2019. Of these, 7 received the majority of their treatment from community-based non-VA facilities and 14 were not candidates for CRT and were excluded from this study.

The mean (SD) age of study participants was 70.0 (8.4) years (range, 57 to 92 years). Most of the study veterans (33; 97.1%) were male and 20 (58.8%) were African American (Table). Eighteen (53%) of study participants had clinical stage IIIa NSCLC; 19 (56%) showed a squamous subtype of NSCLC. A majority (53%) of the veterans studied were evaluated to be functionally fit with an ECOG status of 0 to 1, although documentation of ECOG status was lacking in 5 (14.7%) patients in the initial treatment planning visit records. It was unclear if performance status had been reevaluated and changes noted over the course of concurrent CRT.

CRT Patients

The relative distribution of veterans who underwent CRT for stage III NSCLC plus the reasons they did not receive guideline-based treatment with durvalumab is shown in the Figure. Fourteen patients (41%) were inappropriate candidates for CRT; the most common reason for this was their poor performance status upon initial evaluation and 3 patients (8.8%) in the study had extensive disease or were upstaged upon follow-up clinic visit.

Twenty (59%) veterans in the study initiated CRT. However, only 16 (47.1%) completed CRT. Those who dropped out of CRT did so because of toxicities that included various cytopenia, gastrointestinal toxicities due to radiation and/or chemotherapy, or failure to thrive.

Durvalumab Treatment

After initiation of CRT, 9 (26.5%) patients did not go on to receive durvalumab. Three patients (8.8%) suffered toxicities during CRT. One study patient was found to have a severe respiratory infection requiring intensive care unit admission. Another study patient was found to have a new sternal lesion on follow-up positron emission tomography. One declined because of a history of severe antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies vasculitis, which made durvalumab use unsafe. Three patients (8.8%) declined treatment with CRT or durvalumab because of personal preference. Documentation was unclear as to why durvalumab was prescribed to one patient who had completed CRT.

Discussion

NCCN guidelines on the use of durvalumab in NSCLC are based on the phase 3 PACIFIC placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. This trial, which included only patients with documented performance status of ECOG 0 or 1, reported that grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 30.5% of patients randomized to consolidative durvalumab. Treatment was discontinued in 15.4% of patients due to adverse events.³

Our study examined consolidation therapy with durvalumab in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC with an ECOG performance status of 0 to 1 who had not progressed after 2 or more cycles of definitive concurrent CRT.⁴ Patients with previous exposure to immunotherapy, a history of immunodeficiency, active infection, unresolved toxicity from CRT, autoimmune disease, and patients who received sequential CRT were excluded.² Surprisingly, the adherence rate to guidelines was close to 100% with appropriate documentation and justification of CRT initiation and durvalumab use. Five (14.7%) of veterans with unresectable stage III NSCLC did not have clear documentation of ECOG status on initial visit and only 1 veteran who completed CRT did not have clear documentation as to why durvalumab was not provided. Unfortunately, 23 (68.6%) veterans in the study were unable to receive durvalumab, a potentially disease-modifying drug; nearly one-third (10) of veterans were deemed poor candidates for concurrent CRT despite the fact that 52.9% (18) of veterans in the study had a documented ECOG of 0 or 1 on initial evaluation.

Clinical Trials vs Real World

The heterogeneity between anticipated study populations, those who were able to receive durvalumab in the PACIFIC trial, compared with our observed real-world veteran population, likely stems from the lack of information about how comorbidity and fitness can affect the choice of therapeutic intervention in patients with lung cancer.¹² In addition, older adults who participated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not representative of the average older adult who presents to medical oncology clinics, making the application of guideline concordant care difficult.¹³

Similar real-world observations parallel to our analyses have confirmed, complemented and/or refuted findings of RCTs, and have helped impact the treatment of multiple acute and chronic conditions including influenza, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.¹⁴

A component of socioeconomic barriers and access to supportive care played roles in the decisions of certain patients who chose not to undergo concurrent CRT despite medical advice. These 2 obstacles also affected the decision making for some in the study when considering the use of durvalumab (administered by a 60-minute IV infusion every 2 weeks for 1 year) per recommended guidelines.¹ These hurdles need further study in the context of their effect on quality of life and the difficulties generated by various social determinants of health.

Limitations

Study limitations included the biased and confounding factors previously described about retrospective and nonrandomized observational studies that are controlled for during RCTs.¹⁵ Electronic health record data may have been incorrectly collected resulting in missing or wrong data points that affect the validity of our conclusion. Recall bias with regard to documentation by health care providers describing reasons why CRT or durvalumab were not initiated or the patient’s ability to recall previous treatments and report ECOG status or toxicities also may have impacted our findings. Comorbidities and poor performance status, frequently occurring among veterans, negatively impact cancer treatment decisions and may result in a detection bias. For example, tobacco use, cardiovascular disease, including heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are notoriously higher in the US veteran population when compared with civilian cohorts.^16-18 Also, veterans with poorly controlled depression and posttraumatic stress disorder resulting in functional impairment are a factor.¹⁹ Steps were taken to address some of these biases by performing repeat checks of tabulated data and employing 2 independent reviewers to evaluate all relevant clinical documentation, compare results, and reach a consensus.

Conlcusions

This retrospective analysis of adherence to category 1 NCCN guidelines for durvalumab use among patients at the Birmingham VAMC Oncology Clinic reinforced our practice and identified minor deficiencies in documentation that would impact future clinical visits. More importantly, it depicted the massive disparity in treatment candidacy among Birmingham veterans compared with clinical trial populations. Efforts will be made to address factors impacting a veteran’s candidacy for CRT and explore other variables such as socioeconomic barriers to treatment. Multiple complementary tools to assess patients’ frailty, such as the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), are now being used for a variety of disorders including cancers. More robust data and standardization are needed to validate the use of these assessments in predicting response to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently being evaluated in stage III NSCLC studies and may be implemented as routine practice in the future.¹² It is important to distinguish fit from frail veterans with lung cancer for treatment selection. We would like to see the expansion of the eligibility criteria for clinical trials to include patients with a performance status of ECOG 2 in order for results to be truly generalizable to the real-world population. Our hope is that such work will improve not only the quality of lung cancer care, but also the quality of care across multiple tumor types.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of durvalumab for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease has not progressed following concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy (CRT).¹ After 2 randomized phase 3 studies in 2017 and 2018 showed significant progression-free and overall survival respectively,^2,3 durvalumab became a category 1 recommendation for the above indication per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.⁴ Adherence to guidelines have been shown to improve patient survival across several cancer types.^5-7 However, guideline adherence rates have been variable across health institutions. Therefore, further study is warranted to evaluate nonadherent practices with the goal of improving the quality of cancer care delivery.^8,9

Stage III NSCLC is associated with poor survival rates.¹⁰ Concurrent CRT remains the standard of care in patients with good performance status based on clinical trial populations.⁴ Lung cancer remains a disease of the elderly, with a median age at diagnosis of 70 years.¹¹ Discrepancies in the treatment of lung cancer in older adults can vary widely due to a lack of evidence surrounding the treatment in those who have comorbidities and poor performance status, widening the gap between clinical trial and real-world populations.¹¹

A recent review by Passaro and colleagues revealed that at least 11 pivotal randomized controlled trials have shown the activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in locally advanced and metastatic lung cancer. However, these studies have mostly excluded patients with a performance status of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) level ≥ 2.¹¹

Durvalumab is one of many new therapies to enter clinical practice to demonstrate survival benefit, but its use among veterans with stage III NSCLC in adherence with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines was not robust at the Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Alabama. Therefore, we decided to study the level of adherence and to identify barriers to conformity to the category 1 NCCN recommendations.

Methods

The Birmingham VAMC Outpatient Oncology Clinic billing data identified all individuals diagnosed with lung cancer treated between October 2017 and August 2019. Patients who did not have NSCLC that was stage III and unresectable were excluded from our study. Patients who did not receive a majority of their treatment at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities were excluded as well. Each patient’s demographic, functional level, and tumor characteristics during the treatment planning phase and follow-up visits were obtained. Two investigators who evaluated health care provider documentation using the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) conducted chart reviews.

The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who received concurrent CRT and the proportion who received durvalumab consolidation. Our chart review also categorized reasons for nonreceipt of concurrent CRT and subsequent durvalumab. Documented reasons for guideline discordancy were generated empirically and broadly. We noted if documentation was unclear and included reasons for why a veteran was not a candidate for CRT, the presence of toxicities associated with CRT, and a patient’s refusal for therapy despite medical advice. Descriptive data were analyzed for all clinical or demographic characteristics and outcomes.

This was considered an internal quality improvement initiative. As such, Birmingham VAMC did not require institutional review board approval for the study. The facility is accredited by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer.

Results

A total of 41 veterans with stage III NSCLC were identified to have established care in the Birmingham VAMC Oncology Clinic between October 2017 and August 2019. Of these, 7 received the majority of their treatment from community-based non-VA facilities and 14 were not candidates for CRT and were excluded from this study.

The mean (SD) age of study participants was 70.0 (8.4) years (range, 57 to 92 years). Most of the study veterans (33; 97.1%) were male and 20 (58.8%) were African American (Table). Eighteen (53%) of study participants had clinical stage IIIa NSCLC; 19 (56%) showed a squamous subtype of NSCLC. A majority (53%) of the veterans studied were evaluated to be functionally fit with an ECOG status of 0 to 1, although documentation of ECOG status was lacking in 5 (14.7%) patients in the initial treatment planning visit records. It was unclear if performance status had been reevaluated and changes noted over the course of concurrent CRT.

CRT Patients

The relative distribution of veterans who underwent CRT for stage III NSCLC plus the reasons they did not receive guideline-based treatment with durvalumab is shown in the Figure. Fourteen patients (41%) were inappropriate candidates for CRT; the most common reason for this was their poor performance status upon initial evaluation and 3 patients (8.8%) in the study had extensive disease or were upstaged upon follow-up clinic visit.

Twenty (59%) veterans in the study initiated CRT. However, only 16 (47.1%) completed CRT. Those who dropped out of CRT did so because of toxicities that included various cytopenia, gastrointestinal toxicities due to radiation and/or chemotherapy, or failure to thrive.

Durvalumab Treatment

After initiation of CRT, 9 (26.5%) patients did not go on to receive durvalumab. Three patients (8.8%) suffered toxicities during CRT. One study patient was found to have a severe respiratory infection requiring intensive care unit admission. Another study patient was found to have a new sternal lesion on follow-up positron emission tomography. One declined because of a history of severe antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies vasculitis, which made durvalumab use unsafe. Three patients (8.8%) declined treatment with CRT or durvalumab because of personal preference. Documentation was unclear as to why durvalumab was prescribed to one patient who had completed CRT.

Discussion

NCCN guidelines on the use of durvalumab in NSCLC are based on the phase 3 PACIFIC placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. This trial, which included only patients with documented performance status of ECOG 0 or 1, reported that grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 30.5% of patients randomized to consolidative durvalumab. Treatment was discontinued in 15.4% of patients due to adverse events.³

Our study examined consolidation therapy with durvalumab in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC with an ECOG performance status of 0 to 1 who had not progressed after 2 or more cycles of definitive concurrent CRT.⁴ Patients with previous exposure to immunotherapy, a history of immunodeficiency, active infection, unresolved toxicity from CRT, autoimmune disease, and patients who received sequential CRT were excluded.² Surprisingly, the adherence rate to guidelines was close to 100% with appropriate documentation and justification of CRT initiation and durvalumab use. Five (14.7%) of veterans with unresectable stage III NSCLC did not have clear documentation of ECOG status on initial visit and only 1 veteran who completed CRT did not have clear documentation as to why durvalumab was not provided. Unfortunately, 23 (68.6%) veterans in the study were unable to receive durvalumab, a potentially disease-modifying drug; nearly one-third (10) of veterans were deemed poor candidates for concurrent CRT despite the fact that 52.9% (18) of veterans in the study had a documented ECOG of 0 or 1 on initial evaluation.

Clinical Trials vs Real World

The heterogeneity between anticipated study populations, those who were able to receive durvalumab in the PACIFIC trial, compared with our observed real-world veteran population, likely stems from the lack of information about how comorbidity and fitness can affect the choice of therapeutic intervention in patients with lung cancer.¹² In addition, older adults who participated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not representative of the average older adult who presents to medical oncology clinics, making the application of guideline concordant care difficult.¹³

Similar real-world observations parallel to our analyses have confirmed, complemented and/or refuted findings of RCTs, and have helped impact the treatment of multiple acute and chronic conditions including influenza, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes.¹⁴

A component of socioeconomic barriers and access to supportive care played roles in the decisions of certain patients who chose not to undergo concurrent CRT despite medical advice. These 2 obstacles also affected the decision making for some in the study when considering the use of durvalumab (administered by a 60-minute IV infusion every 2 weeks for 1 year) per recommended guidelines.¹ These hurdles need further study in the context of their effect on quality of life and the difficulties generated by various social determinants of health.

Limitations

Study limitations included the biased and confounding factors previously described about retrospective and nonrandomized observational studies that are controlled for during RCTs.¹⁵ Electronic health record data may have been incorrectly collected resulting in missing or wrong data points that affect the validity of our conclusion. Recall bias with regard to documentation by health care providers describing reasons why CRT or durvalumab were not initiated or the patient’s ability to recall previous treatments and report ECOG status or toxicities also may have impacted our findings. Comorbidities and poor performance status, frequently occurring among veterans, negatively impact cancer treatment decisions and may result in a detection bias. For example, tobacco use, cardiovascular disease, including heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are notoriously higher in the US veteran population when compared with civilian cohorts.^16-18 Also, veterans with poorly controlled depression and posttraumatic stress disorder resulting in functional impairment are a factor.¹⁹ Steps were taken to address some of these biases by performing repeat checks of tabulated data and employing 2 independent reviewers to evaluate all relevant clinical documentation, compare results, and reach a consensus.

Conlcusions

This retrospective analysis of adherence to category 1 NCCN guidelines for durvalumab use among patients at the Birmingham VAMC Oncology Clinic reinforced our practice and identified minor deficiencies in documentation that would impact future clinical visits. More importantly, it depicted the massive disparity in treatment candidacy among Birmingham veterans compared with clinical trial populations. Efforts will be made to address factors impacting a veteran’s candidacy for CRT and explore other variables such as socioeconomic barriers to treatment. Multiple complementary tools to assess patients’ frailty, such as the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), are now being used for a variety of disorders including cancers. More robust data and standardization are needed to validate the use of these assessments in predicting response to immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently being evaluated in stage III NSCLC studies and may be implemented as routine practice in the future.¹² It is important to distinguish fit from frail veterans with lung cancer for treatment selection. We would like to see the expansion of the eligibility criteria for clinical trials to include patients with a performance status of ECOG 2 in order for results to be truly generalizable to the real-world population. Our hope is that such work will improve not only the quality of lung cancer care, but also the quality of care across multiple tumor types.

New data document the global fallout for rheumatology patients when hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) supplies were being diverted to hospitals for COVID-19 patients.

Demand for HCQ soared on evidence-lacking claims that the drug was effective in treating and preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further research has since shown HCQ to be ineffective for COVID-19 and potentially harmful to patients.

But during the height of the COVID-19-related hype, patients worldwide with autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, had trouble getting the pills at all or couldn’t get as many as they needed for their chronic conditions.

Emily Sirotich, MSc, a PhD student at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., presented data at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology demonstrating that the severity of shortages differed widely.

Whereas 26.7% of rheumatology patients in Africa and 21.4% in southeast Asia said their pharmacy ran short of HCQ – which was originally developed as an antimalarial drug but has been found effective in treating some rheumatic diseases – only 6.8% of patients in the Americas and 2.1% in European regions reported the shortages.

“There are large regional disparities in access to antimalarials whether they were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or already existed,” she said in an interview.

Global survey polled patient experience

Ms. Sirotich’s team analyzed data from the Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey.

They found that from 9,393 respondents (average age 46.1 years and 90% female), 3,872 (41.2%) were taking antimalarials. Of these, 230 (6.2% globally) were unable to keep taking the drugs because their pharmacy ran out.

Researchers evaluated the effect of drug shortages on disease activity, mental health, and physical health by comparing mean values with two-sided independent t-tests to identify significant differences.

They found that patients who were unable to obtain antimalarials had significantly higher levels of rheumatic disease activity as well as poorer mental and physical health (all P < .001).

The survey was distributed online through patient support groups and on social media. Patients with rheumatic diseases or their parents anonymously entered data including their rheumatic disease diagnosis, medications, COVID-19 status, and disease outcomes.

Ms. Sirotich said they are currently gathering new data to see if the gaps in access to HCQ persist and whether the physical and mental consequences of not having the medications continue.

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), said in an interview that hospitals in the United States received large amounts of HCQ in late spring and early summer, donated by pharmaceutical companies for COVID-19 before the lack of evidence for efficacy became clear.

Hospitals found themselves sitting on large quantities of HCQ they couldn’t use while prescriptions for rheumatology outpatients were going unfilled.

It is only in recent months that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has given clear direction to hospitals on how to redistribute those supplies, Dr. Ganio said.

“There’s no good real good way to move a product from a hospital to a [drug store] down the street,” he said.

The Food and Drug Administration now lists the HCQ shortages as resolved.
 

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

Brett Smith, DO, a pediatric and adult rheumatologist in Alcoa, Tenn., said he was frustrated by pharmacies declining his prescriptions for HCQ for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“I got notes from pharmacies that I should consider alternative agents,” he said in an interview. But the safety profiles of the alternatives were not as good, he said.

“Hydroxychloroquine has no risk of infection and no risk of malignancy, and they were proposing alternative agents that carry those risks,” he said.

“I had some people with RA who couldn’t get [HCQ] who had a substantial increase in swollen joints and pain without it,” he said.

Dr. Smith said some patients who use HCQ for off-label uses such as certain skin disorders still aren’t getting the drug, as off-label use has been discouraged to make sure those with lupus and RA have enough, he said.

Saira Sheikh, MD, director of the University of North Carolina Rheumatology Lupus Clinic in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that during the summer months pharmacists required additional documentation of the diagnosis of autoimmune disease, resulting in unnecessary delays even when patients had been on the medication for many years.

She said emerging research has found patient-reported barriers to filling prescriptions, interruptions in HCQ treatment, and reported emotional stress and anxiety related to medication access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This experience with HCQ during the COVID-19 pandemic teaches us that while swift action and progress to address the immediate threats of the pandemic should be commended, it is important that we move forward in a conscious manner, guided by an evidence base that comes from high-quality research, not from rushed judgments based on preliminary studies, or pressure from political leaders,” Dr. Sheikh said.

Ms. Sirotich, Dr. Smith, Dr. Sheikh, and Dr. Ganio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data document the global fallout for rheumatology patients when hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) supplies were being diverted to hospitals for COVID-19 patients.

Demand for HCQ soared on evidence-lacking claims that the drug was effective in treating and preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further research has since shown HCQ to be ineffective for COVID-19 and potentially harmful to patients.

But during the height of the COVID-19-related hype, patients worldwide with autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, had trouble getting the pills at all or couldn’t get as many as they needed for their chronic conditions.

Emily Sirotich, MSc, a PhD student at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., presented data at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology demonstrating that the severity of shortages differed widely.

Whereas 26.7% of rheumatology patients in Africa and 21.4% in southeast Asia said their pharmacy ran short of HCQ – which was originally developed as an antimalarial drug but has been found effective in treating some rheumatic diseases – only 6.8% of patients in the Americas and 2.1% in European regions reported the shortages.

“There are large regional disparities in access to antimalarials whether they were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or already existed,” she said in an interview.

Global survey polled patient experience

Ms. Sirotich’s team analyzed data from the Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey.

They found that from 9,393 respondents (average age 46.1 years and 90% female), 3,872 (41.2%) were taking antimalarials. Of these, 230 (6.2% globally) were unable to keep taking the drugs because their pharmacy ran out.

Researchers evaluated the effect of drug shortages on disease activity, mental health, and physical health by comparing mean values with two-sided independent t-tests to identify significant differences.

They found that patients who were unable to obtain antimalarials had significantly higher levels of rheumatic disease activity as well as poorer mental and physical health (all P < .001).

The survey was distributed online through patient support groups and on social media. Patients with rheumatic diseases or their parents anonymously entered data including their rheumatic disease diagnosis, medications, COVID-19 status, and disease outcomes.

Ms. Sirotich said they are currently gathering new data to see if the gaps in access to HCQ persist and whether the physical and mental consequences of not having the medications continue.

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), said in an interview that hospitals in the United States received large amounts of HCQ in late spring and early summer, donated by pharmaceutical companies for COVID-19 before the lack of evidence for efficacy became clear.

Hospitals found themselves sitting on large quantities of HCQ they couldn’t use while prescriptions for rheumatology outpatients were going unfilled.

It is only in recent months that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has given clear direction to hospitals on how to redistribute those supplies, Dr. Ganio said.

“There’s no good real good way to move a product from a hospital to a [drug store] down the street,” he said.

The Food and Drug Administration now lists the HCQ shortages as resolved.
 

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

Brett Smith, DO, a pediatric and adult rheumatologist in Alcoa, Tenn., said he was frustrated by pharmacies declining his prescriptions for HCQ for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“I got notes from pharmacies that I should consider alternative agents,” he said in an interview. But the safety profiles of the alternatives were not as good, he said.

“Hydroxychloroquine has no risk of infection and no risk of malignancy, and they were proposing alternative agents that carry those risks,” he said.

“I had some people with RA who couldn’t get [HCQ] who had a substantial increase in swollen joints and pain without it,” he said.

Dr. Smith said some patients who use HCQ for off-label uses such as certain skin disorders still aren’t getting the drug, as off-label use has been discouraged to make sure those with lupus and RA have enough, he said.

Saira Sheikh, MD, director of the University of North Carolina Rheumatology Lupus Clinic in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that during the summer months pharmacists required additional documentation of the diagnosis of autoimmune disease, resulting in unnecessary delays even when patients had been on the medication for many years.

She said emerging research has found patient-reported barriers to filling prescriptions, interruptions in HCQ treatment, and reported emotional stress and anxiety related to medication access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This experience with HCQ during the COVID-19 pandemic teaches us that while swift action and progress to address the immediate threats of the pandemic should be commended, it is important that we move forward in a conscious manner, guided by an evidence base that comes from high-quality research, not from rushed judgments based on preliminary studies, or pressure from political leaders,” Dr. Sheikh said.

Ms. Sirotich, Dr. Smith, Dr. Sheikh, and Dr. Ganio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data document the global fallout for rheumatology patients when hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) supplies were being diverted to hospitals for COVID-19 patients.

Demand for HCQ soared on evidence-lacking claims that the drug was effective in treating and preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further research has since shown HCQ to be ineffective for COVID-19 and potentially harmful to patients.

But during the height of the COVID-19-related hype, patients worldwide with autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, had trouble getting the pills at all or couldn’t get as many as they needed for their chronic conditions.

Emily Sirotich, MSc, a PhD student at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., presented data at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology demonstrating that the severity of shortages differed widely.

Whereas 26.7% of rheumatology patients in Africa and 21.4% in southeast Asia said their pharmacy ran short of HCQ – which was originally developed as an antimalarial drug but has been found effective in treating some rheumatic diseases – only 6.8% of patients in the Americas and 2.1% in European regions reported the shortages.

“There are large regional disparities in access to antimalarials whether they were caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or already existed,” she said in an interview.

Global survey polled patient experience

Ms. Sirotich’s team analyzed data from the Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey.

They found that from 9,393 respondents (average age 46.1 years and 90% female), 3,872 (41.2%) were taking antimalarials. Of these, 230 (6.2% globally) were unable to keep taking the drugs because their pharmacy ran out.

Researchers evaluated the effect of drug shortages on disease activity, mental health, and physical health by comparing mean values with two-sided independent t-tests to identify significant differences.

They found that patients who were unable to obtain antimalarials had significantly higher levels of rheumatic disease activity as well as poorer mental and physical health (all P < .001).

The survey was distributed online through patient support groups and on social media. Patients with rheumatic diseases or their parents anonymously entered data including their rheumatic disease diagnosis, medications, COVID-19 status, and disease outcomes.

Ms. Sirotich said they are currently gathering new data to see if the gaps in access to HCQ persist and whether the physical and mental consequences of not having the medications continue.

Hospitals stockpiled HCQ in the U.S.

Michael Ganio, PharmD, senior director of pharmacy practice and quality at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), said in an interview that hospitals in the United States received large amounts of HCQ in late spring and early summer, donated by pharmaceutical companies for COVID-19 before the lack of evidence for efficacy became clear.

Hospitals found themselves sitting on large quantities of HCQ they couldn’t use while prescriptions for rheumatology outpatients were going unfilled.

It is only in recent months that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has given clear direction to hospitals on how to redistribute those supplies, Dr. Ganio said.

“There’s no good real good way to move a product from a hospital to a [drug store] down the street,” he said.

The Food and Drug Administration now lists the HCQ shortages as resolved.
 

Declined prescriptions have frustrated physicians

Brett Smith, DO, a pediatric and adult rheumatologist in Alcoa, Tenn., said he was frustrated by pharmacies declining his prescriptions for HCQ for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“I got notes from pharmacies that I should consider alternative agents,” he said in an interview. But the safety profiles of the alternatives were not as good, he said.

“Hydroxychloroquine has no risk of infection and no risk of malignancy, and they were proposing alternative agents that carry those risks,” he said.

“I had some people with RA who couldn’t get [HCQ] who had a substantial increase in swollen joints and pain without it,” he said.

Dr. Smith said some patients who use HCQ for off-label uses such as certain skin disorders still aren’t getting the drug, as off-label use has been discouraged to make sure those with lupus and RA have enough, he said.

Saira Sheikh, MD, director of the University of North Carolina Rheumatology Lupus Clinic in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that during the summer months pharmacists required additional documentation of the diagnosis of autoimmune disease, resulting in unnecessary delays even when patients had been on the medication for many years.

She said emerging research has found patient-reported barriers to filling prescriptions, interruptions in HCQ treatment, and reported emotional stress and anxiety related to medication access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This experience with HCQ during the COVID-19 pandemic teaches us that while swift action and progress to address the immediate threats of the pandemic should be commended, it is important that we move forward in a conscious manner, guided by an evidence base that comes from high-quality research, not from rushed judgments based on preliminary studies, or pressure from political leaders,” Dr. Sheikh said.

Ms. Sirotich, Dr. Smith, Dr. Sheikh, and Dr. Ganio have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endocrine diseases of any type – not just diabetes – can represent a cardiovascular risk and patients with those disorders should be screened for high cholesterol, according to a new clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.

“The simple recommendation to check a lipid panel in patients with endocrine diseases and calculate cardiovascular risk may be practice changing because that is not done routinely,” Connie Newman, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society committee that developed the guideline, said in an interview.

“Usually the focus is on assessment and treatment of the endocrine disease, rather than on assessment and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said Newman, an adjunct professor of medicine in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, at New York University.

Whereas diabetes, well-known for its increased cardiovascular risk profile, is commonly addressed in other cardiovascular and cholesterol practice management guidelines, the array of other endocrine diseases are not typically included.

“This guideline is the first of its kind,” Dr. Newman said. “The Endocrine Society has not previously issued a guideline on lipid management in endocrine disorders [and] other organizations have not written guidelines on this topic. 

“Rather, guidelines have been written on cholesterol management, but these do not describe cholesterol management in patients with endocrine diseases such as thyroid disease [hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism], Cushing’s syndrome, acromegaly, growth hormone deficiency, menopause, male hypogonadism, and obesity,” she noted.

But these conditions carry a host of cardiovascular risk factors that may require careful monitoring and management.

“Although endocrine hormones, such as thyroid hormone, cortisol, estrogen, testosterone, growth hormone, and insulin, affect pathways for lipid metabolism, physicians lack guidance on lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular risk, and treatment to reduce lipids and cardiovascular risk in patients with endocrine diseases,” she explained.

Vinaya Simha, MD, an internal medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agrees that the guideline is notable in addressing an unmet need.

Recommendations that stand out to Dr. Simha include the suggestion of adding eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) ethyl ester to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who have elevated triglyceride levels despite statin treatment.

James L. Rosenzweig, MD, an endocrinologist at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston, agreed that this is an important addition to an area that needs more guidance.

“Many of these clinical situations can exacerbate dyslipidemia and some also increase the cardiovascular risk to a greater extent in combination with elevated cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” he said in an interview. 

“In many cases, treatment of the underlying disorder appropriately can have an important impact in resolving the lipid disorder. In others, more aggressive pharmacological treatment is indicated,” he said.

“I think that this will be a valuable resource, especially for endocrinologists, but it can be used as well by providers in other disciplines.”
 

Key recommendations for different endocrine conditions

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, details those risks and provides evidence-based recommendations on their management and treatment.

Key recommendations include:

• Obtain a lipid panel and evaluate cardiovascular risk factors in all adults with endocrine disorders.
• In patients with  and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, start statin therapy in addition to lifestyle modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. “This could mean earlier treatment because other guidelines recommend consideration of therapy at age 40,” Dr. Newman said.
• Statin therapy is also recommended for adults over 40 with  with a duration of diabetes of more than 20 years and/or microvascular complications, regardless of their cardiovascular risk score. “This means earlier treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes with statins in order to reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Newman noted.
• In patients with hyperlipidemia, rule out  as the cause before treating with lipid-lowering medications. And among patients who are found to have hypothyroidism, reevaluate the lipid profile when the patient has thyroid hormone levels in the normal range.
• Adults with persistent endogenous Cushing’s syndrome should have their lipid profile monitored. Statin therapy should be considered in addition to lifestyle modifications, irrespective of the cardiovascular risk score.
• In postmenopausal women, high cholesterol or triglycerides should be treated with statins rather than hormone therapy.
• Evaluate and treat lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in women who enter menopause early (before the age of 40-45 years).

Nice summary of ‘risk-enhancing’ endocrine disorders

Dr. Simha said in an interview that the new guideline is “probably the first comprehensive statement addressing lipid treatment in patients with a broad range of endocrine disorders besides diabetes.”

“Most of the treatment recommendations are congruent with other current guidelines such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [guidelines], but there is specific mention of which endocrine disorders represent enhanced cardiovascular risk,” she explained.

The new recommendations are notable for including “a nice summary of how different endocrine disorders affect lipid values, and also which endocrine disorders need to be considered as ‘risk-enhancing factors,’ ” Dr. Simha noted.

“The use of EPA in patients with hypertriglyceridemia is novel, compared to the ACC/AHA recommendation. This reflects new data which is now available,” she added.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists also just issued a new algorithm on lipid management and prevention of cardiovascular disease in which treatment of hypertriglyceridemia is emphasized.

In addition, the new Endocrine Society guideline “also mentions an LDL [cholesterol] treatment threshold of 70 mg/dL, and 55 mg/dL in some patient categories, which previous guidelines have not,” Dr. Simha noted.

Overall, Dr. Newman added that the goal of the guideline is to increase awareness of key issues with endocrine diseases that may not necessarily be on clinicians’ radars.

“We hope that it will make a lipid panel and cardiovascular risk evaluation routine in adults with endocrine diseases and cause a greater focus on therapies to reduce heart disease and stroke,” she said.

Dr. Newman, Dr. Simha, and Dr. Rosenzweig reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endocrine diseases of any type – not just diabetes – can represent a cardiovascular risk and patients with those disorders should be screened for high cholesterol, according to a new clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.

“The simple recommendation to check a lipid panel in patients with endocrine diseases and calculate cardiovascular risk may be practice changing because that is not done routinely,” Connie Newman, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society committee that developed the guideline, said in an interview.

“Usually the focus is on assessment and treatment of the endocrine disease, rather than on assessment and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said Newman, an adjunct professor of medicine in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, at New York University.

Whereas diabetes, well-known for its increased cardiovascular risk profile, is commonly addressed in other cardiovascular and cholesterol practice management guidelines, the array of other endocrine diseases are not typically included.

“This guideline is the first of its kind,” Dr. Newman said. “The Endocrine Society has not previously issued a guideline on lipid management in endocrine disorders [and] other organizations have not written guidelines on this topic. 

“Rather, guidelines have been written on cholesterol management, but these do not describe cholesterol management in patients with endocrine diseases such as thyroid disease [hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism], Cushing’s syndrome, acromegaly, growth hormone deficiency, menopause, male hypogonadism, and obesity,” she noted.

But these conditions carry a host of cardiovascular risk factors that may require careful monitoring and management.

“Although endocrine hormones, such as thyroid hormone, cortisol, estrogen, testosterone, growth hormone, and insulin, affect pathways for lipid metabolism, physicians lack guidance on lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular risk, and treatment to reduce lipids and cardiovascular risk in patients with endocrine diseases,” she explained.

Vinaya Simha, MD, an internal medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agrees that the guideline is notable in addressing an unmet need.

Recommendations that stand out to Dr. Simha include the suggestion of adding eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) ethyl ester to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who have elevated triglyceride levels despite statin treatment.

James L. Rosenzweig, MD, an endocrinologist at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston, agreed that this is an important addition to an area that needs more guidance.

“Many of these clinical situations can exacerbate dyslipidemia and some also increase the cardiovascular risk to a greater extent in combination with elevated cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” he said in an interview. 

“In many cases, treatment of the underlying disorder appropriately can have an important impact in resolving the lipid disorder. In others, more aggressive pharmacological treatment is indicated,” he said.

“I think that this will be a valuable resource, especially for endocrinologists, but it can be used as well by providers in other disciplines.”
 

Key recommendations for different endocrine conditions

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, details those risks and provides evidence-based recommendations on their management and treatment.

Key recommendations include:

• Obtain a lipid panel and evaluate cardiovascular risk factors in all adults with endocrine disorders.
• In patients with  and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, start statin therapy in addition to lifestyle modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. “This could mean earlier treatment because other guidelines recommend consideration of therapy at age 40,” Dr. Newman said.
• Statin therapy is also recommended for adults over 40 with  with a duration of diabetes of more than 20 years and/or microvascular complications, regardless of their cardiovascular risk score. “This means earlier treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes with statins in order to reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Newman noted.
• In patients with hyperlipidemia, rule out  as the cause before treating with lipid-lowering medications. And among patients who are found to have hypothyroidism, reevaluate the lipid profile when the patient has thyroid hormone levels in the normal range.
• Adults with persistent endogenous Cushing’s syndrome should have their lipid profile monitored. Statin therapy should be considered in addition to lifestyle modifications, irrespective of the cardiovascular risk score.
• In postmenopausal women, high cholesterol or triglycerides should be treated with statins rather than hormone therapy.
• Evaluate and treat lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in women who enter menopause early (before the age of 40-45 years).

Nice summary of ‘risk-enhancing’ endocrine disorders

Dr. Simha said in an interview that the new guideline is “probably the first comprehensive statement addressing lipid treatment in patients with a broad range of endocrine disorders besides diabetes.”

“Most of the treatment recommendations are congruent with other current guidelines such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [guidelines], but there is specific mention of which endocrine disorders represent enhanced cardiovascular risk,” she explained.

The new recommendations are notable for including “a nice summary of how different endocrine disorders affect lipid values, and also which endocrine disorders need to be considered as ‘risk-enhancing factors,’ ” Dr. Simha noted.

“The use of EPA in patients with hypertriglyceridemia is novel, compared to the ACC/AHA recommendation. This reflects new data which is now available,” she added.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists also just issued a new algorithm on lipid management and prevention of cardiovascular disease in which treatment of hypertriglyceridemia is emphasized.

In addition, the new Endocrine Society guideline “also mentions an LDL [cholesterol] treatment threshold of 70 mg/dL, and 55 mg/dL in some patient categories, which previous guidelines have not,” Dr. Simha noted.

Overall, Dr. Newman added that the goal of the guideline is to increase awareness of key issues with endocrine diseases that may not necessarily be on clinicians’ radars.

“We hope that it will make a lipid panel and cardiovascular risk evaluation routine in adults with endocrine diseases and cause a greater focus on therapies to reduce heart disease and stroke,” she said.

Dr. Newman, Dr. Simha, and Dr. Rosenzweig reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Endocrine diseases of any type – not just diabetes – can represent a cardiovascular risk and patients with those disorders should be screened for high cholesterol, according to a new clinical practice guideline from the Endocrine Society.

“The simple recommendation to check a lipid panel in patients with endocrine diseases and calculate cardiovascular risk may be practice changing because that is not done routinely,” Connie Newman, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society committee that developed the guideline, said in an interview.

“Usually the focus is on assessment and treatment of the endocrine disease, rather than on assessment and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk,” said Newman, an adjunct professor of medicine in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, at New York University.

Whereas diabetes, well-known for its increased cardiovascular risk profile, is commonly addressed in other cardiovascular and cholesterol practice management guidelines, the array of other endocrine diseases are not typically included.

“This guideline is the first of its kind,” Dr. Newman said. “The Endocrine Society has not previously issued a guideline on lipid management in endocrine disorders [and] other organizations have not written guidelines on this topic. 

“Rather, guidelines have been written on cholesterol management, but these do not describe cholesterol management in patients with endocrine diseases such as thyroid disease [hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism], Cushing’s syndrome, acromegaly, growth hormone deficiency, menopause, male hypogonadism, and obesity,” she noted.

But these conditions carry a host of cardiovascular risk factors that may require careful monitoring and management.

“Although endocrine hormones, such as thyroid hormone, cortisol, estrogen, testosterone, growth hormone, and insulin, affect pathways for lipid metabolism, physicians lack guidance on lipid abnormalities, cardiovascular risk, and treatment to reduce lipids and cardiovascular risk in patients with endocrine diseases,” she explained.

Vinaya Simha, MD, an internal medicine specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agrees that the guideline is notable in addressing an unmet need.

Recommendations that stand out to Dr. Simha include the suggestion of adding eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) ethyl ester to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who have elevated triglyceride levels despite statin treatment.

James L. Rosenzweig, MD, an endocrinologist at Hebrew SeniorLife in Boston, agreed that this is an important addition to an area that needs more guidance.

“Many of these clinical situations can exacerbate dyslipidemia and some also increase the cardiovascular risk to a greater extent in combination with elevated cholesterol and/or triglycerides,” he said in an interview. 

“In many cases, treatment of the underlying disorder appropriately can have an important impact in resolving the lipid disorder. In others, more aggressive pharmacological treatment is indicated,” he said.

“I think that this will be a valuable resource, especially for endocrinologists, but it can be used as well by providers in other disciplines.”
 

Key recommendations for different endocrine conditions

The guideline, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, details those risks and provides evidence-based recommendations on their management and treatment.

Key recommendations include:

• Obtain a lipid panel and evaluate cardiovascular risk factors in all adults with endocrine disorders.
• In patients with  and risk factors for cardiovascular disease, start statin therapy in addition to lifestyle modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. “This could mean earlier treatment because other guidelines recommend consideration of therapy at age 40,” Dr. Newman said.
• Statin therapy is also recommended for adults over 40 with  with a duration of diabetes of more than 20 years and/or microvascular complications, regardless of their cardiovascular risk score. “This means earlier treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes with statins in order to reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Newman noted.
• In patients with hyperlipidemia, rule out  as the cause before treating with lipid-lowering medications. And among patients who are found to have hypothyroidism, reevaluate the lipid profile when the patient has thyroid hormone levels in the normal range.
• Adults with persistent endogenous Cushing’s syndrome should have their lipid profile monitored. Statin therapy should be considered in addition to lifestyle modifications, irrespective of the cardiovascular risk score.
• In postmenopausal women, high cholesterol or triglycerides should be treated with statins rather than hormone therapy.
• Evaluate and treat lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in women who enter menopause early (before the age of 40-45 years).

Nice summary of ‘risk-enhancing’ endocrine disorders

Dr. Simha said in an interview that the new guideline is “probably the first comprehensive statement addressing lipid treatment in patients with a broad range of endocrine disorders besides diabetes.”

“Most of the treatment recommendations are congruent with other current guidelines such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association [guidelines], but there is specific mention of which endocrine disorders represent enhanced cardiovascular risk,” she explained.

The new recommendations are notable for including “a nice summary of how different endocrine disorders affect lipid values, and also which endocrine disorders need to be considered as ‘risk-enhancing factors,’ ” Dr. Simha noted.

“The use of EPA in patients with hypertriglyceridemia is novel, compared to the ACC/AHA recommendation. This reflects new data which is now available,” she added.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists also just issued a new algorithm on lipid management and prevention of cardiovascular disease in which treatment of hypertriglyceridemia is emphasized.

In addition, the new Endocrine Society guideline “also mentions an LDL [cholesterol] treatment threshold of 70 mg/dL, and 55 mg/dL in some patient categories, which previous guidelines have not,” Dr. Simha noted.

Overall, Dr. Newman added that the goal of the guideline is to increase awareness of key issues with endocrine diseases that may not necessarily be on clinicians’ radars.

“We hope that it will make a lipid panel and cardiovascular risk evaluation routine in adults with endocrine diseases and cause a greater focus on therapies to reduce heart disease and stroke,” she said.

Dr. Newman, Dr. Simha, and Dr. Rosenzweig reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

To the Editor: Normally I would skip the editorial; however, the title “The Other Pandemic: Addiction” caught my eye (Fed Pract. 2020;37[10]:440-441). This will, of course, require me going in for eye care in the next couple of days, but my concerns are low. After all, the hook you used wasn’t that big.

Bravo! Your choice to focus on the effects of isolation was a masterful touch. I started skimming with the assumption that you would say something along the lines of ‘COVID bad, everybody depressed, blah, blah.’ But you cut into the abscess of the issue cleanly, exposing the core—isolation “amplifies negative thoughts, dysphoria, and fearful emotions.” A deadly combination for our patients and ourselves.

I have been a physician assistant in the US Army, and as a civilian at Brooke Army Medical Center and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System. One thing I have seen throughout that time was the effects of isolation on the active duty enlisted young, and even more so on retired older warriors. Throughout the time of our military service, we transfer to many places and make a lot of friends, but more so, we lose track of them over time.

I have cared for many older warriors who cannot get something as simple as a colonoscopy because they do not have someone to drive them home after they have been sedated. Family and friends were scattered over the country, or the world. At the VA, many older warriors come not just for an appointment, but also as a time to socialize and ‘BS’ with those who understand them.

One goal I set for myself many years ago was to have the warrior laughing before they left my office. If I did that, I knew I had made a difference. Thank you for your editorial.

Anthony J Passaniti, PA, USA (ret) [email protected]

To the Editor: Normally I would skip the editorial; however, the title “The Other Pandemic: Addiction” caught my eye (Fed Pract. 2020;37[10]:440-441). This will, of course, require me going in for eye care in the next couple of days, but my concerns are low. After all, the hook you used wasn’t that big.

Bravo! Your choice to focus on the effects of isolation was a masterful touch. I started skimming with the assumption that you would say something along the lines of ‘COVID bad, everybody depressed, blah, blah.’ But you cut into the abscess of the issue cleanly, exposing the core—isolation “amplifies negative thoughts, dysphoria, and fearful emotions.” A deadly combination for our patients and ourselves.

I have been a physician assistant in the US Army, and as a civilian at Brooke Army Medical Center and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System. One thing I have seen throughout that time was the effects of isolation on the active duty enlisted young, and even more so on retired older warriors. Throughout the time of our military service, we transfer to many places and make a lot of friends, but more so, we lose track of them over time.

I have cared for many older warriors who cannot get something as simple as a colonoscopy because they do not have someone to drive them home after they have been sedated. Family and friends were scattered over the country, or the world. At the VA, many older warriors come not just for an appointment, but also as a time to socialize and ‘BS’ with those who understand them.

One goal I set for myself many years ago was to have the warrior laughing before they left my office. If I did that, I knew I had made a difference. Thank you for your editorial.

Anthony J Passaniti, PA, USA (ret) [email protected]

To the Editor: Normally I would skip the editorial; however, the title “The Other Pandemic: Addiction” caught my eye (Fed Pract. 2020;37[10]:440-441). This will, of course, require me going in for eye care in the next couple of days, but my concerns are low. After all, the hook you used wasn’t that big.

Bravo! Your choice to focus on the effects of isolation was a masterful touch. I started skimming with the assumption that you would say something along the lines of ‘COVID bad, everybody depressed, blah, blah.’ But you cut into the abscess of the issue cleanly, exposing the core—isolation “amplifies negative thoughts, dysphoria, and fearful emotions.” A deadly combination for our patients and ourselves.

I have been a physician assistant in the US Army, and as a civilian at Brooke Army Medical Center and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Puget Sound Health Care System. One thing I have seen throughout that time was the effects of isolation on the active duty enlisted young, and even more so on retired older warriors. Throughout the time of our military service, we transfer to many places and make a lot of friends, but more so, we lose track of them over time.

I have cared for many older warriors who cannot get something as simple as a colonoscopy because they do not have someone to drive them home after they have been sedated. Family and friends were scattered over the country, or the world. At the VA, many older warriors come not just for an appointment, but also as a time to socialize and ‘BS’ with those who understand them.

One goal I set for myself many years ago was to have the warrior laughing before they left my office. If I did that, I knew I had made a difference. Thank you for your editorial.

Anthony J Passaniti, PA, USA (ret) [email protected]